RENEWABLE RESOURCES COULD PROVIDE 99 PERCENT OF U.S. ELECTRICITY GENERATION BY 2020:

[kristopher]

CAROL WERNER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY STUDY INSTITUTE
122 C STREET, N.W., SUITE 630

[GliderGuider]

1. You don't need to shout

And I think your post needs a little more meat.

[NNadir]

2. There isn't any meat.

It's just another in a series of endless unsupported dreamy irrational cry-outs.

We had that fellow around here for years who had to tell us in caps about every flex fuel 150 pick up truck that came on the market in ethanol land.

Same level.

[jpak]

5. The charlatan NJ Molten Salt Breeder Reactor has no meat

It's just another in a series of endless unsupported dreamy irrational cry-outs.

:rofl:

[NNadir]

11. The status of molten salt reactors is widely reported in the scientific literature. For instance..

in the journal Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 1810–1819.

There is an explosion, in fact, in this literature and this work, just as I predicted many years ago.

These are thrilling times, and I'm very excited and pleased at my work toward this effort.

There is an extensive discussion of several molten salt concepts beginning with this text, of the cited paper - not that you know a single thing about producing citations - concepts of which the anti-nuke faith is completely ignorant, since ignorance is the calling card of the anti-nuke cults:

The benchmark proposed for Domain V is the Li/Be/Th-F AMSTER incinerator design <24> as put forward by EdF during the 5th FP of the EU MOST Project <25>. AMSTER is based on the MSBR design, as initially proposed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). For the benchmark analysis experimental results from the former Oak-Ridge MSRE tests were available. They have been used to benchmark various code systems as SimADS <26>, SIMMER <19>, DANAMOSS <27> in pump startup and pump coast down tests. Because of the special dynamics of the molten salt reactors with moving neutron precursors, a pump coast-down leads to an increase in reactivity
in the reactor. For the AMSER core the safety coefficients have been calculated by APOLLO2 <28> and
WIMS8a <29>. Various transients have been analyzed as ULOF, ULOHS and UTOP.

Of course, since the sum of your knowledge of the energy crisis consists wholly of posting giggle faces, since you are deliberately ill-informed and completely lacking in any insight whatsoever, you assert a right to bet the flesh of all humanity on your lack of information.

Humanity, of course, couldn't care less what you think. Humanity is now recognizing that the matter is extremely serious and there is no time to waste on dithering, lazy idiots.

Like all lazy, ill informed mystics, including the dolt responsible for the opening post, you are proud of your laziness, and hold your ignorance in great, though unjustifiable, esteem.

The number of anti-nukes who do any meaningful work of any kind is zero. Mostly they sit in circle jerks talking about their hydrogen cars, or their electric cars, or their brazillions of solar roofs although the number of them who own hydrogen cars is zero

The molten salt reactor literature is rich and diverse and international. The science is impeccable, thrilling, and intellectually challenging in the extreme - and represents the highest values of humanity. Indeed the authors of the above referenced paper, of which you are ignorant, come from more than 15 countries, including several that are about to dump their nuclear "phase outs" in the trash with the rest of the ditzy suppositions of ignoramuses who deign to speak on topics about which they know nothing at all.

The scale and international scope of this effort to defeat ignorance is suggested by the list of authors, who come from more than 16 institutions in 16 countries.

The list of these people can be obtained by http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2P-4S02YVC-1&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2008&_alid=775325720&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5708&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=2&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2c080aec576ecbe3c5baa5cfebbbd73a">looking at the abstract.

You know zero about neutronic codes, zero about neutron diffusion, zero about materials science, zero about nuclear physics, zero, in fact, about the external cost of the renewables scams that you've been hyping here for many years to no real effect.

Still you feel qualified to call me a fraud. There is no doubt, absolutely none, that you regard the 38 authors of these papers to be frauds as well.

It goes with the territory.

That's about par for the course. You and your pals are inordinately lazy people, which is typical of people who have never had to fend for themselves, who produce nothing, who know nothing and do nothing other than consume the fruits of other's labor and attempt to ridicule what is far over their pathetic little heads.

Frankly I have wasted entirely too much time poking fun at the vast stupidity that oozes into this province. The damage that ignorance has done is now irretrievable, but those of us who work must try to save whatever we can.



Congratulations. You've won. Your tantrums have done their worst. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/">You must be very proud.

As for my foolishness, it probably has to do with having wasted time here with all the whining and foot stomping.

I have work to do. Shove it yuppie.

[jpak]

30. LOL!!!!111

:rofl:

[Dead_Parrot]

3. EESI HAS MOVED! PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS:

1112 16th Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036.

Congratulations Kristopher. It's difficult to fuck up a post that hasn't actually got anything in it, but you managed. No wonder this has 3 recs, posts of this caliber are few and far between.

We salute you, sir.

You are a legend.

[Systematic Chaos]

29. I hereby submit this OP as my nominee for internet smackdown/pwnage of the decade.

I haven't laughed this hard in a couple weeks!

[GliderGuider]

4. I think we should recommend this onto the Greatest Page.

Can I get an "Amen"?

[XemaSab]

16. I don't know, can you?

:shrug: :P

[kristopher]

6. Body of report was dropped by forum software for some reason. Here it is

RENEWABLE RESOURCES COULD PROVIDE 99 PERCENT
OF U.S. ELECTRICITY GENERATION BY 2020:

On January 16, 2006, the Energy Analysis Office (EAO) of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) issued for the
Office of Science a DRAFT analysis, for comment, of the technical potential for renewables.
EAO's preliminary analysis included a summary table representing near-term and ultimate technical potential for renewable
energy resources (economic and market considerations are not taken into account). The seven-page document is entitled "Near-
Term Practical and Ultimate Technical Potential for Renewable Resources."

The representation for the near term potential is given in percentage of electric generation in the United States in 2020. Near-
term potential is restricted by near-term challenges, such as infrastructure and reliability problems, electricity storage, and
technological ability to use the resource. Nonetheless, the "near-term practical" potential of renewable resources as a percent of
U.S. electricity generation in 2020 is estimated to be 99-124 percent, or - in terms of primary energy - as 47-55 quads/year
(electricity only).

The ultimate technical potential is a compilation of previous estimates and calculations based on those estimates. While the
analysis assumes some near-term challenges will be overcome, the ultimate potential does account for constraints on
technologically insurmountable goals, such as generally accepted restrictions on offshore wind facility distance from shore (200
meters), and on drilling capability for enhanced geothermal systems (10 km of depth). The table suggests that the ultimate
technical potential for renewable resources could be as much as 8,529 quads/year

The resulting estimates offer rough estimates of the potential contributions from renewable resources, not economically or
market-feasible projections.

The text of the DRAFT paper reads as follows:

METHODOLOGY

Current Renewable Resource Use

Currently used renewable energy resources are drawn from a variety of sources. The current installed nameplate capacity total
is a summation of verified, functioning electric-generation facilities (REPIS 2005).
Delivered electricity is based on 2004 electricity production (EIA 2005a).
For all the renewable electric technologies except biomass, primary energy required to produce electricity is calculated based
on an average heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh for existing thermal power plants (EIA 2005b).
For biomass, a measured heat rate for power plants, 9,000 btu/kwh, is used (EIA 2005b). For those renewable energy forms
that also contribute to heat and fuels markets, total primary energy shown is larger than the thermal energy required to produce
only electricity (EIA 2005a).

NEAR-TERM PRACTICAL POTENTIAL

The amount of electricity potentially produced by renewables is shown as a percentage of the total projected U.S. generation in
2020: 5,085 billion kWh (EIA 2005b).

BIOMASS

Biomass is the only renewable energy form cited that can be used as either electricity or fuel. Because we cannot predict the
distribution of biomass use between electricity and fuel, we make two estimates. The first assumes 100 percent of biomass is
used for electricity, and the second assumes that 100 percent is use for fuel. The baseline amount of energy for these is the
same, because it is limited by physical availability of biomass. Perlack (2005) estimates 1.3 billion dry tons of biomass is
possible with the use of non-food cropland and forestland in the long run. To determine the near-term potential the mid-range
scenarios from Perlack (2005) to identify a near-term range of 593 million to 968 million dry tons. The biomass-to-energy
conversion used is an average of energy from biomass types of just more than 12 million btus per ton (NREL 2005c). This
range yielded a potential of between 8 and 13 quads of energy in the near term. To estimate the amount of electricity that can be
generated from the range, we assume a power plant heat rate of 9,000 Btu/kWh (EIA 2005b). The result is 17-28 percent of
total U.S.
electric generation. Biomass as a fuel potential is expressed as a percentage of projected 2020 petroleum demand: 26 million
barrels per day (EIA 2005b). Using 8-13 quads of available biomass energy, and a 49 percent fuel plant conversion efficiency,
biomass could contribute 9-14 percent of the national petroleum demand in 2020.

GEOTHERMAL

Because of technology limitations, only hydrothermal energy is considered in the short term. In 1979, the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that there were about 22 GW of discovered hydrothermal resources (USGS 1979). While
this estimate is dated, there has been no authoritative study of the potential since that time. Using a 95 percent capacity factor
(NREL 2005c), 22 GWs represents 2 quads of energy (or 4 percent of U.S. electric generation) in 2020.

HYDROELECTRIC

Full hydroelectric potential is 140 GW (Hall et al 2003), which would provide 9.4 percent of electric generation in 2020,
assuming today's national average capacity factor of 0.39 (NREL 2005c). Assuming a 10,000 Btu/kWh power plant heat rate
conversion, this is equal to about 5.0 quads of primary energy.

OCEAN

In the short term, the full potential of mechanical (wave, tidal, and
current) electrical generation is assumed. This resource is estimated to have a full potential of 30 GW installed nameplate
capacity. Assuming constant power and a power plant conversion heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh, this translates to 2.3 quads of
primary energy (or 4.5 percent of the electric generation) projected for 2020.

SOLAR

For the near-term technical photovoltaic potential, it is assumed that there will be no storage for solar energy, and no PV
generation will be wasted. This implies that none of the nighttime loads can be met by solar, and much of the load at dawn
cannot be met (if PV capacity were sufficient to meet such loads, PV output at midday would exceed loads, wasting energy).
These assumptions severely limit the impact of PV on the electric system. The PV impact would be even more limited if one
also took into account the many conventional fossil and nuclear plants that must run all the time. In this case, the PV capacity
would have to be even smaller to keep from wasting PV generation.

The near-term potential for concentrated solar power (CSP) is assumed to be the minimum of the projected in-state electrical
load and the actual CSP resources in that state. In all cases, the projected state electrical load is the minimum. Therefore, the
near-term CSP potential is the electric load of the state in which the CSP resource resides. In 2020, the projected load for states
for CSP potential is expected to be 12 percent of the total U.S. generation, creating an upper bound for CSP electrical
generation. Assuming a 10,000 Btu/kWh heat rate for power plants, the estimated primary energy to create this electricity is 6
quads/year.

