Shift to green energy sources could mean crunch in supply of scarce metals

Engineerblogger
March 8, 2012

A large-scale shift from coal-fired electric power plants and gasoline-fueled cars to wind turbines and electric vehicles could increase demand for two already-scarce metals — available almost exclusively in China — by 600-2,600 percent over the next 25 years, a new study has concluded. Published in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology, it points out that production of the two metals has been increasing by only a few percentage points per year.

Randolph E. Kirchain, Ph.D., and colleagues explain that there has been long-standing concern about a secure supply of the so-called rare earth elements, 17 elements adjacent on the periodic table of elements. These metals are used to make airplane components and lasers for medical imaging. Two of the rare earths, dysprosium and neodymium, are critical for current technologies for manufacturing wind turbines that generate electricity and electric vehicles. Those green technologies, Kirchain notes, would be essential in carrying out a proposed stabilization in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, at 450 parts per million. Kirchain’s team analyzed the supply of lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, samarium, europium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium and yttrium under various scenarios.

They projected the demand for these 10 rare earth elements through 2035. In one scenario, demand for dysprosium and neodymium could be higher than 2,600 and 700 percent respectively. To meet that need, production of dysprosium would have to grow each year at nearly twice the historic growth rate for rare earth supplies. “Although the RE [rare earth] supply base has demonstrated an impressive ability to expand over recent history, even the RE industry may struggle to keep up with that pace of demand growth,” the authors said. But they also point out that shortfalls in future supply could be mitigated “through materials substitution, improved efficiency, and the increased reuse, recycling, and use of scrap.”

Source:  American Chemical Society


Additional Information:

• Evaluating Rare Earth Element Availability: A Case with Revolutionary Demand from Clean Technologies

Related Information:

• DOE: Rare earth shortages may damage clean tech growth 

• Broad scientific approach to studying rare earth materials needed to ensure continued deployment of clean energy technologies

• The Rare-Earth Crisis 

• No future without scarce metals: the scarcity of raw materials 

• Bloomberg articles, "Rare Earth Prices Double in Two Weeks as China Seeks to Increase Control" and "BMW Carbon Factory Lets Motor Vehicles Follow Road Bike to Lightness: Cars

Engineering research and development spurring U.S. toward energy security

Engineerblogger
March 8, 2012

Breakthroughs in engineering research and development have helped launch the U.S. on the path toward elusive energy independence, NPR reports.

With gas prices continuing to spike throughout the U.S, Americans have increasingly called on the Obama Administration to support policies that would bolster the nation's fuel production. While President Obama has publicly championed an "all of the above" energy strategy – one that promotes domestic drilling, improves fuel efficiency and develops alternative energy technologies – energy experts contend the U.S. has made significant strides over the past decade in reducing its reliance on foreign countries for oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels.

"Energy self-sufficiency is now in sight," energy economist Phil Verleger told the news provider.

Verleger and other experts assert that engineering tools and breakthroughs in industrial engineering research have helped augment oil and gas supplies in the U.S. He and other scientists contend that hydraulic fracturing – more commonly known as fracking – and other advanced drilling techniques have allowed the U.S. to tap into previously unattainable natural gas and oil reserves throughout the U.S.

Though fracking remains exceedingly controversial, such drilling wells have fueled U.S. natural gas production over the past few years, as companies have increasingly exploited resources in states such as Pennsylvania, West Virginia, North Dakota and Texas. Verleger said that the uptick in the nation's energy supplies results from the success of private research and development.

"This is really the classic success of American entrepreneurs," Verleger noted. "These were people who saw this coming, managed to assemble the capital and go ahead."

While the U.S. has historically relied upon other countries for the majority of its energy needs, it could become the world's largest producer of natural gas and oil by the end of the decade, according to PFC Energy chief executive Robin West.

"This shale gale, I describe it as the energy equivalent of the Berlin Wall coming down. This is a big deal," West said, referring to the widespread use of fracking and advanced drilling techniques. "We estimate that by 2020, the U.S. overall will be the largest hydrocarbon producer in the world; bigger than Russia or Saudi Arabia."

Though many experts caution against estimating when the U.S. will achieve the nebulous goal of energy independence, experts such as West and Verleger contend the uptick in domestic hydrocarbon production will ultimately increase energy security. If the U.S. continues on its current energy course, it would enable the country to reduce its reliance on unstable oil and natural gas producers in the Middle East, experts say.

Source: Knovel

High-Performance Innovation:

Engineerblogger
March 1, 2012

ANSYS-CFX was used in the cloud via Windows HPC Server to depict wave formulation around a seafaring vessel. ANSYS is one of many vendors to develop software specifically designed to remotely take advantage of highly parallel computing systems, offering customers high-end performance and faster results. Image: ANSYS

As researchers scramble to deliver R&D results and bring products to market, they are turning to high-performance computing. Vendors are competing for their business. Can everyone adapt to the cloud?

What laboratory tool has made the most difference in research and development? Arguably, it’s the personal computer. In the early days of computing, specialized clusters of high-performing processors were often needed for data-intensive tasks. But as chipmakers upheld Moore’s Law, desktop machines and even laptops became powerful enough to handle complex design and processing tasks.

Personal computers are ubiquitous and indispensible, but often are no longer powerful enough, even for daily research tasks such a processing a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Circumstances have conspired to force researchers to seek a better solution. As microprocessor speed has stalled, data volume has exploded. In 2004, according to Dave Turek, vice president of deep computing at IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., computer scientists recognized the limits of microprocessor technology and realized the best avenue for more performance was to group large numbers of processors together and leverage strength in numbers. Multi-core was born.

Now, through a combination of multicore processing, commoditization of high-end service components, and high-speed communications, high-performance computing (HPC) is handling the heavy lifting of high-technology R&D.

“What really has changed is the migration of traditional techniques and approaches into a non-classical domain. When you peel back the covers, at its core, software is sophisticated mathematics used to answer problems,” says Turek. HPC represents this new domain, where linear programming gives way to counter-intuitive parallel processing and where researchers stand to make tremendous gains in knowledge, if they know how to get the most out it. As a result, research organizations cannot consider adopting HPC without gaining knowledge of the associated software, tools, components, storage, and services that together form the infrastructure for intensive computation.
To read more click here...

Reduction in U.S. carbon emissions attributed to cheaper natural gas

Harvard University
Feb 27, 2012

Changes in carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector in the nine census regions of the contiguous United States, 2008-2009. Image courtesy of Xi Lu.

In 2009, when the United States fell into economic recession, greenhouse gas emissions also fell, by 6.59 percent relative to 2008.

