<DOC>
[107 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:80649.wais]
S. Hrg. 107-564
INNOVATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EMERGING ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
AND NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY
__________
MAY 30, 2001--DURHAM, NH
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-649 WASHINGTON : 2003
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred seventh congress
first session
BOB SMITH, New Hampshire, Chairman
HARRY REID, Nevada, Ranking Democratic Member
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma BOB GRAHAM, Florida
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Dave Conover, Republican Staff Director
Eric Washburn, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MAY 30, 2001--DURHAM, NH
OPENING STATEMENT
Smith, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of New Hampshire.... 2
WITNESSES
Alix, Frank, CEO and president, Powerspan Corp................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Andary, Casimer, director, Regulatory Programs, Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers....................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Bayer, Judith Ann, director, Environmental Government Affairs,
United Technologies Corp....................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Eidlin, Richard, vice president and business development
director, Solar Works, Inc..................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Funk, David, Great Bay Stewards.................................. 31
Goldstein, David B., Ph.D., Energy Program co-director, Natural
Resources Defense Council...................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Hodsdon, John, Meredith, NH...................................... 34
Itse, Hon. Daniel, New Hampshire State Representative............ 32
Kelly, Tom, Ph.D., director, Office of Sustainability Programs,
University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH........................ 21
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Moses, John, CF Technologies..................................... 30
Sundberg, Donald, vice president for Research and Public Service,
University of New Hampshire.................................... 1
Taylor, George, CEO and president, Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. 10
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Wilson, Joshua................................................... 31
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Fact Sheets:
Why Should Congress and the Administration Support a
Stationary Fuel Cell Tax Credit?........................... 43
The Stationary Fuel Cell Incentive Program................... 44
Letter, Public Service of New Hampshire.......................... 64
Statements:
Bearden, T.E., Ph.D., LTC, U.S. Army (Retired), CEO, CTEC
Inc........................................................ 87
Chubb, Scott, Ph.D., physicist, Naval Research Laboratory.... 85
Gat, Roy, Ph.D., Advanced Electron Beams, Inc................ 61
Glanz, Filson H., professor emeritus of Electrical
Engineering, University of New Hampshire................... 62
Greer, Steven M., M.D., former chairman, Department of
Emergency Medicine, Caldwell Memorial Hospital............. 68
LaViolette, Paul A., Ph.D., former president, Starburst
Foundation Institute....................................... 81
Lewis, Rone III, senior vice president, Ingersoll-Rand (IR),
president, of IR's Independent Power Sector................ 63
Loder, Theodore C. III, Ph.D., Institute for the Study of
Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire,
Durham, NH................................................. 65-68
Mallove, Eugene, Ph.D., editor-in-chief and publisher,
Infinite Energy Magazine................................... 87
Valone, Thomas, M.A., P.E., president, Integrity Research
Institute, Washington, DC.................................. 71-81
INNOVATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Durham, NH.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., at the
Stafford Room, Memorial Union Building, University of New
Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, Hon. Bob Smith (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. If I could have order in the house, we will
call the hearing to order and I apologize for the brief delay
in getting here from over in Dover.
I would like to call on Mr. Donald Sundberg, the vice
president for Research and Public Service with UNH first for a
few remarks.
STATEMENT OF DONALD SUNDBERG, VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH AND
PUBLIC SERVICE, UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Mr. Sundberg. Thank you Senator Smith. It is a pleasure to
have you here again. You are a welcome guest to the University
of New Hampshire and you are a welcome resident of the State of
New Hampshire. I want to extend to all of you in the room a
warm welcome from the whole UNH community as you gather here
for this Senate hearing. As part of the public service mission
of the University of New Hampshire: we are a land grant, sea
grant and space grant organization; we have a special need to
serve the public at large, and hosting events like this one
today is one of the ways we like to do this.
Last year, in fact, we were fortunate enough to work with
Senator Smith and his EPW staff to organize and orchestrate a
symposium called Environment and Public Works Issues in New
Hampshire. Then provided for a very effective forum to discuss
and to debate air and water issues, transportation and super
fund issues and natural resource and wildlife issues. I really
hope that today's hearing will generate the same kind of energy
and insightful discussions as we experienced last year.
If I might, I'll need to take a moment to tell those of you
in the room who don't know very much about UNH a bit about us.
I know we have a number of visitors here today. We are, as I
said, a land grant institution and so serve the State in that
capacity. We are one of the two research institutions in the
State and we have about 12,000 students here: about 10,500
undergraduates and around 2,000 graduate students. We have 700
faculty serving those students--note that I put the word on
``service''--and a wonderful staff helping the faculty support
the students and the State. We serve the teaching research and
public service outreach needs of this State and surrounding
region with a long-term commitment to sustainability issues and
I want to thank Dr. Thomas Kelly and his staff--Tom directs our
office of sustainability programs here at the University--for
working to assist the Senator and his staff in putting on this
hearing for you today. I suspect that today Tom, in his
testimony, will mention some of his program such as climate
education initiative, which is a strong program here and linked
to our climate change research center, very strong program at
the University of New Hampshire in talking about the issues of
sustainability.
So last, I know that Senator Smith attended this morning a
demonstration of innovative water treatment technologies in the
State and on that theme of innovation, I really hope this
afternoon that you will continue the innovative thoughtfulness
and insightfulness as it applies to energy and surrounding
issues.
So Senator, welcome to the University of New Hampshire,
your staff, members of the audience I hope that you will have a
very energetic and worthwhile discussion.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Smith. Thank you very much Dr. Sundberg, I
appreciate your comments and I just want to make a few brief
remarks and a few housekeeping things and we will go right to
the witnesses.
First of all, I didn't anticipate when we scheduled this
hearing that this would probably be the last hearing for a
while that I would be chairing as the Environment and Public
Works Committee Chairman, but you never know how things are
going to work out--but, it's not going to do anything as far as
my involvement on the issues that I care about. I will be just
as involved as the Ranking Republican Member on the committee
and working with Senator Jeffords for the good of New England,
and certainly, New Hampshire.
I want to thank the University of New Hampshire for hosting
this event. I know it is a lot of work to do that and I am very
grateful to you for it. I want to thank all of you for being
here today, especially those who have come with the new
technologies.
When I became the chairman almost 2 years ago, I felt that
I wanted to change the direction of how we develop our
environmental policy. I wanted to go away from the stovepipe,
top down regulatory regime and go to thinking outside the box a
little bit and develop some new, innovative, flexible and
effective weapons. In other words, market-based solutions where
we can. I think you are going to hear a lot of market-based
solutions today. I was trying to move toward a cooperative
approach where we focus on results with more innovation and
less regulation and that is what this hearing is all about.
I am honored to be here at UNH to highlight the tremendous
work of America's companies and frankly, the tremendous work of
the University of New Hampshire, because they are leaders in a
lot of innovative technology that doesn't relate to energy, but
relates to other environmental issues as well as energy. As Dr.
Sundberg said, we were just over at Somersworth with some water
infrastructure innovations--but a clean environment in the
future of our national energy security depends on their
ingenuity. That is where the answers are going to come. We saw
what happened in California, we haven't got a California
problem, but we have felt the brunt of high heating costs and
high gas prices so we know that much, that it can impact us in
a negative manner. Our economy though is also tied to a
national economy and it could take a very heavy hit if we do
nothing, so we were asked by the leadership in the Senate to
host a series of energy related hearings around the country and
I was pleased to do my part.
The solution to our problems must be comprehensive however.
We need new energy production. We are not going to be focusing
a lot on that today, views are focusing more on new technology,
but we cannot ignore the fact that we need new energy
production. We have to modernize and expand our antiquated
delivery system for that energy and vastly increasing our
conservation and energy efficiency efforts which to a large
extent, we are going to focus on here today.
If you all saw the vehicles outside, I spoke to Ford just
on the way in and they have developed a hydrogen cell vehicle
which he said is ready to go on the road in 2004. So all of us
complainers about energy, we ought to start buying the hybrid
and the hydrogen cars, and I told them when they get one that I
can sit in, I am going buy. But, we need an energy policy
before we develop into a major crisis and I am pleased that we
are working on it to fix it. It is a short term problem, but
it's also a long term problem. And the long term, you see the
answers in those automobiles out there. The short term, you
know, we still have to heat our homes and run those gas
guzzlers that we have while we have them.
I am pleased to be here today, because its important that
Congress and the Nation understand what technologies are out
there and what they are capable of. One of the frustrations
that I felt in Congress over the years has been the fact that
we react to everything rather than act proactively and here is
an opportunity now to hear real leaders, people who have led in
their respective disciplines and here is a chance to showcase
what they have done. They are vital to our long term national
interest and I think I recognize this and I think the
President's plan recognizes this even though there will be some
differences as to the energy plan of the President, in terms of
details at least, there is an energy plan. In fact, 42 of the
President's 105 recommendations in his energy policy are
intended to modernize and increase conservation and
environmental protection. That hasn't gotten a lot of play, but
it is true. It is obvious that at this time it is necessary to
call upon these breakthroughs to propel our Nation through this
difficult strategy.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bob Smith, U.S. Senator from the State of
New Hampshire
Good afternoon and welcome to this hearing of the U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works. I would like to thank the
University of New Hampshire for hosting this event, and I also want to
thank all of you for coming here today to talk about clean, innovative
technologies.
When I became chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee,
I wanted to change the direction of how we develop our environmental
policy. I wanted to narrow on approaches that move away from a stove-
pipe, top-down regulatory regime. We were in search of remedies that
involved thinking ``outside the box.''
The need for our Nation is to develop new, innovative, flexible and
effective weapons against pollution. We need effective, market-based
solutions; cooperative approaches that produce results; and more
innovation and less regulation. That is what this hearing is all about.
I am honored to be here at UNH to highlight the tremendous work and
ingenuity of America's companies, many from New Hampshire, that have
developed these technologies.
A clean environment and the future of our national energy security
depend on their ingenuity. While New Hampshire is a net exporter of
electricity and does not face the energy crisis that has gripped
California--we have felt the brunt of high heating costs in the winter
and high gas prices in the summer. Our economy also is tied the
national economy, which will take a heavy hit if we do nothing to
address this situation.
The solution to this problem must be a comprehensive effort
including:
New energy production,
Modernizing and expanding our antiquated delivery system, and
Vastly increasing our conservation and energy efficiency efforts.
I believe that we must create an atmosphere that encourages
innovation and will ensure safe, reliable energy. I commend President
Bush for taking action and developing his National Energy Policy. After
8 years of a total lack of leadership, or willingness to address this
crisis that we knew was looming on the horizon, I am pleased we are
finally going to do something to fix it.
This comprehensive effort will require new, innovative and
environmentally friendly technologies to meet our national energy needs
and our desire for a clean, healthy environment. That is why I am
holding this hearing today. It is important that the Congress and the
Nation understand what technologies are out there and what they are
capable of. I want to use this opportunity to showcase them especially
those being developed right here in New Hampshire.
Innovative technologies are vital to our long-term national
interest. I recognize this, and the President's plan recognizes this.
In fact, 42 of the President's 105 recommendations in his Energy Policy
are intended to modernize and increase conservation and environmental
protection efforts.
It is obvious that at this time it is necessary to call upon these
break-throughs to propel our country through this difficult energy
situation. There has long been the assumption that we could not have a
strong energy supply while maintaining a strong environmental policy. A
common belief is that you must sacrifice the one in order to obtain the
other.
What I believe, and what we are going to see today, is that you can
have both a reliable, affordable and adequate long-term energy supply
and a clean, healthy environment.
These technologies will free us from the false choice of energy or
environment. The Energy Star program is an example of an innovative
partnership designed to help consumers and businesses benefit from
energy efficiency. The idea behind Energy Star was to get manufacturers
to produce products that required less energy. Energy efficient
products would be labeled and easily recognized, allowing consumers to
purchase products they knew to be environment friendly while ultimately
saving money by lower energy costs and preserving the quality of the
product.
Nationwide, Energy Star products save over $2 billion in energy
costs. Here in New Hampshire, we have 73 companies and public entities
participating in Energy Star. New Hampshire has 22 million square feet
of building space that is currently committed to the Energy Star
Program. In addition, because of existing Energy Star investments in
New Hampshire:
Nitrogen Oxide emissions will be reduced by 4.5 million lbs.
Sulfur Dioxide emission will be reduced by 9 million lbs.
Carbon Dioxide (CO<INF>2</INF>) emissions--Energy Star investments
already made will prevent the release of over 2.5 billion pounds of
Carbon; That is an equivalent to the reduction in Carbon that you would
get from planting 348,000 acres worth of trees.
Achieving success through innovation, not regulation.
It is worth noting that two of the Energy Star labeled products are
manufactured in New Hampshire. In addition to Energy Star, there have
been many other efforts to increase energy efficiency.
Something that I have been talking about now for some time is that
of next-generation vehicles. Over the last few decades, we have done a
good job in reducing our vehicle emissions. The cars and light trucks
of today are 96 percent cleaner than their counterparts of 30 years
ago. The vehicles of 2009 will be 80 percent cleaner than today's cars.
But we need to take that to the Next Generation--I want to provide the
incentives so that we can bring the Super-Clean vehicles to the
mainstream. Again, this is an important part of the President's plan.
I am very pleased that we have hybrid and fuel cell vehicles on
display, but we also have a number of other technologies here today
that will lead us into a cleaner future:
Power Span, whose technology has the capability of revolutionizing
the reduction of power plant emissions. This is a technology that I
have been citing as I have been promoting my multi-emissions strategy,
because it is an example of being able to increase our energy
production, yet decrease our emissions.
Solar Works is here to discuss their solar, and other clean energy
technologies.
United Technologies is here to talk about advances in fuel cells.
Ocean Power is going to tell us how we can harness the energy of
the seas.
We must embrace these types of technologies. They are clean and
plentiful--they are the future. They are a key part of any viable,
long-term energy solution. I recognize this, and the President
recognizes this.
I am proud that I am able to showcase these innovative solutions to
the Nation. Thank you all for coming here today and I anxiously await
your testimonies and the opportunity to share them with my colleagues
in the Senate.
Senator Smith. Let me now just turn to a couple of details
before I go to the panel. It is generally the committee's
practice to limit oral remarks to 5 minutes. Every word of your
statement will be made part of the record automatically, you
can summarize if you would like or speak extemporaneously,
however you like, but your full statement will be in the
record. If time allows after both panels have finished, and I
believe we will have that time, I will invite comments from the
audience. Again, just let me say, I know people love to give
speeches and if you want to submit a written statement for the
record, you can do that. If you could just ask your question or
make your comment in 1 minute, in other words, summarizing
whatever it is you want to say, I will put your full statement
in the record where you ask the question, the same as we do for
the witnesses. I would appreciate it if everyone could be
considerate of each other, because I know we have a number of
people who want to speak.
So, we are going to try to give each person a minute and if
you are interested in making a statement, there is a red sheet,
I think, back there on the handout table. Is that right? I do
have to leave a little before 4 o'clock and I apologize for
that, but if we still have questions, we will gather those
questions even after I leave.
On our first panel, I am pleased to have Frank--is that
Alix?--Alix, all right, I had a 50 percent chance of being
right--Frank Alix, the CEO and chairman of Powerspan
Corporation; Judith Bayer, United Technologies; George Taylor,
CEO and President of Ocean Power Technologies and Richard
Eidlin of Solar Works. I had an opportunity to visit with
Richard earlier this year and I am glad that he is here.
Let me start with you Mr. Alix and just say that
Powerspan--and they will be telling you about this themselves--
the reason why I am excited about it is that they produce
technology that may see us reducing NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions by as much as 70 percent and perhaps mercury as much
as 80 percent. We are very excited about what they are doing,
we are proud of them for being here in New Hampshire and we
hope that we are going to be able to take a pilot project that
they are working on in Ohio, where they are sending all that
stuff over here our way, whereas reducing emissions there and
bringing them back over here and working on a couple of plants
right here in New Hampshire. So, we are pleased to have you
here Frank, and we will hear from you now.
STATEMENT OF FRANK ALIX, CEO AND
CHAIRMAN, POWERSPAN
Mr. Alix. Thank you Chairman Smith for the opportunity to
share our perspective on innovative environmental technology.
My name is Frank Alix, I am chairman and CEO of Powerspan.
Powerspan is an emerging energy technology company
headquartered in New Durham, NH. Our company was founded in
1994 and has grown to employ 45 people, most in high-paying
technical jobs. In order to fund technology development, the
company has raised over $28 million to date from private,
institutional and corporate investors.
Over the past 3 years, Powerspan has focused its resources
on the development and commercialization of a patented multi-
pollutant control technology for coal-fired electric generating
plants called Electro-Catalytic Oxidation, or ECO. The ECO
technology is designed to cost-effectively reduce emissions of
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and fine particles all
in a single, compact system. Several leading power generators
are investors in the company or partners in ECO development.
These include FirstEnergy, American Electric Power, Cinergy and
Allegheny Energy.
Powerspan has sucessfully tested this ECO technology in a 2
megawatt slipstream of a coal-fired plant owned by FirstEnergy.
During the test, ECO reduced emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> by 76
percent, SO<INF>2</INF> by 44 percent, mercury by 81 percent
and total particulate matter by 99.9 percent.
The U.S. Department of Energy recently selected us for a $2
million grant under a solicitation for promising mercury
control technologies for coal-based power systems. In addition,
lab testing of our next generation technology is showing
nitrogen oxide removal of more than 90 percent and sulfur
dioxide removal of more than 99 percent.
Powerspan has begun installation of our first large
commercial demonstration at a 50 megawatt slipstream at
FirstEnergy's Eastlake Plant near Cleveland. The project is
being co-funded by a $3.5 million grant from the Ohio Coal
Development Office. Successful completion of this demo will
lead to the availability of full scale systems in 2004. So much
for the introduction.
My comments are: as you consider the important role of
innovative technology in further enhancing our environment, I
would like to make the following points:
1. Environmental technology development is driven almost
exclusively by environmental regulations. Regulatory certainty
and time are important factors that impact the degree to which
environmental technology is deployed.
2. The cost of achieving environmental compliance is
usually significantly less than estimated at the time
regulations are developed.
3. Environmental regulations are not all created equal.
Some are more likely to spur innovation than others.
Let me briefly address each of these points.
First, both electric generating utilities and the
environmental technology community rely upon long-term
certainty in environmental regulation. For the capital-
intensive electric generating industry, long-term regulatory
certainty allows for the orderly improvement of generating
assets without undue financial risk or the threat to the
availability of electric supplies as we have seen in
California. For the technology community, regulatory certainty
provides the incentive to employ the resources to develop and
commercialize new technology that will meet regulatory goals in
the most cost-effective manner possible.
In the process of crafting environmental legislation, the
cost associated with the law's implementation is normally
evaluated. These cost assessments are inevitably based upon
what is known or commercially proven at the time. The objective
of technology developers however, is to make what is known and
commercially proven obsolete. This they do on a regular and
dependable basis. Therefore, it is important to remember that
given time, technology developers will ensure that
environmental compliance costs are far less than predicted
today.
The ECO technology could provide the environmental benefits
of reductions in a number of air emissions, including mercury,
years ahead of a typical regulatory schedule and at a lower
cost than conventional pollution control technologies. However,
the existing regulatory requirements significantly limit the
generating industry's compliance flexibility, thereby making
the use of multi-pollutant approaches less viable.
Under the current interpretation of best available control
technology, or BACT, generating utilities could not use our ECO
technology to help achieve NO<INF>X</INF> or SO<INF>2</INF>
reductions, even if it were almost as effective as the best
available technology and simultaneously achieved reduction of
other pollutants such as mercury. Yet, if our ECO technology
were deployed throughout the industry, far more emission
reductions could be achieved than through selective BACT
deployment. And the associated health and benefits would accrue
to a much larger percentage of the public. This kind of
regulatory inflexibility doesn't make economic sense and more
important, doesn't make environmental sense. Therefore, I
support the President's National Energy Policy call for multi-
pollutant legislation that will establish a flexible, market-
based program to significantly reduce the emissions of sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury from electric power
generating plants. I believe that Congress should determine the
appropriate reduction requirements and timeframe to phase in
reductions and then allow industry to meet them in the most
cost-effective manner possible. A command-and-control approach
would only serve to drive up costs and curb innovation.
In summary, I believe that increasing our energy supply and
at the same time improving our environment is not only
possible, but imperative for the future well-being of our
society. Fortunately, our Nation is blessed with an innovative
and entrepreneurial spirit that rises to such challenges. I
believe political leaders must exercise a degree of faith in
order to establish the environmental laws that look out over a
decade or more to protect public health when compliance
uncertainty may still exist. Given time and the right
regulatory framework, the technology community will find an
economical way to achieve the desired environmental benefit.
History has demonstrated this time and again and there are many
companies like Powerspan full of talented individuals that are
dedicated to this goal.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much and we will come back to
you with questions when we get through each panel member. I
might say if there are members of the audience who have a
question, you might be thinking about them right now.
Judith Bayer, welcome. I have to tell you this, in talking
to some of the automobile manufacturers about fuel cells, it's
just so exciting to think that the wave of the future is in
this technology. Not only in the mobile, but also in some of
the stationary forces, so it is really exciting. I'm glad
you're here. I had the opportunity to ride in a fuel celled
bus, I saw the automobile out there, but I could fit in a bus a
little easier----
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith [continuing]. It really was amazing. It went
right up the hill, and on Capitol Hill with no problem, so we
are really looking forward to this technology being here so we
can all partake of it. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF JUDITH ANN BAYER, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
Ms. Bayer. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm Judith Bayer, the
director of Environmental Government Affairs for United
Technologies Corporation. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today.
UTC provides a broad range of high technology products and
support services to the building systems and aerospace
industries. We spend an average of $1 billion on R&D each year
and have made a significant investment in bringing clean,
energy efficient technologies, non-ozone depleting products to
the global marketplace.
I want to share some examples of existing innovative
technologies from UTC's International Fuel Cells and Carrier
divisions and suggest how we might maximize their benefits.
Fuel cell technology is a reality today. UTC has been
producing fuel cells for every U.S. manned space mission since
1966. Fuel cells very simply combine hydrogen and oxygen to
create electricity, water and heat. I brought with me today a
fuel cell. This is a single fuel cell where the hydrogen enters
on the left, the oxygen enters on the right and in the presence
of a catalyst, produces electricity, water and heat.
IFC is developing fuel cells for residential and light
commercial applications and a model of our residential unit is
in the back. These units will be commercially available in
2003. Our zero emission fuel cell power plant for the Hyundai
Sport Utility Vehicle was unveiled last fall and our prototype
zero emission fuel cell buses are taking to the road this year.
IFC's PC25 power plant system has a capacity of 200
kilowatts and is the only commercially available fuel cell
power plant in the world today.
IFC's fuel cell technology has proven our ability to
produce 1000 kilowatt hours of electricity with only an ounce
of pollution; achieve 87 percent efficiency; obtain 99.9999
percent reliability; reduce CO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 60
percent; accumulate more than 4 million hours of operating
experience at hospitals, schools, military installations and
data processing centers, and perhaps most importantly in
today's climate, operate on a variety of fuel sources thus
reducing our dependence on imported oil. With all these
benefits, you would think that every building in New Hampshire
would have a fuel cell. The problem is the technology hasn't
reached sufficient volume for the cost to be competitive. We
have delivered over 220 of these systems around the world, but
we have done that over a 10-year time period, which means we
average 20 per year. Imagine how much your car would cost, or
you computer would cost, if we only produced 20 per year.
The Federal Government can help speed commercialization of
fuel cell technology by granting tax credits and financial
incentives, purchasing fuel cells for Federal facilities,
removing regulatory barriers, funding a zero emission hydrogen
fuel cell bus demonstration program and continuing its
investment in hydrogen research and development.
There are other technologies available today that also need
Government assistance to reach their full potential. UTC's
Carrier division continues to lead the air conditioning,
heating and refrigeration industry in: phasing out ozone
depleting substances well ahead of domestic and international
mandates; increasing energy efficiency; reducing the use of raw
materials and product weight; introducing air quality
management features; and developing tools to evaluate a
holistic building systems approach to indoor comfort cooling.
Four million tons of CO<INF>2</INF> emissions could be saved,
and enough power for 743,000 homes if older CFC commercial
chillers were retired more quickly by simply changing the
depreciation schedule for these units from the current
staggering 39 years to a more reasonable 10-15 years.
Carrier and others have pioneered technology that improves
energy efficiency for residential air conditioning systems
without using ozone depleting substances. We support a full 20
percent increase in the Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for
residential AC equipment. Incentives should be provided for
purchasing equipment that delivers 13 SEER, which is the miles-
per-gallon equivalent for air conditioning units with added
incentives if the equipment also uses non-ozone-depleting
substances.
We applaud you, Mr. Chairman, for introducing S. 207 to
help reduce energy consumption in buildings and believe it
creates a good opportunity for maximizing both energy
efficiency and non-ozone depleting benefits.
Carrier also has the ability to reduce residential peak
load demand by 30 percent with its revolutionary, web-enabled
smart thermostat technology. For every 100,000 homes that use
this equipment, enough power is saved to power an additional
100,000 homes. Federal rebates and consumer incentives would
make this technology more readily available and more quickly
deployed. Proper installation of residential AC systems could
reduce energy consumption by as much as 35 percent.
AC manufacturers and contractors have formed a national
technician training and certification program called NATE--
North American Technician Excellence program. The Government
could help raise public awareness of this program and encourage
Federal facilities to purchase services only from NATE
technicians.
Carrier and International Fuel Cells have received awards
from EPA recognizing their respective achievements in ozone and
climate protection. Their products offer numerous environmental
and other benefits that can only be fully maximized with
appropriate Government policies, incentives and partnerships.
We look forward to working with you Mr. Chairman and other
interested stakeholders to make this possible.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Bayer.
Our next witness is George Taylor. We had to scout around a
little bit to find George, but my staff did a good job, because
I have been talking to my staff for a long time about all that
ocean out there and why can't we harness that, we are a
peninsula Nation with a lot of ocean out there on both of our
coastlines and if we could harness that energy, my goodness,
what might happen.
And lo and behold, we found somebody who is working on it.
It is in the future, we know that, but maybe not too far. You
will never get to the future if you don't start thinking about
it today, so I am particularly excited about having you here,
Dr. Taylor, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE TAYLOR, CEO AND PRESIDENT, OCEAN POWER
TECHNOLOGIES
Dr. Taylor. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
My name is George Taylor and I am the president and CEO of
Ocean Power Technologies--OPT. I am here today at the
chairman's request to describe our company's new generation
technology that utilizes the renewable energy in ocean waves to
produce low-cost, pollution free electricity.
OPT is a small, private company located near Princeton, NJ.
Even though we only have 14 employees, we have been able to
obtain significant commercial orders both nationally and
internationally. We expect to do about $5 million in sales in
the next 12 months and then to rapidly grow into a major
company building on key strategic relationships which the
company has forged over the last couple of years.
The basic configuration of an OPT wave power station is
shown in the drawing behind me. It consists of an array of OPT
power buoys arranged in a rectangular format several miles
offshore. As the ocean waves move through the field of power
buoys, the mechanical energy in the waves is converted into
electricity in each of the power buoys. The output from each
power buoy is then fed in parallel into an underwater cable
which brings the power ashore for connection into the power
grid.
Wave energy is the most concentrated form of renewable
energy. It is widespread throughout the United States and other
parts of the world and it is close to population centers. It is
very predictable and dependable and can be fed into the power
grid or stored. It is environmentally sound and non-polluting,
with no exhaust gases, no noise and no visibility from the
shore. It is scalable to high capacity power stations of 100
megawatts or more. In fact, 100 square miles of ocean area off
the coast of California, which is a very small fraction of the
coastline, is estimated to be capable of producing all of
California's electrical power.
Furthermore, wave energy has an availability factor of 90
percent compared to wind and solar availability factors of 20-
30 percent. OPT's wave energy generation system is based on the
rising and falling of the waves which cause the buoy-like
structure to move freely up and down. The resulting mechanical
stroking is used to drive the electrical generator, the power
from which is then transmitted ashore. The OPT device is a
proprietary, smart system that uses an on-board computer and
sensors to effectively convert the random wave energy into
electrical power. In addition, the OPT system includes
sophisticated techniques for automatically disconnecting the
system in storm waves and then automatically reconnecting it
when the waves return to normal operating conditions.
The OPT power generation system has numerous environmental
advantages. There is no fuel, there is complete absence of
CO<INF>2</INF> emissions, radiation and particulate matter
pollution. There is no noise pollution, nor is there any visual
pollution. A field of semi-submerged buoys is typically 1-2
miles offshore in 100 feet of water. Finally, there is no
negative effect on marine life. In fact, our tests off the
coast of New Jersey have shown that the buoy acts as an
artificial reef and encourages the growth of marine life.
Furthermore, a field of buoys actually reduces, by taking
energy out of waves, the shoreline erosion.
Most importantly, what are the costs? The total operating
costs of generating power from an OPT wave power station is
projected to cost between 3 and 4 cents per kilowatt hour for
100 megawatt size power systems and 7-10 cents per kilowatt
hour for 1 megawatt size plants. Detail comparison costs with
other renewable and fossil fuel-based power systems are
provided in the written testimony that we have submitted to the
committee.
We have tested the complete wave power system off the coast
of New Jersey for 11 months, and based on this, we have
received the first commercial contracts and these include a 1
megawatt power station for a U.S. Navy base in Hawaii; a grid
connected power station of up to 10 megawatts for a utility in
Australia and a demonstration system for the State of New
Jersey.
The main product applications of the OPT power stations
include primary power of 100 megawatts or more for grid power
and distributed power generation, many secondary power
applications and, of course, power for desalinization and
production of hydrogen from sea water.
OPT has received significant support and encouragement from
the U.S. Government, in particular from the Office of Naval
Research of the U.S. Navy under the Small Business Innovative
Research Program and from the Defense Advanced Research Project
Agency. Also, we appreciate the support of the congressional
delegations of New Jersey and Hawaii.
In conclusion, the OPT wave power system would appear to be
one of the few, and maybe the only renewable power system that
has the potential of producing low-cost--below 4 cents per
kilowatt hour--a large scale 100 megawatt or more power station
that cause no danger to the environment. OPT hopes that the
U.S. budget for alternative energy will be increased and will
include some funding for wave power.
Finally, I would like to thank you Mr. Chairman, for your
interest in this matter.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Dr. Taylor.
Richard Eidlin, I had the opportunity to visit your shop--
Wilmore? Wilkin--and you were very impressive and I wanted to
have you here today to speak to the future of possibilities of
solar. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD EIDLIN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT, SOLAR WORKS
Mr. Eidlin. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. You will have
to bear with my cold today. I went camping over the weekend and
got rained on.
Senator Smith. Well, pull that microphone right up close so
it will make it a lot easier for you.
Mr. Eidlin. My name is Richard Eidlin. I am the vice
president for Business Development for Solar Works. Solar Works
is a distributed generation company based in Montpelier that
provides solar and other renewable energy systems to
residential, commercial and institutional customers throughout
the Northeastern part of the United States.
I appreciate the opportunity to present some remarks this
afternoon about the important role that solar electric
photovoltaic technologies can play in addressing the Nation's
energy needs.
First, let me just mention a few things about Solar Works
and the work we are involved in. The company was founded in
1980. We are a privately-held firm that employs 17 individuals
and we offer a wide range of standardized grid-intertied solar
electric, domestic hot water, wind turbine and energy
efficiency systems. We are also moving into the fuel cell
industry as that market begins to mature. Within the solar
industry, our company acts as a renewable energy systems
integrator, in that we provide a complete set of technical
hardware and programmatic strategies to clients including
utilities, State energy offices, cooperatives and others. Solar
Works acts as a catalyst that brings together manufacturers,
energy service providers, policymakers and consumers to bring
the technology to practical use. We maintain, as I indicated,
our sales and service offices in eight Northeastern States from
Maine to Maryland.
Over the 21 years that our company has been in the
renewable energy business, we have experienced several major
shifts in public policy, technology development and market
acceptance concerning solar electric technologies and today,
unlike a decade ago, or even maybe 5 years ago, there is a
vibrant market for solar technology in the United States. As we
are fond of saying, ``there has never been a better time to
create your own electricity.''
A host of factors account for this. First off, solar
electric and solar hot water technology is demonstrably more
reliable and resilient than it was years ago. Concerns dating
back to the 1970s about technological performance have
absolutely no bearing on current discussions regarding the role
of solar technologies. Solar electric systems have become
standardized, they are UL-listed, they use National Electric
Code compliant equipment and they require virtually no
maintenance. Questions about solar domestic hot water systems
have also been resolved in favor of fail-safe, cost-effective
equipment. Paybacks have dropped dramatically, hot water
systems are now in the 7- to 8-year range and solar electric
systems are now in the 25 year range.
The second observation concerns the market for renewable
energy. Survey after survey indicates that the American public
is highly supportive of clean, domestically generated energy
technologies. The past 5 years have witnessed a significant
shift in the market. Once largely the domain of off-grid
applications, such as water pumping, telecommunication,
vacation cabins and rural electrification projects, solar
electric technologies are now becoming widely accepted and used
for grid-tied homes, businesses and schools across the country.
Homeowners and businesses are choosing solar energy systems
for a number of key reasons. These include power quality and
reliability; demand for clean, non-polluting energy; growing
interest in generating electric power from centralized sources;
escalating conventional energy costs; and power shortages
including brown-outs and black-outs that were seen in
California and may, unfortunately, see here in the Northeast in
the summer.
PV is the ideal distributed generation technology. It is
well suited for any energy application. PV systems are highly
mobile and flexible in nature. Technological advances and
performance in design increasingly create a cost competitive
energy source. Customers such as the U.S. Postal Service
understand these inherent advantages that they have over backup
fossil fuel generators. While a fossil fuel generator mainly
sits idle and depreciates, a solar energy system, accompanied
by battery, lowers monthly utility bills and can provide 24-
hour automatic, uninterruptible power supply. PVs can be easily
sited, require comparatively little permitting and produce 99.9
percent reliable power. PVs also provide an excellent hedge
against almost certain energy inflation.
With today's increased reliance on computers,
telecommunication systems and other high performance electronic
devices, any loss of power, or even power quality, can be very
costly. We are finding that a great number of businesses and
homeowners are concerned and choosing to install solar systems.
PVs are also an excellent means of shedding load demand and
avoiding summertime peak power cost, which last summer in some
parts of the country soared to $600 a megawatt. PVs, because
they are highly dispatchable, offer utilities and business the
option of reducing congestion on the grid and moderating the
demand for additional power plants and generating capacity. For
homeowners, PVs--or photovoltaics--provide an assurance that
the power will stay on in the event of a blackout due to a
natural disaster or power scarcity.
Recent studies of the large scale power failures during the
winter of 1998 and 1999 in both the Northeast and Northwest
strongly suggest that scaled PV installations placed along the
grid could have prevented the blackouts from cascading from
State to State. It is regretful that the Federal Government,
during both the 1990s and today, has committed
disproportionately limited resources to supporting the
photovoltaics industry. In contrast, most of the action and
progress has been made at the State level. Today, over 40
States have enacted one or more requirements to actively
encourage the broader use of renewable energy technologies. Net
metering, State income tax credits, renewable portfolio
standards, system benefit charges are only some of the ways
that renewables are being encouraged at the State level by
public utility commissions and legislatures. In six States
alone--California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York and Pennsylvania--almost $400 million a year is being
collected from taxpayers through rate-payers, through electric
restructuring to support renewable energy deployment. These
funds will leverage about five times their value in retail
market activity.
The upshot of all this is that the domestic solar energy
market will grow ten-fold in the next 5 years from 80 megawatts
to almost 900 megawatts of installed capacity. According to the
Energy Information Agency, photovoltaics will be the fastest
growing generation technology in the United States over the
next 20 years. Solar energy may still be a niche market
compared to fossil fuel generated power, but it will be a
multi-billion-dollar-a-year opportunity for those companies
involved.
There is a historic market opportunity emerging in the
United States for renewable energy technologies. Demand for
zero emission generation technology to combat global warming
and air pollution is another important market driver. The
current California power crisis is a good example of the
inability, and in some cases, unwillingness, of utilities to
build new central stations and transmission facilities. The
answer to this lies in distributed generation systems that can
be tucked neatly into homes, neighborhoods and businesses.
Given these trends, it is of concern that the
Administration's energy plan devotes limited attention toward
the role of solar technologies. The substantial reductions in
the Department of Energy's administrative and R&D budget for
renewables is an unfortunate approach to balancing the budget.
In addition, these policies are placing the domestic solar
energy industry at a competitive disadvantage to their European
and Japanese counterparts. Relative to investments that other
advanced industrialized nations have made in supporting
photovoltaics over the past decade, the U.S. Federal Government
has directed modest resources.
Let me return to the immediate issue of the
Administration's proposed energy plan. Solar Works supports the
proposed $2,000 income tax credit for residential systems. We
also support pending legislation that would establish a
national standard regarding the process by which solar electric
systems are interconnected to the utility grid and we are also
in favor of a renewable energy portfolio standard.
We look forward to working with the Senate Committee on the
Environment and Public Works in crafting policies that help to
accelerate the commercialization of solar electric technologies
and we appreciate very much the Senator's support in these
activities.
I just wanted to very quickly give you a sense--this is a
solar electric panel. You may be aware of these, but basically,
the sunlight hits this module, the sunlight is converted into
electricity, boron and phosphorus are doped with a silicon, if
you might remember from your chemistry classes many years ago,
and that produces a photochemical reaction. This is a 21 watt
module and the modules we work with range in size up to 300
watts, which are more the size of 4x4s. This is one of the
smaller panels available.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Eidlin.
I am going to ask a question or two of the panel and then
we will bring the next panel up and then we will open it up to
the audience for both panels at the same time.
Mr. Alix, the technology that you are talking about is
fascinating when you put it into perspective in the sense that
if you could reduce 2.5 billion pounds of carbon say
nationally, that is the equivalent of planting 348,000 acres of
trees in terms of the impact on the carbon release in the
environment. So, I guess the question I would have is: What
does this technology mean for coal-based generation? Does it
tell us that the 250 years or so of coal that we still have,
does it tell us that we can burn that coal with some
anticipation of it being clean, or is that too far in the
future to predict?
Mr. Alix. I think its important to differentiate what we
know from our technology and what we don't. There are
pollutants that are immediate public health concerns from coal-
fired plants. Sulfur and nitrogen which lead to acid rain and
ozone formation and metals such as mercury that get in the food
chain and are also serious public health concerns, and finally,
fine particles. Those are the four pollutants that we can
remove at high percentage levels for a very reasonable cost and
in a compact retrofit.
I think the immediate public health concern around the
vicinity of a plant could be drastically reduced. The one area
that we don't address is quite clear, carbon and global
warming, and I think that is a concern which needs to be
addressed. Congress and this Administration will eventually
grapple with that.
That question of how long you can burn coal and/or gassify
and remove the carbon is something that we need to answer down
the road. Our technology addresses what are conventionally
called ``criteria pollutants'' and then mercury and what are
the immediate public health risks associated with living in the
vicinity of plants or even down-wind from Midwestern plants.
Senator Smith. You talk about command and control. One of
the interesting things about technology is that it reduces
mercury, at least in a preliminary result of about 80 percent,
and we don't regulate mercury today. So, if that were to be the
case, if your research turns out to be accurate, that has a
tremendous impact on moving away from command control and more
focusing on the technology to get it on to these plants.
Mr. Alix. I think the day you can put on a small retrofit
like ours and address really these four major pollutants, it
changes the whole debate. There is no question that the cost
would be significantly reduced and the retrofit problems go
away as well.
Senator Smith. At the national level, I have been working
privately with many members of the industry and the environment
over the last year-and-a-half, because I have been chairman, to
work on a cap and trade bill where some plants could get some
credits for retrofitting with this kind of technology which
would--the positive spin-off would be reductions,
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>X</INF>, mercury and carbon as well. So,
it is very exciting technology and we are looking forward to
it. When do you expect to get the results finally on your pilot
project?
Mr. Alix. Well, the pilot results are in. It's really the
commercial unit that we are building out in Cleveland in about
the spring of next year--about a year from now, we should have
some great results.
Senator Smith. All right. Don't be afraid to bring that
over here and try that here in New Hampshire.
Mr. Alix. We won't.
Senator Smith. Ms. Bayer, obviously the thing that jumps
out at you in your testimony is the fuel cell cost. You
mentioned $4,500 per kilowatt obviously would be--I think--
what's the average, $1,500?
Ms. Bayer. Right.
Senator Smith. What is the future for getting those costs
down?
Ms. Bayer. Well, we have seen a dramatic improvement
already in reduction of fuel cell costs. The space fuel cells
that I mentioned in my oral testimony cost $600,000 per
kilowatt, so over the past decade, we have gone from $600,000
to $4,500. The goal is really to get these fuel cell units to a
cost where they are competitive in the automotive applications.
The target there is $50 per kilowatt by the year 2010 to make
the fuel cell technology competitive with conventional
technology. And, to get the technology into homes, cars, trucks
and buses so that it becomes a real technology changer for our
lifestyle and for our energy needs here in the United States.
Senator Smith. So it is more of a mass production issue
than a technological issue?
Ms. Bayer. It is a series of issues. The reduction in costs
that we have seen have been improvements in the technology,
improvements in manufacturing processes as well as the
potential for increased volume. When a supplier sees the
potential for selling to the auto makers their technology with
volumes in the millions, then they start to invest in plants,
then they start to invest in the R&D and then they see a real
potential payoff for those investments. That's what really will
help drive the cost down and that is where we think in this
transition period, the role of the Federal Government to offer
those tax incentives and to offer grants will help accelerate
that process.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Dr. Taylor, when you look at your picture of the buoys, the
first reaction when you look at it is, the energy concept
sounds great, but you know, what about all the whales and the
fish and the fishing boats and the nets and whatever else might
be out there getting all tangled up in this and the eyesore?
So, how big a footprint are we talking about here?
Dr. Taylor. Well, a 100 megawatt power station would occupy
about 1 square mile of surface area.
Senator Smith. A couple of miles out?
Dr. Taylor. A couple of miles out. Given the size of the
ocean, the systems are not visible from the shore. They are
slightly submerged, about 1 meter below the surface. We have
gone through the permitting process off the coast of New Jersey
with the Coast Guard and in Australia we have done it with the
Maritime Authority over there. The first thing is to define
where you are going to put it so that it is not in a shipping
channel. Once you have achieved that particular goal, which is
easy to achieve, because the shipping channels only take up a
very small fraction of the ocean, then you put the appropriate
navigation aids on the buoys which are a mast with lights and a
radar reflector. The anchoring is very straightforward. It is a
column that just goes straight down to the seabed. Fish and
whales do not get confused by that type of thing. The basic
technology that we are using to encapsulate our system is a
buoy. Buoys have been in the water for 100 years or more, and
if they are properly maintained, there is no problem. If a boat
was to go astray and go into a field of buoys, the normal thing
that happens is scraping of paint, the buoy pushes away from
the boat and visa versa. There is very little chance that there
would be any damage and, in fact, we have been able to get
commercial insurance on our systems at very reasonable rates
for both liability and damage to the system.
Senator Smith. Without commenting on the aesthetics of it
for a moment, what about the concept--it just seems to me a
smaller footprint would be something like a wheel that you see
in a hydroelectric plant along a river somewhere. Why would
that not work? Why would that technology not work as opposed to
all those buoys?
Dr. Taylor. A large water wheel?
Senator Smith. For example.
Dr. Taylor. Well, the economics make more sense with our
system. We have looked at other types of ways of harnessing
water flow and wave energy, but the simple motion of the buoy
which bobs up and down is the best. It doesn't fight the wave,
it moves with the wave, therefore, you don't have to build
enormous structures which are very expensive to withstand big
storms. The system we have had in the water off the coast of
New Jersey, experienced 12 meter waves--there was a summer
hurricane that went through that area and the system survived
quite well.
Senator Smith. And you get more energy with the several
smaller buoys than you would get from 2 or 3 larger buoys?
Dr. Taylor. Well, that is a good question. Our current buoy
size is designed to produce 20 kilowatts of power from each
buoy. We are working on a 100 kilowatt size buoy which is
physically larger and we ultimately expect to build a megawatt
size buoy. But, the modular approach has advantages, because
having a lot of buoys means that you can, from a maintenance
viewpoint, take one buoy out of the water and refurbish it with
very small decrease in the total amount of power coming out of
the power station. Also, when you build an OPT power station,
immediately you start putting the buoys in the water, you begin
generating power and hence generating revenue. So, its not the
normal period of waiting 3 or 4 years to build a power station.
Thus, there are advantages by having a modular system. The
ultimate size of each module we think is probably going to be a
megawatt.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Eidlin, for you I remember when I was out at your
place, you seemed to have felt neglected somewhat by the
Federal Government in terms of any help from them for you as
plenty of research and development of energy, but not in solar.
What specifically would you like to see from the Federal
Government level to help you with producing more solar power in
this country? Not you specifically, but generically in the
country.
Mr. Eidlin. I think, speaking on behalf of the industry,
Senator, a few things come to mind.
One, the national renewable energy labs. The particular lab
in Golden, Colorado, and the other labs concerned with
renewable energy technologies have been--the allocations for
those labs have been cut in the proposed budget. That does not
help the rapid commercialization of the technology, because
much of the work that is undertaken in those labs then finds
its way into commercial applications in the private sector.
Second, the Administration's proposed budget cuts, by
significant portion, if not zeros out, the international
funding for renewable energy work for domestic companies to do
work in India and South Africa. There is a very, very
significant market overseas and we are losing market share,
particularly to the Japanese companies and Europeans who have
greater support.
Third, the enactment of a Federal income tax credit would
be quite significant. If that takes place, we would like to see
it expedited so that we don't lose the short-term benefits of
people waiting 2 years until such a tax credit is enacted.
Senator Smith. If we did implement a cap and trade program,
would it be acceptable to your industry if some forbearance
were to be granted to say a coal utility--let's say we step
back from this source review and return for that investing,
instead of putting the money into resource review of fines or
upgrading an older plant that we might like to take offline a
few years--if those dollars could be invested into your
industry, would that be something that you would tolerate as an
industry?
Mr. Eidlin. Yes, we would be very excited about that
prospect and I know you are a champion of that as we discussed.
Senator Smith. We are exploring it. We are looking at it as
an option, yes.
Mr. Eidlin. Combining solar electric systems with other
technologies onsite at distribution facilities makes a great
deal of sense. Essentially, as we have discussed, from our
perspective this creates jobs as economic benefit and as
environmental benefit. And, we think its a very strategic way
to build the industry and also produce these parallel benefits
that may be in contrast to planting trees in Costa Rica which
is also important, but in order to further the industry, some
larger scale projects, such as the ones you have been
describing would make sense.