WIND

The short-term wind potential is limited by grid reliability/stability concerns to be 20 percent of total generation and Parsons
(1993) estimate of between 4 percent and 50 percent]. Assuming a power plant heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh, the primary
energy equivalent is 10 quads.

ULTIMATE TECHNICAL POTENTIAL

Ultimate technical potential differs from the short-term potential by a set of general assumptions for each resource type and one
more general assumption. The general assumption is that the electricity grid can adjust to the diverse electricity fed into it by
adding storage, transmission, ancillary services, etc. Moreover, the ultimate assumptions do not limit the amount of renewable
electricity as a function of total projected electricity demand. As with the short-term assumptions, economic and market
constraints are not accounted for in this long-term technical potential.

BIOMASS

Biomass is the only renewable energy form cited that can be used as either electricity or fuel. Because we cannot predict the
distribution of biomass use between electricity and fuel, we make no assumption regarding the differences between the use of
biomass for electricity and biomass for fuel. The baseline amount of energy for these is the same, because it is limited by
physical availability of biomass. Perlack (2005) estimates 1.3 billion dry tons of biomass is possible with the use of non-food
cropland and forestland. The biomass-to-energy conversion used is an average of energy from biomass types of just more than
13 million btus per ton (NREL 2005c). The total energy potential for biomass is 17 quads. To estimate the amount of
electricity that can be generated from 17 quads, we assume a power plant heat rate of 9,000 BTU/kWh.

GEOTHERMAL

The hydrothermal estimate includes approximately 72-127 GW of as yet-undiscovered resource (USGS 1979). The enhanced
geothermal systems estimate is based on an estimate of 42 TW, which includes the entire potential heat source (Tester 1994).

HYDROELECTRIC

The ultimate potential is assumed to be the same as the near-term potential.

OCEAN

The ultimate potential estimate or ocean-based power expands the near-term potential to include power from ocean thermal
energy of 0.11 TW (Sands 1980). The primary energy required for electricity generation, assuming a heat rate of 10,000
Btu/kWh, is 9 quads.

SOLAR

Unlike the near-term potential, the ultimate potentials for both PV and CSP are not assumed to be constrained by grid
limitations, e.g., storage is assumed, transmission is assumed available, etc. For PV, the total resource potential (NREL 2003b)
was restricted by excluding federal and sensitive lands, assuming only 30 percent of land area can be covered with PV, allowing
only slopes that are less than 5 degrees, and requiring a minimum resources of 6 kwh/m2/day. This results in an ultimate
technical potential of about 219 TW or 4,200 quads/year for PV systems, assuming a
22 percent capacity factor.

The CSP resource is restricted to areas with resource potential -- the southwestern United States. The potential reduces that
amount of land that can be used for CSP by federal and sensitive lands, land with a slope greater than a 5 percent gradient,
major urban areas and features, and parcels less than 5 km2 in area. The remaining area determined the technical potential for
CSP, assuming 50 MW/km2 (Price et al 2003).

WIND

The ultimate wind potential is not limited to 20 percent for intermittency and grid stability reasons, as battery storage is
assumed. Instead, wind potential is limited by appropriate land selection (exclusions for federal land, etc.) and technical
feasibility. For onshore wind potential, using estimated future capacity factors (NREL 2005b), and assuming complete use of
Class 3 winds and better, the result is 324 quads of primary energy from wind. For offshore wind, Class 5 and better with a
distance between
5 and 200 nautical miles (nm) were assumed. Between 5-20 nautical miles, only one-third of wind energy in Class 5 and better
is captured, between 20 and 50 nautical miles, two-thirds; and between 50 and 200 nautical miles, the entirety. Assuming future
capacity factors, the potential for offshore wind primary energy is found to be 272 quads.

REFERENCES, DATA SOURCES, BACKGROUND MATERIAL

EIA 2005a - U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
Annual Energy Review 2004. DOE/EIA 0384-2004, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy

EIA 2005b - Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2005 with projections for 2025. Washington DC: U.S. Department of
Energy

EPRI/DOE. 1997. Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations, TR-109496. Washington, D.C.: DOE

Hagerman, G., R. Bedard. 26-June-2005. "Ocean Kinetic Energy Resources in the United States and Canada." EnergyOceans
2005, Washington, D.C.

Hall, D., R. Hunt, K. Reeves, G. Carroll. 2003. Estimation of Economic Parameters of U.S. Hydropower Resources. Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

Land and Water Fund of the Rockies. 2002. Renewable Energy Atlas of the West. The Hewlett Foundation and The Energy
Foundation. Page 10. http://energyatlas.org.

Morse, F. 2004. Presentations: The Concentrating Solar Power Global Market Initiative (GMI) as a Result of Research and
Development. Presented at the Renewables 2004 Conference.

NREL 2003a - National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands. 95 pp.;
NREL Report No. TP-550-33530; DOE/GO-102003-1704. Golden, CO: NREL

NREL 2003b - National Solar Photovoltaics (PV) Data. U.S. Data http://www.nrel.gov/gis/index_of_gis.html

NREL 2005a - Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on National Forest Systems Lands. 123 pp; NREL Report No.
BK-71036759. Golden, CO: NREL

NREL 2005b - Potential Benefits of Federal energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs: FY 2006 Budget Request
NREL-TP 620-37931. Golden, CO: NREL

NREL 2005c - Power Technologies Energy Data Book. Golden, CO: NREL. URL:
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook

Perlack, R., Wright, L., Tuhollow, A., Graham, R., Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The
Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply, April 2005

Price, H.; Stafford, B.; Heimiller, D; Dahle, D. 2003. California Solar Power Detailed Technical Report for Southern California
Edison. 95 pp.; NREL Report No. MP-710-35284

REPIS 2005 - Renewable Electric Plant Information System: http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/repis/

Sands, D. 1980. "Ocean thermal energy conversion programmatic environmental assessment." Proceedings of the 7th Ocean
Energy Conference, Volume 1, Paper 4.1., Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Publication No. Conf-800633-Vol 1.

Tester, J.W., H.J. Herzog, Z. Chen, R.M. Potter, and M.G. Frank. 1994.
Prospects for Universal Geothermal Energy from Heat Mining. Science & Global Security. Volume 5, pp.99-121

Thresher, R. (NREL). 2005. E-mail communication to Elizabeth Brown. October 14, 2005

TroughNet. 2005. TroughtNet CSP Projects Deployed Web page. http://www.eere.energy.gov/troughnet/deployed.html

USGS (United States Geological Survey) 1979, "Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the United States - 1978". Geological
Survey Circular 790, Edited by L.J.P. Muffler, United States Department of the Interior.

Wan Y. and Parsons, B. 1993. "Factors Relevant to Utility Integration of Intermittent Renewable Technologies." NREL/TP-
463-4953. National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO. Page 49

# # # # # # #

The DRAFT document had earlier been available for inspection at:
<http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_potential/pdfs/tech_potential_table.pdf>
but now appears to have been withdrawn. Comments on the draft had been requested to be sent to Elizabeth Brown in NREL's
Energy Analysis Office at [e-mail]; 303-384-7489.

###
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute is a non-profit organization established in 1984 by a bipartisan,
bicameral group of members of Congress to provide timely information on energy and environmental policy issues to
policymakers and stakeholders and develop innovative policy solutions that set us on a cleaner, more secure and
sustainable energy path.

[TheWraith]

7. In other words, it's possible as long as we ignore the manufacturing and deployment issue.

Not to sound snarky, but they've bypassed the most important part. It's never been a question of whether the energy is out there to be gained, it's HOW to do that. This is a reasonably rational dissection on some counts, but lacking on others. For starters, it's a mistake to rely on as-yet undiscovered resources (geothermal) or unrefined techniques. If you have a full breakdown on how to do it, I'm happy to listen, but the fact is we haven't yet got a good handle on how to use things like tidal power.

Second, as I said, production and deployment are the biggest issues. A certain amount of deployment can be gotten around by using off-shore wind. However, this assessment assumes battery storage for wind. That's pretty expensive once you go beyond small quantities. I haven't run the exact numbers but I'm pretty sure it would be more cost-effective (as well as more prudent long-term) to overbuild generation capacity, thus eliminating the problem of downtime, off-peak time, or grid instability.

It all comes back to manufacturing, though. We need to minimize the amount of stuff that we need to build. We can't build 50,000 square miles of solar cells, and we can't deploy 600,000 1.5 meg wind turbines.

[kristopher]

8. You say "we can't" but many many other say "We can!"

The only reason given on your part, "We need to minimize the amount of stuff that we need to build."

I demonstrated in another post that the roof area of homes (doesn't include commercial or industrial buildings) in the US is double the amount of area we would need for solar alone to completely replace coal. Another comparison could be roads. There are about 4,000,000 miles of roads in the US. If you'd asked anyone in 1930 if either the current roof area or number of roads were possible, they would probably have answered that it was an absurd proposition.

They would have been wrong then, just as you are wrong now.

You might also want to look at manufacturing during WWII as a guide to what is possible.
http://www.taphilo.com/history/WWII/Production-Figures-WWII.shtml

This paper is very limited, and looks to be intended only to give a basic assessment that breaks out what is possible in the short term versus the total potential. To criticize it for not being a 500 page dissertation on the full range of technologies with a full rundown of the weaknesses and strengths of each says much more about you than it does the paper.

[Dead_Parrot]

9. The first version made more sense.

Let's see what we have here:

BIOMASS
... 1.3 billion dry tons of biomass is possible with the use of non-food cropland and forestland...

Ahh, yes. Who hasn't dreamed of an ecotopia where we grind up the world's forests to put in our gastanks? Truly, a renewable paradise.

GEOTHERMAL
The hydrothermal estimate includes approximately 72-127 GW of as yet-undiscovered resource (USGS 1979). The enhanced geothermal systems estimate is based on an estimate of 42 TW, which includes the entire potential heat source (Tester 1994).

Hell yeah! Let's just pull a number out of our butts for stuff we haven't found yet, increase it by 3 orders of magnitude, and look! the numbers fit! What could possibly go wrong?

HYDROELECTRIC
The ultimate potential is assumed to be the same as the near-term potential.

Oddly, this is one area where I'm pretty sure we could do a lot better, but whatever.

OCEAN
The ultimate potential estimate or ocean-based power expands the near-term potential to include power from ocean thermal
energy of 0.11 TW (Sands 1980). The primary energy required for electricity generation, assuming a heat rate of 10,000
Btu/kWh, is 9 quads.

Gosh, nearly a whole 1%. (Anyone know why they list the primary energy rather than the produced energy? Anyone know the difference? Anyone care? Anyone? Bueller?)

Next?

SOLAR
Ahh, here we go.

