to nuke or not to nuke: why not stirling solar power?

8/14/2019 TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE: WHY NOT STIRLING SOLAR POWER?

1/15

TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE: WHY NOT STIRLING SOLAR POWER?

By Francis C W Fung, Ph.D.

James C Townsend, Ph.D.

On July 17, 2008 Al Gore, former US Vice President, made an important US energyindependent announcement. The main theme was to announce the timely and importantinitiative of converting all US electricity production to green energy in a decade, by 2018.The initiative is wise and admirable, but is it realistic? Is it achievable and how?Currently the US electricity generation is 70% by fossil fuel, 20% by nuclear power andonly 10% by solar, hydro, wind and other forms of renewable energy. Gores ambitiousgoal is achievable if supported by concerted national efforts of SolarStirling Engineprograms to gradually replace existing fossil fuel power plants, large or small.

America is a country of vast resources and can do spirit demonstrated by the massmobilization of WWII in airplane manufacturing capability. Half a century later theworld has not yet caught up. In the urgency of the present national energy and climatecrisis, the same can do attitude can be applied to the Green Energy for ElectricityInitiative (GENEI) for success. The GENEI policy will put US so far ahead in SolarStirling system manufacturing that the world will not be able to catch up. Themomentum of GENEI advocacy will make us the largest energy technology and StirlingEngine export nation in the history of world green energy technology and product export.The potential world market of GENEI technology and products together with ourreduction in oil imports can be so great as to more than halve the current American tradedeficit. The US is in great need of a president who will adhere to the mission and visionadvanced by Al Gore.

Above are the opening two paragraphs from a paper titled Green Energy for ElectricityInitiative (GENEI), Alternative to Nuclear and Fossil Energy (Appendix 1) by the firstauthor on July 18, 2008. Now, on Feb. 16, 2010 President Obama announced an $8.33billion loan guarantee for the new Vogtle nuclear reactors, the first step in theAdministration's push to jump-start the dormant U.S. nuclear construction industry.Obama also urged Congress to set aside political differences and triple the budget fornuclear loan guarantees. "On an issue that affects our economy, our security, and thefuture of our planet, we can't keep on being mired in the same old stale debates betweenthe left and the right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs," Obama said.

In view of this unprecedented announcement by Obama, for the first time in over 30

years, the Nuke debate has come back in full force, so as to be able to bring back aNuclear Power Renaissance according to some circles. As stated by Michael Grunwaldin Why Obamas Nuclear Bet Wont Pay Off (Appendix 2), Obama did acknowledgesome serious drawbacks with respect to nuclear energy, but the drawbacks hementioned waste disposal and reactor safety are not the real obstacles to a rebirth.It would be nice to have a permanent Yucca Mountain-style repository for spent nuclearfuel, but for now plants have been storing their waste on-site without major problems.


2/15

TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE

And the nuclear industry's safety record has improved dramatically in the 30 years sincethe Three Mile Island meltdown, although there are still occasional blips like a recentradioactive leak at a Vermont plant. The NRC is not exactly a hostile regulator, butsometimes it does show teeth; in October, it identified problems with the WestinghouseAP 1000 reactor design, which could create additional delays for nearly half the proposed

new reactors, including the ones at Vogtle.

But waste disposal problems, safety issues and regulatory delays do create a much moreserious obstacle to a nuclear comeback: They jack up the already exorbitant cost ofconstruction. That is the truly serious drawback of nuclear energy. Recent studies havepriced new nuclear power at 25-30 cents per kilowatt-hour, about four times the cost ofproducing juice with new wind, or coal plants, or ten times the cost of reducing the needfor electricity through investments in efficiency.

Meanwhile, nuclear costs keep spiraling out of control; last year, the estimates forseveral reactors doubled, and for one Pennsylvania reactor more than tripled. This is whycredit rating agencies keep downgrading utilities with nuclear ambitions, which increases

their borrowing costs and makes their projects even more expensive.

As explained in Appendix 1,The cost of nuclear power plants is manifolds higher thanthe equivalent SolarStirling Engine power plants because of the strict need andregulation requirements to prevent nuclear radioactivity leaks. All nuclear power plantsmust be housed in huge fortified containment housing, and all systems of hot and coolingwater circulation must be heavily protected and isolated. The construction cycle is alsounduly long, generally over 5 years. Whereas, for SolarStirling power plants, withoutneed for civil structures, site constructions can be less than a year. Despite all the built insafety factors for nuclear power plants, mechanical failures and human errors do occur.Accidents like Three Mile Island in the US and Chernobyl in Russia is unavoidable and

the consequences are too dear to accept.