In the power sector, however, the recession was not the main cause.

Researchers at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) have shown that the primary explanation for the reduction in CO2 emissions from power generation that year was that a decrease in the price of natural gas reduced the industry's reliance on coal.

According to their econometric model, emissions could be cut further by the introduction of a carbon tax, with negligible impact on the price of electricity for consumers.

A regional analysis, assessing the long-term implications for energy investment and policy, appears in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.

In the United States, the power sector is responsible for 40 percent of all carbon emissions. In 2009, CO2 emissions from power generation dropped by 8.76 percent. The researchers attribute that change to the new abundance of cheap natural gas.

"Generating 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity from coal releases twice as much CO2 to the atmosphere as generating the same amount from natural gas, so a slight shift in the relative prices of coal and natural gas can result in a sharp drop in carbon emissions," explains Michael B. McElroy, Gilbert Butler Professor of Environmental Studies at SEAS, who led the study.

"That's what we saw in 2009," he says, "and we may well see it again."

Patterns of electricity generation, use, and pricing vary widely across the United States. In parts of the Midwest, for instance, almost half of the available power plants (by capacity) were built to process coal. Electricity production can only switch over to natural gas to the extent that gas-fired plants are available to meet the demand. By contrast, the Pacific states and New England barely rely on coal, so price differences there might make less of an impact.

To account for the many variables, McElroy and his colleagues at SEAS developed a model that considers nine regions separately.
To read more click here...

Value Stream Analysis Improves Processes, Saves Money

Engineerblogger
Feb 23, 2012

An example Pareto chart from a value stream analysis shows the potential benefit of implementing VSA findings. (AFRL Graphic)

Engineers from the Air Force Research Laboratory have stimulated industrial base investments in infrastructure and technology by leveraging the value stream analysis (VSA) process to identify significant process improvement opportunities.

As a result, General Electric Aviation, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce, together with some of their suppliers, invested in process improvements to produce an expected $34 million cost avoidance for current and future products. Because many of the manufacturing technologies are applicable to advanced turbine engine performance improvements, the potential for an additional $126 million cost avoidance for current projects exists.

For the last five years, AFRL's Manufacturing Technology Division (AFRL/RXM), in cooperation with General Dynamics Information Technology and TechSolve, Inc., has been conducting VSAs within the advanced turbine engine industrial base. Each VSA generated a list of potential process improvements, projected costs, and assessed the risks associated with achieving the anticipated benefits.

AFRL/RXM used the data from these VSAs to develop successful ManTech programs, including a program for the advanced machining of CMCs. This program yielded increases in material removal rates and a reduction in cutting tool costs by two orders of magnitude. Additionally, the 3D airfoil inspection process reduced the dimensional inspection of complex shapes from 60 minutes down to 3 minutes.

Industry has used this data to pursue lower risk process improvements. These process improvements have been implemented and are anticipated to yield benefits of $27 million. Process improvements that have been partially implemented through industry investment are anticipated to yield an additional $7 million. When implemented, processes that are still maturing could provide an additional $126 million in benefits. For industry, the return on investment is about 15 to 1 and it is even greater for the Air Force, at 28 to 1.

Source: Air Force Office of Scientific Research

New Methodology Assesses Risk of Scarce Metals

Engineerblogger
Feb 7, 2012


Yale researchers have developed a methodology for governments and corporations to determine the availability of critical metals, according to a paper in Environmental Science & Technology.

In “Methodology of Metal Criticality Determination,” the researchers evaluate the importance of scarce metals using a methodology that determines their supply risk, environmental implications, and vulnerability to supply restriction.

“In the past few years, a number of organizations have attempted to evaluate metal criticality, but the methods used have varied widely and so have the results,” said Thomas Graedel, Clifton R. Musser Professor of Industrial Ecology at Yale. “This is the first time that this topic has been addressed in the peer-reviewed literature.”

The criticality methodology, based on a U.S. National Research Council template, is designed to help corporations and national governments evaluate the risk of not having access to critical metals and to inform strategic decision-making around resource use.

“If you’re a corporation, you don’t want to design and manufacture something only to find out that you don’t have important materials,” he said.

The criticality methodology evaluates supply risk for entities that use metals on the basis of three components: geological, technological and economic; social and regulatory; and geological. The first of these components measures the potential availability of a metal’s supplies, and the latter two address the degree to which the availability of the supply might be constrained.

According to the paper, the most obvious questions related to a metal’s availability in the ground are how much there is, whether it is technologically feasible to obtain, and whether it is economically practical to do so.

Regulations and social attitudes can either impede or expedite the development of mineral resources. For example, communities are aware of the potential for environmental damage from tailings ponds and may resist the development of a new mine.

Governmental policies, actions and stability can significantly affect the ability to obtain mineral resources. Graedel said that, in general, the more concentrated the mineral deposits in one area, the higher the risk of supply restriction.

“This work was stimulated by China’s attempt to horde rare earth metals, which are being almost entirely mined and processed in China,” said Graedel. “We asked ourselves: How do you know what’s scarce? If you know a metal is scarce, how do you know if you should worry about it? We think this methodology has substantial legitimacy.”

Source: Yale University

Additional Information:

• The paper can be viewed at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es203534z.

Johnson Controls Teams Up with Mattress Manufacturer Harrison Spinks Ltd to Create the ComfortThin Automotive Seat Concept

Engineerblogger
Feb 2, 2012

Credit: Harrison Spinks

Seat features the bedding industry's innovative pocketed coil technology, a 100 percent recyclable alternative to traditional seat foam

Johnson Controls, a global leader in automotive seating, overhead systems, door and instrument panels, and interior electronics, announced that it has formed a development relationship with luxury mattress manufacturer Harrison Spinks to integrate pocketed coil spring mattress technology into an automotive seat concept called ComfortThin. The thin profile seats replace conventional urethane foam pads with a 100 percent recyclable alternative, and provide a five to 20 percent weight reduction. This technology will be available for 2015 model year vehicles.

"As part of our innovation process, Johnson Controls looks to apply technology from other industries into automotive applications," said Andreas Eppinger, group vice president, technology management for Johnson Controls Automotive Experience. "Leveraging the Harrison Spinks pocketed coil spring mat technology allows us to offer a seating concept with an unrivalled level of support that contours to the vehicle occupant's body for short- and long-term comfort."

"We are delighted to have signed this agreement with the industry leader Johnson Controls so that we can bring this sustainable alternative to traditional foam technology to the automotive industry," said Simon Spinks, Managing Director of Harrison Spinks.