...not assumed to be constrained by grid limitations, e.g., storage is assumed, transmission is assumed available, etc.

Umm, why not? Not to split hairs here, but isn't that kind of the whole fucking point? We could just as easily say: "ZPE is assumed available, etc", "People learning to photosynthesize with their skin are assumed, etc" or "Magic energy mushrooms given by aliens from Zeta Reticuli are assumed available, etc".

"Assuming all the problems have been solved, there will be no problems" is not a sound basis for an energy policy.

...this results in an ultimate technical potential of about 219 TW

Paid for by flying leprechauns, assuming they are available.

WIND
The ultimate wind potential is not limited to 20 percent for intermittency and grid stability reasons, as future generations learning to photosynthesize with their skin are assumed, etc. Instead, wind potential is limited by appropriate land selection (exclusions for federal land, etc: Thank god we pulped all the forests for gas, it makes things a whole lot easier) and technical feasibility. For onshore wind potential, using a number we pulled out of our butts, and assuming ZPE is available, etc, the result is 324 quads of primary energy from wind, but we're not going to tell you how much PRODUCED energy that equates to because you wouldn't understand the fucking difference anyway. For offshore wind, Class 5 and better with a distance between 5 and 200 nautical miles (nm) were assumed, because although it would be nice to actually check the flying leprechaun I send out to take the measurements hasn't come back yet, etc. Between 5-20 nautical miles, only one-third of wind energy in Class 5 and better is captured, between 20 and 50 nautical miles, two-thirds; and between 50 and 200 nautical miles, the entirety. Assuming aliens from Zeta Reticuli give us magic energy mushrooms, etc, the potential for offshore wind primary energy is found to be 272 quads.

Fuck yeah.

[XemaSab]

10. And the entire history of the E/E forum is succinctly recounted...

:P

[kristopher]

12. My what an intelligent critique...

Whenever the nukenuts are confronted with the FACT that their claim to being the sole technology capable of meeting our energy needs is totally without merit, we see this type of puerile idiocy emerge...

Just as an example, and using your quoted portion, I pulled up the papers of the first reference cited; it's the one they are getting the geothermal information from. Here is his list of publications:
(edited to add link) http://web.mit.edu/tester/publications.html

Scientific Papers

1. Tester, J.W., "Condensation Nuclei Counts on the Slopes of Little Whiteface Mountain in New York State," Pure and Applied Geophysics, 57, 181–188 (1964).

2. Tester, J.W., R.C. Feber and C.C. Herrick, "Calorimetric Study of Liquid Gold," J. Chem. Eng. Data, 13 (3), 419–421 (1968).

3. Tester, J.W. and H.F. Wiegandt, "The Fluid Hydrates of Methylene Chloride and Chloroform: Their Phase Equilibria and Behavior as Influenced by Hexane," AIChE J., 15, 239–244 (1969).

4. Tester, J.W., G. Margolis, R.C. Reid and G. Botsaris et al., "Crystallization, Parts I, II, and III," Ind. Eng. Chem., 61, (10,11,12) 86, 92 and 65 (1969).

5. Tester, J.W., G. Margolis, R.C. Reid and G. Botsaris et al., "Crystallization, Parts I and II," Ind. Eng. Chem., 62, (11 and 12), 52 and 148 (1970).

6. Tester, J.W., R.C. Reid and G.A. Wolff, "On the Growth of Arsenic Single Crystals from a Thallium Solution," Materials Res. Bull., 6, 1265 (1971).

7. Tester, J.W. and C.C. Herrick, "The Use of Laser Reflections to Characterize Surface Morphology Changes," Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA–45698 (July, 1971).

8. Meissner, H.P. and J.W. Tester, "Activity Coefficients of Strong Electrolytes in Aqueous Solutions," Ind. Eng. Chem., Proc. Des. Dev., 11, 128 (1972).

9. Tester, J.W., R.C. Reid and C.C. Herrick, "Laser Reflection as a Technique for the Study of Dynamic Changes in Surface Morphology," Rev. Sci. Inst., 43, 530 (1972).

10. Meissner, H.P., C.L. Kusik and J.W. Tester, "Activity Coefficients of Strong Electrolytes in Aqueous Solutions–Effect of Temperature," AIChE J., 18, 661 (1972)

11. Tester, J.W., R.L. Bivins and C.C. Herrick, "Use of Monte Carlo in Calculating the Thermodynamic Properties of Water Clathrates," AIChE J., 18, 1220 (1972).

12. Tester, J.W., R.C. Reid and C.C. Herrick, "Experimental and Computer Simulated Studies of Evaporating Arsenic Single Crystals," J. Appl. Physics, 44 (5), 1968 (1973).

13. Tester, J.W., C.C. Herrick and R.C. Feber, "Heat Transfer and Chemical Stability Calculations for Fusion Reactor First Wall Materials," Los Alamos National Laboratory report, LA–5328–MS (July, 1973).

14. Tester, J.W., C.C. Herrick and W.P. Ellis, "Ordered Step Arrays on Evaporated As (0001) Vicinal Surfaces," Surface Sci., 41, 619 (1974).

15. Tester, J.W., Proceedings of the NATO–CCMS Information Meeting on Dry Hot Rock Geothermal Energy, Los Alamos National Laboratory report, LA–5818–C (December, 1974).

16. Tester, J.W., “The MIT Interns,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review, 7(3), 1–7 (1974).

17. Tester, J.W. and H.S. Isaacs, "Diffusional Effects in Simulated Localized Corrosion," J. of the Electrochem. Society, 112 (11), 1438 (1975).

18. Tester, J.W. and C.C. Herrick, "Heat Transfer Model for Composite First Wall Materials for Pulsed High–Beta Controlled Thermonuclear Reactors," Los Alamos National Laboratory report, LA–5832–MS (January, 1975).

19. Tester, J.W. and S.L. Milora, "Geothermal Energy," Proceedings of the Symposium of Energy Sources for the Future, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, CONF–750733, U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration (July, 1975).

20. Tester, J.W. and S.L. Milora, "Geothermal Energy for Electric and Non–Electric Applications," Proceedings of the 16th Annual ASME Symposium on Energy Alternatives, Albuquerque, New Mexico (February, 1976).

21. Tester, J.W., "Geothermal Energy for Power Generation," Proceedings of the 1976 Region Six (Western USA) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers conference on Energy for the Future, Tucson, Arizona (April, 1976).

22. Tester, J.W. and S.L. Milora, "Optimization of Non–Aqueous Geothermal Power Cycle Performance," Proceedings of the 81st National Meeting of AIChE, Kansas City, Missouri (April, 1976).

23. Tester, J.W., "Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy Systems," Proceedings of the 81st National Meeting AIChE, Kansas City, Missouri (April, 1976).

24. Tester, J.W., C.E. Holley and L.A. Blatz, "Solution Chemistry and Scaling in Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Systems," Proceedings of the 83rd National Meeting of AIChE, Houston, Texas (March, 1977).

25. Holley, C.E., L.A. Blatz, J.W. Tester and C.O. Grigsby, "The Interactions of Granite with Aqueous Sodium Carbonate," Transactions of Geothermal Resources Council, Vol. 1 (May, 1977). (Extended abstract only).

26. Murphy, H.D., R.G. Lawton and J.W. Tester, et al., "Preliminary Assessment of a Geothermal Energy Reservoir Formed by Hydraulic Fracturing," SPE Journal, 17 (4), 317 (1977).

27. Tester, J.W. and M.C. Smith, "Energy Extraction Characteristics of Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Systems," Proceedings of the 12th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, Washington, D.C., 1, 816 (1977).

28. Sibbitt, W.L., J.G. Dodson, and J.W. Tester, "Thermal Conductivity of Crystalline Rocks Associated with Energy Extraction From Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Systems," in Thermal Conductivity, 15, V.V. Mirkovich (Ed.) Plenum Press, N.Y., 1978 and J. Geophysical Res., 84 (B3), 1117–1124 (1979).

29. Tester, J.W., "Simulation and Optimization of Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy Conversion Systems: Process Conditions and Economics," Proceedings of International Symposium on Systems Optimization and Analysis, Paris, France (December 11–15, 1978).

30. Murphy, H.D., J.W. Tester, C.O. Grigsby and J.N. Albright, "Evaluation of the Fenton Hill Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Reservoir: Part I – Heat Extraction Performance and Modeling: Part II – Flow Characteristics and Geochemistry; Part III – Reservoir Characterization Using Acoustic Techniques," Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California (December, 1978).

31. Cummings, R.G., G.E. Morris, J.W. Tester and R.L. Bivins, "Mining Earth's Heat: Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy," Technology Review, 81 (4), 58–78 (1979).

32. Tester, J.W., C. Morris, R.G. Cummings and R. Bivins, "Electricity from Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy: Technical and Economic Issues," Los Alamos National Laboratory report, LA–7603–MS (January, 1979).

33. Olander, R.G., K.E. Nichols and J.W. Tester, "Utilization of Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy: Power Plant Design Considerations," Proceedings of 3rd National Congress of the ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Division, San Francisco, California, LA–UR–70–1615 (June, 1979).

34. Tester, J.W., R.M. Potter and R.L. Bivins, "Interwell Tracer Analysis of a Hydraulically Fractured Granitic Geothermal Reservoir," Paper SPE 8270, Proceedings of SPE AIME 54th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada (1979).

35. Tester, J.W. and J.N. Albright, eds., "Hot Dry Rock Energy Extraction Field Test: 75 Days of Operation of a Prototype Reservoir at Fenton Hill Segment 2 of Phase 1," Los Alamos National Laboratory report, LA–7771–MS (April, 1979).

36. Tester, J.W., "Issues Facing the Development of Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Resources," Proceedings of Third Annual EPRI Geothermal Conference, Monterey, California, LA–UR–79–1545 (June, 1979).

37. Fisher, H.N. and J.W. Tester, "An Analysis of the Pressure Transient Testing of Man–Made Fractured Geothermal Reservoir," Los Alamos National Laboratory Report, LA–UR–79–3114, Proceedings of the 5th Annual Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, (December, 1979).

38. Charles, R.W., C.E. Holley, J.W. Tester, C.O. Grigsby and L.A. Blatz, "Experimentally Determined Rock–Fluid Interactions Applicable to a Natural Hot Dry Rock Geothermal System," Trans. Metallurgical Society of AIME, TMS paper A80–8, Las Vegas, Nevada (February 24–28, 1980).

39. Graves, G.A., G.E. Morris and J.W. Tester, "Economics of Geothermal Energy," in Technical Assessment of Nuclear Power and Its Alternatives, ANS Topical Meeting, Los Angeles, California (February 27–29, 1980).

40. Tester, J.W. and H.D. Murphy, et al., "Preliminary Evaluation of the Second Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy Reservoir: Results of Phase 1, Run Segment 4," Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA–8354–MS, (May, 1980).

