The Plan

How Do We Get from Here to There?

NewEnergy2040 is intended to be a free enterprise initiative with much of the work being accomplished by the private industry in a market-based manner. Ideally I would propose formation of a private holding company (let’s call it NewEnergy2040 Corporation) with a family of subsidiaries under the holding company umbrella. The subsidiaries would be organized by energy technology (i.e., oil, coal, gas, nuclear, renewables, newenergy) with each having responsibility for NewEnergy2040 innovations associated with each respective technology. This would include selection of the technologies, the R&D, and the design and engineering. It is important that all private industry participants have “skin in the game” and as such each should share in the ownership of the subsidiaries commensurate with their level of investment (dollars, labor, and resources). With completed designs, private companies could then compete for the construction and ownership of the facilities that would be built.

The organization and initiation of NewEnergy2040 activities needs to be accomplished very early in the life of this initiative. This while governments, legislators, regulators and private industry debate their jurisdictions and the ultimate structure of the companies. Voluntary alliances may be a way to begin the interaction of interested parties and to begin moving action items forward in a timely and effective manner. With some reasonable forethought, corporate and/or organizational structures can hopefully parrot the alliance structure and be firmed up at a later date.

Of course voluntary alliances may be challenging and undoubtedly their success will be dependent upon having “adults in the room”. We will not have the luxury of spinning wheels, second-guessing or arm-chair quarterbacking decisions and actions if goals and objectives are to be achieved by 2040. Further, all members must be committed to making decisions and taking actions that will be best for the country and not for some private or political advantage (Any perceived analogy to the current workings of Congress is purely coincidental.). Regardless of how we leave the starting gate, because of the nature and significance of this initiative it is also of the utmost importance that decisions made and actions taken are with the benefit of up-front input from all significant stakeholders.

To more easily get our arms around this elephant and steer it in the right direction I believe it is logical to break it down into some basic action items as follows:

Action Item #1: Form a governmental/private industry alliance that will have primary responsibility for guiding NewEnergy2040 initiatives, decision making, and overall “executive” management.

As is true for most normal organizational structures, there needs to be “executive” leadership at the top. For purposes of this discussion, we’ll call this alliance the NewEnergy2040 Executive Alliance (NEA2040). NEA2040 membership is critical. To the extent possible, all stakeholders in this initiative should in some way be represented, but the membership also needs to be limited such that meaningful discussions and timely decision making is possible. Reasonable membership may include representation from the following participants:

• Technology alliances for current energy sources,  
• New energy alliance,
• R&D alliance,
• Pertinent regulatory and government agencies (such as EPA, NRC, DOE),
• Other private sector disciplines such as finance, design and engineering, and construction,
• Electric utilities,
• National labor unions,
• Environmental groups.

While the voting membership of the alliance is critical, public support of NewEnergy2040 is also of the utmost importance. In that regard it may be advantageous to include some number of non-voting members (determined by the Alliance) who would in some respects represent the general public. Their attendance, input, and participation may be important to gaining public support and trust for the energy choices going forward.

As the “governing” body for NewEnergy2040 initiatives, NEA2040 responsibilities should include:

• Establishing the overall structure and standard operating procedures for the alliances and any other entities that may grow out of NewEnergy2040 actions and activities,
• Facilitating evaluations of the various energy options and the associated decision making processes,
• Drafting any needed legislation or rules and regulations, and managing any other approval processes,
• Monitoring progress of the technology alliances and ensuring that they have necessary support to achieve their goals and objectives,
• Administering appropriate funding mechanisms and ensuring that all financial resources are properly utilized,
• Developing a model for the participation and integration of private companies in respective alliances and defining mechanisms for raising the necessary capital and determining their commensurate level of ownership in the subsidiaries,
• Interfacing with external public and private stakeholders to ensure their understanding of NewEnergy2040 objectives and accomplishments and to ensure their continued support,
• Addressing and resolving issues or disputes that have broad applicability and are beyond the scope of the individual technology alliances,
• Establishing long-term national energy goals and targets for the future mix of energy sources.

