Also this: http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/20686/story.htm
Los Alamos nuclear lab looks to build clean energy USA: May 6, 2003 LOS ALAMOS, N.M. - The birthplace of the atomic bomb, Los Alamos National Laboratory, is looking to embark on a new path that could make the preeminent nuclear weapons lab a leader in the clean-energy source of hydrogen fuel cells. The weapons lab, founded 60 years ago, has been researching hydrogen fuel cell technology for about 25 years and has said it is ready to answer U.S. President George W. Bush's call to make the technology into a viable energy source. "Los Alamos has always been about more than making the atomic bomb. If fuel cells become a more useful technology we'll be an overnight success, even though we've been working on it since 1977," said Ken Stroh, program manager for hydrogen and fuel cell technology at the laboratory. In his State of the Union address earlier this year, Bush proposed a $1.7 billion initiative to fund hydrogen fuel cell research over the next five years, with an ultimate goal of eliminating U.S. dependence on foreign oil by 2040. There are numerous facilities fighting for a piece of the $1.7 billion pie, but Los Alamos thinks it may have an inside track through its experience as a U.S. government lab, its prestige, and by having a governor in Bill Richardson who once served as the U.S. energy secretary and understands the inner workings of Washington. "We've never had a supportive environment like this," Stroh said. Lab officials have recently met with the likes of General Motors and Ford to discuss ways to create an economy based on fuel-cell technology. Los Alamos is looking for any good news it can get. In recent months, the lab has been rocked by ethics scandals that cost its former director his job and questioned the oversight ability of the lab's senior managers. FUEL CELLS TO GO Hydrogen fuel cells can be built to any size, which means they can power anything from a cell phone, which takes about one watt of electricity, to an automobile, at about 130 kilowatts, he said. Hydrogen fuel cells emit almost no pollution and produce electricity from oxygen and hydrogen. But hydrogen is expensive to make, and is derived mostly from hydrocarbons such as natural gas or gasoline in a process that does pollute. Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, has the highest energy output of any known fuel. But it needs an external energy source to free it from its chemical compound and create more energy. Hydrogen, whose byproduct is water, is now often accessed through natural gas, but can also use wind and solar power, as well as nuclear energy. Support for fuel cell research is strong in New Mexico, where Gov. Richardson has said his goal is to make 10 percent of the state's energy, by 2010, come from renewable resources, including wind and solar energy. The governor wants his state to be at the forefront of fuel cell technology and is encouraging a proposed national fuel cell center to be located in New Mexico. "When you talk about win-win propositions, fuel cell technology is one of the best. It creates two very important things - cleaner, renewable energy, and jobs," Richardson recently told industries who met to talk about hydrogen technology. New Mexico's Sen. Pete Dominici, a Republican who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, wrote recently that "the best way to produce hydrogen, with no pollution in the production process, is through nuclear energy." He is pushing for combining the expertise Los Alamos has in nuclear energy with its knowledge of fuel-cell technology. "Nuclear power could be an important aspect in making both hydrogen and electricity," Stroh said. Would New Mexico use the idea to push for nuclear capabilities at the lab to make hydrogen? "That's not even on our radar screen right now," said Richardson spokesman Pahl Shipley. Story by Zelie Pollon REUTERS NEWS SERVICE > >bush and the current admin are pushing for the hydrogen cars because > >they want to revive the nuclear power industry...they see us using nukes > >to crack water and make hydrogen...what does everyone think about this? > > > >kn > >sac, ca > >Nukes and fossil-fuels both I'd say. This just in on nukes: > > >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nuke4may04,1,512 >9372.story > >May 4, 2003 > >THE NATION > >Nuclear Energy Industry Sees Its Fortunes Turning in Capital > >By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer > >WASHINGTON - The U.S. nuclear power industry - at a virtual >standstill for more than 20 years and looking particularly bleak >after Sept. 11, 2001 - could be on the threshold of a comeback. > >Since 1973, no company has ordered a nuclear plant that it eventually >completed. Now, energy legislation expected to clear the Senate >within the next few weeks would provide federal loan guarantees for >up to half the cost of building as many as six new nuclear power >plants. > >The federal loan guarantees would be just one part - although an >important one - of a complicated economic and political puzzle that >would need to be assembled before any nuclear plants are built. Wall >Street still must be convinced of the economic viability of >constructing such plants. And nuclear power remains controversial, >with critics charging that the benefits aren't worth the risks of a >catastrophic accident. > >Security concerns spiked after Sept. 11. Doomsday scenarios >envisioned a hijacked plane crashing into one of the nation's 103 >commercial nuclear power plants, potentially causing radiation leaks. >Government officials beefed up security at plants and distributed >nearly 10 million potassium iodide pills, which can help protect the >thyroid in case of an emergency, to residents near plants. > >Supporters of nuclear power believe