41. Holley, C.E., G.O. Grigsby, L.A. Blatz, J.W. Tester and R.W. Charles, "Interaction of Water with Crystalline Basement Rock in Fracture Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Reservoirs: Tests and Laboratory Experiments," Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Water–Rock Interactions, Edmonton, Canada (July 14–24, 1980).

42. Fisher, H.N. and J.W. Tester, "Pressure Transient Testing of a Man–Made Fractured Geothermal Reservoir: Fractured Versus Matrix–Dominated Flow Effects," Los Alamos National Laboratory report, LA–8535–MS (September, 1980).

43. Murphy, H.D., J.W. Tester, C.O. Grigsby and R.M. Potter, "Extracting Energy from Fractured Geothermal Reservoirs in Low–Permeability Crystalline Rock," J. Geophysical Res., 86 (B8), 7145–4158 (1981).

44. Tester, J.W., "Chemical Engineering Internships at MIT," Proceedings of the Learning for Life Symposium, American Chemical Society (August, 1981).

45. Aki, K., M. Fehler, J.W. Tester, et al., "Interpretation of Seismic Data from Hydraulic Fracturing Experiments at the Fenton Hill, New Mexico Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Site," J. Geophysical Res., 87 (B2), 936–944 (1982).

46. Tester, J.W., R.L. Bivins and R.M. Potter, "Interwell Tracer Analyses of a Hydraulically Fractured Geothermal Reservoir," SPE Journal, 22, 537–554 (1982).

47. Dash, Z., J.W. Tester, et al., "Hot Dry Rock Reservoir Testing: 1978 to 1980," J. of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 15, 59–99 (1983).

48. Grigsby, C.O., J.W. Tester, et al., "Rock–Water Interactions in Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Systems," J. of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 15, 101–136 (1983).

49. Murphy, H., J.W. Tester, R. Drake and G. Zyvoloski, "Economics of a 75–MW(e) Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Power Plant Based Upon the Design of the Phase I Reservoir at Fenton Hill," Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA–90241–MS (February, 1983).

50. Robinson, B.A. and J.W. Tester, "Dispersed Fluid Flow in Fractured Reservoirs: An Analysis of Tracer–Determined Residence Time Distributions," J.Geophysical Res., 89 (B12), 10374–10384 (1984).

51. Murphy, H., R. Drake, J.W. Tester and G. Zyvoloski, "Economics of a Conceptual 75 MW Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Electric Power Station," Geothermics, 14 (2/3), 459–474 (1985).

52. Rauenzahn, R.M. and J.W. Tester, "Flame–jet Induced Thermal Spallation as a Method of Rapid Drilling and Cavity Formation," Paper SPE 14331, Proceedings of the 60th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada (September 22–25, 1985).

53. Robinson, B.A. and J.W. Tester, "Characterization of Flow Maldistribution Using Inlet–Outlet Tracer Techniques: An Application of Internal Residence Time Distributions," Chem. Eng. Sci., 41 (3), 469–483 (1986).

54. Tester, J.W., B.A. Robinson and J.H. Ferguson, "Inert and Reacting Tracers for Reservoir Sizing in Fractured, Hot Dry Rock Systems," Proceedings of the 11th Annual Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California (January, 1986).

55. Gaudet, G.T., W.T. Mo., H.S. Isaacs, T.A. Hatton, J.W. Tester, R. Newman and J. Tilly, "Mass Transfer and Electrochemical Kinetic Interactions in Localized Pitting Corrosion," AIChE J., 32 (6), 949–958 (1986).

56. Tester, J.W., B.A. Robinson and J.H. Ferguson, "The Theory and Selection of Chemically Reactive Tracers for Reservoir Thermal Capacity Prediction," Proceedings of the 12th Annual Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California (January, 1987).

57. Helling, R.K. and J.W. Tester, "Oxidation Kinetics of Carbon Monoxide in Supercritical Water," Energy and Fuels, 1 (5), 417–423 (1987).

58. Tester, J.W. (with co–authors), Geothermal Energy Technology: Issues, R&D Needs, and Cooperative Arrangements, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (1987).

59. Helling, R.K. and J.W. Tester, "Oxidation of Simple Compounds and Mixtures in Supercritical Water, Carbon Monoxide, Ammonia, and Ethanol," Environ. Sci. Tech., 22 (11), 1319–1324 (1988).

60. Robinson, B.A., J.W. Tester and L.F. Brown, "Reservoir Sizing Using Inert and Chemically Reacting Tracers," SPE Formation Evaluation, 2, 227–234 (1988).

61. Tester, J.W., "Potential of Geothermal Energy," Proceedings of the 2nd North American Conference on Preparing for Climate Change: A Cooperative Approach, Washington, DC (December, 1988).

62. Tester, J.W. and P.A. Webley, "Fundamental Kinetics and Mechanistic Pathways for Oxidation Reactions in Supercritical Water," Proceedings of the 18th Intersociety Conference on Environmental Systems, SAE/ICES San Francisco, CA (July 11–13, 1988).

63. Rauenzahn, R.M. and J.W. Tester, "Rock Failure Mechanisms of Flame–Jet Thermal Spallation Drilling: Theory and Experimental Testing," Int. J. Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, 26 (5), 381–399 (1989).

64. Tester, J.W., H.D. Murphy, C.O. Grigsby, R M. Potter and B.A. Robinson, "Fractured Geothermal Reservoir Growth Induced by Heat Extraction," SPE Journal Reservoir Engineering, 3, 97–104 (1989).

65. Webley, P.A. and J.W. Tester, "Fundamental Kinetics of Oxidation in Supercritical Water," in Supercritical Fluid Science and Technology, ACS Symposium Series #406, K.P. Johnston and J.M.L. Penninger, eds., American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. (1989).

66. Grigsby, C.O., J.W. Tester, P.E. Trujillo and D.A. Counce, "Rock–Water Interactions in the Fenton Hill, NM Hot Dry Rock Geothermal System: 1. Fluid Mixing and Chemical Geothermometry," Geothermics, 18 (5/6), 629–656 (1989).

67. Grigsby, C.O. and J.W. Tester, "Rock–water Interactions in the Fenton Hill, NM Hot Dry Rock Geothermal System: 2. Modeling Geochemical Behavior," Geothermics, 18 (5/6), 657–676 (1989).

68. Tester, J.W., D.W. Brown and R.M. Potter, "Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Energy A New Energy Agenda for the 21st Century," Los Alamos National Laboratory report, LA–11514–MS (July, 1989).

69. Golomb, D., H.J. Herzog, J.W. Tester, D. White and S. Zemba, "Feasibility, Modeling and Economics of Sequestering Power Plant CO2 Emissions in the Deep Ocean," MIT Energy Laboratory report, MIT–EL 89–003 (1989).

70. Tester, J.W. and H.J. Herzog, "Economic Predictions for Heat Mining: A Review and Analysis of Hot Dry Rock (HDR) Geothermal Energy Technology," MIT Energy Laboratory report MIT–EL 90–001 (July 1990).

71. Robinson, B.A. and J.W. Tester, "Kinetics of Alkaline Hydrolysis of Organic Esters and Amides in Neutrally–Buffered Solutions," J. Chemical Kinetics, 22 (5), 431–448 (1990).

72. Webley, P.A., H.R. Holgate, D.M. Stevenson and J.W. Tester, "Oxidation Kinetics of Model Compounds of Human Metabolic Waste in Supercritical Water," Proceedings of the 20th Annual Intersociety Conference on Environmental Systems, SAE/ICES, Williamsburg, VA (July 9–12, 1990).

73. Armellini, F.J. and J.W. Tester, "Salt Separation During Supercritical Water Oxidation of Human Metabolic Waste: Fundamental Studies of Salt Nucleation and Growth," Proceedings of the 20th Intersociety Conference on Environmental Systems, SAE/ICES, Williamsburg, VA (July 9–12, 1990).

74. Rauenzahn, R.M. and J.W. Tester, "Numerical Simulation and Field Testing of Flame–Jet Thermal Spallation Drilling – Part I – Model Development," Int. J. Heat and Mass Transfer, 34 (3), 795–808 (1991).

75. Gray, P.E., J.W. Tester and D.O. Wood, "Energy Technology: Problems and Solutions" in Energy and the Environment in the 21st Century, eds., J.W. Tester, N.A. Ferrari, and D.O. Wood, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1991).

76. Rauenzahn, R.M. and J.W. Tester, "Numerical Simulation and Field Testing of Flame–Jet Thermal Spallation Drilling – Part II – Experimental Verification," Int. J. Heat and Mass Transfer, 34 (3), 809–818 (1991).

77. Webley, P.A. and J.W. Tester, "Fundamental Kinetics of Methane Oxidation in Supercritical Water," Energy and Fuels, 5, 411–419 (1991).

78. Webley, P.A., J.W. Tester and H.R. Holgate, "Oxidation Kinetics of Ammonia and Ammonia–Methanol Mixtures in Supercritical Water in the Temperature Range 530–700oC at 246 bar," Ind. Chem. Res., 30 (8), 1745–1754 (1991).

79. Armellini, F.J. and J.W. Tester, "Experimental Methods for Studying Salt Nucleation and Growth from Supercritical Water," J. of Supercritical Fluids, 4, 254–264 (1991).

80. Tester, J.W. and H.J. Herzog, "The Economics of Heat Mining: An Analysis of Design Options and Performance Requirements of Hot Dry Rock (HDR) Geothermal Power Systems," Energy Systems and Policy, 15, 33–63 (1991).

81. Herzog, H.J., E.M. Drake and J.W. Tester, "Current Status and Future Directions of Sequestering Power Plant CO2," Proceedings of the 1992 AIChE Summer Meeting, Minneapolis, MN (August 1992).

82. Herzog, H.J., E.M. Drake and J.W. Tester, "Current Status and Future Directions of Sequestering Power Plant CO2," Proceedings of the 1992 AIChE Summer Meeting, Minneapolis, MN (August 1992).

83. Holgate, H.R., P.A. Webley, J.W. Tester and R.K. Helling, "Carbon Monoxide Oxidation in Supercritical Water: The Effects of Heat Transfer and the Water–Gas Shift Reaction on Observed Kinetics,” Energy and Fuels, 6, 586–597 (1992).

84. Sparks, K.A. and J.W. Tester, "Intermolecular Potential Energy of Water Clathrates: The Inadequacy of the Nearest Neighbor Approximation," J. of Physical Chemistry, 96, 11022–11029 (1992).

85. Holgate, H.R. and J.W. Tester, "Fundamental Kinetics and Mechanisms of Hydrogen Oxidation in Supercritical Water," Combustion Science and Technology, 88, 369–397 (1993).

86. Wilkinson, M.A. and J.W. Tester, "Experimental Measurement of Surface Temperatures During Flame–Jet Induced Thermal Spallation," Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 26 (1), 29–62 (1993).