The above list is not complete, but reflects what would be some of the prime NEA2040 responsibilities. An impossible task, maybe, but someone has to do! As stressed earlier, if we can get the adults in the room we have a fighting chance to succeed.

Action Item #2: Define mechanisms for performing and funding necessary research and development (R&D) in support of future energy technologies.

[I also feel the need to prefix the following discussion on funding as it represents my thinking before 2021. I have been of the opinion, as stated in the discussion to follow, that funding for new initiatives such as NewEnergy2040 should not always fall on the backs of taxpayers. Rather the cost for certain items and/or services should be borne by users commensurate with their level of usage. I believe energy costs in general, and in this case the cost of R&D, should fall within this realm. But we are not in a normal place right now when it comes to spending money. In 2021 the new Administration, and certain members of Congress, seem to think that money grows on trees as they legislate their wish lists while lighting their cigars with billion dollar bills. As we saddle future generations with trillions upon trillions of dollars of debt for everything under the sun, then fair is fair. We should easily be able to find $50 billion for NewEnergy2040 R&D. I jest, but why not? NewEnergy2040 has the potential to benefit the country well beyond anything that is part of the current spending insanity.]   

Before any good idea or concept can get off the ground (there’s that inference to the moonshot again) it needs to be vetted and proven by robust R&D. There is no doubt that many-a-good-ideas have died premature deaths for lack of a sufficient transfusion of R&D funds. Similarly, there is no doubt that NewEnergy2040 cannot achieve its lofty goals without extensive R&D to improve current technologies and develop new ones. At the outset, R&D is the lifeline to all the other NewEnergy2040 objectives. We must make a national commitment to sufficiently funding R&D requirements! 

So where do we get R&D funding for NewEnergy2040 initiatives? From the taxpayers is the usual answer which, in this case, I find may not be the best answer. Just on principle, the taxpayers are already getting gashed for unbelievable and unsustainable spending by our federal government and increasing our national debt is not fair to our kids and grandkids even if they are the ultimate beneficiaries. Secondly, to expose the future of NewEnergy2040, to the congressional appropriations process would cause me to lose a lot of sleep and at times probably even give me the urge to howl at the moon. I would hope we as a country could get beyond the political in-fighting we have right now to make a commitment to a sustainable energy future, but I’m not ready to stake my life on it.

If not the taxpayers, who? Again, at the risk of being called crazy, how about some common sense? Since not the taxpayers, how about all of us! Is there anyone in this country whose existence is not at least somewhat dependent upon or enhanced by the use of electricity? Again hearkening back to my nuclear days, there may be a practical example to look at for raising the R&D funds and one that would make every person in America an investor in our energy future (remember NewEnergy2040 is intended to be a national initiative). The example I refer to is something called the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF). In 1982 Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which was a roadmap for selecting and constructing a repository for disposal of the spent fuel from our nuclear power plants. In the Act a mechanism for funding (the NWF) was established where fees were levied on the consumers of electricity that was generated by nuclear power plants to pay for the cost of constructing and operating one or more permanent repositories. In that case the fee was set at 1 mill ($0.001) per kilowatt-hour of nuclear electricity generated. What gives rise to the concern I expressed above about appropriations is that the NWF was exposed to the whims of Congress. This may be hard to believe, but the appropriations process became a very partisan political nightmare and typically insufficient dollars were appropriated and as I recall some of the dollars were not even appropriated for the intended purpose. Can’t have a repeat of that!  

So why not have a New Energy Fund (NEF) to pay for R&D that would be assessed on all consumers of electricity? Okay, I know a lot of you are saying I’m proposing a new burdensome cost on the public, but would a mill or two on a kilowatt-hour be too big a price to pay? For the average user of electricity that would be less than a dollar a month for each mill assessed. The one challenge with this approach is that the R&D dollars are required early in the life of NewEnergy2040 and so some means of “advancing” these dollars to the initiative would need to be devised.