Applicable for first, second and third row seats, the ComfortThin seat provides a dramatically thinner, tailored seat back with up to a 20 percent reduction at the center of the seat and a 35 percent or more reduction in the bolsters. The active seating surface adapts to passengers occupants of all sizes. Each spring unit is able to react independently, further improving seating life while giving occupants the right amount of support when and where it is needed.

About Johnson Controls:

Johnson Controls is a global diversified technology and industrial leader serving customers in more than 150 countries. Our 162,000 employees create quality products, services and solutions to optimize energy and operational efficiencies of buildings; lead-acid automotive batteries and advanced batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles; and interior systems for automobiles. Our commitment to sustainability dates back to our roots in 1885, with the invention of the first electric room thermostat. Through our growth strategies and by increasing market share we are committed to delivering value to shareholders and making our customers successful. In 2011, Corporate Responsibility Magazine recognized Johnson Controls as the #1 company in its annual "100 Best Corporate Citizens" list. For additional information, please visit .

About Johnson Controls Automotive Experience:

Johnson Controls is a global leader in automotive seating, overhead systems, door and instrument panels, and interior electronics. We support all major automakers in the differentiation of their vehicles through our products, technologies and advanced manufacturing capabilities. With 240 plants worldwide, we are where our customers need us to be. Consumers have enjoyed the comfort and style of our products, from single components to complete interiors. With our global capability we supply approximately 50 million cars per year.

About Harrison Spinks:

Founded in 1840, Harrison Spinks encompasses three quality bed brands Harrison, Somnus and Spink & Edgar as well as Harrison Spinks Components with the Spinks Springs brand. The business is run by the Spinks family who has been involved since the 1930s. True to its origins, as well as high end bed and mattress manufacture, Harrison Spinks make high quality comfort pocket springs for sale worldwide through its components business. The high end mattress businesses provides the drive and understanding to develop new comfort technologies which can then be sold into furniture, automotive and other mattress businesses around the world. Harrison Spinks has a long history of innovation in components and spring technology, utilizing patented machinery and design technology.

Harrison Spinks employs 300 people, has 3 factories in Leeds with over 350,000ft(2) for the manufacturing of pocketed springs, a 300 acre farm where it grows natural non-woven materials, such as hemp, flax and wool for mattresses, and a 50 acre wood from which Harrison Spinks plans to incorporate the timber into divan frames as soon as next year.

Source:  Johnson Controls

The Nano-economy: Time to Reap the Rewards

Engineerblogger
Jan 23, 2012

In a recent speech I made to business leaders in Boston, I explained that perched atop 26 years of experiences I've stacked up in nanobusiness, I have a pretty good view to the horizon. You know what I see? Decades of investment by government and the private sector have grown into a field of economic opportunity, now ripe with good jobs.

Better yet, I see the harvesting equipment has just been delivered: the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership. It's a new public-private consortium charged with investing more than $500 million in nanotechnology and other emerging technologies. The goal? Convert scientific knowledge to factory floor output -- and high quality jobs -- faster.

Business builders like Dow, Ford, and Proctor and Gamble have come to the table with MIT, Stanford and other universities, to join with the National Economic Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy and the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

The group's scope is wide, but three goals apply directly to nano-commercialization:

• Reducing the time to make advanced materials for manufacturing.

• Developing new technologies to get manufactured goods designed, built, tested and to market faster.

• Creating an infrastructure and shared facilities that open up opportunities for small and mid-sized innovators.

Best of all, the talk is being backed up with serious investments, including:

• $300 million in domestic manufacturing in critical national security industries. That includes high-efficiency batteries and advanced composites -- where nanotech leads.

• $100 million for the research, training and infrastructure to develop and commercialize advanced materials at twice the speed and a greatly reduced price.

• $12 million from the Commerce Department for an advanced manufacturing technology consortium charged with streamlining new product commercialization.

• $24 million from the Defense Department for advances in weaponry and programs to reduce development timetables that enable entrepreneurs get into the game.

• $12 million for consortia to tackle common technological barriers to new product development - the way earlier partnerships approached nanoelectronics

A group of the nation's top engineering schools will collaborate to accelerate the lab-to-factory timetable with AMP connecting them to manufacturers.

The result? The brightest scientific minds and hardest working entrepreneurs on the planet have brought us fresh jobs, ripe for the picking. Already, the U.S. accounts for around 35% of the global nanotechnology markets, estimated at $1.6 trillion during 2009-2013, according to a report by Research and Markets. With AMP, that growth can continue. As the Partnership takes shape, I'd like to add my two cents in advice for organizers: keep AMP a partnership, not a handout. In the toughest economy in 80 years, organizations are appreciative of government stimulus. But I have a deep concern that we can easily become addicted to it and start building business models to earn grants, not profits.

The truest judges of business are people with their own resources at risk -- private sector investors and businesses. I know it can be a ruthless, but keeping the focus on the private sector is the best way to weed out the bad ideas and fertilize the strong. If our officials set their sights on simply providing a little more sunlight to all small and medium-size enterprises, the best nanotechnology companies will rise on their own.

Source: Industry Week

Related Information:

• Nanotechnology: Six to Watch in '12

Business Analytics Meets Post Processing

Engineerblogger
Jan 19, 2012

The Tecplot 360 CFD visualization tool, which is integrated within Tecplot Chorus, can be used to explore the underlying surface and volume data associated with points within the design space.

Simulation analytics software combines the best of business analytics tools and post-processing tools for better designs based on CAE simulations.

Increasingly complex design challenges, coupled with the pressure to deliver more innovative products, are driving engineers to find better analytical processes that can help them quickly identify trends or anomalies and make better design decisions.

As part of this process, the rapidly expanding capabilities of computer systems are allowing the increased use of computer-aided engineering (CAE) simulation codes like computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and finite element analysis (FEA). For example, in the aerodynamic design phase of a jet wing, or the cooling system design of a turbine blade, engineers rely heavily on data from large collections of CFD runs. It's not uncommon for a single project to involve more than 1,000 cases, with each case generating more than 10 GB of data. That adds up to 10 TB of data, roughly equivalent to the amount of raw data found in the entire United States Library of Congress.

It is impossible for an engineer to analyze this amount of information in detail with today's tools. Unearthing anomalies in such large data fields is equivalent to finding a needle in a very large haystack.