87. Wilkinson, M.A. and J.W. Tester, "Computational Modeling of the Gas–Phase Transport Phenomena During Flame–Jet Thermal Spallation Drilling," Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 36 (14), 3459–3475 (1993).

88. Tester, J.W., P.A. Webley and H.R. Holgate, "Revised Global Kinetic Measurements of Methanol Oxidation in Supercritical Water," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 32 (1), 236–239 (1993).

89. Tester, J.W., H.R. Holgate, F.J. Armellini, P.A. Webley, W.R. Killilea, G.T. Hong and H.E. Barner, "Supercritical Water Oxidation Technology: A Review of Process Development and Fundamental Research," in Emerging Technologies in Hazardous Waste Management III, D. Tedder and F.G. Pohland (eds.), ACS Symposium Series #518, Chapter 3, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC (1993).

90. Armellini, F.J. and J.W. Tester, "Solubility of Sodium Chloride and Sulfate in Sub– and Supercritical Water Vapor from 450 to 550oC and 100 to 250 bar," Fluid Phase Equilibria, 84, 123–142 (1993).

91. Haulbrook, W.R., J.L. Feerer, T.A. Hatton and J.W. Tester, "Enhanced Solubilization of Aromatic Solutes in Aqueous Solutions of N–Vinylpyrrolidone/Styrene," Environmental Science and Technology, 27 (13), 2783–2788 (1993).

92. Holgate, H.R. and J.W. Tester, "Oxidation of Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide in Sub– and Supercritical Water: Reaction Kinetics, Pathways, and Water–Density Effects. 1. Experimental Results," J. Physical Chemistry, 98 (3), 800–809 (1994).

93. Holgate, H.R. and J.W. Tester, "Oxidation of Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide in Sub– and Supercritical Water: Reaction Kinetics, Pathways, and Water–Density Effects. 2. Elementary Reaction Modeling," J. Physical Chemistry, 98 (3), 810–822 (1994).

94. Sparks, K.A. and J.W. Tester, "Statistical Mechanics of Water Clathrate Compounds: A Review and Evaluation of the Van der Waals and Platteeuw Model," MIT Energy Laboratory report, MIT–EL 93–002 (1993).

95. Herzog, H.J., E.M. Drake and J.W. Tester, "A Research Needs Assessment for the Capture, Utilization and Disposal of Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Fuel–Fired Power Plants," U.S. Department of Energy report DOE/ER–30194 (2 volumes), 293 pages, Washington, D.C. (1993).

96. Marrone, P.A., R.P. Lachance, J.L. DiNaro, B.D. Phenix, J.C. Meyer, J.W. Tester, W.A. Peters and K.C. Swallow, “Methylene Chloride Oxidation in Hydrolysis in Supercritical Water," presented at the Supercritical Fluid Science and Technology Symposium at the AIChE Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, November 13–18, 1994 and reprinted from ACS Symposium Series No. 608 Innovations in Supercritical Fluids: Science and Technology (1995).

97. Kutney, M.C., V.S. Dodd, K.A. Smith, H.J. Herzog and J.W. Tester, "A Hard–Sphere Volume–Translated Van der Waals Equation of State for Supercritical Process Modeling: Part 1. Pure Components," Fluid Phase Equilibria, 128, 149–171, (1997).

98. Armellini, F. J., G. T. Hong and J. W. Tester, "Precipitation of Sodium Chloride and Sodium Sulfate in Water from Sub– to Supercritical Conditions: 150o to 550o, 100 to 300 bar," J. Supercritical Fluids, 7, 147–158 (1994).

99. Holgate, H. R., J. C. Meyer and J. W. Tester, "Glucose Hydrolysis and Oxidation in Supercritical Water," AIChE J., 41 (3), 637–647 (1995).

100. Kutney, M. C., V. S. Dodd, K. A. Smith, H. J. Herzog and J. W. Tester, "Equations of State for Supercritical Process Modeling," MIT Energy Laboratory report, MIT–EL 94–003 (1994) .

101. Tester, J. W., W. G. Worley, B. A. Robinson, C. O. Grigsby and J. L. Feerer, "Correlating Quartz Dissolution Kinetics in Pure Water from 25 to 625oC," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 58 (11), 2407–2420 (1994).

102. Meyer, J. C., P. A. Marrone, and J. W. Tester, "Acetic Acid Oxidation and Hydrolysis in Supercritical Water,” AIChEJ., 41 (9), 2108–2121 (1995).

103. Tester, J. W., H. J. Herzog, Z. Chen, R. M. Potter and M. G. Frank, "Prospects for Universal Geothermal Energy from Heat Mining," Science & Global Security, 5, 99–121 (1994).

104. Holeschovsky, U. B., G. T. Martin and J. W. Tester, "A Transient Spherical Source Method to Determine Thermal Conductivities of Liquids and Gels," Int. J. Heat and Mass Transfer, 39 (6), 1135–1140 (1996).

105. Hong, G. T., F. J. Armellini and J. W. Tester, "The NaCl–Na2SO4–H20 System in Supercritical Water Oxidation," in Physical Chemistry of Aqueous Systems – Meeting the Needs of Industry, Proceedings of the 12th ICPWS, edited by H. J. White, J. V. Sengers, D. B. Neumann, and J. C. Beilous, Begell House, New York, NY (1995).

106. Kuo, Weng–Sheng, M. J. Driscoll and J. W. Tester, “Re–evaluation of the deep–drill hole concept for disposing of high–level nuclear wastes,” Nucl. Sci. J., 32, 229–248 (1995).

107. Holeschovsky, U. B., J. W. Tester and W. M. Deen, “Flooded Flow Fuel Cells: A Different Approach to Fuel Cell Design,” J. Power Sources, 63, 63–69, (1996).

108. Phenix B., J. DiNaro, J. B. Howard, M. A. Tatang, J. W. Tester, J. B. Howard and G. J. McRae, "Incorporation of Parametric Uncertainty into Complex Kinetic Mechanisms: Application to Hydrogen Oxidation in Supercritical Water,” Combust. Flame, 112, 132–146 (1998).

109. Herzog, H. J., J. W. Tester and M. G. Frank, "Economic Analysis of Heat Mining," Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress, Florence, Italy (1995) and published in Energ. Source., 19, 19–33 (1997).

110. Worley, G. W. and J. W. Tester, "Dissolution Kinetics of Quartz and Granite in Acidic and Basic Salt Solutions," Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress, Florence, Italy (1995).

111. Tester, J. W., R. M. Potter, J. E. Mock, C. Peterson, H. Herzog and J. North, "Advanced Drilling and Its Impact on Heat Mining,” Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress, Florence, Italy (1995).

112. Worley, W. G., J. W. Tester and C. O. Grigsby, “Quartz Dissolution Kinetics from 100EC–200EC as a Function of pH and Ionic Strength,” AIChE J., 42 (12), 3442–3457, (1996).

113. Smith, K. A., P. Griffith, J. G. Harris, H. J. Herzog, J. B. Howard, R. Latanision, W. A. Peters and J. W. Tester, “Supercritical Water Oxidation: Principles and Prospects,” IWC–95–49, Proceedings of the International Water Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, (October, 1995).

114. Weinstein, R. D., A. R. Renslo, R. L. Danheiser, J. G. Harris and J. W. Tester, “Kinetic Correlation of Diels–Alder Reactions in Supercritical Carbon Dioxide,” J. of Phys. Chem., 100 (30), 12337–12341 (1996).

115. Tester, J. W., H. J. Herzog, C. Peterson and R. M. Potter, “The Impacts of Reservoir Performance and Drilling Costs on the Commercial Feasibility of Geothermal Energy Production,” Geothermal Resources Council, 3 (26), 79–81, (1997).

116. Renslo, A. R., R. D. Weinstein, J. W. Tester and R. L. Danheiser, “Concerning the Regiochemical Course of the Diels–Alder Reaction in Supercritical Carbon Dioxide,” J. Org. Chem., 62, 4530–4533, (1997).

117. Tester, J. W., P. A. Marrone, M. M. DiPippo, K. Sako, M. T. Reagan, T. Arias and W. A. Peters, “Chemical Reactions and Phase Equilibria of Model Halocarbons and Salts in Sub– and Supercritical Water (200 to 300 bar, 100 to 600oC),” Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on Supercritical Fluids, Sendai, Japan (May 12–15, 1997) and published in J. Supercrit. Fluid., 13, 225–240 (1998).

118. Tester, J. W., H. J. Herzog, C. Peterson and R. M. Potter, “The Impacts of Reservoir Performance and Drilling,” GRC Bulletin, 26 (3), 79–81, (March, 1997).

119. Mock, J. E., J. W. Tester and P. M. Wright, “Geothermal Energy from the Earth: Its Potential Impact as Environmentally Sustainable Resource.” Annu. Rev. Energ. Env., 22, 305–356, (1997).

120. Marrone, P. A., T. A. Arias, W. A. Peters and J. W. Tester, “Solvation Effects on Kinetics of Methylene Chloride Reactions in Sub– and Supercritical Water: Theory, Experiment, and Ab Initio Calculations.” J. Phys. Chem. A., 102, 7013–7028 (1998).

121. Marrone, P. A., P. M. Gschwend, K. C. Swallow, W. A. Peters and J. W. Tester, “Product Distribution and Reaction Pathways for Methylene Chloride Hydrolysis and Oxidation Under Hydrothermal Conditions.” J. Supercrit. Fluid., 12 (3), 239–254, (1998).

122. DiPippo, M. M., K. Sako and J. W. Tester, “Ternary Phase Equilibria fir the NaCl–Na2SO4–H2O System at 200 and 250 Bar up to 400oC.” Fluid Phase Equilibr., 157, 229–255 (1999).

123. LaChance, R., J. Paschkewitz and J. W. Tester, “Thiodiglycol Hydrolysis and Oxidation in Sub– and Supercritical Water.” J. Supercrit. Fluid., 16 (2), 133–147 (1999).

124. Weinstein, R. D., A. R. Renslo, R. L. Danheiser and J. W. Tester, “Silica Promoted Diels–Alder Reactions in Carbon Dioxide from Gaseous to Supercritical Conditions.” J. Phys. Chem. B, 103 (15), 2878–2887 (1999).

125. Reagan, T., J. Harris and J. W. Tester, “Molecular Simulations in NaCl–H2O Mixtures from Ambient to Supercritical Conditions.” J. Phys. Chem. B, 103 (37), 7935–7941 (1999).

126. Tester, J. W. and J. A. Cline, “Hydrolysis and Oxidation in Subcritical and Supercritical Water: Connecting Process Engineering Science to Molecular Interactions.” Corrosion, 55 (11), 1088–1100 (1999).

