An Energy Industry Game Changer, or Wishful Thinking?

By Frank Rovella
Lockheed Martin recently announced that they are moving forward with the development of a new type of fusion reactor. If you follow the industry, you’ll know that there are fusion research projects underway, across the globe. Most are small scale with limited budgets however; others involve some real heavyweights with vast resources and government sponsorship. They include MIT, Sandia National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the ITER consortium in France, and many more. When you’re talking about developing an alternative to fossil fuels, environmentalists will insist that it’s all about CO2 emissions though they are insignificant in the USA due to the EPA. Ultimately, what is driving the fusion train is efficiency. When you’re talking power generation, it’s all about heating steam to turn a turbine, to turn a generator. At the end of the day, it’s about BTUs, and whoever can put the least in and get the most out, wins.

Lockheed Martin CFR

The concept of fusion has been around since the 1920s; with the promise of a clean and inexpensive method to produce almost limitless amounts of electricity. It has become for the energy industry a quest for the Holy Grail. Apart from the obvious, understanding why development is so compelling for countless investors and governments, it’s necessary to look at what our current state of power generation requires to survive.

East River Generating Station NYC

Most people will agree that the current methods of power generation are untenable; their supply chains are complex, far-reaching, and can be disrupted by either natural events or legislation. How tied we are to them cannot be understated, for example; 30% of all power generated in the US is from natural gas, 37% from coal, 19% from nuclear, and the remaining from a combination of renewables.

The lion's share, natural gas, and coal require mining and extraction, and lots of it. The US coal industry alone represents over 250,000 jobs while the booming natural gas industry includes over 570,000 jobs and rising. That’s a big footprint, and it’s still not enough, in the US and across the globe capacity is being outstripped by demand, utilities are scrambling to get new facilities online, but it’s all reiterations of old technology.  It’s not hard to make a case for fusion, and quite obvious why so many people and governments think fusion is the future.  This is reflected in the scale of investment in technology that is still considered by some to be a generation away. Efforts currently underway represent billions of dollars, the largest of which is the ITER in France. This project includes 35 countries; its developers estimate that it will have a power output of only 500 MW when completed, which is expected by 2019, with full power output expected between 2020-2040. Its sheer size is unprecedented, the ITER covers 104 acres in France, and its Tokamak containment system will weigh 23,000 tons. As it is a research project, it is not without problems. The ITER has been plagued with delays and cost overruns, in fact, once finished it will have a total cost in excess of $50 billion, ten times what was originally planned.

Inside the ITER Tokamak Reactor

ITER in Southern France

ITER is an extreme example, but others are no less complex, which is what makes Lockheed Martin’s entry into the fusion arena so interesting. Their first unit will be called the “Compact Fusion Reactor” (CFR). It will be approximately the size of a jet engine. Compact means it will cost less and take less time to test and develop. That’s pretty good for starters; it will also produce enough BTUs to generate upwards of 100 MW of power while using only 44 lbs. (20 Kg) of fuel annually. To put that into perspective, a truck-size power plant generating enough electricity for 80,000 homes, so what’s not to love? Of course, there are a lot of skeptics; myself included, and for good reason, just like my mother told me, “if it sounds too good to be true, usually is.”

Over the past 20 years, there has been a lot of new technology hitting the mainstream, especially in the area of alternative energy. Getting grants and investments for development means you have to exhibit or project progress, which needs to be quantified in the most persuasive manner possible.

Many have written that the CFR is just that, a vehicle to crank up Lockheed Martin stock. It’s also hard to believe that with all the research going on all over the world that a relatively unknown and new group can start from scratch and have a working model in 10 years.

Let’s just say for a minute that I drop my Yankee skepticism and look at the other side of the coin. Very few details have been released about this project, which helps to fuel the widespread disbelief. One thing to consider is that this project is under the Skunk Works umbrella, and they have a pretty good track record when it comes to keeping secrets. Moreover, the original intent for this was for aerospace applications, in particular, the space program. Fortunately, it just happens to be scalable, and could also find a home in aircraft, commercial shipping, naval applications, as well as general power generation.

So why are so many other projects struggling while the CFR seems to speed past the field?  It begins with the programs director Thomas McGuire, in 2000 as a grad student at MIT McGuire was tasked with finding a way to get to Mars quickly, fusion was the obvious choice. He began to research the various fusion technologies under development.  Through his research, Dr. McGuire claims that by combining key features he and his team have been able to answer many of the problems that have beset other projects. As a result, they have developed something he says is totally new.

To understand how new, we’ll have to look at current fusion technology, keep in mind that the entire fusion process relies on containing plasma and harvesting the heat to make steam. The plasma from a fusion reaction is really hot, hundreds of millions of degrees. Right now, you may be able to see the most well-known fusion reactor, the sun.

The first major hurdle is to get a fusion reaction started; there are a number of methods but for the sake of brevity, I’ll focus on containing the resultant plasma. The most studied and developed method is magnetic containment. This method has shown the most promise, it includes the previously mentioned Tokamak and over 170 other fusion reactor projects currently under development.