Business analytics tools
Companies have historically used business analytics tools based on statistical techniques, data mining, and knowledge discovery to assist in the decision-making process. At first glance, it appears that these tools could be applied to large collections of simulation runs. Unfortunately, they are ineffective because simulation data is different. This data has two layers: low-level simulation field data—such as velocity, pressure, and temperature—that is defined at millions of points within the solution domain; and the higher-level metadata, such as lift, drag, and pitching moment. Business analytics tools lack the ability to analyze the low-level field data in a way that gives engineers an understanding of the underlying physical causes of trends in the metadata.

Post-processing tools
In comparison to business analytics, traditional post-processing tools offer engineers a detailed understanding of the physics for a particular case, by handling very large datasets and using the same grid structure as the simulation codes. The tools provide a full set of visualization and analysis capabilities that allow engineers to explore the variation of the field data throughout the domain, and integrate results over subdomains to generate metadata. However, post-processing tools cannot simultaneously analyze large collections of simulation metadata the way business analytics tools can.

Simulation analytics
Simulation analytics software, like Tecplot Chorus from Tecplot Inc., Bellevue, Wash., encompass the capabilities of both business analytics tools and traditional post-processors. Simulation analytics is the application of visualization, data management, statistics, and data mining to related collections of datasets generated by CAE codes. It involves the simultaneous analysis of the detailed field data and the associated metadata for the collection of datasets.

When anomalies are detected in the metadata the engineer can dive down into the associated field data to identify the root cause, which may be a numerical problem, such as an inaccurate or poorly converged solution or the result of an unexpected physical phenomenon, such as shock-induced boundary separation on a wing. The ability to identify the cause of such an anomaly early in the design process can provide more visibility into the overall problem, and can lead to better-designed, more efficient, and more capable products.

For industries striving for more R&D efficiency, simulation analytics holds the promise of significantly improving the quality and speed of engineering design decisions. As computing power continues to increase, the use of CAE analysis tools grow as well, leading to increasingly large collections of simulation results. Ultimately, simulation analytics allows engineers to tap into the wealth of information hidden within those collections.


Source: R&D Magazine

Auto industry works to win back engineers

Crain's Detroit Business
Jan 15, 2012

Credit: Atlantic International University.

Thousands of new jobs for Southeast Michigan were announced last week during the North American International Auto Show as part of expansions planned by automakers and suppliers.

But recruiting top engineers and others to fill those jobs remains a challenge.

Santosh Anishetty, head of North American passive safety and advanced driver assistance systems for Troy-based Continental Automotive Systems Inc., said Continental is struggling to fill its more than 150 posted positions.

"I work with the business unit much more specific to electronics engineering, software elements, etc., and it's not very easy to find people," he said. "(Recently) I had three people come for interviews and all three of them said "no' after we offered them a job. That never used to be the case."

Anishetty said suppliers are losing out to local upstarts in the biomedical field and tech companies like Google.

"There are a lot of aspects (as to why they are not choosing auto suppliers)," he said. "A quality engineer with eight or 10 years of experience is a king, or queen, because they are often the most experienced at the place."

Why?

The more than 300,000 jobs eliminated during the industry downturn caused talent to look elsewhere, said Neil De Koker, president and CEO of Troy-based Original Equipment Suppliers Association.
To read more click here...

Researchers Draft Blueprint to Boost Energy Innovation

Engineerblogger
Nov 24, 2011



The U.S. government could save the economy hundreds of billions of dollars per year by 2050 by spending a few billion dollars more a year to spur innovations in energy technology, according to a new report by researchers at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Achieving major cuts in carbon emissions in the process will also require policies that put a substantial price on carbon or set clean energy standards, the researchers find.

The report is the result of a three-year project to develop a set of actionable recommendations to achieve “a revolution in energy technology innovation.”

The project, part of the Energy Technology Innovation Policy (ETIP) research group in the Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, included the first survey ever conducted of the full spectrum of U.S. businesses involved in energy innovation, identifying the key drivers of private-sector investments in energy innovation.

The researchers also surveyed more than 100 experts working with an array of energy technologies to get their recommendations for energy R&D funding and their projections of cost and performance under different R&D scenarios. They then used the experts’ input to conduct extensive economic modeling on the impact of federal R&D investments and other policies (such as a clean energy standard) on economic, environmental, and security goals.

The research team identified industries that would most benefit from increased innovation investment. The report recommends the largest percentage increases for research and development in four fields: energy storage, bio-energy, efficient buildings, and solar photovoltaics.

The report, titled Transforming U.S. Energy Innovation, recommends doubling government funding for energy research, development and demonstration efforts to about $10 billion per year. The modeling results suggest that spending above that level might deliver decreasing marginal returns.

The modeling done for the report projected that investing more money in energy innovation without also setting a substantial carbon price or stringent clean energy standards would not bring big reductions in greenhouse gas emissions -- largely because without such policies, companies would not have enough incentive to deploy new energy technologies in place of carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

The researchers also propose ways for the government to strengthen its energy innovation institutions, particularly the national laboratories, so that the United States can get the most bang for its buck in its investments in energy innovation. The report concludes that the national laboratories suffer from fast-shifting funding and lack incentives for entrepreneurship.

The researchers also find that the performance of public-private partnerships and international partnerships on energy innovation would benefit from gathering information about the performance of previous projects.

The ETIP project is part of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program and Environment and Natural Resources Program at the Kennedy School. Professor Venkatesh Narayanamurti and Associate Professor Matthew Bunn were the principal investigators for this work, and the research team was led by Dr. Laura Diaz Anadon, ETIP director. The project was supported by a generous grant from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.

Source: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University

Additional Information:

• To read the Full Report 
• To view the Executive Summary 
• To view the Policy Brief

Thorium Energy: The Clean Energy Source We Need!

Engineerblogger
Nov 2011



With the global spotlight on green / renewable energy and on the safety of nuclear power following Japan's tsunami and the problems at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, Many countries are looking at spearheading efforts to make the industry safer.  For instance, the Chinese are investing millions in research into reactors powered by the element Thorium -- a metal, proponents say, as common as lead, and one which, despite some concerns, would lead to power plants with fewer safety issues as well as other benefits.  Thorium-based reactors certainly have advantages, the energy release from Thorium is greater than from Uranium, the by-products from using Thorium are less toxic than from Uranium, and it's much harder to make weapons from those by-products.

The development of workable and large-scale thorium reactors has for decades been a dream for nuclear engineers, while for environmentalists it has become a major hope as an alternative to fossil fuels. Proponents say the fuel has considerable advantages over uranium. Thorium is more abundant and exploiting it does not involve release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, making it less dangerous for the climate than fossil fuels like coal and oil.

