BLUE REVOLUTION (Part 7)

On Tuesdays I usually reach back into the past and repeat an early posting of importance, but today there will be two.  Let me start with World Oceans Day, which is celebrated this month.  The concept was first proposed 30 years ago, around the time the concept of the Blue Revolution began to develop.  These international events about our seas almost always are devoted to "saving" our oceans, certainly not wisely utilizing them for the benefit of humanity.

I've been in academia now for half a century.  Research funding is scarce for ocean resource development.  The National Science Foundation and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration focus their support just about only for science, not engineering, and more specifically to monitor and protect our seas.  The Department of Energy is more applications than pure science.  However, in the 1980's the UDOE hated ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC).  Read my 14 August2008 posting.  

BLUE REVOLUTION (Part 7)

Politics of OTEC
-
Earlier, it was reported that I helped with the drafting of the original ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) legislation in Congress, which became law in 1979. If the Blue Revolution ever develops, the whole concept will depend on OTEC. The following is excerpted from Chapter 4 of SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth.

-
When I first was exposed to OTEC in the mid 1970s, I was a skeptic. I even submitted an environmental impact statement questioning the potential effect on the coastal region. Having experienced the birth of the legislation, though, and realizing that this technology could well be the key to the success of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research (PICHTR) and a tonic for the planet, I became not only a supporter, but self proclaimed savior.

The U.S. Department of Energy and the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry abhorred this energy option. On the Japanese side, the money to PICHTR came from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In the U.S., the funds were stuffed down the throat of the USDOE by Congress, and this was some achievement in the mid-80’s, as Ronald Reagan had virtually shut down the solar program. Hawaii ended up with all the meager OTEC funds because our only competition came from Guam and the Caribbean, neither which had a real congressional member. Sea Solar Power of Maryland made a run for some funds, but never made it to first base. Part of this was a ploy we by chance stumbled into that changed the whole nature of the game.

The USDOE director of wind/OTEC programs in those days, Leonard Rogers, had a drink with Louis Rotundo (left, yes, that same individual who saved the hydrogen program--Chapter 3) of the Florida Solar Energy Center and me at Trader Vic’s in the District. Rogers came right out and said he was closing the program down because the government had done all it could for closed cycle OTEC and now it was up to industry to pick it up. There was nothing more to research. In a leap of logic that still astounds me, Louis says, “what about open cycle OTEC?” Len was not too up on this technology, so I explained that open cycle did not use ammonia or Freon and produced freshwater as a by-product. The whole system had been abandoned since Georges Claude’s experiment 60 years ago, but today would have a lot more potential because most of the OTEC areas in the world with electricity needs also could use potable water. No one had done any turbine research and it was time to work out an internationally cooperative program for developing nations. In those days international partnerships and helping deprived areas were not of high priority for our Federal government. However, there was something about this “new” technology that gained Len’s attention. I did tell him that I would leverage his input with funds from Japan, and that seemed to be a plus. In hindsight now, open cycle made no sense for larger OTEC activities because of the inefficiency of this cycle. But it did serve an important bridge to develop the technology.

So the USDOE totally adjusted its objectives and PICHTR proceeded to gobble up all the OTEC funds because there was no competition in open cycle OTEC. I recruited Lloyd Trimble, who was with Lockheed on the Mini-OTEC project, Luis Vega and Gerard Nihous, who had a small company in Berkeley, California, and a bit later, Andrew Trenka, who once managed the OTEC project out of the Solar Energy Research Institute in Golden, Colorado. They hired a staff and we just re-invented open cycle OTEC.

In 1988 I engineered the publication of a paper entitled, “Converting OTEC for Commercial Use in the Pacific,” with Leonard Rogers as the lead author and Fujio Matsuda, Luis Vega and I as co-authors. It was published in Sea Technology, and sealed the deal for the PICHTR group, which proceeded to gain $22.2 million from the USDOE, $4.5 million from the State of Hawaii and $8.2 million of others (including Japan, of course). The 210 kW (gross, 40 kW net) open cycle system saw groundbreaking in 1991 at the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority and full operation, with freshwater, in 1994. The system actually produced 103 kW of maximum net power.

At around this time, about a decade after Paul Yuen and I first thought up the concept of this international technology transfer organization, I parted with PICHTR. The University of Hawaii had continued to pay my salary while I directed the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, so I was helping PICHTR on a pro bono (I did it for free) basis. There were new fields to conquer, as I was named to the U.S. Secretary of Energy’s Hydrogen Technical Panel and began championing the Blue Revolution and Green Enertopia. In parallel, I had intitiated the effort and laid the foundation for PICHTR eventually garnering $20 million for a biomass to methanol project.

Much of my life has been devoted to finding a way to sustainably develop the potential of marine bioproducts and habitats in a manner that can enhance our natural environment.  The Blue Revolution is designed to remediate global warming and reduce the dangers of hurricanes while providing an opportunity for corporations to make a profit by providing green energy and products for humanity.  The great majority of geoengineering solutions to combat global warming attempt to control carbon dioxide in ways that could cause more harm than good.