An alliance should be established to manage R&D needs for NewEnergy2040 technology improvements and developments. Initially this alliance would evaluate funding mechanisms (including the feasibility of an NEF) and make their recommendations to the NEA2040 alliance. Any new regulations or legislation to implement the proposed approach would also need to be developed and put into effect. As funding dollars become available this alliance would work with all the other alliances to determine where the dollars would be best utilized. Membership in this alliance should include representatives from the technology alliances in addition to financial experts and representatives from academia and possibly government agencies such as the Department of Energy (DOE). This alliance has an extremely important role in not only obtaining necessary funding but making sure the dollars are put to the best possible use.       

Action item #3: Establish technology alliances for current sources of energy production with the intent of enhancing the technologies to make them cleaner, more efficient and potentially lower in cost.

Alliances should be established for current technologies including oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewables. As stated earlier the role of government in NewEnergy2040, albeit necessary and critical, needs to be minimized and private enterprise needs to do the heavy lifting. The prime movers for the various initiatives and technological advancements should be private companies who have direct interest in the respective technologies and are willing to invest time, money and resources. Each company is entitled to contribute as much or as little as they choose (with commensurate ownership) but at the same time they must be willing to accept some basic rules:

• The alliance(s) will choose best technologies and that will be their respective focus,
• Companies will provide their best people,
• The work will be done in accordance with realistic and reasonable standards,
• Common sense oversight will be employed to ensure conformance to existing or new regulations and reasonable standards.

Each participating company would have representation on their respective alliance. Of course the investment of time, money and resources by each participating company is an up-front commitment that will return to them later as owners. To ensure consistency between technology alliances the NEA2040 alliance would be responsible for developing a model for valuing up-front contributions, and determining subsidiary ownership and respective returns on investment when the technology “goes to market”.

Action Item 4: Select and develop at least one new source of energy that is safe, environmentally friendly, cost effective, and has a fuel supply that is plentiful, accessible, and sustainable for many generations. This source of energy will, over time, become one of our primary sources leading to the eventual phase out of other energy sources that are no longer competitive or advantageous.

As noted earlier, this action item is the grand staircase of NewEnergy2040. It is by no means intended to minimize current sources of energy and the efforts of associated alliances that will be established to seek out respective technology improvements. Nonetheless, the development of one or more new energy source(s) would be the primary long-term energy objective for our country.

It is somewhat difficult at the outset to define the membership of this alliance other than it would likely be a group that is as diverse as the energy options that are considered. Needless to say the door could be open for proposals ranging from known sources (e.g., nuclear fusion) to sources that have never been heard of before. There needs to be some sanity in the selection process and so it is proposed that NEA2040 establish this alliance with limited membership whose initial purpose would be to establish screening criteria for proposed technologies and to apply the criteria to determine which proposals would be considered for further review and evaluation. These criteria will include, among other things:

• Safety,
• Feasibility,
• Credibility of its scientific basis,
• Abundance and accessibility of the fuel source,
• Environmental benefits,
• Cost-effectiveness and affordability.

No science fiction allowed! Proposals that are the work of a mad scientist with no credible scientific basis would not be considered. As potential candidates emerge from the screening process experts in the given technology would be added to the alliance. These experts likely would come from government, academia and private industry as the case may be. Eventually the bucket of energy options would be filled and the alliance’s real work would begin – evaluate the new technologies identified and make their recommendations for best technology to NEA2040 who would be the ultimate decision maker.    

The following is by no means a complete list of potential new energy sources, but common sense dictates that fossils fuels and nuclear should not be excluded from consideration. As noted earlier, many of those who are concerned about climate change or harming the environment because of our energy production needs are also often unwilling to accept the cold hard facts related to nuclear power. Since nuclear contributes, in essence, zero to the world’s greenhouse gas inventory some nuclear options must be included. Again, with reference to earlier discussions, best technologies for all types of energy sources must be the focus.