Producing a workable thorium reactor would be a massive breakthrough in energy generation. Using thorium – a naturally occurring moderately radioactive element named after the Norse god of thunder – as a source of atomic power is not new technology. Promising early research was carried out in the US in the 1950s and 60s and then abandoned in favour of using uranium.

The pro-thorium lobby maintains this was at least partly because national nuclear power programs in the US and elsewhere were developed with a military purpose in mind: namely access to a source of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Unlike uranium, thorium-fuelled reactors do not result in a proliferation of weapons-grade plutonium. Also, under certain circumstances, the waste from thorium reactors is less dangerous and remains radioactive for hundreds rather than thousands of years.

Thorium as a nuclear fuel
Thorium (Th-232) is not itself fissile and so is not directly usable in a thermal neutron reactor – in this regard it is very similar to uranium-238. However, it is ‘fertile’ and upon absorbing a neutron will transmute to uranium-233 (U-233) , which is an excellent fissile fuel material. Thorium fuel concepts therefore require that Th-232 is first irradiated in a reactor to provide the necessary neutron dosing. The U-233 that is produced can either be chemically separated from the parent thorium fuel and recycled into new fuel, or the U-233 may be usable ‘in-situ’ in the same fuel form."

Thorium fuels therefore need a fissile material as a ‘driver’ so that a chain reaction (and thus supply of surplus neutrons) can be maintained. The only fissile driver options are U-233, U-235 or Pu-239.

It is possible – but quite difficult – to design thorium fuels that produce more U-233 in thermal reactors than the fissile material they consume (this is referred to as having a fissile conversion ratio of more than 1.0 and is also called breeding). Thermal breeding with thorium is only really possible using U-233 as the fissile driver, and to achieve this the neutron economy in the reactor has to be very good (ie, low neutron loss through escape or parasitic absorption). The possibility to breed fissile material in slow neutron systems is a unique feature for thorium-based fuels and is not possible with uranium fuels.

Another distinct option for using thorium is as a ‘fertile matrix’ for fuels containing plutonium (and even other transuranic elements like americium). No new plutonium is produced from the thorium component, unlike for uranium fuels, and so the level of net consumption of this metal is rather high. In fresh thorium fuel, all of the fissions (thus power and neutrons) derive from the driver component. As the fuel operates the U-233 content gradually increases and it contributes more and more to the power output of the fuel. The ultimate energy output from U-233 (and hence indirectly thorium) depends on numerous fuel design parameters, including: fuel burn-up attained, fuel arrangement, neutron energy spectrum and neutron flux (affecting the intermediate product protactinium-233, which is a neutron absorber).
  
Thorium R&D history
The use of thorium-based fuel cycles has been studied for about 40 years, but on a much smaller scale than uranium or uranium/plutonium cycles. Basic research and development has been conducted in Germany, India, Japan, Russia, the UK and the USA. Test reactor irradiation of thorium fuel to high burn-ups has also been conducted and several test reactors have either been partially or completely loaded with thorium-based fuel.

Noteworthy experiments involving thorium fuel include the following, the first three being high-temperature gas-cooled reactors:

• Between 1967 and 1988, the AVR (Atom Versuchs Reaktor, Nuclear Test Reactor) experimental pebble bed reactor at Jülich, Germany, operated for over 750 weeks at 15 MWe, about 95% of the time with thorium-based fuel. The fuel used consisted of about 100,000 billiard ball-sized fuel elements. Overall a total of 1360 kg of thorium was used, mixed with high-enriched uranium (HEU). Burn-ups of 150,000 MWd/t were achieved.

• Thorium fuel elements with a 10:1 Th/U (HEU) ratio were irradiated in the 20 MWth Dragon reactor at Winfrith, UK, for 741 full power days. Dragon was run as an OECD/Euratom cooperation project, involving Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland in addition to the UK, from 1964 to 1973. The Th/U fuel was used to 'breed and feed', so that the U-233 formed replaced the U-235 at about the same rate, and fuel could be left in the reactor for about six years.

• General Atomics' Peach Bottom high-temperature, graphite-moderated, helium-cooled reactor in the USA operated between 1967 and 1974 at 110 MWth, using high-enriched uranium with thorium.

• In Canada, AECL has more than 50 years experience with thorium-based fuels, including burn-up to 47 GWd/t. Some 25 tests were performed to 1987 in three research reactors and one pre-commercial reactor (NPD), with fuels ranging from ThO2 to that with 30% UO2, though most were with 1-3% UO2, the U being high-enriched.

• In India, the Kamini 30 kWth experimental neutron-source research reactor using U-233, recovered from ThO2 fuel irradiated in another reactor, started up in 1996 near Kalpakkam. The reactor was built adjacent to the 40 MWt Fast Breeder Test Reactor, in which the ThO2 is irradiated.

• In the Netherlands, an aqueous homogenous suspension reactor operated at 1MWth for three years in the mid-1970s. The HEU/Th fuel was circulated in solution and reprocessing occurred continuously to remove fission products, resulting in a high conversion rate to U-233.

There have also been several experiments with fast neutron reactors.

Current thorium fuel cycle research
Several advanced reactors concepts are currently being developed, including:

• High-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) of two kinds: pebble bed and with prismatic fuel elements. The Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) being developed by General Atomics uses a prismatic fuel and builds on US experience, particularly from the Fort St Vrain reactor. The GT-MHR core can accommodate a wide range of fuel options, including HEU/Th, U-233/Th and Pu/Th. Pebble bed reactor development builds on German work with the AVR and THTR and is under development in China and South Africa c . A pebble bed reactor can potentially use thorium in its fuel pebbles.

• The Radkowsky Thorium Reactor builds on the seed-blanket arrangement of the LWBR concept. (see subsection below)

• The molten salt reactor (MSR) is an advanced breeder concept, in which the coolant is a molten salt, usually a fluoride salt mixture. This is hot, but not under pressure, and does not boil below about 1400°C. Much research has focused on lithium and beryllium additions to the salt mixture. The fuel can be dissolved enriched uranium, thorium or U-233 fluorides, and recent discussion has been on the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, utilizing U-233 which has been bred in a liquid thorium salt blanket and continuously removed to be added to the core. The MSR was studied in depth in the 1960s, but is now being revived because of the availability of advanced technology for the materials and components. There is now renewed interest in the MSR concept in China, Japan, Russia, France and the USA, and one of the six Generation IV designs selected for further development is the MSR (see also subsection below and information page on Generation IV Nuclear Reactors).

