The Problem

The energy requirement of earth’s population is large and growing ever larger as population and demand per person increases. In the past, it was easily satisfied by hydroelectric, nuclear and fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal). But hydro sites are used up. Nuclear power has certain safety problems and how to deal with the spent (radioactive) fuel has not yet been determined. Conventional oil (also a serious polluter) is nearing its production peak, and it will be followed by natural gas in a relatively short time. Coal will take much longer (approximately 200 years) to reach its peak, but it is a much more polluting fuel. Indeed all of the fossil fuels are polluting, in that they generate acids and carbon dioxide, but coal is the worst. The acids cause acid rain that kills plants and fish. The carbon dioxide is believed by most to cause climate warming with a resultant reduction in glaciers and ice caps, an increase in sea level, and a shift in desert zones toward the poles along with a resultant loss of agricultural land (see AP1.1). Thus we have a problem. How do we provide for the earth’s growing energy needs with fuel dwindling and pollution and carbon dioxide production increasing?

The quality of an energy source can be graded on a basis of six factors. These factors are:

Cost/KWH (C)
Pollution resulting from production (P)
Energy availability (AV) large compared to future world need (N)
Land usage (LU)
Load Factor (LF). Load Factor is the fraction of time the system is available for use.

Each energy option will be graded on a basis of these factors in the following paper.

Is Action Required?

Many have objected to the premise that oil and especially natural gas are nearing their production peak. Some have objected to the idea that carbon dioxide production causes climate warming. Some non-conventional sources are coming on line. Thus it has been proposed that no action be taken until the oil shortage and climate warming have been unequivocally proved. The difficulty with this “wait and see” procedure is that it takes a long time for a new energy source to ramp up, come on line and replace the old one that is in need of replacement. Thus a crisis of major proportion with the shortages and high prices that disrupt the economy could result. Also, damage due to a warmer climate may become catastrophic if we wait too long (see AP1.1). There should be a new energy source in the development pipeline capable of taking over for a failing source.

The Solution

Thus we need to look for an energy source that has the following characteristics.

It must be:

Cost competitive (C<$0.08/KWH) with existing sources, so it can start replacing them now and later becomes a major energy supplier.
Free from pollutants and carbon dioxide production (P=0).
Plentiful (AV>N) and versatile (energy for electricity, autos, aircraft) enough to cover the world’s needs in the long run. Also, it should be able to use the earth’s existing energy distribution systems.
Small land use (LU in KW/sq ft should be large to hold down capital costs)
High Load Factor (LF>0.5)

In addition, a desirable characteristic is that it should be able to be developed and move into the marketplace without government assistance. The development cycle will be too slow and complex to meet the near-term energy and air pollution reduction needs if the government is involved. Witness the development cycle for nuclear reactors, which are politically controversial.

Several options have been proposed, but only a few are good enough to be considered practical. The options proposed are as follows:

Land based solar cells and/or solar thermal plants
Land based wind turbines
Shore based wave generators
Nuclear fusion
Nuclear fission
Land based deep thermal wells
Fuels such as alcohol and oil obtained from food crops, waste wood, kelp and algae.
Ocean based wind turbines, wave generators and solar cells
Fossil fuels

Let us investigate them one at a time and match them against the requirements. Note that the energy cost estimates are based on data published on the Internet by the US 21ernjht`government.

1. Land based solar cell systems are non-polluting (P=0), but for base load and portable operation, they have serious problems. The resultant energy cost is modest (C~$0.049/KWH electrical not including land cost) if the land can be made available, but requires expensive storage systems to operate when the sun is down or obscured (LF~0.4 to 0.6 in desert zones, less elsewhere). In fact, practical energy storage for electricity is seldom available for reasonable cost (Examples-pumped water or batteries). When LF is factored in, it is more expensive (C~$0.12 to $0.081/KWH electrical). Note that Solar needs huge tracts of carefully selected land (low cloud cover) for each KW of power generated (LU~200 sq ft/KW). Further, this land cannot be used for other purposes when covered by solar cells. Thus land-based solar cells and solar thermal are not suited for base load generation that must be economically competitive and reliable. It can, and is being used in southwestern US for peak daytime load. Because of the land use and power availability problems, however, it is unlikely that Solar will account for more than 10% to 15% of US and world need (AV<0.1 to 0.15 N). Solar cells appear best suited for specialty use where cost, area and energy storage is less important, such as on top of electric cars to extend their battery range, or on top of houses to help cover the day-time peak load.