Senator Smith. Well, let me see. Thank you to each and
every one of you. I know in a couple of cases, you had to
travel quite a way and I appreciate it. I am going to call the
next panel up and I might just say to this panel, if you can
stay, we would appreciate it and in case the audience has some
questions, we will just have everybody come up in the end. If
you can't and have to leave, that's OK too.
Let me bring the next panel up.
Dr. Tom Kelly, the director of the Office of Sustainability
Programs at UNH; David Goldstein, the energy program director
for the Natural Resources Defense Council; and Cass Andary,
director of Mobile Source Affairs for the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers.
Same rules, approximately 5 minutes and your complete
statements will be placed in the record and summarize them if
you can.
STATEMENT OF DAVID GOLDSTEIN, ENERGY PROGRAM CO-DIRECTOR,
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Mr. Goldstein. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. My name is
David Goldstein. I am energy program co-director for the
Natural Resources Defense Council. We are a national
environmental organization with over 400,000 members.
I want to begin by thanking you Mr. Chairman for convening
this hearing on new technology and particularly energy
efficiency. I would like to personally commend you on your
leadership on S. 207 which, I believe will provide desperately
the needed relief to our over-stressed electricity and gas
grids in a timely manner and can be a big part of an energy
solution to this country.
Energy efficiency is a critical piece of national energy
strategy, because it impacts people in the ways that they care
about most.
First, their energy bills; and second, protecting
environmental quality. Energy efficiency directly improves the
situation with respect to those key issues. NRDC believes, and
we hope, Mr. Chairman, that you agree, that the primary purpose
of the national energy policy should be to minimize the cost of
providing energy services to a growing economy. That is cost to
the pocketbook as well as cost to the environment.
If that's the goal, energy efficiency means providing the
same energy services for a lot less energy consumption and
cost--which is going to mean reliance on technology, and
particularly reliance on new technology. The opportunities are
almost limitless.
Since 1973, the American economy has reduced the amount of
energy it takes to produce a dollar's worth of goods and
services by 42 percent and that's without a comprehensive
policy trying to do it. If we tried hard, we could go a lot
farther than that even. But even with the results that we have,
that makes energy efficiency the largest single source of new
energy supplied for the Nation since 1973. Energy efficiency
has been achieved primarily by three policies implemented at
the State, regional and national level. Those have been:
efficiency standards, which work best when they are
performance-based rather than command and control; targeted
incentives; and education and outreach. But these policies
alone, even if they were pursued consistently, would not be
enough. New innovative ideas are hard for consumers to find in
the marketplace, almost by definition, and they cannot easily
achieve market success by the kinds of programs that we have
used in the past. That is why the incentives in your bill, Mr.
Chairman, S. 207 are so critical.
S. 207 addresses energy use in buildings. Buildings are an
often overlooked large source of energy cost and energy demand.
They account for about one-third of energy use and one-third of
pollution and about one-half of energy costs, which is
substantially more than automobiles. Energy use in buildings
can be cut by half or more using technologies that are
available today, at least to consumers who want to look for
them.
How can we get them into the market in a serious way so
consumers don't have to look, but they are the standard
product?
We believe that S. 207 does this by providing national,
uniform performance targets for building and equipment that
will be in effect for a full 6 years. This is what
manufacturers have asked for, and this is what has worked when
utilities and Government have collaborated across the Nation to
bring new technology into the marketplace. This bill builds on
successful experience in utility and Government programs for
refrigerators, clothes washers, fluorescent lighting systems
and in energy efficiency codes for new buildings.
Let me end with a couple of particular issues where S. 207
is virtually the only game in town that can make a difference
with critical energy problems. Those are the problems of
electric reliability and high heating prices for natural gas
and oil.
New Hampshire, as well, not just the West, is facing the
risk of blackouts and/or high electricity prices this summer.
There are a number of ways that you can try to alleviate the
problem on the demand side as well as the supply side, but most
of those have lead times such that they are not going to help
this summer and they are not going to help next summer.
The things that can have an effect quickly are incentives
for products that already exist, but are not mass-produced;
because there, the lead time is just a factory taking something
they know how to build and gearing up production. That is a
matter of months, and not years.
Targeted incentives for air conditioners, where, as the
gentleman said, you can save 30 percent of peak power with
products now available and the product turns over every 18
years, that's one of the key areas, because air conditioning is
30 percent of peak load typically.
Efficient lighting systems, these are replaced every 10
years or so when buildings are remodeled. The lead time for
design and replacement is a matter of months and not years.
Gas water heaters can be made much more energy efficient
with, again, products that currently exist. All we need to do
is make them mass produced rather than individually produced
which has been the response to incentive programs in the past.
So, in summary, quick acting incentives such as those in S.
207 can help consumers both by giving them opportunities to
reduce their own energy bills that aren't practically available
right now and by changing the balance between supply and demand
can reduce prices for everybody else.
So, we believe your bill fills a critical gap in energy
policy for uses affecting one-third of the Nation's energy.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much for your kind remarks.
I will ask a couple of tough questions about my own bill in
a minute. Things that I have heard.
[Laughter].
Senator Smith. Dr. Kelly.
STATEMENT OF TOM KELLY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY,
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, DURHAM, NH
Dr. Kelly. That's fine, thank you.
Good afternoon Senator and I greatly appreciate the
opportunity to testify today. I do want to say a word of thanks
to the members of my office and staff who have worked so hard
with your staff as well too, to put the meeting together today.
You may recall I last spoke to you last fall in a meeting
in New Hampshire with the focus on biotechnology and
agriculture. I want to say that today as then, I speak to you
not as an expert on any particular technology, but as an
educator charged with integrating sustainability, the
principles and practices of sustainability into all aspects of
the University and I think education is a critical piece of
this discussion and I am very honored to be part of it.
I would like to being with a scenario if I could. The year
is 2030, world population stands at 12 million with wide gaps
between rich and poor countries and populations within
countries.
Senator Smith. Billion?
Mr. Kelly. Billion--sorry did I say million? I meant
billion.
Senator Smith. I wish it were million.
Mr. Kelly. The 20th assessment of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, an international scientific effort
involving thousands of scientists from around the world, has
established 93 percent certainty that human activities are
driving rapid climate change. The U.S. Senate, which has not
yet instituted any significant campaign finance reform, has
called for more studies saying it needed 100 percent certainty
before taking any action.
Senator Smith. We are real good at calling studies, I
think.
Mr. Kelly. U.S. national security is under constant threat
due to its ongoing role in militarization of the Middle East
linked to oil dependency as well as failure to support genuine
human rights of all people in the region and the United States
continues to import close to up to 60 percent of its energy
fuels.
A national asthma epidemic linked to ozone pollution and
other air quality problems has deepened as has public health
risks from the vector-borne infectious disease such as West
Nile Virus that are linked to ecological disruption resulting
from sprawl and pronounced climate variability.
In 2030, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee is holding a hearing on Innovative Environmental
Technology----
Senator Smith. And Bob Smith is the chairman----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kelly. The committee is chaired by New Hampshire's new
Senator Sununu.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. OK, if it's 2030, that's OK.
Mr. Kelly [continuing]. Grandson of former Governor John
Sununu and I should say parenthetically, the first generation
of the Sununu family ever to be elected to the U.S. Senate.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kelly. The hearing is being held at the University of
New Hampshire, which has now been privatized though it has
retained the name for branding purposes. UNH classes run until
5 p.m., while in the evenings the campus is used as a gambling
casino----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kelly [continuing]. To finance energy costs and K-12
education. The purpose of the hearing is to look at energy
technologies that promise to sell the country's energy
dependency and related environmental and economic challenges.
The featured technologies include solar, wind and wave.
An undergraduate student, majoring in American History is
attending the hearing and asks the committee chairperson, ``How
is it possible that we are still talking about the promise of
these technologies rather than their accomplishments? We had
these same discussions in the 1970s and again in the first
decade of this century and we are still subsidizing fossil fuel
and nuclear power.''
Senator, the premise of my argument today is that the key
link between technological potential and sustainability is
education and governments or legislation. If we as educators,
and you as legislators do your job, then we can indeed be
looking back from the year 2030 on a shift to a solar or zero
emission economy defined by a genuine entrepreneurial spirit
emerging from a culture of democratic decisionmaking that all
took place in the first decade of the 21st century.
From a perspective as an educator of environmental
technology, we must shift the focus of our deliberations from
consumer choice, efficiency, business and the economy to
citizen participation, justice, governments and the polity. The
economy is a subset of the polity, not the other way around.
It is important to remember that the most powerful
effective force for sustaining the environmental foundation of
human health and well-being in the epic of the oil shocks was
not business technology or the economy. The national
environmental policy acts, clean air act, clean water acts
among many others, resulted from engaged citizenship, not
consumer choice. And this engaged citizenship was concern at
the knowledge of science and its moral application. Twenty-five
years later, we have the luxury of questioning the continued
effectiveness of such legislation, but only because it was
successful.
I want to offer some concrete examples of how education and
legislation can work together to ensure that schools and
university campuses are brimming with alternatives to reckless
consumption levels of nonrenewable energy. Such a learning
environment will advance the goal of balancing economic
viability with ecological health and human well-being for
current and future generations through innovative educational
initiatives related to energy and technology.
A few quick points on education. One of the fundamental
jobs of education is to develop a historical consciousness or
sense of history in all learners. The civic importance of this
aspect of education's job is etched in stone on the face of the
National Archives: ``What is Past is Prologue.'' There are at
least two ways to interpret this phrase. One is practical
advice that individuals and institutions will act in the future
as they have in the past. As an educator, I also view it as the
kind of warning and expression of hope given to us by the
philosopher George Santayana who said ``those who ignore the
past are condemned to repeat it.'' Santayana's guidance is full
of possibilities because it proceeds from the premise that
human beings have the ability to learn, which means the ability
to distinguish good from evil and right from wrong in pursuit
of the common good and to act on those judgments.
The fruit of the efforts of 1970s in renewable energy are
well documented and it is important to review carefully that
history unless we want to be here in 2030 asking the same
questions.
A sense of history for sustainability includes people and
places. We had an event right here on our campus and in this
town of Durham some 25 years ago, known as the ``Battle of
Durham.'' Because of engaged citizens, again, not satisfied
consumers, we today enjoy the Great Bay Estuary, one of the
most unique estuarine habitats in the world that provides
invaluable ecological services and a serene beauty that defines
our sense of place. Were it not for the efforts of those
citizens, we might have had one of the world's largest oil
refineries rather than a preserve, protected with the help of
Federal legislation.
But, notwithstanding that victory and the wonderful legacy
of the Great Bay Estuary, there is a great deal of work left to
do. If UNH in Durham and New Hampshire and other communities
fill the temptable appetite for nonrenewable energy, then the
body of Durham will have turned out to be a form of ``not in my
back yard.''
The University of New Hampshire established our office in
1997 to work with all parts of the university, which we are
doing to help ensure that graduates in all fields have the
knowledge and skills to advance sustainability in their
professional and civic lives. Project areas include initiatives
in climate education; biodiversity education; food and society
and culture and sustainability.
Climate Education Initiative, which relates most directly
to today's hearing, includes projects addressing global change,
transportation, energy, sustainable building design and
construction. I won't go into the details of those because I
know that I am running a little bit over.
I do want to point out one activity which I have appended
to my written submission and that is, we have just completed, a
week ago, as part of a partnership of a Portsmouth-based, non-
profit Clean Air Cool Planet, the University of New Hampshire
Durham campus greenhouse gas emission inventory, it's the first
of its kind in the Nation and it will be shared with
universities and communities around New Hampshire and the
region. It will also serve as the basis for policy to develop
emissions reductions.
I began the testimony with the assumption that the key link
between technology potential and sustainability is education
and government. Based on our work here, I would like to offer
some specific examples of initiatives on this campus that could
be supported through legislation that would make a significant
contribution to our educational mission. These examples
integrate innovative environmental technology into a learning
environment where direct experience can be gained by students,
faculty and all members of the university community. I will
just quickly go through a couple of examples.
One, UNH is looking at the possibility of a co-generation
plan and it would be an ideal opportunity to put in a 1
megawatt fuel cell along gas turbines so that students from
engineering economics, as well as undergraduate policy
students, could compare and contrast and research the benefits
of that technology.
A community alternative energy assessment is another
project that we would like to see move forward that will
identify high impact opportunities for employing a wide range
of technologies to enhance energy efficiency. Examples include:
co-generation, methane digesters, ice storage, fuel cells and
geothermal among others. Special consideration will be given to
passive and active solar applications to address the structural
disincentives that continue to retard the development of this
crucial energy source for sustainability.
We have figured a way of transportation, looking at
alternative fuel vehicles, buses, a fleet upgrade of our
university fleet and alternative fuel vehicle cars for a car
sharing program.
Related to agriculture, we also are looking at methane
digester as a way to manage the nutrient loads that can also be
used for study by engineering and other students.
One other idea that we have talked about is how we can
provide more support to a school building program and integrate
sustainable building design and construction standards and
knowledge into schools--and some point in which we could do
that through a filter or some other kind of mechanism would be
quite important.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that technological
potential and particular technologies are only part of the
solution to the problem we face. Our role as educators is to
ensure that the full knowledge we have and develop of our
concrete and complex world is applied to the judgments and
actions we take in all areas of public life.
Again, I wold like to express my thanks Senator for the
opportunity to contribute to this discussion. Thank you.
Senator Smith. Well thank you very much for your testimony.
A little suggestion, it might be fun to put the first part of
that in a time capsule and see how it turns out. Hopefully, you
are not related to Nostradamus and you will be wrong on some of
those things.
Mr. Andary.
STATEMENT OF CASIMER ANDARY, DIRECTOR, MOBILE SOURCE AFFAIRS,
ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS
Mr. Andary. Good afternoon. My name is Cass Andary. I am
director of Regulatory Programs at the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers. The Alliance is a trade association of 13
automobile manufacturers representing over 90 percent of the
U.S. vehicle sales.
The auto industry in the United States is proud not only of
its contributions to advanced technology, but also to its
contributions to the U.S. economy. In a recent report,
researchers associated with the University of Michigan
concluded that the automotive industry produces a higher level
of output in the United States than any other single industry.
Notably, U.S. motor vehicle output represented 3.7 percent of
the U.S. gross domestic product in 1999. Many of the jobs
provided by the industry are high skilled jobs paying well
above industry average. The average job in the automotive
manufacturing sector was compensated at a level 73 percent
higher than the average U.S. job.
In New Hampshire, more than 4 percent of the State's
workforce is employed in either the automobile industry or in a
job dependent on the auto industry. The automotive industry
directly employs 4,400 workers and when related jobs and spin-
off is included, a total of 27,300 New Hampshire jobs are
dependent on the auto industry. The auto industry generates
$900 million in wages and benefits, including the spin-off
employment in New Hampshire.
Member companies of the Alliance have invested billions of
dollars in research and development. These companies are
working to bring cutting-edge technologies, alternative fuels,
advanced lean-burn engines, hybrid electric, battery electric
and fuel cell vehicles to the marketplace.
The challenges to bringing the cars of the future to
consumers are significant. The cost of advanced technology
vehicles is considerably higher than the same vehicles powered
by conventional combustion engines and consumers want
technologies that they understand and that provide the comfort,
safety and convenience to which they have grown accustomed.
Let me talk a bit about the new types of vehicles that the
industry is busy working on today. The industry has long been
active in exploring alternative fuels. Manufacturers make
vehicles available that run on compressed natural gas, liquid
propane gas and others that run on gasoline, a mixture of fuel
containing 85 percent ethanol or some combination of gasoline
and ethanol.
Advanced lean-burn engines, including direct-injection
gasoline and diesel engines are being developed. These engines
hold out the promise of providing a dramatic increase in fuel
economy while emitting very low levels of hydrocarbon, CO and
CO<INF>2</INF>. While somewhat higher levels of NO<INF>X</INF>
and particulate matter have historically presented a
technological challenge for lean-burn engines, advancements in
engine design and exhaust gas aftertreatment can be expected in
the near future. It should be noted that to realize the full
benefit of these technologies, the availability of low sulfur
fuels is necessary.
A new technology that has recently appeared on the market
is the hybrid-electric vehicle. Both Toyota and Honda have a
vehicle selling today, and Ford, GM and Daimler/Chrysler have
vehicles read to introduce in the next few years. This
technology combines both a traditional engine with electric
motors and a small battery pack giving the vehicle two sources
of power. Sophisticated computer control logic shuts off the
engine when possible, letting the vehicle run an electric motor
and then restarts the engine when needed.
We have also invested a tremendous amount of time and money
in battery-powered electric vehicles. Battery-electric vehicles
are not mainstream vehicles that would replace today's
gasoline-fueled vehicle, but there may be market niches where
some of the smaller battery electric vehicles can be sold.
The entire industry is working feverishly to develop
commercially viable vehicles powered by fuel cells. Fuel cells
have been used in the space program since the 1960s. The
industry is working hard to reduce the cost of the fuel cell
while improving its performance so there can be an alternative
to the traditional gasoline fueled engine we have today.
Hydrogen powered fuel cells offer the promise of a zero
emission vehicle that can also meet all other customer needs
and expectations. Many manufacturers are part of the California
Fuel Cell Partnership, along with key suppliers, the California
Air Resources Board, Department of Energy and Department of
Transportation. This partnership is working hard to
commercialize fuel cell vehicles and the necessary fueling
infrastructure.
This industry is committed to continuing to push technology
even further year by year, constantly improving the product
while continuing to meet the transportation needs of the
public. We believe further that pursuing these goals should
lead to consideration of more broadly defined programs. All
energy users and producers should be integrated in a
comprehensive national energy strategy to achieve fuel savings
with economic efficiency.
In addition, we believe that the costs of more expensive
technologies are a hurdle to market acceptance. In order to
expand the use of these advanced technologies, tax credits and
incentives for advanced technology vehicles, including vehicles
which demonstrate significantly higher efficiencies are
necessary. Such incentives will speed acceptance and promote
market forces that will make advanced technologies less cost
prohibitive.
Finally, we observe that as all industries, both capital
and human resources are finite, and are most efficiently
deployed in response to market forces. Commitment schedules for
capital spending, vehicle model renewals and powertrain
longevity can range from 5 to 10-plus years. Over the past 10
years, the industry has demonstrated that when resources can be
shifted from continual incremental regulatory compliance
pressures, the industry can and will undertake major research
and development programs aimed at significant long-term energy
efficiency. Clear examples are the development of hybrid
electric powertrains and the continuing investment in the fuel
cell systems.
The Alliance firmly believes that the advanced technology
vehicles that are reaching the marketplace, or are under
development, offer the greatest promise for the future. These
are or will be clean, highly fuel efficient vehicles, but many
consumers will be understandably hesitant to try these new and
more expensive technologies. Incentives that encourage
consumers to purchase advanced technology vehicles can help
accelerate the number of fuel efficient vehicles on our roads,
without sacrificing the safety, comfort, utility, carrying
capacity and performance that consumers want.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
Senator Smith. Thank you Mr. Andary.
Just a quick question to each of you and then we will open
it up.
When you think of the fuel efficiency--let's just go to a
hydrogen vehicle--skip the hybrid and go to the hydrogen for a
moment as a fuel cell vehicle. The efficiency there is so
incredible, do we have a technological problem here or a market
problem?
Mr. Andary. I think we probably have a little bit of both.
Senator Smith. Not for the hybrid though, but for the
hydrogen.
Mr. Andary. First off, there isn't infrastructure in place
to deliver the hydrogen, I don't believe.
Senator Smith. So we need more education?
Mr. Andary. Some. We need infrastructure, we need the
capacity to build, there are a whole host of things besides the
market forces that will want to make people buy those cars.
Senator Smith. See, I think it is an educational problem as
well and I think that is where schools and universities
throughout the country can play a big role in it. Because,
there is clearly an infrastructure lacking for this so we need
to talk about it. I don't pretend to be an expert on this,
there are many people who know more about it than I do right
here on this stage, but as I have spent the last year-and-a-
half looking into this, you realize that the ramifications are
so huge. Every time I talk about it, and as one who is a
conservative Republican who is not supposed to care about these
issues, I find it very interesting because one always says
``Well, it's not just a consumption problem.'' But when you
have the opportunity to make these kinds of inroads into the
consumption of the fuel that we use, the results are dramatic.
When you look at the emissions and you look at the energy
consumption and where we get that energy--and a lot has been
made of my position on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--
however, the need for the Arctic Wildlife Refuge oil goes away
completely and then some by a long shot if you produce these
automobiles. So, I think we just have to recognize you can't
expect the automobile manufacturers to put cars out on the road
that nobody is going to buy. But what we can do, is start
through the education process to get people to understand that
at least at the hybrid level, we can produce hybrid cars much
like a golf cart. I mean, it's the same concept as you take the
foot off the pedal in a golf cart and you stop, the engine
shuts off and that's what you do a lot when you are sitting in
traffic, so why burn gasoline?
So, I think it is an infrastructure issue and I think we
need to do more and I intend to do as much as I can, which is
why we have hearings like this that get all over the country so
we can draw attention to it.
Let me ask you Dr. Kelly, you mentioned some of these
initiatives. Speaking of infrastructure, would we be able to
have this kind of technology here on campus? Would UNH
acquiesce to letting students study these programs? Would we
have the infrastructure here to produce students who would come
out and go into these technologies?
Mr. Kelly. I think there is no question that UNH would
welcome.
Senator Smith. I meant, when I say UNH, I mean colleges in
general.
Mr. Kelly. Well, I think the question of higher education
reform is very critical to this. By example, there was an
interesting story recently in the Boston Globe about
architecture and award winning architects that are designing
buildings in the Boston area and Harvard University among
others. It was saying that they really wanted to send a message
that they were not conservative and not business as usual by
having this architect build a very non-traditional building,
but they didn't say anything about how they structure their
departments. They didn't say anything about their own energy
practices. They didn't say anything about undergraduate
education and the liberal arts foundation that is required to
reason your way as a citizen through these issues.
So, I think at UNH we have got a commitment to that and we
are underway. I think there are various levels of commitment
across the university landscape, but they are very conservative
institutions and change comes slowly and hard.
Senator Smith. I think that's always the way. I mean, when
the kids graduate from the colleges and high schools, is there
employment out there and which comes first? So it is a tough
issue. But, I think it's one we should focus on. Because, I
think as part of an energy policy, one of the things that is
very frustrating to me as a legislator, not a technical expert,
but one that has to act or react to pass good legislation, you
have the short-term problem of fuel shortage or a power
problem, whatever it may be, or high costs. That is a short-
term problem and when you start talking about hydrogen cars or
solar energy taking care of all the needs, whatever, then it
doesn't cut it with the person sitting there paying three bucks
at the pump or breathing too many fumes. So, we have to have a
two-pronged approach here. And that's why we are trying to get
that debate started.
I hope that when the energy policy that the President has
put out is finally adopted and appropriate changes are made
that we do just that. That it is a two-pronged approach and
that deals with today as well as tomorrow.
Mr. Kelly. Just one follow-up comment. One way that we can
bring the short-term and the long-term together I think is, as
I indicated in my testimony, if we look at alternative fuel
vehicles, introduce them into the community in a car sharing
program, then we are looking at the kinds of institutional
practices or approaches that really get at the problems we
have. If we simply replace one for one each single occupancy
vehicle that is currently burning gasoline with electric or
hybrid cars, we still have the congestion, we still have the
sprawl which drives land-use changes which undermine our
community sustainability. So, I think putting that technology
in the context of transportation to man management for example,
can be a power educational approach.
Senator Smith. I think you are right about that. One final
point that I have neglected to mention was that there is an
interesting statistic regarding cars and trucks. Cars and
trucks are 96 percent cleaner than their counterparts of 30
years ago and the vehicles of 2009 will be 80 percent cleaner
than today's cars. So, the magnitude of what we are talking
about here is huge and I think we need to start talking about
infrastructure so we don't put the cart ahead of the horse.
Mr. Goldstein, you were kind enough to talk about my
legislation and I appreciate it. There is some criticism saying
that this is very complicated and you know, how are we going to
implement all these tax credits and tax incentives to put
insulation in or do this or do that. Is it really that
complicated?
Mr. Goldstein. No, it's actually very easy, Mr. Chairman. I
spent a lot of time working with you staff and committee staff
on getting the technical details right, which means doing
something that already has a track record of having worked. So,
you try something and it doesn't work and you make it a little
bit more complicated and maybe it works a little bit better. We
have taken the finished product from that and asked the
Department of Energy to model their procedures for qualifying
for the tax incentives on the things that have worked in
California and Florida and other States here in New England and
they are very easy to do.
One of the roots of this bill was some work that the
previous Administration had done where the Treasury Department
was commenting on some of that Administration's plans and their
comments were to the extent of this is not very workable the
way you've got it. We were able to work with the Treasury folks
who were in charge of IRS to make sure that those kinks were
beaten out of it and come up with something that's going to be
very simple for the taxpayer and the energy consultants to
provide third party verification to work with.
Senator Smith. Where the rubber really hits the road though
on this whole policy of energy is just where the break-off is--
if Armageddon is tomorrow, or next year, or 10 years from now
in terms that we are all going to suffocate to death from
carbon monoxide or whatever, or heat ourselves to death. The
thing is, I find generally--generally, not always--but when you
are talking to the group who are very much in favor of
renewable energy and conservation, they tend to be exclusive
and not interested in nuclear power or any other options: clean
coal, whatever else you want to talk about. I guess the same is
true with the other side, you will get those who are: more
power, more oil, more gas, more coal, more nuclear and that
other stuff is a bunch of nonsense. It seems to me that it has
to be in the middle somewhere and if we only knew what the
future holds in terms of how much time we had, how much time do
we have before we need to move totally away from these carbon
emissions, it would be a lot easier. But, from a legislator's
point of view, it's tough, I mean, you just don't know. There
is a lot of science that we just don't know. So, that's what we
are faced with. But, I am really delighted that we are debating
energy and an environmental policy throughout the country now,
because they go hand in hand. So, I am excited about that.
Could I just have a show of hands of anybody who wants to
ask a question. That would help me a little bit in terms of--
one, two, three--OK, four or five people, good. I have a couple
of names on here, somebody just take the ones I have and if the
other panel would like to come up and Chris Hessler can give
you the mike. But the other panel can maybe come up here and if
we got some chairs here, I can stand up and let you all sit
here.
Don Gray.
Mr. Gray. I can just give you a written question.
Senator Smith. OK, great.
How about John Moses? John? Just direct your question to
whoever you would like to ask it to and keep it brief.
STATEMENT OF JOHN MOSES, CF TECHNOLOGIES
Mr. Moses. Good afternoon, Senator. Actually, I just would
like to take the opportunity to thank you for being able to
come here and make a few comments. I would just like to direct
some comments to you.
I am John Moses. I am with CF Technologies. We are
developers of critical fluid technology. It's technology based
on the use of carbon dioxide and other gases under pressure. It
is environmentally clean solvents.
Among the energy and environmentally-related uses of the
technology we have developed: an oil absorbent recycling,
windshield polymer recycling, chemical agent destruction and
decontamination, Dynapel cleanup, oil drill cuttings cleanup,
and we hope to demonstrate in New Hampshire.
We hope to demonstrate that Dynapel clean-up technology
here in New Hampshire later this summer. It is technology that
we developed with our international labs. Our oil absorbent
recycling technology has the potential to keep 100 million
gallons of waste oils out of landfills and at the same time to
put that oil back into lubricants and fuels. The application
was commercialized 3 years ago, it grows slowly, has about 600
customers for one plant that is in the Midwest. Right now it's
operating at a rate where it's recycling about 50,000 gallons
of oil per year, just really a drop in the bucket of those 100
million gallons.
We would like to see technologies like these go commercial
faster. We think the Federal Government can help. We believe
some of these applications that I have said, as well as there
are many other applications of innovative technologies for
energy and the environment that can have a positive impact on
this country's energy and environment. As some of the others
have already stated, there need to be reductions in the
economic market and regulatory barriers to introducing new
technologies. And, when you're putting in new technologies, new
markets, new products and trying to compete with high volume
products, it's typically difficult. The economic barriers are
there and certainly incentives such as tax credits in the early
stages would speed up the acceptance of new technology. Also,
to help with the acceptance, if the Government used the
technologies themselves: for example, the Department of Defense
is a huge energy user. That would certainly help. We look
forward to participating in things like the environmental
technology verification programs and expect that that will help
with regulatory issues and things like that. Thank you again
Senator.
Senator Smith. Look, thank you very much Mr. Moses for your
remarks. While whoever the next questioner is that comes up, I
would just say that one of the things that is different now
that has not been the case in the past several decades, is that
we are, at least now and hopefully it will continue, running
surpluses at the Federal Government level. However you feel
about the tax cuts or whatever, the debt is being reduced, the
tax dollars are coming back to the people, but also we now have
money, or will have in the very, very near future as we move
out into the out years here to deal with some of these
environmental needs: infrastructure, water and sewer. For
example: infrastructure, which is a huge problem, probably a
trillion dollar problem in America today and not to mention all
these technologies and almost everyone mentioned some
Government help, perhaps in the form of tax credits or
whatever, and I think it's doable now. I think we need to sell
it, you know, we do pick winners and losers when we do it, and
that's the bad part but--and I think that's what Solar's point
is--that they have been the loser in terms of getting the tax
help that others have gotten. So, we need an education process
here to put some of these dollars, as we put them back, bring
them back to you, we can bring them back in the form of
environmental help which is what we are doing here with UNH.
With a lot of the things that they are doing a great job in
research and putting students right out in the field,
especially some of these water and air issues. So, it's been a
great partnership.
Is there another question over there?
Yes sir, if you would just identify yourself for the
record, please.
STATEMENT OF DAVID FUNK, GREAT BAY STEWARDS
Mr. Funk. I am David Funk with The Great Bay Stewards.
Dr. Kelly, you referred to a sustainable school design
program. Why shouldn't this sort of thinking be extended to the
design of all public buildings?
Mr. Kelly. I'm sorry?
Mr. Funk. Public buildings.
Mr. Kelly. The reason it shouldn't, the idea there was to
try to make the educational link so that universities would be
linked with K-12 schools and to incorporate the sustainable
design and practices and then make that part of the curriculum,
which is what we are trying to do here at UNH. So, that was the
only reason that I limited that idea to schools. You are
absolutely right, it could apply to all public buildings.
Senator Smith. Any further questions?
STATEMENT OF JOSHUA WILSON
Mr. Wilson. Well, I want to thank you for hosting this and
I am afraid I am going to have to put you on the spot, Senator.
Senator Smith. I have been there before.
Mr. Wilson. Good. I am really confused about the Bush
Administration's energy plan and something that Mr. Eidlin said
and I think he was very polite about it. It was that the
National Renewable Energy Lab has been disfunded and I would
like both of you to answer this question if possible. I would
like to know why the funding has been removed from this in a
time when we obviously need to be exploring alternative energy.
So, if you could explain. Oh, I'm sorry, my name is Joshua
Wilson for the record.
Senator Smith. Did you want to respond Richard or did you
want me to? Go ahead.
Mr. Eidlin. I don't think I really have a clear explanation
for why that is being cut. Renewable Energy Lab's budget is
very modest, I think it's $17 to $25 million, it was. So, it's
an extremely insignificant amount of money in the scope of
Federal R&D for any energy technologies. So, I can't really
give you a good explanation for why it's cut, but it certainly
has, in the past, made significant contributions to technology
development and commercialization.
Senator Smith. I might just say in the budget that has been
sent here by the Administration, it has been cut, but the
budget hasn't passed yet so it's always the way--it's the
President's budget--whoever the President is, there are always
things in there that the Congress disagrees with in priority.
But, I hear your question and I am going to take that
information back and look into it.
I think what happens with these kinds of things is that we
see, again I use the terms winners and losers, but that's
pretty much what it is. It just basically is in the mind of the
eyes of the beholder, you know, what's important and what isn't
and that's where it gets tough. That's why I'm hoping that we
can see more dollars directed--frankly, I'm an R&D guy, always
have been. I think that when you eat your seed corn, you're
never going to grow any corn and I don't care what you are
talking about, you talk about defense, you can talk about
environment, technology, whatever it is, you should not--every
time we have tight budgets we cut R&D money. They always
criticize the R&D accounts, because for every--well I don't
know, maybe somebody knows the numbers, but for every let's
just say 100 things you try to do successfully, you do one or
two successfully and the rest looks like wasted money, but when
in fact, it's research and it's valuable research.
I always use the cancer example. We haven't found a cure
for cancer yet, but I certainly wouldn't want to stop funding
cancer research because we haven't found a cure. In fact, we
ought to be upping that account as well if you want my personal
opinion on that one.
So I am optimistic that that program may not be cut, but we
will see. I can't make a commitment, because I am only one
person. In fact, the way things have been going in Washington,
I probably shouldn't make any commitments, but anyway, I'll
take a look at that program specifically because you brought it
up.
Mr. Hessler. Senator, I think we have two more questions.
One on this side and one on that side.
Senator Smith. I would like to end it at that if possible
and if you do have written questions and would like to submit
them, I would be more than happy to take those questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL ITSE, NEW HAMPSHIRE
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
Mr. Itse. Thank you Mr. Chairman. For the record my name is
Dan Itse, I am a State Representative and president of
Christopherson Engineering. I have questions for Judith Bayer
and Mr. Eidlin, because their technologies excite me as a
technologist and they have near-term application. And, for a
reference point, for personal reasons, we have a 12,000 KW
power system at our house.
Ms. Bayer, you stated that right now the cost of a fuel
cell is about $4,500 per kilowatt and that it operates in
hydrogen. A lot of New Hampshire can't even get natural gas.
How far away do you feel propane fuel is for a fuel cell? When
do you think it could meet the $1,000 per KW cost that is
comparable to a reciprocating engine?
Second for Mr. Eidlin, what is the capital install cost for
a solar system for comparison?
Ms. Bayer. In answer to your first question, as far as
natural gas and propane, we currently run most of our PC 25
systems on natural gas. We also have the capability to run them
on propane. So, the residential units that you are seeing for
example, if you had a remote cabin somewhere and you wanted to
run it off of propane because natural gas wasn't available,
that's one of the designed features that is one of the areas
that we think there is some real potential for the early
adopters of this technology. You can run a fuel cell off of any
hydrocarbon, mostly because you don't have hydrogen available
in its' pure form. We run them off of, as I said, natural gas,
propane. We have run them off of methane from anaerobic
digester gas systems. We have run them off methane from
landfills and we have also run them--we have the technology to
run them on pure hydrogen. We have a facility in an
installation in Germany where there is hydrogen available at a
chemical plant and they use that directly in the system. If you
had hydrogen available, you could eliminate what we call the
fuel processing steps in the process and go directly to the
zero emission power generating stations that we all envision in
the future.
As to your question as to when we will reach the magic
$1,000 level, that really depends on volume. It depends on how
quickly the market accepts the technology and how quickly the
volume builds so that we can get those costs down. We would
hope for the residential units that we could bring those costs
down by the year 2005 and in that range.
Mr. Eidlin. The per kilowatt cost of a solar today is about
22 cents. In New Hampshire, we pay 14 or 15 cents per kilowatt.
In some places in the country, they pay more than that. So it
is comparatively more expensive in most cases than conventional
fossil fuel, but if one takes into account the exogenous
externalities of air pollution, delivery costs, etc., one will
find likely that it's a very similar cost. In similar
applications, solar technologies are cheaper than conventional
fossil fuel. A good example of that is a system we installed on
Block Island in Rhode Island for the U.S. Postal Service where,
because they were reliant on unreliable diesel generators and
they were bringing their power from the mainland, they were
paying about 31 cents per kilowatt hour. So they made a
strategic choice to save themselves a lot of money and they
also got a reliable power source so that their equipment, their
mail processing equipment, cash registers and other items
weren't having to be replaced every 2 years. So, the system we
have in our house in Amherst is about a 3,000 watt system and
we say it's affordable, we never say it's expensive. So it was
affordable to the tune of in the low $20,000 range. But again,
I just point out that because of net metering, you can sell
power back to the utility in many States at the retail cost, so
on a day like today, our meter was spinning backwards for--
probably from 9 o'clock in the morning until mid-afternoon,
which improves economics.
Senator Smith. Final question.
STATEMENT OF JOHN HODSDON, MEREDITH, NH
Mr. Hodsdon. Thank you Senator Smith. John Hodsdon from
Meredith, NH, a farmer.
I have a question for Mr. Andary. Thirty years ago, we were
all told that gas turbine automobiles were the cars of the
future, because of the high efficiency and low pollution. What
happened in that and is there a lesson from what happened that
we should be considering now?
Mr. Andary. I would like to know who told you that. Gas
turbines are--although I believe in the last 30 years there has
been a lot of work done on the burner technology. They use a
lot of air and in order to reduce emissions, you need to run
the vehicles basically at stoichiometric unless you have some
very advanced technologies to go along with that. So, if you do
the mathematics, for every pound of fuel that you burn, you
have to have 14 pounds of air, or thereabouts. That makes a lot
of unburned fuel, carbon monoxide, a lot of mass of those
pollutants. As a result, you end up with something that's not
very fuel efficient, especially in non-steady States where you
have city traffic, stop and go. It works all right for
airplanes because the power generation is there, but not so
much for cars.
Does that answer your question?
Mr. Hodsdon. What about other new technologies like those
we heard about today?
Mr. Andary. I think that the industry has learned from that
and there is an investment. We do a lot more work into those
new technologies now before we release them to the market.
Senator Smith. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Let me also say thank you to the University of New
Hampshire for their splendid cooperation here.
[Applause].
Also to thank all of the witnesses and also those who
displayed their technology. If you haven't had a chance to look
both inside and outside, it's well worth seeing.
If anyone has a written question or comment that they would
like to be made part of the record, if you would get it to us
by the end of the week, I will see to it that it goes into the
record. You can fax it to us or you can e-mail it to us by the
close of business on Friday. I will get it into the record and
you can be famous.
Thank you again. I do know one thing, I think that maybe 60
years from now, Dr. Kelly when they look back on this hearing,
I'll bet you that most, if not all of the technologies that we
talked about will be in full use and maybe they might even be
outdated by then, who knows?
Thank you all.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Frank Alix, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Powerspan Corp.
Chairman Smith and distinguished Members of the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, thank you for the opportunity to share
Powerspan's perspective on innovative environmental technology and
energy policy.
My name is Francis R. Alix and I am Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of Powerspan Corp.
Powerspan is an emerging energy technology company headquartered in
New Durham, New Hampshire. Our company was founded in 1994 and has
grown to employ 45 people, most in high paying technical jobs. In order
to fund technology development, the company has raised over $28 million
to date from private, institutional, and corporate investors.
Over the past 3 years, Powerspan has focused its resources on the
development and commercialization of a patented multi-pollutant control
technology for coal-fired electric generating plants called Electro-
Catalytic Oxidation<SUP>TM</SUP>, or ECO. The ECO technology is
designed to cost-effectively reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO<INF>2</INF>), nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>x</INF>), mercury (Hg), and
fine particles (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) in a single, compact system. Several
leading power generators are investors in the company or partners in
ECO development. These include FirstEnergy, American Electric Power,
Cinergy and Allegheny Energy.
Powerspan has successfully tested the ECO technology in a 2-
megawatt slipstream of a coal-fired plant owned by FirstEnergy. During
this test, ECO reduced emissions of:
<bullet> Nitrogen oxides by 76 percent
<bullet> Sulfur dioxide by 44 percent
<bullet> Mercury by 81 percent
<bullet> Total particulate matter by 99.9 percent
The U.S. Department of Energy recently selected Powerspan for
funding under a solicitation for promising mercury control technologies
for coal-based power systems. In addition, lab testing of our second-
generation ECO technology has demonstrated nitrogen oxide removal of
more than 90 percent, and sulfur dioxide removal of more than 99
percent.
Powerspan has begun installation of the first commercial ECO
demonstration in a 50-megawatt slipstream at FirstEnergy's Eastlake
Plant near Cleveland, Ohio. The project is being co-funded by a $3.5
million grant from the Ohio Coal Development Office within the Ohio
Department of Development. Successful completion of this demonstration
in 2002 will lead to the availability of full-scale commercial ECO
systems beginning in 2004.
As you consider the important role that innovative technology can
play in further enhancing the environment, I would like to make the
following points:
1. Environmental technology development is driven almost
exclusively by environmental regulations. Regulatory certainty and time
are important factors that impact the degree of environmental
technology deployment.
2. The cost of achieving environmental compliance is usually
significantly less than estimated at the time regulations are
developed.
3. Environmental regulations are not all created equal. Some are
more likely to spur innovation than others.
Let me briefly address each of these points.
<bullet> Both the electric generating industry and the
environmental technology community rely upon long-term certainty in
environmental regulation. For the capital-intensive electric generating
industry, long-term regulatory certainty allows for the orderly
improvement of generating assets without undue financial risk or threat
to the availability of electricity supplies. For the technology
community, regulatory certainty provides the incentive and time to
deploy resources to develop and commercialize new technology that will
meet the regulatory goals in the most cost effective manner possible.
<bullet> In the process of crafting environmental legislation, the
cost associated with the law's implementation is normally evaluated.
These cost assessments are inevitably based upon what is known or
commercially proven at the time. The objective of technology
developers, however, is to make what is known and commercially proven
obsolete. This they do on a regular and dependable basis. Therefore, it
is important to remember that, given time, technology developers will
ensure that environmental compliance costs are far less than predicted
today.
<bullet> The ECO technology could provide the environmental
benefits of reductions in a number of air emissions, including mercury,
years ahead of a typical regulatory schedule, and at a lower cost than
conventional pollution control technologies. However, the existing
regulatory requirements significantly limit the generating industry's
compliance flexibility, thereby making the use of multi-pollutant
approaches less viable.
Under the current interpretation of best available control
technology--or BACT--generating utilities could not use ECO technology
to help achieve NO<INF>x</INF> or SO<INF>2</INF> reductions, even if it
were almost as effective as the best available technology, and
simultaneously achieved reduction of other pollutants such as mercury.
Yet, if ECO technology were deployed throughout the industry, far more
emission reductions could be achieved than through selective BACT
deployment. And the associated health benefits would accrue to a larger
percentage of the public. This kind of regulatory inflexibility doesn't
make economic sense and, more important, doesn't make environmental
sense.
Therefore, I support the President's National Energy Policy call
for multi-pollutant legislation that will establish a flexible, market-
based program to significantly reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, and mercury from electric power generating plants. I
believe that Congress should determine the appropriate reduction
requirements and timeframe to phase in reductions, and then allow
industry to meet them in the most cost-effective manner possible. A
command-and-control approach would only serve to drive up costs and
curb innovation.
Although Powerspan is proud to have achieved our success to date
without government funding, I also support the continued emphasis of
Congress and the President on research and development funding for
clean energy technology.
In summary, I believe that increasing our energy supply, and at the
same time, improving our environment is not only possible, but also
imperative for the future well being of our society. Fortunately, our
Nation is blessed with an innovative and entrepreneurial spirit that
will rise to such challenges. I believe political leaders must exercise
a degree of faith in order to establish the environmental laws that
look out over a decade or more to protect public health, when
compliance uncertainty may exist. Given time and the right regulatory
framework, the technology community will find an economical way to
achieve the desired environmental benefits. History has demonstrated
this time and again. And there are many companies like Powerspan full
of talented individuals that are dedicated to this goal.
Thank you.
__________
Statement of Judith Ann Bayer Director, Environmental Government
Affairs, United Technologies Corporation
Good afternoon. My name is Judith Bayer. I'm the Director of
Environmental Government Affairs for United Technologies Corporation
(UTC). UTC is based in Hartford, Connecticut and provides a broad range
of high-technology products and support services to the building
systems and aerospace industries. Our products include Carrier air
conditioners, Otis elevators and escalators, Pratt & Whitney jet
engines, Sikorsky helicopters, Hamilton Sundstrand aerospace systems
and fuel cells by International Fuel Cells.
UTC spends an average of $1 billion per year on research and
development. Our corporate environment, health and safety policy
includes commitments to: conserve natural resources in the design,
manufacture, use and disposal of products and the delivery of services
and develop technologies and methods to assure safe workplaces and to
protect the environment worldwide. UTC has invested heavily in bringing
clean, energy efficient technology to the global marketplace, and we
need to continue to work closely with government policymakers to
maximize the benefits of these innovative technologies.
While UTC's diverse portfolio offers a number of examples of clean,
energy efficient technologies, I will focus today on technologies and
products from our International Fuel Cell (IFC) and Carrier units. I
will describe some of our fuel cell and air conditioning products and
activities, their applications and benefits. In addition, my testimony
will provide some suggestions regarding government actions that will
help to maximize these benefits and improve air quality, protect the
ozone layer, avoid man-made greenhouse gas emissions, reduce dependence
on foreign oil, provide reliable power as well as reduce electric
utility peak load demand.
fuel cell description
Fuel cells are the cleanest fossil-fuel generating technology
available today. They use an electro chemical process to convert
chemical energy directly from natural gas or other hydrogen rich fuel
sources, into electricity and hot water at a very high level of
efficiency.
reality of fuel cells
Fuel cells are not a futuristic dream. More than 250 U.S.
astronauts have depended on UTC's fuel cell products to provide all the
electrical power and drinking water used in every manned U.S. space
mission. Each space shuttle mission carries three IFC 12 kW fuel cell
units and we have accumulated more than 81,000 hours of fuel cell
operating experience in the most demanding environment of all--outer
space.
Closer to home, IFC has produced and sold more than 220 fuel cell
systems in 15 countries on four continents. We're the only company in
the world with a commercial fuel cell product available today. It's
known as the PC25s and it produces 200 kWs of power and 900,000 BTUs of
heat. Each unit provides enough power for roughly 150 homes. The
worldwide fleet of PC25s has accumulated more than 4 million hours of
operating experience with proven reliability. The PC25 system requires
only routine maintenance and has a life of 40,000 hours or 5 years.
environmental benefits
Since fuel cells operate without combustion, they are virtually
pollution free. In addition they produce significantly lower levels of
carbon dioxide emissions--the primary man-made greenhouse gas
contributing to climate change. For example, while the average fossil
fuel generating station produces as much as 25 pounds of pollutants to
generate 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity, the PC25 power plant
produces less than an ounce.
The existing fleet of PC25s has already prevented nearly 800
million pounds of CO<INF>2</INF> emissions and more than 14.5 million
pounds of NO<INF>x</INF> and SO<INF>x</INF> compared with typical U.S.
combustion-based power plants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
recognized IFC last year with a Climate Protection Award in recognition
of these accomplishments.
efficient source of power
Fuel cells are inherently more efficient than combustion-based
systems. In the ``electricity-only'' mode of operation, IFC's PC25 unit
achieves approximately 40 percent efficiency. When the waste heat from
the fuel cell is utilized, an efficiency of 87 percent can be achieved.