Besides the unlikelihood of Wall Street financing of nukes without a prohibitive Federalsubsidy and the issues of safety and nuclear proliferation of nuke spent fuel treatmentmentioned above, there are a multitude of reasons not to go for a Nuclear PowerRenaissance. Following are some of the pro and con reasons to say no to Nuke:

1) The five years required for nuclear site construction (after all delays forpermits and environmental reviews) is so long that nuclear plants cannot

answer current financial and job recovery needs.

2) In comparison, the short onsite construction time of typically less than one

year for a field of SolarStirling engine power plants can provide immediatejobs in both manufacturing and construction, helping to meet current financial

and job recovery needs.

3) Massive Stirling engine fabrication for electric generation can utilize surplusDetroit internal combustion engine manufacturing facilities that will otherwise

be idled as automobile electrification comes in full force in the very near

future.

2
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1888119,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1888119,00.html


3/15


4) The strategy of reusing engine-manufacturing facilities provides hope forreviving Detroits economy; this is a national priority that demonstrates the

principle of efficiency and conservation manifested to the nth degree.

5) Massive deployment of nuclear power plants nationwide will need expansion ofexpensive special manufacturing machinery and facilities, which will be very

time consuming and further extend the dilemma of the nuclear site

construction time being too long to help the current financial crisis. (For one

discussion of the costs, see

.)

6) Stirling electric generation is inherently modular. Individual modules range inpower from 1kW to 50 kW or more and can be grouped together in multiples

to generate as much power as a nuclear plant. So, a SolarStirling power plant

can be built up incrementally to any size desired as the need grows.

7) Stirling electric generation can also be built in a distributed manner at all

appropriate locations; a single 50 kW module can easily fit in a less than 0.1-acre site. Nuclear plants are very location sensitive because of their large

structural size and area requirements for safety and strong security.

8) Nuclear plants must be built near water for massive cooling, which will

infringe upon prime land and can cause thermal pollution. The SolarStirling

power plant does not need cooling water and thus can be built in unoccupied

desert lands such as those in the U.S. west and southwest.

9) Stirling engines are multi-fuel external heat engines. Besides solar energy, theycan be powered by geothermal heat, waste heat, and biomass or any

combustible waste as fuel.

10) Currently America SolarStirling Engine technology development leads theworld. We must act in time to stay ahead, so as not to loose the massive

market for SolarStirling power plants in the developing world. An

economically attractive approach is to jump start development by teaming up

with China immediately to exploit the winwin advantages offered by both

sides. The biggest SolarStirling engine market will be China, followed by the

developing world.

11) The World Harmony Organization is already in active discussion with leadersof China on a Grand Alliance Strategy for Stirling Power. The developing

world is ready and willing to go forward with electrification by SolarStirlingpower. It is not ready for Nukes and should be discouraged from going on that

wrong track.

12) In his Feb. 16, 2010 speech, President Obama made a strong pitch thatAmerica must retain its capability as the number one exporter of nuclear

power plants by building the new Vogtle plant and other nuclear reactors.But, the export of nuclear power plants concurrently necessitates the shipping

of enriched uranium fuel to developing countries. The devastating effect of

3
http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/calvert/highcostnpower_mdpirg.pdfhttp://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/calvert/highcostnpower_mdpirg.pdf


4/15


nuclear proliferation is not limited to the explosive destruction of nuclear

weapons but also includes the radioactivity of the enriched uranium and its

fission products. Transporting nuclear fuel is more dangerous than

transporting a biological virus because the effect of any nuclear fuel leakage

has a longer life span than any leakage of a biological virus. The world is

more connected than most people realize what we leak will eventuallyspread around the world. It is not responsible for a Nobel Peace Prize winner

to advocate the export of nuclear fuels.

13) America is fortunately very abundant in solar power. We do not need to resortto more Nukes when we have the technology to quickly exploit that readily

available, safe, and environmentally friendly energy. We already have 104

nuclear power plants spread around the country; thats enough.

In Service of Stirling Engine Renaissance

General Partner

Green Energy Stirling Engine Partnership (GESEP)

San Francisco, CA

References

1. Green Energy for Electricity Initiative (GENEI) Alternative to Nuclear andFossil Energy, Francis C. W. Fung, Ph.D., July 18, 2008 (See Appendix 1)

2. Why Obama's Nuclear Bet Won't Pay Off, Michael Grunwald, February 18, 2010(See Appendix 2)

3. Stirling Energy Alliance (SEA) Grand Strategy, Francis C W Fung, Ph.D.,General Partner, Green Energy Stirling Engine Partnership (GESEP) (SeeAppendix 3)

4. Stirling Engine Renaissance in 21st Century, Francis C W Fung, Ph.D.,September 2006, World Harmony Organization (Available on request from.)