2. Land based Wind turbines are also non-polluting (P=0). The resultant energy is less expensive than that from solar cells (~$0.028/KWH not including land cost). However, they require carefully selected windy sites that are not common, and even in these sites, the wind is not always available (LF~0.5 to 0.7 in good sites, less elsewhere). When LF is factored in, the cost is larger (C~$0.056/KWH to $0.040/KWH). Note, however, that Wind needs much smaller land tracts for each KW of power generated than solar cells (LU~20 sq ft/KW). Because of land selection issues and power availability problems, these generators are not suited for base and most portable load generation that must be cost competitive and reliable. Thus because of the land use and power availability problems, it is unlikely that Wind will account for more than 10% to 15% of world need (AV<0.1 to 0.15 N). Wind turbines appear best suited to operation on houses and on electric cars in windy areas.

3. Shore based Wave generators are also non-polluting (P=0). They are expensive, but not as expensive as land based wind turbines (~$0.027/KWH when available). They require carefully selected shore sites that are not common, and they are not always available (LF~0.5 to 0.7 in good sites, less elsewhere). When LF is factored in, the cost is larger (C~$0.054 to $~0.038). The land tracts needed are similar to wind (LU~10 sq ft/KW). Because of the land selection issues and power availability problems, these generators are not suited to base and portable load generation that must be competitive and reliable (AV<<N). They appear best suited for operation in high energy cost areas on an as available basis.

4. Nuclear fusion is not currently practical, and is not expected to be practical in the foreseeable future. The main problem is energy return on investment (EROI). The energy required for ignition of the fusion reaction is very high. It has taken decades to come close to break even (EROI~0). Recently, some positive results have been obtained (EROI~0.01), and an international fusion facility has been proposed. Clearly this is not yet practical.

5. Nuclear fission reactors are currently being used for base load (LF ~1) and can operate at ~$0.08/KWH. There is enough fuel to last more than 100 years without using breeder reactors (reactors that generate more fuel from U238 than they use. Actual fuel is U235 and Pu). If we use breeders, there is enough fuel for several thousand years (AV>N). Also, nuclear reactors are non-polluting-i.e. They do not emit acids and carbon dioxide (P=0). The land tracts needed are small per KW output (LU~0.25 sq ft/KW). Clearly this is a major competitor for base load operation. The problem with nuclear reactors is safety. The public is afraid of an accident that will cause radiation to escape (as with Japan). Further, spent fuel rods and other reactor parts are radioactive for a very long time (tens to hundreds of thousands of years). Safety procedures, fail-safe reactors and methods of storing and/or making these radioactive components safe have been worked out, but the political system has not been able to agree on which procedures to use in dealing with this problem, so older, less safe designs are still in use. The vulnerable element in the light water reactors currently being used in Japan and elsewhere is the coolant pump. Backup coolant pumps are always provided, but if all electricity is lost, both inside and outside the facility (as happened in Japan), the backup pumps are useless. The neutron absorbing control rods and emergency shut down systems will deploy without electricity and shut down the fission reaction, but the residual fission and radioactivity in the fuel rods will continue to heat the rods and eventually melt them down (as apparently happened in Japan). If the coolant pump is off line long enough (as also apparently happened in Japan), the rods may melt through the containment vessel and vent radioactive material to the environment. It appears feasible to design some reactors (for example-pebble bed reactors, certain fast reactors and some special micro reactors) with automatic energy production limits in the fuel elements so that the residual fission and radioactivity will not melt them down even if cooling is lost. Or, it may be possible to make acceptable modifications to the current light water reactor designs.

6. Deep geothermal wells are non-polluting (P=0) and may be competitive in cost. The expense is dependent on the cost of drilling a well down to the hot rocks deep within the earth’s crust. The new chemical drilling techniques being used show promise. Cost estimates indicate that C~$.085 is possible. A pilot hole is now under way. If the pilot hole is inexpensive enough, these thermal wells can be used to provide base load. The fuel (earth heat near the surface) is available in many areas on the earth, but not all. It will, however, last for the foreseeable future. Thus the available energy is not yet clear (AV~?N). It can be available full time (LF~0.98). The land use is good (LU~0.25 sq ft/KW). It can use existing electrical distribution systems. The hole can even be used to sequester carbon dioxide. The only disadvantages of this generator are:

O It is unable to provide fuel for portable power plants (autos and aircraft), although this problem may become less important if electric cars take over the automobile market.

O It is not able to be developed and move into the marketplace without government assistance.

These disadvantages do not seem to be crippling, so this type of generator is definitely a candidate to replace coal, oil and gas.

