|
[reprint with author permission in response to government financial bailout of failed institutions]
By Dean Tyson Moore
To the Honorable Rep. Mike Thompson, Democrat, District 1 California:
First, I want to thank you for all of your hard work in representing District 1 Northern California—your
efforts to bring the plight of the salmon to the Federal Government is just one example of
many I can think of... Anyways, I feel that the United States is facing perhaps the greatest
crisis in its history.
The $700 billion dollar bailout proposal is just one sign of a very troubled present—it does
not bode well for the future of this nation.
In fact, as far as I am concerned, this whole thing ranks as a "Clear and Present Danger"
to the interests of the United States of America. As such, this could be rightly considered
a threat to our National Security. I feel it is that serious! We are headed for very trying
times—and I don't feel it is an exaggeration to say the continuing existence of this nation
is at stake: we must start thinking in terms of national survival.
There are many who are opposed to the bank bailout—but the danger with not bailing out the
banks is that general fear and panic can cause the failure of ALL of the banks—which will
set the stage for a replay of the of the events which led to the crash of 1929 and the Great
Depression. I have been hearing from friends and neighbors that they are afraid for their
savings—I've seen the fear on the face of many of my customers as they come through my line
(I work as a cashier for Safeway, store #1712, on West Harris in Eureka.)
People are very afraid. The recent failure of Washington Mutual comes to mind. And yet, this
problem as big as it is, as personal as it is, it not the only problem. It is a symptom of
a much larger problem facing this nation...I don't know what to call it, but it is definitely
there. The War in Iraq; the Health Care Crisis; Social Security; Welfare Spending: the shortlist
evokes thoughts of clichés, yet these are the biggest ticket items on the budget, and spending
on each is getting bigger all the time... And then there is the issue of oil: US dependence
upon foreign oil is killing us, not just the country as a whole, but each of our citizens
a little at a time every time we fill up.
We hemorrhage our economic wealth to the Middle East at a furious rate: in excess to $350
billion per year, and this does not even mention the possibility of climate change aggravated
by carbon dioxide emissions from human activities!
So what do we do?
First and foremost we've got to get some kind of sensible, integrated energy policy.
I recommend we seriously look into intrinsically safe, high temperature, gas cooled nuclear
fission power plants, such as the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. (http://www.pbmr.com/)
The thermodynamic efficiency of a closed Brayton Cycle gas turbine reactor system can approach
50% which can go a long way to reducing thermal waste emissions from power plants, significantly
reducing the heat dumped into rivers and ocean water.
Using a standard module with the capacity to generate 200 MWe or so, it becomes possible to
mass manufacture this plant and build them 'cookie cutter style,' significantly reducing the
cost to produce new plants. It can be easily linearly scaled to produce any amount of electrical
power simply by building additional independent modules. Since we aren't "reinventing the
wheel" each time we build a new plant, the costs associated with new plant construction is
significantly reduced. Furthermore safety can be greatly increased simply by using a standardized
plant design: the basic operating limitations and bugs can be worked out as the history of
the design accumulates. Safety is also increased by simply standardizing the training for
plant operations engineers and technicians who will actually run the plant. For this reason,
and others, I strongly support aggressive funding for much accelerated research and development
of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, and other Inherently Safe Modular Reactor designs at the
DOE.
Safety isn't the only concern, by going to a standardized, modular nuclear plant design, this
affords us the opportunity to look at synthetic fuel cycles which will be necessary to address
our growing transportation needs. Using the electricity from a nuclear plant to produce hydrogen
from electrolysis, and process heat from the reactor core, it becomes possible to create a
combined cycle synthetic fuel plant that can convert any carbon containing material stream
with hydrogen from electrolysis into valuable synthetic fuels: ethanol, synthetic diesel and
gasoline can all be produced using Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. Synthetic kerosene based jet
fuels and heavier oils and greases for synthetic lubricants can also be produced in this way.
Further, significant return on energy invested (REI) can be achieved with such a cycle because
the nuclear plant pumps energy into the cycle, overcoming operational losses--virtually all
the carbon input is used to make synthetic fuels. Agricultural waste, municipal waste (mixed
solid and liquid wastes) all contain carbon—these can be processed into synthetic fuels using
the approach of a combined cycle plant with a combustion front end, a carbon reduction facility
middle, and a Fischer-Tropsch synthesis plant after process—such a "1-2-3" fully integrated
synthetic fuel plant can offset and perhaps eliminate foreign petroleum purchases.
We can only spend ourselves out of this crisis. And to do that and remain financially solvent,
we've got to expand our tax base—there's no way around that. And to expand the tax base and
still have a healthy economy, we've got to address our economic problems head on. This $700
billion bailout is just a band aid—it does nothing to address the problem that created this
situation in the first place. We've got to treat the whole patient—we have to grow our economy.
To do that, we've got to reduce national expenditures on petroleum: we have to balance our
trade deficit. To balance the trade deficit, we have to offer products and services that other
countries want. I can't think of a better product or service that we could offer other than
full synthetic petroleum technology. We can reduce our own dependence upon petroleum and offer
others the same and make a legitimate buck at the same time.
It will likely cost trillions of dollars, but it is the only way I can see that the country
will survive. We have to grow our economy; we have to make sure the middle class is paid a
healthy wage; this will naturally generate more tax revenue which the government can use to
fund its programs.
We have to think in terms of national survival—because, in my opinion, it has come to that
point.
If you have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact me.
Thanks very much for your time,
Dean Tyson Moore
deantmoore@suddenlink.net
3125 Oregon Street,
Eureka, CA 95503-5061
(707) 443-3699
|