it is important that the industry >move forward again. > >The industry's fortunes have improved under President Bush, who has >made expansion of nuclear power a prime goal of his energy policy. >They brightened more after Republicans gained control of both >chambers of Congress in last year's elections and Sen. Pete V. >Domenici (R-N.M.) became chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural >Resources Committee. > >Domenici, whose home state was the site of the first test of an >atomic bomb in 1945 and today is where two national nuclear >laboratories operate, is the author of the Senate legislation. He is >confident about the prospects for the measure, citing congressional >approval last year for designating Nevada's Yucca Mountain as the >nation's nuclear waste repository. > >Along with the loan guarantees, the Senate bill would authorize $1 >billion for building an "advanced" nuclear reactor in Idaho that >would produce hydrogen, a fuel that Bush has championed for cars. "If >the demonstration [project] succeeds, it could well initiate a major >nuclear reactor renaissance," said Jay E. Silberg, a Washington >lawyer for nuclear utilities. > >The Senate legislation and an energy bill approved by the House last >month would extend a cap on the nuclear industry's liability in case >of an accident. And both measures would authorize millions of dollars >for nuclear research. > >Although the House energy bill does not include the loan guarantees, >the issue is likely to be on the table when House and Senate >negotiators draw up a final measure. > >"Suffice to say America needs a strong nuclear power industry if >we're going to meet our energy needs in the 21st century," said Ken >Johnson, a spokesman for W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.), chairman of the >House Energy and Commerce Committee. > >Today, nuclear power generates about one-fifth of the nation's >electricity. But high construction costs, as well as public protests >after the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island reactor in >Pennsylvania, stopped the industry's growth. > >Domenici has touted nuclear energy as a cleaner alternative to coal >and oil. And he has argued that nuclear power is necessary to prevent >the supply shortages and price spikes that occur from too much >reliance on a single energy source. > >Domenici has been one of the top recipients of campaign contributions >from the nuclear power industry, receiving more than $67,000 from >January 2001 through early 2002 in individual and political action >committee donations from companies that own or build nuclear power >plants, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a political >watchdog group. The industry gave nearly $9 million overall to >congressional candidates and political parties, almost two-thirds of >it to Republicans. > >But the industry's expansion still faces political opposition. > >"Until there's a [resolution] of the nuclear waste issue, it's >ridiculous to even talk about" expanding nuclear power, Sen. Harry >Reid (D-Nev.) said. For instance, legal challenges to the use of >Yucca Mountain for waste disposal are pending. > >Additionally, he said, the public remains "scared to death" about >nuclear power. "Where you going to put one [a plant]? Not in my >backyard - that's what everybody's going to say." > >Lisa Gue, an energy analyst for Public Citizen, a Washington-based >consumer advocacy group, decried the Domenici-drafted legislation. >"Here we see a piece of legislation that continues to prop up one of >the most expensive and potentially most lethal forms of electric >generation," she said. > >Under the measure, the government would provide loan guarantees or >guarantee electricity purchases to spur the building of as much as >8,400 megawatts of production capacity - enough for up to 8 million >homes. Last year, nuclear plants generated electricity to power 70 >million homes, according to industry officials. > >"I think there is a bright future for this industry," said John Kane, >senior vice president of government affairs for the Nuclear Energy >Institute, a Washington-based industry group. "We're safe. We're >cheap. We're clean. I can't help but think we're going to begin to >build a new plant in this country in the next five to 10 years." > >Silberg, the utilities lawyer, said: "Utilities will certainly be in >a better position to commit to new nuclear plant construction with >the loan guarantees. But the utilities will ultimately have to be >convinced that the construction of new plants makes economic sense." > >Other experts say that ultimately it will be Wall Street - not >Washington - that determines the industry's fate. Nuclear plants can >cost at least two times as much to build as natural gas plants, >though industry officials say nuclear plants are more economical to >operate. > >"Until the price of nuclear plants comes down, no one is likely to >ask for the loans," said Geoffrey Rothwell, a Stanford University >economist. > >Some lawmakers remain concerned about the security of nuclear plants. >A Senate committee this month is expected to consider legislation >that would impose new security requirements at such facilities. >Industry officials contend that nuclear plants are safe. > >On Capitol Hill, the loan guarantees also face opposition. > >Domenici's New Mexico colleague, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat who >regards himself as pro-nuclear, said he has "great difficulty" >justifying loan guarantees to a mature industry. > >Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) warned that the loan guarantees could expose >the Treasury to a risk of as much as $30 billion, a figure that the >industry disputes. Wyden has pointed out that the Washington Public >Power Supply System in 1983 defaulted on $2.25 billion in bonds - at >the time the worst bond default in U.S. history - after cost overruns >and construction snafus forced cancellation of four of five planned >nuclear plants in the Pacific Northwest. > >"Private investors have stayed away from nuclear power because >nuclear-fired electricity is much more expensive than coal- or >gas-fired electricity," said Keith Ashdown, vice president of policy >for Taxpayers for Common Sense. > >Supporters of the loan guarantees say the nuclear industry is only >seeking the same kind of assistance that has been provided to other >industries, such as the airlines and shipbuilders. > >"The opponents of this just don't want to see nuclear plants built," >Kane said. "Because I can't think of any other reasons why you >wouldn't want to have emission-free [plants] that can produce great >gobs of electricity very cheaply." > > > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/05/03 10:34AM >>> > >http://lfee.mit.edu/features/hydrogen_vehicles > >Laboratory For Energy and the Environment > > > >Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle won't reduce greenhouse gas emissions by > >2020; diesel and gasoline hybrids are a better bet, concludes an MIT > >study > > > >Published in MIT Tech Talk, March 5, 2003. > > > >Even with aggressive research, the hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle will > >not be better than the diesel hybrid (a vehicle powered by a > >conventional engine supplemented by an electric motor) in terms of > >total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, says a study > >recently released by the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment > >(LFEE). > > > >And while hybrid vehicles are already appearing on the roads, > >adoption of the hydrogen-based vehicle will require major > >infrastructure changes to make compressed hydrogen available. If we > >need to curb greenhouse gases within the next 20 years, improving > >mainstream gasoline and diesel engines and transmissions and > >expanding the use of hybrids is the way to go. > > > >These results come from a systematic and comprehensive assessment of > >a variety of engine and fuel technologies as they are likely to be in > >2020 with intense research but no real "breakthroughs." The > >assessment was led by Malcolm A. Weiss, LFEE senior research staff > >member, and John B. Heywood, the Sun Jae Professor of Mechanical > >Engineering and director of MIT's Laboratory for 21st-Century Energy. > > > >Release of the study comes just a month after the Bush administration > >announced a billion-dollar initiative to develop commercially viable > >hydrogen fuel cells and a year after establishment of the > >government-industry program to develop the hydrogen fuel-cell-powered > >"FreedomCar." > > > >The new assessment is an extension of a study done in 2000, which > >likewise concluded that the much-touted hydrogen fuel cell was not a > >clear winner. This time, the MIT researchers used optimistic > >fuel-cell performance assumptions cited by some fuel-cell advocates, > >and the conclusion remained the same. > > > >The hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle has low emissions and energy use on > >the road--but converting a hydrocarbon fuel such as natural gas or > >gasoline into hydrogen to fuel this vehicle uses substantial energy > >and emits greenhouse gases. > > > >"Ignoring the emissions and energy use involved in making and > >delivering the fuel and manufacturing the vehicle gives a misleading > >impression," said Weiss. > > > >However, the researchers do not recommend stopping work on the > >hydrogen fuel cell. "If auto systems with significantly lower > >greenhouse gas emissions are required in, say, 30 to 50 years, > >hydrogen is the only major fuel option identified to date," said > >Heywood. The hydrogen must, of course, be produced without making > >greenhouse gas emissions, hence from a non-carbon source such as > >solar energy or from conventional fuels while sequestering the carbon > >emissions. > > > >The assessment highlights the advantages of the hybrid, a highly > >efficient approach that combines an engine (or a fuel cell) with a > >battery and an electric motor. Continuing to work on today's gasoline > >engine and its fuel will bring major improvements by 2020, cutting > >energy use and emissions by a third compared to today's vehicles. But > >aggressive research on a hybrid with a diesel engine could yield a > >2020 vehicle that is twice as efficient and half as polluting as that > >"evolved" technology, and future gasoline engine hybrids will not be > >far behind, the study says. > > > >Other researchers on the study were Andreas Schafer, principal > >research engineer in the Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial > >Development, and Vinod K. Natarajan (S.M. 2002). The new report and > >the original "On the Road in 2020" study from 2000 are available at > >http://lfee.mit.edu/publications under "Reports" (or see below). > > > >CONTACT: > >Nancy Stauffer > >Laboratory for Energy and the Environment > >(617) 253-3405 > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Reports > > > >* Comparative Assessment of Fuel Cell Cars (2003), by Malcolm A. > >Weiss, John B. Heywood, Andreas Schafer, and Vinod K. Natarajan. <PDF > >Document> > >http://lfee.mit.edu/publications/PDF/LFEE_2003-001_RP.pdf > > > >* On the Road in 2020: A Life-cycle Analysis of New Automobile > >Technologies (2000), by Malcolm A. Weiss, John B. Heywood, Elisabeth > >M. Drake, Andreas Schafer, and Felix F. AuYeung. <PDF Document> > >http://lfee.mit.edu/publications/PDF/el00-003.pdf ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles. No Late Fees & Free Shipping. Try Netflix for FREE! http://us.click.yahoo.com/YoVfrB/XP.FAA/uetFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