7. Alcohol from corn is currently being produced and used with gasoline to power autos. The cost is too high to be reasonable (C~$0.21). Oil from soybeans is more promising (C~$0.13). Alcohol from sugar cane is also better (C~$0.15). These are non-polluting in that they put no more carbon into the atmosphere than they take out (P=0). This option cannot be thought of as a long-term solution, however. Available production is limited by energy/sq ft from the sun, its conversion efficiency and the land available for cultivation (LU~1000 sq ft/KW). As population increases, these food crops must be used for food, so availability is limited (AV<<N). This competition between food and fuel is not happening with alcohol and oil from waste wood and sea crops such as kelp and algae. These sources can move into fuel, so long term production is possible and also desirable. It will help replace fossil fuels for portable applications in the long run. It should be noted, however, that it couldn’t completely replace fossil fuels. Production is still limited by energy from the sun and conversion efficiency (LU~1000 sq ft/KW). Limits on available land insure that AV<<N. Remember that energy from plant growth is less efficient than that from solar cells (efficiency ~0.1% to 1.0%), and it has already been noted that solar cells for base load are expensive and use too much land. It requires far too much land (or sea shore) area to cover base load. It cannot even cover all of the fuel for portable power plants such as cars, trucks and aircraft. Thus energy from plants is best suited to supplying part of the fuel for portable power plants where it is cost competitive.

8. Ocean based wind turbines, wave generators and solar cells are non polluting (P=0) and inexpensive. They can be operated on one platform or vessel (called a SEMAN) to save capital expense. The cost per KWH is estimated to be very small (C~$0.017/KWH). Wind and wave turbines are the primary producers. Solar cells are expensive and consume so much area that they can provide only a tenth of the generated power, so they have only a backup roll. The vessel can be moved to find optimum operating conditions, so the Load Factor is high (LF~0.85 to 0.95). When LF is factored into energy cost, the cost is only slightly higher (C~$0.019/KWH electrical). This cost is for electrical energy used on the SEMAN for, as an example, producing fertilizer concentrate, which can be easily transported to land (see AP2.4-this site). This is equivalent to generating natural gas, since fertilizer is made from natural gas. This natural gas can then be used to generate electricity. If the energy is converted to oil and then transported to land (see AP2.4), there is a conversion efficiency that increases the oil cost to C~$0.032/KWH thermal. This oil synthesis can be done from carbon dioxide (from the air and water using a catalytic process that operates in something like an inverse fuel cell (see AP2.4). If the oil is then reconverted to electricity, there is another conversion efficiency which increases the cost to C~$0.071/KWH electrical. Land use is excellent, since no land is required for energy production (LU is infinite). The high-energy areas of the ocean are capable of carrying 200 million SEMAN. This number of SEMAN can cover all the energy requirements of the earth (AV>N).

It is important to note that SEMAN can be used to sequester carbon dioxide to overcome global warming (see AP1.1-this site).

Note finally that this energy source provides many jobs per KWH produced as opposed to oil, where the money goes to the owner of the oil well, yet the cost of the energy is still low. In addition, the captain and crew (or family) of the SEMAN has, as part of their pay, the living quarters on the vessel as well as their food requirements. Thus all of the critical and desirable characteristics are satisfied. The prototype is almost complete, and has been developed without government funds. Clearly this is a candidate to replace coal, oil and gas in the future.

9. Fossil fuels are polluters (P=5110 to 8930 KWH/lb carbon dioxide), but the cost has been low (but is now rising) and the convenience of use is high. The cost of several fossil fuels will be shown so that these candidates can be compared to the cost of clean energy generators. Because of the negative effects of carbon dioxide on climate (see AP1.1), it will eventually be necessary to sequester the carbon dioxide, and pay for this service by increasing the cost of the fuel. The sequestration procedure is described in AP1.1. Then the energy generators could compete on a basis of actual cost (including carbon dioxide sequestration) rather than partial costs. This may be thought of as an average cost of many different means of generating energy. The most important means of generating energy from fossil fuels and their characteristics are:

Coal. Base cost=$0.055/KWH (electrical)

Carbon sequestration cost=$0.0094/KWH, Total=$0.064/KWH

Conventional fuel oil. Base cost=$0.11/KWH (electrical)

Carbon sequestration cost=$0.0078/KWH, Total=$0.12/KWH (electrical)

Total cost for heating $0.54/KWR (thermal)

Tar Sand oil. Base cost=$0.12/KWH (electrical)