127. Sparks, K. A., J. W. Tester, Z. Cao and B. L. Trout, “Configurational Properties of Water Clathrates: Monte Carlo and Multi–dimensional Integration versus the Lennard–Jones and Devonshire Approximation.” J. Phys. Chem. B, 103 (30), 6300–6308, (1999).

128. Kutney, M., M. Reagan, K. A. Smith, J. W. Tester and D. R. Herschbach, “The Zeno (Z=1) Behavior of Equations of State: An Interpretation Across Scales from Macroscopic to Molecular, J. Phys. Chem. B, 104 (40) 9513–9525 (2000).

129. Salvatierra, D., J. D. Taylor, P. A. Marrone and J. W. Tester, “Kinetic Study of Hydrolysis of Methylene Chloride at 246 bar from 100oC to 500oC,” MIT, Department of Chemical Engineering, Cambridge, MA. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 38 (11), 4169–4174, (1999).

130. Tester, J. W., R. L Danheiser, R. D. Weinstein, A. Renslo, J. D. Taylor and J. I. Steinfeld, “Supercritical Fluids as Solvent Replacements in Chemical Synthesis,” in Green Chemical Syntheses and Processes; P. Anastas, L. Heine and T. Williamson (eds.), ACS Symposium Series #767: Chapter 22, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C. (2000).

131. Benavides, J., G. Senel, M. Flemings, J. W. Tester and A. Sarofim, “The Evaporation Rates and Mechanisms of Cadmium from a Bubble–Stirred Molten Copper Bath.” Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 32(2), 285-295 (2000).

132. Taylor, J. D., Pacheco, F.A., Steinfeld, J. I. and Tester, J. W., “Multiscale Reaction Pathway Analysis of Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Hydrolysis Under Hydrothermal Conditions.” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 41(1), 1-8 (2002).

133. Vogel, F., Smith, K. Tester, J. W., and Peters, W. A. Peters, “Engineering Kinetics for Hydrothermal Oxidation of Hazardous Organic Substances.” AIChE J., 48 (8), 1827-1839 (2002).

134. Cline, J. A., P. A. Marrone, D. B. Mitton, R. M. Latanasion and J. W. Tester, “Corrosion Mechanisms of Alloy N10276 in Hydrothermal HCL Solutions: Failure Analysis and Exposure Studies.” Proceedings of the NACE International Corrosion 2001 Conference, Houston, TX, paper 01362 (2001).

135. DiNaro, J. L., J. B. Howard, W. H. Green, J. W. Tester and J. Bozzelli, “Elementary Reaction Mechanism for Benzene Oxidation in Supercritical Water.” J. Phys. Chem. A, 104 (45), 10576-10586 (2000).

136. Reagan, M. T. and J. W. Tester, “Molecular Modeling of Dense Sodium Chloride – Water Solutions near the Critical Point,” “Steam Water, and Hydrothermal Systems: Physics and Chemistry Meeting the Needs of Industry,” Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Properties of Water and Steam, eds. P. R. Tremaine, P. G. Hill, D. E. Irish, and P. V. Balakrishnanm (NRC Press, Ottawa, 2000).

137. DiNaro, J. L., J. B. Howard, W. H. Green, J. W. Tester and J. Bozzelli, “Analysis of an Elementary Reaction Mechanism for Benzene Oxidation in Supercritical Water,” Proceedings of the 28th International Symposium on Combustion, Edinburgh, Scotland, (July/August, 2000).

138. DiNaro, J. L., J. W. Tester, K. C. Swallow and J. B. Howard, “Experimental Measurements of Benzene Oxidation in Supercritical Water.” AIChE J., 46 (11), 2274-2284 (2000).

139. Phenix, B. D., J. L. DiNaro, J. W. Tester, J. B. Howard and K. A. Smith, “The Effects of Mixing and Oxidant Choice in Laboratory-scale Measurements of Supercritical Water Oxidation Kinetics.” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 41 (3), 624-631 (2002).

140. Cao, Z., K.A. Sparks, B.L. Trout and J.W. Tester, “Molecular Computations Using Robust Hydrocarbon-Water Potentials for Predicting Gas Hydrate Phase Equilibria.” J. Phys. Chem. B, 105 (44), 10950-10960 (2001).

141. Cao, Z., J.W. Tester and B.L. Trout, “Computation of the Methane-Water Potential Energy Hypersurface via Ab Initio Methods.” J. Chem. Phys., 115 (6), 2250-2259 (2001).

142. Kitsou, O. I., H. J. Herzog and J. W. Tester, “Economic Modeling of HDR Enhanced Geothermal Systems.” World Geothermal Congress 2000 Kyushu–Tohoku, Japan (May 28–June 10, 2000).

143. Vogel, F., J.L DiNaro, P.A. Marrone, S. Rice, W. Peters, K.A. Smith and J. W. Tester, “Critical Review of Kinetic Data for the Oxidation of Methanol in Supercritical Water,” J. Supercrit. Fluid., 34, 249-286 (2005).

144. Tester, J.W., J. Taylor, M. Reagan, J.L. Dinaro–Blanchard, J. Steinfeld and J. Howard, “Modeling Phase Equilibria and Chemical Kinetics in Supercritical Water.” Invited Plenary paper in Proceedings of The Fifth Annual International Symposium on Supercritical Fluids (ISSF 2000), Atlanta, Georgia (April, 2000).

145. Reagan, M. T. and J. W. Tester, “The Zeno (Z=1) Behavior of Water: A Molecular Simulation Study.” Int. J. Thermophys., 22 (1), 149-160 (2001).

146. Ismail–Beigi, S., P. Marrone, M. Reagan and J. W. Tester, “A Priori Approach of Energies of Solvation.” To be submitted to Department of Physics Review B (June, 2001).

147. Taylor, J. D., J. I. Steinfeld and J. W. Tester, “Experimental Measurement of the Rate of Methyl tert–Butyl Ether (MTBE) Hydrolysis in Sub– and Supercritical Water” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 40 (1), 67-74 (2001).

148. Schanzenbacher, J., J. Taylor and J.W. Tester, “Ethanol Oxidation and Hydrolysis rates in Supercritical Water.” J. Supercrit. Fluid., 22, 139-147 (2002).

149. Cao, Z., B.J. Anderson, J.W. Tester and B.L. Trout, “Development and Application of an Ab Initio Methane-Water Potential for the Study of Phase Equilibria of Methane Hydrates.” First presented at Division of Physical Chemistry, 221st ACS National Meeting in San Diego (April, 2001) published in ACS Symposium Series monograph, (2002).

150. Ahern, B.S., I. Djutrisno, K. Donahue, C. Haldeman, S. Hynek, K. Johnson, J.R. Valbert, M.Woods and J.W. Tester, “Dramatic Emissions Reductions with a Direct Injection Diesel Engine Burning Supercirtical Fuel/Water Mixtures”, Proceedings of Fuels and Lubricants National Meeting, Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), San Antonio, TX (2001).

151. Svanstrom, M., M. Froling, M. Modell, J. W. Tester and W. A. Peters, “Life Cycle Assessment of Supercritical Water Oxidation of Sewage Sludge.” Proceedings of the 6th European Biosolids and Organic Residuals Conference, West Yorkshire, UK (November, 2001).

152. Cao, Z., B.J. Anderson, J.W. Tester and B.L. Trout, “Development and Application of an ab initio Methane –Water Potential for the Study of Phase Equilibria of Methane Hydrates”, in “Accurate Description of Low-lying Electronic States and Potential Energy Surfaces,” Hoffmann, M.R. and K.G. Dyall (eds), ACS Symposium Series #828, Chapter 21, Washington, DC (2002).

153. Cao, Z., J.W. Tester and B.L. Trout, “Sensitivity Analysis of Hydrate Thermodynamic Reference Properties Using Experimental Data and ab initio Methods,” J. Phys. Chem. B, 106, 7681-7687 (2002).

154. Haldeman, C.W., J.P. O’Brien, G. Opdyke, J.R. Valbert, J.W. Tester, R.M. Cataldo, B.S. Ahern and A.W. White, “Low Emission Combustion Turbine Experiments with Supercritical Fuels”, ASME paper 2002-GT-XX, ASME TurboExpo 2002, Amsterdam, Netherlands, (June, 2002).

155. Hodes, M., P.A. Marrone, G.T. Hong, K.A. Smith and J.W. Tester, “Salt precipitation and scale control in applications of supercritical water oxidation – Part A: fundamentals and research,” J. Supercrit. Fluid., 29, 265-288 (2004).

156. Marrone, P.A., M. Hodes, K.A. Smith and J.W. Tester, “Salt precipitation and scale control in applications of supercritical water oxidation – Part B: commercial/full-scale applications,” J. Supercrit. Fluid., 29, 289-312 (2004).

157. Height, M.J., J.B. Howard and J.W. Tester, “ Synthesis of single-walled carbon nanotubes in a premixed acetylene-oxygen flame,” Combustion Institute Symposium, Chicago, IL. (March 16-29, 2003).

158. Timko, M., J. Diffendal, J.W. Tester, K.A. Smith, R.I. Danheiser, J.I. Steinfeld and W.A. Peters, “ Ultrasonic emulsification of liquid, near-critical carbon dioxide-water biphasic mixtures for acceleration of a chemical reaction,” J. Phys. Chem. A, 107, 5503-5507 (2003).

159. Height, M.J., J.B. Howard and J.W. Tester, “Flame Synthesis of Carbon Nanotubes,” MRS Symposium, San Francisco, CA. (April 21-25, 2003).

160. Timko, M.T., J.W. Tester, K.A. Smith, J.I. Steinfeld and B.F. Nicholson, “Partition coefficients of organic solutes between supercarbon dioxide and water: experimental measurements and empirical correlations,” J. Chem. Eng. Data, 49, 768-778 (2004).

161. Svanstrom, M., M. Modell and J.W. Tester, “Direct energy recovery from primary and secondary sludges by supercritical water oxidation,” 2003 BIOSOLIDS Annual Meeting, Norway (November, 2003).

162. Sullivan, P.A. and J.W. Tester, “Methylphosphonic Acid Oxidation Kinetics in Supercritical Water,” AIChE J., 50 (2), 673-683 (2004).

163. Qian, J., M.T. Timko, A.J. Allen, C.J. Russel, J.I.Steinfeld, J.W. Tester, B. Buckley and B. Winnik, “Solvophobic acceleration of a Diels-Alder reaction in supercritical carbon dioxide,” J. Am. Chem. Soc., 126, 5465-5474 (2004).

164. Yelvington, P.E., M.B. Rallo, S. Liput, J. Yang, J.W. Tester and W.H. Green, “Prediction of performance maps for homogeneous-charge compression-ignition (HCCI) engines,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 176, 1243-1282 (2004).

165. Height, M.J., J.B. Howard, and J.W. Tester, “Flame Synthesis of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes,” Carbon, 42, 2295-2307 (2004).