In magnetic containment, the plasma is contained in a ring or donut-shaped vacuum vessel that is maintained by external pumps.  The magnetic containment field consists of two sets of coil systems, toroidal and poloidal; they create vertical and horizontal directional fields. Developing these systems into a practical method has been a monumental task. And this is just one type of containment, other methods include Stellarator, Levitated Dipole Experiment (LDX), Magnetic Mirror, and many more.  However, magnetic containment is only one grouping; there is also Magnetic Pinches, Inertial Electrostatic Confinement, Magnetized Target Fusion, Beam fusion, Bubble Fusion, and the hypothetical Cold Fusion.  The problem with the Tokamak and other methods of magnetic containment is the massive cost and extreme complexity of the system. In this, the CFR uses a radically different approach, instead of using containment in a ring configuration; it creates it within a chamber.  McGuire explains that the Tokamak is like a bike tire expanding into air while the CFR is more like a tube that expands into an ever-stronger wall. The magnetic field created in the CFR is regulated by a self-tuning feedback mechanism. This means that the farther out into the chamber the plasma goes; the stronger the magnetic field becomes to contain it.

The Lockheed Martin CFR

If the Skunk Works team can pull this off power generation as we know it, and a large part of the world's economy will change forever. Countries that lack natural resources will no longer be at the mercy of outside sources. Certainly, the change to come to coal and natural gas extraction will be drastic. Wrangling over pipelines and power plant locations will mostly be a thing of the past. For smaller economies and developing nations, it will mean a level playing field and a better standard of life for everyone.

Like it or not, we are inexorably reliant on electricity, it powers our economies, livelihoods, and is the backbone of the modern world.  Fusion power will eventually become a reality whether it’s the CFR the Tokamak or some yet unknown method is anyone’s guess. However, without some form of improvement for power generation, we can be assured that our society will stagnate. Fusion isn’t just about cheaper cleaner power, its about the future.

Read More

Nuclear Power Reboot

By Frank Rovella

When it comes to power generation, many people take for granted that our entire way of life depends on it. Every industry, every business, every home relies on electricity to survive. Fluctuations in the price of natural gas and coal can make or break entire economies. Recent advancements in fracking and deepwater drilling have introduced new and unprecedented volatility into the energy industry. While it has breathed new life into natural gas (NG) based power generation, it has also driven old king coal into a supporting role.  As the chart below indicates, NG and coal are projected to be neck and neck at around 33% each with the remaining third split between nuclear, hydro, and renewables.

However, through all this nuclear power has remained relatively stable. This is due in part to the cost of the technology and the fear factor, which is part and parcel to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) heavy-handed regulatory arm. With accidents like Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island still fresh in the public consciousness, it's hard to argue for less regulation; in fact, the NRC has only approved one new plant in the last 35 years.

Homer Simpson stereotypes aside, there is a reason the US hasn't had a nuclear accident in over 36 years (Three Mile Island). Because of the NRC, American nuclear plants run with military precision, the level of redundancies and safety features make them incredibly safe but painfully expensive to build and operate.

"Nuclear power is one of the cleanest forms of power generation, but current technology requires regulation that makes it prohibitively expensive."

As with any major power generation technology, the objective is to make heat, to make steam, to turn a turbine. Unlike other conventional fossil fuel forms of generation, in a nuclear reactor there is no combustion, whether it's a pressurized water reactor or a boiling water reactor, also known as a light water reactor, the heat is generated from a fission reaction. Fission is generated through the use of enriched uranium, the mining and enriching of which is a complex and very expensive process. Additionally, refueling is also very expensive and disruptive to power operations. There are currently 42 or so nuclear plants in the USA averaging around 1900 megawatts each, most with two reactors. The typical reactor is on an 18 to 24-month cycle, with outages lasting over a month and requiring thousands of contracted workers. This cost becomes compounded with the revenue lost by losing half of a plant's output for over a month. These power plants provide baseload power; lost production has to come from other sources and is usually purchased from nearby states or utilities.

Apart from the cost and complexity of operation, the public perception of nuclear plants being dangerous has greatly hindered expansion. When you look at worst-case scenarios like Chernobyl, it's not hard not to have at least some trepidation towards the technology.

Of course, the NRC has assured us that an accident of that magnitude could not happen in the US, but even with the best safety record, there is still a risk. Fukushima, for example, was said to be designed to withstand the seismic conditions of the region but failed brilliantly when faced with them.  The Fukushima accident seemed to be the final nail in the coffin of the nuclear industry. The combination of cost and bad press, pretty much shut down any hope of new plants coming online.

"The problem with solid fuel nuclear technology is the fact that every reactor has the potential to meltdown."

Even with all of these drawbacks, nuclear power is still getting a lot of R&D dollars. The demand for clean non-fossil fuel energy is growing. Even without the green groundswell, developing new and cleaner nuclear technology is imperative because the global energy demand is far outstripping production. A recent report by the International Energy Agency(IEA) indicated that currently, 20% of the world population does not have access to electricity that is 1.4 billion people. And with overall demand expected to rise 93% over the next 25 years, every option must be explored.

Fortunately, there is a slew of next-generation nuclear technology in the pipeline that may change the industry's fortunes. There are currently almost 50 firms in North America developing new technology for the nuclear industry; this represents over $1.3 billion in investment capital. That's big money for any new technology, and it's all coming from individual investors, major venture capital funds, and even people like Bill Gates.

This resurgence is focused around two reactor types that hold a great deal of promise; they are molten salt and traveling wave. Both types have been around since the 1950s but have taken a back seat to current reactor design. What is really important to understand these new technologies is that they are both meltdown proof.

Molten Salt Reactors (MSR) include a number of reactor types. However, Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR), are currently getting the most attention.  The advantage that MSRs like LFTR offer is that unlike standard reactors that use solid fuel, MSRs use liquid fuel in the form of molten salts such as fluoride or chloride salts that contain dissolved fissile material, these fluids also facilitate cooling. Unlike standard solid fuel reactors, refueling does not require shutting down the plant. Also, using a liquid fuel means that there are no fuel assemblies to be built; this includes the fuel pellets, core support structure, cladding tubes, and a lot of other very expensive components and hardware. However there are also disadvantages, MSRs also have the potential to provide weapons-grade uranium and because of the use of high-temperature salts, there is a concern with corrosion. Maintenance is also difficult because of the high levels of radiation throughout the fluid system.  Additionally, in the case of a lengthy shut down, many parts of the systems will require heating so that the salts do not solidify. As the diagram indicates, the MSR liquid system is extensive, and though safer and more efficient than solid fuel reactors, construction costs would likely be very high for large-scale plants.

Traveling Wave Reactors (TWR) seem more like science fiction. If this technology is fully developed it will certainly change the way nuclear power is perceived and used.  A traveling wave reactor needs only a very small amount of enriched uranium 235 to operate, this is where it gets interesting; during normal core operations, additional fuel is slowly created from depleted uranium. It has been theorized that a traveling wave reactor could run for several hundred years or more between refueling, however, realistically speaking scheduled maintenance would more likely be in the 40-year range. With the minimal need for enriched fuel, virtually no refueling, no waste to dispose of, and no potential for weaponization, TWRs could make Ralph Nader blush. As the image below highlights, the design consists of six major components.

1. The Reactor Head is the only above-ground component and acts as a safety containment structure in case radiation is released.
2. Below the reactor head is the Guard Vessel, which holds the reactor core that is submerged in liquid sodium. The liquid sodium provides both heat transfer and reactor cooling.
3. As with any reactor, the core is at the heart of the unit and is where nonfissile materials convert to fissile materials to maintain the reaction.
4. Since the reaction process is very slow, Control Rods are used to accelerate the reaction, while Safety Rods are used to slow the reaction; both are mechanically inserted into the core when required.
5. Pumps are used to move the 550°C/1022°F liquid sodium through the core and to heat liquid sodium in a secondary circulation system.
6. The Secondary Circulation System flows through a heat exchanger that in turn creates steam to turn turbines to generate power.
   

Both of these technologies hold great promise and can solve or play a major role in the growing worldwide demand for electricity. However, they will have to overcome the negative public opinion that solid fuel reactor technology has created.

The increase in development activity around these and other reactor designs have prompted The Department of Energy (DOE) to enact a program designed to help fledgling companies to finance and proliferate new and safer reactor design. One such program called "GAIN" gives developers access to DOE labs and includes $12.5 billion for loan guarantees that will help with NRC licensing and certification.

The loan guarantees will certainly help, but it's only a band-aid for the cumbersome NRC licensing and certification process. There is certainly radiation involved in each design, but apart from that this technology has very little in common with solid-fuel technology.

The whole point of these new designs is that they don't suffer from the same potential for catastrophic failure, waste disposal, and massive costs. 

Unless the NRC changes its tune, the current decade long and painfully expensive approval process will decimate the funding and momentum of most startups. This is a perfect example of regulation hindering innovation that would provide global benefits.

More Info:

Traveling Wave Reactors (TWR)

https://whatisnuclear.com/reactors/twr.html

http://terrapower.com/pages/technology

Molten Salt Reactors

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Molten-Salt-Reactors/

Read More

The Steel Industry Meets Nanotechnology

How a new Nano-Manufacturing process is making steel 10x stronger

By Frank Rovella

Seattle-based Modumetal is in the early phases of testing a new type of nanolamination coating process that has the potential to reshape the metal manufacturing industry. By creating multiple discrete layers only nanometers thick they are able to impart characteristics such as high strength and corrosion resistance and do it very economically. Until now, the only way to get these qualities was through the use of high-strength alloys or with methods such as heat treating, ion implantation, or a number of plating and coating processes. All of these can be very cost-effective in limited quantities but, for industries that consume large amounts of steel such as petro-chem, oil & gas, and construction there is no low-cost solution.

The concept of creating laminations using nanolayers is not new; however, Modumetal’s application method is. Previously, nanolaminates could only be created via a vapor deposition process the problem is that it’s expensive and not easily scalable. Modumetal’s process takes a markedly different approach; though simple in nature, its success hinges on precise chemistry and process parameters.  It’s based on hydrolysis, similar to the electroplating process, and utilizes a submersion bath. But, unlike electroplating, it relies on hyper exact amounts of electrical current applied at specific intervals. The bath contains predetermined types of metal ions that allow for the creation of distinct alloys; this means that each layer can be composed of a different material.  Multiple layers may be applied to total up to one centimeter thick. This flexibility in layer composition allows for the engineering of custom nanolaminations that can provide whatever characteristics the application requires.

To understand how high strength and corrosion resistance can be applied to a metal with what is essentially a coating, we need to consider scale. For example, electroplated layer thicknesses typically run between 5 to 100 microns, 1 micron (µ) = 0.00003937 inches, while 1 nanometer (nm) = 0.000000039 inches. This is on the atomic scale; to put that into perspective, 0.1 nm is the diameter of a helium atom.  As the image below highlights, at the nanoscale, our understanding of surface profile changes. There is far more surface area to work with, which means greater adhesion can be achieved. At this scale, the metal ions become a physical part of the substrate. The ability to dial in an alloy combination to address a specific corrosion requirement outside of a steel mill is unprecedented, but the main component that makes this technology so attractive is strength.



Carbon steel surface taken through an electron microscope, the actual
size is 10 micrometers (µm) across that is equal to 10,000 nanometers.

Tensile strength is a material’s ability to withstand pressure before failing, and failing begins with cracking. To demonstrate how nanolaminations can make steel 10 times stronger, think about a sheet of plywood; this is the most common example of a lamination.  Plywood contains multiple layers of materials with different strength characteristics and varying grain structures—the more layers added the greater the strength. The strength is further enhanced when the lamination is nailed or glued into place. Now imagine a cross-section of structural steel with all of its surfaces encapsulated in layers of nanometer-thick superalloys of varying compositions, bonded to the substrate at the atomic level. The advantages are obvious. 

Stress cracking in a cross-section of stainless steel pipe.

The potential this has for large-scale applications such as those found in oil & gas and the construction industries could be a game-changer. But to gain a foothold in manufacturing, a lot more data will be needed, and many questions will need to be answered. Beginning with the application process, will it be better suited for pre or post-treatment? Will ductility be affected, how will it react to rolling or stamping, and what about welding?  The ability to weld treated metals could be one of the key questions; this is essentially a coating—when it’s welded what happens at the joints? Even coatings a centimeter thick will be burned through, leaving a seam of bare substrate. However, these issues may already be moot points, as Modumetal is currently ramping up its production facility in Washington State. Of course, before this resembles anything close to wide-scale adoption, all of the standard bodies including ASTM, API, ASTM, and CEN will have to give it their blessing, and that certainly won’t happen overnight.   

Read More

A New Class of Polymer that Defies the Laws of Physics

By Frank Rovella

If you find yourself going straight for the technology section every time you get online or open a paper, then you’re not alone. There are a lot of us just waiting for the next big thing, seeking to be awed by some new technological development. The Industrial Space is fertile ground for this enterprise; just take a look at emerging materials technology.  

Unlike automation that has a level of predictability akin to a train that always runs on time; we can see it downrange, hear the tracks rumble, and watch it flash by.  However, materials technology is more like a seismic event, we know it’s coming but no one is sure when or how big it’s going to be.

An example is a recent discovery by the French physicist Ludwik Leibler, who is this year’s winner of the European Inventor Award in the category research.  Leibler along with his team at the Laboratoire Matière Molle et Chimie at ESPCI ParisTech, have developed a whole new class of plastics called Vitrimers. 

"Classified as supramolecular substances, Vitrimers are a derivative of thermoset plastics and exhibit self-repairing characteristics."

What’s really intriguing about Vitrimers is how they do what they do. To understand this, we’ll have to look at the mechanics of their most basic elements.  At the molecular level, the atoms that comprise standard thermosets maintain their crystalline structure through permanent or rigid chemical bonds, the strength of these bonds ultimately determines the characteristics of the material. Flex, friction, and thermal cycles break down these bonds resulting in weakening that leads to cracks and fractures. Once these bonds are broken, they cannot be repaired  However, the molecular bonds that makeup Vitrimers are neither permanent nor rigid; their state is more akin to a dynamic equilibrium. This means that molecular bonds are forming and breaking simultaneously. Regardless of the molecular structure, the number of bonds remains the same. This reaction is thermally activated allowing VItrimers to go from solid to liquid and back with no change in crystalline structure; this is known as a glass transition. These characteristics, in essence, are what make Vitrimers a self-repairing plastic. Testing conducted at the University of Minnesota concluded that fractured samples that were healed recovered 102% of tensile strength, 133% of the original tensile modulus value, and 67% of ultimate elongation. Vitrimers glass-like qualities, allow it to be welded like glass, meaning that if two surfaces are brought to a molten state and welded, when they solidify the molecules are aligned like a solid section, with no seam. This is similar to friction stir welding, but far more complete.

The self-repairing qualities of Vitrimers are paving the way for a number of impressive innovations, and will surely lead to many more.  One of these is in the medical industry, where Vitrimers are being used in what is being called “Organ Glue.” This is a self-healing polymer hydrogel that acts as an anti-hemorrhaging, wound-healing aqueous solution. Vitrimers have the ability to form “nanobridging”, that is a molecular bridging of tissue; it can be used in situations where stitches are impractical.

For the more mundane, however, these same self-healing properties can make a significant impact on manufactured goods. Self-repairing plastics means that products made from it will have a far longer service life. Simply put less material is required because fewer parts are needed to accommodate for wear.

Then there are the effects on recycling, Vitrimers by nature are ideal for recycling because they can be liquefied and solidified over and over. Think about all the plastic that can’t be recycled, they end up in landfills, and some of these plastics can take hundreds of years to decompose fully. Vitrimers could make plastics as recyclable as aluminum.

The concept of materials that self-repair, or do things that seem physically impossible certainly has an awe factor, but Vitrimers are just one example. NASA is currently developing materials that can self-heal after a meteor strike and even self-repairing alloys. As we move forward keep your eyes open, because there is a lot more from this came from.

Read More

A 3D Printing Industry Game Changer… This Time for Sure

By Frank Rovella

If you’ve been holding your breath waiting for 3D printing to change manufacturing as we know it then your face is probably blue, or you’ve already passed out.  For years a succession of technological breakthroughs has emerged but, each time falling short of the ultimate goal. I’ve even heard proponents say that someday we’ll all have 3D printers in the home so we can manufacture our own products on demand. Manufacture what, plastic

silverware, Legos?

The plain truth is that for 3D printing to make any kind of an impact, it will have to displace existing technology and do it economically.

For the most part, 3D printing has been relegated to the world of prototypes, short runs, and hobbyists. These days when I hear about the latest in 3D printing technology I get a little skeptical. However, this time around it includes some big names such as HP and Voxeljet, using phrases like “high-speed, low-cost manufacturing” and the Holy Grail “cheaper than injection molding”.

Today the new savior of manufacturing futurists is called “High-Speed Sintering” which has been in development for over a decade. One of the people behind high-speed sintering technology is mechanical engineering professor Neil Hopkinson, of the University of Sheffield in England. He believes that this really is the way forward for 3D printing. Hopkinson’s entry is based on the layering principals of laser sintering. As its name implies in laser sintering, a laser is used to melt material in thin layers. Though the results can be very precise, the technology is expensive and slow. In Hopkinson’s high-speed sintering approach, the laser is replaced by an infrared lamp and what is basically an ink-jet print head. In this process, the print head moves at high speed layering a polymer powder that is blended with light/radiation absorbing material. As each layer is laid down on the print bed, an infrared light fuses the powder. Hopkinson claims that given a large enough build area high-speed sintering can be 100 times faster than laser sintering, and deliver the same level of dimensional precision. This seems to be where injection molding may finally be impacted. High-speed sintering has no expensive tooling, design changes can be made on the fly, and there is little or no setup, essentially providing manufacturing on demand.

At this point, the technology has proven viable but there are still some hurdles to overcome. The biggest is that because the polymer must be mixed with a radiation absorbing material, it will only work with a limited number of polymers. Although this may be in the early stages, there is a lot of R&D money backing up this technology.

Hewlett-Packard has been working on a similar technology called “Multi Jet Fusion.” In HP’s product, the radiation absorbing powder is called a detailing agent. HP’s Multi Jet Fusion system is already available but is still being advertised for short-run and prototype work. Hopkinson’s high-speed sintering technology is now owned by the German 3D printer manufacturer Voxeljet. Voxeljet certainly has the know-how and resources to make this work, and German engineering can’t hurt either.

So to put it all into perspective, we have an obvious market need and two competing manufactures developing very similar technology. Both have a lot of capital, in HP’s case revenues of over $112 billion a year. Voxeljet, on the other hand, is quite modest in size, but totally focused on the industrialization of 3D printing and proving it with a pretty impressive product line. They are heavy into innovation and manufacture one of the largest commercially available 3D printers. Their VX4000 has a workpiece envelope of 157” x 79” x 40”. HP is certainly the 800-ton gorilla, but I’d put my money on Voxeljet to get this to market first. Their concentration on developing large scale volume manufacturing based 3D print systems is right in line with what this technology is meant for.

Read More

Water, Water, Everywhere, But Not a Drop to Drink

This may not be the Rime of the Ancient Mariner, but it has everything to do with seawater

By Frank Rovella
I read an interesting fact in an MIT publication the other day; they stated that by 2025, 1.8 billion people will have trouble getting clean drinking water; that’s over 20% of the world population. This is a number that until recently has not gotten much attention, however, the recent drought on the west coast has helped to drive it home. Cities like San Diego have been hit the hardest, currently 80% of San Diego’s water supply is imported. This has prompted state and county officials to move forward with a massive $1billion desalination plant. When completed it will be the largest in the western hemisphere.

Desalination is becoming the only option for many metropolitan areas with growing populations and increasingly arid climates. This is highlighted by the fact that since 2000 over 16,000 desalination plants have come online in over 120 countries. Seawater desalination is certainly proving to be a viable option, but it’s expensive. Water produced by desalination is measured in acre-foot units, one acre-foot being almost 360,000 gallons or the estimated amount used per year by two five-member American households. One of the reasons it is so costly is that seawater desalination is based on the Reverse Osmosis (RO) process. It takes a lot of energy to push that much water through this type of system. San Diego, for example, will be paying approximately $2,000 per acre-foot, which 80% more expensive than their current supply. As you can imagine, with that much public money at stake, there is a lot of pressure to reduce costs. Though RO technology has come a long way in recent years due to advances in materials and process control, it still has a long way to go.  To understand why it’s expensive, and why it is a prime candidate for enhancements from process improvements and materials technology, we have to first look at what an RO filter is and does.