In addition, fuel cells can be installed at the point of use, thus
eliminating transmission line losses that can run as high as 15
percent.
minimal impact on grid
Fuel cells can provide power at the point of use, thereby
alleviating the load on the existing transmission and distribution
infrastructure, and eliminating or minimizing the need for additional
investment in the current transmission and distribution network.
energy security
The use of fuel cells helps to diversify the energy market and
reduce reliance on imported oil. Fuel cells can operate with a variety
of fuel sources, but most commonly use natural gas.
continuous source of base power
Unlike other environmentally favorable solutions, fuel cells can be
used as a continuous source of base power--independent of time-of-day
or weather--for critical facilities and power requirements.
ideal neighbor
Its compact size, quiet operation and near-zero emissions allow a
fuel cell system such as the PC25 to be sited easily in communities and
neighborhoods. Unlike many other forms of power generation, fuel cell
power plants are good neighbors. For example, two PC25s are located
inside the Conde Nast skyscraper at Four Times Square in New York City.
distributed generation
Fuel cell power plants offer a solution when power is needed
onsite, or when distribution line upgrades become cost-prohibitive and/
or environmentally unattractive. For example, a PC25 installed at the
Central Park Police Station in New York City provides all the power for
the facility in an onsite installation. In this case, it would have
been too expensive to dig up Central Park and install an additional
power line, so the fuel cell became the ideal solution for an operation
that required a dedicated, reliable power supply and flexible siting.
emergency power
Several hospitals in the United States, including Department of
Defense facilities, rely on PC25 systems to provide on-line emergency
power.
In Rhode Island, for example, a PC25 system provides power for the
South County Hospital. The installation supplies base load electrical
and thermal energy to the hospital where it helps ensure clean,
reliable power for sensitive medical equipment and systems such as CAT
scanners, monitors, analyzers, and laboratory test equipment. If there
is a grid outage, the PC25 automatically operates as an independent
system, continuing to power critical loads at the hospital. Heat from
the installation provides energy for space heating, increasing the fuel
cell's overall efficiency.
grid support
The largest commercial fuel cell system in the world is currently
operating at a U.S. Postal Service facility in Anchorage, Alaska. The
system provides one megawatt of clean, reliable fuel cell power by
joining five PC25 units. In this installation, the units operate in
parallel to the grid and are owned and operated by the local utility.
The system is seen as a single one-megawatt generation asset and is
dispatched by the utility through its standard dispatch system. The
system is designed so the fuel cells can either provide power to the
U.S. Postal Service mail-processing center or provide power back to the
grid. In case the grid fails, a near instantaneous switching system
automatically disconnects the grid and allows the fuel cells to provide
uninterrupted power.
assured reliable power
As our society increases its reliance on sophisticated computer
systems, very short power interruptions can have profound economic
consequences. In 1996 the Electric Power Research Institute reported
that U.S. businesses lose $29 billion annually from computer failures
due to power outages and lost productivity.
PC25 power plants are currently delivering assured power at
critical power sites such as military installations, hospitals, data
processing centers, a U.S. Postal Service mail processing center and
sites where sensitive manufacturing processes take place. One of IFC's
installations at the First National Bank of Omaha where four fuel cells
are the major component of an integrated assured power system, is
meeting customer requirements for 99.9999 percent reliability. This
translates into a power interruption of 1 minute every 6 years.
partial load/co-generation
The Conde Nast Building at Four Times Square in New York City is a
``green building'' with two PC25 power plants installed inside to
provide 5 percent of the building's electrical needs. If there is a
blackout, the systems are capable of operating independent of the
utility grid to maintain power to critical mechanical components and
external landmark signage on the facade of the building. The waste heat
from the unit is used to run the air conditioning and the power plants
provide critical backup power in case the grid fails.
renewable energy
When fueled by anaerobic digester gases or biogas from wastewater
treatment facilities, fuel cells are a source of renewable power. IFC
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collaborated in the
early 1990s on a greenhouse gas mitigation program that continues to
bear fruit today. Initial efforts targeted landfills and the
development of gas cleanup systems that enable fuel cells to use waste
methane to generate electricity and resulted in the issuance of several
patents jointly held by EPA and IFC. These systems prevent methane--a
potent greenhouse gas--from being released into the environment and
avert the use of fossil fuels as the fuel source.
Follow-on work has focused on anaerobic digester off-gases (ADGs)
from wastewater treatment facilities. This technology has been
implemented successfully at PC25 installations in Yonkers, New York;
Calabasas, California; Boston, Massachusetts, and Portland, Oregon as
well as Cologne, Germany and Tokyo, Japan.
flexible and broad application of fuel cells
The examples noted above demonstrate the flexibility of fuel cell
technology and its appeal to many different customers with a wide range
of requirements. But it gets better. Fuel cell technology and its
associated benefits, which have broad application in the commercial/
industrial sector, is also being developed for homes, small businesses,
cars, trucks and buses.
residential and light commercial fuel cell application
IFC is currently pursuing residential and light commercial fuel
cell applications for homes and businesses. These units will use next-
generation proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell technology. We are
drawing on our experience in both commercial and mobile fuel cell
programs to develop a 5-kilowatt PEM fuel cell system suitable for
homes and small commercial buildings. IFC is teaming up with its
sister, UTC unit Carrier Corporation, the world's largest maker of air
conditioners, as well as Toshiba Corporation and Buderus Heiztechnik on
this effort.
We are currently testing our residential power plants and plan to
have residential fuel cells units commercially available in 2003. We
have a residential fuel cell model with us today in the exhibit area.
transportation fuel cell applications
In the transportation arena, IFC is aggressively developing quiet,
highly efficient ambient-pressure PEM fuel cells and gasoline
reformation technology for automobiles, heavy-duty trucks and bus
applications. Fuel reforming technology allows fuel cells to operate on
pump gasoline.
IFC is currently working with major automobile manufacturers,
including BMW and Hyundai and with the U.S. Department of Energy on
development and demonstration programs for automobiles.
Last year, for example, IFC replaced the internal combustion engine
in a Hyundai Santa Fe Sport Utility Vehicle with its zero emission
Series 300 75-kilowatt hydrogen powered fuel cell. This vehicle was
featured at the grand opening ceremony of the California Fuel Cell
Partnership on November 1, 2000. Pure water vapor is the only by-
product of this fuel cell power system. Hyundai and IFC has put two
fuel cell powered Santa Fe's into driving service in California and
expect to provide another four in 2002-2003.
The IFC vehicle power plant is quiet and efficient. It's unique
because it uses a near ambient pressure system, which substantially
increases its efficiency. By eliminating the high-pressure requirements
of other fuel cells, IFC has created a system with fewer parts, which
translates into lower costs for the consumer. To date, we have
demonstrated the following capabilities with the IFC/Hyundai Santa Fe
fuel cell vehicle:
Starts in less than 30 seconds;
Performs with undetectable noise levels;
Operates without any operator intervention;
Achieves maximum power output of 75 kW and a top speed of 72 mph;
Fills the vehicle's fuel tank with hydrogen to a pressure of
roughly 3,000 psi in less than 3 minutes; and
Avoids any loss of passenger or cargo space.
In addition, we've also developed fuel cell auxiliary power units
(APUs) that can power all the electronic components of a car thus
removing this heavy power demand from the engine. In 1999, BMW
demonstrated at the Frankfurt Auto Show a Series-7 vehicle featuring a
5-kilowatt hydrogen IFC fuel cell that powered the onboard electrical
systems and air conditioning. During the 2-week exhibition, we used the
APU to run the car's lights and radio continuously without the engine
running.
For buses, IFC has teamed with Thor Industries, the largest mid-
size bus builder in North America and Irisbus, one of the largest
European bus manufacturers, to build fuel cell powered zero emission
transit buses. These prototype vehicles will take to the road this
year.
constraints
The cost of fuel cells has been reduced dramatically in the past
decade. The space shuttle application had a price tag of $600,000 per
kW. Commercial stationary units being installed today cost $4,500 per
kW, but fuel cells are still not competitive with existing technology
which costs about $1,500 per kW. Fuel cell production volumes are low,
which increases their costs. Increased volume is needed to bring the
purchase cost down and accelerate commercialization of this clean,
reliable, efficient source of power so its benefits can be more widely
enjoyed.
government actions
There are a number of things the Federal Government can do to help
accelerate the commercialization of fuel cell technology. These include
providing financial incentives, eliminating regulatory barriers, and
funding Government purchases and demonstration programs.
financial incentives
UTC/IFC is leading an industry effort to secure a 5-year, $1,000
per kW tax credit for homeowners and business property owners who
purchase stationary fuel cells. This initiative has gained support from
major fuel cell manufacturers, suppliers and related organizations as
explained in Attachment A.
In addition, these same organizations have endorsed continuation
and expansion of the existing DOD/DOE buydown grant program for public
sector and non-profit organization investment in fuel cell technology.
An $18 million fiscal year 2002 DOD appropriation is being sought for
this initiative as indicated in Attachment B.
These efforts will make the units more affordable and increase
volume. With higher production volume, costs can be reduced, thus
accelerating market acceptance and deployment.
We also support tax credits and financial incentives for fuel cell
vehicles.
regulatory barriers
We believe the Federal Government must address several regulatory
barriers to fuel cell distributed generation technology. UTC recommends
that the Federal Government:
Adopt a common technical standard for interconnection of small
power generation devices to the USD utility system based on the
Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers' (IEEE) 1547
recommendation.
Minimize the competitive impact of exit fees and stand-by charges.
Standardize user fees for Independent Power Producers (IPPS) in the
same geographic region.
Require States to ensure that the ``buy'' and ``sell'' rates of
power are the same for any given time of day or year.
government purchases
The U.S. Government is the single largest energy consumer in the
world. Its vast purchasing power can be put to use in the procurement
and deployment of clean, efficient, reliable fuel cell systems. We
suggest a 3-year Federal program to install one hundred 200 kW size
units or 20 megawatts of fuel cell power at key Federal facilities.
Priority should be given to facilities in non-attainment areas as
defined by the Clean Air Act of 1990 as well as those that have
sophisticated and sensitive computer or electronic operations; where
high-quality, reliable, assured power supply is required; where remote
locations makes off-grid power generation essential; where security
concerns require reliable, assured power; and at critical manufacturing
facilities that support DOD or DOE missions.
In making purchasing decisions, the Federal Government uses a life
cycle cost benefit analysis. Unfortunately, this calculation does not
consider the environmental benefits of technologies such as fuel cells,
nor does it place a cost on lost productivity due to unreliable power
supplies. We recommend that the Government's economic analytical tools
be revised to include these important factors in the decisionmaking
process.
demonstration programs
The Federal Government already has played a significant role as a
user of fuel cell technology in NASA's space program as well as at DOD
where 29 fuel cells were purchased in the early 1990s to demonstrate
the performance characteristics of the technology. Since the Government
will undoubtedly also be a key future customer for the technology, it
is important for it to continue to support and participate in fuel cell
demonstration programs.
A fuel cell bus demonstration program would be particularly
beneficial. Diesel emissions from transit and shuttle buses are
particularly significant since they affect large concentrations of
people in urban and suburban areas, military bases and airports. Diesel
school buses are of particular concern because of the potential impact
on the health of vulnerable children.
Transit, shuttle and military buses return to a central location
each night. Early deployment of hydrogen powered fuel cell buses offers
a strategic path to establishing a hydrogen infrastructure that later
can be utilized by personal vehicles and light trucks for significant
environmental benefit.
While prototype fuel cell buses have been developed, a program to
demonstrate this technology in real operating conditions, improve the
durability and performance characteristics and create opportunities for
replication across the country is needed. We support a 3-year $40
million comprehensive program including a minimum of $10 million in
fiscal year 2002 funding for a zero emission ambient pressure fuel cell
bus demonstration program.
enabling technology
Fuel cell systems such as the PC25 require a fuel-processing step
to derive hydrogen from hydrocarbon feedstocks such as natural gas. If
hydrogen were available directly, this step could be eliminated and a
zero emission power generating system made possible. We need to
continue to support the development of hydrogen production,
distribution and storage infrastructure to support the deployment of
zero emission stationary and mobile fuel cell applications. UTC/IFC
therefore supports the reauthorization of the Hydrogen Future Act and a
minimum of $26.8 million for fiscal year 2002 funding for DOE hydrogen
research, development and demonstration and an additional $15 million
for integration of fuel cells and hydrogen production systems into
Federal and State facilities for stationary and transportation
applications.
carrier overview
Carrier is the world's largest manufacturer of air conditioning,
heating and refrigeration systems. The company believes that with
market leadership comes the responsibility for environmental
leadership. Carrier led the global air conditioning and refrigeration
industry in the phaseout of ozone depleting refrigerants well ahead of
international and domestic mandates. And while pioneering the
technologies to enable this transition to non-ozone depleting products,
Carrier has also increased energy efficiency, minimized materials and
product weight, introduced new air quality management features and
developed the tools to evaluate a holistic building systems approach to
indoor comfort cooling.
The heating, air conditioning and refrigeration industry has made
significant improvements over the past two decades in technologies that
benefit the environment. And while these technologies are readily
available for consumers today, barriers to full deployment do exist,
preventing the realization of maximum environmental benefit.
environmental technologies for commercial air conditioning
In the commercial air conditioning market, major advancements have
been achieved in large building chiller technology. Not only does
Carrier manufacture non-ozone-depleting chillers throughout the world;
these same products are, on average, 20 percent more efficient than
their counterparts of 20 years ago, with 10-15 percent less weight for
the same capacity. This has reduced raw materials like steel and the
intensive energy required to produce it. In fact, we believe the
industry is saving 16 million pounds of steel each year, or enough to
build 7,000 cars.
Despite these breakthroughs, more than 44,000 old, inefficient,
CFC-based ozone-depleting chillers remain in operation in the United
States. If these chillers were replaced with today's products, roughly
seven billion-kilowatt hours per year would be saved, enough to power
740,000 homes on an annual basis, saving four million tons of carbon
emissions at power plants. We believe these old CFC chillers would be
replaced more rapidly if it weren't for the U.S. tax code, which allows
building owners to depreciate chillers over a staggering 39-year
period! If this term were reduced to 15 or 20 years, the advanced
chiller technologies would become more prevalent in the marketplace to
the benefit of the environment.
environmental technologies for residential air conditioning
Equal advancements have been made in residential systems within the
last decade. Carrier introduced the Nation's first non-ozone depleting
residential central air conditioning system, called Puron, in 1996--a
full 14 years prior to the deadline mandated by the Clean Air Act. And
while we're proud to have been the first, we congratulate the three
other major manufacturers that have followed suit so far.
Carrier also leads the residential market with the highest rated
efficiencies and supports a full 20 percent increase in the Federal
minimum energy efficiency standard. But Carrier also believes that
Federal and State governments can do more to deploy high efficiency
products rapidly through tax incentives and we congratulate Senator
Smith for introducing S. 207 which we view as a good framework for tax
incentives, especially if the levels start at 13 SEER.
But as Federal and State governments examine tax credits, we would
like to point out that opportunities exist to maximize these incentives
for additional environmental benefit, like ozone protection, along with
energy efficiency. Not too long ago, there was a tradeoff between
efficiency and ozone protection. Most residential systems sold today
operate with an ozone-depleting refrigerant scheduled for phaseout in
new products in 2010. The amount of this refrigerant required for
higher efficiency systems, like 13 SEER, is 40 percent greater than
standard 10 SEER systems. Fortunately, Carrier pioneered the technology
that other manufacturers have followed to avoid this ``Hobson's
choice'' of efficiency or ozone protection. Clearly and thankfully we
can have both, and we urge any tax incentive plan to maximize the
environmental benefits of efficiency combined with ozone protection.
demand management technology
To address electric utility demand-management initiatives, Carrier
was the first in its industry to develop a web-enabled smart thermostat
that will interface between a homeowner's air conditioning system and
the local utility. This technology can reduce residential peak load
demand by 30 percent, frequently without the consumer's awareness.
In essence, the thermostat allows the utility to ``purchase'' peak
load demand from the homeowner by offering electrical rate discounts
for setting-back the thermostat a few degrees. Carrier's smart
thermostats, called ComfortChoice, have already been deployed by
utilities in New York, Connecticut and Washington. For every 100,000
homes installed with this technology, 150 megawatts of peak power can
be saved, which is enough to power 100,000 additional homes for 1 year.
At an average of $375 per installation (labor and material) plus
utility software costs and monthly communication fees, the cost of
deploying these smart thermostats has been the principal barrier to
more widespread use, which utilities and State policymakers are
starting to address through rebates and other incentives.
training to ensure environmental benefit
Another safeguard that ensures maximum environmental benefit is the
proper installation of products. Manufacturers can design and sell the
most energy efficient systems, but if third party contractors do not
install the system properly, the environmental benefit will be lost.
Fortunately, thousands of these systems are installed properly each day
by qualified technicians, but no one doubts that additional training
will yield greater environmental benefit. According to the Consortium
for Energy Efficiency, proper residential system installations could
reduce energy consumption by as much as 35 percent. With over 300,000
installation technicians in the country, the opportunity for additional
training is great.
That is why the air conditioning manufacturers and contractors have
teamed up to form a national technician training and certification
program called NATE--North American Technician Excellence. This program
has trained a total of 10,000 technicians since its creation. The
Federal Government can support NATE in two meaningful ways: (1) provide
resources to raise public awareness of the program, and (2) encourage
Federal facilities to ensure that they purchase service only from NATE
technicians. Support of NATE will help ensure that the best
environmental technologies that exist today are properly deployed so
that they yield their intended benefits.
research for future benefits
Finally, the Federal Government can help develop the next
generation of environmental technologies for air conditioning and
refrigeration systems by continuing to fund the ``Research for the
Twenty-first Century'' program also known as ``21-CR.'' This
collaborative program pools the financial resources of the Federal
Government, State governments and private enterprise to conduct pre-
competitive research on energy efficiency, indoor environmental
quality, refrigerants and others. We urge the Congress continue
supporting this valuable program with a $4 million appropriation for
fiscal year 2002.
utc commitment
UTC products have useful lives that can be measured in decades.
That's one of the reasons our corporate environment, health and safety
policy statement requires conservation of natural resources in the
design, manufacture, use and disposal of products and delivery of
services. It also mandates that we make safety and environmental
considerations priorities in new product development and investment
decisions.
UTC products offer the potential for significant energy savings as
well as improved environmental quality. Working with government and end
users of our equipment we can ensure that these benefits are optimized
and accelerated. We look forward to working with Congress, the
Administration and other stakeholders to achieve these goals.
I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
______
Why Should Congress and the Administration Support a Stationary Fuel
Cell Tax Credit?
overview
A fuel cell is a device that uses any hydrogen-rich fuel to
generate electricity and thermal energy through an electrochemical
process at high efficiency and near zero emissions. Fuel cell
developers, component suppliers, utilities and other parties with an
interest in clean distributed generation technology are working
together to enact tax credit legislation that will accelerate
commercialization of a wide range of fuel cell technologies.
credit description
The $1000 per kilowatt credit will be applicable for purchasers of
all types and sizes of stationary fuel cell systems. It will be
available for five years, January 1, 2002-December 31, 2006, at which
point fuel cell manufacturers should be able to produce a product at
market entry cost. The credit does not specify input fuels,
applications or system sizes so a diverse group of customers can take
short-term advantage of the credit to deploy a wide range of fuel cell
equipment.
why is a fuel cell tax credit necessary?
A credit will allow access to fuel cells by more customers NOW when
there is a grave need for reliable power in many parts of the country.
A credit will speed market introduction of fuel cell systems.
A credit will create an incentive for prospective customers, thus
increasing volume and reducing manufacturing costs. As with any new
technology, price per unit decreases as volume of production increases.
A credit will speed the development of a manufacturing base of
component and sub-system suppliers.
benefits of speeding market introduction through tax legislation
Because fuel cell systems operate without combustion, they are one
of the cleanest means of generating electricity.
While energy efficiency varies among the different fuel cell
technologies, fuel cells are one of the most energy efficient means of
converting fossil and renewable fuels into electricity developed to
date.
Fuel cell systems can provide very reliable, uninterruptible power.
For example, fuel cells in an integrated power supply system can
deliver ``six nines'' or 99.9999 percent reliability. Thus, fuel cells
are very attractive for applications that are highly sensitive to power
grid transmission problems such as distortions or power interruptions.
As a distributed generation technology, fuel cells address the
immediate need for secure and adequate energy supplies, while reducing
grid demand and increasing grid flexibility.
Installation of fuel cell systems provides consumer choice in fuel
selection and permits siting in remote locations that are ``off grid.''
Fuel cell systems can be used by electric utilities to fill load
pockets when and where new large-scale power plants are impractical or
cannot be sited.
Fuel cell systems, as a distributed generation resource, avoid
costly and environmentally problematic installation of transmission and
distribution systems.
cost
The five-year budgetary impact of the credit is less than $500
million.
Key Elements of a Fuel Cell Tax Credit for Stationary Applications
overview
The goal of the stationary fuel cell tax credit is to create an
incentive for the purchase of fuel cells for residential and commercial
use. The prompt deployment of such equipment will generate
environmental benefits, provide a reliable source of power for
homeowners and businesses, reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign
oil supplies, help commercialize clean technology, enhance U.S.
technology leadership and create economic benefits for the Nation.
Fuel cell tax credit proposals should be designed to benefit a wide
range of potential fuel cell customers and manufacturers. They should
therefore be all-inclusive without discriminating between different
kilowatt sized units, type of technology, application, fuel source or
other criteria. Efforts should be made to keep the proposals as simple
as possible to aid in effective implementation. In addition, the
proposals should strike a balance between ensuring the level of tax
credit provided represents a meaningful incentive that will stimulate
purchase and deployment of the technology while minimizing the
budgetary impact.
The following are specific elements suggested for consideration and
inclusion:
coverage
U.S. business and residential taxpayers that purchase fuel cell
systems for stationary commercial and residential applications should
be eligible for the credit.
basis for credit
The credit should be based on a ``per kilowatt'' approach with no
distinction made for the size of unit.
access to credit
No allocation of credit should be made to specific categories of
fuel cells on an annual or total basis.
fuel source
No premium or penalty should be imposed based on the fuel source.
definition of stationary fuel cell power plant
The term ``fuel cell power plant'' should be defined as ``an
integrated system comprised of a fuel cell stack assembly, and
associated balance of plant components that converts a fuel into
electricity using electrochemical means.''
co-generation
No co-generation requirement should be imposed since not all fuel
cell technologies offer an effective option for co-generation.
efficiency
No efficiency criteria should be imposed. Fuel cell systems in the
early stages of development, such as residential sized units, cannot
predict the efficiency level at this time. Establishing arbitrary
efficiency criteria could exclude early models for this important
application, which are exactly the units that require incentives.
Efficiency levels will vary based on whether proton exchange membrane,
phosphoric acid, solid oxide or molten carbonate fuel cell technology
is used. Designing fuel cell systems to maximize efficiency may require
tradeoffs resulting in more complicated, higher cost, less fuel
flexible and less durable units.
floor/ceiling
No minimum or maximum kilowatt size criteria should be imposed.
amount of credit
$1,000 per kW for all qualifying fuel cell power plants. A five-
year program with a $500 million budgetary impact is proposed.
duration
1/1/02-12/31/06.
______
The Stationary Fuel Cell Incentive Program
background
The Departments of Defense (DoD) and Energy (DOE) have
cooperatively supported the development and commercialization of
domestic stationary fuel cell systems since 1996. In 1995 Congress
appropriated funds for the DoD Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Economic Security for a competitive, costshared, near-term Climate
Change Fuel Cell Program (H.R. 103-747).
The Program grants funds to fuel cell power plant buyers to reduce
the high initial cost of early production systems, providing up to
$1,000 per kilowatt of power plant capacity not to exceed one-third of
total program costs, inclusive of capital cost, installation and pre-
commercial operation. For the program's six years, the grant program
significantly aided commercialization of the first generation of fuel
cell systems as intended by the Congress.
benefits of the program
The fuel cell grant program has expedited market introduction of
early fuel cell systems. Production quantities are low and first time
costs (e.g. engineering, manufacturing facilities, tooling) are high,
yielding high early unit capital costs. The grant program has
facilitated an increase in manufacturing quantities thereby reducing
unit cost and enabling early adopters to participate in demonstrations
and field trials. Lastly, federal participation in fuel cell
demonstrations and field trials has encouraged, in some cases,
supplemental support from state agencies or electric utilities, further
reducing costs. In virtually all cases, fuel cell projects would not be
possible without the grant program support.
requested action
Eighteen million dollars in fiscal year 2002 funding is being
sought for the fuel cell grant program at $1,000 per kW capacity. This
level of funding is needed to support the growing number of fuel cell
technologies and manufacturers that are bringing new fuel cell products
to market. The criteria used to select applications for a program grant
should be identical to that used in the last year of the program's
operation.
The key criteria include, but are not limited to: demonstration by
applicant of a commitment to purchase and use fuel cell power plants
with a rated capacity of at least 1 kW; power plants purchased before
September 2000 are not eligible; grants awarded consistent with the
amount of funding available; applicants must comply with all National
Environmental Policy Act and other applicable regulatory requirements;
signed contract within 60 calendar days of being notified of award
required; first payment to applicant (70 percent) made after applicant
submits a signed factory or site acceptance test form; second payment
(30 percent) dispersed after receipt of acceptable report covering a
year of fuel cell operation; applicants cannot be fuel cell vendors,
manufacturers or developers; priority given to projects using DoD
installations; all fuel cell technologies are eligible; no restrictions
on fuel type; applicant's fuel cell vendor must offer commercial
warranty for one calendar year of operation; and, it is desirable to
select for award a group of projects representing diverse sizes,
applications, fuels and locations.
anticipated program benefits
Presently there are several fuel cell technologies completing
advanced development and nearing commercial readiness. Over a dozen
U.S. fuel cell manufacturers will field products that qualify for
program grants. The fuel cell grant program has enjoyed bipartisan
Congressional support for many years. Continuation of this initiative
will benefit the nation by accelerating deployment of environmentally
benign, reliable, distributed generation technologies to provide needed
new electricity capacity.
__________
Statement of George Taylor, CEO and President, Ocean Power
Technologies, Inc.
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. (``OPT'') is an energy technology
company supplying intelligent wave power electrical generation systems
to utilities, independent power producers and the public sector. OPT is
capitalizing on the increasing demand for low cost electricity, the
need for distributed generation and the awareness of new
environmentally sensitive power generation technologies. OPT is
offering its customers a tested, leading edge, proprietary product
which generates electricity in a reliable, non-polluting and cost-
effective way.
opt has developed and tested the first commercial wave power generation
system in the usa
OPT's product is a scalable wave energy conversion system which is
based on the integration of patented technologies in the areas of
hydrodynamics, electronics, conversion mechanics and computer control
systems. It has been designed and tested to solve the problems usually
associated with harvesting wave energy: uneconomical scale, variable
wave regimes and a severe environment.
OPT believes that its wave power generation system is unique in
that:
<bullet> The system is a modular buoy-based product in which the
modules are relatively small and hence relatively inexpensive to build
and install compared to large wave energy generation systems
<bullet> Regular low cost maintenance will permit a lifetime in
excess of 30 years since the system is constructed from rugged buoys,
marine quality hydraulics and proven conventional moorings and
anchoring and underwater transmission power cable
<bullet> The modular nature of the system allows for simple
installation and easy scale-up, as well as immediate revenues streams,
as the power buoys are incrementally brought on-line
<bullet> The cost of electricity produced by the system ranges
between 3-4 cents/kWh for primary power and 7-10 cents/kWh for
secondary power applications
OPT's system trials include multiple tests in the U.S. Navy's wave
tank facility near Washington, DC, as well as operation of a unit off
the coast of New Jersey for 11 months. Over that period, the ocean
system produced power in varying conditions, and survived several major
storms and a hurricane with waves as high as 10 meters. Based on the
successful testing of the system, the Company has come to be regarded
by independent experts as the world leader in buoy-based wave power
generation devices.
opt commands strong cost advantages relative to competing sources of
electricity generation
The cost of generating power from an OPT wave power station is
projected to be 3-4 cents/kWh for 100 MW systems and 7-10 cents/kWh for
1 MW plants.
While the capital cost of OPT's system is relatively more expensive
at the secondary power level, the cost is competitive at the large
scale 100 MW level compared to traditional fossil fueled systems.
Comparison of Operating Cost (cents/kWh)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary Power Primary Power
(1 MW) (100 MW)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPT System........................ 7-10 3-4
Fossil Fuel....................... N/A 3-5
Wind.............................. 10 5-6
Diesel............................ 12-100 N/A
Photovoltaic (Solar).............. 25-50 10-15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
capital cost of opt system
Comparison of Capital Cost
(Dollars/kW)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 MW 100 MW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal Plant.............................. N/A 1,500-3,500
Fuel Cells.............................. 5,000 N/A
Microturbines........................... Low N/A
Wind/Solar.............................. 8,000 4,000
Other Wave Systems...................... 45,000 N/A
OPT..................................... *6,200 **2,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*20 unit cluster of 50kW units
**500 unit cluster of 200kW units
Note: This data is based on OPT projections of detailed costs for 100 MW
systems. Coal-based power plant costs are based on operating cost
information from various utilities analysts, and Resource Data
International, Inc.
the opt system delivers lower cost per kwh over its lifetime
While OPT's power plant equipment is at a somewhat higher projected
purchase price per kilowatt than existing conventional power plant, the
total cost per kilowatt hour over the lifetime of the plant is much
lower (see Table below). This is because the OPT Power Systems require
no fuel, and maintenance operations are lower in cost (based on
standard buoy maintenance procedures promulgated by the U.S. Coast
Guard).
Wave Energy Compared to Wind and Solar Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Availability
Type Energy Density Predictability (percent) Potential Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wave Energy...................... High................ Predictable in most 80-90 Virtually
sites. unlimited.
Wind Energy...................... Low................. Unpredictable--excep 20-30 Very limited.
t in limited number
of sites.
Solar Energy (Photovoltaic)...... Low................. Unpredictable-except 20-30 Medium number.
for medium number
of sites.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Independent analysts, U.S. Department of Energy, and various periodicals.
opt has successfully signed its first commercial contracts
After successfully testing the complete wave power system, OPT has
received its first commercial contracts for wave power generation
systems from the U.S. Navy, an electric utility in Australia and the
State of New Jersey.
opt's wave power generation systems
<bullet> High energy density for production of primary electric
power
<bullet> Essentially unlimited quantities of renewable energy close
to centers of population and industry. Since OPT's power generation
systems use no fuel, there are no costs of transport, storage, handling
or the uncertainties of fuel pricing.
<bullet> Predictable, high duty cycle power generation which can be
fed into the power grid or stored
<bullet> Efficient at low and variable speed operation suited for
natural energy sources.
<bullet> Highly modular system enabling lower costs, reduced
construction and commissioning period, and ease of expansion or
reduction of power capacities. Conventional power stations must be
built on a large scale to be economical, making them vulnerable to
failure and difficult to maintain. Furthermore, the modular, scaleable
nature of OPT's systems enables the power capacity planned to avoid
resource commitment until it is justified by actual demand.
<bullet> Also ideally suited for powering salt water desalination
and hydrogen generation plants
<bullet> Non-polluting and safe energy--no toxic gases, acids or
greenhouse effect and no waste disposal problem
<bullet> For conventional power plants, the ``footprint'' of the
plant superstructure, surrounding grounds and additional facilities
such as fuel unloading areas, waste settling ponds, etc. can occupy up
to two square miles of expensive real estate for a 100 MW site. A
comparable OPT power plant would occupy approximately the same area of
effectively free ocean surface out of sight from the shore.
<bullet> Conventional power plants are based on a small number of
large generators. Unscheduled maintenance and equipment down-time can
significantly diminish capacity output and negatively impact costs.
OPT's power generation systems are based on a large number of small
generators and the effect of equipment down time or unscheduled
maintenance on single units has a minimal effect on capacity output.
OPT Power Wave Station Physical Parameters
(Based on nominal 2.0 meter wave height)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min./Max. Offshore
Station Capacity Megawatts Quantity OPT Surface Ocean Depth Distance Miles
Units Deployed Area Acres Feet** (Typical)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................. 20 5 100-300 0.5-5.0
5.................................................. 50 25 100-300 0.5-5.0
10................................................. 100 50 100-300 0.5-5.0
50................................................. 200 240 100-300 0.5-5.0
100................................................ 500 480 100-300 0.5-5.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: 640 acres equals 1 square mile.
** Power output is reduced in ocean depths of less than 100 feet. Mooring costs increase significantly for
depths greater than 300 feet.
opt's technology
OPT is the world's leader of wave energy generation systems
<bullet> Wave energy is the most concentrated form of renewable
energy
LWidespread throughout the world
LClose to population centers
LPredictable and dependable
LNon-polluting: no exhaust gases, no noise, no visibility
from shore
LScalable to high capacity power stations (100MW+)
L100 square miles of ocean area off coast of California is
estimated capable of producing all of California's electrical
power
<bullet> Availability factor of 90 percent, with wind and solar
availability factor of 30-40 percent
<bullet> OPT's system captures wave energy in a simple and cost-
effective manner
LModular design makes system flexible, reliable, durable and
easy to scale
LProprietary system
LInnovative design allows for easy installation and
maintenance
OPT's wave energy generation system is based on a ``smart'',
modified ocean-going buoy designed to capture and convert wave energy
into a controlled mechanical force which drives the OPT electrical
generator.
<bullet> The rising and falling of the waves causes the buoy-like
structure to move freely up and down. The resultant mechanical stroking
is used to drive the electric generator
<bullet> The generated AC power is converted into high voltage DC
and is transmitted ashore via an underwater power cable
<bullet> The OPT device is a proprietary, ``smart'' system as the
buoy sensors continuously monitor the performance of the various
subsystems and the ocean environment, so as to efficiently convert the
random wave energy into useful electrical power
<bullet> In addition, the OPT system includes sophisticated
techniques for automatically disconnecting the system in very large
waves, and automatically reconnecting when the waves return to normal
regime.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80649.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80649.002
modularity
<bullet> Power Module
Generator and Electronics
<bullet> OPT Power Unit
Buoy-like structure containing power modules, hydraulics
<bullet> OPT Power Station
(a) Array of power units, electrically coupled
(b) Increase or decrease capacity as demand requires
(c) Fast installation and commissioning
environmental advantages of opt's power generation systems
<bullet> No fuel--absence of CO<INF>2</INF> emissions, radiation
and particulate matter pollution.
<bullet> No waste or disposal requirements, and no danger of
spillage or other environmental damage.
<bullet> No noise pollution.
<bullet> No visual pollution.
<bullet> No negative impact on marine life. In fact, can encourage
growth of marine life.
<bullet> Reduces shoreline erosion.
expandability of the technology
<bullet> Modular system allows for eventual expansion to power
stations with capacities of 100 + MW
<bullet> 100 square miles of sea area off California coast could
produce all of California electricity
product applications
<bullet> Primary Power Plants--Grid power and distributed power
generation
<bullet> Secondary Power Systems--remote locations, mini-grid
installations, offshore platforms
<bullet> Desalination Plants
<bullet> Water Treatment Plants
<bullet> Natural Resource Processing/Refinement Plants
<bullet> Hydrogen Production
<bullet> Autonomous Underwater Vehicles
<bullet> Remote Sensing
<bullet> Navigation Aids
support from united states government
<bullet> Office of Naval Research, U.S. Navy
SBIR Program
<bullet> DARPA--U.S. Department of Defense
BAA Program
STTR Program
Support from the congressional Delegations of New Jersey and
Hawaii.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80649.003
Statement of Richard Eidlin, Solar Works, Inc.
Good afternoon. My name is Richard Eidlin. I am the Vice President
and Business Development Director for Solar Works, Inc., a distributed
generation services company that provides solar and other renewable
energy systems to residential, commercial and institutional customers
throughout the Northeast.
I appreciate the opportunity to offer some thoughts at today's
hearing regarding the important role that solar electric photovoltaic
technologies can play in addressing the Nation's energy needs. First,
allow me to describe the types of activities that Solar Works is
involved with.
Founded in 1980, Solar Works offers a wide range of standardized,
grid-intertied solar electric, domestic hot water, wind turbine and
energy efficiency systems. As the technology matures and market
develops, we will also begin providing residential fuel cell units.
Within the solar industry, Solar Works acts as a renewable energy
``system integrator,'' in that we provide a complete set of technical,
hardware, and programmatic strategies to clients. In this role, Solar
Works serves as the catalyst that brings together manufacturers, energy
service providers, policymakers and consumers. While maintaining its
historic role as a ``systems integrator'', Solar Works is evolving to
become a comprehensive renewable energy services firm, active in
commercializing technologies and developing market-based programs for
utilities, State agencies, cooperatives and housing developers
interested in promoting solar electric and solar hot water systems.
Headquartered in Montpelier, Vermont, Solar Works maintains sales
and service offices in eight additional Northeastern States;
Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York and Rhode Island. Over the last 5 years, in response to the
maturing domestic market for renewable technologies, Solar Works has
developed its capabilities to design and deliver complete marketing and
installation programs on a State or regional basis. We presently run
five major market development programs for utilities, State agencies,
or national manufacturers, including companies like AstroPower. As we
observe the on-going discussions in Washington regarding energy policy,
I would like to offer a few observations.
Over the 21 years, Solar Works has been in the renewable energy
business, we have experienced several major shifts in public policy,
technology development and market acceptance. Today, unlike a decade
ago, there is a vibrant market for solar technologies in the United
States. As we are fond of saying, ``There has never been a better time
to create your own electricity.''
A host of factors account for this. First off, solar electric and
solar hot water technology is demonstrably more reliable and resilient.
Concerns dating back to the 1970s have no bearing on current
discussions regarding the role for solar technologies. Solar electric
photovoltaic systems have become standardized, with UL-listed, National
Electric Code compliant equipment, which requires virtually no
maintenance. Questions about solar domestic hot water systems'
reliability have also been resolved in favor of fail-safe cost-
effective equipment. Technological improvements have brought the
payback for a hot water system down to 8 to 10 years, and 20 plus years
for solar electric systems.
The second observation concerns the market for renewable energy.
Survey after survey indicates that the American public is highly
supportive of clean, domestically generated energy technologies. The
past 5 years have witnessed a significant shift in the market. Once
largely the domain of off-grid applications, such as water pumping,
telecommunications, vacation cabins and/or rural electrification
projects, PV is now becoming more widely accepted and used for grid-
tied homes, businesses and schools across the country.
Homeowners and businesses are choosing solar energy systems for a
number of key reasons:
(1) power quality and reliability, (2) demand for clean, non-
polluting energy, (3) growing interest in generating electric power
from a decentralized source, (4) escalating conventional energy costs,
(5) power shortages, including brown-outs and blackouts.
PV is the ideal distributed generation technology, well suited for
almost any energy application. PV systems are highly modular and
flexible in nature. Recent technological advances in performance and
design are creating an increasingly cost-competitive energy source.
Customers such as the U.S. Postal Service understand these inherent
advantages that solar generation has over back-up fossil fuel
generators. While a fossil fuel generator mainly sits idle and
depreciates, a solar system lowers monthly utility bills and can
provide 24-hour automatic uninterruptible power supply PV's can be
easily sited, require comparatively little permitting, and produce 99.9
percent reliable power for any application. PV's also provide an
excellent hedge against almost certain energy inflation.
With today's increased reliance on computers, telecommunication
systems, and high performance electronic devices, any loss of power or
even power quality can be very costly. Solar assisted Uninterruptible
Power Supply systems (with batteries) offer a cost-effective, safe and
reliable means of providing emergency backup power to homes and
businesses alike.
PV's are also an excellent means of shedding load demands and
avoiding summertime peak power costs, which last summer in some parts
of the country soared to more than $600 a megawatt. PV's offer
utilities and businesses the option of reducing congestion on the grid
and moderating the demand for additional power plants and generating
capacity. For homeowners, PV's provide an assurance that the power will
stay on in the event of a blackout due to a natural disaster or power
scarcity.
Recent studies of the large-scale power failures during the winter
of 1998-1999 in both the Northeast and Northwest strongly suggest that
scaled PV installations placed at strategic places along the power grid
would have prevented the blackout from cascading from State to State.
Homeowners and businesses, due to net metering rules can now also
``sell'' power back to the utility at times when their solar electric
systems are producing more power than the home or building requires.
This provision, along with others is helping to drive the market for
solar technologies.
It is regretful that the Federal Government during both the 1990s
and today, has committed disproportionately limited resources to
supporting the photovoltaics industry. In contrast, over 40 States have
enacted one or more requirements to actively encourage the broader use
of renewable energy sources. Net Metering, State income tax credits,
renewable portfolio standards, and system benefit charges are some of
the many ways renewables are being encouraged at the State level by
public utility commissions and legislatures. In six States alone, (CA,
IL, MA, NJ, NY, PA) over $375 million is being collected annually from
ratepayers through electric industry restructuring programs to support
renewable energy development. These funds will leverage about five
times their value in retail market activity, or about $1.5 billion a
year.
The upshot of all this is that the domestic solar energy market
will grow ten-fold in the next 5 years, from 80 megawatts to 820
megawatts of installed capacity. According to the Energy Information
Agency, photovoltaics will be the fastest growing generation technology
in the United States over the next 20 years. Solar energy will still be
a niche market compared to fossil fuel generated power, but it will be
a multi-billion-dollar-a-year opportunity for those few companies that
have the infrastructure to support its tremendous growth.
There is a historic market opportunity emerging in the United
States for renewable energy technologies. An extraordinary convergence
of market forces is transforming a small, niche industry into a multi-
billion dollar one, almost overnight. Electric industry restructuring
is literally jump-starting the market by offering customer choice and
millions of dollars of financial incentives for renewable generation.
Demand for zero-emission generation technology to combat global warming
and air pollution is another important market driver.
The current California power crises is a good example of the
inability and unwillingness of utilities to build new central station
generation and transmission facilities. The answer to this lies in
distributed generation systems that can be tucked into homes,
neighborhoods, and businesses. Photovoltaics are the ultimate
distributed technology that runs on pure sunshine. Declining costs of
photovoltaic modules and renewable energy incentives enacted by all
levels of government are creating an exponentially expanding market.
Given these trends, it is of concern, that the Administration's
energy plan devotes limited attention toward the role of solar
technologies. The substantial reductions in the Department of Energy
administrative and RD&D budget for renewables is a shortsighted
approach to balancing the budget. In addition, these policies are
placing the domestic American solar energy industry at a competitive
disadvantage to their European and Japanese counterparts. Relative to
investments that other advanced industrialized nations have made in
supporting PV's over the past decade, the U.S. Federal Government has
directed exceptionally modest resources to building a domestic
industry.
Let me return to the immediate issue of the Administration's
proposed energy plan. While Solar Works supports the proposed $2,000
income tax credit for residential energy tax credits, we are not in
favor of doing this at the expense of drilling for oil in the Arctic.
What is needed instead is a greater reliance on a wide range of
renewable technologies, including fuel cells, hydro and wind. We also
support pending legislation that would establish a national standard
regarding the process by which PV systems are interconnected to the
utility grid, as well as proposals to create a Federal renewable energy
portfolio standard.
Here in New Hampshire as elsewhere in the Northeast, Solar Works
has been working to expand the market for solar technologies. Over the
past 2\1/2\ years, we have installed over 40 solar electric and solar
hot water systems on homes, environmental centers and public buildings
throughout the State. Our Solar on Schools Program has resulted in 19
PV systems being installed on public as well as private schools,
including the 1 kW solar system located on top of the University of New
Hampshire's Memorial Union Building.
Solar Works looks forward to working with the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works in crafting policies that help to
accelerate the commercialization of solar electric technologies. Thank
you for your interest.
__________
Statement of David B. Goldstein, Ph.D., Energy Program Co-Director,
Natural Resources Defense Council
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is David B.
Goldstein and I am energy program Co-Director for the Natural Resources
Defense Council, a national environmental organization with over
400,000 members. I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
committee, for convening this hearing on energy efficiency and new
technology in a national energy policy and for inviting me to speak. I
also want to commend the Chairman for his leadership on S. 207, which
would provide desperately needed relief to our overstressed electricity
and natural gas grids.
Energy efficiency is a critical piece of any national energy
strategy because of the impacts that energy use has on two things that
everyone cares about: the environment and their pocketbooks. Energy use
accounts for the overwhelming bulk of air pollution problems--problems
that are linked to over 60,000 excess deaths per year due to direct
causes such as cardiopulmonary disease. Energy production also
contributes to water pollution and loss of environmental values such as
wildlife protection and recreation.
Energy also costs a lot of money, as virtually all consumers and
businesses have become aware over the past year. Even before the recent
jumps in energy price, our Nation's energy bill exceeded half a
trillion dollars a year\1\--or 6 percent of GDP. This is much higher
than is the case in other industrialized countries, so energy is a
competitive drag on the U.S. economy as well as harming household
budgets and reducing the bottom line of energy-consuming businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Energy Information Administration's ``Energy Overview'' data
for 1997 show $567 billion spent nationwide for energy, while GDP was
about $8.5 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRDC believes, and we hope members of the committee agree, that the
overwhelming purpose of national energy policy should be to minimize
the costs of energy services--both direct costs to consumers and costs
to the environment--while providing reliably for the energy service
needs of the growing economy.
Energy services are qualities like warm buildings in the winter,
good lighting in buildings, access to where people want to go in a
comfortable manner, and production of consumer and industrial goods.
The sole purpose of energy use is to provide energy services--no one
enjoys energy use for its own sake.
Energy efficiency means providing the same or better energy
services for less energy consumption and cost. Optimum levels of energy
efficiency maximize consumers' and businesses' well being. In theory,
the market encourages everyone to optimize energy efficiency. But in
practice, an overwhelming array of market failures and market barriers
has prevented the economically attractive level of energy efficiency
from occurring naturally: after nearly 30 years of analysis of all
sectors in the economy, there is virtually no evidence of any use of
energy ever having been optimized without policy intervention.
How far can we go with energy efficiency? Prior to 1973, energy use
was growing in parallel with economic output (GDP). Many analysts
predicted that this trend would inevitably persist in the future, and
numerous forecasts of future energy needs were made based on this
premise. In fact, due to energy policy activities at the State,
regional, and Federal levels, and with some small boost from energy
price spikes, energy use per unit of economic output began to decrease
after 1973, and is now 42 percent lower than it was at the first energy
crisis. About three quarters of this decline is attributable to energy
efficiency improvements.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Fact Sheet on
Energy Efficiency Progress and Potential, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional improvements in energy efficiency beyond the national
average occurred in States where strong policy efforts were expended.