4
http://www.time.com/time/letters/email_letter.htmlmailto:[email protected]://www.time.com/time/letters/email_letter.htmlmailto:[email protected]


5/15


Appendix 1. GREEN ENERGY FOR ELECTRICITY INITIATIVE

(GENEI)

ALTERNATIVE TO NUCLEAR AND FOSSIL ENERGY

BY FRANCIS C W FUNG, PH.D.

July 18, 2008

On July 17, 2008 Al Gore, former US Vice President, made an important US energyindependent announcement. The main theme was to announce the timely and importantinitiative of converting all US electricity production to green energy in a decade, by 2018.The initiative is wise and admirable, but is it realistic? Is it achievable and how?Currently the US electricity generation is 70% by fossil fuel, 20% by nuclear power andonly 10% by solar, hydro, wind and other forms of renewable energy. Gores ambitiousgoal is achievable if supported by concerted national efforts of Solar Stirling Engineprograms to gradually replace existing fossil fuel power plants, large or small.

America is a country of vast resources and can do spirit demonstrated by the massmobilization of WWII in airplane manufacturing capability. Half a century later theworld has not yet caught up. In the urgency of the present national energy and climatecrisis, the same can do attitude can be applied to the Green Energy for ElectricityInitiative (GENEI) for success. The GENEI policy will put US so far ahead in SolarStirling system manufacturing that the world will not be able to catch up. Themomentum of GENEI advocacy will make us the largest energy technology and StirlingEngine export nation in the history of world green energy technology and product export.The potential world market of GENEI technology and products together with ourreduction in oil imports can be so great as to more than halve the current American tradedeficit. The US is in great need of a president who will adhere to the mission and vision

advanced by Al Gore.

Exactly twenty-four years ago I delivered a key note speech at the Second InternationalConference of Stirling Engines in Shanghai, China. The title of my speech was ThePromising Future of Stirling Engines in China. This was referring to American StirlingEngine technology being transferred to China. The idea was for China to deploynationwide, small size solar powered Stirling engines as an appropriate renewable energytechnology. The most endearing and commanding source of external heat to powerStirling Engines without doubt is solar heat. Because of the simplicity of the StirlingEngines operating principle and construction compared to the conventional internalcombustion engine, this is a winning combination from economical and renewable energy

considerations. The operating gas in a Stirling Engine is hermetically sealed and heat isadded to the outside of the engine cylinder. Thus mechanically, high efficiency StirlingEngines are very simple and maintenance free. Most of all, because of its high heat andpower concentration capability, it is also particularly suitable for large electric utilityapplications compared to solar voltaic panels. Solar voltaic panels as alternative utilitypower plants have significantly lower thermal efficiency, higher cost and take up muchmore space for the same electricity power delivered.

5


6/15


As of this writing, the two largest Solar power Stirling Engine Utility Plants underconstruction are the Solar One Project being built for Southern California Edison at theCalifornia Mohave desert and the Solar Two Project being built for San Diego Gas andElectric at Imperial County at Southern California. The total designed power for thesetwo projects add up to be 1750 MW, the size of two large nuclear power plants.

How does Solar Stirling Engine stack up against Nuclear Power plants? The solarStirling Engine technology used in these two projects are called the SES SunCatchersystem, they hold the record for the most efficient solar electricity generation technologyin the world. The SES SunCatcher is a highly concentrating solar thermal technologythat converts sunlight into electricity at a rate of 31.25 percent, significantly moreefficient than its closest competitor. The cost of electric power for these Sun Catchers is1/5 to 1/10 the cost of comparable photo voltaic panels. Each Sun Catcher dish is 38 feettall, 40 feet wide and generates 25,000 watts of power, which means they occupy muchless space compared to any solar voltaic panels on per kilowatt basis. The large spacerequired for solar voltaic panels, high price and low efficiency, disqualified them as

candidates for large utilities in competing with Solar Stirling Engine systems.