The RO process used for desalination typically uses a spiral wound type of RO filter. This configuration is composed of two sheets of membrane that are glued back to back to form an envelope or a leaf. Membrane leaves contain two membrane sheets sandwiching a porous sheet that is the permeate collector. The leaf is glued on three sides; the fourth side is attached to a perforated permeate tube.  In this method, the water can only exit through the permeate tube. While the system is in operation, pressurized water flows over the surface of the membrane on both sides of the membrane leaf. Water permeating through the membrane flows on the permeate carrier to the open side of the leaf, it then exits through the permeate tube.

In large scale RO applications such as desalination, multiple leaves are connected to the permeate tube. It is set up so that the permeate from all of the leaves goes through the same tube. In the multiple membrane configurations, a mesh spacer is placed between the leaves. They are then wound around the permeate tube, hence the name “spiral wound”.

Advances in the understanding of RO flow have brought about design changes that have added higher levels of efficiency. Modern RO filters contain more leaves that are shorter; the decrease in the water path this creates has proven to be far more efficient. This means that fewer membranes and less overall equipment is needed to create even more water. However, this is just one area where improvements have been made. There has been a great deal of advancements in membrane materials, as well as efficiency to feed pumps and general operating systems.

We have to remember that desalination power consumption is very high because of the amount of force required to pump massive amounts of water through an RO filter. The power used for seawater desalination accounts for 20 to 30% of the cost but its far less expensive now than it was. In 1979 1,000 gallons of desalinated water required 114 kWh. Today that same 1,000 gallons needs only 14 kWh.

But solving the world’s water problem will take more than high-tech large-scale filtration of seawater. Its also going to take boots on the ground in areas that can’t afford the colossal outlay for a desalination plant. The 2030 Water Resources Group has been applying some very innovative solutions across the globe to solve water shortage problems, and most of it is through pure efficiency. For example, in a project in Cape Town South Africa, they identified widespread leakage problem that caused the loss of approximately 600,000 gallons per hour. There are also a number of other examples, mostly based around water management for areas such as power generation, groundwater conservation, distribution management, agriculture, and wastewater treatment. There are also a number of other technologies in development that could change the freshwater playing field. Research is currently underway that includes distillation, ion exchange, and biochemical desalination. Whatever the final solution is, if the problem is not solved or at least addressed adequately, fresh water will become a key issue in the years to come.

Read More

3D Printing’s Silver Bullet

By Frank Rovella
Last week I wrote about a new process for the 3D printing of circuits, it was a big story with many implications. However; news reached me today that will make it seem like a side note in 3D printing development. This week, Redwood City, CA-based Carbon3D unveiled a new 3D printing technology called “Continuous Liquid Interface Production” or “CLIP” that will finally fulfill the promise that 3D printing has held since its inception. Until recently 3D printing had been relegated to short-run production and prototypes. It's slow cycle times, and depending on the process, not so great surface finishes have been the major stumbling blocks to widespread adoption. This has kept processes such as SLA, SLS, Polyjet, and many others at the periphery of large scale manufacturing. The big difference with CLIP is that it's a totally new process and does not resemble additive manufacturing as we know it.

When comparing CLIP to standard 3D printing processes keep in mind that current methods are basically 2D printing. Layer after layer stacked on each other to create a three-dimensional object.  With layers come uneven surfaces, one of the most striking advantages of the CLIP process can be seen in the image on the right. CLIP can produce surface finishes that no other 3D technology can match but, what is really amazing is the speed.  Depending on process and materials, CLIP provides cycle times that are 25 to 100 times faster than standard 3D printing technology. In addition, it is also designed to be used with polymeric materials that open the doors to almost limitless possibilities.

The CLIP printing process starts with a pool of UV curable resin. The print head drops into the pool and begins projecting UV light through a special window into the resin, forming the base and subsequently the entire object.  As the form builds, the head raises in conjunction with object growth. UV light makes this all happen, but the window that it transmits through has to be completely transparent to the UV rays and permeable to oxygen, similar to a contact lens. The system controls the oxygen flow through the window creating a dead zone in the adjacent resin pool.  The dead zone is just tenths of a micron thick which delivers incredible resolution. The image of the part being printed is projected through the window, much the same as a movie is projected and creates the item from the bottom up.

This all sounds like a post grads project at MIT but its real and ready for prime time. In fact, Carbon3D just announced that they have raised $40 million to commercialize the technology, too bad they are still privately held. How this technology changes the landscape of plastics manufacturing and 3D printing is anyone’s guess, but one thing is for sure; we’ll be hearing a lot more CLIP 3D printing technology in the coming years.

Read More

3D Printing & the End of the Circuit Board

By Frank Rovella
3D Printing also known as Additive Manufacturing has been around since the 1980s since then there has been a lot of positive and negative hype depending on your perspective. We’ve all heard the fear-mongering from uninformed media sources touting the end of manufacturing as we know it. Until recently it’s only been the end of rapid prototyping as we know it. However, a number of recent developments may indicate that this is about to change.

In a quiet turn of the century factory turned industrial park northwest of Boston, a small group, of academics and engineers, has developed a system that can 3D print electronics.

