How to Make Use of an Asteroid on Earth

On May 3, 12:33*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On May 2, 5:19*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:



William Mook wrote:
On May 1, 8:39*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On May 1, 2:35*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

snip

snip

You don't get it. *Nothing I can say will make you get it. *You can
only see what you want to see, and ignore what you do not want to
see.

It's taken you this long conversing with The Guthball to figure that
out, Mookie? *A bit thick, are you?

Now, what does it tell you that The Guthball is about the only one
here willing to engage in a 'real' conversation with you?

What makes you say that? *

Being sighted and sane?

Just because Brad is the only one to speak
publicly doesn't mean no one is speaking with me about these things.
Many are.

Of course they are, Mookie. *Of course they are.

You two together function as a very effective blanket on discussion.
That is very clearly the case.

No, Mookie. *The Guthball is nuts and I'm on a 'blanket on discussion'
when the discussion is outright loony. *This explains your problem
with me.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
*your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Mark Twain

Were you molested by your priest or rabbi?(perhaps both)

*~ BG

What an interesting question.

There is nothing loony about making industrial use of asteroids on
Earth orbit.

Sunlight is available on Earth's surface less than 20% of the time at
power levels of 1,000 watts per square meter. The world currently
processes 28 billion tons of non-fuel materials and 10 billion tons of
fossil fuels each year. To carry this material throughout the world
in the presence of a strong gravity field requires energy. That
energy adds up to about half the velocity to attain orbit around Earth
to move it around the Earth to more than orbital velocity to move it
quickly.

SUPER TANKERS

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//sho...d.php?t=145176

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker

A ship that carries 540,000 DWT and burns 3,200 gallons of bunker oil
per hour in two 90,000 hp engines and with that power moves at 16
kph. So, the ship requires 1,000 hours to move 16,000 km - burning
3.2 million gallons of bunker oil in the process. At 120 MJ per
gallon this is 384 million million joules of energy. Dividing by half
a million tons that's 768 MJ per ton. This is equivalent to a kinetic
energy of 550,000 tons moving at 2,771 mph.

This is one of the more efficient ways to move things around the
planet.

AIRPLANES

Airplanes like the Boeing 707 320B have a maximum take off weight of
151.3 tonnes, and an empty weight of 66.4 tonnes, and carry 90.16
kiloliters - or 65.0 tonnes of kerosene - and can fly 10,000 km at
full load carrying 20.1 tonnes of payload. At 43.2 GJ/tonne of
kerosene this is 2.81 million million joules of energy. Or 140
billion joules per tonne. Translated to kinetic energy this is
enough to move that 22.2 short tons at over 37,000 mph.

TRUCKS

An 18 wheeler gets on average 7.3 mpg and carries no more than 20
tons. To carry a load 7,300 miles requires 1,000 gallons of fuel to
be burned which contains 120 billion joules of energy. This is 6
billion joules per ton. This is equivalent to a kinetic energy of the
20 tons moving at more than 7,450 mph.

COMPARE THIS TO SPACE TRAVEL

At Earth's orbit 1,340 watts of power per square meter are present in
the form of sunlight 24/7. At 3.75 million km from the sun, nearly
2.2 MW per square meter are present in the form of sunlight 24/7.
Converting this energy to IR laser energy provides nearly limitless
power at costs far less than we pay today on Earth. Applied to laser
powered rocketry or laser driven light sails, significant rates of
material movement can be brought about throughout the solar system.

LASER POWERED ROCKET

A laser rocket that uses laser energy to create and sustain a plasma
stream moving at 50 km/sec creates a jet that contains 1.25 GJ per
kg. At normal efficiencies this requires 2 GJ per kg of propellant.

To move a payload from Ceres to Earth orbit requires a delta vee of 15
km/sec. This means that each ton of payload requires 259.2 kg of
propellant. A 2 GJ per kg of propellant each ton returned to Earth
requires 518.4 GJ of solar energy. Each ton per year requires a power
level of 16,700 Watts. At Earth orbit this is supplied by 25 sq m of
solar collector operating at 50% efficiency. At 3.75 million km from
the sun, this is supplied by 160 sq cm of collector operating at 50%
efficiency. At today's cost for MEMS devices, this 160 sq cm costs
$350.00 - to put it into orbit aboard costs $150.00 !! Once on
orbit the satellite uses solar sailing techniques to navigate to its
final destination within four years. Once at its operating site, it
beams energy as needed across the solar system.

