A Galatic Visitor's Essay Part II (Gary Young) 2nd

A ‘GALACTIC VISITOR’S’ ESSAY, PART II Mega Energy Centers

by Gary Young, retired engineering manager Fort Collins, Colorado In Part I it was derived that the highest Energy Return on Investment (EROI) was nuclear. Having come from a planet where fact driven rational decision making was the norm, it was clear that on earth only the ‘richer’ countries could presently afford what I am about to propose. The rational part is that by doing so it greatly assists the world’s poorer countries the opportunity enrichen themselves through cheaper and abundant fossil energy.

THE PROPOSAL: The proposal should be considered as part of a US national energy policy.

Anything less than this scale of operation is really no energy policy at all.

More in Part III The proposal is to build a dozen mega-plant sites, mostly close to the oceans where core electrical generation would be from nuclear power and which can be supplemented by wind, photovoltaic, tidal, wave, and other green systems.

- These sites would include the plants for separation and storage of hydrogen - These generating plants would be connected by a primary national grid to increase the reliability of the complete operation and be able to maximize the generation of hydrogen.

- The primary grid would be connected to national utility grids at numerous nodes to provide redundancy and back up generation capacity.

- The “heat of rejection” from the condensation of the steam from the generating plants could be used for other things such as separating fresh water from the sea and additional power generation by secondary methods.

DISCUSSION: The reason for nuclear power is because there is no other available technology that can provide the massive amount of power required and at the same time enjoy such a high EROI. For the same reason, the primary reactor design should be something that is already well understood. Current pressurized water designs have been based on decades of experience on what is safe.

Page 1

The use of nuclear power also means that in the current age of terrorism, there is a very strong need for physical security of the plants and infrastructure. That is why only about a dozen sites and for the most part, they should be built on current or surplus military bases. Each major site would have seven nuclear plants each with about 5,000 megawatt electric capacity. With 30,000 megawatt electric capacity at all times given that one plant would probably be off-line at any given time. As seen in Part I, compared to current nuclear generating plants, these are truly enormous! See Part III; the concept of perpetual use.

Because the plants are so large, the time required to significantly change power output could be hours. This is because the very high ‘thermal mass’ of such large plants.

The advantage of also generating and storing hydrogen on sites is the possibility of using fast reaction hydrogen fueled gas turbine generators to buffer the load. Also, these plants would be on a primary national grid that could in turn buffer loads across regions Each major site could have supplemental power generation capacity of up to about 8,000 megawatt capacity relatively near to the site. In some cases, wind farms may have to be remotely sited where the wind blows and photovoltaic “farms” located where the sun shines most. Tidal generation and thermal gradient generation would naturally have to be in the ocean. Why the interconnect with green sources is that the ‘buffer’ to matching demand to output would come in the form of making more or less hydrogen.

Using nuclear power to generate 30,000 megawatts at each site would just about mandate ocean cooling because the more traditional cooling towers would definitely alter the weather down wind. This is also due in part due to the limits of ocean thermal gradient generation needing a great deal of water mass at relatively cold temperatures (like deep ocean currents).

The best I can estimate is that on this massive a scale, hydrogen could be generated for something like $1.50 to $1.75 a kilogram “manufacturing cost.” I did not include the amortized cost of the reactors nor did I try to estimate what it would cost to convert hydrogen into liquid fuels. The energy in a kilogram of hydrogen is about 132,000 BTU’s which is somewhat more than that contained in a gallon of gasoline.

This cost is reasonably close to some data from two engineers in Canada that estimated $2.00 per kilogram. The number is consistent with mine because they used ‘current scale’ nuclear power plants and similar “green” supplemental means.

The key to the early adoption of such a massive capital intensive system of making hydrogen is the economics. On another planet my fishing buddy was the department chairman of the Economics Department. I took many of his department’s classes just to argue intelligently. He ended up changing from Keynesian to the Austrian school. It didn’t end well for him because the Keynesians in the department led a “Palace Revolt.” I have always marveled how the Keynesians have so misidentified the summation of human endeavors that is economics. Incentives count. The primary beneficiaries of Keynesian economics are politicians who bribe the voters with their own money in order to be reelected. On our old planet we had term limits which killed the Page 2

use of Keynesian economics and which was another reason we became rich enough for galactic travel.