The cost of nuclear power plants is manifolds higher than the equivalent Solar StirlingEngine power plants because of the strict need and regulation requirements to preventnuclear radioactivity leaks. All nuclear power plants must be housed in huge fortifiedcontainment housing, and all systems of hot and cooling water circulation must beheavily protected and isolated. The construction cycle is also unduly long. Despite all thebuilt in safety factors for nuclear power plants, mechanical failures and human errors dooccur. Accidents like Three Mile Island in the US and Chernobyl in Russia areunavoidable and the consequences are too dear to accept.

For the sheer amount of enormous energy needed for Green Energy for ElectricityInitiative (GENEI), from a safety point of view, Solar Stirling Engine System utility winshands down over other renewable energy choices. California has voted for StirlingEngines from expert experience and is moving ahead. Since the accident at Three MileIsland over thirty years ago, the US has consistently delayed building nuclear powerplants. That is very responsible and to be commended. I was one time the China countryrepresentative of Combustion Engineering for the sales of moth-balled Tennessee ValleyNuclear power plants. The nightmares of TMI and Chernobyl still haunt me. The cost ofdisposal of spent fuel and its adverse effect of long lasting radioactivity on nature andmankind is well known. No nuclear power plant is permanent. The eventual need to teardown old dilapidated nuclear power plant for safety has also never been adequatelyaddressed.

After the unprecedented severe Sichaun earth quakes, the construction of huge hydropower plants such as the three Gorges anywhere in the world will be most likely put offfor a long time if not forever. Medium and small size hydropower stations are betteralternatives.

6


7/15


Aside from the fact that Solar Stirling Engine for electricity generation is non pollutingand renewable, the final merit is the economic pay back of its low life cycle cost due toease of manufacturing and maintenance of the engine. Solar Stirling Engine systemshave long life cycle and do not require the many additional ancillary accessories as dieseland steam engines. In a Solar Stirling Engine System the working gas is permanently and

hermetically sealed. There is no replacement or treatment necessary of the working gasin the life cycle of the engine as is required in steam and internal combustion engines.

In conclusion, as a national and local GENEI policy to reduce environmental pollution, tosteer away from long term radioactive degradation of the earth, and to reduce nationalfinancial burden, all point to the choice of using Solar Stirling Engine Systems as themost viable solution. Large Stirling Engine power plants can be incrementally added insmall modular units. They are much more thermally efficient than Solar voltaic panels.The recommendation of using Stirling Engine alternative for GENEI policy is based onmy over two decades of experience as a practitioner of international Solar Stirling Enginetechnology transfer. The US oil imports is 24% in the 1970s and 42% in the 1990s.

Today we import 70% of our oil and at a staggering cost of $700 Billion. This increasingtrend and heavy cost are absolutely unsustainable.

It is imperative for us to support Al Gores recommendations and advocate GENEI policyas a national priority. To play a responsible role as the leader of the world, the US mustalso set an example in her renewable energy policy. Other major fossil fuel consumingnations such as China and India will inevitably follow. With ample evidence as discussedhere, not to include the Solar Engine Systems for consideration as a major part of USGENEI imperative is unconscionable. Financially the US will be the biggest energytechnology transfer nation in world history and the beneficiary thereof.

In fact the US is already ahead of the world in Solar Stirling Engine technology. TheGENEI policy will put US so far ahead in Solar Stirling system manufacturing that theworld will be hard put to catch up. The potential export of Solar Stirling Engine systemsto meet the pent up demand for rest of the world will be a great stimulus to the USsagging economy. Together with the reduction in oil imports, the US trade deficit can besignificantly reversed. The summation of total reduction of oil imports as the worldfollows our GENEI imperative will no doubt instantly halt the oil price speculation. Itwill not be surprising that a world concerted GENEI effort will instantly drive the oilprice down by more than half. Our next president must show the vision and leadership toendorse Al Gores recommendations and implement the GENEI imperative as our energyindependence policy. Yours humbly is available for consultation by invitation fromrelevant national energy implementation departments and local government heads.

In Service of Energy IndependenceFrancis C W Fung, PH.D.

7


8/15


Appendix 2. Why Obama's Nuclear Bet Won't Pay Off

ByMICHAEL GRUNWALDThursday, Feb. 18, 2010

If you want to understand why the UnitedStates hasn't built a nuclear reactor in three

decades, the Vogtle plant outside Atlanta isan excellent reminder of the insanity ofnuclear economics. Its original costestimate was less than $1 billion for fourreactors. Its eventual price tag in 1989 wasnearly $9 billion for only two reactors. Butnow there's widespread chatter about anuclear renaissance, so the Southern Co.is finally trying to build the other tworeactors at Vogtle. The estimated cost: $14billion. And you can be sure that number isway too low, because nuclear costestimates are always way too low.