So, to supply all the world's needs for raw materials (and energy)
requires an investment of about $4.2 trillion using this approach.

Less than the value of all the mines operated on Earth.

On Jun 16, 11:14*pm, William Mook wrote:
Sunlight is available on Earth's surface less than 20% of the time at
power levels of 1,000 watts per square meter. *The world currently
processes 28 billion tons of non-fuel materials and 10 billion tons of
fossil fuels each year. *To carry this material throughout the world
in the presence of a strong gravity field requires energy. *That
energy adds up to about half the velocity to attain orbit around Earth
to move it around the Earth to more than orbital velocity to move it
quickly.

SUPER TANKERS

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//sho...d.php?t=145176

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker

A ship that carries 540,000 DWT and burns 3,200 gallons of bunker oil
per hour in two 90,000 hp engines and with that power moves at 16
kph. *So, the ship *requires 1,000 hours to move 16,000 km - burning
3.2 million gallons of bunker oil in the process. *At 120 MJ per
gallon this is 384 million million joules of energy. *Dividing by half
a million tons that's 768 MJ per ton. *This is equivalent to a kinetic
energy of 550,000 tons moving at 2,771 mph.

This is one of the more efficient ways to move things around the
planet.

AIRPLANES

Airplanes like the Boeing 707 320B have a maximum take off weight of
151.3 tonnes, and an empty weight of 66.4 tonnes, and carry 90.16
kiloliters - or 65.0 tonnes of kerosene - and can fly 10,000 km at
full load carrying 20.1 tonnes of payload. *At 43.2 GJ/tonne of
kerosene this is 2.81 million million joules of energy. *Or 140
billion joules per tonne. * Translated to kinetic energy this is
enough to move that 22.2 short tons at over 37,000 mph.

TRUCKS

An 18 wheeler gets on average 7.3 mpg and carries no more than 20
tons. *To carry a load 7,300 miles requires 1,000 gallons of fuel to
be burned which contains 120 billion joules of energy. *This is 6
billion joules per ton. *This is equivalent to a kinetic energy of the
20 tons moving at more than 7,450 mph.

COMPARE THIS TO SPACE TRAVEL

At Earth's orbit 1,340 watts of power per square meter are present in
the form of sunlight 24/7. *At 3.75 million km from the sun, nearly
2.2 MW per square meter are present in the form of sunlight 24/7.
Converting this energy to IR laser energy provides nearly limitless
power at costs far less than we pay today on Earth. *Applied to laser
powered rocketry or laser driven light sails, significant rates of
material movement can be brought about throughout the solar system.

LASER POWERED ROCKET

A laser rocket that uses laser energy to create and sustain a plasma
stream moving at 50 km/sec creates a jet that contains 1.25 GJ per
kg. *At normal efficiencies this requires 2 GJ per kg of propellant.

To move a payload from Ceres to Earth orbit requires a delta vee of 15
km/sec. *This means that each ton of payload requires 259.2 kg of
propellant. *A 2 GJ per kg of propellant each ton returned to Earth
requires 518.4 GJ of solar energy. *Each ton per year requires a power
level of 16,700 Watts. *At Earth orbit this is supplied by 25 sq m of
solar collector operating at 50% efficiency. *At 3.75 million km from
the sun, this is supplied by 160 sq cm of collector operating at 50%
efficiency. * At today's cost for MEMS devices, this 160 sq cm costs
$350.00 *- to put it into orbit aboard costs $150.00 !! * Once on
orbit the satellite uses solar sailing techniques to navigate to its
final destination within four years. *Once at its operating site, it
beams energy as needed across the solar system.

So, to supply all the world's needs for raw materials (and energy)
requires an investment of about $4.2 trillion using this approach.

Less than the value of all the mines operated on Earth.

On Jun 16, 11:14*pm, William Mook wrote:
Sunlight is available on Earth's surface less than 20% of the time at
power levels of 1,000 watts per square meter. *The world currently
processes 28 billion tons of non-fuel materials and 10 billion tons of
fossil fuels each year. *To carry this material throughout the world
in the presence of a strong gravity field requires energy. *That
energy adds up to about half the velocity to attain orbit around Earth
to move it around the Earth to more than orbital velocity to move it
quickly.