If the intent was to stimulate the economy, the US government Keynesians have wasted about $2 Trillion in Quantitative Easing. The results are miserable by any measure. The War on Poverty has so far cost $22 Trillion and the government spends $1 Trillion a year on more than 80 means tested welfare programs and --- we still have a greater percentage in poverty then when President Johnson started! True, we have little abject poverty and our poor live better than the middle class in most of the rest of the world. So I made a leap in faith that given respect for private property, a fair legal system, and a small government, the greatest driver of creating wealth for everyone is cheap, abundant and high EROI energy. So from the galactic view, one last Keynesian “investment” is build the reactors but not amortize the cost makes more sense than endless governmental handouts. That approach is in part how I arrived at $1.50 - $1.75 a kilogram for hydrogen Since the heart of the system is the massive nuclear power plants and the cost of that part of the system would exceed $2 Trillion, it would have to be primarily a government funded enterprise. While I believe in a free market, this project is simply too large for private enterprise to fund. I am also under no illusions on the relative efficiency of government run enterprises, so the whole project would be best managed by a combination of private industry and government. There have been several models for this cooperation including the Bonneville power authority, TVA and the way our nuclear weapons laboratories are managed by businesses and organizations under contract to the government. Another example is from France. They well manage their extensive network of nuclear powered generating plants as government entities with a focus on safety and they even manage to deliver electricity. Further analysis will be in Part III As a retired submariner, I have a great appreciation for the safety record of our naval nuclear power program. (OK, so I was visiting earth years ago.) It is for the safety issue alone that I believe the government should have direct oversight over reactor operations. I envision a senior “Uniformed Energy Corps,” staffed by those who have displayed the discipline and competence either in, or similar to, the discipline and competence required in the Naval Nuclear Power Programs. Considering the success of the “father of nuclear power,” Admiral Rickover in on-time delivery and safe operation, perhaps the enterprise should be part of the Navy.

Another strong reason that speaks to having the plants under military control is that they would be incredibly inviting targets in the event of nuclear war. While concentrated on military reservations to guard against terrorism, the plants would be only 12 primary targets that would seriously damage the US economy. To protect them would be the same missile, energy and kinetic weapons presently deployed or being developed for the military and manned by the regular military much as the Nuclear Triad is now.

Page 3

This “Energy Corps” should specifically not come under the rules of civil service, but rather operate with the culture like the military where accountability really means something. In the military, if you screw up, you pay the consequences. The Navy has largely maintained its culture for nearly 2 ½ centuries and despite political meddling such as treating it as a jobs program, Duty, Honor and Country still count.

I used to dread going to sea in a low bid submarine then I underwent the nightmare of going to sea after an overhaul in a government Civil Service shipyard.

Illustrative of under the category of a story for another day, a shipyard worker whose incompetence nearly killed us all simply went to another government shipyard. By pure chance, I prevented him from coming aboard to work on another submarine where I served as Engineering Officer. One only has to look at the mess in the VA where no one has yet been really punished to recognize that a high performance culture is lacking in general government service.

In order to be an attractive place to be, the Energy Corps would have to pay higher than the Navy or Civil Service, but screwing up would have greater consequences.

The military already uses Selective Retention Bonuses that pay up to $25,000 a year.

The proposed elite Energy Corps could have a similar arrangement but with even higher retention bonuses for greater responsibility that goes with higher ranks. The operation of each reactor would be under the “command” of the equivalent of a Naval Captain, each major site would be commanded by the equivalent of a Rear Admiral, and the entire operation under the equivalent of an Admiral. The advantage of the Energy Corps being closely associated with the military is that being sent back to the regular forces for infractions would mean a serious reduction in pay, but people would still have the opportunity to re-qualify for the elite service. As explained in Part III, this requalification opportunity is a tremendous motivator.

I am of two minds as to how close the Energy Corps should be affiliated with the military. Operationally, the Corps should best report directly up through the President’s cabinet. Administratively reporting to a military service solves a lot of support problems such as recruiting and training, However it is set up, the Energy Corps should never undergo the living Hell of serving two masters.

One reactor in each complex could be designed with the ability to use and/or develop thorium as the next generation technology. Thorium is more abundant and has the properties that would result in less high level radioactive waste products. I am a strong proponent of thorium reactors but simply think the first step should be what we already best understand --- enriched uranium.

Some number of reactors should also be designed to be breeders. Why having breeders is so the entire program would have the ability to create its own fuel.