That's why no Wall Street moneyman in hisright mind would finance a new reactor. But President Obama has located an alternativefinancier: you. On Tuesday, he announced an $8.33 billion loan guarantee for the new Vogtlereactors, the first step in the Administration's push to jump-start the nuclear construction industry.Obama also urged Congress to set aside political differences and triple the budget for nuclearloan guarantees. "On an issue that affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet,we can't keep on being mired in the same old stale debates between the left and the right,between environmentalists and entrepreneurs," Obama said. (See the top 10 scientificdiscoveries of 2009.)

But the President is ignoring a much fresher debate: between theory and reality. Even if Obamawere correct that a nuclear rebirth is needed to address the climate crisis and he isn't correct the fact is that the rebirth isn't happening. Despite the prospect of new taxpayer guarantees

and the cradle-to-grave subsidies that already promote this 50-year-old industry at the federaland state level utilities keep scrapping or delaying plans for new reactors.

In January, for example, after a Florida commission denied requests for dramatic electricity ratehikes, plans for two new reactors in the Keys were suspended, and plans for two more reactorsoutside St. Petersburg were delayed. Last August, the Tennessee Valley Authority scrappedplans for three new reactors in Alabama, and delayed a fourth by at least four years. Otherreactors have been cancelled in Texas, Missouri and Idaho; license applications have beensuspended in Mississippi, Louisiana and New York. Peter Bradford, a former member of theNuclear Regulatory Commission, has calculated that of the 26 new applications submitted to theNRC since 2007, nine have been cancelled or suspended indefinitely, and ten more have beendelayed by one to five years. Utilities like Exelon, Duke Energy and FPL have ditched or scaledback their nuclear ambitions.

In his speech Tuesday, Obama did acknowledge "some serious drawbacks with respect tonuclear energy," but the drawbacks he mentioned waste disposal and reactor safety are notthe real obstacles to a rebirth. It would be nice to have a permanent Yucca Mountain-stylerepository for spent nuclear fuel, but for now plants have been storing their waste on-site withoutmajor problems. And the nuclear industry's safety record has improved dramatically in the 30years since the Three Mile Island meltdown, although there are still occasional blips like a recentradioactive leak at a Vermont plant. The NRC is not exactly a hostile regulator, but sometimes itdoes show teeth; in October, it identified problems with the Westinghouse AP 1000 reactor

8

Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant
http://www.time.com/time/letters/email_letter.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/letters/email_letter.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944416,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944416,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944416,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944416,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1869203,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/letters/email_letter.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944416,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944416,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1869203,00.html


9/15


design, which could create additional delays for nearly half the proposed new reactors, includingthe ones at Vogtle. (Comment on this story)

But waste disposal problems, safety issues and regulatory delays do create a much more seriousobstacle to a nuclear comeback: They jack up the already exorbitant cost of construction. That isthe truly serious drawback of nuclear energy. Recent studies have priced new nuclear power at25-30 cents per kilowatt-hour, about four times the cost of producing juice with new wind or coalplants, or ten times the cost of reducing the need for electricity through investments in efficiency.Atomic energy is much cleaner than coal, and it provides baseload power when the wind isn'tblowing and the sun isn't shining, so it sounds like a sensible way to accommodate increasingelectricity demand. But it's not nearly as sensible or feasible or affordable as decreasingelectricity demand altogether.

Meanwhile, nuclear costs keep spiraling out of control; last year, the estimates for severalreactors doubled, and for one Pennsylvania reactor more than tripled. This is why credit ratingagencies keep downgrading utilities with nuclear ambitions, which increases their borrowing costsand makes their projects even more expensive. Even with the federal guarantees, the newreactors at Vogtle are expected to boost local electricity bills by 9% and like most nuke-friendlystates, Georgia has enacted a law ensuring that ratepayers won't get their money back if theutility fails to complete the plant.

Nuclear power really is emissions-free, so we're fortunate that 20% of our electricity comes fromexisting nuclear plants. But even if they weren't spectacularly expensive, additional nukes couldn'tcome on line quickly enough to solve our climate problems; the industry dream of 45 new plantsby 2030 would barely replace its aging plants scheduled for decommissioning. And nuclearenergy may be the least cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gases, which is why privateinvestors are pouring billions into efficiency, wind, solar and other renewables instead. Taxpayerswould get more bang for their energy bucks if their elected representatives made similar choices.