Fusion: Fusion is the ultimate energy source that, were it developed, would yield immeasurable rewards. Fusion would be an energy source with practically an unlimited fuel supply and one whose viability would be measured in millennia. It would be a means of energy production that could be implemented safely, with minimal waste, and nearly zero environmental impact. Costs could be its Achilles heel, if some common sense is not applied to its development and implementation. As a separate matter, development of fusion could also be a national security issue. It’s not a huge stretch to postulate that the country that solves the fusion riddle remains as or immediately becomes an influential player on the world stage. International consortiums have been formed to perform fusion research, but their costs are high, their schedules are long and they are always challenged to gain sufficient funding to move things along at other than what seems to be a snail’s pace. 

The fusion process is what sustains the earth as a life-supporting planet. It powers the sun.  In a conventional fusion reaction, hydrogen atoms are heated to a very high temperature eventually causing then to collide at extremely high velocities and in the process fusing them into a new heavier element, helium. In addition to helium huge amounts of energy are released in the reaction. As indicated earlier, we often hear claims that the fuel for fusion is in essence limitless. Pretty close! The traditional fusion reaction uses isotopes (different forms of the same element) of hydrogen called deuterium and tritium. These isotopes can be extracted from sea water and derived from lithium, both in abundant supply. There is enough fusion fuel to last for many millions of years (not quite limitless, but close). In recent times another fusion reaction has gained some favor; that being the fusion of hydrogen and boron. This reaction produces three energetic helium nuclei that can be a huge heat source to ultimately produce electricity. A major advantage of this reaction is that it produces no neutrons thus significantly reducing radiation containment issues and generation of radioactive waste.

The primary technological challenges with fusion are producing and maintaining the temperatures that are required for a fusion reaction to take place, and secondly, containing the extremely hot fusion materials called plasma. This is an even greater challenge for the hydrogen-boron reaction because it requires even higher temperatures than the conventional deuterium-tritium reactions. There are a number of approaches to achieving this end, but none have thus far found the “holy grail”. Increased funding for research is needed right now to speed this along. NewEnergy2040 could be the means to accomplish this objective and for the design and construction of power producing facilities when we get to that point.

Thorium: Thorium is an element that is widely available within the earth’s crust and would provide sufficient fuel for power generation of a timeframe that would be, as a minimum, measured in centuries. Thorium-232 in and of itself does not fission (splitting of atoms as opposed to fusing them in a fusion process) to produce power, but when exposed to neutrons in a reactor it undergoes a series of nuclear reactions eventually becoming uranium-233.  To be clear on the terminology, thorium-232 is termed a “fertile” material and the uranium-233 a “fissile” material. It is the fissile material that fissions and in the process produces the heat to eventually generate electrical power. The conversion of thorium-232 to uranium-233 is known as “breeding”. In a viable breeder reactor more fuel is produced than consumed. It is worthwhile noting that other countries in the world (most notably India and China) are looking at thorium as a potential future source for electrical generation although it is debatable as to who is leading in the development of thorium based reactor technology.

The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) appears to be the most common thorium technology currently being considered throughout the world and is the technology that I too find of particular interest. An LFTR employs a molten salt reactor (MSR) concept. There are design variations but typically the primary reactor loop contains the uranium-233 at an appropriate concentration within a fluoride-based molten salt. In addition, surrounding the main reactor chamber or core, is a blanket layer containing the thorium-232 also in a molten salt form. It is in this blanket where the breeding occurs in that excess neutrons from the fission of uranium-233 in the core get absorbed by the thorium-232 atoms in the blanket and eventually are converted to uranium-233. This uranium-233 is then also available to be used as fuel. The high temperature molten salt in the primary loop (which becomes highly radioactive) further passes through a heat exchanger where the heat is transferred to a nonradioactive secondary salt loop. It is from this nonradioactive secondary loop where the heat is derived to eventually produce electricity.    