Several major sites should have the ability to process the spent fuel rods into new fuel including mixed oxides. This action would reduce radioactive wastes such as the high level spent fuel rods now currently stored on-site near current nuclear generation

Page 4

plants. These plants could also provide a means to process the spent fuel rods and provide a long term source of fuel for other “civilian” generating plants.

It turns out that in not many years, the radioactive decay products formed in “weapons grade” plutonium causes it to no longer be useful for weapons without “reprocessing.” While I think we will always have some need for weapons grade plutonium, we could utilize any excess in the world to generate energy. As a byproduct, we could use part of the output of the breeder reactors to create what we would hope to be ever diminishing amounts of weapons grade material. It would be a good idea to have processing facilities on each major site to minimize having to transport these materials to other sites. However the economies of scale probably means three sites so equipped.

Having these major nuclear sites on military reservations in close proximity to heavily armed people would be prudent for security. The easy argument is that having plutonium, fissionable uranium and high level radioactive wastes means that the government really must own the nasty materials and the processing to be fully accountable.

The point where private enterprise takes over may well be where ‘heat’ exits the reactors. In this way, the free market will drive the continuous improvement process of ever more efficiently generating electricity, producing hydrogen, and distribution. The financial model may be a lease/option where utilities could form joint ventures with the government to take the heat and produce electricity. They would have to invest what they can afford as a down payment and then slowly buy out those operations from the government. Other energy companies like oil would also be offered a similar deal for buying into the hydrogen generating process and would be free to develop whatever system, high pressure hydrogen, liquefied hydrogen or ammonia that best serves the market.

If there is a short cut to direct hydrogen fuel cell based transportation, it will likely be using ammonia. Ammonia is relatively easy to make using the Haber process because the process requires hydrogen gas. (The Haber process uses nitrogen from the air and hydrogen gas with a catalyst at high temperatures and pressures.) Most ammonia produced currently uses steam reforming of natural gas. Without having to use steam reforming, the cost equivalent of hydrogen fuel cell propulsion may be in the range of $3per kilogram in volume production.

There are some exciting possibilities concerning the distribution of electricity and hydrogen and that is because liquid hydrogen, having a temperature over four hundred degrees below zero Fahrenheit, offers the nearly ideal cooling agent for superconducting power lines for the grid. Building what looks like underground pipe lines would in fact be well insulated superconducting wires. Further, these underground lines would be a means to pump the liquefied hydrogen to where needed to supply transportation needs.

The required technology for this massive scale of distribution has yet to be demonstrated. To be invented on this scale, it may again need government money probably exceeding one trillion dollars. Once underway, a similar down payment and buyout for the “backbone” grid could be offered to companies like pipeline and transmission line utilities.

Page 5

In part I, there was a discussion of the grid. A less expensive alternative to the above super conducting idea is very high voltage direct current (DC) tower mounted transmission lines. They work best for long distances and with few interconnect nodes.

DC transmission also has the advantage of being able to exactly phase match the distribution grid at the nodes. DC transmission also require less conductor size than the typical 3 phase AC transmission for the same amount of power delivered. Of course, a pipeline is still required to deliver hydrogen gas. Then again, it may prove to be more efficient to generate hydrogen locally at the ‘nodes’ of the transmission lines.

Generating hydrogen from water requires a lot of direct current electricity, very pure water, and a means of collecting the hydrogen gas and keeping it away from the oxygen gas that is also created when water is taken apart. I learned about the technology as it existed in the late 1960’s in order to teach marine engineering. Submarine oxygen generating systems consisted of a number of “cells” in which electrodes were placed on either side of a “semi-permeable membrane” which in turn allowed the relatively small hydrogen molecules to pass through, but not the larger molecules of oxygen. The cells operated at high pressure so that their size could be relatively small. The cells also were designed to work at high pressure because it is relatively easy to pump water up to operating pressure than it is to compress gasses, especially hydrogen. The oxygen came off one side of the membrane and was stored in pressure tanks to provide breathing oxygen for the crew. The hydrogen was vented overboard and disbursed into the sea.

The cells were very high strength steel pressure tanks made much stronger than required for normal operating pressures just in case a crack formed in the semipermeable membrane. This was because a crack could case the free oxygen and hydrogen in the cell to “promptly re-combine.” The tanks were strong enough to contain the explosion, but these systems were so heavy that they could only be carried in large submarines.