In California, electricity intensity, which was already 28 percent
below national average in 1975, had declined further to 46 percent
below by 1998.\3\ Had this not occurred, California's power crisis of
the past two summers would have been far worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Source: A.H. Rosenfeld. Testimony Before California State
Committee on Environmental Quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the best examples of how innovative policies have reduced
demand for energy is in refrigerators. In the mid-1970s, the
refrigerator was the largest single user of electricity in the home,
and aggregate use of electricity for home refrigerators was growing at
an annual rate of 9.5 percent.
If this growth rate had continued up to the present, as DOE and
most utilities and their State regulators were expecting at the time,
peak demand by refrigerators today would be about 150,000 MW, that's
about one-fourth of today's electric capacity for the Nation.
Instead, as a result of State and Federal energy policies,
including research and development, economic incentives, and six
iterations of efficiency standards, the actual level of peak demand
will be about 15,000 MW when the refrigerator stock turns over. The
difference between actual demand and forecast exceeds the capacity of
all U.S. nuclear power. Figure 1 shows the trend of growth and then
decline in energy use per refrigerator after World War II.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Exponential extrapolation of past trends was not an unrealistic
assumption from either of two perspectives. First, in the mid-1970s,
when the turnaround from growth to decline in energy consumption for
refrigerators began, virtually every utility in the country, backed by
their regulatory agencies and Department of Energy forecasters, was
assuming that overall residential electricity use would continue to
grow at about the same 9.5 percent rate as it had grown during the
prior decades. The total growth in electricity consumption for
refrigerators, considering increasing sales of the product, was also
about 9.5 percent. Suggesting that this rate would come down in the
future, as the author did, was highly controversial.
Second, of the 6.1 percent annual growth in energy consumption per
refrigerator, one-third of the increase was due to decreases in
efficiency, apparently from cost-cutting, rather than from growth in
size or features as shown in Figure 1 (both of which have tended to
plateau since the 1970s).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80649.004
The most effective policies that have been implemented to improve
energy efficiency are:
<bullet> Efficiency standards for major users of energy, such as
buildings, appliances, equipment, and automobiles.
<bullet> Targeted incentives for more efficient technologies based
on performance. These incentives have been administered primarily by
utilities, although the State of Oregon has run a successful tax
incentive program as well.
<bullet> Education and outreach on energy efficiency, although
educational programs have worked best when performed in the context of
financial incentive programs.
But these policies alone will not allow the Nation to reach a goal
of minimizing the cost of energy services. Standards provide a floor
for energy efficiency--they require manufacturers to use efficiency
technologies that are well known and well understood and therefore can
be employed by everyone. Incentive programs can encourage more
significant improvements in energy efficiency, but they typically have
been limited by the range of technologies that are already available on
the marketplace. New innovative ideas that are hard for consumers to
find or that have yet to be introduced by manufacturers cannot easily
be acquired by incentives established on a State-by-State or regional
level.
Advanced levels of energy efficiency can only be achieved by making
it worthwhile for manufacturers, vendors, retailers, and consumers all
to benefit from the introduction of a new technology.
That's why the incentives in your bill, Mr. Chairman, S. 207, are
so critical to a comprehensive national energy policy. These types of
incentives, provided through the tax system, offer a key missing piece
of the solution to the problem of harnessing American ingenuity to
improve energy efficiency.
S. 207 provides tax incentives for energy efficiency in buildings.
Buildings are an often-overlooked source of energy waste. They consume
over a third of U.S. energy use and account for about a third of total
air pollution in the United States--almost twice as much as cars.
Energy use in buildings can be cut in half or better using cost-
effective technologies that are available to those consumers that are
willing to look hard.
But in practice most of those technologies simply are not options
for energy users, whether consumers or businesses, because they are too
hard to find. Economic incentives can cause the entire chain of
production and consumption, from the manufacturer to the contractor or
vendor to the consumer, to accept new technologies rapidly. In the few
cases where utility programs have been consistent enough across the
country and long-lasting enough, new products have been introduced that
have become or will become the most common product in the marketplace,
with reductions in energy use of 30 percent-60 percent.
Examples include:
<bullet> Refrigerators, where, as discussed previously, new
products that are available this year consume less than a quarter of
the energy of their smaller and less feature-laden counterparts 30
years ago. The last step forward, fading 30 percent resulted from a
coordinated incentive program, the Super Efficient Refrigerator Program
(SERP), which was sponsored by utilities.
<bullet> Clothes washers, where some 10 percent of the market now
provides cleaner clothes at reduction in energy use of 60 percent or
more. This gain in efficiency resulted from a program organized by the
Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) and supported by Energy Star.
New standards adopted by DOE--and supported by the manufacturers--will
bring all of the market to this level by 2007.
<bullet> Fluorescent lighting systems, where new technologies that
also will be required by manufacturer-supported Federal standards will
reduce lighting energy consumption by 30 percent compared to mid-1970s
practice while improving the performance of the lighting system.
The policies embodied in S. 207 are built on success stories like
these.
Manufacturers have pointed out that in order to introduce new
technologies that cost more and that are perceived to be risky, they
need the assurance that the same product can be sold throughout the
country and that the financial incentives will be available for enough
time to make it worth investing in production. S. 207 does this by
providing nationally uniform performance targets for buildings and
equipment that will be eligible for tax incentives for 6 full years.
When the public interest community first began discussions with
your staff, Senator Smith, and with committee staff, over a year ago,
we felt that the approach that has been embodied into S. 207 was simply
good economic and environmental policy: a Government action that could
promote economic growth and protect the environment at the same time.
Subsequently, we have seen how this bill could be the major part of a
solution to some very real economic and environmental problems
associated with energy that have emerged over the past 2 years.
Let's start with the problem of electric reliability. Not only in
California and the West, but here in New Hampshire as well, we are
facing the risk of electrical blackouts and/or excessively high
electricity prices this summer and next. Regions that are confronting
these problems are trying to move forward aggressively both on energy
efficiency programs and on power plant construction. But the lead times
for most actions on the supply side are far too long to provide a
solution. And demand-side approaches attempted on a State-by-State
level are much less effective than coordinated national activities.
Here, S. 207 could be a critical piece of a national solution. Air
conditioners, for example, represent about 30 percent of summertime
peak electric loads. Air conditioners that use a third less power can
be purchased today, but they are not produced in large enough
quantities to make a difference to peak load. If incentives are made
available, manufacturers could begin to mass-produce these products in
a matter of months, not years. Mass production and increased
competition for tax incentives will drive prices sharply lower, so the
incentives will be self-sustaining in the long-term. And with 5 million
air conditioners being sold every year, a sudden increase in energy
efficiency could have a significant effect in balancing electricity
supply and demand even after less than a year.
Another peak power efficiency measure with a very short lead time
is installing energy-efficient lighting systems--either new or
retrofit--in commercial buildings. Some 15 percent of electrical peak
power results from lighting in commercial buildings. Efficient
installations, such as those NRDC designed and installed in our own
four offices, can cut peak power demand by over two-thirds while
improving lighting quality. Lighting systems are designed and installed
with a lead time of months, so incentives for efficient lightings as
provided in S. 207 could begin to mitigate electric reliability
problems as soon as next summer.
The second major new problem is the skyrocketing cost of natural
gas, which caused heating bills throughout the country to increase last
winter. Improved energy efficiency can cut gas use for the major uses--
heating and water heating--by 30 percent-50 percent. Much of this
potential could be achieved in the short term, because water heaters
need replacement about every 10 years, and are the second largest user
of natural gas in a typical household (and largest gas user in
households living in efficient homes or in warm areas).
These types of quick-acting incentives help consumers in two
different ways: first, they provide new choices that are not now
available in practice for families and businesses that want to cut
their own energy costs while obtaining tax relief. But they also help
the non-participants, because reduced demand cuts prices for everyone.
A comprehensive energy policy aimed at minimizing the cost and
environmental impacts of providing energy services for a growing
economy should, we believe, be a consensus goal. While we do not yet
know what the full set of measures that would be contained in a
national energy plan based on least-cost are, and thus, do not yet know
the full range of policy measures that would be needed to achieve such
a vision, it is evident that energy efficiency will play a more
important role in the next 30 years as it has in the past 30, when it
was the Nation's largest source of new energy.
We also know that today's energy efficiency policies, relying
primarily on efficiency regulations at the State and Federal levels and
on regionally based economic incentives, are not sufficient to achieve
the least-cost goal. At least one missing piece of the policy mix is
the provision of long-term, nationally uniform incentives for quantum
leaps forward in technology.
The Smith Bill, S. 207, fills this gap for energy uses exceeding a
third of the Nation's entire energy consumption, and an even higher
fraction of its energy bill.
__________
Statement of Tom Kelly, Ph.D., Director, Office of Sustainability
Programs, University of New Hampshire
I would like to thank you and your staff for the opportunity to
testify at today's hearing. I last had the opportunity to speak to you
on the general subject of technology and the environment at a
roundtable on biotechnology and agriculture here in New Hampshire last
fall. Today, as then, I speak to you not as an expert on technology of
any type, but as an educator charged with integrating sustainability
into all aspects of the University of New Hampshire. My testimony
reflects the assumption that the key link between technological
potential and sustainability is education and governance, or
legislation.
The role of sustainability at UNH is to collaborate with the rest
of the university to ensure that all graduates develop the moral
character and skills to advance sustainability in their civic and
professional lives. At one level we think of sustainability as the
balancing of economic viability with ecological health and human well
being. But at a more fundamental level, we build our program on the
premise that sustainability is about that which sustains us as human
beings situated in a concrete and complex world where culture and
nature are inseparable. In this view of sustainability, a strong sense
of community identity and purpose grounded in a reasoned conception of
``the good life'' are on equal footing with clean air and water and
healthy, productive soils.
I would like to offer an educator's perspective on the focus of
today's hearing, innovative environmental technology, and respectfully
suggest some specific legislative actions in support of innovative
educational initiatives related to energy and technology. These
examples envision university campuses brimming with alternatives to
reckless consumption levels of non-renewable energy. Such a learning
environment will advance the goal of balancing economic viability with
ecological health and human well being for current and future
generations through innovative educational initiatives related to
energy and technology. These examples also reflect an institutional
view of society in which the public good can only be achieved if each
institution does its job: government governs, education educates.
One of the fundamental jobs of education is to develop a historical
consciousness or sense of history in all learners. The civic importance
of this aspect of education's job is etched in stone on the face of the
National Archives: ``What is past is Prologue.'' There are at least two
ways to interpret this phrase. One is practical advice that individuals
and institutions will act in the future as they have in the past. As an
educator, I also view it as the kind of warning and expression of hope
given to us by the philosopher George Santayana: ``those who ignore the
past are condemned to repeat it.'' Santayana's guidance is full of
possibilities because it proceeds from the premise that human beings
have the ability to learn, which means the ability to distinguish good
from evil and right from wrong in pursuit of the common good, and to
act on those judgments.
Now how does this bear on today's hearing? We all recognize that
this is not the first time that we as a Nation have focused our
attention on the need to consume less energy and the role of technology
in achieving that goal. The oil shocks of the 1970s gave rise to a
remarkable effort to harmonize the resources of government, education
and a genuine entrepreneurial spirit in the area of renewable energy.
Indeed, many of the technologies represented at today's hearing were
the focus of intense experimentation in research and development as
well as small-scale applications at that time. But as writers on this
period of our history have noted, ``faith [in grassroots efforts to
advance renewable energy] without capital was handicapped.''
Recognition of that political fact eventually led to the establishment
of the Federal Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI). But the fact
that we are here 25 years later still talking about the promise rather
than the accomplishments of these technologies indicates that something
went wrong. The fate of those efforts is well documented and is
important to review carefully unless we want to be here in 2025 asking
the same questions.
A review of the history of those efforts teaches that technological
potential to advance the public good can be blocked by economic
interests working through the political process; or perhaps more
starkly stated, by greed corrupting governance. This is hardly a
provocative statement in our current culture of cynicism about
politics, but it is and should be educationally provocative and should
therefore excite a sense of urgency and resolve to ensure that
education is doing its job.
So where do we begin? From an educational perspective we begin with
priorities and the way we frame the challenges we face and the means we
employ to address them. With respect to innovative environmental
technology we must shift the focus from consumers choice, efficiency,
business and the economy to citizen participation, justice, governance
and the polity. The economy is a subset of the polity, not the other
way around. It is important to remember that the most powerful and
effective force for sustaining the environmental foundation of human
health and well being in the epoch of the oil shocks was not business,
technology or the economy. The National Environmental Policy Act and
the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts among many others resulted from
engaged citizenship, not consumer choice; and this engaged citizenship
was concerned with the knowledge of science and its moral application.
Twenty-Five years later we have the luxury of questioning the continued
effectiveness of such legislation, but only because it was successful.
We also begin at home, which for the University of New Hampshire
means our Durham Campus. Some 25 years ago an event known as the battle
of Durham took place amidst the energy shocks. As in the case of
Federal environmental legislation, it is because of engaged citizens,
not satisfied consumers, that we today enjoy the Great Bay Estuary, one
of the most unique estuarine habitats in the world that provides
invaluable ecological services and a serene beauty that defines our
sense of place. Were it not for the efforts of those citizens, we might
have had one of the world's largest oil refineries rather than a
Reserve protected with the help of Federal legislation. The Office of
Sustainability Programs is working with many others on this campus and
in the town of Durham to bring that story to life for all current and
future members of this community.
But notwithstanding that victory and the wonderful legacy of the
Great Bay Estuary, there is a great deal of work left to do: as noted
above, today's hearing is picking up a conversation that was
interrupted by a lapse in education and governance over the last 25
years. Toward that end, the University of New Hampshire established the
Office of Sustainability Programs (OSP) in 1997 to develop a
university-wide education program and projects that integrate
sustainability practices across all facets of the university including
teaching, research and public service.
OSP collaborates with faculty, administrators, staff and students
to link the emerging principles, science and institutional practices of
sustainability to student and professional development. OSP sponsored
projects link curriculum and research development, campus environmental
practices and partnerships with local, regional and international
communities. Project areas include initiatives in climate education;
biodiversity education; food and society; and, culture and
sustainability.
The Climate Education Initiative, which relates most directly to
today's hearing, includes projects addressing global change,
transportation, energy and sustainable building design and construction
standards. A sampling of current programs includes:
<bullet> A unique general education course on Global Environmental
Change in collaboration with UNH's Climate Change Research Center at
the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space. Faculty and
staff from across the university as well as external stakeholders are
involved in teaching students about the complexities of global change.
After studying the latest trends and findings in climate and earth
system science, students undertake the ``search for sustainability'' in
which they link science and public policy through negotiating
greenhouse gas reduction policies at UNH in order to meet the goals of
the Kyoto Protocol;
<bullet> Developing a Transportation Demand Management Program
(TDM) for the University in coordination with surrounding towns and
agencies in the Seacoast region. The proposed TDM reduces air pollution
and greenhouse gas emissions linked to global climate change by
increasing access and mobility through public transportation and other
alternative modes while reducing the number of single occupancy
vehicles on campus and parking subsidies. Alternative modes include
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure such as the UNH Yellow Bike
Cooperative, car and van pooling, as well as scheduling, affordable
housing and telecommuting;
<bullet> A Sustainable Building, Design and Construction Standards
initiative that builds on existing university resources to support
research, pilot projects professional development, and university
standards. In addition to direct application on campus, the knowledge
generated by this project is being shared with New Hampshire schools,
State offices and professional associations;
<bullet> The museum-quality ``Promise of the Sun,'' an interactive
educational exhibit in UNH's Memorial Union Building that links a
demonstration solar array on the roof of the student union to a
panoramic exploration of the cultural, technological and political
aspects of energy choices. The exhibit involves faculty from across the
university representing disciplines such as mechanical engineering,
classics, art history, history, environmental policy and space science
and is seen by thousands of visitors daily.
<bullet> Just last week we completed the first of its kind in the
Nation greenhouse gas inventory for our campus. Through a partnership
with the Portsmouth, New Hampshire-based non-profit Clean Air Cool
Planet (CACP) we develop a methodology to complete an inventory of our
campus emissions each year from 1990-2000. That methodology is already
being shared with other campuses across the New England Region through
our CACP collaboration. With the completion of the inventory, we now
have the basis for setting emission targets and timelines and to
develop and implement a strategic plan to meet those targets. This
effort will involve all members of the UNH community under our Climate
Education Initiative and will touch all parts of the university.
I began this testimony with the assumption that the key link
between technological potential and sustainability is education and
governance. Based upon our work at UNH, I would like to offer some
specific and practical examples of initiatives on this campus that
could be supported through legislation that would make a significant
contribution to our educational mission and therefore to the public
good in the area of energy and environment. These examples integrate
innovative environmental technology into the learning environment where
direct experience can be gained by students, faculty, and all members
of the university community. By linking these demonstration projects to
teaching, research and public service activities, innovative
technologies are placed in their political context where the public
good can be protected and nurtured.
1. Demonstration Fuel Cell/Gas Turbine Co-generation Project ($10
million).--Support for the incremental cost of incorporating a 1 MW
Fuel Cell into the university's proposed gas-turbine co-generation
power plant. This demonstration project will support comparative study
by undergraduate and graduate students in engineering, economics and
public policy of the sustainability of Fuel Cell and Gas Turbine co-
generation technologies. Studies will also include capture and reuse
strategies of the water byproduct of the Fuel Cell technology. Total
cost of the 1 MW Fuel Cell and 9 MW Gas Turbine co-generation plant is
$21 million.
2. Community Alternative Energy Assessment ($300,000).--Support for
a campus-wide alternative energy assessment that will identify high
impact opportunities for employing a wide range of technologies to
enhance energy efficiency. Examples include: co-generation, methane
digesters, ice storage, fuel cells, and geo-thermal among others.
Special consideration will be given to passive and active solar
applications to address the structural disincentives that continue to
retard the development of this crucial renewable energy source for
sustainability. The assessment would serve as the next phase of a
Climate Education Initiative greenhouse gas reduction program that has
recently complete an inventory of UNH's greenhouse gas emissions each
year from 1990-2000. In addition to identifying energy efficiency
projects, the Community Alternative Energy Assessment will as a tool
for development of a strategic plan to achieve emission reductions
targets.
3. Alternative Fuel Shuttle Vehicles ($150,000).--As part of its
Transportation Demand Management Program, UNH will incorporate 3 small
to medium size alternative fuel transit buses carrying 14-18 passengers
into its shuttle system. The shuttles will transport community members
and visitors from remote parking and the surrounding community as part
of its shuttle system. In addition to educating riders about energy
efficiency opportunities of alternative fuel vehicles, the shuttle
system will reduce campus congestion and air contamination and provide
students with case studies for analyzing the energy and air quality
benefits of this new technology.
4. Phase I Vehicle Fleet Upgrade Project ($1 million).--As part of
its Climate Education Initiative, UNH would like to upgrade at least 50
percent of its fleet to alternatively fueled vehicles over the next 5-
10 years. UNH has 248 vehicles in its fleet. Phase I target of this
effort is to have 50 alternative fuel vehicles by 2005. This fleet
upgrade would provide undergraduate and graduate students with case
studies for analyzing the energy and air quality benefits of this new
technology.
5. Alternative Fuel Vehicles for Car Sharing Program ($75,000).--As
part of its Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program UNH will
develop an alternative fuel car sharing program for the campus
community. The proposed program would begin with 3 vehicles and would
accomplish at lest three important objectives: (1) it would provide
visibility as well as direct experience with alternative fuel vehicles
for a wide range of faculty, staff and students; (2) the car share
program would support TDM policy goals of reducing single occupancy
vehicle trips to campus by ensuring the availability of emergency
transportation and other unanticipated travel for faculty, staff and
students that do not have cars on campus and (3) allow a wide range of
faculty, staff and students to experience car sharing program's
demonstrated ability to reduce individual demand for driving without a
perceived loss of mobility.
6. Sustainable School Design Institute ($5 million/$1 mill per year
x5).--As part of the UNH Office of Sustainability Programs, the
Sustainable School Design Institute will bring together leading
professionals from the fields of architecture, engineering,
occupational and public health, materials science, ecology and
education to conduct research, teaching and outreach to the New
Hampshire and New England communities, professional associations and
businesses to ensure that our schools embody the best of sustainable
design to provide healthy, productive learning environments.
7. Methane Digester for Agricultural Energy Needs ($1 million).--
Demonstration project of converting dairy herd manure to methane gas as
a fuel for power use that can reduce odor pollution and facilitate
nutrient cycling and reduce dry matter for compost use. This technology
will also facilitate research for concentrated liquid to be further
broken down into dry matter for productive use as soil amendments. In
conclusion, I would like to emphasize that technological potential, and
particular technologies, are only part of a solution to the problems we
face. Efficiency is a blind principle that tells us nothing about where
we ought to be heading. For example, technology develops and interacts
in an ecology: alternative fuel vehicles serving as part of a car-
sharing program that reduces demand for single occupancy vehicles makes
perfect sense. Alternative fuel vehicles simply replacing less
efficient single occupancy vehicles will continue to drive sprawl and
other land use changes and settlement patterns that undermine
sustainability. Our role as educators is to ensure that the full
knowledge we have and develop of our concrete and complex world is
applied to the judgments and actions we take in the area of energy and
the environment.
Again, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Senator Smith
and the other members and staff of the Environment and Public Works
Committee for the opportunity to testify.
Statement of Cass Andary, Director, Regulatory Programs, Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
Good Morning, my name is Cass Andary. I am Director of Regulatory
Programs at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The Alliance is a
trade association of 13 automobile manufacturers representing over 90
percent of U.S. vehicle sales.
The auto industry in the United States is proud of not only its
contributions to advanced technology, but also to its contributions to
the U.S. economy. In a recent report,\1\ researchers associated with
the University of Michigan concluded that the automotive industry
produces a higher level of output in the United States than any other
single industry. Notably, U.S. motor vehicle output represented 3.7
percent of the United States gross domestic product in 1999. Many of
the jobs provided by the industry are high skill jobs paying well above
industry average--the average job in the automotive manufacturing
sector was compensated at a level 73 percent higher than the average
U.S. job.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Contribution of the Automotive Industry to the U.S. Economy in
1998: The Nation and Its Fifty States. Prepared for the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. and the Association of International
Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. by the Institute of Labor and Industrial
Relations, University of Michigan, the Office for the Study of
Automotive Transportation, University of Michigan Transportation
Research Institute, and the Center for Automotive Research,
Environmental Research Institute of Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motor vehicle industry is one of the most technologically
advanced industries in the world. Our designers use state-of-the-art
computer design, our manufacturing facilities are some of the most
complex and technologically advanced in existence, and our vehicles are
probably the most complex and advanced consumer product sold on the
market today.
The industry has reached levels of emission control and vehicle
safety today never anticipated in the past using computer controlled
fuel injection and advanced catalyst systems to control exhaust
emissions. For safety, manufacturers have installed sophisticated air
bag supplemental systems, collapsing steering wheels, seat belt
pretensioners and many other advanced technologies to help save lives.
However, our quest for even better vehicles never ends. Alliance
members continue to push new technology to further improve the
environmental footprint of our vehicles.
First, let me point out how far we have come in controlling exhaust
emissions from the traditional gasoline-fueled vehicle. For the new
Federal emission standards that take effect in the 2004 model year, the
industry will be meeting standards that represent a 99 percent control
level for hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, the two main precursors to
ozone or smog. Moreover, cars and light trucks will have to meet the
same emission standards as part of these new regulations.
Member companies of the Alliance have invested billions of dollars
in research and development. These companies are working to bring
cutting-edge technologies--alternative fuels, hybrid electric, electric
and fuel cell vehicles--to the marketplace.
Let me talk a bit about the new types of vehicles that the industry
is busy working on today. The industry has long been active in
exploring alternative fuels. Manufacturers make vehicles available that
run on CNG and LPG, and others that can run on either gasoline or a
mixture of fuel containing 85 percent ethanol.
A new technology that has recently appeared on the market is a
hybrid-electric vehicle. Both Toyota and Honda have a vehicle selling
today, and Ford, GM and DaimlerChrysler have vehicles ready to
introduce in the next few years. This technology combines both a
traditional engine with electric motors and a small battery pack giving
the vehicle two sources of power for the vehicle. Sophisticated
computer control logic shuts off the engine when possible, letting the
vehicle run in electric mode, and then restarts the engine when needed.
We have also invested a lot of time and money in battery-powered
electric vehicles (BEVs), mostly due to a regulatory requirement in
California for these vehicles. The Alliance does not believe that
battery-electric vehicles can ever become mainstream vehicles that
would replace today's gasoline-fueled vehicle, but there may be market
niches where some of the smaller BEVs can be sold.
The entire industry is working feverishly to develop commercially
viable vehicles powered by fuel cells. You will recall that fuel cells
were used in the early U.S. space program. The industry is working hard
to reduce the cost of the fuel cell while improving its performance so
that it can replace the traditional gasoline-fueled engine we have
today. Fuel cells offer the promise of zero emissions, with a vehicle
that can also meet all other customer needs and expectations. Many
manufacturers are part of the California Fuel Cell Partnership, along
with the California Air Resources Board and a number of Federal
agencies. This partnership is working hard to develop both fuel cell
vehicles and the necessary fueling infrastructure.
This industry is committed to continuing to push technology even
further year by year, constantly improving the product, while
continuing to meet the transportation needs of the public. We believe
further that pursuing these goals should lead to consideration of more
broadly defined programs (i.e., beyond the new vehicle transportation
sector). All energy users and producers should be integrated in a
comprehensive national energy strategy to achieve fuel savings with
economic efficiency.
In addition, we believe that the costs of more expensive
technologies are a deterrent to the market. In order to expand the use
of these advanced technologies, tax credits and incentives for advanced
technology vehicles [and vehicles which demonstrate significantly
higher efficiencies] are necessary. Such incentives will speed
acceptance and promote market forces that will make advanced
technologies less cost prohibitive.
Finally, we observe that, as in all industries, both capital and
human resources are finite, and are most efficiently deployed in
response to market forces. Commitment schedules for capital spending,
vehicle model renewals, and powertrain longevity can range from 5-10
plus years. Over the past 10 years the industry has clearly
demonstrated that when resources can be shifted from continual
incremental regulatory compliance pressures, the industry can and will
undertake major research and development programs aimed at significant
long-term energy efficiency. Clear examples are the development of
hybrid electric powertrains, and the continuing investment in fuel cell
systems. The commitment to market-driven advanced technology
development is clearly demonstrated by these programs, which have
little potential to produce sufficient sales volumes to impact CAFE
within the next 5-10 years.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and I would be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
__________
Statement of Roy Gat, Ph.D., Advanced Electron Beams, Inc.
Chairman James M. Jeffords, Senator Bob Smith, and Members of the
Committee: Good afternoon esteemed Members of the U.S. Senate
Committee, my name is Roy Gat. I come today to present a technology
that will finally put an end to the familiar eye irritation and choking
feeling we experience as clouds of poisonous gas exhausts from the bus
or diesel truck just ahead of us.
introduction
In Japan and China, powerful electron beams installed in power
plants are utilized to convert tons of hazardous NO<INF>x</INF> and
SO<INF>x</INF> emissions per day into useful fertilizers. Reductions of
over 95 percent SO<INF>x</INF> and 80 percent NO<INF>x</INF> are
achieved. Advanced Electron Beam Inc (AEB), Wilmington, MA developed a
much smaller electron beam source. This source enables viable
destruction of hazardous gases from smaller polluters collectively
known as area polluters. Area polluters are those pollution sources
that are too small or numerous to be inventoried individually. These
polluters include diesel trucks, off road equipment, marine vessels,
smaller boilers, heaters and turbines. These polluters together account
for the vast majority of air pollution and have traditionally been the
toughest challenge in the fight against air pollution. They are used in
almost all industrial and consumer sectors including power generation,
heating, transportation, cement, glass, steel, copper, paper
manufacturing, hospitals, schools and homes. An important advantage of
electron beam technology is that it simultaneously reduces
NO<INF>x</INF>, SO<INF>x</INF> and VOC compounds, thereby eliminating
the precursors of smog and acid rain. If adopted, the positive impact
of this technology on our environment and quality of life would be
dramatic and long lasting. I will briefly describe the technology, the
impact of its adoption on air pollution and the possible government
role in accelerating its acceptance.
the technology
In the early 1940s, microwave generators were very bulky and
expensive. They were exclusively used in military radars. In the mid
1940s, Dr. Spencer of Raytheon developed a magnetron tube that made
possible a much more compact microwave generator. The results of this
invention are well known and spectacular. The smaller size and price
tag enabled the application of microwaves in a broad array of
industrial and consumer uses from cooking to semiconductor
manufacturing.
Electron beams are well known to science to be an energy efficient
technique to destroy NO<INF>x</INF>, SO<INF>x</INF>, and VOC's
pollutants. Traditionally, generation of electron beams requires bulky
and expensive equipment. This equipment is notoriously hard to maintain
and operate, requiring energy guzzling pumps and technicians highly
trained in ultrahigh vacuum, and high voltage technologies. Thus far,
electron beams have been limited to reducing pollution from large power
plants where the high capital equipment costs of the systems can be
averaged over very high throughputs.
In contrast, AEB developed an electron beam tube that is smaller,
affordable and requires no pumping or maintenance in the field. Tube
replacement requires about as much expertise as replacing a light bulb.
In analogy to the invention of the compact microwave generator, AEB's
electron beam product enables cost effective effluent reduction for
area polluters.
environmental impact
Using only 1 percent of the polluters energy output to power the
electron beam results in reduction of 95 percent in SO<INF>x</INF>
emissions and 80 percent in NO<INF>x</INF> emissions. Concurrent
reductions in VOC's also occur and vary in amount depending on the
chemical species. Values of over 90 percent have been measured for TCE.
For example, the NO<INF>x</INF> and SO<INF>x</INF> emission from a
diesel truck will be mostly eliminated by an electron beam device.
There will be approximately 1 percent reduction in the truck gas
mileage.
Area sources comprise 65 percent of all NO<INF>x</INF> emission in
the USA. Broad application of electron beam technology would result in
a reduction of approximately 12,000,000 tons/yr of NO<INF>x</INF> and
2,000,000 tons/yr of SO<INF>x</INF>. According to EPA analysis, in the
case of diesel fuel related pollution alone, this magnitude reduction
in SO<INF>x</INF> is equivalent to removing 13,000,000 trucks off the
roads saving 8,000 lives, and preventing 360,000 asthma attacks.
regulatory implications
The Senate can accelerate reduction of harmful pollutants by
requiring the EPA to review electron beam cost effectiveness
specifically in the reduction of NO<INF>x</INF>, SO<INF>x</INF> and
VOCs from area polluters. Electron beam technology has not yet been
evaluated by the EPA and yet electron beams are a formidable weapon in
the fight against pollution.
The costs of ownership of the electron beam technology are limited
to capital costs and maintenance costs. The maintenance costs are small
and could be partially offset by sales of fertilizer produced by the
NO<INF>x</INF> and SO<INF>x</INF> reduction reactions. The government
can propel the implementation of this technology by providing tax
credits for the first year of purchase of electron beam systems. The
credits will help increase initial demand for the systems so that mass
production of these systems becomes viable faster. This tax credit will
therefore leverage accelerated pollution control and the resulting
important health and environmental benefits.
__________
Statement of Filson H. Glanz, Professor Emeritus of Electrical
Engineering, University of New Hampshire
There is so much that we could be doing to relieve our energy
problems; and we will in the future undoubtedly be much harder pressed
than we are now. When a billion or so Chinese start driving
automobiles, the demand for increasingly scarce oil will drive the
price well beyond today's high prices. Using more oil and coal are
environmentally destructive and only temporary solutions. We, as a
Nation, must do all the research we can to improve energy efficiency,
come up with sustainable energy sources (such as solar, wind, ocean
wave, bio fuel, etc.) and innovative technologies that use these
sources. It makes no sense to cut back research funds for these types
of energy programs as the President's budget calls for. If we had put
as much into these renewable technologies as we have put into tax
breaks and subsidies for coal and oil, we would now be benefiting from
their use.
There was at the hearing some discussion of short term and long-
term energy needs and the different approaches needed to solve both
types. This is clearly the case. But all long-term energy needs become
short-term needs if inappropriate solutions are followed. I well
remember, as most of you surely do also, the 1974 embargo on oil and
the problems we faced then. We made some amazing progress toward energy
efficiency and alternative energy in the years thereafter.
Unfortunately, about 1980 a new Administration killed the programs
spawned by this emergency and since the problem was past, all memory
was lost. But if, for example, we had put in appropriate national
building regulations at that time, our energy dependency on foreign oil
would be considerably different.
Even in New Hampshire a building with some thermal mass and the
correct solar orientation and fenestration would use less than half the
energy of a standard equivalent building. This is well documented. And
the cost is almost the same.
The large number of new homes and buildings constructed since say
1980, and the fact that most places in the United States could save
well more than 50 percent on heating energy, means that we could be
saving great amounts of energy with the nice consequence that heating
bills would be lower, the air cleaner and our oil dependency much less.
Add to this that if CAFE standards had been followed as originally
intended--our total energy picture would be very rosy! It is my belief
that the American people and history should hold administrations and
public officials accountable for NOT planning consistently for future
energy independence! But at least we have to opportunity right now to
start preparing for the long term (which will be short term soon
enough!). Many of the technologies discussed in the hearing do just
that. But other technologies can also contribute such as passive solar
heating of space, solar heating of water, day lighting of buildings,
natural convective cooling, and so forth, all of which are well
understood and economically beneficial besides being environmentally
beneficial. But they need exposure to everyday Americans by public
officials.
In summary, we cannot afford to ignore the environmental and energy
problems that we have created by our lack of public resolve. We must
solve them in a way that leaves our future generations a livable
country/world and the resources they will need to have a healthy and
satisfying life.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement.
__________
Statement of Rone Lewis III, Senior Vice President, Ingersoll-Rand (IR)
and President of IR's Independent Power Sector
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit for the Senate
Environment and Public Works hearing record my testimony on the role of
microturbine technology and distributed power generation in addressing
America's growing energy crisis.
First, let me begin by giving you some background information on
Ingersoll-Rand and its Independent Power Sector. Ingersoll-Rand is an
$8.8 billion company with more than 50,000 employees operating in over
100 countries. We serve four major global markets: climate control,
industrial productivity, infrastructure and security and safety. In the
area of Industrial Productivity, I am President of IR's Independent
Power sector, which focuses on identifying, developing and marketing
alternative-power and energy-management solutions.
As you may be aware, Chairman Smith and Members of the committee, a
new type of electrical generator, called a microturbine, is rapidly
becoming available to fit the electricity and heating needs of typical
commercial buildings and industrial plants. About the size of a
commercial refrigerator, microturbines hold great promise in supplying
America's facilities with reliable and affordable power.
Microturbines are small combustion turbines that produce anywhere
from 25 to 500 kilowatts of electric power. They burn a variety of
fuels such as natural gas or diesel to produce the same kind of
electricity provided by a utility electrical grid. Because the gas
turbine engine has relatively few moving parts, it is quite reliable
and can operate for long periods--typically 8,000 hours or more--with
little maintenance. Microturbines produce very low emissions as they
burn fuel. They are designed to easily meet stringent environmental
regulations, including California's strict emission standards.
Microturbines are also relatively quiet emitting low noise levels.
Our PowerWorks brand of microturbines, which has been in
development for more than 10 years, is coming to market this fall. The
headquarters for the engineering and manufacturing of the PowerWorks
microturbine is located in Portsmouth, NH, on the former Pease Air
Force Base.
These microturbines, which will provide 70 kilowatts of energy to
customers, are designed to be placed in or near facilities such as
hotels, supermarkets, hospitals, laundries, multi-family dwellings,
schools and greenhouses, to name a few. These are locations that need a
reliable, cost-effective and efficient energy source for electricity
and heat.
A $1.4 million research grant from the U.S. Department of Energy
contributed to the development of the PowerWorks microturbine, which is
designed to meet the same high standards found in chillers, boilers and
furnaces. Our microturbines are manufactured to operate for
approximately 10 years under typical operating conditions. Through
their cogeneration capability, the PowerWorks microturbines can also
fulfill a facility's hot water and other heating requirements.
PowerWorks connects directly to the electrical distribution system
of a facility to provide high quality electricity. Our microturbines
work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for long periods with low
maintenance. Designed to help satisfy electric power needs by producing
electricity at the point of consumption, the PowerWorks microturbine
also supports peak shaving applications. This means that microturbines
can enable businesses and consumers to reduce their reliance on the
power grid, especially during costly peak use hours.
IR began the field-testing phase of its microturbine development
program last fall in several kinds of facilities located throughout the
United States. We plan to introduce our first commercial production
units in the second half of 2001.
There is no argument that this country's need for this type of
energy is increasing at a steady rate. California's energy crisis
underscores the need for increased energy efficiency, cleaner
technologies and more reliable production. Deregulation, volatile
energy pricing and tighter emission regulations have all prompted an
interest in energy alternatives, such as ``green'' technologies like
the microturbines. And there is probably no better way to get reliable
and affordable energy than from your own, onsite generating equipment.
Distributed energy holds great promise in the United States for
improving the generation of electricity. The report released recently
by Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force revealed that this
Administration is committed to the use of renewable and alternative
energy, and specifically that ``microturbines could easily capture a
significant share of the distributed generation market.''
Furthermore, the Cheney Report was absolutely accurate in noting
several challenges to the use of distributed energy. First, there is a
lack of national, uniform standards governing interconnection of
distributed energy to the local power grids, which is hampering the
roll-out of the technology into the local marketplace. The microturbine
industry needs a consistent, reliable process for grid interconnection
approval that focuses on practical and cost effective safety
requirements; a timely approval process that prevents foot dragging on
distributed power projects; and no punitive charges from the utility
for either disconnecting from the grid or using the grid as a backup.
The industry is also interested in support for selling unused power
back to the power grid.
Long-standing regulatory policies that support monopoly supplies
also must be reversed. This will increase competition, and encourage
the development and environmentally friendly alternative energy
technologies. The Cheney Report correctly states, ``The tools that form
the necessary interface between distributed energy systems and the grid
need to be less expensive, faster, more reliable and more compact.''
We are pleased that the report recommends that the President direct
Energy Secretary Abraham to focus R&D efforts on integrating current
alternative technology programs regarding distributed energy, hydrogen
and fuel cells. Fuel cell technology is of particular interest to IR
because several of our industrial products currently utilize diesel
engines. Fuel cell technology promises a more environmentally sound
alternative and continued Federal research programs can accelerate the
development of these programs.
All developers of microturbine technology would be interested in
congressional and Administration support for tax credits for companies
who install or use microturbine technology. Tax credits are essential
to helping businesses finance their utilization of this technology,
just as they have with other alternative energy sources, such as solar
power. In addition, continued investment in our nation's natural gas
infrastructure will help to ensure that a ready supply of natural gas
is available.
We look forward to working with the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee, the rest of the Congress, and the Bush Administration
to develop the necessary regulatory and legislative support that would
make power from microturbine technology more readily available. We
believe that once the technical, business and regulatory barriers are
removed, distributed power generation will be able to fulfill its
promise to America.
Thank you.
__________
Public Service of New Hampshire,
June 11, 2001.
Hon. Bob Smith,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: Representatives of Public Service of New
Hampshire recently attended the U.S. Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee's field hearing which you hosted in Durham, New
Hampshire on innovative environmental and energy technologies. PSNH
appreciates the opportunity to attend such an informative and
interesting hearing in New Hampshire. On behalf of PSNH, I would like
to submit the following comments for your consideration.
As you know, PSNH owns and operates three fossil-fuel electric
generation facilities in New Hampshire. During the last decade, PSNH
has spent more than $100 million on environmental initiatives and has
substantially reduced emissions from its fossil-fuel generating
stations. In a continuing effort to further economically reduce
emissions, PSNH is paying close attention to the development of several
innovative environmental technologies, among them Power Span's Electro-
Catalytic Oxidation (ECO).
Power Span's ECO technology is in a research/development/test mode
and, if proven to be feasible, has some promise to achieve substantial
emissions reductions from coal-fired electric generation facilities.
Power Span's projection is for ECO to be a very cost effective solution
to the multi-pollutant question. If proven true, ECO would be a
welcomed new technology in the utility industry. However, neither the
first pilot project conducted at FirstEnergy's R.E. Burger plant nor
the second demonstration scheduled to be completed at FirstEnergy's
Eastlake plant are full scale demonstration projects. Both of these
trials involve a limited quantity ``slip stream'' and control emissions
from only a small portion of the total boiler flue gas. PSNH
understands that testing of new, unproven, innovative technology
typically is done in stages, however, we believe that the satisfactory
full scale operation of control technology is important prior to that
technology being considered ``commercially available'' and a feasible
technology for the industry at large. PSNH remains interested in seeing
a full scale testing of the ECO to demonstrate its feasibility before
it is considered an industry standard.
PSNH is encouraged that new emission control technologies are being
explored and is hopeful that full scale test results will match the
initial results of the ECO trial as reported by Power Span. PSNH is
also encouraged by the findings of EPA's 1999 Information Collection
Request which indicate that reductions in mercury emissions are being
achieved by existing control technologies currently in operation at
coal-fired electric generating facilities. PSNH believes that
additional data gathering and analysis of mercury emissions would be
beneficial prior to the implementation of emissions reduction
regulations. Last, we feel future regulatory programs should be
flexible enough to allow utilities to utilize a combination of existing
technologies, and/or innovative technologies, as well as robust market-
based economic incentive programs to achieve the greatest emissions
reductions. PSNH is strongly in favor of market-based trading programs
in that they economically achieve real reductions.
PSNH also believes that the continued Federal funding of innovative
emission control technologies and demonstration projects is crucial.
This funding is especially important considering that, in many
instances, forward looking environmental regulations are adopted and
implementation schedules are established based on the promise of
developing, unproven technologies. A critical success factor lies in
commercial viability and availability of these technologies to the
utility industry. PSNH urges that the compliance deadlines established
under new emissions reductions requirements be at reasonable future
dates such that developing technologies can be perfected and proven in
full-scale commercial applications, for the benefit of all.
Thank you for conducting a field hearing in New Hampshire and
providing PSNH with the opportunity to comment on this important issue.
I appreciate your continued interest and efforts relative to energy and
environmental issues.
Sincerely,
Gary Long,
President and Chief Operating Officer.
__________
Briefing Papers Submitted by Dr. Theodore C. Loder III, Institute for
the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire
``OUTSIDE-THE-BOX'' Technologies, Their Critical Role Concerning
Environmental Trends, and the Unnecessary Energy Crisis
Background to the Briefing
the issues
Our present methods for solving current environmental problems are
only partially working, because they attempt to solve the result of a
problem and not get to the root causes of why a particular problem has
occurred. Most of our problems stem from energy issues and our
tremendous dependence upon fossil fuels, especially in the
transportation and power generation sectors. In addition, increasing
populations worldwide and the desires of Second and Third World
countries to obtain what we in the United States take for granted
spells increasing worldwide environmental problems coupled with
significantly increased oil/gas prices. In summary, the risks
associated with our present course are ever-increased environmental
degradation coupled with a significant long lasting economic downturn,
recession or depression.
As a world community, we must realize that we will need the last
remaining decades of fossil fuels to create and integrate new energy
sources without losing the momentum of our developing world society. In
10-20 years from now, we have to be at a point in our global
development where we are no longer dependant on fossil fuels for our
energy generation and we want to arrive there by a route that does not
create global environmental and economic chaos.
the purpose of this briefing was to show that:
1. We have growing environmental problems that will have major
economic impacts.
2. There are technologies, presently being repressed, that are real
and could replace the present fossil fuel usage with the appropriate
investment in research necessary to bring them on line.
3. There are scientists ready to testify at a Senate hearing on the
realities of these issues.
4. The need to move ahead is very urgent because the time necessary
to implement the use of these technologies may take the better part of
this decade and neither the environment nor the economics of fossil
fuels can wait any longer.
The goal is not to push any specific type of technology that will
``save the world'', but to convince those attending that there is a
whole set of new technologies that are waiting in the wings which will
change the way we live on this planet for the better.
the briefing presenters and topics covered included the following:
Dr. Theodore Loder, Convener and overview of the issues and urgency
Dr. Steven Greer, Implications of the implementation of non-
polluting free-energy devices
Mr. Thomas Valone, Present energy issues, energy devices and patent
office issues
Dr. Paul LaViolette, Physics reassessment and anti-gravity research
Dr. Scott Chubb, Cold fusion, scientific responsibility
Dr. Eugene Mallove, Cold fusion, scientific response and patent
office issues
Dr. Thomas Bearden, Physics reassessment, the world energy crisis,
and ``free energy device'' technology
______
``Comparative Risk Issues'' Regarding Present and Future Environmental
Trends.--Why We Need to be Looking Ahead Now!
(By: Dr. Theodore Loder)
introduction
Fundamentally, our present methods for solving current
environmental problems are only partially working, because for the most
part they attempt to solve the result of a problem and not get to the
root causes of why we have a particular problem in the first place. It
is somewhat akin to mopping the floor to fix a leaky roof. Most of our
problems stem from energy issues and our tremendous dependence upon
fossil fuels, especially in the transportation and power generation
sectors. For example, the acid rain problem, unhealthy urban
atmospheres, and global warming all arise from this fossil fuel
dependence. The present MTBE crisis affecting our water supplies is the
result of a well-intentioned attempt to reduce air pollution in
gasoline engines. Each of these issues will continue to have a greater
and greater economic impact on our country through increased cleanup
and health costs.
Why our present course is inadequate--An example from the automotive
sector
A simple analysis of numbers from the automotive sector tells us
why we will continue to have problems (both in the United States and
worldwide) and why small percentage increases in fuel efficiency will
have little real effect in the long run. Increasing populations
worldwide and the desires of Second and Third World countries to have
what we in the United States take for granted spells continuously
increasing environmental problems. For example, by the late 1990s there
were about 500 million cars worldwide with an annual production of a
little less than 40 million. At the present rate of growth, there will
be about 1 billion vehicles worldwide by the year 2025. Presently there
is about one car per 12 people on a global basis and about 1 car per
1.3 people in the United States. Why is this a long-range problem?
As the result of increased global wealth and desire for automobiles
worldwide, no matter what we do to improve efficiency, increases in
carbon dioxide from this source will continue with its attendant global
warming,\1\ etc. Hybrid automobiles could help, but we must look at a
second set of numbers from the United States to understand impacts.