The LFTR, generally speaking, in addition to offering a fairly simplistic design also offers inherent safety features. The most notable being that the primary loop containing the fuel is in liquid form and in the unlikely event of overheating the liquid salt is simply drained by gravity from the loop thus ending the fission process and the continued production of heat. This is accomplished, simplistically speaking, by way of a “freeze” plug. A solid plug of the fluoride-based salt (the salt is solid at lower temperatures) is positioned in the system such that if an elevated temperature occurs the plug melts allowing the loop to drain. No human intervention is required for this to take place. Other inherent safety features include negative temperature response (as the temperatures increases, the nuclear reaction decreases), operation at low pressures, and stable coolant (salts do not burn, explode, or decompose, even under high temperature and radiation). The LFTR has other advantages as well (in comparison to current reactors) including limited production of spent fuel, production of much less secondary waste, refueling without shutting down, and much reduced risk with respect to nuclear proliferation. Lastly, in comparison to other nuclear power production facilities, they have the capability for significantly higher thermal efficiencies.

LFTRs; however, are not without challenges. In the core where fission occurs a moderating medium is required, typically graphite. Graphite in a high radiation environment degrades over time and as such requires replacement on a regular schedule. This becomes a significant maintenance item and also a source of radioactive waste. Managing the salts when the reactor is not in operation poses some challenges since the salts will solidify when temperatures are low. This is not desirable and as such means to keep the salts molten during shutdowns are necessary. Molten salts are also extremely corrosive and thus exotic, and undoubtedly expensive, alloys are required for many of the reactor system components. Lastly, cleanup of the salt involves complex processes and waste disposal challenges.

Coal: With respect to electrical power production from coal, new technologies have been effective in reducing emissions from current day coal-fired facilities. Presently; however, most critics have jumped on the CO2 bandwagon and capture and storage seems to be a favorite solution. Capture and storage would be extremely expensive and poses many challenges. Being flip, but yet serious at the same time, maybe we can develop a whole new pipeline network crisscrossing the country carrying CO2 to geologic repositories. These pipelines would become the new Keystone pipelines of our day and the repositories would turn out to be the Yucca Mountains of the coal industry. Or, maybe we could designate one lane on our interstates for the constant flow of trucks carrying canisters of CO2 to the repository. Imagine I-80 at the junction in northern Indiana with one less lane available for normal traffic. Truly a nightmare! There aren’t enough judges in the country to address all the lawsuits that would be prompted by this CO2 madness (common sense is ringing in my ears again). But then again if you are a critic of coal this may be euphoria. What better way to kill off the industry?

The debate about the significance of CO2 impacts on climate change will undoubtedly rage on for quite some time, maybe forever. While I believe concerns about CO2 as a contributor to global warming is a clear case of “barking up the wrong tree”; an honest analysis of man-made contributors to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere leads to a conclusion of it having very limited impact on climate, at worst. Notwithstanding my views, if we truly believe CO2 emissions need to be addressed, I would hope we could find better ways to deal with the issue. I’m sure there are minds in this country that could come up with better solutions and so coming from the “best technology” point of view these top minds need to come together as part of NewEnergy2040 to address this issue. Could coal gas chemical looping be the answer? Maybe! With some R&D dollars from NewEnergy2040, looping or some other technology could possibly be advanced to slay the CO2 dragon.

Putting CO2 aside for a moment, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology is a common new clean coal option. The IGCC technology uses a gaseous form of coal for the combustion process. In its simplest form the coal is gasified and the resulting raw gas (syngas) is cooled, cleaned of particulate and other unwanted emission-forming components, and fired in a gas turbine. By removing many of the emission-forming components from the gas prior to combustion, IGCC plants can meet more stringent air emissions standards. In the second part of the combined cycle scenario the hot exhaust from the gas turbine passes through a large heat exchanger where it produces steam to drive a steam turbine. There are variations in this technology as to how the syngas is produced and in the power production equipment. Nonetheless, IGCC technology generally offers a fairly high efficiency power producing option.

Current IGCC technology is not without its problems. Since it is a technology in development the costs are high and it has not been commercially competitive up to this point. The gasification process is also very complicated and facilities are difficult to build. IGCC may hold promise as an improved coal technology, but if adopted as a viable option for meeting NewEnergy2040 objectives, further improvements in the technology will be needed.