But nuclear energy is popular with the public, and wildly popular on Capitol Hill. Obama's push toexpand the loan guarantees was one of the only bipartisan applause lines in his State of theUnion address. New nukes are a priority for unions as well as utilities; the Vogtle project, whilenot exactly shovel-ready, is expected to create 3500 well-paying jobs if dirt starts moving nextyear. Meanwhile, Republican politicians who don't believe in global warming and didn't even wantthe word "French" in their fries can't stop talking about French nuclear plants that slash Frenchemissions and produce 80% of French electricity. They tend not to mention that those plants werefinanced by the French government.

Ultimately, the U.S. may be heading toward a similar brand of nuclear socialism. Obama talksabout massive nuclear subsidies as just one part of his larger clean-energy agenda, but he hasn'tmade them contingent on GOP support for that larger agenda. So the nuclear subsidies are sureto pass, while the larger agenda is likely to stall. Eventually, extravagant government largessemight create a nuclear rebirth of sorts but it might end up strangling better solutions in theircribs, or prevent them from ever being born.

9
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1964846,00.html#commentshttp://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1964846,00.html#commentshttp://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1964846,00.html#commentshttp://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1888119,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1869224,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1869224,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1964846,00.html#commentshttp://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1888119,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1869224,00.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1869224,00.html


10/15


Appendix 3. - STIRLING ENERGY ALLIANCE (SEA) GRAND

STRATEGY

Steam Engine Initiated 19th Century, International Combustion Engine Powered 20th

Century, and Stirling Engine Will Herald 21st Century Green Harmony.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

World oil prices will continue to rise to unsustainable level by speculative forces unless

major oil import countries immediately implement large and small scale available

technology green energy alternatives. The most effective and imminent policy approach

is Green Energy for Electricity Initiative (GENEI). On July17, 2008 former President Al

Gore recommended that all U.S. electricity generation be converted to green energy by

2018. Green Energy Stirling Engine Partnership (GESEP) responded on July 18, 2008 a

paper titled Green Energy for Electricity Initiative; Alternative to Nuclear and Fossil

Energy.

Stirling engines are omnivorous and adaptable to all forms of thermal power. Stirling

engines can be powered by all types of green energy and very scalable, thus the potential

applications to improve our quality of life and ecology are unlimited. During the 2nd

International Conference on Stirling Engines I stated to the effect that Steam Engine

Initiated 19th Century, International Combustion Engine powered 20th Century, and

Stirling Engine will herald 21st Century Green Harmony. 24 years later this prophetic

truth still rings true. For the world to move towards Green Harmony it is pertinent that

U.S. and China, the two biggest oil consuming nations, work together on Green Energy

Strategy to cooperate through 21st Century Stirling Engine Renaissance (SER).

Stirling engines are hermetically sealed and can be powered by any external heat. It can

also work ideally in a free piston form sans any crankshaft. In todays state of the art, the

Stirling engine is the most favored candidate for use in space, on land and deep under the

ocean large or small. One day we will find Stirling engines with sealed power working

routinely inside human bodies to assist our organ functions. Stirling engines have been

developed to thermal efficiency above 40% and combined heat and power efficiency

(CHP) over 80%. It is simple in design and low in maintenance. GESEP has an

overview paper available by request, titled Stirling Engine Renaissance in 21 st Century

that sums up the promising future of green energy Stirling engine in many fields, large or

small.

Stirling engine can be powered by highly concentrated solar power. Solar Stirling engine

is the chosen solution by California Utilities to scale up to 900 MW capacities, directly

competing with nuclear and fossil energy. The California decision is a strong vote of

confidence for Stirling energy over nuclear and fossil energy. We strongly recommend

countries with ample solar power potential to opt for Stirling power instead of nuclear

power. The promising future of Stirling engines as green environmental solutions for

10


11/15


both developed and developing countries are unlimited as discussed in afore mentioned

paper. The largest photo voltaic power plant approved or in operation is only 80MW, less

than one tenth the size of the California Stirling energy plants contracted under

construction. Steam engine initiated the 19th Century, Internal combustion engine

powered the 20th Century and the Stirling will herald 21st Century Green Harmony

concluded in our two papers mentioned previously.

To fulfill above prophecy we are proposing a plausible Stirling energy initiative of

multinational win-win cooperation. A concerted effort should be launched for the global

community to share in technology and the huge global market for green energy

deployment. This will reduce the cost of production of green energy Stirling engines.

This concerted effort of sufficient scale will be immediately effective in reducing demand

for oil and reduce the threat of global warming, thus benefit all participating nations.