SUPER TANKERS

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//sho...d.php?t=145176

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker

A ship that carries 540,000 DWT and burns 3,200 gallons of bunker oil
per hour in two 90,000 hp engines and with that power moves at 16
kph. *So, the ship *requires 1,000 hours to move 16,000 km - burning
3.2 million gallons of bunker oil in the process. *At 120 MJ per
gallon this is 384 million million joules of energy. *Dividing by half
a million tons that's 768 MJ per ton. *This is equivalent to a kinetic
energy of 550,000 tons moving at 2,771 mph.

This is one of the more efficient ways to move things around the
planet.

AIRPLANES

Airplanes like the Boeing 707 320B have a maximum take off weight of
151.3 tonnes, and an empty weight of 66.4 tonnes, and carry 90.16
kiloliters - or 65.0 tonnes of kerosene - and can fly 10,000 km at
full load carrying 20.1 tonnes of payload. *At 43.2 GJ/tonne of
kerosene this is 2.81 million million joules of energy. *Or 140
billion joules per tonne. * Translated to kinetic energy this is
enough to move that 22.2 short tons at over 37,000 mph.

TRUCKS

An 18 wheeler gets on average 7.3 mpg and carries no more than 20
tons. *To carry a load 7,300 miles requires 1,000 gallons of fuel to
be burned which contains 120 billion joules of energy. *This is 6
billion joules per ton. *This is equivalent to a kinetic energy of the
20 tons moving at more than 7,450 mph.

COMPARE THIS TO SPACE TRAVEL

At Earth's orbit 1,340 watts of power per square meter are present in
the form of sunlight 24/7. *At 3.75 million km from the sun, nearly
2.2 MW per square meter are present in the form of sunlight 24/7.
Converting this energy to IR laser energy provides nearly limitless
power at costs far less than we pay today on Earth. *Applied to laser
powered rocketry or laser driven light sails, significant rates of
material movement can be brought about throughout the solar system.

LASER POWERED ROCKET

A laser rocket that uses laser energy to create and sustain a plasma
stream moving at 50 km/sec creates a jet that contains 1.25 GJ per
kg. *At normal efficiencies this requires 2 GJ per kg of propellant.

To move a payload from Ceres to Earth orbit requires a delta vee of 15
km/sec. *This means that each ton of payload requires 259.2 kg of
propellant. *A 2 GJ per kg of propellant each ton returned to Earth
requires 518.4 GJ of solar energy. *Each ton per year requires a power
level of 16,700 Watts. *At Earth orbit this is supplied by 25 sq m of
solar collector operating at 50% efficiency. *At 3.75 million km from
the sun, this is supplied by 160 sq cm of collector operating at 50%
efficiency. * At today's cost for MEMS devices, this 160 sq cm costs
$350.00 *- to put it into orbit aboard costs $150.00 !! * Once on
orbit the satellite uses solar sailing techniques to navigate to its
final destination within four years. *Once at its operating site, it
beams energy as needed across the solar system.

So, to supply all the world's needs for raw materials (and energy)
requires an investment of about $4.2 trillion using this approach.

Less than the value of all the mines operated on Earth.

So when is William Mook taking charge, or via actions providing us
with viable alternatives?

~ BG

On Jun 17, 2:43*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jun 16, 11:14*pm, William Mook wrote:



Sunlight is available on Earth's surface less than 20% of the time at
power levels of 1,000 watts per square meter. *The world currently
processes 28 billion tons of non-fuel materials and 10 billion tons of
fossil fuels each year. *To carry this material throughout the world
in the presence of a strong gravity field requires energy. *That
energy adds up to about half the velocity to attain orbit around Earth
to move it around the Earth to more than orbital velocity to move it
quickly.

SUPER TANKERS

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom//sho...d.php?t=145176

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker

A ship that carries 540,000 DWT and burns 3,200 gallons of bunker oil
per hour in two 90,000 hp engines and with that power moves at 16
kph. *So, the ship *requires 1,000 hours to move 16,000 km - burning
3.2 million gallons of bunker oil in the process. *At 120 MJ per
gallon this is 384 million million joules of energy. *Dividing by half
a million tons that's 768 MJ per ton. *This is equivalent to a kinetic
energy of 550,000 tons moving at 2,771 mph.

This is one of the more efficient ways to move things around the
planet.