• CANDU-type reactors – AECL is researching the thorium fuel cycle application to Enhanced Candu 6 and ACR-1000 reactors with 5% plutonium (reactor grade) plus thorium. In the closed fuel cycle, the driver fuel required for starting off is progressively replaced with recycled U-233, so that on reaching equilibrium 80% of the energy comes from thorium. Fissile drive fuel could be LEU, plutonium, or recycled uranium from LWR. AECL envisages fleets of CANDU reactors with near-self-sufficient equilibrium thorium (SSET) fuel cycles and a few fast breeder reactors to provide plutonium. AECL is also working closely with Third Qinshan Nuclear Power Company (TQNPC), China North Nuclear Fuel Corporation and Nuclear Power Institute of China (NPIC) at Chengdu to develop and demonstrate the use of thorium fuel and to study the commercial and technical feasibility of its full-scale use in Candu units such as at Qinshan. (see also Th in PHWR subsection of R&D section in China Fuel Cycle paper)

• Advanced heavy water reactor (AHWR) – India is working on this and, like the Canadian ACR design, the 300 MWe AHWR design is light water cooled. The main part of the core is subcritical with Th/U-233 oxide and Th/Pu-239 oxide, mixed so that the system is self-sustaining in U-233. The initial core will be entirely Th-Pu-239 oxide fuel assemblies, but as U-233 is available, 30 of the fuel pins in each assembly will be Th-U-233 oxide, arranged in concentric rings. It is designed for 100-year plant life and is expected to utilise 65% of the energy of the fuel. About 75% of the power will come from the thorium.

• Fast breeder reactor (FBRs), along with the AHWRs, play an essential role in India's three-stage nuclear power program (see section on India's plans for thorium cycle below). A 500 MWe prototype FBR under construction in Kalpakkam is designed to breed U-233 from thorium.

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
A quite different concept is the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR), utilizing U-233 which has been bred in a liquid thorium salt blanket(shown in video above).

The core consists of fissile U-233 tetrafluoride in molten fluoride salts of lithium and beryllium at some 700°C and at low pressure within a graphite structure that serves as a moderator and neutron reflector. Fission products dissolve in the salt and are removed progressively – xenon bubbles out, others are captured chemically. Actinides are less-readily formed than in fuel with atomic mass >235, and those that do form stay in the fuel until they are transmuted and eventually fissioned.

The blanket contains a mixture of thorium tetrafluoride in a fluoride salt containing lithium and beryllium, made molten by the heat of the core. Newly-formed U-233 forms soluble uranium tetrafluoride (UF4), which is converted to gaseous uranium hexafluoride (UF6) by bubbling fluorine gas through the blanket solution (which does not chemically affect the less-reactive thorium tetrafluoride). Uranium hexafluoride comes out of solution, is captured, then is reduced back to soluble UF4 by hydrogen gas in a reduction column, and finally is directed to the core to serve as fissile fuel.

The LFTR is not a fast reactor, but with some moderation by the graphite is epithermal (intermediate neutron speed). Safety is achieved with a freeze plug which if power is cut allows the fuel to drain into subcritical geometry in a catch basin. There is also a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity due to expansion of the fuel. The China Academy of Sciences in January 2011 launched an R&D program on LFTR, known there as the thorium-breeding molten-salt reactor (Th-MSR or TMSR), and claimed to have the world's largest national effort on it, hoping to obtain full intellectual property rights on the technology.

Much development work is still required before the thorium fuel cycle can be commercialised, its potential for breeding fuel without the need for fast neutron reactors, holds considerable potential in the long-term. It is a significant factor in the long-term sustainability of nuclear energy.

Source: World Nuclear Association




Related Articles:

• Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option
• Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium 
• Thorium nuclear power 
• India plans 'safer' nuclear plant powered by thorium 

Solar power is beginning to go mainstream

The Associated Press
Oct 23, 2011

Solar energy may finally get its day in the sun.

The high costs that for years made it impractical as a mainstream source of energy are plummeting. Real estate companies are racing to install solar panels on office buildings. Utilities are erecting large solar panel "farms" near big cities and in desolate deserts. And creative financing plans are making solar more realistic than ever for homes.

Solar power installations doubled in the United States last year and are expected to double again this year. More solar energy is being planned than any other power source, including nuclear, coal, natural gas and wind.

"We are at the beginning of a turning point," says Andrew Beebe, who runs global sales for Suntech Power, a manufacturer of solar panels.

Solar's share of the power business remains tiny. But its promise is great. The sun splashes more clean energy on the planet in one hour than humans use in a year, and daytime is when power is needed most. And solar panels can be installed near where people use power, reducing or eliminating the costs of moving power through a grid.

Solar power has been held back by costs. It's still about three times more expensive than electricity produced by natural gas, according to estimates by the Energy Information Administration.

But the financial barriers are falling fast. Solar panel prices have plunged by two-thirds since 2008, making it easier for installers to market solar's financial benefits, and not simply its environmental ones. Homeowners who want to go solar can do so for free and pay the same or less for their power.

Last month two of the nation's biggest utilities, Exelon and NextEra Energy, each acquired a large California solar power farm in the early stages of development. Another utility, NRG Energy, has announced a plan with Bank of America and the real estate firm Prologis to spend $1.4 billion to install solar systems on 750 commercial rooftops.

Nationwide, solar power installations grew by 102 percent from 2009 to 2010, by far the fastest rate in the past five years.

"Every manufacturer globally is looking around for the next major growth market, and the U.S. is the first one everyone points to," says Shayle Kann, managing director for solar research at GTM Research.

Making solar affordable still requires large tax breaks and other subsidies from federal and state governments. The main federal subsidy pays for 30 percent of the cost of a residential system. When state and other subsidies are added, as much as 75 percent of the cost can be covered.

But prices of solar panels, the squares of crystalline silicon or thin layers of metal films that turn the sun's rays into electricity, are falling so fast that its advocates now credibly claim that solar will be able to compete with fossil fuels even when the federal solar subsidy shrinks by two-thirds in 2016.

"Over the past 10 years the industry has made the case that we needed to increase scale so we could reduce prices," says Arno Harris, CEO of solar developer Recurrent Energy, a subsidiary of Sharp Corp. "We're seeing it happen."
To read more click here...

Why the Aerospace Industry Need to Use 'Should Costing'

Industryweek.com
Oct 24, 2011

Should costing is a process, whereby one can determine the cost of the part or product, based on the raw materials used, manufacturing costs and overhead production costs.

The aerospace industry today is a buyer driven market, where reducing product cost and delivery cycle time are critical for aerospace OEMs and their key suppliers to remain competitive. However, these companies produce highly complex products that require long development cycles and are manufactured in low volumes.