These benefits will be direct financial as well as global pollution reduction and

immediate improvement in ecology. This will be the Stirling Energy Alliance (SEA)

Grand Strategy.

STIRLING ENERGY ALLIANCE (SEA) GRAND STRATEGY

INTRODUCTION

There are two major countries that have built up technology and manufacturing capability

in Stirling engines for over two decades and also have huge markets for green energy

power. They are also the largest oil consuming nations, with one fast catching up with the

other. In the next two decades these two major countries together will most likelycontinue to consume more than half of the world oil output. The fierce competition for

limited oil availability is the major factor in encouraging oil price increase. It is pertinent

for these two countries to enter into immediate strategic energy cooperation. The

proposed SEA Grand Strategy of enough scale can immediately put a halt in oil price

speculation, not the suggested initiative of off shore oil drilling. Compared to the GENEI

initiative to covert electric generation to green in 10 years, increasing off shore drilling is

insignificant. The GENEI initiative for both these two countries using green energy,

large and small scale to replace nuclear and fossil energy for electricity in ten years, the

Stirling engine will be the Commanding factor in the proposed SEA Grand Strategy.

Stirling engines are omnivorous and adaptable to all forms of thermal power. Stirlingengines can be powered by all types of green energy and very scalable, thus the potentialapplications to improve our quality of life and ecology are unlimited. During the 2nd

International Conference on Stirling Engines I stated to the effect that Steam EngineInitiated 19th Century, International Combustion Engine powered 20th Century, StirlingEngine Will Herald 21st Century Green Harmony. 24 years later this prophetic truth stillrings true. For the world to move towards Green Harmony it is pertinent that U.S. and

11


12/15


China, the two biggest oil consuming nations, work together on Green Energy Strategy tocooperate through Stirling engine Renaissance.

U.S. and China are currently the two biggest oil consuming countries in the world andwill likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. The former is the wealthiest and most

mobile society and the latter is the most populous, and fast becoming the manufacturer ofthe world. The need to reduce oil consumption and environmental pollution by fossil fuelis keenly felt by both societies. It is very commendable that former vice president AlGore recommended on July 17, 2008 that America convert all electric utilities to greenenergy by 2018. Currently U.S. electricity utility production is 70% fossil fuel, 20%nuclear power and only 10% by solar, wind, hydro, wave and so on.

The U.S. is the leading country in Solar Stirling and CHP Stirling energy applicationstoday. Few are aware however, that after Green Energy Stirling Engine Partnership(GESEP) successfully transferred Stirling engine technology from U.S. MTI to Chinatwo decades ago, China is also now strong in Stirling engine manufacturing, application

as well as R and D. The two countries development directions during the last twodecades can be totally complementary. Both also have huge needs for Stirling energy forGENEI initiative. However, the need is more pressing and the market is more than 4times bigger in China. Additionally, China can readily and immediately gear up for largescale Stirling engine manufacturing. The best approach for U.S. to participate in thatmarket is to partner with China in the manufacturing and the application developmentprocess. This requires pooling of resources, sharing of markets, forming of businessalliances, joint manufacturing and mutual assurance of protection of intellectual propertyrights.

THE (SEA) GRAND STRATEGY PLAN

We will start our implementation with U.S. and China because of their Stirling enginetechnology, market and resources are of large enough scale that must be counted on in theSEA Grand Strategy. Let us list some key characteristic of both nations that we mustwork into our formula for immediate consensus and results. Nevertheless, both sidesmust approach this Grand Strategy with nobility, humility and the long vision to reduceresource competition and increase quality of life and harmony. This SEA Grand Strategycan be kicked off by small private efforts, in time it will snow ball into a grand vision ofwin-win global development as to involve big utilities and national energy strategyplanners.

Among U.S. Stirling energy advantages are strong in applications, especially in solarpower plants, combined heat and power modular units, free piston Stirling generators andspace applications. Also there are ample venture capital and investment funds chasingafter the few leading Stirling energy technology companies. However, the U.S. also hasmany distractions of different technology and approaches competing for finance,resources and national resolve. Also the U.S. economy is currently mired in themortgage debacle. Even, the influence of Al Gore may not successfully rally the U.S. to

12


13/15


focus on the GENEI initiative, which is a very important step in establishing thecommanding position of Stirling energy.

