Editorial comment

	Vol. 229 No.6
PERRY A. FISCHER, EDITOR

How to infuriate an engineer

A century ago, it must have been quite exciting to invent something that was truly useful and could be built in a garage. But it’s always been tough, requiring years of perseverance. Edison figured out how to make a real light bulb and the phonograph; the Wright Brothers knew how to get an airplane off the ground. Tesla knew how to generate AC electricity. It’s not that invention is dead-far from it. It’s just that it’s become far more “nichey” for individuals, who concentrate on making a better appliance or cleaning aid or fishing lure. In business, it more likely involves making something that already works, work better. Better insulation, better fuel economy, better mud additive, better wireline add-on.

I’m not belittling modern-day inventors, but the really big inventions that changed civilization profoundly seem to occur less often. Perhaps this is because the problems to solve are really tough, especially in the energy arena, and require substantial numbers of engineers, money and, very often, a lot of government support. The classic example is nuclear power, where it’s impossible for a maverick individual or company to invent a nuclear reactor. An individual might have an idea, but it takes teams of scientists and engineers years of hard work, with government support, to bring a new reactor design to fruition.

So, not surprisingly, governmental “help” is often at the core of an engineer’s frustration. But to be fair, our own human tendencies to go slow, take fewer risks and stick with the status quo are also part of the reason for decades of delay. Of course, the cost of lobbying to get government funding is part of the invention process. Political payola is often the more cost-effective, faster route.

There are many examples of stymied energy projects, many of which could change the global energy picture if pursued in an aggressive manner. For example, a technology that has been under development for 50 years, and will probably take another 50 to put to use, is the Pebble Bed Reactor. The PBR is a graphite-moderated, gas-cooled nuclear reactor. It is more efficient in fuel use and much less prone to an accident, particularly a steam explosion, since it’s gas cooled. Even if left unattended, without cooling gas, it seems virtually impossible for it to overheat. It uses stacked billiard-ball sized balls composed of graphite and imbedded uranium or thorium fuel particles. It would be extremely difficult to extract the fuel for nuclear weapons purposes. For disposal, it is easier and safer to handle, although it does take up more storage space.

The PBR was invented in Germany, where it operated from 1966 to 1988. China now has an operating prototype, while South Africa is actively developing one. Meanwhile, the US has been studying the design for years, and now has a new modular design that also reduces costs. Various designs are under development by South Africa’s PBMR; General Atomics (US); Romawa B.V. (Netherlands); Adams Atomic Engines; Idaho National Laboratory; and China’s Huaneng. By all accounts, this reactor design is more efficient than conventional reactors, is safer, cheaper and has less political (public) risk. So it’s unlikely that it’ll be commercial for 30 more years, at best.

Another example is Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC), which has been under development for over 60 years. The invention dates to 1881, and the first functional plant was built in 1930. It exploits the temperature difference between deep ocean water and surface water to produce electricity. It can operate at latitudes within about 28° of the equator (e.g., New Orleans to Rio de Janeiro).

The system can also produce freshwater, which, if saleable, can reduce present system costs to 7-10 cents/kWh up to 62 miles from shore (Vega, MTS Journal, winter 2002/2003). The process makes up for lousy efficiency by getting its fuel for free, plus there are much better designs nowadays that can boost efficiency considerably (e.g., Uehara cycle). If combined with a low-cost solar pond, efficiencies can increase 3X more.

The same technology can capture waste heat from gas-cooling towers, diesel engines and other waste-heat applications. And just for good measure, besides freshwater, OTEC byproducts include cold water aquaculture and agriculture, air conditioning (as is done at the National Energy Laboratory of Hawaii, NELHA), a platform for wind energy, and possible hydrogen production. Many offshore petroleum technologies are relevant to offshore OTEC construction, such as spars and mooring systems.

Nine OTEC pilot plants have been built. Three of them were designed to produce net power: 1979-Mini OTEC, Hawaii, barge-based, net 15 kW output; 1982-Nauru island, land, net 16 kW; and 1993-’98-Hawaii, land, net 100 kW. All of these plants were successful, yet nothing more was done. The plants were demolished. The engineers involved were given an “Attaboy” plaque in a nice mahogany frame.

There are still a few diehards who think that they can do something to provide abundant, low-cost energy for the world. Sea Solar Power is one of them. Founded by J. Hilbert Anderson and James H. Anderson, Jr., the father-and-son team has been working on the OTEC concept since 1962 (probably mostly trying to get funding). There remains a lot of government interest from US national laboratories (NELHA), Japan’s Saga University, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, India and, of course, China, plus several island nations.

But if any of the engineers try to go to a bank or a congressman, even with their Attaboy plaque in hand as proof of experience, the most that they are likely to get is, “Hey, that’s a nice mahogany frame.”

Given the success so far and the continuing high level of interest, I foresee that, by the 22nd century, these technologies will either supply an important part of the world’s energy, or we’ll be on our 93rd pilot project, planning to build the Big One, for real, soon. Nothing can be more infuriating to an engineer who knows that it works. Of course, by then we’ll probably have perfected cold fusion, and this stuff still won’t get built.

This is not because these things don’t work, or couldn’t be made to work well and to great benefit; it’s a mindset that makes it hard to break through the energy status quo. It’s much easier to get funding to invent a new hamburger grill than a new idea in energy. Oil at $140 might change that.

Tesla “invented” and patented AC electricity. A few months after his death, the US Supreme Court upheld Tesla’s patent that, in effect, recognized him as the inventor of radio. No matter, he died destitute and penniless.