There are over 200 million automobiles in the United States and we
manufacture approximately 20 million per year. Because of the
``replacement lag,'' it would take 10-15 years to replace existing
cars, especially since some production goes toward increasing the pool.
Furthermore, there is a phase-in period for any new technology, the
time needed to go from development to manufacturing to sales. This will
add years to the replacement cycle. Thus, even if we start today,
implementation of a totally non-polluting technology useful for
transportation would take the United States circa 15 years to replace
our present fleet. It could occur faster in Third World countries
because of the technology leapfrog phenomenon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A Rocky Mountain Institute report published on their website at
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid124.asp) states:
Depending on which study you read, 1999 was either the fifth or the
sixth warmest on record globally (1998 was the all-time warmest). Seven
of the ten warmest years since recordkeeping began were in the 1990s,
and analysis of tree rings, ice cores, and so on suggests that the
decade was the warmest of the millennium. A January 2000 National
Academy of Sciences study concluded that ``the warming trend in global-
surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is
undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of
warming during the 20th century.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have similar problems with power generation in the United
States. We have dammed most easily dammable rivers and there is even a
movement to remove some of the dams. Furthermore, it is presently
nearly impossible to build more nuclear power plants and we are
starting to shut some of them down. Changing any of this infrastructure
could take one to two decades as well.
In a world where our petroleum supplies will become scarcer and
more expensive within a few decades or less, we need to start our
planning and acting now.
Where we are heading and the risks of our present course
Under our present direction we are increasing fossil fuel
consumption and commensurate carbon dioxide release at an ever
increasing rate. The risks associated with our present course are both
environmental and economic. There will be seriously increased
degradation of our environment including increased loss of plant and
animal species, increased habitat loss such as rainforests and coral
reefs, increased human suffering through disease and lowering of life
quality, increased global warming\1\ causing major problems through
climate pattern changes and sea level rise with commensurate loss of
high valued coastal real estate. The trends for all these changes can
observed today and all have varying degrees of economic impact.
However, a more direct economic impact, which will be felt by everyone,
is the ultimate decline of ``cheap oil.''
Gregg Esterbrook, in a recent article \2\ discusses the world's
estimated oil reserves. Based on industry estimates, he suggests that
there are estimated ``proven reserves'' of 1,000 billion barrels of oil
which only represents a 25-year supply at our present rate of
consumption with its 2 percent annual increase. He states, ``Whatever
number is correct, the world has decades of oil ahead. What it may not
have is decades of cheap oil. Once the production peak comes and
reserve levels begin to dwindle, the supply/demand equation may shift
quickly toward higher prices. The debate, then, centers on how soon the
peak will be reached.'' Estimates are that the peak will be reached by
2010. At present, the global oil trade depends on OPEC for about 42
percent of its oil consumption which could hit 50 percent by 2009. If
OPEC's reserves turn out to be inflated as some in the industry
believe, then the world oil production peak may occur much sooner with
a subsequent sharp hike in prices. This is just barely within our
timeframework for introducing new technologies if we start now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Esterbrook, Gregg. Hooray for Expensive Oil! Opportunity cost.
New Republic (May 15, 2000), p. 21-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Esterbrook states, ``. . . America has two basic choices:
Begin investing in new energy forms, staying a step ahead of OPEC and
smoothing the likely transition, or wait till the next crunch hits and
accept another oil-induced recession.''
It should be obvious that an essentially permanent hike in oil
prices will have a major economic impact on our country, a country
where 98 percent of food is based on fossil fuels and the average food
travels 1700 miles to the consumer. The slight rise in fuel costs last
winter and the problems truckers had with fuel costs and homeowners had
with heating oil costs are just a glimpse at the issues leading to a
major economic turn down. The ``gas crisis'' in Europe this summer is
also an indicator that these problems are not limited to the United
States.
One can describe our present situation as if the environment and
the world's population were in a barrel on the river heading toward
Niagara Falls. We are starting to hear the roar, but have no idea when
we will get to the edge. With some major rescue efforts we can be
saved, but there will be a point of no return and no one can tell us
when that will be.
In summary, the risks associated with our present course are ever-
increased environmental degradation coupled with a significant long
lasting economic downturn, recession or depression.
As the old Chinese proverb states, ``If we do not change direction,
we will likely end up where we are heading.'' A simple look at the
numbers story tells us that we must change direction dramatically, with
vision and conviction.
As a world community, we must realize that we will need the last
remaining decades of fossil fuels to create and integrate new energy
sources without losing the momentum of our developing world society.
Because the United States is a major user of energy per capita and we
affect environmental issues by both example and laws, we must lead on
these issues.
Where do we want to be in 20-30 years from now as a country and a
world?
We want to be at a point in our global development where we are no
longer dependant on fossil fuels for our energy generation and we want
to arrive there by a route that does not create global environmental
and economic chaos.
How do we get there from here?
Because of the long development, manufacturing and replacement
times needed to replace our present infrastructure we need to start
now. A leading energy intelligence analyst, retired Army Lt. Col. Tom
Bearden wrote me stating that there will be a ``point of no return'' by
about 2003-2005, after which there will be world economic collapse 5
years later when the escalating oil prices have gone through the roof.
He is suggesting that we must have replacement technologies on line on
a very short time scale.
Proposed Step One. Hold a Senate hearing to get the ball rolling.
This will show us that there is a major problem looming on the near
horizon and the witnesses we have will testify to the fact that there
are presently a set of technologies that can help resolve them on a
relatively short time scale.
Proposed Step Two. Once the hearing is held then we move to an
action step. As stated by Lt. Col. Bearden on this subject: In short
the solution to the energy crisis is solvable, permanently, in a rather
straightforward fashion. We need a fine scientific team and a set of
laboratories, working on it in a Manhattan style project, and in 3
years the systems will be ready to roll of the mass assembly lines.
This may need a Presidential Decision Directive and a National
Emergency so the project can utilize whatever is available for quick
development. He may or may not be overly optimistic at this point.
What if we do not act now?
Again Lt. Col. Bearden's comments: ``Make no mistake. This is the
most deadly and certain strategic threat to the United States and the
rest of the world, in all my experience. If we do not solve this energy
problem, and deploy it very, very quickly with a massive effort, then
we will overrun the 2003 ``point of no return'' and, just as an
airplane does when it overruns the point of no return on the runway,
this Nation will be heading for a total crash, as surely as the sun
will rise tomorrow. Yet everywhere one looks, one sees ``business as
usual,'' ``trust us, we know best''. . . .
__________
New Energy Solutions And Implications For The National Security And The
Environment: A Brief Overview for the U.S. Senate
(By: Dr. Steven M. Greer)
The ultimate national security issue is intimately linked to the
pressing environmental crisis facing the world today: The question of
whether humanity can continue as a technologically advanced
civilization.
Fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine are non-sustainable
both environmentally and economically--and a replacement for both
already exists. The question is not whether we will transition to a new
post-fossil fuel economy, but when and how. The environmental,
economic, geopolitical, national security and military issues related
to this matter are profound and inextricably linked to one another.
The disclosure of such new energy technologies will have far-
reaching implications for every aspect of human society and the time
has come to prepare for such an event. For if such technologies were
announced today, it would take at least 10-20 years for their
widespread application to be effected. This is approximately how much
time we have before global economic chaos begins due to demand far
exceeding the supply of oil and environmental decay becomes exponential
and catastrophic.
We have found that the technologies to replace fossil fuel usage
already exist and need to be exploited and applied immediately to avert
a serious global economic, geopolitical and environmental crisis in the
not-so-distant future.
In summary, these technologies fall into the following broad
categories:
<bullet> Quantum vacuum/zero point field energy access systems and
related advances in electromagnetic theory and applications
<bullet> Electrogravitic and magnetogravitic energy and propulsion
<bullet> Room temperature nuclear effects
<bullet> Electrochemical and related advances to internal
combustion systems which achieve near zero emissions and very high
efficiency
A number of practical applications using such technologies have
been developed over the past several decades, but such breakthroughs
have been either ignored due to their unconventional nature--or have
been classified and suppressed due to national security, military
interests and ``special'' interests.
Let us be clear: the question is not whether such systems exist and
can be viable replacements for fossil fuels. The question is whether we
have the courage to allow such a transformation in world society to
occur.
Such technologies--especially those which bypass the need to use an
external fuel source such as oil or coal--would have obvious and
beneficial effects for humanity. Since these technologies do not
require an expensive source of fuel but instead use existing quantum
space energy, a revolution in the world's economic and social order
would result. These implications include:
<bullet> The removal of all sources of air pollution related to
energy generation, including electric power plants, cars, trucks,
aircraft and manufacturing;
<bullet> The ability to ``scrub'' to near zero effluent all
manufacturing processes since the energy per se required for same would
have no cost related to fuel consumption. This would allow the full
application of technologies which remove effluent from smokestacks,
solid waste and waterways since current applications are generally
restricted by their energy costs and the fact that such energy
consumption--being fossil fuel based--soon reaches the point of
diminishing returns environmentally.
<bullet> The practical achievement of an environmentally near-zero
impact yet high tech civilization on earth, thus assuring the long-term
sustainability of human civilization.
<bullet> Trillions of dollars now spent on electric power
generation, gas, oil, coal and nuclear power would be freed to be spent
on more productive and environmentally neutral endeavors by both
individuals and society as a whole.
Underdeveloped regions of the earth would be lifted out of poverty
and into a high technology world in about a generation--but without the
associated infrastructure costs and environmental impact related to
traditional energy generation and propulsion. Since these new systems
generate energy from the ambient quantum energy state, trillion dollar
infrastructure investments in centralized power generation and
distribution would be eliminated. Remote villages and towns would have
the ability to generate energy for manufacturing, electrification,
water purification, etc. without purchasing fuels or building massive
transmission lines and central power grids.
Near total recycling of resources and materials would be possible
since the energy costs for doing so--now the main obstacle--would be
brought down to a trivial level.
<bullet> The vast disparity between rich and poor nations would
quickly disappear--and with it much of the zero-sum-game mentality
which is at the root of so much social, political and international
unrest. In a world of abundant and inexpensive energy, many of the
pressures, which have led to a cycle of poverty, exploitation,
resentment and violence would be removed from the social dynamic. While
ideological, cultural and religious differences would persist, the raw
economic disparity and struggle would be removed from the equation
fairly quickly.
Surface roads--and therefore most road building--will be
unnecessary as electrogravitic/antigravity energy and propulsion
systems replace current surface transportation systems.
<bullet> The world economy would expand dramatically and those
advanced economies such as in the United States and Europe would
benefit tremendously as global trade, development and high technology
energy and propulsion devices are demanded around the world. Such a
global energy revolution would create an expanding world economy which
would make the current computer and Internet economy look like a
rounding error. This really would be the tide which would lift all
ships.
<bullet> Long term, society would evolve to a psychology of
abundance, which would redound to the benefit of humanity as a whole, a
peaceful civilization and a society focused increasingly on creative
pursuits rather than destructive and violent endeavors.
Lest all of this sound like a pipe-dream, keep in mind that such
technological advances are not only possible, but they already exist.
What is lacking is the collective will, creativity and courage to see
that they are applied wisely. And therein lies the problem.
As an emergency and trauma doctor, I know that everything can be
used for good or for ill. A knife can butter your bread--or cut your
throat. Every technology can have beneficial as well as harmful
applications.
The latter partially explains the serious national security and
military concerns with such technologies. For many decades, these
advances in energy and propulsion technologies have been acquired,
suppressed and classified by certain interests who have viewed them as
a threat to our security from both an economic and military
perspective. In the short term, these concerns have been well-founded:
Why rock the global economic boat by allowing technologies out which
would, effectively, terminate the multi-trillion dollar oil, gas, coal,
internal combustion engine and related transportation sectors of the
economy?
And which could also unleash such technologies on an unstable and
dangerous world where the weapons applications for such technological
breakthroughs would be a certainty? In the light of this, the status
quo looks good.
But only for the short term. In fact, such national security and
military policies--fed by huge special interests in obvious industries
and nations--have exacerbated global geopolitical tensions by
impoverishing much of the world, worsening the zero-sum-game mind set
of the rich vs. poor nations and brought us to a world energy emergency
and a pending environmental crisis. And now we have very little time to
fix the situation. Such thinking must be relegated to the past.
For what can be a greater threat to the national security than the
specter of a collapse of our entire civilization from a lack of energy
and global chaos as every Nation fights for its share of a limited
resource? Due to the long lead time needed to transform the current
industrial infrastructure away from fossil fuels, we are facing a
national security emergency which almost nobody is talking about. This
is dangerous.
It has also created a serious constitutional crisis in the United
States and other countries where non-representative entities and super-
secret projects within compartmented military and corporate areas have
begun to set national and international policy on this and related
matters--all outside the arena of public debate, and mostly without
informed consent from Congress or the President.
Indeed this crisis is undermining democracy in the United States
and elsewhere. I have had the unenviable task of personally briefing
senior political, military, and intelligence officials in the United
States and Europe on this and related matters. These officials have
been denied access to information compartmented within certain
projects, which are, frankly, unacknowledged areas (so-called ``black''
projects). Such officials include members of the House and Senate,
President Clinton's first Director of Central Intelligence, the head of
the CIA, senior Joint Staff officials and others. Usually, the
officials have little to no information on such projects and
technologies--and are told either nothing or that they do not have a
``need to know'' if they specifically inquire.
This presents then another problem: these technologies will not be
suppressed forever. For example, our group is planning a near term
disclosure of such technologies and we will not be silenced. At the
time of such a disclosure, will the U.S. Government be prepared? It
would behoove the U.S. Government and others to be informed and have a
plan for transitioning our society from fossil fuels to these new
energy and propulsion systems.
Indeed, the great danger is ignorance by our leaders of these
scientific breakthroughs--and ignorance of how to manage their
disclosure. The advanced countries of the world must be prepared to put
systems in place to assure the exclusive peaceful use of such energy
and propulsion advances. Economic and industrial interests should be
prepared so that those aspects of our economy which will be adversely
affected (commodities, oil, gas, coal, public utilities, engine
manufacturing, etc) can be cushioned from sudden reversals and be
economically ``hedged'' by investing in and supporting the new energy
infrastructure.
A creative view of the future--not fear and suppression of such
technologies--is required. And it is needed immediately. If we wait 10-
20 more years, it will be too late to make the needed changes before
world oil shortages, exorbitant costs and geopolitical competition for
resources causes a melt-down in the world's economy and political
structures.
All systems tend toward homeostasis. The status quo is comfortable
and secure. Change is frightening. But in this case, the most dangerous
course for the national security is inaction. We must be prepared for
the coming convulsions related to energy shortages, spiraling costs and
economic disruption. The best preparation would be a replacement for
oil and related fossil fuels. And we have it. But disclosing these new
energy systems carries its own set of benefits, risks and challenges.
The U.S. Government and the Congress must be prepared to wisely manage
this great challenge.
Recommendations for Congress:
<bullet> Thoroughly investigate these new technologies both from
current civilian sources as well as compartmented projects within
military, intelligence and corporate contracting areas;
<bullet> Authorize the declassification and release of information
held within compartmented projects related to this subject;
<bullet> Specifically prohibit the seizing or suppression of such
technologies
<bullet> Authorize substantial funding for basic research and
development by civilian scientists and technologists into these areas;
<bullet> Develop plans for dealing with disclosing such
technologies and for the transition to a non-fossil fuel economy. These
plans should include: military and national security planning;
strategic economic planning and preparation; private sector support and
cooperation; geopolitical planning, especially as it pertains to OPEC
countries and regions whose economies are very dependent on oil exports
and the price of oil; international cooperation and security; among
others.
I personally stand ready to assist the Congress in any way possible
to facilitate our use of these new energy sources. Having dealt with
this and related sensitive matters for over 10 years, I can recommend a
number of individuals who can be subpoenaed to provide testimony on
such technologies, as well as people who have information on
unacknowledged special access projects within covert government
operations which are already dealing with these issues.
If we face these challenges with courage and with wisdom together,
we can secure for our children a new and sustainable world, free of
poverty and environmental destruction. We will be up to this challenge,
because we must be.
__________
The Right Time to Develop Future Energy Technologies
(By: Thomas Valone, M.A., P.E.)
introduction to compelling evidence about the coming climate change
In 1900, Nikola Tesla, the father of AC electricity, warned against
using fuel for energy.\1\ Current man-made Greenhouse Forcing of the
atmosphere has been measured to be 2.4-4.3 W/m<SUP>2</SUP> by the
Global Warming International Center (GWIC). ``A change of 7.5 to 10 W/
m<SUP>2</SUP> will completely alter seasonal characteristics, e.g. from
winter to spring. Thus, 2.4-4.3 W/m<SUP>2</SUP> of Greenhouse Forcing
is quite a significant alteration of energy balance.'' This is a
measure of the watts (energy) per meter squared (area) that is being
radiated into the atmosphere from our excessive carbon-based emissions.
Note carefully that in 1997, the Institute for Policy Studies released
a report that declared the World Bank was solely responsible for
DOUBLING the world's output of carbon by its overseas fossil fuel
investments through the life of the investment.\2\ This simple
comparison of two different studies suggests that the DOUBLING of our
Greenhouse Forcing into a range of 4.8-8.6 W/m<SUP>2</SUP> may be
anticipated in the next couple of decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tesla, Nikola, ``The Problem of Increasing Human Energy,''
Century, June, 1900.
\2\ ``The World Bank and the G-7: Changing the Earth's Climate for
Business,'' Ver. 1.1, Aug. 1997, IPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GWIC 1999 News Flash went on to further conclude:
``The man-made alteration of energy balance in the General
Circulation system determines how chaotic our atmospheric and
oceanic systems will be . . . simple thermodynamics predicts an
OSCILLATORY NATURE of the change in climate in any one
ecological zone due to global warming. Global warming causes
`extreme events' and bad weather in the near term. In the long
term it may cause the earth to transition to another
equilibrium state through many `oscillations in climatic
patterns.' The magnitude of these oscillations could easily
`exceed' the difference between the end points.''
From chaos theory, the end points are where we start and where we
end up. In other words, as the earth climate seeks a new equilibrium
point, with the forcing function of increased energy input, it may get
much hotter AND much colder with a vengeance as the climate goes
haywire for an undetermined amount of time.
Make no mistake about it, the earth has now surpassed 300 ppb
(parts per billion) of CO<INF>2</INF> (a potent greenhouse gas) for the
first time in 400,000 years, according to ice core analysis by Tom
Wigley from the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He also
stated on a recent NOVA program that we need to cut fossil fuel use by
50 percent or more to stabilize CO<INF>2</INF> because of increased
energy demand that is predicted to be 60 percent more by 2020. Worse
than that is the projected level of CO<INF>2</INF> by 2050: an
astounding 600 ppb! At the same time, Oxygen Inventory Depletion (OID)
is occurring: worldwide levels of oxygen have decreased by 50-70 ppm
since 1958 when the measurements were first taken.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Keeling et al., ``Seasonal and interannual variation in
atmospheric oxygen and implication for the global carbon cycle'',
Nature, Vol. 358, 8/27/92, p. 354
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need we mention that right now the Arctic ice is melting at a rapid
rate? In 1999, scientists reported that 46 years of data documenting
the declining extent of the Arctic Sea ice yield a 98 percent
probability that it is due to man-made causes.\4\ The average annual
temperatures in Alaska and Siberia have climbed as much as seven (7)
degrees F in the past two decades reducing sea ice thickness by about
40 percent of what it was in 1980.\5\ Why is the loss of this natural
heat sink important? The Arctic sea ice covers an area the size of the
United States. Without this natural reflector of solar energy, the same
area of exposed ocean water will absorb as much as 100 times more solar
energy than ice. This new energy influx will, of course, simply ADD to
the already accelerating global warming due to greenhouse gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Vinnikov, Science, Dec. 3, 1999, p. 1934
\5\ Linden, Eugene, ``The Big Meltdown,'' TIME, Sept. 4, 2000, p.
53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To summarize, ``experts believe human activities could be ending
the period of relative climatic stability that has endured over the
last 10,000 years, and that permitted the rise of agricultural and
industrial society.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Brown, Lester, et al., State of the World, Worldwatch
Institute, 1999, p. 25, citing U.N. 1997 report
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
is global warming harmful to health?
In a word: YES!
``Computer models have predicted that global warming would
produce several changes in the highlands: summit glaciers (like
North Pole sea ice) would begin to melt, and plants, mosquitoes
and mosquito-borne diseases would migrate upward into regions
formerly too cold for them. All these predictions are coming
true.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Epstein, Paul, ``Is Global Warming Harmful to Health?''
Scientific American, August 2000, p. 50
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Epstein, Associate Director at the Center for Health and the
Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, further reports that the
West Nile virus, spread by mosquitoes, broke out for the first time in
N. America just last year. Washington residents know that it has
already spread to Maryland in October, 2000. ``Malaria and dengue fever
are another two of the mosquito-borne diseases most likely to spread
dramatically as global temperatures head upward.'' Regarding these
diseases, it is important to note that NO VACCINE is available and the
causative parasites are becoming resistant to standard drugs. El Ninos
are expected to become more common and severe--which means that the
diseases they produce could become more prevalent as well (such as
waterborne diseases like cholera). He concludes that, ``Cleaner energy
sources must be put to use QUICKLY AND BROADLY, both in the energy-
guzzling industrial world and in developing nations, which cannot be
expected to cut back on their energy use . . . The world's leaders, if
they are wise, will make it their business to find a way to pay for
these solutions.''
how much will it take to correct the climate problem?
``The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the
United Nations, calculates that halting the ongoing rise in atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases will require a whopping 60 percent
to 70 percent reduction in emissions.''\8\ They are not the only agency
arriving at that conclusion. The Worldwatch Institute concurs, stating
that ``stabilizing atmospheric CO<INF>2</INF> at safe levels will
require a 60-80 percent cut in carbon emissions from current
levels.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ibid., p. 57
\9\ Brown, p. 26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
can oil production keep up if we ignore the climate change?
In a word: NO! If we just continue as we do today with the selfish,
business-as-usual attitude and clamor for more oil, do we stand a
chance of enjoying a reasonable lifestyle for the next 20 years? Seeing
that approximately 80 percent of the oil produced today comes from
fields discovered before 1973, most of which are in decline, we must
hesitate before coming to an optimistic conclusion. If we realize that
the TOTAL world production of oil has increased less than 10 percent in
the past two decades, then we might start to get concerned.\10\ If we
think about the fact that the U.S. energy demand grows at a rate of 1.1
percent per year, from 95 to 121 quadrillion Btus (quads) by 2020, we
must ask where will the EXTRA 27 percent come from? Transportation is
rated by the U.S. Department of Energy to be the most rapidly growing
sector. However, as domestic crude oil production is projected to
DECLINE from 6.3 to 5.3 million barrels per day by 2020, we gas-
guzzling Americans naively believe that we can demand FROM SOMEWHERE a
30 percent increase from 2.90 million barrels of oil per day to 3.81
million barrels of oil per day by 2020!\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ibid., p. 25
\11\ Annual Energy Outlook, DOE Energy Information Administration.
EIA-X035
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, the OPEC nations, where 50 percent of our imported oil
comes from, have a different story in mind for us. World production of
oil is expected to peak by 2010 and then begin to decline, which will
forcibly reduce production.\12\ Knowing this fact, give or take a few
years, the OPEC nations decided instead to decrease their output of oil
NOW by only 1.2 percent in 1999 which drove prices up dramatically,
causing a lot of oil-addicted nations to complain bitterly in protest.
The protests had no effect on the producers. ``OPEC Blames Taxes for
High Oil Prices'' read the headlines in the Washington Post (9-29-00,
p. A22) which went on to say:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Brown, p. 25
``Saudi Arabia is the only OPEC Nation with the capability to
boost oil production significantly, a move that would harm the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
finances of other member nations . . .''
The conclusion is obvious: It is nearly impossible, even with the
``hard-line approach'' advocated by G.W. Bush, to continually increase
our imports of and addiction to oil even over the next 10 years while
OPEC is already beginning THE SQUEEZE. In September 2000, the first
OPEC summit in 25 years was held. As the United States and European
Union called on OPEC to increase production, OPEC simply agreed to
``provide adequate, timely and secure supplies of oil to consumers at
fair and stable prices.'' Of course that's what any dominant dealer
with \2/3\ of the market will do! With Iraq selling the United States
more oil than Kuwait is today, do we go to war over oil again?
solving the oil consumption and global warming problem simultaneously
The clear answer to both dilemmas portrayed above is to begin a
forced weaning process aimed at creating a government-mandated 1
percent reduction (based on Y2K usage) per year in oil consumption and/
or oil imports every year for the next 20 years, with the second decade
adding 1 percent to each year's reduction. Phase I amounts to a
mandatory reduction, on the average, of 200,000 barrels of oil per
year, for the next 10 years, yielding a 10 percent total reduction by
2010. Phase II, in 2010, would increase the reduction by 1 percent each
subsequent year (2 percent, 3 percent, 4 percent, etc.) yielding a 55
percent + 10 percent = 65 percent total reduction by 2020. At first, a
gradual reduction in oil imports by a fraction of 1 percent could be
mandated with that fraction made up by domestic hybrid cars sales that
have a tax incentive. The last few years of the decade program would
have reductions greater than 1 percent mandated. This should be called
the ``The U.S. Energy Independence Initiative'' or something like that.
As a vital part of this process, a 10-year U.S. Energy Manhattan
Project with emergency funds allocated to emerging energy developments
(many of which are already invented) is required for successful
replacement of current technology with carbon-free, fuel-less energy
technologies.\13\ A public education process needs to begin immediately
as well to prepare all industrial, transportation, and housing sectors
for the transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Valone, Thomas, ``Future Energy Technologies,'' Proceedings of
the Annual Conference of the World Future Society, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason for an average of 1 percent reduction in oil usage per
year is that within 10 years, a total of 10 percent (based on Y2K
usage) reduction will be achieved. By then, fuel-less, carbon-free
energy generators will be commercially available. That starts Phase II
where an increasing amount of oil will be taken away from the market
each year, before the OPEC nations force the issue.
end the present suppression of emerging energy technologies
From my experience, the present management of the U.S. Energy
Department, State Department, and Commerce Department has engaged in an
outright and successful attempt to prevent viable emerging energy
technologies from reaching the market and the public. They have
rescinded legitimate grants that had already been awarded, prevented
allowed patents from being issued, blocked approved conferences from
taking place, and distorted accurate news before it is reported.
Furthermore, certain non-profit organizations, most notably the
American Physical Society, have abused their non-profit status by
heavily lobbying government agencies and the media to encourage such
suppression.
For example, the Public Affairs Coordinator for the American
Physical Society, Dr. Robert Park, has further used his position of
power to unduly influence the government and the media to target
certain individuals and inventions, even to the extent of defaming
their character, mine included, and depriving of their livelihood to
suit his unscrupulous desires for scientific dominance. The Patent
Office, State Department, and the Commerce Department, have been found
on numerous occasions to obey his suggestions/demands on a particular
issue. Examples and a chronology of such abuses have been cataloged.
Both the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Patent Office
have, for example, made public statements that clearly discriminate
against cold fusion, a viable new physics discovery celebrating its
tenth anniversary last year. Their practices of rescinding nuclear
energy research grants or recalling a patent that already has been
issued a patent number and posted in the Official Gazette, shows to
what extent they will go to prevent anything resembling cold fusion
from gaining recognition. One explanation seems to be stemming from the
$249 million that the hot fusion research program (Tokamak and laser
confinement) are already receiving in fiscal year 2000. However, these
ongoing programs still do not have viable overunity output results even
after decades of Federal DOE expenditures and will not for at least
another two decades, according to the U.S. DOE! The suppression
practices referred to above must stop in order to allow emerging energy
technologies to reach the market.
conclusion
In the short term, the development of a retrofit carburetor device
for all cars, that reclaims or transmutes the carbon from the exhaust,
can drastically reduce the emissions of CO<INF>2</INF> from
transportation vehicles. (The transportation sector presently
contributes to 33 percent of the carbon emissions.)\14\ Preliminary
results from this type of device shows a dramatic improvement in
mileage as well, making it attractive for consumers.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration, Energy INFOcard,
1999
\15\ Future Energy: Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Future Energy, Integrity Research Institute, 1999, CD-ROM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the new fuel-less, carbon-free energy sources are brought to
market, the reduction in oil demands will become easier and more
acceptable. If the U.S. Government establishes a time-table to meet the
65 percent reduction in CO<INF>2</INF> emissions by 2020, ostensibly
targeting the importation of oil, the earth can reverse its beginning
of climatic oscillations with the present Greenhouse Forcing. I pray
that our lawmakers will have the wisdom to adopt some of the above-
mentioned measures to ensure our future.
______
Future Energy Technologies
(By: Thomas Valone M.A., P.E.)
abstract
Today 85 percent of our country's energy comes from the combustion
of dead fossils, a dirty fuel that is forcing the world's atmosphere to
overheat. However, new 21st century energy sources that produce no
carbon emissions and do not contribute to global warming are now
emerging. Beyond the realm of fuel cells and hydrogen is the non-
conventional world of ``future energy.'' Some of the best examples are
new and exciting generators that release trapped potential energy from
nature in ways never dreamed of before. Others innovatively apply clean
fuels in conventional systems that are surprisingly simple and yet very
efficient. Still others qualify as promising theoretical technologies
that are a focus of attention for NASA and the USDOE. Most of them have
one thing in common: they are very scientific but are relatively
unknown to the general public. This presentation summarizes the latest
breakthroughs in future energy. With scientific explanations of the
input energy and output energy, the overunity efficiencies can be
understood by average audience members. Included in the quantitative
article are the inventions of Brown, Graneau, Jefimenko, Miley,
Shoulders, Wallman, and others. The energy revolution is now beginning.
It is time to understand the clean alternatives to dead, poisonous
fuel.
Keywords: future energy, overunity, betavoltaic, biomass, COFE
introduction
In 1998, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued its
Comprehensive National Energy Strategy (CNES)\1\ that included as one
of its five goals, the following aspiration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Comprehensive National Energy Strategy, U.S. Dept. of Energy,
April 1998, DOE/S-0124, (National Energy Policy Plan) available at
http://www.hr.doe.gov/nesp/cnes.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goal IV: Expand future energy choices--pursuing continued progress
in science and technology to provide future generations with a robust
portfolio of clean and reasonably priced energy sources.
Objective 1.--Maintain a strong national knowledge base as the
foundation for informed energy decisions, new energy systems, and
enabling technologies of the future.
Objective 2.--Expand long-term energy options.
However, the DOE has not engaged in developing, much less
maintaining a robust knowledge base of future energy choices, nor
expanded research into new energy systems or long-term energy options,
mainly due to upper management decisions. In a study performed by
Integrity Research Institute on the progress of the CNES 2 years later,
it is surprising that instead the DOE has worked to actively suppress
enabling technologies of the future. Furthermore, concern for global
warming and the expected increase in carbon emissions by the American
society clearly do not enter the present DOE policies. The DOE instead
recently: (1) endorsed natural gas use for future generations, (2)
rescinded a Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) grant awarded to
a prominent professor for transmuting radioactive waste, and (3)
reversed an initial offer to host a Conference on Future Energy (COFE).
Therefore, it is clear by these and many other DOE practices that it is
up to the private sector to conduct scientific research into new energy
systems and enabling technologies of the future in order to replace
carbon-emitting fuel systems.
As a guideline, it is generally agreed that emerging energy
technologies that qualify as true future energy must not produce carbon
emissions nor contribute to global warming if we are to have a future
planet earth. The reason for this is as Worldwatch Institute notes:
``Stabilizing atmospheric CO<INF>2</INF> concentrations at safe levels
will require a 60-80 percent cut in carbon emissions from current
levels, according to the best estimates of scientists.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ State of the World 1999, Brown, Flavin, and French, W.W. Norton
& Co., New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
future energy overunity
To understand emerging energy principles, it is helpful to examine
the operation of a heat pump, which converts environmental free energy
into useful work. The standard heat pump is a good example of an
``overunity'' system (energy out > energy in) releasing potential
energy from the environment where the heat energy output is always in
the range of 2 up to 7 times the input electrical energy. This so-
called ``coefficient of performance'' represents an overunity
efficiency, that does not violate any physics laws, if one considers,
as the consumer does, how much energy must he put in to get the
predicted energy output. Thus, the concept of ``overunity,'' as also
the concept of ``free energy'' has evolved from the consumer's point of
view. What does it cost him to receive his heat, air conditioning,
cleaning, or propulsion outputs? The closer it gets to ``free,'' the
more desirable it is for the consumer and, we might add, to Third World
countries who cannot afford to build the thousands of miles of high
voltage wires (infrastructure) to support a centralized energy system.
Locally installed, modular heat and electricity generators will replace
present utility-based service in the future. Then, large area blackouts
will be a thing of the past. Energy will be for the most part, a one-
time investment, included in the house, car, or spaceplane of one's
choice. However, much needs to be done for these systems to supplant
the established energy businesses that are the nation's major
polluters. A commitment to a carbon-free energy economy, with financial
backing, is required for such large changes to take place.
cold fog discovery
Many other systems exist today, in a research, development, or
theoretical stage, which also convert potential energy into useful
work. The first example is the ``Cold Fog'' invention of Dr. Peter
Graneau from Northeastern University that converts chemical bond energy
into kinetic energy. Intermolecular bond energy in water is an
available amount of energy estimated at 2.3 kJ/g. When injected with a
high voltage capacitor discharge of 39.8 Joules, normal rainwater is
accelerated into a cold fog that loses about 31.2 Joules of low-grade
heat and a comparable amount (29.2 Joules) in fog kinetic energy
output. As reported in the Journal of Plasma Physics,\3\ the output
energy thus exceeds the input energy by about 100 percent creating a 2-
to-1 overunity condition favorable for reduction to a motorized
conversion system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Hathaway, Graneau, and Graneau, ``Solar-Energy Liberation from
Water by Electric Arcs'', J. Plasma Physics, Vol. 60, Part 4, p. 775-
86. ghathaway@ieee.org
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80649.005
betavoltaic battery
The next technology of importance is the betavoltaic battery
invention of Dr. Paul Brown (U.S. Pat. 4,835,433). It involves a benign
nuclear source called tritium (an isotope of hydrogen) that simply
emits an electron (5.7 keV beta particle) over its half life of 12.5
years. The useful battery life is thus estimated to be about 25 years.
It is a cheap, long-life, high energy density battery with a wide range
of applications. Presently, Lucent Technologies has been contracted to
produce the tritiated amorphous silicon for use in the semiconductor
industry and even for watch batteries. The amorphous silicon is placed
between two electrodes in order to complete the battery construction.
The batteries have a mean energy density of 24 watts per kilogram and
are ideal for low power, long-life applications\4\. It is clear that no
recharging of these batteries is ever needed. The disposal is even
safer than disposing of smoke detectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Brown, Paul, ``Betavoltaic Batteries'' and ``Effective
Radioactive Waste Remediation,'' Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Future Energy, (Proceedings of COFE), p. 19 & 123,
Integrity Research Institute, 1999, ISBN 0-9641070-3-1 (Alternatively,
COFE CD-Proceedings on CD-ROM has 20 hours of lectures added in digital
audio.) Brown's email: brown@fissionfuels.com
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80649.006
nuclear remediation
It is worthwhile mentioning that Dr. Brown's other endeavor may
give a boost to the nuclear power industry. He has discovered that low
energy gamma rays (photons) on the order of 10 MeV, can function as an
effective agent to transmute nuclear waste into short-lived isotopes,
acceptable for burial anywhere. The remediation project is spear-headed
by International Fission Fuels, Inc. which plans to build a pilot plant
to accept nuclear waste of any type and generate electricity at the
same time. The Battelle Institute, Brookhaven Labs, and Los Alamos Labs
have all been involved in the planning and testing stages of this new
technology. Dr. Brown presented details of this invention at COFE.
Also, the State Department recently connected him with foreign markets
that have assisted in proving its worth.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80649.007
electrostatic motors
The next energy breakthrough is Dr. Oleg Jefimenko's electrostatic
motors. Discovered by Ben Franklin in the 18th century, electrostatic
motors are an all-American invention. They are based on the physics of
the fair-weather atmosphere that has an abundance of positive electric
charges up to an altitude of 20 km. However, the greatest concentration
is near the ground and diminishes with altitude rapidly. Dr. Jefimenko
discovered that when sharp-pointed antennas are designed for a
sufficient length to obtain at least 6000 volts of threshold energy,
the fair-weather current density available is about a picoampere per
square meter. Such antennas produce about a microampere of current.
However, small radioactive source antennas may be used instead that
have no threshold voltage and therefore no height requirements. Similar
to a nuclear battery design of Dr. Brown, these antennas have larger
current potentials depending upon the radioactive source used (alpha or
beta source) and ionize the air in the vicinity of the antenna.
Electrostatic motors are lighter than electromagnetic motors for the
same output power since the motor occupies the entire volume. For
example, it is expected that a motor one meter on a side will provide a
power of one megawatt and weigh 500 kg or less. Electrostatic motors
also require very little metal in their construction and can use mostly
plastic for example. They can also operate from a variety of sources
and range of voltages. As Dr. Jefimenko points out, ``It is clear that
electrostatic motor research still constitutes an essentially
unexplored area of physics and engineering, and that electrostatic
motor research must be considered a potentially highly rewarding area
among the many energy-related research endeavors.''\5\ The atmospheric
potential of the planet is not less than 200,000 megawatts. He has
succeeded in constructing demonstration motors that run continuously
off atmospheric electricity. Jefimenko's largest output motor was an
electret design that had a 0.1 Hp rating.\6\ Certainly the potential
for improvement and power upgrade exists with this free energy machine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Jefimenko, Oleg, ``Electrostatic Energy Resources,
Electrostatic Generators, and Electrostatic Motors,'' Proceedings of
COFE, p. 195
\6\ Jefimenko, Oleg, Electrostatic Motors, Electret Scientific Co.,
Star City, WV, 1973 (future editions to be published by Integrity
Research Inst.)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80649.008
biomass gasification
Clean fuels are difficult to find today. One example that satisfies
a limited definition of ``clean'' is the carbo-hydrogen gas produced
from biomass. David Wallman has patented the process for producing
COH<INF>2</INF> from a high voltage discharge through any biomass
solution (Pat. No. 5,417,817). This gas burns cleanly, producing water
vapor and only the amount of CO<INF>2</INF> that was originally
absorbed by the biological mass when it was growing in the ground.
Contrast this with burning fossil fuels (oil and natural gas) which
resurrect old buried carbon and add it to the atmosphere from ancient
cemeteries in the ground.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80649.009
Instead, biomass gas burning recycles recently absorbed atmospheric
carbon dioxide. The input energy is typically about a thousand watt-
hours or about 3300 BTU to produce about 250 liters per hour of carbo-
hydrogen (8.5 cubic feet per hour). With a heating value of over 500
BTU per cubic feet, the COH<INF>2</INF> output energy exceeds 4000 BTU,
often approaching 5000 BTU in high efficiency designs. Thus, this
biomass gasification process has an overunity efficiency of about 125
percent to 150 percent. However, when the entire energetics of the
system are accounted for, including the ultraviolet light radiation,
heat loss, etc., estimates of 200 percent to 400 percent are
reasonable. Again, this process is a largely untapped resource while
millions of gallons of farm-produced liquid biomass going to waste
instead. Demonstrations of pilot plant designs are available from
Wallman's company to replace present dependence on foreign oil (which
is a fossil fuel). Municipal sewage treatment is a logical application
for this invention.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Wallman, David, ``Carbon Arc Gasification of Biomass
Solutions,'' Proceedings of COFE, p. 30. (1350 Northface Ct., Colorado
Springs, CO 80919) WD.Wallman@worldnet.att.net
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80649.010
charge clusters
An unusual energy source is the clustering of electrons by a
discharge needle into a high density bundle equaling Avogadro's density
of a solid\8\. Ken Shoulders has patented a process (Pat. No.
5,153,901) that produces electron clusters with such high energy
density, they equal processes exceeding 25,000 degrees Celsius upon
impact. Yet, he only uses 20 microjoules to produce the effects. The
clusters travel at a maximum of one tenth of the speed of light and
penetrate any substance with accuracy and sharp precision. It is
similar to xenon clustering techniques currently used at megavolt
energy levels. Low energy nuclear transmutation of the target has also
been achieved with this process. Using a deuterium loaded palladium
foil, only the bombardment areas show transmutation into silicon,
calcium, and magnesium with electron clusters upon analysis with X-
rays. Fox has postulated that the high velocity electron clusters
achieve results similar to ion accelerators, including penetration of
the nucleus, with substantially less power. The new physics of like-
charges clustering in bundles under low power conditions opens a wide
range of applications including spacecraft maneuvering microthrusters.
The overunity efficiency is 9-to-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Shoulders, Ken and Steve, ``Charge Clusters in Action'',
Proceedings of COFE, p. 7 (P.O. Box 243, Bodega, CA 94922) email:
krscfs@svn.net and Infinite Energy, ``Charge Clusters in Operation,''
Jan-Feb, 1997, p. 62
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80649.011
Figure 7. Charge cluster borehole into lead glass. Hole is about 10
micron diameter. Penetration is about 1 mm per kV. The lowest speed
clocked has been 1 cm in 50 nanoseconds. With an estimated 100 billion
electrons carrying 100,000 positive ions, the kinetic energy exceeds
180 microjoules. It has been suggested that a Casmir effect pushes them
together, overcoming Coulomb repulsion of like charges. (photo credit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Shoulders)
thin-film electrolytic cell power unit
A product with the consumer in mind is Dr. George Miley's invention
that produces about one watt per cubic centimeter of electrolyte\9\.
Using a flowing packed-bed type electrolytic cell with 1-molar
LiSO<INF>4</INF> in light water, small (1-mm diameter) plastic beads
with a thin (500-1000 angstrom) film of metal (nickel, palladium, or
titanium) are employed. A special sputtering technique to spray on the
metal is used. With 2-3 volts of electrical power and only 1-5
milliamperes of current, the single film experiments produce an excess
power 10 times the input power! (The input power is at most 0.01 watts
while one half of a watt of heat is produced.) Observed power densities
were 1 W/cc and above. It is also apparent that the physics of this
reaction involve nuclear transmutations as well. As Dr. Miley notes:
``The key finding from these studies has been the observation of a
large array of ``new'' elements (i.e. different from the bead coating),
many with significant deviations from natural isotopic compositions,
after the run. Great care has been made to insure that these elements
are distinguished from isotopic impurities by use of a ``clean cell''
with high purity components/electrolyte, in addition to the pre- and
post-run analyses.'' Even low-energy radiation was detected from the
beads days after each experiment. Application to space power, providing
a 1-kW cell with only 500 cc of active electrode is predicted. Note
that this particular invention, with its large overunity energy yield,
was awarded a NERI grant by the DOE but then promptly withdrawn after
certain individuals pressured the DOE into a re-evaluation of its grant
to Professor Miley. The politics that override such grant decisions by
the DOE Office of NEST are highly questionable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Miley, George, ``Emerging Physics for a Breakthrough Thin-Film
Electrolytic Cell Power Unit'', AIP Conference Proceedings 458, STAIF
1999, p. 1227-31. Reproduced with permission in Proceedings of COFE, p.
140. email: g-miley@uiuc.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
Future energy choices are already here. In spite of the DOE lack of
initiative in long range energy solutions, private inventors in this
article have pioneered energy discoveries with a range of energy
production possibilities. With Dr. Graneau's cold fog demonstrating a
new energy source and a possible propulsion source, developmental
efforts are ongoing with Hathaway Labs in Toronto to maximize the
energy transfer to a useful machine for market. Dr. Brown's tritium
battery is a milestone for long-term energy demand that is in
production, while his nuclear remediation project is progressing
rapidly. Dr. Jefimenko's electrostatic motors clearly demonstrate an
available energy source yet untapped. Wallman's biomass gasification is
ready to be developed on a large scale. Shoulder's charge clusters
demonstrate extraordinary energy production on a microscopic scale with
reasonable upscaling anticipated. Dr. Miley's electrolytic power unit
also shows an extraordinary energy output, which deserves more research
and development support. Other inventors that meet the future energy
criteria include Dr. Deborah Chung, from the State University of N.Y.
at Buffalo, who has discovered ``negative'' resistance in carbon
fibers.\10\ Another, James Griggs, the inventor of the hydrosonic pump
(Pat. No. 5,385,298), represents an overunity ``apparatus for heating
fluids'' which even exhibits sonoluminescence (now marketed by
HydroDynamics in Rome, Georgia). Dr. Paulo Correa also qualifies with
his pulsed abnormal glow discharge (PAGD) energy conversion system.\11\
It is our belief that all of these inventions have the qualifications
to be acceptable to energy futures. Also, theoretically and
experimentally, there is growing support for a breakthrough in zero
point energy conversion,\12\ which is the subject of more than one
patent, the most recent being Dr. Frank Mead's patent No. 5,590,031.
Furthermore, the extraction of energy and heat from the vacuum has also
been proposed by Drs. Harold Puthoff and Daniel Cole.\13\ Certainly, if
only the 2.6 percent disruption in the oil flow from the Mid-East in
1999 can cause immediate chaos in the gasoline prices in this country,
we desperately need to cut the umbilical cord strangling us. Therefore,
a more robust energy development effort is required to help us make the
transition from dangerous fossil fuels. A more stable, long-term energy
future is possible with new energy sources like these discussed in this
article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Chung, Deborah, SUNY at Buffalo, 608 Furnas Hall, Buffalo, NY
14260
\11\ Correa, Paulo, ``Excess Energy Conversion System Utilizing
Autogenous Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge,'' Proceedings of COFE, p.
150 (Labofex Laboratory, 42 Rockview Gardens, Concord, Ontario L4K 2J6)
email: lambdac@globalserve.net
\12\ Valone, Thomas, ``Understanding Zero Point Energy,''
Proceedings of COFE, p. 58
\13\ Cole and Puthoff, ``Extracting energy and heat from the
vacuum,'' Physical Review E, vol. 48, No. 2, August 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________
Moving Beyond the First Law and Advanced Field Propulsion Technologies
(By: Paul A. LaViolette, Ph.D.)
1. the repression of nonconventional energy technologies
According to U.S. patent law, a patent his the right to be issued
if the technology is new and if it works. There is nothing in the legal
code that says that the patent necessarily has to conform to theories
of physics or chemistry as they happen to be defined by certain
academic science societies. Unfortunately, administrators of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) have been illegally blocking the
issuance of patents on new technologies that challenge current
scientific thinking. This discrimination is often carried out in
response to lobbying by Robert Park, who is Director of Public
Information of the American Physical Society (APS), and by his
affiliates. The process usually begins with media smear campaign aimed
at defaming the inventors of nonconventional technologies or at
embarrassing PTO examiners who hold scientific views they disagree
with. Then this group of lobbyists email these media attacks to PTO
administrators, or they may call up PTO officials with whom they have
developed close associations to voice their dissatisfaction. The PTO
administrators then respond in a knee jerk fashion to this outside
pressure to either make sure that certain patents don't issue or to
reprimand or even fire examiners who take an open minded approach to
considering such new technologies.