166. Sullivan, P.A., R. Sumathi, W.H. Green, and J.W. Tester, “Ab Initio Modeling of Organophosphorus Combustion Chemistry,” Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 6, 4296-4309 (2004).

167. Sullivan, P.A., W.H. Green, and J.W. Tester, “Elementary Reaction Rate Model for MPA Oxidation in Supercritical Water,” Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 6, 4310-4320 (2004).

168. Height, M.J., J.B. Howard, J.W. Tester, and J.B.Vander Sande, “Flame Synthesis of Single-walled Carbon Nanotubes,” Carbon, 42, 2295-2307 (2004).

169. Ploeger, J.M., P.A. Bielenberg,, J.L. Dinaro-Blanchard, R.P. Lachance, J.D. Taylor, W.H. Green, and J.W. Tester, “Modeling Oxidation and Hydrolysis in Supercritical Water – Free Radical Elementary Reaction Networksand Their Applications,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 178 (1), 363-398 (2006).

170. Height, M.J., J.B. Howard, J.W. Tester, and J.B. Vander Sande, “Carbon nanotube formation and growth via particle-particle interaction,” J. Phys. Chem. B, 109, 12337-12346 (2005).

171. Anderson, B.J., J.W. Tester, and B.L. Trout, “Accurate potentials for Argon-Water and Methane-Water interactions via ab initio methods and their application to clathrate hydrates,” J. Phys. Chem. B., 108, 18705-18715 (2004).

172. Dunetz J.R., R.P. Ciccolini, M. Froling, S.M. Paap, A.J. Allen, A.B. Holmes, J.W. Tester and R.L. Danheiser, “Pictet-Spengler reactions in multiphasic supercritical carbon dioxide/ CO2 expanded liquid media. In Situ generation of carbamates as a strategy for reactions of amines in supercritical carbon dioxide,” Chem. Comm., 4465-4467 (2005).

173. Svanström, M., M. Fröling, M. Modell, W.A. Peters, and J.W. Tester, “Environmental assessment of supercritical water oxidation of sewage sludge,” Resour. Conserv. Recy., 41, 321-338 (2004).

174. Anderson, B.J., M.Z. Bazant, J.W. Tester, and B.L. Trout, “Application of the cell potential method to predict phase equilibria of multi-component gas hydrate systems,” J. Phys. Chem. B., 109, 8153-8163 (2005).

175. Froling, M. and J.W. Tester, “Hydrothermal processing in biorefineries – a case study of the environmental performance,” 7th World Congress of Chemical Engineering, Glasgow, Scotland, (July 10-14, 2005).

176. Timko, M.T., K.A. Smith, R.L. Danheiser, J.I. Steinfeld, and J.W. Tester, “Reaction rates in ultrasonic emulsions of dense carbon dioxide and water,” AIChE J., 52 (3), 1127-1141 (2005).

177. Anderson, B.J., R. Radhakrishnan, J.W. Tester, and B.L. Trout, “Molecular computations for predictions of clathrate-hydrate nucleation and phase-behavior of multi-component hydrates,” ACS National Meeting, San Diego, CA, (March 13-17, 2005).

178. Anderson, B.J., J.W. Tester, G.P. Borghi, and B.L. Trout, “Properties of Inhibitors of Methane Hydrate Formation via Molecular Dynamics,” J. Am. Chem. Soc., 127, 17852-17862 (2005).

179. Timko, M.T., A.J. Allen, R.L. Danheiser, J.I. Steinfeld, K.A. Smith and J.W. Tester, “Improved Conversion and Selectivity of a Diels-Alder Cycloaddition by Use of Emulsions of Carbon Dioxide and Water,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 45, 1594-1603 (2006).

180. Ploeger, J.M., W.H. Green and J.W. Tester, “Co-oxidation of methylphosphonic acid and ethanol in supercritical water I: Experimental Results,” J. Supercrit. Fluid., 39 (2), 233-238 (2006).

181. Ploeger, J.M., W.H. Green and J.W. Tester, “Co-oxidation of methylphosphonic acid and ethanol in supercritical water II: Elementary reaction rate model,” J. Supercrit. Fluid., 39 (2), 239-245 (2006).

182. Ploeger, J.M., A.C. Madlinger and J.W. Tester, “Revised Global Kinetic Measurements of Ammonia Oxidation in Supercritical Water,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 45, 6842-6845 (2006).

183. Ploeger, J.M., M.A. Mock and J.W. Tester, “Co-oxidation of Ammonia and Ethanol in Supercritical Water, Part 1:Experimental Results,” AIChE J., 53 (4), 941-947 (2007).

184. Tester, J.W., B.J. Anderson, A.S. Batchelor, D.D. Blackwell, R. DiPippo, E.M. Drake, J. Garnish, B. Livesay, M.C. Moore, K. Nichols, S. Petty, M.N. Toksoz, R.W. Veatch, R. Baria, C. Augustine, E. Murphy, P. Negraru, and M. Richards, “Impact of enhanced geothermal systems on US energy supply in the twenty first century ” Phil. Trans R. Soc., 365, 1057-1094 (2007).

185. Svanstrom, M., T.N. Patrick, M. Froling, A.A. Peterson, and J.W. Tester, "Choosing between Green Innovative Technologies - Hydrothermal Processing of Biowastes" J. Adv. Oxid. Tech. 10 (1) 177-185 (2007).

186. Frey, K., C. Augustine, R.P. Ciccolini, S. Paap, M. Modell, and J. Tester, “Volume translation in equations of state as a means of accurate property estimation” Fluid Phase Equilibr., 260 (2), 316-325 (2007).

187. Thorsteinsson, H., C. Augustine, B.J. Anderson, M.C. Moore, and J.W. Tester, "The Impacts of Drilling and Reservoir Technology Advances on EGS Exploration," Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California (January 28-30, 2008).


Now, what was that you said...

Right, "Fuck yeah."

[Dead_Parrot]

13. Wow, that's convincing

Can you explain how 1981 internships at MIT in chemical engineering relates to 42 TW of Geothermal energy?

No, of course you can't. I'll wager good money you didn't even look at the list before hitting 'Post': I guess we should just be grateful you managed not to fuck up the copy-and-paste this time.

Here's a hint: Rather than chucking around vast swathes of text you wouldn't understand even if you could be bothered to read it, try actually learning some science. To get started, you might want to pick up a dictionary and look up "Assumption" and "Fact", experiment with the caps-lock key, and figure out the ionization energies of lithium. Oh, and figuring out how to use the whitepages when looking up an address might be a bonus.

Then you can back and talk about puerile idiocy, and how you managed to quit.

Incidentally, dude, when copy-and-pasting articles from anti-nuclear websites and attempting to pass it off as your own work (NIRS Factoid #18 being the case in point) at least use a thesaurus and change a few words. Jeez, we don't want to make it too fucking easy too spot, do we?

[kristopher]

14. Still thick as a brick, eh?

Yes, I looked at the list. Tester has published nearly 200 articles and is affiliated with some pretty impressive institutions. I'd say that citing his work is a little more concrete than your monotonous accusation that all things that contradict your extremely uninformed worldview are just pulled out of someone's ass.

As for passing someone else's work off as my own, that is purely your imagination. The first post of the thread gave the origin of the NREL document AND it is clearly spelled out at the end of the reposted portion:

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute is a non-profit organization established in 1984 by a bipartisan,
bicameral group of members of Congress to provide timely information on energy and environmental policy issues to
policymakers and stakeholders and develop innovative policy solutions that set us on a cleaner, more secure and
sustainable energy path.

It is clear that you have no basis for your hyperbolic rantings so you descend into argumentation that even McCain would be ashamed of using.

The fact is that WE DON"T NEED NUCLEAR ENERGY TO REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS. It is amazing that you feel such a strong compulsion to disparage the technologies and resources that make it unnecessary to expose ourselves to the undeniable risks associated with nuclear. Really, it's absolutely amazing; it is a mindset that rivals the worst self delusion the Bushies ever produced.

[Dead_Parrot]

18. Really?

You saw: "Chemical Engineering Internships at MIT," Proceedings of the Learning for Life Symposium, American Chemical Society (August, 1981) and thought: "Gosh, that's concrete! We really don't need to worry about what the actual capacity is!" did you?

Wow.

Incidentally, did Tester actually write any of the stuff you copy-and-pasted Or have you got down to appeal-to-authority-by-proxy as your key argument?

[kristopher]

20. More childish nonsense?

Tester, J.W., H.J. Herzog, Z. Chen, R.M. Potter, and M.G. Frank. 1994.
Prospects for Universal Geothermal Energy from Heat Mining. Science & Global Security. Volume 5, pp.99-121

USGS (United States Geological Survey) 1979, "Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the United States - 1978". Geological
Survey Circular 790, Edited by L.J.P. Muffler, United States Department of the Interior.

[Dead_Parrot]

23. Copy, paste, rinse, repeat. nt

[kristopher]

26. Like I said

More of your childish nonsense.

METHODOLOGY

Current Renewable Resource Use

Currently used renewable energy resources are drawn from a variety of sources. The current installed nameplate capacity total
is a summation of verified, functioning electric-generation facilities (REPIS 2005).
Delivered electricity is based on 2004 electricity production (EIA 2005a).
For all the renewable electric technologies except biomass, primary energy required to produce electricity is calculated based
on an average heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh for existing thermal power plants (EIA 2005b).
For biomass, a measured heat rate for power plants, 9,000 btu/kwh, is used (EIA 2005b). For those renewable energy forms
that also contribute to heat and fuels markets, total primary energy shown is larger than the thermal energy required to produce
only electricity (EIA 2005a).

NEAR-TERM PRACTICAL POTENTIAL

The amount of electricity potentially produced by renewables is shown as a percentage of the total projected U.S. generation in
2020: 5,085 billion kWh (EIA 2005b).

BIOMASS

Biomass is the only renewable energy form cited that can be used as either electricity or fuel. Because we cannot predict the
distribution of biomass use between electricity and fuel, we make two estimates. The first assumes 100 percent of biomass is
used for electricity, and the second assumes that 100 percent is use for fuel. The baseline amount of energy for these is the
same, because it is limited by physical availability of biomass. Perlack (2005) estimates 1.3 billion dry tons of biomass is
possible with the use of non-food cropland and forestland in the long run. To determine the near-term potential the mid-range
scenarios from Perlack (2005) to identify a near-term range of 593 million to 968 million dry tons. The biomass-to-energy
conversion used is an average of energy from biomass types of just more than 12 million btus per ton (NREL 2005c). This
range yielded a potential of between 8 and 13 quads of energy in the near term. To estimate the amount of electricity that can be
generated from the range, we assume a power plant heat rate of 9,000 Btu/kWh (EIA 2005b). The result is 17-28 percent of
total U.S.
electric generation. Biomass as a fuel potential is expressed as a percentage of projected 2020 petroleum demand: 26 million
barrels per day (EIA 2005b). Using 8-13 quads of available biomass energy, and a 49 percent fuel plant conversion efficiency,
biomass could contribute 9-14 percent of the national petroleum demand in 2020.