The technology to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water no doubt has continued to improve during the last 40 years. The availability of the ceramics needed for semi-permeable membranes is much better and there are other materials in the Teflon family that also work. While you do not need to design these generators to survive battle damage, explosions in the cell still likely have to be accommodated.

Electrical conversion for powering the cells has greatly advanced with high efficiency large current power transistors now available.

One of the greatest benefits of these generators is that they will generate hydrogen over a wide range of incoming power variations. This means that if a cloud comes over a photovoltaic array, it is no problem, just less hydrogen would be generated while it passes. The real advantage is the ability to let the base load electrical generating systems operate at their peak efficiency and simply control the hydrogen generation processes to accommodate variations in demand on the utility grid.

An interesting aside is that the Ford class of nuclear powered aircraft carriers have nuclear reactors and electrical generation far more powerful than needed to propel the ship. While forthcoming high energy defensive weapons will need the power (but for Page 6

only a small fraction of time) the real reason is to make jet fuel on board as the technology develops. The approach is to extract carbon in the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, generate hydrogen on board, and make the required fuels. A possibility is the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) process was developed in the 1920’s and used by the Germans during WWII combining carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas to make aviation fuel. In the last ten years numerous variant processes have been developed primarily focused on better catalysts, lower required temperatures and pressures etc. The fuel would be expensive but having numerous tanker ships going out to refuel deployed carriers is also very expensive. In war time, sinking the replenishment ship grounds the airplanes.

COLATTRAL BENEFITS: Placing plant sites in Southern California where fresh water has to be imported could have enormous benefits. Top of the list may be the ability to distill a great quantity of fresh water from sea water. One problem with large nuclear generating plants is that there is a large amount of “waste” heat that needs to be carried away.

Using this “free” heat energy could help solve the desalination problem. One possible way to do this is by using “triple effect” distillation of part of the cooling sea water. I would envision really large heat exchangers where some of the cooling water is brought up to a boil in a partial vacuum and then condensed into fresh water and do it again and again in a series of three systems where the third system boils salt water at the lowest temperature because it is under the greatest vacuum.

Because the United States has large coal, oil shale and gas deposits, we could more quickly wean ourselves away from any foreign dependency on petroleum by using some of the hydrogen from the first constructed sites for use in making synthetic gasoline and diesel fuels. Variants of the Fischer-Tropsch process or the Bergius process, another German invention dating to 1919 which directly converts carbon and hydrogen to liquids. I am going to make a SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) and say that with $1.75 per kilo hydrogen, $3 per gallon gas is possible and $4 gas is probable at large industrial scales. While more costly than today’s current prices, we will in time see these prices for fossil sourced gasoline in the future. Synthetic fuels will be needed in part because it will take many years before a fleet of ammonia derived or direct hydrogen fuel cell vehicles could significantly replace the gasoline powered fleet.

Moderate ammonia distribution networks already exists but direct hydrogen distribution is very limited.

REBUTALS TO OTHER PLANS: The primary alternatives for solving the current issues surrounding the demand for fuels are increased mileage of the transportation fleet and/or increase domestic production of petroleum. The primary rebuttal is that neither of these approaches will solve the problem on the long term. They would at best be stop gap measures on the path to a true long term solution.

Page 7

We are now near the practical limits of extracting the energy from gasoline in engines utilizing the Auto, Diesel, and other cycles. This is because the inclusion of advanced electronics to control the combustion process has already been incorporated.

Fuels injected directly into the combustion chamber approaches the efficiencies of diesel engines. Thermodynamic diminishing returns are not far off. The only reasonable extensions for mileage improvements are the use of hybrid technology using highly turbocharged small displacement direct injected engines and decreasing the weight of our automobiles. The use of hybrid technology better optimizes the efficiency of the modified Otto/Diesel cycle.

The main issue with the Auto cycle is that it is most efficient at full throttle at a load and engine speed near the designed torque peak of the engine, a condition that very rarely occurs during normal driving. In practice, automobile engines are designed to have from three to as much as ten times the horsepower required to cruse at a steady rate down the highway. The extra horsepower is there for accelerating, hills and heavy loads. Why large engines are built for running at low revolutions means that they last longer. The newest generation of high performance small displacement engines use better materials and machining processes to last at least as long as the financing.