An example is the BlackLight Power Corp. case. BlackLight's
inventor Randall Mills has developed a process for producing large
amounts of energy from normal tap water. This is the kind of technology
that we need to solve the present energy crisis. The reality of this
technology has been independently verified by other scientific
laboratories. Yet, Mills and his company have been repeatedly attacked
by this APS lobby through Robert Park's news postings on the society
website, derisive editorials written in mainstream science magazines,
in lectures at the 1999 APS annual meeting, and even in a book authored
by Park. Because this technology challenges the currently popular
theories of physics, this lobby has unjustly branded it as being
fraudulent. PTO administrators obediently responded to this outside
pressure by unlawfully withdrawing one of BlackLight's patents after it
had already been slated to issue in February 2000. One of the PTO
officials who was involved in taking this action has admitted that they
did this in response to media attacks leveled against BlackLight. The
company is now suing the Department of Commerce for this travesty of
justice.
Another example concerns a patent awarded in February 2000 on an
invention capable of sending communications faster than the speed of
light. Witnesses attested that the invention worked as claimed. Yet
shortly after the patent had issued, believing that the invention
violated the theory of special relativity, Park posted a news item on
the APS website which made fun of the PTO for having issued the patent.
Arrangements were even made to have one patent website proclaim it to
be the most ridiculous patent of the year. Papers published in refereed
physics journals have described laboratory experiments in which waves
have been made to travel faster than the speed of light. Yet
disregarding this evidence, the Commissioner decided to side with the
APS lobbyists. He severely reprimanded the patent examiner who had
issued the patent and also threatened to fire his supervisor.
Also there is the case of the firing of two patent examiners, Tom
Valone and Paul LaViolette. Park and the APS lobby had been ridiculing
them because they had an interest in nonconventional energy
technologies and because they were involved in organizing a conference
that included papers on nonconventional energy technologies. They
attacked the examiners in postings on the APS website, in magazine
editorials, and in lectures presented at the 1999 annual APS meeting
where they admitted to their ongoing efforts to secure the removal of
anyone at the PTO who sympathized with cold fusion technology. They
also initiated an email campaign to PTO officials as well as made
personal contacts with PTO officials. Within a day of this email blitz,
Paul LaViolette was given notice of termination and proceedings were
begun against Tom Valone which resulted in his removal 5 months later.
Both examiners at the time had a commendable record of job performance.
Both examiners now have Justice Department litigation pending on this
matter.
As a result of similar discrimination, government research moneys
are routinely withheld from companies or individuals trying to develop
such cutting edge ideas. In the name of preserving an outmoded set of
theories that they claim their particular view. Government officials
need to recognize that a working technology should not be suppressed
just because it lies outside of the current scientific paradigm and
produces results that refute that paradigm The goal should be to solve
society's problems, not to reaffirm outmoded theories espoused by
today's enfranchised physicists and chemists.
2. the nonconventional energy technology bill of rights
Nonconventional technologies may be our only hope for solving the
problems that presently lie ahead of us, but they are currently the
underdog. We need an affirmative action program to educate government
agencies and mainstream media to develop a more positive attitude
toward nonconventional technologies, to treat the researchers of these
technologies in a fair manner, and to stop engaging in witch hunts. If
we are going to deal with the problems we face, the scientific
community needs to make a radical paradigm shift. They have to adopt a
radically different attitude with respect to what is possible and what
is not. There is not much time.
3. the first law of thermodynamics is not inviolable
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy may be neither
created nor destroyed. But there is evidence that nature routinely
violates the First Law.
Energy creation: The discovery that the jovian planets (Jupiter,
Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) lie along the same luminosity trend line
as stars of the lower main sequence (e.g. red dwarfs) throws a monkey
wrench into theories of how stars generate their energy. Nuclear energy
cannot explain this correspondence. One very simple solution to this
problem is that a photon's energy is not constant, that photons inside
celestial bodies slowly blue shift--increase their energy over time.
Thus energy is being continuously created in stars throughout the
universe. This so called ``genic energy'' emerges as a prediction of a
new physics methodology called subquantum kinetics. Since red dwarfs
make up most of the stars in our Galaxy, as a rule genic energy may be
the dominant energy creation mechanism. Nuclear energy becomes
important only in the much rarer, massive stars such as our Sun.
Consequently, most of the stars in the universe may be run on ``free
energy'' in violation of the First Law.
Although this rate of energy creation is ten orders of magnitude
smaller than what can be detected in laboratory experiments, it
nonetheless weakens the arguments of those who maintain that the First
Law is an inviolable doctrine of nature. If nature violates it, why
can't we violate it also? Physics needs to make a major shift in
thinking, shed their linear models which predict that there is no such
thing as a free lunch, and embrace the newly emerging nonlinear models
which allow the possibility that matter and energy may be created and
destroyed.
4. gravity field propulsion is real: townsend brown's technology of
electrogravitics
In the mid 1920s, Townsend Brown discovered that electric charge
and gravitational mass are coupled. He found that when he charged a
capacitor to a high voltage, it had a tendency to move toward its
positive pole. This became known as the Biefeld-Brown effect. His
important findings were opposed by conventional minded physicists of
his time.
The Pearl Harbor Demonstration.--Around 1953, Brown conducted a
demonstration for top brass from the military. He flew a pair of 3 foot
diameter discs around a 50 foot course tethered to a central pole.
Energized with 150,000 volts and emitting ions from their leading edge,
they attained speeds of several hundred miles per hour. The subject was
thereafter classified.
Project Winterhaven.--Brown submitted a proposal to the Pentagon
for the development of a Mach 3 disc shaped electrogravitic fighter
craft. Drawings of its basic design are shown in one of his patents.
They are essentially large scale versions of his tethered test discs.
Aviation Studies International.--They are a think tank that
produces intelligence studies for the military. In 1956 they issued a
report entitled ``Electrogravitics Systems'' which called for major
government funding to develop Townsend Brown's electrogravitics
technology and make Project Winterhaven a reality. The report stated
that most of the aerospace was actively researching this antigravity
technology. It named companies such as: Glenn-Martin, Convair, Sperry-
Rand, Bell, Sikorsky, Douglas, and Hiller. Other companies who entered
the field included Lockheed and Hughes Aircraft, the latter being
regarded by some as the world leader in the field. This report was
initially classified. It was missing from the Library of Congress
collection. Their staff made a computer search and found that the only
other known copy was located at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. I
obtained it from there through interlibrary loan. It is now published
in the book Electrogravitics Systems, T. Valone (editor).
Northrop's Wind Tunnel Tests.--In 1968, engineers at the Northrop
Corp. performed wind tunnel tests in which they charged the leading
edge of a wing to a high voltage. They were investigating how this
technique could be used beneficially to soften the sonic boom of
aircraft. Hence they were performing large scale tests on Brown's
electrogravitic concept. Brown's R&D company had previously made known
that sonic boom softening would be a beneficial side effect of this
electrogravitic propulsion technique. Interestingly, Northrop later
became the prime contractor for the B-2 bomber.
The B-2 Bomber.--In 1992, black project scientists disclosed to
Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine that the B-2
electrostatically charges its exhaust to a high voltage and also
charges the leading edge of its wing-like body to the opposite
polarity. This information led Dr. LaViolette in 1993 to reverse
engineer the B-2's propulsion system. He proposed that the B-2 is
essentially a realization of Townsend Brown's patented electrogravitic
aircraft. The B-2 is capable of taking off under normal jet propulsion.
But when airborne, its electrogravitic drive may be switched on for
added thrust. This system can only be turned on under dry conditions.
If the B-2's dielectric wing were to become wet, the applied high
voltage charge would short out, which explains why the B-2 is unable to
fly in the rain. With electrogravitic drive, the B-2 is able to
drastically cut its fuel consumption, possibly even to zero under high
speed flight conditions.
The commercial airline industry could dramatically benefit with
this technology which would not only substantially increase the miles
per gallon fuel efficiency of jet airliners, but would also permit
high-speed flight that would dramatically cut flight time.
Subquantum Kinetics Predicts Antigravity Effects.--General
relativity doesn't explain the Biefeld-Brown electrogravitic effect or
any other antigravity phenomenon since it predicts that masses have
just one gravitational polarity and should only attract one another. It
allows the possibility of charge-mass coupling, only at very high
energies, such as those attainable in particle accelerators far more
powerful than any thus far built. The subquantum kinetics physics
methodology, however, offers a much needed answer to the
insufficiencies of relativity. It predicts that gravitational mass
should have two polarities (+ and-) and that these mass polarities
should be correlated with the charge polarity of a particle. According
to subquantum kinetics, Brown's electrostatic disc should establish a
gravitational field gradient from front to back which has the effect of
propelling the disc forward. The movement of the charges may contribute
an even larger thrust effect. The same would apply to the B-2 bomber.
5. other advanced aerospace propulsion technologies
The Searl Electrogravity Disc and Russian Experiments.--This
device, developed over 40 years ago by the British engineer John Searl,
consisted of a segmented rotating disc each of whose segments was
supported by a set of cylindrical permanent magnets rolling within a
circumferential track. It is alleged to have achieved complete lift
off. In the past few years two Russian scientists associated with the
Russian National Academy of Sciences, Roschin and Godin, have built a
simplified version of the Searl Disc that confirms its anomalous weight
loss effects. They spun a 1 meter diameter disc at 600 rpm and obtained
a 35 percent reduction in its weight while at the same time generating
a 7 kilowatt excess electric power output.
The Podkletnov Gravity Shield and Project Greenglow.--A research
team in Finland led by Dr. Podkletnov were experimenting with a
rotating superconducting disc that was floated on a repelling magnetic
field generated by a series of electromagnets. In 1996, they reported
that the disc was able to partially screen the Earth's gravitational
field, reducing the weight of objects positioned above the disc by 2
percent. Greater weight reductions are envisioned by stacking several
discs over one another. Besides propulsion, there are obvious
applications to tapping the resulting gravity differential for
mechanical power generation. In the last few years, BAE Systems a
company formed by the merger of British Aerospace with Marconi
Electronic Systems, has been researching the Podkletnov gravity shield.
They are doing this work under Project Greenglow, a project they have
set up to investigate the feasibility of nonconventional technologies.
The De Aquino Antigravity Effect.--A Brazilian university
professor, Fran De Aquino, has produced a 50 percent weight reduction
in a 2 foot diameter, annealed pure iron toroid weighing 77 pounds. He
does this by internally energizing the toroid with 10 kilowatts of 60
cycle electromagnetic radiation. His data predicts complete
weightlessness of the torroid could be achieved with a 15 kilowatt
power input.
Gravito Inertial Lift System.--Aerospace engineer Jim Cox has
recently improved on the Dean Drive, an inertial propulsion engine that
was patented in May 1959. He reports tests demonstrating an upward
thrust equal to 90 percent of the engine's weight. It uses a \1/4\
horsepower motor to revolve two counter-rotating rotors, each about 1
cm in diameter, spinning them at about 600 rpm for a power consumption
of about 200 watts. The lift is gotten by sinusoidally oscillating the
rotors up and down and coupling them to the lift platform on their
upward stroke. He obtains about 45 pounds of lift force per horsepower
(~55 pounds/kw). He plans by the end of the year to have a freely
lifting device which would be spun to 1200 rpm with a \1/2\ horsepower
motor drawing 400 watts. He estimates that using this technology a 200
horsepower automobile engine would be capable of generating a lift
force of about 9000 pounds.
Kineto-baric Field Propulsion.--German scientist Rudolph Zinsser
discovered that sawtooth electromagnetic waves could be made to push
distant objects. He produced a radio tube circuit that transmitted 45
megahertz radio waves having a sharp rise and gradual fall. His
experiments demonstrated that these waves could exert impulses of up to
10<SUP>4</SUP> to 10<SUP>5</SUP> dyne seconds, which is equivalent to
the application of about 1 to 3 ounces of force for a period of 1
second. He found that this force could be generated with an amazingly
low input power, the output-force-to-input-power ratio surpassing that
of conventional propulsion methods by several powers of 10. His
projections imply a thrust of 1350 pounds force per kilowatt.
Field Thrust Experiments on Piezoelectrics.--James Woodward, a
physics professor at Cal State Fullerton, is conducting research that
indicates that electromagnetic waves can induce lofting forces in
piezoelectric ceramic media. His ideas are described in a 1994 U.S.
patent and in a 1990 physics journal article. Woodward has conducted
experiments that confirm this thrust effect in the audio frequency
range (~10,000 Hertz), and his calculations suggest that it may be
substantially increased at higher frequencies, with optimal performance
being obtained in the microwave range (0.1 to 10 gigahertz). His work
has gotten some support from DoE.
__________
Accountability and Risk in the Information Era: Lessons Drawn From the
``Cold Fusion'' ``Furor''
(By: Dr. Scott Chubb, Naval Research Laboratory)
background
Nature does not lie. But it can fool us. Also, we frequently fool
ourselves. When media attention, the politics of money and prestige,
the possibility of extraordinary wealth, and the fear of embarrassment
also become part of the equation, the resulting situation can rapidly
escalate into a minefield of confusion. For this reason, ``taking
risks,'' especially about areas involving science and technology,
always can be dangerous. When opinion becomes part of the process,
risk-taking can take on an identity of its own.
An extreme example of this occurred 11 years ago when Stanley Pons
and Martin Fleischmann (PF) took an ``extraordinary risk'' by
``implying'' it was possible to ``create a room-temperature hydrogen
bomb in a test-tube.'' \1\ Almost immediately, their ``suggestion''
``for new research'' ``not only `was discredited,' '' but with time,
scorn and ridicule (even open harassment) routinely became part of the
lives of individuals who have paid attention to it.\2\ However, despite
the apparent meltdown, in public opinion, about Cold Fusion (CF), CF
research has continued. An obvious question is why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This quote paraphrases comments from a number of popular
sources of information (the popular press, newspapers, etc). It
typifies the kind of imprecise, anecdotal information about Cold Fusion
that, somewhat surprisingly, is still commonly believed to have been
attributed to Pons and Fleischmann, and Jones et al. In fact,
compelling evidence exists that novel forms of nuclear reaction exist,
without high energy particles; http://www.infinite-energy.com.
\2\ Charles G.Beaudette, Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research
Prevailed. (Oak Grove Press, LLC, ME, 2000). (ISBN 09678548-06;
available through http://www.amazon.com, http://www.infinite-
energy.com; hardcover $36.95; softcover $26.95, distributed by INGRAM
and Infinite-Energy Press).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
what's new
Clearly, one might ask one of two questions: 1. ``Are those who
remained involved fooling nature or themselves?,'' or 2. ``Are those
who are responsible for harassing those who have remained involved been
fooled?'' In fact, at the core of both questions are two key issues: 1.
The degree that individuals (or groups of individuals) can take
``risks'' and also avoid ``appearing'' to be ``foolish'', or when or
how (as a result of policy decisions, for example) can the ``perception
of appearing to be foolish'' be ``augmented'' in a useful way to such a
degree that a ``useful'' way ``to be foolish'' can occur, or 2. How,
given the need to satisfy budget constraints and be ``persuasive and
credible'', do we deal with ideas that are difficult to accept?
Recently, while serving as guest editor of an Ethics in Science
journal, titled ``Accountability in Research,'' \3\ I dealt with this
issue. Specifically, I asked a number of senior individuals on both
sides of the Cold Fusion debate to deal with the following question:
regardless of whether or not Cold Fusion (CF) claims have merit, were
(or are) there lessons that can be learned from the on-going situation?
Almost universally, the various authors agreed on three general ideas:
1. ``Normal'' scientific discussion about CF ended at a very early
stage, 2. The ``breakdown'' of ``Normal'' scientific discussion not
only has not been widely accepted outside the field, but 3. Although
the reasons for this ``breakdown'' are not clear, the ``failure'' by
particular ``individuals'' or ``institutions'' to be held
``accountable'' for past actions has been largely responsible for this
problem. Implicit in these assertions is an obvious point. ``Cold
Fusion'' ``was'' ``and is'' a ``risky'' ``form'' of ``science.''
``Discussions about CF'' have ``ceased'' ``to be'' ``normal'' ``for
precisely this reason.'' But there is a more poignant message: despite
the fact that research in CF has continued, not only have the initial
``critics'' largely avoided the subject, even though many of their
criticisms have been adequately addressed, most scientists are simply
unaware of this fact. An important reason for this is that many of the
institutions that are involved either in disseminating information
about science or in adjudicating science have largely ignored what has
been going on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Scott R. Chubb, ``Introduction to the Special Collection of
Articles in Accountability in Research Dealing With Cold Fusion'', in
Accountability in Research, v. 8, 1 and 2. (eds. A.E. Shamoo, and S.R.
Chubb, Gordon and Breach, Philadelphia, 2000). (http://www.gbhap-
us.com/journals/149/149-top.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
impact
There is an important lesson associated with this that applies not
only in science, but in most forms of human interaction. For
communication to occur, some form of accountability is necessary. (This
is especially true when risk is involved.) Institutions and individuals
must be held accountable for their actions for an obvious reason: the
need to maintain trust. Specifically, when a particular party or group
requests that an individual or institution be held accountable for a
particular action, implicitly, trust occurs. This is because at a very
basic level, for communication to occur at all, it is necessary that
the parties mutually trust each other. The process of assigning
accountability for a particular action involves the identification of a
particular liability (or responsibility) that can be directly
associated with a particular action. When the associated liability or
responsibility is clearly identifiable, the degree of accountability
can be quantified. Because in situations involving risk, the associated
liability can be difficult to define, procedures for assigning
accountability become less tangible.
In ``normal'' circumstances, ``liability'' and ``responsibility''
and ``accountability'' not only can all be identified and related to
each other but can be quantified either by precedent or through the
potential for pecuniary damages or rewards (as defined through the
marketplace, for example). Thus, typically, accountability can be
measured using flows of information, ideas, money, or technology,
almost in terms of a marketplace type of scenario. Then ``liability''
and ``responsibility'' can be defined in terms of how these processes
are enhanced or impeded by a particular set of actions. When ``risk''
becomes part of the ``scenario'', however, this picture becomes
altered, significantly.
For this reason, within the context of ``normal'' science, it is
relatively easy to identify the terms of accountability. However, when
the relevant ``science'' ceases to be ``normal,'' because of ``risk,''
the terms associated with accountability cease to be as clearly
defined. In fact, ``risk'' ``as it applies to CF'', in a grander
context, also applies to ``bold'' or ``new'' initiatives. And many of
the lessons from the CF controversy involving ``risk'' can be viewed as
having more-far-reaching lessons associated in policy-decisions
involving a particular individual or groups of individuals.
Ironically, in the case of CF, the advent of Information Era
technologies seems to have eroded the underlying communication problem.
In particular, at an early stage, considerable confusion occurred as a
result of the widespread dissemination of incomplete (and incorrect)
information about the associated experiments, by FAX machines, and
through the Internet. The resulting ``discourse'' quickly became
distorted. This situation not only seriously undermined the scientific
review process but seems to have been at least partly responsible for
the fact that established scientific journals do not publish
information about CF.
In the talk, I will summarize my involvement with CF, as well as
several important conclusions that I have summarized in my Introduction
to the special two issue collection of articles from the Ethics in
Science journal, Accountability in Research, where a number of senior
individuals involved in the controversy have examined the associated
breakdown in scientific dialog, about this topic. Important
implications of the work include the need for greater investment in
Science in ``formal'' and ``informal'' ``ways''. In particular, it is
apparent that a ``rush-to-judge'' mentality was present in 1989 that
clearly was related to funding (or loss of funding). This not only
included a number of ``obvious `non-scientific' `events', and `reviews'
'' involving a number of organizations (most notably the American
Physical Society, the Department of Energy, and the Patent Office)''
but other actions, including non-scientific intervention (involving the
American Physical Society and the Department of Energy) that appear to
have been prompted by a lack of sufficient funding.
The effect of this process is simple: after 11 years, not only have
the relevant scientific issues not been adequately represented, serious
questions about the adjudication process that is responsible for this
should be addressed. The Congress, the President, and the Courts are
the final bodies that ``should be `held' `accountable,' '' with regard
to these issues. Science cannot be objective when the ``bodies'' ``that
`hold' `Science' `captive' '' are not willing to ``investigate''
``Science.'' It is not only plausible but likely that others, besides
those involved with the government, will be assigned ``blame'' ``for
injustices'' associated with ``Cold Fusion.'' However, I believe this
view is shortsighted. In my opinion, the institutions mirror
investment. Scientists will only feel free to take risks when they are
sufficiently protected to do so. In 1945, we felt compelled to
``protect science.'' In 2000, this seems to be a forgotten message.
Innovative Energy ideas, ``risky ideas'' (which ``wouldn't be `so
risky' if scientists had adequate funding'') are left unexplored, as a
consequence.
__________
The Strange Birth of the Water Fuel Age: the Cold Fusion ``miracle''
was no Mistake
Dr. Mallove's briefing paper, which was submitted on request from
the White House for President Clinton (Feb., 2000) was not available at
the time of this compilation, but may be obtained from him at: Infinite
Energy Magazine, P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH 03302, Phone: 603-228-4516.
__________
The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly
(T.E. Bearden, LTC, U.S. Army (Retired) CEO, CTEC Inc.)
introduction
the world energy crisis
The world energy crisis is now driving the economies of the world
nations.
There is an escalating worldwide demand for electrical power and
transportation, much of which depends on fossil fuels and particularly
oil or oil products. The resulting demand for oil is expected to
increase year by year. Recent sharp rises in some U.S. metropolitan
areas included gasoline at more than $2.50 per gallon already.
At the same time, it appears that world availability of oil may
have peaked in early 2000, if one factors in the suspected Arab
inflation of reported oil reserves. From now on, it appears that oil
availability will steadily decline, slowly at first but then at an
increasing pace.
Additives to aid clean burning of gasoline are also required in
several U.S. metropolitan areas, increasing costs and refinery storage
and handling.
The increasing disparity between demand and supply--steadily
increasing demand for electricity using oil products versus decreasing
world supplies of oil, with other factors such as required fuel
additives--produces a dramatically increasing cost of oil and oil
products. Further, newer supplies of oil must be taken by increasingly
more expensive production means.
Manipulative means of influencing the price of oil include (i) the
ability of OPEC to increase or decrease production at will, and (ii)
the ability of the large oil companies to reduce or increase the
holding storage of the various oil products, types of fuel, etc.
Interestingly, several large oil companies are reporting record
profits.\1\
At the same time, the burgeoning populaces of the major petroleum
producers--and their increasing economic needs--press hard for an
increasing inflation of oil prices in order to fund the economic
benefits.
As an example, Saudi moderation of OPEC is vanishing or has already
vanished. The increasing demands of the expanding Saudi Royal Family
group and the guaranteed benefits to the expanding populace have
overtaken and surpassed the present Saudi financial resources unless
the price of OPEC oil is raised commensurately.\2\
The Federal Reserve contributes directly to the economic problem in
the United States, since it interprets the escalating prices of goods
and services (due to escalating energy prices) as evidence of
inflation. It will continue to raise interest rates to damp the
economy, further damping U.S. business, employment, and trade. The Fed
has already increased interest rates six times in 1 year as of this
date.
international trade factors
Under NAFTA, GATT,\3\ and other trade agreements, the transfer of
production and manufacturing to the emerging nations is also increasing
and trade barriers are lowered. Some 160 emerging nations are
essentially exempt from environmental pollution controls, under the
Kyoto Accords. In these nations, electrical power needs and transport
needs are increasing, and will continue to increase, due to the
increasing production and movement of goods and the building of
factories and assembly plants. Very limited pollution controls-if any-
will be applied to the new electrical plants and transport capabilities
to be built in those exempted nations.
The transfer of manufacturing and production to many of these
nations is a transfer to essentially ``slave labor'' nations. Workers
have few if any benefits, are paid extremely low wages, work long
hours, and have no unions or bargaining rights. In some of these
nations, to pay off their debts many parents sell their children into
bondage for manufacture of goods, with 12 to 14 hour workdays being a
norm for the children.\4\ In such regions the local politicians can
usually be ``bought'' very cheaply so that there are also no effective
government controls. Such means have set up a de facto return to the
feudalistic capitalism of an earlier era when enormous profits could be
and were extracted from the backs of impoverished workers, and
government checks and balances were nil.
The personal view of this author is that NAFTA, GATT, and Kyoto
were set in place for this very purpose. As the transfer builds for the
next 50 years, it involves the extraction of perhaps $2 trillion per
year, from the backs of these impoverished laborers. It would not
appear accidental that Kyoto removed the costly pollution control
measures from this giant economic buildup that would otherwise have
been required. The result will be increased pollution of the biosphere
on a grand scale.
Ironically, the Environmental Community itself was deceived into
supporting the Kyoto accords and helping achieve them, hoping to put
controls on biospheric pollution worldwide. In fact, the Kyoto accords
will have exactly the opposite effect.
resulting world economic collapse
Bluntly, we foresee these factors--and others\5\<SUP>-</SUP>\6\ not
covered--converging to a catastrophic collapse of the world economy in
about 8 years. As the collapse of the Western economies nears, one may
expect catastrophic stress on the 160 developing nations as the
developed nations are forced to dramatically curtail orders.
international strategic threat aspects
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions.
Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have
increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point
where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed
by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example,
suppose a starving North Korea\7\ launches nuclear weapons upon Japan
and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal
response. Or suppose a desperate China--whose long-range nuclear
missiles (some) can reach the United States--attacks Taiwan. In
addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such
scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating
it significantly.
Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such
extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries
and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of
preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is
this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without
effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to
launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its
perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible.
As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange
occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be
unleashed, are already onsite within the United States itself. \8\ The
resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and
perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.
My personal estimate is that, beginning about 2007, on our present
energy course we will have reached an 80 percent probability of this
``final destruction of civilization itself'' scenario occurring at any
time, with the probability slowly increasing as time passes. One may
argue about the timing, slide the dates a year or two, etc., but the
basic premise and general timeframe holds. We face not only a world
economic crisis, but also a world destruction crisis.
So unless we dramatically and quickly solve the energy crisis--
rapidly replacing a substantial part of the ``electrical power derived
from oil'' by ``electrical power freely derived from the vacuum''--we
are going to incur the final ``Great Armageddon'' the nations of the
world have been fearing for so long. I personally regard this as the
greatest strategic threat of all times--to the United States, the
Western World, all the rest of the nations of the world, and
civilization itself.\9\<SUP>-</SUP>\10\
what is required to solve the problem?
To avoid the impending collapse of the world economy and/or the
destruction of civilization and the biosphere, we must quickly replace
much of the ``electrical energy from oil'' heart of the crisis at great
speed, and simultaneously replace a significant part of the
``transportation using oil products'' factor also. Such replacement by
clean, nonpolluting electrical energy from the vacuum will also solve
much of the present pollution of the biosphere by the products of
hydrocarbon combustion. Not only does it solve the energy crisis, but
it also solves much of the environmental pollution problem.
The technical basis for that solution and a part of the prototype
technology required, are now at hand. We discuss that solution in this
paper.
To finish the task in time, the Government must be galvanized into
a new Manhattan Project\11\ to rapidly complete the new system hardware
developments and deploy the technology worldwide at an immense pace.
Once the technology hardware solutions are ready for mass
production, even with a massive worldwide deployment effort some 5
years are required to deploy the new systems sufficiently to contain
the problem of world economic collapse. This means that, by the end of
2003, those hardware technology solutions must have been completed, and
the production replacement power systems must be ready to roll off the
assembly lines en masse.
The 2003 date appears to be the critical ``point of no return'' for
the survival of civilization as we have known it.
Reaching that point, say, in 2005 or 2006 will not solve the crisis
in time. The collapse of the world economy as well as the destruction
of civilization and the biosphere will still almost certainly occur,
even with the solutions in hand.
A review of the present scientific and technical energy efforts to
blunt these strategic threat curves, immediately shows that all the
efforts (and indeed the conventional scientific thinking) are far too
little and far too late. Even with a massive effort on all of the
``wish list'' of conventional projects and directions, the results
would be insufficient to prevent the coming holocaust.
As one example, the entire hot fusion effort has a zero probability
of contributing anything of significance to the energy solution in the
timeframe necessary. Neither will windmills, more dams, oil from tar
sands, biofuels, solar cells, fuel cells, methane from the ocean
bottom, ocean-wave-powered generators, more efficient hydrocarbon
combustion, flywheel energy storage systems, etc. All of those projects
are understandable and ``nice'', but they have absolutely zero
probability of solving the problem and preventing the coming world
economic collapse and Armageddon.
Those conventional approaches are all ``in the box'' thinking,
applied to a completely ``out of the box'' problem unique in world
history.
The conventional energy efforts and thinking may be characterized
as essentially ``business as usual but maybe hurry a little bit.'' They
divert resources, time, effort, and funding into commendable areas, but
areas which will not and cannot solve the problem. In that sense, they
also contribute to the final Armageddon that is hurtling toward us.\12\
If we continue conventionally and with the received scientific
view, even with massively increased efforts and a Manhattan Project, we
almost certainly guarantee the destruction of civilization as we know
it, and much of the biosphere as well.
Bluntly, the only viable option is to rapidly develop systems which
extract energy directly from the vacuum and are therefore self-
powering, like a windmill in the wind.\13\ Fortunately, analogous
electrical systems--open systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium in
their exchange with the active vacuum--are permitted by the laws of
physics, electrodynamics\14\ and thermodynamics.\15\ Such electrical
systems are also permitted by Maxwell's equations, prior to their
arbitrary curtailment by Lorentz symmetrical
regauging<SUP>16, 17, 20</SUP>.
The good news was that the little mathematical trick by Lorentz
made the resulting equations much easier to solve (for the selected
``subset'' of the Maxwell-Heaviside systems retained).
However, the bad news is that it also just arbitrarily discarded
all Maxwellian EM systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium (i.e.,
asymmetrical and in disequilibrium) with respect to their vacuum energy
exchange.
So the bad news is that Lorentz arbitrarily discarded all the
permissible electrical power systems analogous to a windmill in a wind,
and capable of powering themselves and their loads. All our energy
scientists and engineers continue to blindly develop only Lorentz-
limited electrical power systems.
The good news is that we now know how to easily initiate continuous
and powerful ``electromagnetic energy winds'' from the vacuum at will.
Once initiated, each free EM energy wind flows continuously so long as
the simple initiator is not deliberately destroyed.
The bad news is that all our present electrical power systems are
designed and developed so that they continually kill their ``energy
winds'' from the vacuum faster than they can collect some of the energy
from the winds and use it to power their loads.
But the good news is that we now know how to go about designing and
developing electrical power systems which (i) initiate copious EM
energy flow ``winds'' in the vacuum, (ii) do not destroy these winds
but let them continue to freely flow, and (iii) utilize these freely
flowing energy winds to power themselves and their loads.
So we have already solved the first half of the energy crisis
problem:<SUP>18, 19</SUP> We can produce the necessary ``EM energy wind
flow'' in any amount required, whenever and wherever we wish, for
peanuts and with ridiculous ease. We can insure that, once initiated,
the electromagnetic energy wind flows indefinitely or until we wish to
shut it off.
A tiny part of the far frontier of the scientific community is also
now pushing hard into catching and using this available EM energy from
the vacuum.\20\ However, they are completely unfunded and working under
extremely difficult conditions.\21\
In addition, there are more than a dozen appropriate processes
already available (some are well-known in the hard literature), which
can be developed to produce the new types of electrical energy
systems.\22\
what must be done technically
We have about 2\1/2\ years to develop several different types of
systems for the several required major applications--and particularly
the following:
(1) Self-powering open electrical power systems extracting their
electrical energy directly from the active vacuum and readily scalable
in size and output,
(2) Burner systems\23\ to replace the present ``heater'' elements
of conventional power plants, increasing the coefficient of performance
(COP)\24\ of those altered systems to COP>1.0, and perhaps to COP =
4.0,
(3) Specialized self-powering engines to replace small combustion
engines,\25\
(4) Self-regenerating, battery-powered systems enabling practical
electric automobiles, based on the Bedini \26\ process,
(5) Kawai COP>1.0 magnetic motors\27\ with clamped feedback,
powering themselves and their loads,
(6) Magnetic Wankel engines\28\ with small self-powering batteries,
which enable a very practical self-powering automotive engine unit for
direct replacement in present automobiles,
(7) Permanent magnet motors such as the Johnson\29\ approach using
self-initiated exchange force pulses\30\ in nonlinear magnetic
materials to provide a nonconservative field, hence a self-powering
unit,
(8) Iterative retroreflective EM energy flow systems which
intercept and utilize significant amounts of the enormous Heaviside
dark energy\31\ which surrounds every electrical circuit but is
presently ignored,
(9) Iterative phase conjugate retroreflective systems which
passively recover and reorder the scattered energy dissipated from the
load, and reuse the energy again and again,\32\
(10) Shoulders' charge cluster devices\33\ which yield COP>1.0 by
actual measurement,
(11) Self-exciting systems using intensely scattering optically
active media and iterative asymmetrical self-
regauging<SUP>34, 35, 36, 67</SUP>,
(12) True negative resistors such as the Kron\37\ and Chung\38\
negative resistors, the original point-contact transistor\39\ which can
be made into a negative resistor, and the Fogal negative resistor
semiconductor, and
(13) Overunity transformers using a negative resistor bypass across
the secondary, reducing the back-coupling from secondary to primary and
thus lowering the dissipation of energy in the primary.\40\
what must be done for management and organization
To meet the critical 2003 ``point of no return'' milestone, the
work must be accomplished under a declared National Emergency and a
Presidential Decision Directive.
The work must be amply funded, with authority--because of the
extreme emergency--to utilize any available patented processes and
devices capable of being developed and deployed in time, with
accounting and compensation of the inventors and owners separately.
As an example, two of the above mentioned devices--the Kawai engine
and the magnetic Wankel engine--can be quickly developed and produced
en masse. However, they have been seized by the Japanese
Yakuza<SUP>41, 42, 43</SUP> and are being held off the world market.
The two devices are quite practical and can be developed and
manufactured with great rapidity. As an example, two models of the
Kawai engine were tested by Hitachi to exhibit COP = 1.4 and COP = 1.6
respectively. Use of these two inventions, under U.S. Government
auspices, will greatly contribute to solving a significant portion of
the transportation power problem, at low risk for this part of the
solution. Use of them cannot be obtained by normal civil means, due to
the involvement of the Yakuza.
The technical part of the project to solve the energy crisis is
doable in the required time--but just barely, and only if we move at
utmost speed.
Thanks to more than 20 years work on unconventional solutions to
the problem, much of the required solution is already in hand, and the
project can go forward at top speed from the outset
The remaining managing and organizing problem is to marshal the
necessary great new Manhattan Project as a U.S. Government project
operating under highest national priority and ample funding. The
Project must be a separate Agency, operating directly under the
appropriate Department Secretary and reporting directly to the
President (through the Secretary) and to a designated Joint Committee
of the Senate and the House.
The selection of the Managers and Directors must be done with
utmost care; else, they themselves will become the problem rather than
the solution. We strongly stress that here even the most highly
qualified managerial scientist may have to be disqualified because of
his or her own personal biases and dogmatic beliefs. Leaders and
scientists are required who will run with the COP>1.0 ball on a wide
front.
The compelling authority to assign individual tasks to the National
Laboratories and other government agencies is required, but under no
circumstances can the project be placed under the control of the
national laboratories themselves. Those laboratories such as Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Oak
Ridge National Laboratory are far too committed to their entrenched Big
Science projects and the resulting bias against electrical energy from
the vacuum.
Assigning management of the project to them would be setting the
foxes to minding the hen house, and would guarantee failure. Those
agencies whose favored approaches are responsible for the present
energy crisis, cannot be expected to direct an effective solution to it
that is outside their managerial and scientific ansatz and totally
against their institutional and professional biases. If they are
allowed to direct the project, then implacable scientists, who
adamantly oppose electrical energy from the vacuum from the getgo, will
hamstring and destroy the project from its inception.
Not only will they fiddle while Rome burns, but they will help burn
it.
Enormous EM Energy Flow Is Easily Extracted From the Active Vacuum
At any point and at any time, one can freely and inexpensively
extract enormous EM energy flows directly from the active vacuum
itself.
There is not now and there never has been a problem in readily
obtaining as much electromagnetic energy flow from the vacuum as we
wish. Anywhere. Anytime. For peanuts.
Every electrical power system and circuit ever built already does
precisely that<SUP>44-45</SUP>. But almost all the vast EM energy flow
that the present flawed systems extract from the vacuum is unaccounted
and simply wasted. It is wasted by the conventional, seriously flawed
circuits and systems designed and built by our power system scientists
and engineers in accord with a terribly flawed 136-year-old set of
electrodynamics concepts and foundations. Specifically, it is wasted
because Lorentz discarded it a century ago.\45\ Since then, everyone
has blindly followed Lorentz's lead.
Our electrical scientists and engineers have not yet even
discovered how a circuit is powered!
They have no valid concept of where the electrical energy flowing
down the power line actually comes from. They do not model the
interaction that provides it,\46\ in their theoretical models and
equations. This vast scientific ``conspiracy of ignorance'' is
completely inexplicable, because the actual source of the EM energy
powering the external circuits has been known (and rigorously proven)
in particle physics for nearly half a century! However, it has not yet
even been added into the fundamental electrical theory used in
designing and building power systems.
We have a scientific mindset problem of epic proportions, and
scientific negligence and electromagnetics dogma of epic proportions. I
sometimes refer to this as an unwitting ``conspiracy of ignorance'',
where I use the word ``ignorance'' technically as meaning ``unaware''.
We certainly do not intend the phrase to be pejorative.
So we do not have an energy problem per se. We have an unwitting
conspiracy of scientific ignorance problem.
Because of its bias, our electrical scientific community also
strongly resists updating the 136-year-old electrodynamics foundations
even though much of it is known to be seriously flawed and even
incorrect<SUP>47, 48</SUP>. Indeed, organized science has always
fiercely resisted strong innovation. As Max Planck\49\ so eloquently
put it,
``An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by
gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely
happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its
opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is
familiarized with the ideas from the beginning.''
Arthur C. Clarke\50\ expressed it succinctly for our more modern
scientific community, as follows:
``If they [quantum fluctuations of vacuum] can be [tapped],
the impact upon our civilization will be incalculable. Oil,
coal, nuclear, hydropower, would become obsolete--and so would
many of our worries about environmental pollution.'' ``Don't
sell your oil shares yet--but don't be surprised if the world
again witnesses the four stages of response to any new and
revolutionary development: 1. It's crazy! 2. It may be
possible--so what? 3. I said it was a good idea all along. 4. I
thought of it first.''
With respect to extracting and using EM energy from the vacuum, our
present scientific community is mostly in Clarke's phase 1. A few
scientists are in phase 2 but surmise that ``it may perhaps be the
science of the next century.''
We do not have a century remaining. We have 2\1/2\ years.
For nearly half a century (i) the active vacuum, (ii) the vacuum's
energetic interaction with every dipole, and (iii) the broken symmetry
of the dipole\51\ in that energetic interaction 55 have been known and
proven in particle physics. These proven COP>1.0 vacuum energy
mechanisms have not been incorporated into the electrodynamic theory
used to design and build electrical power and transportation
systems.\52\ We are still waiting for the ``old scientific
opponents''--adamantly opposed to the very notion of electrical energy
from the vacuum--to ``die off and get out of the way.''
Hence our universities, the National Science Foundation, the
National Academy of Science, the National Laboratories, etc. have not
taken advantage of the enormous EM energy so universally available from
the active vacuum, and in fact universally and copiously extracted from
the vacuum by every EM system today--and wasted. Indeed, present
organized science will not fund and will not tolerate research that
would violate the presently decreed view of power systems and their
functioning.
Hence, our present organized scientific community will strongly
resist funding of a vigorous program to gather all this proven, known
physics together and rapidly use it to change and update (modernize)
the terribly flawed EM theory and the design of electrical power
systems. Most scientists attempting to do this research have had to
proceed on their own. They have undergone vicious and continual ad
hominem attacks, lost research funds and tenure, been unable to get
their papers published, and in fact risked being destroyed by the
scientific community itself.\21\
The bottom line is this: Left to sweet reason, because of the depth
of its present bias the scientific community is totally incapable of
reacting to the problem in time to prevent the destruction of
civilization. If we wish to survive, government will have to directly
force the scientific community to do the job, over careers and ``dead
bodies'' (so to speak) if necessary.
But first the government itself must be motivated to do so.
Only the environmental community has the clout, financial
resources, and activists to motivate the government in the extremely
short time in which it must be accomplished. So it would seem that the
most urgent task is to educate and wake up the environmental community.
It has been ``had'', and it has been ``had'' since the beginning.
Understanding What Powers Electrical Circuits
Let us cut through the scientific errors in how electrical power
systems are presently viewed: Batteries and generators themselves do
not power circuits. They never have, and they never will. They
dissipate their available internal energy\53\ to do one thing and one
thing only: forcibly separate their own internal charges to form a
``source dipole.''\54\ Once the dipole has been formed, the dipole
directly extracts electromagnetic energy from the active vacuum,
pouring the extracted EM energy out from the terminals of the battery
or generator.
Batteries and generators make a dipole, nothing else. All the fuel
ever burned, the nuclear fuel rods ever consumed, and chemical energy
ever expended by batteries, did nothing but make dipoles. None of all
that destructive activity, of itself, ever added a single watt to the
power line.
Once made, the dipole then extracts EM energy from the seething
vacuum, and pours it out down the circuit and through all surrounding
space around the circuit.\56\ A little bit of that energy flow strikes
the circuit and enters it by being deflected (diverged) into the
wires.\57\ That tiny bit of intercepted energy flow that is diverged
into the circuit, then powers the circuit (its loads and losses).\58\
All the rest of that huge energy flow around the circuit just roars
on off into deep space and is wasted.
The Dipole Extracts Enormous Energy from the Vacuum
The outflow of EM energy extracted from the vacuum by a small
dipole is enormous. It fills all space surrounding the attached
external circuit (e.g., surrounding the power lines attached to a power
plant generator).\56\ In the attached circuits, the electrical charges
on the surfaces of the wires are struck by the mere edge of the violent
flow of EM energy passing along those surfaces. The resulting tiny
``intercepted'' part\57\ of the EM energy flow is deflected into the
wires, very much like placing one's hand outside a moving automobile
and diverting some of the wind into the car. The deflected energy that
enters the wires is the Poynting component of the energy flow. It is
not the entire EM energy flow by any means, but only a very, very tiny
component of it.\58\
Only that tiny bit of the energy flow that is actually diverged
into the wires is used to power the circuit and the loads. All the rest
of the enormous energy flow present and available outside the circuit
is just ignored and wasted.
A nominal 1-watt generator, e.g., is actually one whose external
circuit can ``catch'' only one watt of its output. The generator's
actual total output--in the great flow which fills all space around the
external circuit and is not intercepted and used--is something on the
order of 10 trillion watts!
Our Scientists and Engineers Design Dipole-Destroying Systems
Here is the most inane thing of all. Precisely half of the small
amount of energy that is actually caught by the circuit is used to
destroy the dipole! That half of the intercepted energy does not power
the load, nor does it power losses in the external circuit. Instead, it
is used to directly scatter the dipole charges and destroy the dipole.
Our scientists and engineers have given us the ubiquitous closed
current loop circuit,\59\ which destroys the dipole faster than it
powers the load. In short, the scientists and engineers design and
build only those electrical power systems that ``continuously commit
suicide'' by continuously destroying the source dipole that is
extracting the vacuum energy and emitting it out along the circuit to
power everything in the first place.
So now, we have the real picture.
Every electrical load ever powered, and every load powered today,
has been and is powered by electromagnetic energy extracted directly
from the seething vacuum by the source dipole in the generator or
battery.
However, our scientists and engineers design and build electrical
power systems that only intercept and use a tiny fraction of the vast
EM energy flow available. They also only design and build systems that
destroy their source dipole faster than they power their loads.
If one does not destroy the dipole once it is made, it will
continue to freely extract copious EM energy flow from the vacuum,
indefinitely, pouring out a stupendous flow of EM energy.
As an example, dipoles in the original matter formed in the Big
Bang at the beginning of the universe have been steadily extracting EM
energy from the vacuum and pouring it out for about 15 billion years.
The energy problem is not due to the inability to produce copious
EM energy flows at will--as much as one wishes, anywhere, anytime.
Every dipole already does this, including in every EM power system ever
built.
The energy problem is due to the complete failure to (i) intercept
and utilize more of the vast energy flows made available by the common
dipole, and (ii) doing so without using the present inanely designed
circuits. These circuits use half their collected energy to destroy the
dipole that is extracting the energy flow from the vacuum in the first
place!
This is part of the ``conspiracy of scientific ignorance'' earlier
mentioned.
Ignoring the Vacuum as the Source of Electrical Energy in All Circuits
In their conventional theoretical models, our present electrical
power system scientists and engineers do not even include the vacuum
interaction or the dipole's extraction of EM energy from the vacuum.
They simply ignore--and do not model--what is really powering every
electrical system they build.
Consequently, we reiterate that our electrical scientists have
never even discovered how an EM circuit is powered--although it has
been discovered and known for nearly 50 years in particle physics.
All the hydrocarbons ever burned, all the water over all the dams
ever built, all the nuclear fuel rods ever expended in all the nuclear
power plants, added not a single watt to the power line.
Instead, all that expense, effort, and pollution and destruction of
the biosphere was and is necessary in order to keep adding internal
energy to the generator--so that it can keep continually rebuilding its
source dipole that is continually destroyed by the inane circuits that
the power system scientists and engineers keep designing and building
for us.
It takes as much energy input to the generator to restore the
dipole, as it took the circuit to destroy the dipole. Thus all the
systems our scientists and engineers design and build, require that we
continually input more energy to restore the dipole, than the circuit
dissipates in the load.
Our technical folks thus happily design and give us systems which
can and will only exhibit COP<1.0--thus continuing to require that we
ourselves steadily provide more energy to the system to continually
rebuild its dipole, than the inane masochistic system uses to power its
load.
In short, we pay the power companies (and their scientists and
engineers) to deliberately engage in a giant wrestling match inside
their generators and lose.
That is not the way to run the railroad! One is reminded of one of
the classic comments by Churchill:
``Most men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick
themselves up and continue on as if nothing had happened.''
It seems that not very many energy system scientists and engineers
have ``stumbled over the truth'' as to what really powers their
systems, and how inanely they are really designing them.