Carbon sequestration cost=$.0099/KWH, Total=$0.13/KWH (electrical)

Total cost for heating $0.55/KWH (thermal)

Conventional natural gas. Base cost=$0.057/KWH (electrical)

Carbon sequestration cost=$0.0054/KWH, Total=$0.62/KWH (electrical)

Total cost for heating $0.28/KWH (thermal)

Fracking gas=$0.081/KWH (electrical)

Carbon sequestration cost=$0.0054/KWH, Total=$0.086/KWH

Total cost for heating $0.39/KWH (thermal)

These costs change according to location because of transportation costs, but they can give an idea of the cost of fossil fuel energy from different sources and sequestration costs relative to the base cost, assuming the sequestration is done by the SEMAN. The total cost can be compared with the costs of energy from the other generators described above. Coal is the worst polluter as can be seen by the sequestration costs, but all fossil fuels pollute. They are, however, well suited for both base load operation and portable applications (cars, trucks and aircraft).

Conventional oil production is nearing its peak (2015 to 2020), and the conventional gas production peak is expected to follow soon after. Coal production peak is not expected for ~200 years. However, new secondary fossil fuel sources are now coming on line such as Fracking for natural gas as well as light oil, and Tar Sands for heavy oil. Note that these new methods are heavy producers of carbon dioxide, and must depend on the new carbon dioxide sequestration techniques that the SEMAN offers.

SUMMARY.

The cheapest source of electrical and thermal energy is the SEMAN, a vessel that operates on the ocean, so there are transportation costs to land. Energy costs from the SEMAN is $0.019/KWH electrical on the ocean. The SEMAN energy is plentiful enough to provide for the whole earth, and is sustainable. In addition, it can be used to sequester Carbon dioxide in the deep ocean. Convenient transportation to land requires conversion to oil, so the cost on land for electrical and thermal energy increases to $0.032/KWH thermal and after re-conversion to electricity, $0.071/KWH electrical. If sold on land as oil at $0.08/KWH thermal, 100KW of power at sea would create an income for the SEMAN of $3456/mo. That, along with income from sequestering carbon dioxide ($5760/mo-see AP1.1), gives enough income to cover operation expenses for the SEMAN, and leave about $80,000/ yr, from which the mortgage must be paid. The remainder goes to the owner and operator. In addition, 200 million SEMAN could provide all the liquid fuel needed for the world by 2050 (see AP2.4). Note that the oceans have enough energetic (wind speed >15KN) area to allow for 200 million SEMAN.

The cheapest land based sources of electrical energy are wind and waves at ~$0.028/KWH electrical, but when corrected for load factor (outage due to lack of wind and waves), it increases to ~$0.048 electrical average. Note that because of the limited number of good sites and their unreliability, their use is severely limited.

The next cheapest source of electrical energy is natural gas at ~$0.062/KWH electrical, but it requires the SEMAN to sequester its resultant carbon dioxide. Since it is being mined, it is unsustainable, however. Gradually, it will convert to Fracking sources and then run out.

Coal comes in at ~$0.064/KWH electrical, but it requires the SEMAN to sequester its resultant carbon dioxide. Since it is being mined, it is unsustainable, although it will last a long time.

Nuclear electrical energy comes in at ~$0.080/KWH, and it is sustainable, but safety issues must be addressed.

Deep well geothermal electrical energy comes in at ~$0.085 using deep thermal wells. It is sustainable, but uncertainties in the drilling process make its final cost uncertain.

Solar cells are useful primarily for specialty applications such as on top of cars and houses at ~$0.98/KWH.

Conventional oil comes in at ~$0.12/KWH electrical and requires the SEMAN to sequester its resultant carbon dioxide. Gradually, it will convert to Tar Sands and then SEMAN oil. Even though it is expensive, it is currently available and it is convenient for portable applications, so it will continue to be used.

Timing and Overall Capability

For timing, only the ocean based wind and wave vessels (called SEMAN) can start coming on line as other sources peak out. The reason this is possible is that Aquater2050 LLC is using a different development procedure and business model than is normal for an energy company. Development consists of building and testing one vessel (it is nearing completion). A SEMAN is capable of immediately making energy (and a profit), so people with the funds can individually build and operate their own SEMAN.

Production can be accomplished in any of the innumerable recreational boat builders available in most of the nations of the world. The skills required are those needed for construction using wood, fiberglass, glue with steel and aluminum fittings.

Aquater2050 LLC also has an Internet site (Aquater2050.com) operating. Part of the money received by this site will be put into a fund to supply building materials for those who don’t have money of their own to build a vessel. Thus the unemployed can also build and operate vessels. Banks would be reluctant to invest in SEMAN because the asset is portable and the technology new, and so the risk is difficult to assess. Since there can be more than one construction base operating, rapid production increase is possible.

As to overall capability, nuclear plants have the required capability, but the safety issue is slowing plant construction. Deep thermal wells have the required capability, but deep well drilling and other development issues will take a long time.

On the other hand, the oceans have the capability of supporting roughly 200 million SEMAN (see AP2.1) in high-energy areas (wind speed >15 knot). This number of SEMAN can cover the energy needed to replace fossil fuel generators as time goes on as well as sequester all of the carbon dioxide currently generated by fossil fuels (see P2.4) thus Aquater2050 SEMAN can cover the fossil fuel replacement requirement and gradually draw down the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the same time.

Construction Capability

Since an enormous amount of construction is required to build 200 million SEMAN, it is proper to ask if the capability exists to do this construction and if the materials are available. SEMAN construction requires much the same skills as house construction and uses much the same materials (wood, fiberglass, glue, steel and aluminum fittings, carpet, and fabrics). In fact, the primary material used, birch plywood, comes from birch trees common in northern Russia, Finland and northeast US and it is a renewable material. The SEMAN is in fact a home for a family of four with some extra electrical additions (primarily sails and electric generators), so either a home or a SEMAN would have to be built for each new family as population increases. This situation contrasts with other green energy producers such as solar cells. Solar cells have a serious production limit caused by a shortage of both worker skills and refined solar cell materials, and could not ramp up into the dominant energy producer in a short time.

Thus no new skills or materials are required for SEMAN construction and building 200 million SEMAN is roughly the same as building 200 million homes that would have to be built anyway except for the electrical equipment. On a worldwide basis, 200 million homes over 40 years is not an impossible job.

Conclusions

We have a problem. Earth’s energy needs are growing and pollution due to energy production is increasing. So, how do we provide for this growing energy need with fuel dwindling and pollution and carbon dioxide production increasing?

New energy sources have been proposed and should be evaluated. The quality of an energy source can be graded on a basis of five factors. These factors are:

Cost/KWH (C)
Pollution resulting from production (P)
Energy availability (AV) greater than future world need (N)
Land usage (LU)
Load Factor (LF). Load Factor is the fraction of time the system is available for use.

Each energy option will be graded on a basis of these factors below.

The cheapest source of electrical and thermal energy is the SEMAN, a vessel that operates on the ocean, so there are transportation costs to land. Energy costs from the SEMAN is ~$0.019/KWH electrical on the ocean. The SEMAN energy is plentiful enough to provide for the whole earth, and is sustainable. In addition, it can be used to sequester Carbon dioxide in the deep ocean. Convenient transportation to land requires conversion to oil, so the cost on land for electrical and thermal energy increases to $0.032/KWH thermal and after re-conversion to electricity, $0.071/KWH electrical. If sold on land as oil at $0.08/KWH thermal, 100KW of power at sea would create an income for the SEMAN of $3456/mo. That, along with income from sequestering carbon dioxide ($5760/mo-see AP1.1), gives enough income to cover operation expenses for the SEMAN and leave about $80,000/ yr, from which the mortgage must be paid. In addition, 200 million SEMAN could provide all the liquid fuel needed for the world by 2050 (see AP2.4). Note that the oceans have enough energetic (wind speed >15KN) area to allow for 200 million SEMAN.

The cheapest land based sources of electrical energy are wind and waves at ~$0.028/KWH electrical, but when corrected for load factor (outage due to lack of wind and waves), it rises to ~$0.048 electrical average. Note that because of the limited number of good sites and their unreliability, their use is severely limited.

Coal comes in at ~$0.064/KWH electrical, but it requires the SEMAN to sequester its resultant carbon dioxide. Since it is being mined, it is unsustainable, although it will last a long time.

Nuclear electrical energy comes in at ~$0.080/KWH, and it is sustainable, but safety issues must be addressed.

Geothermal electrical energy comes in at ~$0.085 using deep thermal wells. It is sustainable, but uncertainties in the drilling process make its final cost uncertain.

Solar cells are useful primarily for specialty applications such as on top of cars and houses at ~$0.98/KWH.

Note

The prototype SEMAN is about 90% complete. To see progress on the prototype, click on “SEMAN Prototype” on the home page of this site.
To donate to help complete this prototype, click “Add To Cart” on the home page.