AIRPLANES

Airplanes like the Boeing 707 320B have a maximum take off weight of
151.3 tonnes, and an empty weight of 66.4 tonnes, and carry 90.16
kiloliters - or 65.0 tonnes of kerosene - and can fly 10,000 km at
full load carrying 20.1 tonnes of payload. *At 43.2 GJ/tonne of
kerosene this is 2.81 million million joules of energy. *Or 140
billion joules per tonne. * Translated to kinetic energy this is
enough to move that 22.2 short tons at over 37,000 mph.

TRUCKS

An 18 wheeler gets on average 7.3 mpg and carries no more than 20
tons. *To carry a load 7,300 miles requires 1,000 gallons of fuel to
be burned which contains 120 billion joules of energy. *This is 6
billion joules per ton. *This is equivalent to a kinetic energy of the
20 tons moving at more than 7,450 mph.

COMPARE THIS TO SPACE TRAVEL

At Earth's orbit 1,340 watts of power per square meter are present in
the form of sunlight 24/7. *At 3.75 million km from the sun, nearly
2.2 MW per square meter are present in the form of sunlight 24/7.
Converting this energy to IR laser energy provides nearly limitless
power at costs far less than we pay today on Earth. *Applied to laser
powered rocketry or laser driven light sails, significant rates of
material movement can be brought about throughout the solar system.

LASER POWERED ROCKET

A laser rocket that uses laser energy to create and sustain a plasma
stream moving at 50 km/sec creates a jet that contains 1.25 GJ per
kg. *At normal efficiencies this requires 2 GJ per kg of propellant.

To move a payload from Ceres to Earth orbit requires a delta vee of 15
km/sec. *This means that each ton of payload requires 259.2 kg of
propellant. *A 2 GJ per kg of propellant each ton returned to Earth
requires 518.4 GJ of solar energy. *Each ton per year requires a power
level of 16,700 Watts. *At Earth orbit this is supplied by 25 sq m of
solar collector operating at 50% efficiency. *At 3.75 million km from
the sun, this is supplied by 160 sq cm of collector operating at 50%
efficiency. * At today's cost for MEMS devices, this 160 sq cm costs
$350.00 *- to put it into orbit aboard costs $150.00 !! * Once on
orbit the satellite uses solar sailing techniques to navigate to its
final destination within four years. *Once at its operating site, it
beams energy as needed across the solar system.

So, to supply all the world's needs for raw materials (and energy)
requires an investment of about $4.2 trillion using this approach.

Less than the value of all the mines operated on Earth.

So when is William Mook taking charge, or via actions providing us
with viable alternatives?

*~ BG

I began thinking about our energy situation back in the 1970s during
the first oil crisis. It was then that I did a very thorough analysis
of the energy resources of the planet. It reflected a similar
analysis done by Dr. Hubbert, in 1956 when he acted as chief geologist
for Shell oil company. It was from Dr. Hubbert that I learned how to
apply logistic curve analysis to resource extraction.

Imagine you have a bowl filled with red marbles and white marbles.
Your goal is to take all the red marbles. The first marble is the
easiest to find. The second one, nearly as easy. By the time you
reach the half way point its clear finding the next marble becomes
progressively more difficult. The last marble entails digging through
the entire jar of white marbles to find it.

The result is a logistic curve of production over time. This is a
bell shaped curve that peaks at the half way point through
production.

We were through the first 25% of our global inventory of oil when
Hubbert published his analysis. We are now approaching the 50% point
and oil output will likely fall over the next 150 years reflecting the
150 years of growth preceding it.

So, It is in this epoch that great opportunities abound to develop
alternative energy.

This logistical analysis is easily applied to regions or even
individual fields. A careful analysis in 1956 showed that the USA
would peak in oil output by 1970 and that the world would peak in
2000

In 1956 Hubbert suggested building high-temperature nuclear reactors
and using high temperature electrolysis to make hydrogen on a massive
scale. This hydrogen could be used to fire stationary plants and
combined with stranded coal to produce synfuels as we developed a
hydrogen economy throughout the 60s and 70s. By the 1980s and 90s
we'd see a transition to a hydrogen economy as oil became a secondary
fuel used in specialty applications beyond 1990s. OIl after 1990s
would be a specialty chemical and feedstock for a burgeoning plastics
industry. Recall the opening scene of The Graduate - made in 1967 -
where Dustin Hoffman is advised that Plastics is the future.