Electrical Energy Required from Hydrocarbon Burning Drives the Problem
The heart of the present environmental pollution problem is the
ever-increasing need for electrical energy obtained from burning of
hydrocarbon fuels and/or nuclear power stations.
The increasing production of electrical power to fill the rising
needs, increasingly pollutes the environment including the populace
itself (lungs, bodies, etc.). Almost every species on earth is
affected, and as a result every year some species become extinct.
Environmental pollution includes pollution of the soil, fresh and
salt water, and the atmosphere by a variety of waste products. Given
global warming, it also includes excess heat pollution in addition to
chemical and nuclear residues.
Under present procedures, the electrical energy problem is
exacerbated by decreasing available oil supplies, which are believed to
have peaked this year, with a projected decline from now on.
But really, the electrical energy problem is due to the scientific
community's adamant defense and use of electrical power system models
and theories that are 136 years old\60\ in their very foundations.
These models and theories are riddled with errors and non sequiturs,
and seriously flawed.
The scientific community has not even recognized the problem, much
less the solution. In fact, it does not even intend to recognize the
problem, even though the basis for it has been known in particle
physics for nearly 50 years. As Bunge\61\ put it some decades ago:
``. . . it is not usually acknowledged that electrodynamics,
both classical and quantal, are in a sad state.''
The scientific community has done little to correct that
fundamental problem since Bunge made his wry statement.
Let us put it very simply: The most modern theory today is modern
gauge field theory. In that theory, freedom of gauge is assumed from
the getgo. Applied to electrodynamics, this means--as all
electrodynamicists have assumed for the last century or longer--that
the potential energy of an EM system can be freely changed at will. In
other words, in theory it costs nothing at all to increase the EM
energy collected in a system; this is merely ``changing the voltage'',
which does not require power. In other words, we can ``excite'' the
system with excess energy (actually taken from the vacuum), at will.
For free. And the best science of the day agrees with that statement.
It also follows that we can freely change the excitation energy
again, at will. In short, we can dissipate that excess energy freely
and at will. Without cost.
Well, this means that we are free--by the laws of nature, physics,
thermodynamics, and gauge field theory--to dissipate that free excess
potential energy in an external load, thus doing ``free work''.
Since none of the systems our energy scientists and engineers build
for us are doing that, it follows a priori that the fault lies entirely
in their own system design and building. It does not lie in any
prohibition by nature or the laws of physics.
A priori, then, the present COP<1.0 performance of our electrical
power systems is a monstrosity and the direct fault of our scientists
and engineers. We cannot blame the laws of nature or the laws of
physics.
The present energy crisis then is due totally to that ``conspiracy
of ignorance'' we referred to. It is maintained by the scientific
community today, and it has been maintained by it for more than 100
years.
This is the real situation that the environmentalists must become
aware of, if they are to see the correct path into which their energies
and efforts should be directed--to solve both the energy crisis and the
problem of gigantic pollution of the biosphere.
Outside Intervention Must Forcibly Move Energy Science Forward
Unless outside intervention occurs forcibly, the scientific
community's lock-up of research funds for ``in the box'' energy
research may result in the economic collapse of the Western World in
perhaps as little as 8 years.
Let us examine the gist of the problem facing us.
Suppose we launch a crash program to develop, manufacture, deploy,
and employ the new ``vacuum powered'' systems. Once the new self-
powering systems are developed and ready to roll off the production
lines en masse, it will require a minimum of 5 years worldwide to
sufficiently alter the ``electrical energy from oil'' demand curve, so
that economic collapse can be averted. In turn, this means that the new
systems must be ready to roll off the manufacturing lines by the end of
2003. While this is a very tight schedule, it can be done if we move
rapidly.
The necessary scientific corrections along the lines indicated in
this paper can be quickly applied to solve the electrical energy
problem permanently and economically, given a Manhattan type project
under a Presidential Decision Directive together with a Presidential
declaration of a National Energy Emergency.
In a paper\62\ to be published in Russia in July 2000, this
researcher has proposed some 15 viable methods for developing new
``self-powering'' systems powering themselves and their loads with
energy extracted from the vacuum. Several of these systems can be
developed very rapidly, and can be easily mass-produced.
A second paper\63\ will be published in the same proceedings,
revealing the Bedini method for invoking a negative resistor inside a
storage battery. The negative resistor freely extracts vacuum energy
and adds it to both the battery-recharging function and the load
powering function.
In Bedini's negative resistor method, the ion current inside the
battery is decoupled (dephased) from the electron current between the
outer circuit and the external surfaces of the battery plates. This
allows the battery to be charged (with increased charging energy)
simultaneously as the load is powered with increased current and
voltage.
At my specific request, both papers were thoroughly reviewed by
qualified Russian scientists, and the premises passed successfully.
A third paper\64\ gives the exact giant negentropy mechanism by
which the dipole extracts such enormous energy from the vacuum. We will
further explain that mechanism below.
Conventional Approaches: Too Little, Too Late
It appears that the Environmental Community itself has finally
realized that the present scientific approaches and research are simply
too little and too late. Further, the conventional approaches are
largely ``in the box thinking'' applied to an ``out of the box
problem.'' We leave it to others such as Loder\65\ to succinctly
summarize the shortfalls of these present solutions. Loder, e.g.,
particularly and incisively explains how the problem with automobiles
breaks down.
In fact, no single COP>1.0 approach will be all sufficing. Several
solutions, each for a different application, must be developed and
deployed simultaneously.
As an example, it is possible to create certain dipolar phenomena
in plasmas produced in special burners, such that the dipoles extract
substantial excess EM energy from the vacuum. Output of the excess
energy produces ordinary excess heat well beyond what the combustion
process alone will yield. Given a Manhattan type project, the inventor
of that process (with already working models and rigorous measurements)
could rapidly be augmented to develop a series of replacement burners
(heaters). They could be used in existing electrical power plants to
heat the water to make the steam for the steam turbines turning the
shafts of the generators. The entire remainder of the power system,
grid, etc. could be left intact. Some fuel would still be burned, but
far less would be consumed in order to furnish the same required heat
output.
In short, a rather dramatic reduction in power plant hydrocarbon
combustion could be achieved--in the present electrical power plants
with minimum modification, and in the necessary timeframe--while
maintaining or even increasing the electrical energy output of the
power systems. We believe the inventor would fully participate in a
government-backed Manhattan type energy program where a National
Emergency has been declared, given a U.S. Government guarantee that his
process, equipment, and inventions will not be confiscated.\66\
Another process capable of quick development and enormous
application is the development of point contact transistors as true
negative resistors.\39\
Two other processes that can be developed for massive production in
less than 2 years are (i) the Kawai process,\27\ and (ii) the magnetic
Wankel process.\28\ In addition, the Johnson\29\ process can be
developed and readied for manufacture in the same timeframe, given a
full-bore sophisticated laboratory team.
There are other processes<SUP>67, 62-63</SUP> which can also be
developed rapidly, to provide major contributions in solving their
parts of the present ``electrical energy from hydrocarbon combustion''
problem.
Giant Negentropy and a Great New Symmetry Principle
We now summarize some recent technical discoveries by the present
author that bear directly upon the problem of extracting and using
copious EM energy flows from the vacuum.
Any dipole has a scalar potential between its ends, as is well
known. Extending earlier work by Stoney,\68\ in 1903 Whittaker\69\
showed that the scalar potential decomposes into--and identically is--a
harmonic set of bidirectional longitudinal EM wavepairs. Each wavepair
is comprised of a longitudinal EM wave (LEMW) and its phase conjugate
LEMW replica. Hence, the formation of the dipole actually initiates the
ongoing production of a harmonic set of such biwaves in 4-space.\70\
We separate the Whittaker waves into two sets: (i) the convergent
phase conjugate set, in the imaginary plane, and (ii) the divergent
real wave set, in 3-space. In 4-space, the 4th dimension may be taken
as -ict. The only variable in -ict is t. Hence the phase conjugate
waveset in the scalar potential's decomposition is a set of harmonic EM
waves converging upon the dipole in the time dimension, as a time-
reversed EM energy flow structure inside the structure of time.\71\ Or,
one can just think of the waveset as converging upon the dipole in the
imaginary plane\72\--a concept similar to the notion of ``reactive
power'' in electrical engineering.
The divergent real EM waveset in the scalar potential's
decomposition is then a harmonic set of EM waves radiating out from the
dipole in all directions at the speed of light. As can be seen, there
is perfect 4-symmetry in the resulting EM energy flows, but there is
broken 3-symmetry since there is no observable 3-flow EM energy input
to the dipole.
Our professors have taught us that output energy flow in 3-space
from a source or transducer, must be accompanied by an input energy
flow in 3-space. That is not true. It must be accompanied by an input
energy flow, period. That input can be an energy flow in the 4th
dimension, time--or we can consider it as an inflow in the imaginary
plane. The flow of energy must be conserved, not the dimensions in
which the flow exists. There is no requirement by nature that the
inflow of EM energy must be in the same dimension as the outflow of EM
energy.
Indeed, nature prefers to do it the other way! Simply untie
nature's foot from the usually enforced extra condition of 3-space
energy flow conservation. Then nature joyfully and immediately sets up
a giant 4-flow conservation, ongoing. Enormous EM energy is inflowing
from the imaginary plane into the source charge or dipole, and is
flowing out of the source charge or dipole in 3-space, at the speed of
light, and in all directions.
In other words, nature then gladly gives us as much EM energy flow
as we need, indefinitely--just for paying a tiny little bit initially
to ``make the little dipole.'' After that, we never have to pay
anything again, and nature will happily keep on pouring out that 3-flow
of EM energy for us. This is the giant negentropy mechanism I
uncovered, performed in the simplest way imaginable: just make an
ordinary little dipole.
We may interpret the giant negentropy mechanism in electrical
engineering terms.\73\ The EM energy flow in the imaginary plane is
just incoming ``pure reactive power'' in the language of electrical
engineering. The outgoing EM energy flow in the real plane (3-space) is
``real power'' in the same language. So the dipole is continuously
receiving a steady stream of reactive power, transducing it into real
power, and outputting it as a continuous outflow of real EM power.
Further, there is perfect 1:1 correlation between the convergent
waveset in the imaginary plane and the divergent waveset in 3-space.
This perfect correlation between the two sets of waves and their
dynamics represents a deterministic re-ordering of a fraction of the 4-
vacuum energy. This re-ordering initiated by the formation of the
dipole spreads radially outward at the speed of light, continuously.
This clearly shows that (i) we can initiate reordering of a usable
fraction of the vacuum's energy at any place, anytime, easily and
cheaply (we need only to form a simple dipole), and (ii) the process
continues indefinitely, so long as the dipole exists, without the
operator inputting a single additional watt of power.
This is a very great benefit. So long as the dipole exists, this
re-ordering continues and a copious flow of observable, usable EM
energy pours from the dipole in all directions at the speed of light.
This is the full solution to the first half of the energy crisis,
once and for all.
Ansatz of the Major Players
To appreciate the difficulty in implementing the solution to the
energy crisis, one must be aware of the characteristics of the major
communities whose dynamics and interactions determine the outcome.
Accordingly, we summarize our personal assessment of the present
``status'' and ``awareness'' of the various communities involved. We do
that by attempting to express the overall ``ansatz'' of the specific
community.
scientific community
For the most part, the organized scientific community varies from
highly resistant to openly hostile toward any mention of extracting
copious EM energy from the active vacuum. The ``Big Nuclear'' part of
the community is particularly adamant in this respect, as witness its
ferocious onslaught on the fledgling and struggling cold fusion
researchers-a ferocity of scientific attack seldom seen in the annals
of science<SUP>74-75</SUP>.
The scientific community also largely suppresses\76\ or severely
badgers scientists attempting to advance electrodynamics to a more
modern model, suitable to the needs of the 21st century and the
desperate need for cheap, clean, nonpolluting electrical power
worldwide.\21\ The community still applies classical equilibrium
thermodynamics to the electrical part of all its electrical power
systems, even though every EM system is inherently a system far from
equilibrium with the active vacuum environment, and a different
thermodynamics applies. Only if the system is specifically so
designed--e.g., so that during the dissipation of its excitation energy
it enforces the Lorentz symmetrical regauging condition--will the
system behave as a classical equilibrium system.
The thermodynamics of open dissipative systems is well known.\77\
Such a system is permitted to (1) self-order, (2) self-oscillate or
self-rotate, (3) output more energy than the operator inputs (the
excess energy is freely received from the active environment), (4)
power itself and its load simultaneously (all the energy is taken from
the active environment, similar to a windmill's operation), and (5)
exhibit negentropy.
Our present electrical power systems do not do these five things,
even though each is an open system in violent energy exchange with the
vacuum. A priori, that reveals it is the scientific model and the
engineering design that are at fault.
It is not any law of nature or principle of physics that prevents
self-powering open electrical power systems. Instead, it is the
scientific community and its prevailing mindset against extracting and
using EM energy from the vacuum.
environmental community
In the past, the environmental community has been overly naive with
respect to physics, and particularly with respect to electrical
physics. Its science advisors have come mostly from the conservative
``in the box'' scientific community. Hence, the community has failed to
realize that COP>1.0 electrical power systems are normal and permitted
by the laws of nature and the laws of physics. They have no inkling
that Heaviside discovered--in the 1880's!--the enormous unaccounted EM
energy pouring from the terminals of any battery or generator. They are
unaware that Poynting considered only the tiny component of the energy
flow that enters the circuit. They are also unaware that, completely
unable to explain the astounding enormity of the EM energy flow if the
nondiverged (nonintercepted) Heaviside component is accounted,
Lorentz\18\ just arbitrarily used a little procedure to discard that
troublesome Heaviside ``dark'' (unaccounted) component.
Lorentz reasoned that, since the huge dark energy flow component
missed the circuit entirely, it ``had no physical significance.'' This
is like arguing that none of the wind on the ocean has any physical
significance, except for that small portion of the wind that strikes
the sail of one's own sailboat. It ignores the obvious fact that whole
fleets of additional sailboats can also be powered by that ``physically
insignificant'' wind component that misses one's own sailboat entirely.
Nonetheless, electrodynamicists continue to use Lorentz's little
discard trick, and try to call the feeble Poynting energy flow
component caught by the circuit the entire EM energy flow connected
with it. This is like arguing that the component of wind hitting the
sails of one's own sailboat, is the entire great wind on the ocean.
As a result, the environmental community has failed to grasp the
technical reason for the energy crisis and the increasing pollution of
the biosphere. They have been deceived and manipulated into thinking
that conventional organized science is giving them the very best
technical advice possible on electrical power systems. The
environmentalists have been and are further deceived into believing
that the conventional scientific community is advocating and performing
the best possible scientific studies and developments for trying to
solve the energy crisis.
Of major importance, the environmental community itself has been
deceived as to the exact nature of the energy flow in and around a
circuit, the vastness of the unaccounted energy flow (or even that any
of the energy flow is deliberately unaccounted), and the fact that this
present but unaccounted EM energy flow can be intercepted and captured
for use in powering loads and developing self-powering systems.
Worst of all, the environmental community has been deceived as to
what powers every electrical load and EM circuit. They have been
deceived into believing that burning all those hydrocarbons, using
those nuclear fuel rods, building those dams and windmills, and putting
out solar cell arrays are necessary and the best that can be done. In
short, they have been smoothly diverted from solving the very problem--
the problem of the increasing pollution and destruction of the
biosphere--they are striving to rectify.
However, their continued demonstrations in the street demonstrate
that many environmentalists now suspect that much of the world's
continued policy of ``the rich get richer and the poor get poorer'' in
international trade agreements are deliberately planned and
implemented.\78\ They perceive the implementation to the advantage of a
favored financial class and the exploitation of the poorer laboring
classes in disadvantaged nations.
electrical power community
The electrical power community:
(1) ubiquitously uses equilibrium thermodynamics, believing that
COP>1.0 is perpetual motion nonsense and against the laws of physics,
(2) has no notion that the energy flowing down their power lines
and filling all space around them, is extracted directly from the
active vacuum by the source dipole in the generator,
(3) erroneously believes that the hydrocarbons they burn, or the
water through the hydroturbines at the dam, or the nuclear fuel rods
they consume, actually add the power to the transmission lines,
(4) uses half of the tiny component of energy caught by the power
lines, to destroy the source dipoles in their generators, thus
requiring ever more shaft input energy via powering a steam turbine,
hydroturbine, etc.,
(5) believes that energy can be ``used'' only once, when in fact it
can be used and re-used repeatedly since it cannot be created or
destroyed,
(6) allows only a single pass of the EM energy flow down the power
lines, so that only one tiny interception of energy occurs from the
energy flow and the rest (most) of the energy flow is wasted,
(7) believes that the electrical energy problem translates into
more hydrocarbon combustion or nuclear fuel rod consumption rather than
a totally different way of doing business, and
(8) believes that the theory they apply is correct, when in fact it
is so seriously flawed as to be inane, and has been inane for a
century.
Industries also acquire their own hidden agendas, when serious
threats to the industries arise. As an example, a potentially serious
problem arose some decades ago when it became apparent that EM
radiation from power lines might detrimentally affect people or at
least some people. To put it gently, a great deal of fuss and fury
resulted, and a great deal of money was and is spent by the power
companies (or through organizations and foundations funded by them) in
EM bioeffects research. Not too surprisingly, just about the entire
output of this industry-funded research ``finds'' that there is no
problem with powerline radiation.\79\ Those scientists such as Robert
Becker<SUP>80-81</SUP> who advocate or show otherwise, usually wind up
having all their funds cutoff, hounded from their jobs, and--in the
case of Becker-forced to retire early.
It is no different in the electrical energy science field.\21\
storage battery companies
Battery companies are primarily of much the same outlook and ansatz
as are the power companies. They have gone to pulse charging of
batteries and improved battery chemistry and materials.\82\ They have
no notion that batteries do not power circuits, but only make source
dipoles--and it is the source dipole that then extracts EM energy from
the vacuum and pours it out into the external circuit.
Consequently, they erroneously believe that chemical energy in the
battery is expended in order to provide power to the external circuit.
Instead, it is expended only to continuously remake the source dipole,
which the closed current loop circuit fiendishly keeps destroying
faster than the load is powered.
They also have not investigated deliberately dephasing and
decoupling the major ion current within the battery and between the
plates, from the electron current between the outside of the plates and
the external circuit. Consequently they have no concept of permissible
Maxwellian COP>1.0 battery-powered systems. Instead, battery companies,
scientists, and engineers still believe--along with the power companies
and most electrodynamicists, and the environmental community--that
applying the Lorentz symmetrical regauging to the Heaviside-Maxwell
equations retains all the Maxwellian systems. It does not. Instead, it
arbitrarily discards all Maxwellian systems which are permitted by the
laws of nature and the laws of physics to produce COP>1.0!
university community
The University community mostly supports the prevailing EM view. It
also suffers from the rise of common ``greed'' in the universities
themselves. The professor now must attract external funding (for his
research, and for his graduate students--and especially for the
lucrative ``overhead'' part of the funding which goes to the university
itself). The research funds available for ``bidding'' via submitting
proposals, are already cut into ``packages'' where the type of research
to be accomplished in each package is rigorously specified and
controlled. Research on COP>1.0 systems is strictly excluded. Dramatic
revision of electrodynamics is excluded.
Unless the professor successfully bids and obtains packages and
their accompanying funding, he is essentially ostracized and soon
discharged or just ``parked'' by the wayside. Also, if he tries to ``go
out of the box'' in his papers submitted for publication, his peer
reviewers will annihilate him and his papers will not be published.
Shortly he will effectively be blacklisted and it will be very
difficult for him to have his submitted papers honestly reviewed, much
less published. Again, that means no tenure, no security, and eventual
release or ``dead-end parking'' by the university.
When one looks at the ``innovative'' packages so highly touted,
they either (1) are research focused upon some approved thing such as
hot fusion--which has spent billions and has yet to produce a single
watt on the power line, and cannot do so in any reasonable time before
the collapse of the Western economy--or (2) use clever buzzwords for
things which are actually ``more of the same'' and ``in the box
thinking'' with just some new words or twists thrown in for spin
control.
Meanwhile, all this makes for a self-policing system, which rewards
conservatism--conservative publications, conservative research,
conservative thinking, conservative teaching, etc. In short, it selects
and approves electrical power system research that is ``too little, too
late'' to solve the world energy crisis in time, and ruthlessly rejects
all the rest. It also makes for a self-policing system which roots out
and destroys (or parks on the sidelines) those professors, graduate
students, and post-docs who--given a chance to be highly innovative and
``out of the box'' researchers--might upset the status quo.
In short, the scientific community is itself the greatest arch foe
of high innovation, just as Planck indicated. The university generally
typifies and reflects that overall attitude because its outside
research funds are controlled and managed by the upper echelons of the
organized Big Science community and the governmental community.
government community--technical
The technical part of the U.S. Government research community is
drawn from the universities, private industry, etc. It mostly reflects
an even more conservative group than the universities. Again, papers
published and funding are the major requirements, within given and
largely accepted scientific constraints. Further, the managerial
government scientists must compete for funding, annual budgets, etc.
and have their own ``channel'' constraints from on high. At the top
levels (such as NSF and NAS), cross-fertilization by the aims and
perceptions of the conservative scientific community leaders is
achieved.
Hence the government technical community is largely constrained in
two fashions: (1) by its own forced competition for funds, facilities,
positions, programs, etc., and (2) by its strong cross-fertilization
from the top scientific personnel in NSF, NAC, etc. Individual
scientists also face the need to publish or perish, and so are further
constrained by the reviewers etc. of the journals.
Most managers within the government scientific community are
striving to scamper up the managerial ladder, much as managers
elsewhere. One's power and prestige rises as one's position level
rises--and particularly as the part of the government's research budget
rises that one controls. There is a fine tightrope to walk. As one
gains control of more government budget for research, one becomes a
powerful influence on the large research corporations which will submit
very complex and extensive proposals for the funds.
A sort of ``common understanding'' thus arises between industry
leaders, higher government research leaders and managers, etc. This can
be so profound that the practical result is almost a sort of
``collusion by common understanding'' between the government and
industrial complexes and a fusion into one consortium--essentially the
``military-industrial complex'' which President Eisenhower warned
Americans against.
The result is that the government managers in their Request for
Quotations (RFQs) use words such as ``out of the box'' and ``highly
innovative.'' However, they rarely will fund such proposals because
they simply cannot obtain approval for such budgets and programs from
``higher up the chain.'' As witnessed by the ultrawideband (UWB) radar
controversy, the government technical community is even more resistant
to innovation and change than is the civilian technical community.
As an example, the early UWB radar pioneers (Harmuth, Barrett,
etc.) were attacked by entrenched government scientists and government
scientific organizations with a viciousness rarely seen in the annals
of government science. The objection raised was that sinusoidal EM
waves could not do such things--even though the UWB radar used
nonsinusoidal EM waves. Further, small UWB radar sets were commercially
available and used to detect voids in concrete structures, the ground,
etc. The real reasons for the violent attacks were the prestige and
power of the Stealth community at the time--and because UWB radar had
the implication of tracking Stealth vehicles readily.
Interestingly, the arch foes of UWB at the time, today would have
us believe they are ``staunch experts'' in the UWB field. To understand
their remarkable metamorphosis, one need only recall Arthur C. Clarke's
words, quoted earlier.
In the COP>1.0 EM energy field, we are still rather much at the
stage where the UWB researchers started. We are still in the ``violent
attack, personal insults, character assassination, slander, libel,
etc.'' stage. Sadly, such ad hominem savagery is by scientists who
themselves have no notion of how electromagnetic circuits are actually
powered, and who--like ostriches--still have their heads buried in the
sand back there in the 1880's when Lorentz discarded the enormous
Heaviside energy flow component.
government community--nontechnical
Here we have a rather mixed situation. The nontechnical person--
e.g., a Senator or a Congressperson--is operating under a distinct
disadvantage. In taking the stance that much better electrical power
systems can readily be achieved, he or she is, in fact, opposing almost
the entire set of university, government technical, university, power
company, battery company, and organized science communities. Further,
in most cases his technical advisors are themselves from one or the
other of those communities, and likely to go back into that community
or those communities when the Senator or Congressperson leaves office,
or even before. So the Congress and the nontechnical government
community at large operate at a great disadvantage.
As an example, admittedly there are some very misguided unorthodox
energy system inventors and scientists out there, who in the guise of
furthering COP>1.0 systems actually contribute to the problem rather
than to the solution. A few do not even realize that they cannot
properly measure a ``spiky'' output with an RMS meter! Some are also
more interested in selling ``dealerships'' and ``stock'' than in
furthering the science of COP>1.0 systems. Few have submitted their
purported COP>1 devices to rigorous testing by an independent,
Government-certified test laboratory.\83\
This ``noise'' seriously dilutes the unconventional scientific
community's legitimate efforts in COP>1.0 systems. By playing up such
``dilution'' and accenting ``the crazies,'' the orthodox scientific
community often convinces government nontechnical managers and
personnel that the unorthodox scientific COP>1.0 community is comprised
only of lunatics, charlatans, stock-scam artists and misguided crank
inventors.
Such, of course, is not the case. A goodly number of reputable,
skilled scientists are seriously struggling with the problems of
developing COP>1.0 EM power systems and devices. A few are also
struggling to develop an adequate theory of such systems. Progress is
slowly being made and has been made, in spite of the harassment.\84\
The independent assessments that Congress once enjoyed with the OTA
are no more because the OTA was abolished. Now the committees,
subcommittees, and individual Congresspersons and Senators are largely
on their own, with their own staffs and their own technical advisors.
That said, nonetheless it can be seen by savvy Senators and
Congresspersons that the U.S. Ship of State is headed for a great
economic bust, and probably the greatest one of all time.
The Government Nontechnical community (the Senate and the Congress,
in particular) is in far better shape than the Government Technical
community, to appreciate the world implications of the pending economic
disaster. I am hopeful that both the environmentalists and the
Government Nontechnical community will rapidly unite in a common goal
to get this vacuum energy program launched, under a National Emergency
declaration. If so, then they can solve the energy crisis and the
pending economic crisis, in fairly short order, and permanently.
conclusion
There is an even more ominous specter looming behind the shadow of
the coming great economic collapse. When national economies get
strained to the breaking point--with some of them failing, etc.
worldwide as the price of oil escalates--the conflicts among nations
will increase in number and grow in intensity. About a year or so ahead
of the ``Great Collapse'' of the world economies, the intensity and
desperation of the resulting national conflicts will have increased to
the breaking point.
Some 25 Nations already have weapons of mass destruction (WMD)--
including nuclear warheads; missile, aircraft, boat, and terrorist
delivery systems; biological warfare weaponry; and other advanced
weapons<SUP>9-10</SUP>, etc.<SUP>85-86</SUP>.
Any knowledgeable person knows that hostile terrorist agents are
already onsite here in the United States,\87\ and some will have
smuggled in their WMDs. It is not too difficult to surmise that some of
those missing Russian ``suitcase nukes'' probably wound up right here
in the United States, hidden in our population centers.\88\ Or that
some of Saddam Hussein's large stock of anthrax has been spirited into
the United States as well. As is well known, the threat from weapons of
mass destruction is now officially recognized as the greatest strategic
threat facing the United States. It is not a matter of if the WMD
weapons will be unleashed, but when.
If one transposes that recognized escalating WMD threat onto the
escalating economic pressures worldwide, then another factor comes into
play--the dark side of the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) concept. We
have opted (at least to date) not to defend our populace. The U.S.
Government has deliberately placed U.S. population centers in a
defenseless situation so that their destruction is ``assured'' once the
WMD balloon really goes up.
The insanity of the MAD concept is revealed when war preparations
by many nations start to be perceived--as they will be, when the
conflicts intensify sufficiently and the looming economic collapse
tightens the cinch on the nations of the world.
Without any protection of its populace, a defending Nation has to
fire on perception of nuclear preparations by its adversaries, if that
Nation is to have even the slightest chance of surviving.
At about that 2007 date when a nation sees its adversaries
preparing WMD and nuclear assets for launch or use in ongoing intense
conflicts, at some point that nation must pre-empt and fire massively,
or accept its own ``assured destruction.''
The only question in MAD is whether the assured destruction shall
be mutual or solitary.
So one or more nations will fire, immediately moving all the rest
into the ``fire on perception'' mode. Very rapidly, the situation then
escalates to the all-out worldwide exchange so long dreaded. This
massive exchange means the destruction of civilization itself, and
probably much of the entire biosphere for decades or centuries. Such
escalation from one or more initial nuclear firings has been shown for
decades by all the old strategic nuclear studies. It is common
knowledge to strategic analysts unless one engages in wishful thinking.
Eerily, this very threat now looms in our not too distant future,
due in large part to the increasing and unbearable stresses that
escalating oil prices will elicit.
So about 7 years or so from now, we will enter the period of the
threat of the Final Armageddon, unless we do something very, very
quickly now, to totally and permanently solve the present ``electrical
energy from oil'' crisis.
This is really why we must have a National Emergency proclamation,
and a Manhattan Project. Mass manufacturing, deployment, and employment
of replacement electrical power systems must begin in earnest in early
2004.
In my estimate, the point of no return for developing the self-
powering replacement systems is about the end of 2003. If by early 2004
we do not have multiple types of vacuum-energy powered systems rolling
off the assembly lines en masse, then we shall overshoot the point of
no return. In that case, it matters not whether the systems then become
available or not. They will then be too late to prevent the great
Armageddon and the destruction of civilization.
Personally, the present author regards the increasing energy crisis
as the greatest strategic threat to the United States in its entire
history. I will do anything within my power to help prevent what I
perceive to be the looming economic collapse of the Western world,
preceded or accompanied by a sudden, explosive, all-out and continuing
exchange of the WMD arsenals of most of the world.
We can still meet this early 2004 production deadline. It is
difficult, but it is definitely a doable at this time.
We must do it, and we must do it now. Else the technology for
electrical energy from the vacuum will also be ``too little, too
late.'' In that case, not only the world economy, but civilization
itself, will likely be destroyed--not 100 years from now, not 50 years
from now, but in less than one decade from now.
In the name of all humanity, let us begin! Else by the time this
first decade of the new millennium ends, much of humanity may not
remain to see the second decade.
References and Notes
1. And of course it is said to be accidental that all the
manipulative measures and profit-taking happen to coincide with the
large increase in demand in the United States during the summer
vacation and tourist months.
2. E.g., see F. Gregory Gause III, ``Saudi Arabia Over a Barrel,''
Foreign Affairs, 79(3), May/June 2000, p. 80-94. Quoting, p. 82:
``Saudi oil policy is now driven primarily by the immediate revenue
needs of a government struggling to maintain a welfare state designed
in the 1970s--when money seemed limitless and the population was
small--for a society with one of the world's fastest-growing
populations.'' Our comment is that the financial disarray of the Saudis
is seen by Gause as a need to get Saudi Arabia into the World Trade
Organization--in other words, into the clutches of globalization. For a
resounding expose of the WTO, see Lori Wallach and Michelle Sforza,
Whose Trade Organization? Corporate Globalization and the Erosion of
Democracy, published by Public Citizen Foundation and available by
order from the web at http://www.globaltradewatch.org. Wallach and
Sforza reveal and document the machinations of the World Trade
Organization as an instrument of globalization and usurpation of
national rights. The WTO is only one of many organizations prepared by
the High Cabal (Winston Churchill's term) to establish the return for
much of the world to a version of the old feudal capitalism where
national governments posed no checks and balances and workers had no
rights or benefits.
3. NAFTA stands for North American Free Trade Agreement, passed by
Congress in 1993, creating a trade and investment region consisting of
Canada, the United States, and Mexico. GATT stands for General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Uruguay Round) in 1994, which created
the World Trade Organization (WTO). Other such agreements set in place
to initiate world globalization financial control over nations include
or have included MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment) and OECD
(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) in which many
of the ``secret'' agreements are prepared and then scurried through
passage by ``fast track'' means where the Congress allows the President
to negotiate trade agreements that are then voted on by the Congress
without amendment. Quoting Moises Naim, ``Lori's War,'' Foreign Policy,
Vol. 118, Spring 2000, p. 35, ``. . . fast track is the legislative
legerdemain under which Congress allows the President to negotiate
trade agreements that are then voted on without amendments. Without it,
the White House has no guarantee that lawmakers will not seek to change
the terms of trade agreements reached after lengthy trade talks.'' Our
comment is that there should be no such guarantee to the White House,
since the Congress consists of our duly elected representatives--
elected precisely for the purpose of representing the U.S. public
rather than the Administration. The ``fast track'' ploy is one way of
bypassing full congressional discussion, examination, etc. so that the
desired globalization control measures can be ``sneaked through''
without a rigorous examination of their provisions. In this way,
national authority and constitutional provisions can gradually be
undermined by a continuing series of such sneak actions.
4. According to the International Labour Organization, some 250
million boys and girls between the ages of five and 14 are exploited in
hazardous work conditions. Most of these children live in the
developing world--although in industrialized countries such as the
United States, hundreds of thousands of underage boys and girls are at
work in sweatshops, farm fields, brothels, and on the street. E.g., see
Sandy Hobbs, Michael Lavalette, and Jim McKechnie, Child Labor, ABC-
CLIO, Inc., 1999. For a poignant visual and verbal tour through the
problem, see Russell Freedman and Lewis Hine, Kids at Work: Lewis Hine
and the Crusade Against Child Labor, Houghton Mifflin, Aug. 1994. The
United Nations also has several publications on the problem and its
extent.
5. As one example, the Russian mafia, together with the GRU and KGB
under its new name, are the dominant factors in Russia, Russian
business, and the Russian side of relations between the United States
and Russia. See particularly Stanislov Lunev and Ira Winkler, Through
the Eyes of the Enemy: Russia's Highest Ranking Military Defector
Reveals Why Russia Is More Dangerous Than Ever, Regnery, Washington,
DC, 1998. Quoting p. 12: ``When the Soviet Union collapsed and its
industries were privatized, there was only one group within Russia with
the money to buy the new industries, and that was the Russian mafia.
But the mafia did more than buy the industries--it bought the
government.'' Quoting p. 13: ``The cold war is not over; the new cold
war is between the Russian mafia and the United States.'' Quoting p.
14: ``The Soviet Union did not collapse because of `reform-minded
leaders' or because of the Reagan Administration's brilliantly
aggressive strategy (though that strategy played a part). The truth is
that the Russian mafia caused the collapse. Soviet `reform' was nothing
more than a criminal revolution.''
6. As another example, the Japanese Yakuza has penetrated most
large Japanese corporations, including Japanese banking and to include
the national Japanese bank. E.g., see Michael Hirsh and Hideko
Takayama, ``Big Bang or Bust?'', Newsweek, Sept. 1, 1997, p. 44-45.
Some $300 billion or more were extracted by the Yakuza from the
Japanese taxpayers in a great land scandal. Japan's banks loaned
billions to Yakuza-affiliated real-estate speculators, and the Yakuza
would not repay the funds. The banks were literally too terrified to
collect on the $300-600 billion in bad debt that ensnared the banking
system. E.g., when Sumitomo Bank got a little aggressive in collecting
loans in Nagoya, its branch manager was killed. For a summary of this
scandal, see Brian Bremner, ``How the Mob burned the Banks: The Yakuza
is at the Center of the $350 Billion Bad-loan Scandal,'' Business Week,
Jan. 29, 1996, p. 42-43, 46-47. The Japanese government--i.e., the
taxpayers--had to absorb this enormous loss.
The Yakuza have achieved the power and status of a hostile nation,
operating within United States-Japanese corporate relations, within
other nations' relations with Japan, and within the oriental
communities of foreign states. Great influence upon the ability or
inability of the U.S. Government to continue its deficit financing now
rests in the hands of the Yakuza. Effectively, the Yakuza can trigger a
U.S. stock market crash at will, by simply shutting off all further
Japanese purchase of U.S. Government deficit financing bonds.
The Yakuza regard themselves as the last Samurai, still follow the
old Bushido concept, and are intensely hostile to the United States for
the humiliating defeat of Japan in WW II and for dropping the atomic
bomb on Japan. At the critical time in the coming economic crisis,
cessation of Japanese purchase of U.S. Government bonds can and will
initiate the financial coup de grace which generates the final and
sudden collapse of the U.S. economy, dragging down other economies with
it. It appears that the Yakuza tested the response of the U.S. stock
market to this tactic on two occasions, by simply slowing the rate of
Japanese purchases of U.S. Government bonds. The immediate drops in the
stock market on both occasions showed the efficacy of this financial
weapon, whenever the Yakuza wish to employ it.
In the United States, the Yakuza constitute an important and
growing hostile terrorist group, an intense subculture increasing in
numbers, and a group biding its time prior to engaging in mass
terrorism strikes. Together with the Aum Shinrikyo, in 1990 the Yakuza
leased the operational use of clandestine strategic longitudinal EM
wave interferometer weapons in Russia. They now possess some of the
most powerful strategic weapons on earth (see notes 9 and 10, below).
7. The recent historic meetings of North and South Korean leaders,
with proclamations of cooperation etc., are a healthy sign for the
better. With the former implacable North Korean dictator now dead, the
new and younger leader may have less hostile outlook. However, progress
can be made only very slowly, since the Communist apparatus is still in
power in the armed forces and the nation. Only as more of the old die-
hard Communist leaders die off, will real progress start to be made in
materially lessening the threat posed by North Korea. That is a process
requiring a generation, but at least a start has been made. For our
thesis, that progress is likely to be sufficiently slow that, while it
damps the stress curves a little, it has no appreciable effect on the
overall thesis of the eruption within the decade of a great
conflagration involving weapons of mass destruction.
8. Particularly see Lunev and Winkler, ibid., 1998 for the fact
that Spetznatz assassination and terror teams are already deployed
onsite in the United States, as are their WMD weapon caches to include
nuclear weapons. A number of nations of the world have secretly
deployed nuclear and biological weapons throughout the interior of
their perceived enemy nations, often using diplomatic pouch privilege
to bring them directly into the targeted nation. It is called ``dead
man fusing.'' The notion was an extension of the MAD concept: with
weapons and teams secreted throughout a targeted nation, then the
potent threat that, even if one's own nation is destroyed, one can
still destroy the foe who did it, supposedly acts as a deterrent.
9. Also involved, there are clandestine weapons of far greater
power than nuclear weapons, but most of that subject is beyond the
scope of this presentation. For some time we have informed the U.S.
Government of these developments, the evidence, the events, etc. An
example--current at its time of preparation--is T. E. Bearden,
Energetics: Extensions to Physics and Advanced Technology for Medical
and Military Applications, CTEC Proprietary, May 1, 1998, 200+ page
inclosure to CTEC Letter, ``Saving the Lives of mass BW Casualties from
Terrorist BW Strikes on U.S. Population Centers,'' to Major General
Thomas H. Neary, Director of Nuclear and Counterproliferation, Office
of the Deputy Chief of Staff, Air and Space Operations, HQ USAF, May 4,
1998. Copies of a similar presentation were furnished the DoD, Senator
Shelby as head of the Senate's Intelligence subcommittee, and
Congressman Weldon as head of the House's Intelligence subcommittee
efforts, as well as other U.S. Government agencies and high ranking
officials.
10. The earlier clandestine asymmetrical strategic weapons were
developed by the former USSR under rigid KGB and GRU control. The first
of these weapons were longitudinal EM wave interferometers; see Lunev
and Winkler, ibid. 1998, p. 30: ``Other instruments of destruction the
Russians have had success with are seismic weapons. Spitac and other
small towns in the Transcaucasus Mountains were almost destroyed during
a seismic weapons test that set off an earthquake. This would have
obvious applications on America's west coast and other areas of the
world prone to earthquakes.''
These are also the weapons obliquely referred to by Defense
Secretary Cohen in this statement: ``Others [terrorists] are engaging
even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate,
set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of
electromagnetic waves . . . So there are plenty of ingenious minds out
there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon
other nations . . . It's real, and that's the reason why we have to
intensify our [counterterrorism] efforts.'' Secretary of Defense
William Cohen at an April 1997 counterterrorism conference sponsored by
former Senator Sam Nunn. Quoted from DoD News Briefing, Secretary of
Defense William S. Cohen, Q&A at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons
of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy, University of Georgia, Athens,
Apr. 28, 1997. The present author has been briefing these weapons to
DoD and other government agencies for many years. Most major weapons
laboratories in various nations--including China--have now discovered
longitudinal EM waves and either have such weapons or are furiously
developing them. As an example of a test by a giant strategic
longitudinal EM wave interferometer, see Daniel A. Walker, Charles S.
McCreery, and Fermin J. Oliveira, ``Kaitoku Seamount and the Mystery
Cloud of 9 April 1984,'' Science, Vol. 227, Feb. 8, 1985, p. 607-611;
Daniel L. McKenna and Daniel Walker, ``Mystery Cloud: Additional
Observations,'' Science, Vol. 234, Oct. 24, 1986, p. 412-413. This was
a test in two modes: (a) in a cold explosion mode above the surface of
the sea, creating a sudden low pressure zone above the water and
accounting for the suction of water from the ocean to form the cloud,
and (b) formation of a glowing spherical shell of light in the top of
the cloud, and expanding that shell to some 400 miles diameter. The
cold explosion can destroy a naval task force at sea or an armored
element on the ground, as an example, or take out the personnel in
fixed installations and fortified positions. The intense shell of EM
energy duds the electronics of any vehicle (aircraft, missile,
satellite) passing through it, by inducing an extremely sharp pulse of
electromagnetic energy arising inside the electronics, from local
spacetime itself. Hundreds of tests of these weapons have been
observed.
The great advantage of using longitudinal EM waves is that they
readily pass right through intervening mass such as the ocean or the
earth, with little attenuation. Hence an underwater nuclear submarine
can be destroyed deep beneath the ocean--as witnessed by precisely that
test of the first deployed Russian LW weapon to kill the U.S.S.
Thresher in April 1963 off the East Coast of the United States. The
totally anomalous jamming signatures on the Thresher's surface
companion, the U.S.S. Skylark, positively reveal the nature of the
weapon employed. Kill of the Arrow DC-8 in Gander, Newfoundland was by
one of these weapons, with abundant decisive signatures. The present
author published a photograph of the strike of the weapon 2 weeks
earlier, offset from a night shuttle launch in Cape Canaveral, Florida.
This was the same weapon, being used for crew training, which destroyed
the Arrow some 2 week later. The TWA-800 crash off the East Coast of
the United States was also such a shoot-down, as have been numerous
others over the years, documented by the present author At least seven
nations now possess such longitudinal EM wave interferometer weapons.
Others are working furiously to develop them. Also, even more powerful
weapons of novel kind have been developed and deployed by three
nations--neither of which is the United States.
11. Proceeding conventionally, it will be 50 years before the
organized scientific community will permit these emerging solutions to
actually be developed and produced. This is senseless; as the Manhattan
Project in WW II showed, a newly emerging technology can go to
production in 4 years. Given only that neutron fission of the proper
uranium isotope produced more neutrons than were input, the Manhattan
Project developed operational atomic bombs of two major types in 4
years. An appreciable number of other ``waiting areas for such
development'' exists in science in the literature. However, they are
not usually pushed forward into development for decades due to the
continuing resistance of the scientific community to all innovations
which threaten the favored projects (such as hot fusion) and favored
theories. Any ``scientist in the trenches'' is well aware that the
progress of science is by means of a continuing massive cat and dog
fight, not at all by sweet scientific reason and logic.
12. A perhaps excessive harsh characterization of these ``in the
box'' efforts is that they represent ``psychological displacement
activities'' for the scientific community, the government
decisionmakers, and perhaps even a part of the environmental community.
At best these programs represent ``Look at all the good things we are
doing!''. They must further be assessed with the view that ``Look at
what they will not do, and what the results of expending all our
efforts on them will be: catastrophic economic collapse in a decade or
less.''
13. We strongly point out that Maxwell's equations are purely
hydrodynamic equations. There is thus a 100 percent correspondence to
hydrodynamics and electromagnetic power systems. Anything that can be
done mechanically, or hydrodynamically with fluid flow, can be done
with electromagnetic field energy flow, a priori. It is thus a serious
fault of the scientific community in proclaiming that electrical power
systems with COP>1.0 are prohibited, because closed systems cannot
exhibit COP>1.0. All such arguments are evanescent, since all they
state is that an open EM system far from thermodynamic equilibrium with
the active vacuum is what is required. But the classical
electrodynamics (136 years old) used to design and build electrical
power systems, does not even model the energy exchange between active
vacuum and the system. To put it mildly, this is a completely
inexplicable aberration of the scientific mindset, and it has been such
for over a century.
14. Open EM systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium with their
electrically active vacuum environment are indeed permitted by the
Maxwell-Heaviside equations, prior to the arbitrary symmetrical
regauging of the equations to yield simpler equations more
mathematically amenable (done by Lorenz in 1867 and later by H.A.
Lorentz). The Lorentz condition requires that the system be symmetrical
in its discharge of its free excitation energy. The present closed
current loop circuit ubiquitously used in power systems is designed
specifically such that the system itself enforces the Lorentz
symmetrical discharge of its excitation energy. Thus one-half of the
energy is discharged in the external losses and load, while one-half is
discharged to destroy the source dipole actually extracting the EM
energy from the active vacuum. Such design guarantees a system which
destroys its intake of free electrical energy from the vacuum faster
than it can use part of that energy to power the load. I.e., it
guarantees suicidal systems which can only exhibit COP<1.0. Every
electrical system ever built has been and is powered by electrical
energy extracted directly from the seething vacuum, as we explain in
the present paper.
15. Such open systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium in the
active vacuum exchange, rigorously are permitted to exhibit COP>1.0 and
power themselves and their loads simultaneously. By building only that
subset of Maxwellian systems that forces Lorentz symmetrical regauging
during discharge of the system's excitation energy, our scientists and
engineers have in fact simply discarded all those Maxwellian systems
not in equilibrium with the vacuum during their excitation discharge.
In short, they simply do not build any such systems, or even design
such. The scientific and engineering communities themselves have
directly produced and maintained the present horrible energy crisis and
pollution of the biosphere.