GEOTHERMAL

Because of technology limitations, only hydrothermal energy is considered in the short term. In 1979, the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that there were about 22 GW of discovered hydrothermal resources (USGS 1979). While
this estimate is dated, there has been no authoritative study of the potential since that time. Using a 95 percent capacity factor
(NREL 2005c), 22 GWs represents 2 quads of energy (or 4 percent of U.S. electric generation) in 2020.

HYDROELECTRIC

Full hydroelectric potential is 140 GW (Hall et al 2003), which would provide 9.4 percent of electric generation in 2020,
assuming today's national average capacity factor of 0.39 (NREL 2005c). Assuming a 10,000 Btu/kWh power plant heat rate
conversion, this is equal to about 5.0 quads of primary energy.

OCEAN

In the short term, the full potential of mechanical (wave, tidal, and
current) electrical generation is assumed. This resource is estimated to have a full potential of 30 GW installed nameplate
capacity. Assuming constant power and a power plant conversion heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh, this translates to 2.3 quads of
primary energy (or 4.5 percent of the electric generation) projected for 2020.

SOLAR

For the near-term technical photovoltaic potential, it is assumed that there will be no storage for solar energy, and no PV
generation will be wasted. This implies that none of the nighttime loads can be met by solar, and much of the load at dawn
cannot be met (if PV capacity were sufficient to meet such loads, PV output at midday would exceed loads, wasting energy).
These assumptions severely limit the impact of PV on the electric system. The PV impact would be even more limited if one
also took into account the many conventional fossil and nuclear plants that must run all the time. In this case, the PV capacity
would have to be even smaller to keep from wasting PV generation.

The near-term potential for concentrated solar power (CSP) is assumed to be the minimum of the projected in-state electrical
load and the actual CSP resources in that state. In all cases, the projected state electrical load is the minimum. Therefore, the
near-term CSP potential is the electric load of the state in which the CSP resource resides. In 2020, the projected load for states
for CSP potential is expected to be 12 percent of the total U.S. generation, creating an upper bound for CSP electrical
generation. Assuming a 10,000 Btu/kWh heat rate for power plants, the estimated primary energy to create this electricity is 6
quads/year.

WIND

The short-term wind potential is limited by grid reliability/stability concerns to be 20 percent of total generation and Parsons
(1993) estimate of between 4 percent and 50 percent]. Assuming a power plant heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh, the primary
energy equivalent is 10 quads.

ULTIMATE TECHNICAL POTENTIAL

Ultimate technical potential differs from the short-term potential by a set of general assumptions for each resource type and one
more general assumption. The general assumption is that the electricity grid can adjust to the diverse electricity fed into it by
adding storage, transmission, ancillary services, etc. Moreover, the ultimate assumptions do not limit the amount of renewable
electricity as a function of total projected electricity demand. As with the short-term assumptions, economic and market
constraints are not accounted for in this long-term technical potential.

BIOMASS

Biomass is the only renewable energy form cited that can be used as either electricity or fuel. Because we cannot predict the
distribution of biomass use between electricity and fuel, we make no assumption regarding the differences between the use of
biomass for electricity and biomass for fuel. The baseline amount of energy for these is the same, because it is limited by
physical availability of biomass. Perlack (2005) estimates 1.3 billion dry tons of biomass is possible with the use of non-food
cropland and forestland. The biomass-to-energy conversion used is an average of energy from biomass types of just more than
13 million btus per ton (NREL 2005c). The total energy potential for biomass is 17 quads. To estimate the amount of
electricity that can be generated from 17 quads, we assume a power plant heat rate of 9,000 BTU/kWh.

GEOTHERMAL

The hydrothermal estimate includes approximately 72-127 GW of as yet-undiscovered resource (USGS 1979). The enhanced
geothermal systems estimate is based on an estimate of 42 TW, which includes the entire potential heat source (Tester 1994).

HYDROELECTRIC

The ultimate potential is assumed to be the same as the near-term potential.

OCEAN

The ultimate potential estimate or ocean-based power expands the near-term potential to include power from ocean thermal
energy of 0.11 TW (Sands 1980). The primary energy required for electricity generation, assuming a heat rate of 10,000
Btu/kWh, is 9 quads.

SOLAR

Unlike the near-term potential, the ultimate potentials for both PV and CSP are not assumed to be constrained by grid
limitations, e.g., storage is assumed, transmission is assumed available, etc. For PV, the total resource potential (NREL 2003b)
was restricted by excluding federal and sensitive lands, assuming only 30 percent of land area can be covered with PV, allowing
only slopes that are less than 5 degrees, and requiring a minimum resources of 6 kwh/m2/day. This results in an ultimate
technical potential of about 219 TW or 4,200 quads/year for PV systems, assuming a
22 percent capacity factor.

The CSP resource is restricted to areas with resource potential -- the southwestern United States. The potential reduces that
amount of land that can be used for CSP by federal and sensitive lands, land with a slope greater than a 5 percent gradient,
major urban areas and features, and parcels less than 5 km2 in area. The remaining area determined the technical potential for
CSP, assuming 50 MW/km2 (Price et al 2003).

WIND

The ultimate wind potential is not limited to 20 percent for intermittency and grid stability reasons, as battery storage is
assumed. Instead, wind potential is limited by appropriate land selection (exclusions for federal land, etc.) and technical
feasibility. For onshore wind potential, using estimated future capacity factors (NREL 2005b), and assuming complete use of
Class 3 winds and better, the result is 324 quads of primary energy from wind. For offshore wind, Class 5 and better with a
distance between
5 and 200 nautical miles (nm) were assumed. Between 5-20 nautical miles, only one-third of wind energy in Class 5 and better
is captured, between 20 and 50 nautical miles, two-thirds; and between 50 and 200 nautical miles, the entirety. Assuming future
capacity factors, the potential for offshore wind primary energy is found to be 272 quads.

REFERENCES, DATA SOURCES, BACKGROUND MATERIAL

EIA 2005a - U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
Annual Energy Review 2004. DOE/EIA 0384-2004, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy

EIA 2005b - Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2005 with projections for 2025. Washington DC: U.S. Department of
Energy

EPRI/DOE. 1997. Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations, TR-109496. Washington, D.C.: DOE

Hagerman, G., R. Bedard. 26-June-2005. "Ocean Kinetic Energy Resources in the United States and Canada." EnergyOceans
2005, Washington, D.C.

Hall, D., R. Hunt, K. Reeves, G. Carroll. 2003. Estimation of Economic Parameters of U.S. Hydropower Resources. Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

Land and Water Fund of the Rockies. 2002. Renewable Energy Atlas of the West. The Hewlett Foundation and The Energy
Foundation. Page 10. http://energyatlas.org.

Morse, F. 2004. Presentations: The Concentrating Solar Power Global Market Initiative (GMI) as a Result of Research and
Development. Presented at the Renewables 2004 Conference.

NREL 2003a - National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands. 95 pp.;
NREL Report No. TP-550-33530; DOE/GO-102003-1704. Golden, CO: NREL

NREL 2003b - National Solar Photovoltaics (PV) Data. U.S. Data http://www.nrel.gov/gis/index_of_gis.html

NREL 2005a - Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on National Forest Systems Lands. 123 pp; NREL Report No.
BK-71036759. Golden, CO: NREL

NREL 2005b - Potential Benefits of Federal energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs: FY 2006 Budget Request
NREL-TP 620-37931. Golden, CO: NREL

NREL 2005c - Power Technologies Energy Data Book. Golden, CO: NREL. URL:
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook

Perlack, R., Wright, L., Tuhollow, A., Graham, R., Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The
Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply, April 2005

Price, H.; Stafford, B.; Heimiller, D; Dahle, D. 2003. California Solar Power Detailed Technical Report for Southern California
Edison. 95 pp.; NREL Report No. MP-710-35284

REPIS 2005 - Renewable Electric Plant Information System: http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/repis/

Sands, D. 1980. "Ocean thermal energy conversion programmatic environmental assessment." Proceedings of the 7th Ocean
Energy Conference, Volume 1, Paper 4.1., Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Publication No. Conf-800633-Vol 1.

Tester, J.W., H.J. Herzog, Z. Chen, R.M. Potter, and M.G. Frank. 1994.
Prospects for Universal Geothermal Energy from Heat Mining. Science & Global Security. Volume 5, pp.99-121

Thresher, R. (NREL). 2005. E-mail communication to Elizabeth Brown. October 14, 2005

TroughNet. 2005. TroughtNet CSP Projects Deployed Web page. http://www.eere.energy.gov/troughnet/deployed.html

USGS (United States Geological Survey) 1979, "Assessment of Geothermal Resources of the United States - 1978". Geological
Survey Circular 790, Edited by L.J.P. Muffler, United States Department of the Interior.

Wan Y. and Parsons, B. 1993. "Factors Relevant to Utility Integration of Intermittent Renewable Technologies." NREL/TP-
463-4953. National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO. Page 49

# # # # # # #

The DRAFT document had earlier been available for inspection at:
<http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_potential/pdfs/tech_potential_table.pdf>
but now appears to have been withdrawn. Comments on the draft had been requested to be sent to Elizabeth Brown in NREL's
Energy Analysis Office at [e-mail]; 303-384-7489.

[XemaSab]

15. Re: TBI

[kristopher]

17. Some people

Just can't handle losing an argument...

:shrug:

[Dead_Parrot]

19. Now that's just unfair!

The ability to act on information flexibly is one of the cornerstones of intelligent behavior...

[kristopher]

21. Some people

Just can't handle losing an argument...

:shrug:

[XemaSab]

22. If you can't say anything nice

uh... you send a PM? :shrug:

[Dead_Parrot]

24. Hey, I've got lot's of nice things to say about Keas

Beautiful plumage. Very fond of Fjords... :)

[XemaSab]

25. My lone experience with the noble Kea (Nestor notabilis)

was with a stuffed bird in the museum at my alma mater.

Based on that lone experience, I would hate to meet one in a dark alley. :scared:

[Dead_Parrot]

27. So would I...

They have a penchant for beer, so the only time you'd meet one in a dark alley would be if it had just been thrown out of the pub. Not a good way to start a relationship with a pissed-up flying can-opener.

[XemaSab]

28. Flying can opener?

The one I saw was the flying Jaws of Life. :o

[chknltl]

31. Bookmarked. Thank you (again) kristopher

I find it fascinating that mCcain and the repukes in Congress are such big BIG supporters of nuke energy for America's future. Truly fascinating. They must hate folks like you...I'm envious and impressed. Thank you for being one of the good guys.
:applause: :yourock: :applause: