Posted on 07/07/2012 7:25:43 AM PDT by Kevmo
Journal of Petroleum Technology — July 2012
Guest Editorial • On the Precipice Of a New Energy Source? Steve Jacobs, COO, and Patrick Leach, CEO, Decision Strategies, and David J. Nagel, CEO, NUCAT Energy
Steve Jacobs is chief operating officer of Decision Strategies and has more than 30 years of experience in the oil and gas industry. His specialty is evaluating market opportunities for new and existing technologies and companies. He earned BS degrees in psychology and education from Oklahoma State University. Jacobs is an energy information ambassador for SPE. He moderates and lectures at numerous events around the world.
Patrick Leach is chief executive officer of Decision Strategies. He is a recognized expert in risk management and decision making in the face of uncertainty, and has published and presented numerous papers on these subjects. He is the author of Why Can't You Just Give Me the Number, an executive's guide to using probabilistic thinking to manage risk and make better decisions. Leach earned a BS degree in geomechanics from the University of Rochester and an MBA degree from the University of Houston.
David J. Nagel is chief executive officer of NUCAT Energy.Previously, he was a member of the senior executive service and leader of the physics division at the US Naval Research Laboratory, where he managed experimental and theoretical research and development efforts. He has also been a research professor in the department of electrical and computer engineering at George Washington University with a focus on low energy nuclear reactions. He received a BS degree in engineering science, an MS degree in physics, and a PhD in materials engineering.
In the late 1850s, the whaling industry was in a veritable boom in the town of Lahaina on the Hawaiian island of Maui. Business was great, and many in the whaling industry believed that increased demand would continue for decades to come. But in 1859, oil was discovered in Titusville, Pennsylvania with a well drilled by Edwin Drake. The rest is history.
That was 150 years ago. A small but increasing number of people around the world believe we are on a similar course, except this time it is the petroleum industry that might be threatened. As with any emerging technology, critical challenges must be overcome and a significant effort lies ahead to convince a world of skeptics that a new source of energy has been discovered and will be important.
The potential new source of energy is low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). With any discussion of a new technology, caution is advised. The world of LENR is filled with mystery, contradiction, gross speculation, misinformation, slippery timelines, and skepticism that sometimes spill over into outright denial. Healthy skepticism on LENR (or any new technology) is a good thing, but so is an open mind. If LENR is for real—and many well-qualified physicists believe it is—it will not only change the petroleum industry, but also significantly affect almost every aspect of our world. Some call it "the new fire."
In 1989 at the University of Utah, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced they had discovered a cold fusion process that would ultimately result in cheap, limitless energy. The outcome from these cold fusion efforts became widely known and well documented, primarily because other researchers were unable to replicate the results from the initial experiments. Cold fusion was (and is) viewed as impossible by many in the scientific community. Although the research did not cease, it was largely ignored.For the past 20-plus years, a small number of scientists have been diligently working on what could eventually become a hugely disruptive technology.
According to New Energy Times, "LENRs are weak interactions and neutroncapture processes that occur in nanometer-to-micron-scale regions on surfaces in condensed matter at room temperature. Although nuclear, LENRs are not based on fission or any kind of fusion, both of which primarily involve the strong interaction. LENRs produce energetic nuclear reactions and elemental transmutations, but do so without strong prompt radiation or long-lived radioactive waste." ("Strong interaction" and "weak interaction" refer to the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force, which-along with electromagnetic force and gravity-make up the four basic forces in nature.)
The Basic Process
There are several versions of LENR being developed using different reactants and processes. The basic process of LENR is not well understood, but some experts have stated that it works as follows: Nano-sized particles of nickel, pressurized hydrogen, and a catalyst are heated in a small reactor to the point at which weak interactions between the reactants cause transmutation (i.e., some of the nickel is converted to copper). Considerable excess heat is emitted during this process. Once the reaction becomes self-sustaining, the input power can be reduced significantly and excess heat (up to 650°C) is generated in the range of five to 30 times the input energy. This can be used to create steam, which can then be used for heating and/or generating electricity. The reactants are inexpensive and ubiquitous; during operation, the system emits no greenhouse gases; when turned off, there is no radioactivity; and the unit will allegedly generate electricity for a few cents per kilowatt hour. Now that is a disruptive technology.
According to one researcher, the amount of energy released from 1 gram of nickel would be equivalent to about one barrel of oil. Heat (in the form of steam) and electricity will be the main products. In addition to residential usage, plans exist for commercial and industrial heating/electrical systems. An attractive application is the production of clean water, including desalination systems. Eventually, LENR technology could be used in transportation (e.g., vehicles, aircraft, and ships).
No doubt the skeptics—and even some of the open-minded—reading this article are now cringing. But current LENR efforts are not dependent upon the outcome of just one development effort; there are a number of LENR programs under way in Europe and the United States. Universities and government agencies involved include Stanford University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, NASA, and the University of Illinois, and several private companies in Greece, Italy, and the US are also developing LENR technologies. Positive results and improved performance have been reported by the research teams, with at least four companies stating that they are in the early stages of commercial development. A small number of LENR unit manufacturing plants are reportedly being built in Europe and the US, and at least two companies have said they will begin marketing their systems later this year. If this is a hoax, it is a remarkably widespread one, involving organizations of high integrity with no obvious motivation to fool the public and quite a lot to lose in terms of reputation.
But even if a hoax is ruled out, other challenges exist, including accepted scientific explanations of LENR, better refinement of control systems, reliable operations, and a distribution/service infrastructure to maintain LENR units that would presumably be located in every business and neighborhood. There is also the nontrivial issue of full-cycle net energy gain (the LENR process may be energy positive once running, but hydrogen is a key ingredient in LENR; there are no earthly sources of free hydrogen, and it takes energy to separate it from the oxygen atom in water). There will also be regulatory issues and intellectual property challenges that may slow the pace of market penetration in the coming years.However, if this technology is for real, the value proposition for LENR will be incredible.
The best known LENR effort currently under way is by Italian Andrea Rossi and his energy catalyzer. He has developed a LENR system that reportedly is ready for commercialization. Although Rossi has had to change a number of delivery dates for his "E-Cat," he appears to be making progress. He stated in mid-April: "We have already made all the engineering of the production line in the two factories we will set up (one in the US, one in Europe) … I think that it will take from 6 to 12 months after the certifications will be done to start the production."
The Impact
If proven to work, what impact would LENR have on the petroleum industry? It is difficult to say for certain, but it would undoubtedly be significant. The vast preponderance of oil is used for transportation and heating (Fig. 1), which would now be competing with LENR. While there still would be a need for petrochemicals and other applications, collectively these end uses represent less than about 20% of each barrel. Natural gas would not fare much better; its main applications are heating and electricity. If LENR works, the impact on the petroleum industry, power generation, and coal industry would be enormous. Even wind farms and other emerging alternative energy technologies could not compete economically with LENR.
So what can be done to prepare for LENR? First, watch it closely and do not let skepticism blind you. When the Wright Brothers flew their first plane at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, the scientific community reportedly argued for years after the fact over whether a heavier-than-air craft could actually fly. Even the most obvious evidence was not enough to make some people abandon their preconceived notions of what was possible. Drake had to battle similar skepticism when he drilled the first oil well; many people in Pennsylvania called it "Drake's Folly."
It is also important to evaluate the specific impact that LENR would have on an individual company. How well positioned is your company to weather such a disruptive storm, or to capitalize on these potential opportunities? If LENR becomes a reality, you do not want to fly blindly into the side of a mountain. Investigate creative ways for your company to participate in the LENR market.While this new technology will be disruptive to a number of industries, there will also be business opportunities in the manufacturing, installation, and servicing of LENR systems in multiple applications and sizes around the globe. Millions of LENR units of varying sizes will be required because of the distributed nature of this energy technology.
There is a probability that LENR may never emerge as a reliable, new energy source. If not LENR, then what? Eventually, some other technology is bound to come along with a much superior value proposition than hydrocarbons.It is not a matter of if, but when, this will happen. There was nothing the whaling industry could do to halt its pending decline, and the same will be true when a new technology makes our current approaches to energy generation obsolete. It is vital for a company to have a strategy development process that recognizes and characterizes uncertainty, and deals with complexity appropriately, including potential game changers such as LENR. Such an approach places companies in a stronger position to mitigate risk and capture opportunities as our complex, unpredictable, and surprising future unfolds.
I am sympathetic to your view. I will also say that I find it hard to believe that every group focusing on this form of energy production, is acting foolishly.
There must be some basis for their research.
I’m not sure what happened with Pons and Flieshman. I do think that a reaction of sorts occurred. I suppose I could be wrong, but I do not believe these two sought to pull a hoax.
Evidently, enough other groups felt as I did to cause them to do research in this area.
In parting I’ll say this. This is 2012. Pons and Flieshman made their report a long time ago. By this time I would think this area of investigation would have been fully debunked if there was nothing at all there.
I still remain patiently waiting to see what may develop.
Researchers run out of something to do from time to time (I know from experience), and look around for a new topic. Energy is a great area to get funding, and E-cat-type stuff is full of naifs so why not have a go?
I don't believe F&P tried to pull a hoax -- I think they just screwed up -- they were talking about things they know little about.
Yes, research dollars is a good retort.
Is it your thought then, that nothing out of the ordinary happened in Pons and Flieshman’s research, and that all government funded research should be shut down?
Isn’t a lot of this research being funded on university campuses and the like?
We just can't afford to create gobs of energy in isolated places, and lose half of it in transmission losses.
That it truly stupid, in 2012.
No, funding of good research should not be shut down, but those making funding decisions should take a careful look at the quality of the proposals they review. I don’t believe much funding went to F&P work, but very large sums have gone to ‘climatologists’ with doubtful ethics and a hatred of openness, a strong indicator of bad science.
Don't assault kevmo with facts. He will either hide and remain unresponsive or he will start squawking something about seagulls...
Kevmo and rational, technical discussions of facts are like oil and water; you'll never find them occupying the same space...
Cue the seagulls in 10... 9... 8...
It's already here, it works and it's called fracking. It will cause an energy boom in the future, especially in the US. However BHO will definitely prohibit it if he gets reelected.
A distributed network of medium-sized modular reactors based on the HTGR concept would be very sweet. Site them a few hundred miles apart to minimize transmission losses, but have enough interconnects to allow redundancy, which provides for a very robust reliability. A standardized design and modularity would allow you to produce them in a factory and then move them on-site and get them running very quickly. The NGNP design at Idaho is inherently safe, modular, and could be sited underground if desired. The only problem is with the helium circulator. I have yet to see one that big that worked reliably, but it has been several decades since anyone tried it so maybe things have gotten better on that score.
Yeah, right. Post references to their work. The "debunking" studies have themselves been debunked and have been shown to be flawed (when they weren't outright frauds, like the initial MIT work (which was shown to have actually generated excess heat, but which HAD THE DATA ALTERED to depict the reverse)).
Instead of talking to your "friends", I suggest you spend some time actually studying the experimental works. Ed Storms book is a very good place to start.
I agree with points made in your response.
In fact I’d go so far as to say that some people getting government funding for global warming sciences, should have been prosecuted when it was found out they participated in a hoax.
Instead they still get the bucks and are still pretty much respected. How does that work anyway?
As for your hatred comment, I don’t think it’s limited to openness. They hate quite a few things when you get down to it.
Well,,,,, it was interesting,,, up to this sentence;
***Why? The whole premise of this article is to look at it as a disruptive technology. IF it is real, then that statement is utterly obvious. Again, I say IF it is true.
And for those of you in Rio Linda, since you have SO much trouble accommodating a hypothetical, once again I say IF it is true. IF. got it? IF. So that’s 5 times we have to say it, in order for someone to apprehend that it’s a hypothetical. Some freepers are just plain dense.
The research only assumed the mantle of respectability when the USN started digging into it.
***The USNavy had been digging into it for 20 years or so.
Credit for their findings was awarded to a woman (name escapes me)
***Pamela Mosier-Boss, with her CR-39 triple tracks evidence of neutron activity.
with no attribution to Fleishmann and Pons.
***She attributes it plenty to F&P in my personal correspondence with her. I don’t know where you get the idea that she does not attribute the F&P effect to Flieshmann & Pons.
Screw humanity; they are undeserving of your independent efforts.
***No comprehende.
“There is a probability that LENR may never emerge as a reliable, new energy source.”
I dunno what Jethro Tull did with Y2K, nor do I care. He’s a singer who should probably shut up & sing. And why do you insinuate that I’m into some other energy schemes besides LENR? If you’re gonna insult another freeper, be able to back it up.
This is where it starts to become technobabble.
***I’m glad you see it that way, because here they are relying on the Widom-Larsen theory, which is bull shiite.
The other 2 guys have technobackgrounds. The psychology/education dude is COO, he’s in operations. Those guys are often not that smart. Why do you focus on such a straw argument anyways?
likelihood of 2 chemists with no nuclear physics training finding a whole new nuclear effect at very low energies that is real - and that probability is pretty damn low.
***Then it should be a piece of cake for you and other nuclear scientists to completely obliterate the hundreds of peer-reviewed papers in LENR that have been published in the last 23 years, starting here:
http://lenr-canr.org/index/menu/menu.php
Of course, you guys NEVer do that, because you cannot. But it doesn’t stop you from throwing darts like a bunch of wussy chimps.
That it truly stupid, in 2012.
***I agree. With such large transmission losses, it makes sense to look even at solar power generated at the source of need.
Right now in my utility area (PG&E), tier 3 rates are at 30cents/kwh, then 34, then 52 (maybe this last one has gone down). Solar panels can generate at about 25-29cents/kwh, so they can compete against PG&E in the higher tier rate usage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.