Aerospace companies continue to face (and address) challenges in managing product costs over a very long lifecycle of their aircrafts. It is very clear that these companies have to embrace a more concurrent approach to their operational processes and constantly review product costs to identify opportunities for cost reduction.

Since most of the aerospace OEMs source a large percentage of their component from suppliers (commonly 50-70%), this area requires special focus. It is important for OEMs to understand the costs involved in production of a part or a component sourced from an external supplier, as it will enable effective price negotiations with suppliers and also help assess the capability of potential suppliers. Understanding of component costing and measurement systems are aligned with the lean philosphy, and complements value stream organization by driving continous improvement and supporting pull and flow production.

Companies worldwide should aim to identify the major cost drivers of components they design, manufacture and procure, much earlier in the product development cycle. With cost assessments early in the product development process, one can eliminate significant costs prior to production and get quantifiable savings in material, tooling, labor, and overhead, by evaluating alternative designs, processes and sources. 

Current costing techniques vary throughout the aerospace industry and include the use of both proprietary and non-proprietary methods. Most companies still retain a traditional cost estimating department that uses experienced individuals backed by large proprietary databases. However, lack of adequate cost information can lead to poor decision making, time consuming redesigns, and high component costs. Zero based costing has been around for quite some time, but the availability of digital engineering models and specialized costing software have significantly enhanced the effectiveness of should costing and analysis.

A well managed should costing and analysis initiative is clearly a critical activity for the aerospace companies, and sets the stage for consistent cost management, that leads to increase in profitability and stakeholder returns.

What is Should Costing?

Should costing is a process, whereby one can determine the cost of the part or product, based on the raw materials used, manufacturing costs and overhead production costs. This can be achieved by analyzing the engineering models to understand the raw material required, defining the manufacturing processes required to deliver the required form features, and calculating the total costs through the use of rate data related to material costs and processing costs. The ultimate goal of any should cost analysis initiative is to provide enough information to enable (depending on the stage) designers to modify raw material or form feature requirements, or enable suppliers to modify manufacturing processes with a view to reduce costs.

Should costing, thus, provides a framework that enables a systematic focus on opportunities to reduce costs right from the conceptualization stage through the production life of the product.

 

Steady State Execution Flow of Should Cost Estimation

Scope of Should Costing in Aerospace

Aerospace manufacturing has achieved significant productivity improvements over the years, through development of new processes and by performing multiple operations on a single machine. Kaizen (continuous improvement ) activities are also widely used in the aerospace industry to increase quality, and throughput, and reduce work-in-progress and setup times.

Proliferation of should costing in product development lifecycle can help aerospace companies accurately estimate the costs associated with developing and producing components and products, and take timely decisions throughout the product development lifecycle. During design stage, it keeps the design engineers aware of movements in product cost and enables them to select most economical designs for manufacturing, improve material utilization, reduce number of features and relax tolerance during new product development. It also helps designers analyze the design and make timely trade-off decisions with respect to cost and functionality.
To read more click here...

The Shrinkage Solution

Technology Review
Sept 14, 2011

In 1966, a Nobel Prize-winning biologist named Joshua Lederberg suggested, in an essay in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, that because human evolution could now be directed by scientific means, we ought to seriously consider what kinds of changes we might like to see. A year later, in a provocative—and bizarre—essay for the July 1967 issue of Technology Review, a pair of MIT civil-engineering professors named Robert Hansen and Myle Holley considered one such change: making people smaller.

We wish here to comment on one kind of human change—a change of physical size—which apparently would be far less difficult to achieve than the modifications we infer to be potentially feasible through genetic alchemy. Indeed, it is our understanding that controlled, substantial modification of size may require only the judicious application of findings in the area of endocrinology.

The authors never got into the specifics of how humans might be made smaller, or how much smaller they should be. They acknowledged that the idea would probably generate "widespread antagonism," but they argued that given our emerging capacity for genetic engineering, it would be reckless to ignore the possibilities altogether: "Can we afford not to consider, in all its aspects, the question of human size?"

If, as the authors believe, the question of human size merits thought, it appears more reasonable to consider a decrease rather than an increase in size. First, an increase in size would clearly aggravate the problems we already associate with our excessive rate of population growth. Second, the advantages of large size and physical strength (in the performance of useful labor, the resolution of individual and group conflicts, etc.) have been almost entirely eliminated by technology.

Smaller people, they wrote, would need less food and tinier houses. They'd create less waste. And the smaller you are, the bigger the world seems. "A reduction in man's size might be compared to an increase in the size of the earth," the authors noted.

Consider, as but one example, the relation of man's size to the facilities provided for his transportation. Smaller man could mean smaller vehicles, either smaller highway rights of way or greater capacity for existing highways, easier provision for off-street parking ... Similar benefits of smaller human size become apparent in buildings.

In a section called "What Price Man's Shrinkage?" they addressed the "problems of transition." For instance: How would people react emotionally to such a proposal? Would they be less able to endure cold weather? And at what rate should the shrinkage occur? Five percent per decade? Twenty-five percent?

Allowing for an inevitable transition period, will smaller man really be comfortable in lesser space (or volume) than his larger predecessors have come to expect? ... If a change in size appears desirable, what incentives, if any, will lead to its achievement through free, individual choice?

Strange as the argument sounds, it did resonate as late as 1995, when an essay in The Futurist briefly cited Hansen and ­Holley's work in TR before pointing out that pygmies are physically fine at four and a half feet tall. Hansen and Holley emphasized that they weren't necessarily advocating making people smaller—they were simply (as ­Lederberg advised) giving the idea the careful thought they believed it deserved.

Needless to say effective consideration of this question will require not only effort within the scientific and humanistic communities, but frank and sympathetic interactions between the two. The end product of such inquiry and debate is not predictable. Possible conclusions range from feasibility, desirability, and moral acceptability to impossibility for technical, social, or other reasons. But need we prejudge the issue? Or should we seriously study the question?

Cost Vs. Quality: The Dangers Of Outsourcing Design Overseas

Engineerblogger
Sept. 1, 2011

For many years now, the outsourcing of American manufacturing overseas has been common practice. Asia leads the way in producing most consumer goods -- from electronics to housewares and everything in between -- at far lower cost than would be possible in the States. While this has resulted in a painful transition period for countless American workers, by and large U.S. companies have embraced the ability to produce their products at significantly reduced tooling, parts and labor costs.

Yet while American firms gave up manufacturing and production to overseas vendors, it has always been assumed that we would remain headquarters for the “brains” of the operation -- the research, strategy, concept development, engineering, etc.