All the above starts with my posting of 10 August 2008, where I indicated that the first congressional bill I drafted was in 1979, or 43 years ago:

EARLY POLITICS OF OTEC

The following is excerpted from Chapter 4 of SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth. I place the beginnings of the modern day development of ocean thermal energy conversion with the first OTEC congressional legislation in 1979.
-
Hawaii had just shown for the first time in July, through the Mini-OTEC barge under the leadership of Lockheed, that it was possible to produce net positive electricity from the temperature differential of the ocean. I had just started work in the U.S. Senate for what would subsequently be a three year period, and Senator Spark Matsunaga asked me to develop a bill to authorize funds for OTEC. Rich Woldin, also newly hired, and a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, wrote the first draft and I provided comments.

In those days Democrats controlled the White House and Congress, plus, we were in the midst of the second energy crisis when no one in his right mind would actually pick up a visitor at Dulles Airport, but would do so if the arrival was at National Airport (now Reagan). The difference was distance and the requirement to join a gasoline line. Any energy bill, thus, passed without much debate.

On October 15 of that year there was a Senate hearing, and the USDOE representative, Bennett Miller, who later became a friend of mine, testified that the administration did NOT want the OTEC program accelerated. This was standard USDOE protocol, for the administration generally abhorred the interference of Congress on anything. So, as a staff member, how do you maintain positive relationships with government officials with this kind of attitude? You simply talked things out behind the scene and treated congressional hearings as just a stage of the process. Whether we agreed on anything or not, Democratic or Republican, the key to long term success was to maintain a trusting rapport. Lifetime alliances generally resulted, which worked to my favor when I returned to the University of Hawaii and directed the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute and served as vice president of development for the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research. Almost a third of a century later, many remain close friends, I can’t identify even one person I can cite as an antagonist and some are still working for the USDOE in D.C.

There was a follow-on reception after the hearing, with hula dancers and the usual assortment of Hawaiian food and drinks. Lobbyists seeking advantage paid for these events. We also passed out flashlights charged with electricity from Mini-OTEC and small bottles of seawater from the ocean depths. Senators generally avoid these receptions unless personally asked to come by the sponsoring Senator. Matsunaga’s bill did have 20 co-sponsors, but many Senators found their way to the reception mostly because of a fortuitous circumstance. There were roll call votes through the early evening and Sparky brought back with him streams of Senators who had to eat something anyway. Within months the bill passed into law.

-

When after three years in the U.S. Senate I returned to the University of Hawaii 40 years ago, a lot of work remained to position Hawaii as the world leader in the Blue Revolution.  Some of the preliminary work had begun half a century ago, as outlined in THE STORY OF THE BLUE REVOLUTION, reported in the Blue Revolution Hawaii blogsite.  You can read the details.

Industry and entrepreneurs have done a terrible job taking care of the marine environment.  The seas are overfished, there is considerable pollution of our coastlines, so it became inevitable that much of the effort in this field remains focused on preserving our oceans.

A good part of this attitude starts from kindergarten to high school and into college, where students are taught to be anti-pollutionists.  Science teachers are universally conservationists.  Thus, into adulthood the vast majority of the population becomes suspicious of any enterprise having to do with utilizing our oceans for economic progress.

Worse, with global warming, almost all of the geoengineering concepts to solve this problem look worrisome.  When I talk about the Blue Revolution, I attempt to forge a completely new path, one that underscores profits to interest the private sector, while actually enhancing our environment, from producing sustainable products to remediating global warming to reducing the problem of hurricanes.  

To overcome suspicion and gain supporters, I have made numerous presentation worldwide, and here are three suggesting that as we move into the future, one component of a better world should be the Blue Revolution:

• 2012:  My talk at the San Francisco Seasteading Conference.
• 2019:  Seasteading podcast.
• 2021:  TEDx talk--The Time for the Blue Revolution is Now.

Unfortunately, the traditional financial supporters, the government and companies, are too picayune to handle something so large.  To my readers, I ask only one favor.  Help us interest a billionaire, or team of them, to sponsor:

• The charter summit of the Blue Revolution.
• Provide $150 million to design, build and operate the Pacific International Ocean Station, the first floating platform to bridge the gap from university search to the marketplace.
• Initiate a $150 billion floating city to host the 2050 Ocean Expo.

How can you do this?  Send them to this blog site, and also to:

• Blue Revolution Hawaii.
• iBlue Revolution.

So about the title of this posting, yes, of course we should take good care of our marine environment.  However, as we farm and build habitats on land, there is every reason to believe that we should be able to conscientiously utilize our oceans in harmonious ways to provide sustainable products and energy, while enhancing our environment.

If you've come this far, congratulations.  Following up on my posting yesterday, I'll end with a notice that the third House January 6 Committee hearing schedule for tomorrow has been delayed until next week.  Has to do with the subject matter and some technical problems.  A hearing will be held on Thursday:

June 16, 1PM EDT:  will look into Trump pressuring Mike Pence, crackpot John Eastman recommendation to invalidate the votes of 5 states and the judge that resisted Trumps demands.

-