16. Ludvig Valentin Lorenz, ``On the identity of the vibrations of
light with electrical currents,'' Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 34,
1867, p. 287-301. In this paper Lorenz gave essentially what today is
called the ``Lorentz symmetrical regauging''. Not much attention was
paid to the earlier Lorenz work. Later, H.A. Lorentz introduced the
symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations, in its
present modern form. Lorentz's influence was so great that symmetrical
regauging--which reduced the theory to a subset and discarded all
Maxwell-Heaviside systems of COP>1.0 and capable of powering themselves
and a load simultaneously--was adopted and utilized. It is still
utilized ubiquitously; e.g., see
17. Lorentz symmetrical regauging is still utilized ubiquitously,
so that no self-powering systems are designed and developed by our
energy scientists and engineers. E.g., see J. D. Jackson, Classical
Electrodynamics, Second Edition, Wiley, New York, 1975, p. 219-221;
811-812. In symmetrically regauging the Heaviside-Maxwell equations,
electrodynamicists assume that the potential energy of a system can be
freely changed at will (i.e., that the system can be asymmetrically
regauged at will). They do it twice in succession, but carefully select
two such ``paired simultaneous asymmetrical regaugings'' such that the
two new free force fields that emerge are equal and opposite and there
is thus no net force which can be used to dissipate the free excess
system energy from regauging and perform work in a load. In short, they
retain only those Maxwellian systems that foolishly oppose and strangle
their own ability to freely discharge and use the free energy they
first acquire (from the vacuum, by the first asymmetrical regauging).
Thereby the energy scientists arbitrarily discard all those Maxwellian
systems which net asymmetrically regauge by changing their own
potential energy and also producing a net non-zero force that can be
used to discharge the excess free energy in a load without reservation.
Net asymmetrically regauged systems are open dissipative EM systems,
freely receiving energy from their active external environment and thus
permitted to dissipate the excess regauging energy in loads because
they do not strangle that latter ability. Hence the performance of the
arbitrarily-excluded Maxwellian systems is not confined to classical
thermodynamics, but is described by the thermodynamics of an open
dissipative system. Such systems can (i) self-organize, (ii) self-
oscillate, (iii) output more energy than the operator himself inputs
(the excess is freely received from the external active environment)
(iv) ``power'' its own losses and an external load simultaneously (all
the energy to operate the system and the load is received freely from
the external active environment), and (v) exhibit negentropy.
18. We can now show that enormous EM energy flow can be easily and
cheaply initiated from the active vacuum, anywhere, at any time. The
basis for this was in fact discovered by Heaviside in the 1880's.
Lorentz knew of this huge energy flow component but discarded it
arbitrarily, apparently to avoid being attacked and accused of being a
perpetual motion advocate. See H.A. Lorentz, Vorlesungen uber
Theoretische Physik an der Universitat Leiden, Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche
Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig,
1931, ``Die Energie im elektromagnetischen Feld,'' p. 179-186. Figure
25 on p. 185 shows the Lorentz concept of integrating the Poynting
vector around a closed cylindrical surface surrounding a volumetric
element. This is the procedure which arbitrarily selects only a small
component of the energy flow associated with a circuit--specifically,
the small Poynting component striking the surface charges and being
diverged into the circuit to power it--and then treats that tiny
component as the ``entire'' Poynting energy flow.
19. The mathematical ``trick'' used by Lorentz to get rid of this
easily and universally evoked giant negentropy, is still employed by
electrical scientists and engineers without realizing what is actually
being discarded. For a full explanation, see T.E. Bearden, ``Giant
Negentropy from the Common Dipole,'' Proc. IC-2000, St. Petersburg,
Russia, July 2000 (in press). A series of excellent papers by the Alpha
Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS) have also been
published, approved for publication, or submitted for consideration, in
leading journals. An example is M.W. Evans, T.E. Bearden et al.,
``Classical Electrodynamics without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting
Energy from the Vacuum,'' Physica Scripta, Vol. 61, 2000, p. 513-517. A
most formidable new AIAS paper, ``Electromagnetic Energy from Curved
Spacetime,'' has been submitted to Optik and is in the referee process.
Two related paper giving a very solid basis for vacuum energy are M.W.
Evans et al., ``The Most General Form of Electrodynamics,'' and
``Energy Inherent in the Pure Gauge Vacuum,'' both submitted to Physica
Scripta and in the referee process. The theoretical basis for
extracting copious EM energy from the vacuum is now unequivocal and
either has been published or is rapidly being published in leading
journals.
20. For example, see Myron W. Evans et al., AIAS group paper by 15
authors, ``Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition:
Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,'' 2000, ibid.; ``Runaway Solutions
of the Lehnert Equations: The Possibility of Extracting Energy from the
Vacuum,'' Optik, 2000 (in press);--''Vacuum Energy Flow and Poynting
Theorem from Topology and Gauge Theory,'' submitted to Physica
Scripta;--``Energy Inherent in the Pure Gauge Vacuum,'' submitted to
Physica Scripta;--``The Most General Form of Electrodynamics,''
submitted to Physica Scripta; ``The Aharonov-Bohm Effect as the Basis
of Electromagnetic Energy Inherent in the Vacuum,'' submitted to
Optik;--``Electromagnetic Energy from Curved Spacetime,'' submitted to
Optik.
21. As an example: The most critical scientist in the Western
world, working on the ``energy from the vacuum'' approach, is Dr. Myron
Evans, Founder and Director of the Alpha Foundation's Institute for
Advanced Study (AIAS). Dr. Evans was hounded from his professorial
position, has had his life threatened, has been without salary for
several years, and fled to the United States for his very life. He has
some 600 papers in the hard literature, and is presently producing--in
accord with Dr. Mendel Sachs' epochal union of general relativity and
electrodynamics--the world's first engineerable unified field theory,
and an advanced electrodynamics fully capable of dealing with and
modeling EM energy from the vacuum. Yet, Dr. Evans lives in the United
States (where he recently became a naturalized citizen) at the poverty
level. He can afford only one meal a day, has no automobile, no air
conditioning, and continues epochal work under a medical condition that
would stop any ordinary person less scientifically dedicated. He
continues to be vilified and viciously attacked by elements of the
scientific community, even though other elements are of much assistance
in publishing and reviewing his papers, etc. It is a remarkable
commentary upon the sad state of our scientific community that such a
scientist and such epochal work, of tremendous importance to both the
United States and all humanity, must continue in such circumstances.
Meanwhile, the scientific community spends billions on vast projects of
little significance in general, and of no significance at all in
avoiding the coming world economic collapse and the destruction of
civilization. If this paper should fall into sympathetic hands which
can obtain funding for Dr. Evans, then this author most fervently urges
that such be accomplished at all speed. The fate of most of the
civilized world may well hinge upon such a simple thing, and upon such
an insignificant expenditure.
22. These are listed in M.W. Evans et al., ``Classical
Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from
the Vacuum,'' 2000, ibid.
23. This system exists in small working prototype already, but I am
under a nondisclosure agreement and cannot reveal the details of the
process or the identity and location of the inventor. The system is
capable of being rapidly scaled up to meet the 2003 critical milestone
of ``ready for mass production''. One can expect up to a COP = 4 from
this process.
24. In an electrical power system, Coefficient of Performance (COP)
may be taken as the average energy dissipated in the load divided by
the average energy furnished to the system by the operator. Or, it may
be taken as the average power dissipated in the load divided by the
average power dissipated in the input process. COP can be taken across
any component, several components, or the entire system. The COP of a
normal generator itself may be 0.9, for example, while when the entire
system including the heater, etc. is taken into account, the system COP
may be only 0.3. For COP>1.0, excess energy must be furnished to the
system by the external environment, while only part of the energy (or
none of it) is input by the operator.
25. The Kawai process, Johnson process, and the magnetic Wankel
engine are ideal for this purpose.
26. T.E. Bearden, ``Bedini's Method For Forming Negative Resistors
In Batteries,'' Proceedings of the IC-2000, St. Petersburg, Russia,
July 2000 (in press).
27. Teruo Kawai, ``Motive Power Generating Device,'' U.S. Patent
No. 5,436,518. Jul. 25, 1995. Applying the Kawai process to a magnetic
motor essentially doubles the motor's efficiency. If one starts with
high efficiency magnetic motors of, say, COP = 0.7 or 0.8, then the new
COPs will be 1.4 and 1.6. Two Kawai-modified high efficiency Hitachi
motors were in fact independently tested by Hitachi and yielded COP 1.4
and 1.6 respectively.
28. See T.E. Bearden, ``The Master Principle of EM Overunity and
the Japanese Overunity Engines,'' Infinite Energy, 1 (5&6), Nov. 1995--
Feb. 1996, p. 38-55; ``The Master Principle of Overunity and the
Japanese Overunity Engines: A New Pearl Harbor?'', The Virtual Times,
Internet Node www.hsv.com, Jan. 1996. The principle of the magnetic
Wankel engine is self-evident from the drawings alone.
29. Johnson, Howard R., ``Permanent Magnet Motor.'' U.S. Patent No.
4,151,431, Apr. 24, 1979; ``Magnetic Force Generating Method and
Apparatus,'' U.S. Patent No. 4,877,983, Oct. 31, 1989; ``Magnetic
Propulsion System,'' U.S. Patent No. 5,402,021, Mar. 28, 1995.
30. In magnetic materials, the presence of two electrons near each
other and having parallel spins results in the presence of a very
strong force tending to flip the spin so that they are antiparallel.
The forces between the electrons due to spin geometry are exchange
forces of quantum mechanical nature. In complex assemblies of different
magnetic materials comprising a single stator or rotor magnet, the
shapes and structures can be produced so that, as the rotor moves by
the attracting stator and enters the usual back mmf zone, the powerful
spin force is suddenly unleashed by the geometry, relative field
strengths, and movement. This triggers the release of a violent pulse
of magnetic field that greatly overrides the back mmf and strongly
repels the rotor on out of this ``gate'' region where the exchange
force is triggered. Exchange force pulses may momentarily be 1,000
times as strong as the magnetic field H, or in some cases even
stronger. Evoking these responses automatically by the materials
themselves, at controlled times and directions, produces the open
system freely adding rotary energy from its vacuum exchanges inside the
nonlinear materials. Johnson has been able to achieve this effect
consistently, opening the way for a legitimate self-powering permanent
magnet motor. We accent that the electrons involved are in direct
energy exchange with the vacuum, and the exchange force energy comes
from the violently broken symmetry in that vacuum exchange. Multivalued
magnetic potentials and hence nonconservative magnetic fields arise
naturally in magnetic theory anyway. However, conventional scientists
exert enormous effort to eliminate such effects or minimize them--when
in fact what is needed is to deliberately evoke and use them to produce
systems with COP>1.0.
31. Surrounding every dipolar EM circuit there exists a vast flow
of nondiverged EM energy which misses the circuit entirely and is not
presently accounted (thus ``dark'') in electrical power systems and
circuit theory. Heaviside discovered it, Poynting never realized it,
and Lorentz discarded it. He discarded it because (a) he reasoned it
was physically insignificant since it did nothing in the circuit, and
(b) no one had the foggiest notion where such an enormous flow of EM
energy-pouring from the terminals of every battery and generator--could
possibly be coming from. The trick Lorentz used to arbitrarily discard
it is still used by electrodynamicists ubiquitously. For a full
background, see T.E. Bearden, ``Giant Negentropy from the Common
Dipole,'' Proc. IC-2000 (ibid.); ``On Extracting Electromagnetic Energy
from the Vacuum,'' Proceedings of the IC-2000, St. Petersburg, Russia,
July 2000 (in press); ``Dark Matter or Dark Energy?'', Journal of New
Energy, 2000 (in press).
32. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed in
form. Changing the form of energy is called ``work''. When one joule of
collected energy is ``dissipated'' to perform one joule of work, one
still has one joule of energy remaining after that joule of work has
been done. The energy is now just in a different form. Scattering of
energy in a resistor, e.g., is perhaps the simplest way of performing
work, and known as ``joule heating''. However, for a thought
experiment: If the resistor is surrounded by a phase conjugate
reflective mirror surface, much of the scattered energy will be
precisely returned back to the resistor as re-ordered energy. It can
indeed be ``reused'' by again being scattered in the resistor to do
work. There is no conservation of work law in physics or
thermodynamics! If there is no re-ordering at all, then one can get
only one joule of work from one joule of energy changed in form. The
remaining joule of energy in different form (as in heat) is just
``wasted'' from the system. But if we deliberately use re-ordering
(such as simple passive retroreflection), we can reuse the same joule
of energy to do joule after joule of work, changing the form of the
energy in each interaction. Eerily, most of our scientists and
engineers are aware that energy can be changed in form indefinitely
without loss, but will then argue that energy cannot be recycled and
reused. The scientific prejudice against ``COP>1.0'' processes and
systems is so deep that many scientists are incapable of dealing with
the real law of conservation of energy--which is simply that you can
never get rid of any energy at all, but can only change its form. Every
joule of energy in the universe, e.g., was present not long after the
Big Bang. Since then, most of those joules of energy have each been
doing joule after joule of work, for some 15 billion years.
33. Kenneth R. Shoulders, ``Energy Conversion Using High Charge
Density,'' U.S. Patent No. 5,018,180, May 21, 1991. See also Shoulders'
patents 5,054,046 (1991); 5,054,047 (1991); 5,123,039 (1992), and
5,148,461 (1992). See also Ken Shoulders and Steve Shoulders,
``Observations on the Role of Charge Clusters in Nuclear Cluster
Reactions,'' Journal of New Energy, 1(3), Fall 1996, p. 111-121.
34. For a summary of this rapidly developing field, see Diederik
Wiersma and Ad Lagendijk, ``Laser Action in Very White Paint,'' Physics
World, Jan. 1997, p. 33-37.
35. For the early discovery, see V.S. Letokhov, ``Generation of
light by a scattering medium with negative resonance absorption,'' Zh.
Eksp. Teor. Fiz., Vol. 53, 1967, p. 1442; Soviet Physics JETP, Vol. 26,
1968, p. 835-839; ``Laser Maxwell's Demon,'' Contemp. Phys., 36(4),
1995, p. 235-243. For initiating experiments although with external
excitation of the medium, see N.M. Lawandy et al., ``Laser action in
strongly scattering media,'' Nature, 368(6470), Mar. 31, 1994, p. 436-
438. See also D.S. Wiersma, M.P. van Albada, and A. Lagendijk, Nature,
Vol. 373, 1995, p. 103.
36. For new effects, see D.S. Wiersma and Ad. Lagendijk, ``Light
diffusion with gain and random lasers,'' Phys. Rev. E, 54(4), 1996, p.
4256-4265; D.S. Wiersma, Meint. P. van Albada, Bart A. van Tiggelen,
and Ad Lagendijk, ``Experimental Evidence for Recurring Multiple
Scattering Events of Light in Disordered Media,'' Phys. Rev. Lett.,
74(21), 1995, p. 4193-4196; D.S. Wiersma, M.P. Van Albada, and A.
Lagendijk, Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 75, 1995, p. 1739; D.S. Wiersma et
al., Nature, Vol. 390, 1997, p. 671-673; F. Sheffold et al., Nature,
Vol. 398, 1999, p. 206; J. Gomez Rivas et al., Europhys. Lett., 48(1),
1999, p. 22-28; Gijs van Soest, Makoto Tomita, and Ad Lagendijk,
``Amplifying volume in scattering media,'' Opt. Lett., 24(5), 1999, p.
306-308; A. Kirchner, K. Busch and C. M. Soukoulis, Phys. Rev. B, Vol.
57, 1998, p. 277.
37. A true negative resistor appears to have been developed by the
renowned Gabriel Kron, who was never permitted to reveal its
construction or specifically reveal its development. For an oblique
statement of his negative resistor success, see Gabriel Kron,
``Numerical solution of ordinary and partial differential equations by
means of equivalent circuits,'' J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 16, Mar. 1945a, p.
173. Quoting: ``When only positive and negative real numbers exist, it
is customary to replace a positive resistance by an inductance and a
negative resistance by a capacitor (since none or only a few negative
resistances exist on practical network analyzers).'' Apparently Kron
was required to insert the words ``none or'' in that statement. See
also Gabriel Kron, ``Electric circuit models of the Schrdinger
equation,'' Phys. Rev. 67(1-2), Jan. 1 and 15, 1945, p. 39. We quote:
``Although negative resistances are available for use with a network
analyzer, . . .''. Here the introductory clause states in rather
certain terms that negative resistors were available for use on the
network analyzer, and Kron slipped this one through the censors. It may
be of interest that Kron was a mentor of Floyd Sweet, who was his
protege. Sweet worked for the same company, but not on the Network
Analyzer project. However, he almost certainly knew the secret of
Kron's ``open path'' discovery and his negative resistor. The present
author worked for several years with Sweet, who produced a solid state
device (the magnetic Vacuum Triode Amplifier) with no moving parts
which produced 500 watts of output power for some 33 microwatts of
input power. See Floyd Sweet and T.E. Bearden, ``Utilizing Scalar
Electromagnetics to Tap Vacuum Energy,'' Proc. 26th Intersoc. Energy
Conversion Engineering Conf. (IECEC 1991), Boston, Massachusetts, p.
370-375.
38. Shoukai Wang and D.D.L. Chung, ``Apparent negative electrical
resistance in carbon fiber composites,'' Composites, Part B, Vol. 30,
1999, p. 579-590. Negative electrical resistance was observed,
quantified, and controlled through composite engineering by Chung and
her team. Electrons were caused to flow backward against the voltage,
with backflow across a composite interface. The team was able to
control the manufacturing process to produce either positive or
negative resistance as desired. The University at Buffalo filed a
patent application. It first placed a solicitation to industry for
developments, and offered a technical package to interested companies
signing nondisclosure, then suddenly withdrew the offer. It appears to
this author that a ``fix'' may be in place on the development.
39. It is common knowledge that the point-contact transistor could
be manufactured to produce a true negative resistor where the output
current moved against the voltage. E.g., see William B. Burford III and
H. Grey Verner. Semiconductor Junctions and Devices: Theory to
Practice, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965. Chapter 18: Point-Contact
Devices. Quoting from p. 281: ``First, the theory underlying their
function is imperfectly understood even after almost a century . . . ,
and second, they involve active metal-semiconductor contacts of a
highly specialized nature. . . . The manufacturing process is
deceptively simple, but since much of it involves the empirical know-
how of the fabricator, the true variables are almost impossible to
isolate or study. . . . although the very nature of these units limits
them to small power capabilities, the concept of small-signal behavior,
in the sense of the term when applied to junction devices, is
meaningless, since there is no region of operation wherein equilibrium
or theoretical performance is observed. Point-contact devices may
therefore be described as sharply nonlinear under all operating
conditions.'' We point out that the power limitation can be overcome by
arrays of multiple point contacts placed closely together.
40. It is the back coupling of the magnetic field from the
secondary to the primary windings that forces the dissipation of equal
energy in the primary of the transformer as is dissipated in the
secondary. If part of the return current in the secondary circuit
bypasses the secondary of the transformer, the back field coupling to
the primary is reduced accordingly. Using a negative resistor as the
bypass, the bypass of the current is ``for free'' (powered by the
vacuum and a negentropic process). Hence the result is a transformer/
bypass system with COP>1.0. In that case, such a system can have a
positive clamped feedback from the output of the secondary circuit,
into the primary to power it, while still having energy remaining to
power a load. No laws of physics or thermodynamics are violated, once
one understands how an EM circuit is actually powered. E.g., see
Bearden, ``On Extracting EM Energy from the Vacuum, 2000, (ibid.).
41. The Kawai process was seized in the personal presence of the
present author and his CTEC, Inc. Board of Directors. We had reached a
full agreement with Kawai to manufacture and sell his units worldwide,
at great speed. Control of his company, his invention, and Kawai
himself was taken over in our presence the next morning, and the
Japanese contingent was in fear and trembling.
42. The magnetic Wankel engine was developed and actually placed in
a Mazda automobile. The back mmf of the rotary permanent magnet motor
is confined to a very small angle of the rotation. As the rotor enters
that region, a sudden cutoff of a small trickle current in a coil
generates a momentary large Lenz law effect which overrides the back
mmf and produces a forward mmf in that region. The result is that one
furnishes a small bit of energy to convert the engine to a rotary
permanent magnet motor with no back mmf, but with a nonconservative net
magnetic field. For details, see T.E. Bearden, ``The Master Principle
of EM Overunity and the Japanese Overunity Engines,'' Infinite Energy,
1(5&6), Nov. 1995--Feb. 1996, p. 38-55; ``The Master Principle of
Overunity and the Japanese Overunity Engines: A New Pearl Harbor?'',
The Virtual Times, Internet Node www.hsv.com, Jan. 1996.
43. For a history and present status of Japanese organized crime,
see Adam Johnston, ``Yakuza: Past and Present,'' Committee for a Safe
Society, Organized Crime Page: Japan (available on the Internet).
Michael Hirsh and Hideko Takayama, ``Big Bang or Bust?'' Newsweek,
Sept. 1, 1997, p. 44-45.
44. As a ball-park figure for illustration, a nominal electrical
circuit or power system actually extracts from the vacuum and pours out
into space some 10 trillion times as much energy flow as the poorly
designed ``single pass'' circuits intercept and utilize.
45. However, the orthodox scientists do not know it, because they
follow blindly the method introduced by Lorentz a century ago. Lorentz
arbitrarily discarded all that astounding energy flow that pours from
the source dipole and misses the circuit, and retained only the tiny,
tiny bit of it that strikes the circuit and enters it to power it.
Nothing at all has been done since then to capture more of that huge
available energy and use it. As a result of the ubiquitous Lorentz
procedure, most electrical power system scientists and engineers are no
longer aware that the huge unaccounted energy flow not striking the
circuit even exists.
46. The active vacuum interacts profusely with every electrodynamic
system, but this is not modeled at all by the scientists and engineers
designing and building electrical power systems. They unwittingly
design every system to enforce Lorentz symmetrical regauging during
excitation energy discharge, which in effect forces equilibrium in the
vacuum-system energy exchange during that dissipation. Hence, classical
equilibrium thermodynamics rigorously applies during use of the
collected energy. Such systems are limited to COP<1.0 a priori.
47. In Nobelist Feynman's words: ``We . . . wish to emphasize . . .
the following points: (1) the electromagnetic theory predicts the
existence of an electromagnetic mass, but it also falls on its face in
doing so, because it does not produce a consistent theory--and the same
is true with the quantum modifications; (2) there is experimental
evidence for the existence of electromagnetic mass, and (3) all these
masses are roughly the same as the mass of an electron. So we come back
again to the original idea of Lorentz--maybe all the mass of an
electron is purely electromagnetic, maybe the whole 0.511 Mev is due to
electrodynamics. Is it or isn't it? We haven't got a theory, so we
cannot say. Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands,
Lectures on Physics, Vol. 2, 1964, p. 28-12. Also: ``We do not know how
to make a consistent theory--including the quantum mechanics--which
does not produce an infinity for the self-energy of an electron, or any
point charge. And at the same time, there is no satisfactory theory
that describes a non-point charge. It's an unsolved problem.'' Ibid.,
Vol. 2, 1964, p. 28-10. In fact, ``energy'' itself is actually a very
nebulous and inexact concept. Again quoting: ``It is important to
realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy
is.'' Ibid., Vol. 1, 1964, p. 4-2.
48. E.g., a very recent AIAS paper, M.W. Evans et al., ``The Most
General Form of Electrodynamics,'' submitted to Physica Scripta,
rigorously shows just how wrong the present limited EM theory is. ``. .
. there can be no electro-magnetic field [as such] in the vacuum. In
other words, there can be no electromagnetic field propagating in a
source-free region as in the Maxwell-Heaviside theory, which is written
in flat space-time using ordinary derivatives instead of covariant
derivatives.'' The reason is quite simple: spacetime is active and
curved. The great John Wheeler and Nobelist Feynman, e.g., realized
that EM force fields cannot exist in space. They pointed out that only
the potential for such fields existed in space, should some charges be
made available so that the fields could be developed on them. See
Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton and Matthew Sands, The Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, New York, Vol. I, 1963, p. 2-4.
49. Max Planck, as quoted in G. Holton, Thematic Origins of
Scientific Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.
50. Arthur C. Clarke, in ``Space Drive: A Fantasy That Could Become
Reality'' NSS . . . AD ASTRA, Nov/Dec 1994, p. 38.
51. E.g., quoting Nobelist Lee: ``. . .the discoveries made in 1957
established not only right-left asymmetry, but also the asymmetry
between the positive and negative signs of electric charge. . . .
``Since non-observables imply symmetry, these discoveries of asymmetry
must imply observables.'' T.D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction
to Field Theory, Harwood, New York, 1981, p. 184.] On p. 383, Lee
points out that the microstructure of the scalar vacuum field (i.e., of
vacuum charge) is not utilized. Particularly see Lee's own attempt to
indicate the possibility of using vacuum engineering, in his ``Chapter
25: Outlook: Possibility of Vacuum Engineering,'' p. 824-828.
Unfortunately Lee was unaware of Whittaker's profound 1903
decomposition of the scalar potential, as between the ends of a dipole,
which gives a much more practical and easily evoked method for re-
ordering some of the vacuum's energy, extracting copious EM energy
flows from it, and setting the stage for self-powering electrical power
systems worldwide.
52. The present author has taken the necessary first major step, by
using Whittaker decomposition of the scalar potential between the poles
of a dipole to reveal a simple, direct, cheap method for extracting and
sustaining enormous EM energy flows from the dipole's asymmetry in its
energetic exchange with the active vacuum.
53. The internal energy available to a generator is the shaft
energy we input to it. In large power plants this is usually by a steam
turbine, and heat (from a nuclear reactor, burning hydrocarbons, etc.)
is used merely to heat the water in the boiler to make steam to run the
steam turbine. Every bit of all that is just so the generator will have
some internal energy made available with which it can then forcibly
make the dipole. That is all that generators (and batteries) do: Use
their available internal energy to continually make the source dipole--
which our engineers design the circuit to keep destroying faster than
the load is powered.
54. By ``dipole'' we mean the positive charges are forced to one
side, and the negative charges forced to the other. This internal
``source dipole'' formed by the generator or battery is electrically
connected to the terminals.
55. This has been known in particle physics for nearly 50 years. It
stems from the discovery of broken symmetry by C.S. Wu et al. in 1957.
A dipole is known to be a broken symmetry in its violent energy
exchange with the active vacuum. Rigorously this means that some of the
``disordered'' EM energy received by the dipole from the vacuum, is re-
ordered and re-radiated as usable, observable EM energy. Conventional
electrodynamics and power system engineering do not model the vacuum's
interaction, much less the broken symmetry of the generator or battery
dipole in that continuous energy exchange.
56. A pictorial illustration of the enormity of the energy flow
through the surrounding space, and missing the external circuit
entirely, is given by John D. Kraus, Electromagnetics, Fourth Edn.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992--a standard university text. Figure 12-60,
a and b, p. 578 shows a good drawing of the huge energy flow filling
all space around the conductors, with almost all of that energy flow
not intercepted by the circuit at all, and thus not diverged into the
circuit to power it, but just ``wasted'' by passing it on out into
space.
57. That is, the interception of the little ``boundary layer'' or
``sheath'' of the flow, right on the surface of the wires.
58. Poynting never considered anything but this small little
``intercepted'' component of the energy flow that actually entered the
circuit. E.g., see J.H. Poynting, ``On the connexion between electric
current and the electric and magnetic inductions in the surrounding
field,'' Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Vol. 38, 1985, p. 168.
59. In technical terms, the closed current loop circuit forces the
Lorentz symmetrical regauging condition during the discharge of the
excitation energy collected by the circuit. By definition, half the
energy is thus used to oppose the system function (i.e., to destroy the
source dipole) while the other half of the excitation energy is used to
power the external losses and the load. With half the collected energy
used to destroy the free extraction of energy from the vacuum, and less
than half used to power the load, these ubiquitous circuits destroy
their source of free vacuum energy faster than they power their loads.
Hence, we ourselves have to steadily input shaft energy to the
generators so that they can continue to reform the dipole. In the
vernacular, that is not the way to run the railroad!
60. Maxwell's seminal paper was published in 1864, as a purely
material fluid flow (hydrodynamic) theory. At the time, the electron
and the atom had not been discovered, hence the reaction of two
opposite charges (positive nuclei, negative Drude electrons) in the
wire was not modeled but only one was modeled, etc. Maxwell omitted
half the EM wave in the vacuum and half the energy, resulting in the
omission of the EM cause and generatrix of Newton's third law reaction
from electrodynamics. This omission is present in electrodynamics,
where the third law reaction appears as a mystical effect without a
known cause. The cause and mechanism is the omitted reaction of the
observed effect back upon the non-observed cause. General relativity,
e.g., does include this reaction mechanism from the effect back upon
the cause. However, electrodynamicists still omit half the
electromagnetics, half the wave, and half the energy as is easily
shown. E.g., it is demonstrated in every EM signal reception in a
simple wire antenna, when the resulting perturbations of both the
positive nuclei and the Drude electrons are correctly attributed to
their interactions with the incoming EM fields (waves) from the vacuum.
61. Mario Bunge, Foundations of Physics, Springer-Verlag, New York,
1967, p. 176.
62. T.E. Bearden, ``On Extracting Electromagnetic Energy from the
Vacuum,'' Proc. IC-2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 2000 (in press).
63. T.E. Bearden, ``Bedini's Method For Forming Negative Resistors
In Batteries,'' Proc. IC-2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 2000 (in
press).
64. T.E. Bearden, ``Giant Negentropy from the Common Dipole,''
Proc. IC-2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 2000 (in press).
65. E.g., a good short summary is given by Dr. Theodore Loder,
Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space (EOS), University
of New Hampshire, Durham, NH in his short paper, ``'Comparative Risk
Issues' Regarding Present and Future Environmental Trends: Why We Need
to be Looking Ahead Now!'', prepared for the Senate Committee on the
Environment and Public Works, June 1, 2000. Certainly Dr. Loder and EOS
can fully expound on the details of the biospheric pollution from the
various contributing factors and processes.
66. One need only regard the vehement attacks by the scientific
community (and much of the government including national laboratories)
upon cold fusion researchers, to understand why many inventors and
scientists in the COP>1.0 open dissipative energy field are openly
distrustful of the government and government scientists. Further, the
U.S. Patent Office is known to be under rather explicit instructions
not to issue patents on COP>1.0 electrical processes and systems.
67. E.g., the well-known Bohren experiment produces 18 times as
much energy output as the operator must input. The excess energy is
extracted directly from the vacuum. There has been no program, to my
knowledge, seeking to exploit this well-proven COP>1.0 mechanism that
has been in the hard science literature for some time. See Craig F.
Bohren, ``How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on
it?'' Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear
conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light
incident on it. Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one
class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared
frequencies are another. For independent validation of the Bohren
phenomenon, see H. Paul and R. Fischer, Comment on ``How can a particle
absorb more than the light incident on it?','' Am. J. Phys., 51(4),
Apr. 1983, p. 327.
68. G. Johnstone Stoney, ``Microscopic Vision,'' Phil. Mag. Vol.
42, Oct. 1896, p. 332; , ``On the Generality of a New Theorem,'' Phil.
Mag., Vol. 43, 1897, p. 139-142; ``Discussion of a New Theorem in Wave
Propagation,'' Phil. Mag., Vol. 43, 1897, p. 273-280; ``On a Supposed
Proof of a Theorem in Wave-motion,'' Phil. Mag., Vol. 43, 1897, p. 368-
373.
69. E. T. Whittaker, ``On the Partial Differential Equations of
Mathematical Physics,'' Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355.
70. Evans in a private communication has pointed out that
Whittaker's method depends upon the Lorentz gauge being assumed. If the
latter is not used, the Whittaker method is inadequate, because the
scalar potential becomes even more richly structured. My restudy of the
problem with this in mind concluded that, for the negentropic vacuum-
reordering mechanism involving only the dipole and the charge as a
composite dipole, it appears that the Whittaker method can be applied
without problem, at least to generate the minimum negentropic process
itself. However, this still leaves open the possibility of additional
structuring. The actual negentropic reordering of the vacuum energy
(and the structure of the outpouring of the EM energy 3-flow from the
charge or dipole) may permissibly be much richer than given by the
simple Whittaker structure alone. In other words, the Whittaker
structure used in this paper should be regarded as the simplest
structuring of the negentropic process that can be produced, and hence
as a lower boundary condition on the process.
71. Time-like currents and flows do appear in the vacuum energy, if
extended electrodynamic theory is utilized. E.g., in the received view
the Gupta-Bleuler method removes time-like photons and longitudinal
photons. For disproof of the Gupta-Bleuler method, proof of the
independent existence of such photons, and a short description of their
characteristics, see Myron W. Evans et al., AIAS group paper, ``On
Whittaker's F and G Fluxes, Part III: The Existence of Physical
Longitudinal and Time-Like Photons,'' J. New Energy, 4(3), Winter 1999,
p. 68-71; ``On Whittaker's Analysis of the Electromagnetic Entity, Part
IV: Longitudinal Magnetic Flux and Time-Like Potential without Vector
Potential and without Electric and Magnetic Fields,'' ibid., p. 72-75.
To see how such entities produce ordinary EM fields and energy in
vacuo, see Myron W. Evans et al., AIAS group paper, ``On Whittaker's
Representation of the Electromagnetic Entity in Vacuo, Part V: The
Production of Transverse Fields and Energy by Scalar Interferometry,''
ibid., p. 76-78. See also Myron W. Evans et al., AIAS group paper,
``Representation of the Vacuum Electromagnetic Field in Terms of
Longitudinal and Time-like Potentials: Canonical Quantization,'' ibid.,
p. 82-88.
72. For a short treatise on the complex Poynting vector, see D.S.
Jones, The Theory of Electromagnetism, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1964, p.
57-58. In a sense our present use is similar to the complex Poynting
energy flow vector, but in our usage the absolute value of the
imaginary energy flow is equal to the absolute value of the real energy
flow, and there is a transformation process in between. This usage is
possible because the imaginary flow is into a transducer, which takes
care of transforming the received imaginary EM energy into the output
real EM energy. We stress that the word ``imaginary'' is not at all
synonymous with fictitious, but merely refers to what ``dimension'' or
state the EM energy exists in.
73. Unfortunately, electrical engineers use the term ``power'' to
also mean the rate of energy flow, when rigorously the term ``power''
means the rate at which work is done. We accent that we fully
understand the difference, but are using the terminology common to the
profession.
74. Nobelist Prigogine experienced something very similar when he
proposed his open dissipative systems, where the system operations did
not lead to the conventional increasing disorder. To say that he was
subjected to the Inquisition is not an exaggeration. Other scientists
have repeatedly been subjected to intense scientific attack and
suppression--including Mayer (conservation of energy), Einstein
(relativity), Wegener (drifting continental plates), Ovshinsky
(amorphous semiconductors), to name just a few of the hundreds who have
been attacked in similar fashion. Science does not proceed by sweet
reason, but by a vicious dogfight with no holds barred. It delights in
``wolf pack'' attacks upon the scientist with a new idea or discovery.
75. And the scientific community is certainly not prepared for the
notion of using time as energy, freely and anywhere. In a sense, one
can ``burn time as fuel''. Consider this: In physics, the choice of
fundamental units in one's physics model is completely arbitrary. E.g.,
one can make a quite legitimate physics model having only a single
fundamental unit (such is already done in certain areas of physics).
E.g., suppose we make the ``joule'' (energy) the only fundamental unit.
It follows then that everything else--including the second and
therefore time--is a function of energy. One can utilize the second as
c<SUP>2</SUP> joules of energy. Hence, the flow of time would have the
same energy density as mass. After Einstein, the atom bomb, and the
nuclear reactor, of course, we are all comfortable with the fact that
mass is just spatial energy compressed by the factor c<SUP>2</SUP>. So
we really should not be too uncomfortable at the notion that time
itself is energy compressed by the factor c<SUP>2</SUP>. In this case,
if every second of the passage of time, we were to convert one
microsecond into ordinary EM spatial energy, we would produce some 9
<greek-e>10<SUP>10</SUP> joules of EM energy. Since that is done each
second, this would give us the equivalent of the output of 90 1000-
megawatt power plants. If only 1.11 percent efficient, the conversion
process would yield the equivalent of one 1000-megawatt power plant.
In fact, it is in theory possible to do such a conversion, and we
have previously indicated the various mechanisms involved. There are
also some rough experimental results that are at least consistent with
the thesis. The interested reader is referred to T.E. Bearden, ``EM
Corrections Enabling a Practical Unified Field Theory with Emphasis on
Time-Charging Interactions of Longitudinal EM Waves,'' J. New Energy,
3(2/3), 1998, p. 12-28. See also the author's similar paper with the
same title, in Explore, 8(6), 1998, p. 7-16. We believe that the real
energy technology for the second half of this century is based on use
of time for fuel. The fundamental reactions and principles also enable
a totally new form of high energy physics reactions, where very low
spatial energy photons are the carriers (their time components carry
canonical time-energy, so that the highest energy photons of all, given
time-energy conversion, are low frequency photons. These new reactions
(given in the references cited) are indeed consistent with the
startling nuclear transformation reactions met at low (spatial) photon
energies in hundreds of successful cold fusion experiments worldwide.
76. A classic example is given by Paul Nahin in his Oliver
Heaviside: Sage in Solitude, IEEE Press, New York, 1988, p. 225.
Quoting: ``J.J. Waterston's paper on the kinetic theory of gases, in
1845, was rejected by the Royal Society of London. One of the referees
declared it to be 'nothing but nonsense, unfit even for reading before
the Society.' . . . ``Waterston's dusty manuscript was finally exhumed
from its archival tomb 40 years later, because of the efforts of Lord
Rayleigh . . .'' Our comment is that the same scientific attitude and
resistance to innovative change prevails today. As the French say,
``Plus ca change, plus c'est la meame chose!''
77. E.g., see G. Nicolas and I. Prigogine, Exploring Complexity,
Piper, Munich, 1987 (an English version is Exploring Complexity: An
Introduction, Freeman, New York, 1989); Ilya Prigogine, From Being to
Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences, W.H. Freeman
and Company, San Francisco, 1980. In 1977, Prigogine received the Nobel
Prize in chemistry for his contributions to nonequilibrium
thermodynamics, especially the theory of dissipative structures.
78. E.g., see, Moises Naim, ``Lori's War,'' Foreign Policy, Vol.
118, Spring 2000, p. 28-55. See particularly Lori Wallach and Michelle
Sforza, Whose Trade Organization? Corporate Globalization and the
Erosion of Democracy, published by Public Citizen Foundation and
available by order from http://www.globaltradewatch.org. Perusal of the
leading environmental activist web sites now shows a significant and
rising awareness that globalization is merely the surface facade of an
older, imperial, feudalistic capitalism where checks and balances
established by national states are being slowly and methodically
bypassed.
79. The interested reader is referred to Andrew A. Marino,
Powerline Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health, at http://
www.ortho.lsumc.edu/Faculty/Marino/Marino.html. Particularly see
``Chapter 5, Blue-Ribbon Committees and Powerline EMF Health Hazards,''
and ``Chapter 6: Power-Industry Science and Powerline EMF Health
Hazards.'' Biophysicist Marino is one of the leaders in the field and
has been personally involved in many skirmishes with powerline-
dominated studies and findings. As an example, quoting from Chapter 6:
``Neither scientists nor the public can rely on power-industry research
or analysis to help decide whether powerline electromagnetic fields
affect human health because power-industry research and analysis are
radically misleading.'' There are many other reports in the literature,
which also show effects of EM nonionizing radiation on cells, including
detrimental effects.
80. Becker studied not just the immune system--which ``heals''
nothing at all, not even its own damaged cells--but also the cellular
regenerative system. He and others found, e.g., that tiny trickle
currents and potentials--either steady or pulsed--placed across
otherwise intractable bone fractures, would result in a rather
astounding set of cellular changes which led to healing of the fracture
by deposit of new bone. Eerily, Becker showed that the red blood cells
coming into the area and under the EM influence, would shuck their
hemoglobin and grow cellular nuclei (i.e., dedifferentiate back to an
earlier cellular state). Then these cells would redifferentiate into
the type of cells that made cartilage. Then those cells would
differentiate into the type of cells that make bone, and be deposited
in the fracture to ``grow bone'' and heal the fracture. Incredibly,
this is the only true ``healing'' modality in all Western medical
science--which is otherwise built upon the theory of intervention
rather than healing. After the intervention (which may be quite
necessary!), the body's cellular regenerative system--or what is left
of it after damage by such interventions as chemotherapy, etc.--is left
entirely upon its own to restore the damage (heal the damaged cells and
tissues). Becker was twice nominated for a Nobel Prize. However,
because he also testified in court against power companies, giving
testimony as an expert witness that EM radiation from power lines could
indeed induce harmful conditions in some exposed people, he was
suppressed and eventually forced to retire.
81. See Robert O. Becker and Andrew A. Marino, Electromagnetism and
Life, State University of New York Press, Albany, 1982. This reference
gives a nice summary of EM bioeffects from the orthodox view, current
as of the publication date. For Becker's work with the cellular
regenerative system, see particularly R.O. Becker, ``The neural
semiconduction control system and its interaction with applied
electrical current and magnetic fields,'' Proc. XI Internat. Congr.
Radiol., Vol. 105, 1966, p. 1753-1759, Excerpta Medica Foundation,
Amsterdam. See Becker, ``The direct current field: A primitive control
and communication system related to growth processes,'' Proc. XVI
Internat. Congr. Zool., Washington, DC, Vol. 3, 1963, p. 179-183.
82. For an overview of the ansatz of present battery technology,
see David Linden, Editor in Chief, Handbook of Batteries, Second
Edition, McGraw Hill, New York, 1995; Colin A. Vincent and Bruno
Scrosati, Modern Batteries: An Introduction to Electrochemical Power
Sources, Second Edition, Wiley, New York, 1997. For a process to make a
battery include a negative resistor and exhibit COP>1.0, see Bearden,
``Bedini's Method For Forming Negative Resistors In Batteries,'' Proc.
IC-2000, St. Petersburg, Russia (in press).
83. Such laboratories are private and professional testing
companies, where the U.S. Government has certified their expertise and
qualifications, their testing to NIST, IEEE, and U.S. Government
standards, their use of calibrated instruments, and the experience and
ability of their professional test engineers and scientists. Such labs
are routinely and widely used by aerospace firms. A Test Certificate
from such a lab is acceptable by the courts, the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office, the U.S. Government (which requires it on many
contracts), and by the U.S. scientific community. A goodly number of
these laboratories are available throughout the United States
84. A few struggling publications in the ``new energy'' field are
crucial to continued progress. The major ones are Journal of New Energy
(Dr. Hal Fox, publisher), Infinite Energy (Dr. Eugene Mallove,
publisher), and Explore (Chrystyne Jackson, publisher). Independent
sustaining funding for these publications is urgently needed. We also
highly commend the Department of Energy's Transportation group for
maintaining a DOE website carrying the advanced electrodynamics papers
of the Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS). Funding
for the AIAS is also urgently needed, to continue this absolutely
essential theoretical work that is placing a solid physics foundation
under the program of extracting and using EM energy from the vacuum.
85. Some recommended publications of interest are: Joshua
Lederberg, Editor, Biological Weapons: Limiting the Threat, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1999, with a foreword by Defense Secretary William S.
Cohen; Richard A. Falkenrath, Robert D. Newman, and Bradley A. Thayer,
America's Achilles Heel: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Terrorism
and Covert Attack, MIT Press, 1998; Wendy Barnaby, The Plague Makers:
The Secret World of Biological Warfare, Vision Paperbacks, Satin
Publications Ltd., London, 1999 (a most readable and educational book
for the nonspecialist), U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment,
Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks,
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1993 (a major study on WMD
and the risks to the United States, including to the U.S. civilian
population); Global Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Part
I, Senate Hearing 104-422, Hearings Before the Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Oct. 31 and Nov. 1, 1995.
86. Unfortunately, the extant unclassified references on
longitudinal EM and more advanced EM weapons seem to be the
publications by the present author, e.g., T.E. Bearden, ``Mind Control
and EM Wave Polarization Transductions, Part I'', Explore, 9(2), 1999,
p. 59; Part II, Explore, 9(3), 1999, p. 61; Part III, Explore, 9(4,5),
1999, p. 100-108;--''EM Corrections Enabling a Practical Unified Field
Theory with Emphasis on Time-Charging Interactions of Longitudinal EM
Waves,'' Journal of New Energy, 3(2/3), 1998, p. 12-28;--Energetics of
Free Energy Systems and Vacuum Engine Therapies, Tara Publishing,
Internet node www.tarapublishing.com/books, July 1997;--Gravitobiology:
A New Biophysics, Tesla Book Co., P.O. Box 121873, Chula Vista, CA
91912, 1991;--Fer-de-Lance, Tesla Book Co., 1986;--AIDS: Biological
Warfare, Tesla Book Co., 1988;--Soviet Weather Engineering Over North
America, 1-hour videotape, 1985;--Energetics: Extensions to Physics and
Advanced Technology for Medical and Military Applications, CTEC
Proprietary, May 1, 1998, 200+ page inclosure to CTEC Letter, ``Saving
the Lives of mass BW Casualties from Terrorist BW Strikes on U.S.
Population Centers,'' to Major General Thomas H. Neary, Director of
Nuclear and Counterproliferation, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff,
Air and Space Operations, HQ USAF, May. 4, 1998;--''Overview and
Background of KGB Energetics Weapons Threat to the United States,''
updated Jan. 3, 1999, furnished to selected Senators and
Congresspersons.
87. As an example, for decades Castro ran guerrilla and agent
training camps in Southern Mexico. Many of the graduates of those
camps--trained terrorists all--have been infiltrated across the U.S.
border and into the United States, to bide their time and wait for
instructions. Some estimates are that several thousand such Castro
agents alone are already onsite and positioned for sabotage, poisoning
of water supplies, destruction of transmission line towers, destruction
of key bridges, etc. Several other nations hostile to the United States
are also known to have agent teams already onsite within the United
States. The new form of warfare/terrorism is to introduce the
``troops'' into the adversary's nation and populace in advance, as well
as weapons caches, etc. So such preparations have definitely been
accomplished within the United States, and undoubtedly some are still
in progress and ongoing.
88. E.g., see Stanislov Lunev and Ira Winkler, 1998, ibid. p. 22:
``Though most Americans don't realize it, America is already penetrated
by Russian military intelligence to the extent that arms caches lie in
wait for use by Russian special forces--or Spetznatz.''
Page 26: ``It is surprisingly easy to smuggle nuclear weapons into
the United States. A commonly used method is for a Russian airplane to
fly across the ocean on a typical reconnaissance flight. The planes
will be tracked by U.S. radar, but that's not a problem. When there are
no other aircraft in visual range, the Russian airplane will launch a
small, high-tech, stealth transport missile that can slip undetected
into remote areas of the country. The missiles are retrieved by GRU
operatives.
Another way to get a weapon into the country is to have an
``oceanographic research'' submarine deliver the device--accompanied by
GRU specialists--to a remote section of coastline.
Nuclear devices can also be slipped across the Mexican or Canadian
borders. It is easy to get a bomb to Cuba and from there transport it
to Mexico. Usually the devices are carried by a Russian intelligence
officer or a trusted agent.''
<greek-d>