High temperature nuclear reactors are less expensive per watt to build
than low temperature nuclear reactors. Fuel costs in a nuclear
reactor are nil since there are millions of times more energy in
nuclear fuel than chemical fuels. So, cost of capital to make the
reactor dominates. Deciding what temperature your reactor operates
determines the cost per watt. Its a function that's inverse to the
fourth power of temperature.

Reactors in 1956 were built to operate at a temperature that would
make them competitive with coal. This was a decision by GE and
Westinghouse which didn't want nuclear energy to be a disruptive
technology. By doubling the temperature of the reaction costs are
dropped to 6% of the cost of coal - which is why Louis Strauss
supporting Hubbert's analysis said by 1970 energy would be too cheap
to meter.

At steam coal temperatures (including today's disposal costs)
$10 per watt -- $0.09 per kWh -- $4,400/ton H2 -- $60/bbl

At twice steam coal temps (including disposal costs)
$0.06 per watt -- 2/3 cent per kWh -- $350/ton H2 -- $4/bbl

At four times steam coal temps (including disposal costs)
1/3 cent per watt -- 1/25th cent per kWh --
$21/ton H2 - $0.24/bbl

From 1850 to 1950 the price of primary energy dropped at an average
rate of 8% per year. Had an aggressive program of high temperature
nuclear reactors been pursued in 1956 the USA would have driven the
cost of energy commodities down below what they were in the 1950s,
continued the trend of lower cost energy, and continued to dominate
the world economically (rather than ceding that to the Middle East
(there is a similar series of mis-steps that caused us to lose our
manufacturing and farming sectors to China and others, ceding control
of that important resource to them as well- but that's a different
story))

So, a continuing reduction in price of 8% per annum from 1956 to 1980
we would see the price of a barrel of oil equivalent (boe) of fuel at
1% of what it was without the program. Pricing oil at $1 per barrel
in 1980 would mean no oil would be used as fuel since it would be
twice as costly as fuel produced by high temperature nuclear reactors
and US coal;

HUBBERT SYNFUEL PROGRAM 1956
YEAR PRICE ADJ INFL.

1956 $3.00 $24.00
1957 $2.76 $20.98
1958 $2.54 $18.33
1959 $2.34 $16.02

1960 $2.15 $14.00
1961 $1.98 $12.24
1962 $1.82 $10.70
1963 $1.67 $9.35
1964 $1.54 $8.17

1965 $1.42 $7.14
1966 $1.30 $6.24
1967 $1.20 $5.46
1968 $1.10 $4.77
1969 $1.01 $4.17

1970 $0.93 $3.64
1971 $0.86 $3.18
1972 $0.79 $2.78
1973 $0.73 $2.43
1974 $0.67 $2.13

1975 $0.62 $1.86
1976 $0.57 $1.62
1977 $0.52 $1.42
1978 $0.48 $1.24
1979 $0.44 $1.08

1980 $0.41 $0.95

ACTUAL FUEL PRICES

1956 $2.94 $23.46
1957 $3.14 $24.20
1958 $3.00 $22.53
1959 $3.00 $22.30

1960 $2.91 $21.34
1961 $2.85 $20.66
1962 $2.85 $20.42
1963 $2.91 $20.61
1964 $3.00 $20.96

1965 $3.01 $20.69
1966 $3.10 $20.70
1967 $3.12 $20.27
1968 $3.18 $19.78
1969 $3.32 $19.62

1970 $3.39 $18.93
1971 $3.60 $19.27
1972 $3.60 $20.66
1973 $4.75 $22.99
1974 $9.35 $41.03

1975 $12.21 $49.13
1976 $13.10 $49.89
1977 $14.40 $51.46
1978 $14.95 $49.69
1979 $25.10 $74.23

1980 $37.42 $98.52

After the 1956 paper Shell fired Hubbert and he was marginalized as a
scientist and his scientific findings were called a bizarre theory -
even though they were based on rather uncontroversial assumptions.
Louis Strauss, Director of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1956 and
who supported Hubbert's vision of high-temperature nuclear reactors,
was fired the same year and he too was marginalized as scientist and
his analysis and conclusions ridiculed even to this day.

Even so, there are those who defended both men, and they saw a brief
adoption of their views during the early days of the Kennedy
Administration. The benefits of high temperature nuclear reactors
were cited by JFK's administration as the rationale for pursuing a
Civilian nuclear rocket program for example.