In conjunction with Harvard University, Voxel8 has developed a 3D printer and highly conductive silver printer inks that allow the circuit board to be printed in process.

As revolutionary as this sounds we have to remember that this is new technology; the developers at Voxel8 aren’t even sure about the potential applications.  At first glance, it looks more like a proof of concept that a production model. Their initial offering utilizes fused filament fabrication (FFF) technology, an established 3D process that is dependable with good repeatability, but not known for high precision.  From a production standpoint, there are several drawbacks. For example, when changing from standard

thermoplastics to conductive inks the ink cartridge must be manually changed. Voxel8’s conductive inks can print the circuit board, but the operator must still manually place the electronic components.
But all this manual labor doesn’t take the wind out of my sails; think about the level of automation, speed, and precision of modern PCB insertion systems. Then combine that with the very low operating costs of the typical FFF 3D system and it’s not hard to imagine large scale production using this technology in the near future.

Its common knowledge that for 3D printing to make a dent in manufacturing metals have to be firmly in the picture. Enter Selective Laser Melting (SLM), this 3D printing process can create products composed of metals such as aluminum, stainless steel, Titanium, and Cobalt Chrome alloys.

SLM was originally employed to produce prototypes and low volumes of dental applications and medical implants and found some high profile applications with NASA.  However its ability to produce complex geometries, hidden voids, and channels has not been lost on the manufacturing community. Tolerances to ±0.02 mm, surface finishes of 20 μm, with close to 100% density make this a very attractive technology.

General Electric is pretty confident in the technology and has invested over $125 million building the first high volume 3D printing facility in the world.  The plant is designed to manufacture fuel nozzles for GE’s LEAP jet engines; they will be using SLM 3D printing technology with Ceramic Metal Composites (CMC). To get an idea of the scale of production, GE currently has orders for more than 6000 LEAP engines, each requires 20 fuel nozzles. As the facility ramps up, GE is expecting production of up to 40,000 SLM printed fuel nozzles by the year 2020.

These developments by themselves may not be cause for alarm, but when taken as a whole they represent a real shift in the way products are manufactured. According to a recent Forbes article, the U.S. 3D printing market grew by 23% from 2009 to 2014 and is expected to continue with growth of 16% from 2015 to 2019.

Though it’s doubtful that 3D printing will ever totally take the place of processes such as machining and stamping, it is certainly poised to make a profound impact on manufacturing as a whole.

Read More

The Electric Car & How Environmentalists Saved the Internal Combustion Engine

By Frank Rovella
For the past 30 years, there has been a war raging against the internal combustion engine; its rallying cries are as familiar as peanut butter and jelly. Terms like smog alert, acid rain, carbon emissions, foreign oil, and global warming have been the lead in for thousands of speeches, news reports, articles, and studies. Ever the purveyor of public opinion, the federal government, led by the EPA and the environmental movement has steadily been raising the bar for fuel-efficiency. In 1985, the typical MPG for a passenger car was around 16 MPG. Today in 2015 the standard stands at 25.1 MPG; ten years from now, in 2025 it will more than double to 54.5 MPG. For the auto industry, compliance has been costly; however, their efforts have spawned a steady stream of innovation, not just in design but in materials technology as well. Though forced by the Fed, fuel economy is a market factor that sells cars, just as people want electric cars; they also want high fuel efficiency. Until recently the price of gasoline and its effect on the average consumer had a large impact on the sales and development of higher MPG cars. In fact, part of the recent declines in crude oil prices can be attributed to lower demand gleaned from higher fuel efficiency.
Oddly enough, now that fuel prices have plunged to the lowest levels since 1995, the expected increase in sales of lower MPG vehicle has not happened. This is an indication of a cultural shift, call it generational or conditioning, whatever its name it’s now clear that the average consumer wants clean high mileage vehicles. From super-efficient gas, diesel, electric, and hybrid cars, to cleaner running trucks, and trains operating on natural gas, efficiency sells, and the MPG numbers show it.
Where does this leave the internal combustion engine? The drive for higher gas mileage has brought about such innovation and efficiency that modern technology has made the good old gas engine far more practical than anyone thought possible. So much so that a recent report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that by 2040, 95% of cars on the road will be using an internal combustion engine. That’s right little Johnny, you may get that job pumping gas, after all. This may be a shocker to some and begs the question, what are the technologies that are bringing about all the change? As Red Green once said, “talk is cheap, let’s build.”

Starting with materials, when I was building a drag bike an old-timer told me “weight is horsepower.” It’s also fuel efficiency. A perfect example is the all-new aluminum Ford F150. Ford's extensive use of aluminum knocked off 300 lbs., which isn’t a lot considering the F150 weighs in at just under 5000 lbs. What’s important here is the effort, Ford has been playing with aluminum for over 40 years, this is a big step forward and utilizes design and manufacturing principals that will carry over to other lines. Of course, there are also advanced composites, plastics, and even a movement to bring back wooden cars. There are also advancements in alloys used in the engine and drivetrain that are making parts stronger, lighter that are able to dissipate heat better, and run at hotter temperatures with higher compression.