On the Chinese side, Stirling engine manufacturing technology is quite advanced andworld class especially after two decades of developmental work starting from a good

foundation of MTI technology transfer from the U.S. However, Chinas applicationdevelopment has not been as broad as the U.S., especially in large solar power plants andworking with utilities. Due to the booming economy and more centralized energyplanning China may be in a better position to mobilize for national priority. Nationalsupport is important for SEA Grand Strategy to take hold. Negating this positiveparameter, the current Chinese thinking does seen to lean heavily on using nuclear energyfor large power plants. There is initial thinking to build as many as 30 nuclear powerplants. This undesirable thinking may or may not be too big a distraction. The use ofSolar Stirling energy for large utilities is just too convincing, as demonstrated by thedecisions of two large California utilities. Ultimately what will sway the Chinese nationtowards green energy Stirling power is her pressing and overwhelming growing appetite

for energy and the need to reduce pollution. Chinas need for energy will grow manyfolds in the coming years. This is unavoidable due to her role as world manufacturer andautomotive ownership will grow exponentially. I can foresee China plays a key role inthis SEA Grand Strategy for sustainability and because of her current policy of scientificdevelopment.

The implementation plan for the proposed Grand Strategy calls for China, acting throughprivate sectors, immediately join Green Energy Stirling Engine Partnership (GESEP) inthe following 6 step plan:

(I) Set up a US Corporation in California with GESEP and China keeping controllinginterest. The corporation can be appropriately called Green Energy Stirling Engine Inc.(GESEI) for inclusiveness. The corporation charter is to liaison with US Stirling energyindustry in all dimensions. An office will be set up in San Francisco and will be managedby staff from China as well as from GESEP with great deal of decision power in definedareas.

(II) GESEI will have the mission to help China acquire complementary technology andownership in at least three major U.S. Stirling energy companies to play an influentialbalancing act.

(III) GESEI will arrange for China decision makers to visit the U.S. and make thenecessary introduction to key contacts and facilities leading to the execution of the SEAGrand Strategy.

(IV) GESEI will work with GESEP contacts and relations to organize an over dueInternational Conference on Stirling Engines in China. The 2nd International Conferenceon Stirling Engines took place in Shanghai, China cosponsored by GESEP. The theme ofthe Conference can be Stirling Engine Renaissance in 21st Century but the objective forGESEI is to hammer out the details of SEA Grand Strategy with as many key players that

13


14/15


we can attract from the worldwide Stirling energy community. The Conference is alsointended to enhance Chinas leading role in the SEA Grand Strategy. A planningcommittee on the Conference will be organized by GESEP calling on key Stirling energyleader contacts.

(V) GESEI in collaboration with relevant responsible energy planners in China maps outthe SEA Grand Strategy. The Grand Strategy and vision include following objectives: 1)Team up with 2 or 3 selected leading US Stirling energy companies to form an Alliance.2) Acquire influencing interest in those companies. 3) Obtain agreement formanufacturing Stirling engines in China. 4) Formulate plan to share U.S. and China andother Allied nations markets. 5) Iron out agreement to assure intellectual property rightsof all team members in alliance. 6) Alliance members drawn up plans to establish sales,marketing and service organization in each alliance countries to oversee sales. 7) Workout a feasible plan to invite oil producing nations to invest in Alliance to share in revenueas hedges against their decrease in future oil sales due to green energy production bySEA Grand Strategy.

(VI) It is envisioned that above tasks will be accomplished within a reasonable timeframe of 18 months with milestones and details to be worked out. It is desirable thatStirling engine manufacturing will begin in China as soon as feasible. Continuing growthof the Alliance in scope and member companies is expected to increase the SEAinfluence and market share. As global green energy technology leader, SEA will reinvestearnings to assist the developing world to achieve energy independence and greenecology.

A separate contract will be drawn up immediately between GESEP and Chineseresponsible party. GESEP will be compensated by stock options as a substantial minoritypartner, monetary payments and bonuses for the Grand Strategy proposal and workperformed. There will be two GESEP board members on the initial board of five.Monetary compensation for the first 18 months to GESEP for work performed to bediscussed and pay according to performance milestones. Subsequent to the 18 monthsimplementation period, GESEP staff will be paid officer salaries. This proposal is thesole property of GESEP. Should the responsible person representing China wishes toadopt this plan without GESEP, the present proposal and service of GESEP principalscan be contracted for a reasonable sum to be discussed. Details of the Grand Strategy willbe worked out by GESEI and GESEP together immediately after contract signing andfirst initial payment to GESEP as consultant.

In Service of Stirling Engine Renaissance!Francis C W Fung, PH.D.General PartnerGreen Energy Stirling Engine Partnership (GESEP)

14


15/15


15

to nuke or not to nuke: why not stirling solar power?

Documents