Sadly, JFK died in office, and LBJ a Texas oil man JFK's successor
after his death canceled funding for Nuclear Rocket research, canceled
nuclear airplane research, maintained secrecy on the highest
temperature cores built at that time (Project Pluto) and no longer
spoke with Hubbert or Strauss - who were again marginalized.

Nixon, who was VP when Strauss made his first findings public in 1956
continued to ignore Hubbert's program. In the face of an energy
crisis when the US reached peak oil output in 1971 Nixon reorganized
the AEC into the DOE, threw out nuclear proponents and organized a
Energy Resources Council dominated by oil executives. As a result the
USA became reliant on foreign oil in the Middle East and began the
largest transfer of wealth in world history from one nation to
another. (Matched only by the transfer of wealth to China following
Nixon's trip there!)

When Nixon left office, he put Ford in Charge (Agnew was found guilty
of money laundering and resigned office before Nixon resigned in
response to Watergate)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbSbN1LTYvU

Ford saw that we had to do something and do something quickly. He was
unable to act effectively, since he was marginalized by his pardon of
President Nixon following his rise to power. Ford did not address the
underlying problem, and did not propose a nuclear program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbSbN1LTYvU

Jimmy Carter, a Navy Nuclear Engineer, knew the score. He vowed to do
something about energy. As former Governor of Georgia, Carter was a
Washington outsider, and found it difficult to organize an effective
campaign. Even so, he did manage to get funding for a massive program
of energy development and research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePpMxJaA

His plans to enact the Hubbert program, as developed by Brookhaven
National Labs, was sidelined after a series of unfortunate events that
occurred the very week Congress was voting on new Energy Legislation.
These events were;

(1) The awards in the Karen Silkwood Case
(2) The radiation release at Three Mile Island
(3) The movie release of The China Syndrome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPP6IIeoeKo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwSuef-pbZQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FxtBJ59Jm8

The bottom line of all this was a broad public response against
nuclear energy as a solution to our energy problems.

So, despite the American taxpayer spending twice as much on energy
research as it spent going to the moon, nothing substantial came from
Carter's energy program. Even the coal to liquids program was
marginalized by subsequent fraud;

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...493241,00.html

So, Hubbert's program, backed by solid research of the Brookhaven
National Lab, and the AEC chairman of the day, Louis Strauss, by 1980
didn't deliver $1 per barrel synfuel, making conventional oil
obsolete, but was buried under an unfortunate series of events that
made anyone talking or speaking of real energy alternatives suspect at
many different levels - which allowed Exxon to announce that anyone
who tried to convince the American people they were not reliant on
foreign oil sources as fraudsters and the worst sort of politics -
since Americans have no choice but to be reliant on foreign oil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUjG3HRUYVo

After Carter, there was Reagan. Reagan's idea was to turn the whole
problem over to the oil companies to resolution and allow the free
market system to work out the details of higher oil prices - if that's
what the outcome was. High temperature nuclear reactors were not seen
as an immediate solution to our energy problems but a solution that
would be available by 2040 - which is the period oil companies
themselves will not be able to sustain continued increases in their
value because of depletion. Today we spend 4% on energy, oil
companies own forward projections show 8% to 12% of economic activity
being owned by them by 2040 - and with those massive cash reserves,
they will own the Generation V High Temperature Nuclear Reactor
Technology that will eventually displace them.

Opening up the market to competition in 1956 - especially government
subsidized competition - would have undercut the value of oil in the
ground - and left a large segment of proved reserves undeveloped and
worthless.

Of course our air would be cleaner - and our economy stronger - and
the world richer - but so what?

By 1996 I thought something needed to be done, and I had just sold off
my other business holdings and was in a position to support some
research in the area of alternative energy.

My approach was to use ultra-low-cost optics with concentrated
photovoltaics to create a high temperature electrolysis system. At
low levels of production I would use a power tower approach. At
higher levels of production I would use a water filled lens array.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21832226/M...ectral-Cooling

By 2003 I was ready to take on angel investors as the first step
toward building a powerful energy company.

In 2004 I met with OSTP at the White House and proposed a solar
version of the 1956 paper replacing high temperature nuclear power
with ultra-low-cost solar power

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24911642/R...P-EOP-Dec-2004

(to be continued)