Under the hood, you'll find innovations like variable valve timing that can adjust to the optimal profile based on RPM. Then there's cylinder deactivation, the expanded use of turbochargers and superchargers that utilize direct fuel injection. Integrated starter/generator systems that can turn the engine off when not needed, such as at stoplights and standing.  Another major area is electronic engine management, the level of sensors and control over engine functions is staggering. Modern systems can process up to 1000 different items of data per second and are only limited by the number of sensors available. If you look at technology as a whole, there is a massive amount of R&D that goes into developing a new car. One would think that with all the money and effort that go into producing a modern car that getting to those high MPGs numbers would not be a problem. But, there is a roadblock that is simply the physical limitations of the design. Depending on fuel costs as we get closer to that required 54.5 MPG, the effects of diminishing returns will have a big impact on further developments.

To get those extra MPGs on gasoline alone without a hybrid solution may not be possible. For a vehicle with only an internal combustion engine, meeting the federal guidelines will require a diesel engine. Unless there is some unforeseen development, and it would have to be major, the diesel engine will surpass the gasoline engine in the number of vehicles that it's used in. There is no other economical way to achieve the required 54.5 MPG. This isn’t hard to imagine since the diesel already has quite a head start.
Of the top 10 highest MPG passenger cars in 2015, five were diesels. The Volkswagens Jetta, highest on the list at #4 comes in with an MPG rating of 42 city/48 highway. These are some pretty good numbers, but getting the rest of the way to the goal on combustion alone will require a bit more innovation than the standard engine design can provide.
Here is a design that could provide that innovation it’s called the Achates engine and was developed by Achates Power of San Diego. They claim that their design gets 30% better mileage than standard diesel, and double the efficiency of a gasoline engine. When I first looked at this, I read that it uses opposing cylinders. Cool just like my old Triumph, not quite, what they mean by opposing cylinders is that it uses two reciprocating pistons per cylinder. It’s also a two-stroke and has no cylinder head.

Since its a diesel there are no spark plugs, ignition is from the heat of compression, which brings up another thing this design does well, dissipate heat. The Achates engine has 30% less surface area than a comparable four-stroke, it is just a cylinder after all so getting to and removing the heat from combustion is a lot easier. Less heat means less wear and longer service life, add the use of a turbo or a blower and this thing could really make a dent in the diesel market.

I also want to note, that I am talking about low GVW passenger cars. When it comes to large scale transportation such as trucks and trains, the amount of torque needed will always require an internal combustion engine. Moving freight by truck or rail relies on burning a lot of diesel fuel though lower in cost as of late, it cannot compare to liquid natural gas (LNG). Because of this expense, many rail companies are exploring the conversion of their trains to LNG.

So where are all the electric cars? I’ve driven electric, fuel cell and hybrids cars, box trucks, little red wagons, and shopping carts. Personally, I think having an electric car would be fantastic, and I'd buy one in a heartbeat if I could get one that was practical and above all, cheap. What’s currently available for an all-electric car just ain't gonna cut it in Brooklyn, maybe Jersey, but hey where am I gonna plug the friggin thing in any way? I know not everyone lives in a city, but to gain wide acceptance a car has to appeal to people across a wide demographic.
It all comes down to battery technology, basic practicality, and expense. As of today, battery technology simply hasn't caught up with the gold standard of 300 miles on a single charge, (that’s equal to the typical full tank of gas). There are claims by Tesla to have achieved that milestone, but there is still nothing commercially available. In 2016, GM will be releasing their version, called the Bolt, not to be confused with the Volt, which is a hybrid. The Bolt is said to provide a 200-mile range and go for around $35,000. Okay, that’s a start, but $35k for what essentially is a novelty? I’m still not sold.

Battery charging is where the rubber meets the road for practicality. The needed infrastructure is certainly in place, millions of miles of the electric grid, an entire supply chain ready to serve. But you still need a place to plugin. If you live in a rural area or the suburbs and have an unchanging day-to-day routine no problem, pull into the driveway pop on a cord, and you're good to go. However, there is a growing urban population, and as I mentioned earlier, the mass adoption of technology means it has to be practical for everyone. If you don’t own a home or live in an apartment than plugging in every few days gets to be more of an issue. And then there is the question of the length of charge, 6, 8, 10 hours for a full charge, seems to be a lot of planning to maintain. Having a car in the driveway is supposed to give a measure of freedom, just get in and go, anytime. Unlike filling a fuel tank, there is not a lot of room for error, or you’ll be on the side of the road waiting for a wrecker.

Even with all of these drawbacks, there is still one thing to consider. If the auto industry could produce a cheap electric car with a 300+ mile range for around $20 to $25k, they would fly out of the showrooms. Automakers know this and have spent billions trying to develop a solution. These efforts are reflected in the news every day, articles expounding Tesla’s advancements, development projects from Google to Apple, and every major automaker on the planet, even a hybrid F1 class, its big news for a reason. The question now is whether the US market is even ready for a cheap all-electric car? American automakers have focused solely on the US market while it’s clear that Japan and China are far better suited to accommodate an all-electric vehicle, and would make a better proving ground as well. For the US, the realities of commuting, the infernal distances, and a growing urban population will dictate. Looking forward, with current technology it seems likely that reaching the federal mandate while appealing to a broad market base will require a diesel/electric hybrid solution.

Read More