Integrated gasification fuel cell (IGFC) technology is a variation of coal gasification where fuel cells are combined with combustion turbines to form hybrid power plants. A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that typically utilizes hydrogen fuel reacting with oxygen or another oxidizing agent to produce electricity. Certain types of fuel cells such as solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) have extremely high thermodynamic efficiencies and SOFC power plants could be of various sizes ranging from kilowatts to potentially multiple megawatts. Methane in natural gas is often the source of the hydrogen, but instead of using natural gas as its fuel, syngas from coal gasification could potentially be used.

Other coal technologies such as ultra-supercritical boilers and circulating fluidized bed combustion are in various stages of development throughout the world. Technologies such as these may also be candidates for consideration by the NewEnergies2040 coal alliance.

Natural Gas: In reference to fuel cells as mentioned above, and pending further development of coal gasification or other technologies, power production using fuel cells is most likely with the use of natural gas as the fuel source. Fuel cells have no moving parts, are reliable, and have a durability that can be measured in decades. Fuel cells would be a highly efficient use of natural gas and produce high thermal efficiencies. They also produce almost no emissions, and as such, would be kind to the environment.

Fuel cell power plants, at their current stage of development, are generally smaller than plants producing electricity from other sources although sizes into the multiple megawatt range are currently feasible. As with other types of power plants, fuel cells can offer the benefits of cogeneration. Heat exhausting from fuel cells can be captured and used directly for purposes such as heating buildings or via customized generating equipment to produce additional electrical power.

Regarding size of fuel cell electric power plants, it may not be feasible to construct centralized fuel cell plants significantly larger than, let’s say 50 or 100 megawatts. That may not be a bad thing. Smaller plants would likely make it considerably easier to site a facility and could simplify the dispatching of the plant’s output. It could also minimize the impacts of a facility to the local area where it is sited and further improve the reliability of the plant.

The advantages of smaller plants could apply to any type of power plant. Back to my nuclear days again, I have sometimes felt that large coal or nuclear generating facilities (1000 MW or more) were pushing the envelope. For me the best example relates to the evolution of the Westinghouse commercial pressurized water reactor designs. Their earlier design was a two-loop, typically around 500MW, facility. Over time the four-loop plant came into prominence, with an increased capacity of 1100 megawatts or more. Not to bash the larger plants, and I understand why they became the standard, that early two-loop design was a great plant. Many were known for their reliability and ran from one refueling to the next often without any shutdowns in between. Refuelings were short and equipment maintenance was easier if for no other reason than the average pump or valve was smaller than the size of an average elephant and you could get your arms around a typical pipe without straining a muscle. I’m all for improving the design of equipment, but that doesn’t have to mean making it orders of magnitude larger. Smaller can also mean simpler, as for example in the case of the new SMR designs, which could be a good thing even in the context of technology improvements that may result from NewEnergy2040 initiatives.

Hydrogen: Earlier we noted that electric vehicles may be the future of our transportation needs. In that case we were referring to the current paradigm for electric cars. That being, a car with a large battery on board that is charged at a central charging station or from an outlet in our garages. Of course that presupposes that the electrical energy charging the batteries is generated from a large central power station somewhere on the electric grid. Future reality, maybe! Common sense for the long-term, maybe not!

In the context of fueling our future cars a new paradigm could be in the offing. Is it more sensible to power our cars with fuel cells or could new advancements in internal combustion engines fueled directly with hydrogen be more feasible? Commercial hydrogen would likely be produced from natural gas, so maybe it’s more sensible just to power vehicles with natural gas directly. In keeping with NewEnergy2040 objectives, maybe there are other hydrogen powered vehicle concepts out there just waiting for a little more research and development (R&D). 

Hydrogen as fuel for electrical generation could be in the form of fuel cells or maybe as fuel for combustion turbines (and associated cogeneration that could go with it). This currently may not be practical since again using natural gas probably makes more sense unless a design were to be developed that would have advantages over natural gas such as lower emissions or higher efficiencies. Again power generation concepts may be out there waiting for further R&D.

Lasers

This may be a science fiction mad scientist question, but is it possible to produce large quantities of electrical power with the use of lasers? We know lasers may be one means of facilitating the fusion process (inertial confinement) that is being researched and could potentially be an integral part of fusion technology development. On the other hand; lasers could very well be one of those sources of energy production that is not feasible because, no matter what, it will always require more energy in than what comes out. I only ask the question to stir the imagination and to make the point that via NewEnergy2040 such questions may be answered in pursuit of new energy sources.  

Renewables: As explained earlier it is not common sense to strive to produce 100%, or even a significant portion, of our electrical power from renewables. With that said, if economical, it would make sense to expand utilization of renewables for such things as heating water, charging remote devices, and potentially other distributed generation resources. We should look at some of the current uses and potential new uses as part of the NewEnergy2040 initiative.

Summary: Of the options discussed above probably fusion and thorium are the only two that would truly revolutionize our energy future. The others for the most part represent technology “improvements”. My hope is that beyond fusion and thorium, through NewEnergy2040 initiatives, we can evaluate other revolutionary technologies (such as elemental transmutation, harvesting solar winds, the list goes on) and through extensive R&D potentially advance some of these other options to feasibility and possibly reality.

Action Item #5: Perform necessary design, construction and operation of selected technologies for each applicable energy source.

After the selection of technology improvements and new energy source(s) a whole army of scientists and engineers will be needed to advance these choices from concepts (backed up with good R&D) to pipes, valves, pressure vessels, etc. At this point design and engineering firms, given their respective fields of expertise, should be formed under common canopies to complete the design phase. Again ownership in design and engineering subsidiaries would be commensurate with the level of participation.

For construction, competitive bidding may be logical or construction companies could again be formed under common canopies to take the designs and turn them into physical realities. Here’s where build-up of the infrastructure is the challenge. The country is currently lacking when it comes to such needs as heavy industry suppliers, and sufficient quantities of skilled labor (e.g., welders). The yards of concrete to be poured; the tons of steel to be erected; the miles of weld bead to be laid; the thousands of valves, pumps, and instruments to be fabricated; and the mega miles of wire to be run is almost incomprehensible. While unsaid up to this point, the many arms and legs required to design, construct and operate the NewEnergy2040 facilities equates to millions of high paying jobs.

Aside from design and construction, there are many parallel actions that are necessary to bring new facilities on line. Who owns and operates the new facilities? Under the current electrical power generation paradigms the answer is typically public utilities and as such they are involved up front with the funding, site selection, regulatory approvals, etc. In recent times some of our electricity has been provided by Independent Power Producers (IPP) and in many respects that may be the right paradigm for the NewEnergy2040 facilities. On the other hand maybe not!

Do we need a new paradigm for keeping the lights on? That’s a very complicated question to answer but maybe as part of NewEnergy2040 these questions should be asked. I hear many in the know out there again saying that I am crazy, but often new paradigms do not emerge until some crazy person slaps you in the face and wakes you from your stupor. Before any major changes could come about current regulating paradigms would need to be challenged. Permitting in particular is an onerous and often overbearing process that needs to be looked at. That too could be a meaningful goal as part of NewEnergy2040.

Action Item #6: Establish an alliance to evaluate current transmission systems and propose potential new transmission concepts that would enhance or be necessary to support NewEnergy2040 initiatives.

My first thoughts for NewEnergy2040 were heavily focused on energy sources and production of electricity. While not intended, in working through the development of these proposals it became apparent that future production of electricity from centralized facilities would still be a good common sense and preferred approach. With that said, getting the electricity to respective users should not be overlooked. Thus, formation of an alliance (or subsidiary) to look at our transmission methods, infrastructure, and new or improved technologies is good common sense and needs to be considered to ensure a robust relationship between the new generating facilities and the transmission grid. Again there are undoubtedly great minds out there that may have ideas that could revolutionize transmission as well.