The efficiency of a hybrid comes from having a relatively small engine that is optimized to run at a designed torque peak and controlled to either drive the wheels, charge the battery, or both. It is the battery that is used to provide the additional energy needed for passing, hill climbing, acceleration and such. The hybrid engine still has to be sized to produce enough horsepower to maintain something like a steady state 75 MPH highway cruise while running all the accessories, negotiating mild hills, push through moderate head winds and still provide a useful charge rate for the battery. The need for a relatively fast charge rate for the battery is because the driver will want the energy on tap for the next truck they pass or the next big hill.

The main problem with hybrid cars is that the present economic breakeven point at $2.25 gas is something over 100,000 miles! Gasoline derived from hydrogen may reduce the breakeven point to possibly under 50,000 miles but would that be enough?

There simply are a lot of additional costs involved with generators, motors, battery packs, and electronics that are required in a hybrid. There is also the problem of what happens when the batteries need to be replaced. The better batteries have capacity to hold a lot of charge. Lithium ion technology is the current best solution. Earlier generation hybrid cars like the Prius used nickel hydride which are heavier and generally more toxic upon disposal.

It is curious that in the last twenty years or so, high performance motorcycles have gained about 50 percent more horsepower and at the same time they lost between 150 to 200 pounds of weight. This is a lot considering they were generally all under 800 pounds to start. During this same time, cars gained both horsepower and weight. Cars also gained mileage, but if they had followed the weight loss lead of motorcycles, they probably would average about five more miles per gallon then they do now. To be completely fair, the reason the national fleet is heavier is only in part because the vehicles most equivalent to those made twenty years ago increased in size and features.

Page 8

Safety features like crash resistance, all-wheel drive and multiple air bags add weight.

The major reason for the weight gain is because consumers have embraced much larger vehicles like up-scale cars, trucks and SUV’s.

Why our vehicles are the size they are is because that is what we the consumers want. Part of the issue is all the people and “stuff” we want to haul in our cars has increased and part is that there has been a “cocooning” process going on for about 30 years. This “cocooning” is surrounding one’s self with a lot of steel and size for “protection” for us and family. Another issue is the way we use our automobiles. In general, we spend more time in our vehicles and travel further per trip and per year.

This increase in miles driven and the need for “cocooning” has placed more importance in safety features, comfort, the number of seats and likely the “intimidation factor,” all of which increases weight. “Cocooning” has also contributed to the further rise in the “do it yourself” movement. Naturally we need to have a vehicle that can carry the loads from all the “big box” supermarkets, home improvement stores, nurseries and such.

One result is the increase in the purchase of trucks and SUV’s. In short, consumers buy what they think they need.

Driving the increase in the purchase of trucks is the perception of value. Current government rules and regulations of automobiles make trucks, which have exemptions from some mileage standards, more attractive for purchase. Further, trucks can haul more. The real issue for trucks comes under the category of unintended consequences, mileage standards are based on weight.

Lighter vehicles that have the same comfortable “cocooning” features people enjoy cost a lot more. Steel is cheap and easily fabricated. I would estimate that about 800 pounds could be taken out of the average automobile using composites and lighter metals, but the costs of the cars would easily be $5,000 to $10,000 more. These cars and trucks (like Ford’s aluminum body F-150 truck) already exist but not many people have or want to spend the purchase price to drive them. From the strictly economic standpoint, while these cars get better mileage, the extra money paid up front would never pay back in lower gasoline consumption. It can be said with certainty that the consumers have already spoken. With time, consumers will change their minds.

The paradox would be trying to build lighter hybrid automobiles. They have to have electric motors and big batteries that cost a lot more and can weigh a lot more. The basic structure of the vehicle has to carry this additional weight and so it would be difficult to achieve significant lightening in a given sized vehicle. Hybrid automobiles made today are likely “loss leaders” for their manufacturers and I would be very surprised if they could make any money at the current prices even building them in volume. It would be very difficult in the future to build a light, hybrid, and large vehicle for a cost that most consumers would pay and that would be profitable for the manufacturer. Then you have to wonder if hybrids would be worth it. They may be worth it if most driving is stop and go around town. What is not widely understood is that such vehicles would not get more than about 15% to 20% better long haul highway mileage than most average cars built today.

Page 9

Ten years ago I wrote about the great promise of developing even more advanced gasoline engines that use “direct fuel injection.” Direct injection is the high pressure injection of fuel into the combustion chamber much like a diesel engine. As a consequence, the Otto cycle can gain more efficiency that approaches the efficiency enjoyed by engines running on the Diesel cycle. The efficiency comes from raising the compression ratio and then controlling the air flow and the timing and amounts of fuel injected so that combustion is controlled to prevent the detonation of the mixture. The process is tricky because the higher the temperature of combustion, which is where the efficiency comes from, the greater the problem of preventing the formation of the oxides of nitrogen. It is oxides of nitrogen that are the bad stuff in creating smog.

These engines are constructed with relatively small displacement for efficient cruising, yet have turbochargers or superchargers when there is the need to produce a lot of horsepower. The engine shop, where I hung out at the time built Hondas and Mitsubishis that averaged in the mid 30’s miles per gallon for around town mileage, yet could crank out over 400 horsepower! These modified engines were neither cheap nor durable due in part because they still mix the fuel with the air before it goes into the combustion chamber, and a lot of modifications have to be made to strengthen them to survive that much horsepower. Yet, they showed the potential of what can be done now with small displacement high efficiency engines that can also deliver a great deal of power.

Small displacement, high output direct fuel injection engines have the potential for greater highway mileage than hybrids because they power lighter automobiles. This is because they don’t need the large batteries, additional electric motors, and the additional weight from having a strong enough structure to carry around the weight of these components. They also don’t have the “conversion loss” of first having to generate electricity, store it in a battery, and then get it out of the battery into the electric motors that drive the wheels. This is why the “pay back” of current hybrids is over 100,000 miles.

Expensive components for small direct fuel injection engines are the fuel pumps and injectors. They have to precisely spray fuel into combustion chambers with a pressure of about 2200 psi. Unlike diesel engines, where similar pumps are selflubricated by the relatively “thick and oily” fuel, gasoline pumps would be difficult to build because gasoline is both very “thin” and has no lubricating qualities at all. Still though, I don’t think the manufacturing costs for the pumps would be anywhere as much as all the motors, batteries and stuff necessary for a hybrid. This means that compared to a hybrid, these engines together with the opportunity to make the entire automobiles lighter could perhaps makes much more sense because the greater highway mileage will likely dominate the overall mileage. I think it is reasonable to assume that a fleet of the same size we now drive, but 20% lighter cars powered by direct injection engines, could result in an increase of 25% to 35% in overall mileage. However, when the issue is moving lots of weight, such as truck, towing and such, the mileage improvements would be far less.

Page 10

The point of the rebuttals is that there are no magic bullets that will make improvements in US domestic consumption of gasoline and diesel drop by anything significant or for long. We should consider the implementation of reducing vehicle weight, direct injection, hybrids and others as a necessary interim step on the way to the hydrogen economy because it will take decades to actually achieve the hydrogen economy.

Part III will address some of the hardest issues: -

Planning for perpetual use.

Creating a national commitment.

Working with the environment.

Educating the public including quashing the fallacies about nuclear power largely propagandized by the radical environmentalists.

Management issues so that high performance is institutionalized.

Maintenance remains exceptional.

THE TAKE AWAY FROM PART II: The US has a serious energy problem because we depend on petroleum of which while we currently have an abundance but the abundance will not last. The energy problem will not go away using various schemes to mitigate the problem by marginally greater mileage standards, making alcohols, drilling in Anwar and such; these schemes will at best only buy much needed time for a more elegant solution. The nature of the more elegant solution is the separation of lots of hydrogen from water using a core group of nuclear generating plants which could be supplemented by a variety of “green� electrical generating methods. The nuclear approach is the only reasonable core solution that could be done with technology we now understand. The hydrogen generated could nearly forever be used in part to create gasoline from the carbon in heavy tars and shales that we possess in North America. We could even use carbon from biological sources such as wood. Hydrogen used this way still utilizes the well characterized and already existing distribution and use of gasoline.

The hydrogen could also be used to directly power fuel cells in our transportation fleet. The distribution problems for both gaseous and liquid hydrogen require solutions that do not exist and have significant risks with respect for safety. We have developed technology from the aerospace industry to possibly make gaseous and liquid hydrogen distribution work.

The economic limiting factor is the chemical processing to make liquid fuels and the distribution costs on top of the price of hydrogen could mean the costs so high that consumers may not pay for synthetic gasoline and diesel.

Page 11

The scale of the enterprise is so enormous that it would require a national resolve and significant government financial backing. The reality is our dependency on petroleum has reached the point where action must be instigated in the next very few years or we will face real freedom crushing and depressing economic crises in not many more years.

Page 12