Unfortunately, we are seeing the beginning of a new phase of outsourcing, one that could transform the playing field all over again. Having already gained the lion’s share of manufacturing work, countries like China and India are now focusing on building their capabilities in the innovation and design phases of product development. While some may dismiss the seriousness of this trend, we’d be naïve to believe that America has a monopoly on a creative workforce.

In fact the hard numbers tell a very different story. A handful of years ago Businessweek reported China having over 400 design schools with an estimated 10,000 graduates every year. The Chinese government realizes that their position as low cost supplier of cheap labor will not last forever, and their population is already demanding higher wages and better living conditions.

As a result manufacturers are looking to places like Vietnam for even less expensive production solutions. With that in mind, China is consciously investing in educating their workforce in the skills needed to add greater value to the product development process, to contribute at a higher rung on the food chain of international trade.

And those who dismiss the quality of thinking and design being offered from newly minted Chinese and Indian professionals are being rather short sighted; we only need to think back to the days when Japanese goods were scoffed at as low quality and derivative.

Of course there are many risks to simply chasing low prices for any service, and that’s all the more so when considering the use of offshore resources for research, innovation, and design - the creative foundations upon which a successful product, line or brand is built.

These overseas resources lack not only the experience of western firms in this area, but the culture of their markets also presents a significant challenge to their taking on a greater role at the front end of the product development process.

In China, for example, there’s a strong tendency for individuals to refrain from pushing boundaries far beyond those accepted by the larger group, and a desire to reach some level of consensus before acting on new ideas.

This is changing to be sure, but in many cases product development strategies overseas have culturally and economically favored a “produce lots stuff and let’s see what sticks” approach that’s diametrically opposed to the kind of deep research, thinking and planning engaged in by the most successful western firms. In the U.S. and Europe, focus is placed on taking the time to effectively target needs and opportunities in the market to ensure that new products will be met with open arms and driven demand.

In contrast, the experience of overseas suppliers has largely been based on bringing imperfect products to market quickly, knowing that their deficiencies can be inexpensively addressed in the next version.

There is also the well established concern many firms have for the protection of their intellectual property when outsourcing to certain overseas markets. While IP rights are regularly ignored in both China and India, the risk to losing control over your most valuable intangible property- the critical ideas which form the foundation of your products’ success- can be of even greater magnitude (and more difficult to control) than problems related to the theft of technical or engineering-focused properties.

To the extent that low cost overseas design and development services have begun to gain traction, it has often been an indicator of their cost-effectiveness rather than the quality of design and innovation they deliver. For many clients, solutions which are “good enough” suffice, particularly for lower cost products where investment in more expensive domestic design and development is difficult to amortize over their increasingly short shelf life.

And while investment in extensive front-end research, strategy, prototyping and testing can readily pay off for brands with the equity to sell their products at higher margins over lesser competition, the business model for such investment can look decidedly different for products competing primarily on price point or in generic product categories.

So, tempting as some may find the lure of overseas creative services, I would advise proceeding with caution. As a creative professional, I’m concerned about the potential for the United States to give up yet another area of competitive advantage which, as a nation, is so critical to our economic well being.

American design and development firms have a genuine understanding of how to gain insight into the needs of users and the opportunities unmet in the marketplace, and there’s much to be said for the proven methodologies of research and design strategy practiced by creative professionals here.

Moreover, thinking is not a precision skill like injection mold tool making, or analogous in the least to tedious assembly operations that can be accomplished by inexpensive, unskilled labor. We’ve seen examples of clients trying out the creative services offered overseas, only to return in frustration to U.S. firms after realizing that promised cost savings were illusive at best.

While cost will always be an issue for manufacturers, the efficient investment of capital is also a key consideration in the product development cycle. There’s no more important aspect of product development than coming up with the right idea or the optimal design… that’s the foundation for everything to follow. It’s tough to argue with overseas production these days, but innovative thinking is not a place where any firm can afford to cut corners.

Source: Manufacturing.net

New automakers on the block

Bizcommunity.com

Aug 22, 2011

As a wave of new models from Chinese and Indian auto manufacturers, including BYD, Mahindra and Tata, are poised to debut in the United States in the coming months, researchers from GfK Automotive found that significant barriers exist for these automakers to gain market share among American consumers.

GfK's Barometer of Automotive Awareness and Imagery Study found that Chinese and Indian automakers could face a similar purchase consideration curve to Korean vehicles when they launched in the US In that case, it took more than 15 years for consumers to significantly increase their consideration to purchase Korean vehicles.

GfK's study found that approximately one-third of consumers intending to purchase a vehicle are open to a Chinese (38%) or Indian (30%) manufacturer, compared to 95% of consumers open to purchasing from a US automaker.
To read more click here...

Making Stuff with Molecular Precision

Technology Review
July 21, 2011

For more than a decade, scientists have been touting the promise of nanomaterials as a source of new and better products, from stronger structural materials to speedy but power-efficient computers to drugs that target and kill diseased cells. But making commercial products from nanomaterials is tricky.

In these materials, tiny structural changes lead to very different properties, and precision manufacturing is critical. For example, making a structural material from slightly larger or smaller nanoparticles can dramatically affect its strength or toughness. In a nanotube integrated circuit, a single misaligned tube can cause a short, and a nanotube slightly too big or small in diameter can change the operating voltage. "You have to tune your dimensions very carefully to get the desired behavior," says Placid Ferreira, associate director of the Center for Nanoscale Chemical-Electrical-Mechanical Manufacturing Systems at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "In order to exploit nanoscale phenomena in products, you need to have manufacturing tools that give you precision, in quantity, and cheaply."

The semiconductor industry has been tremendously successful at making chips by laying down thin films on the surface of silicon wafers. But chip makers are continually scaling down transistors to pack more computing power in each chip; chips in the generation that will hit the market in the coming months have transistors that measure just 22 nanometers. At such small sizes, defects at the molecular and even atomic scale become more problematic, so semiconductor equipment makers such as ASM and Applied Materials keep providing ever more precise and expensive tools. In one manufacturing technique, parts of the transistor structure are laid down one atomic layer at a time. When manufacturing layered structures this thin, contamination by just a few atoms can significantly degrade a chip's speed and energy efficiency
To read more click here...

Cleaner Coal Faces an Uncertain Future

Technology Review

July 20, 2011

American Electric Power's recent decision to scrap plans to capture and sequester carbon dioxide at a West Virginia power station is just the latest in a string of cancellations of carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects. The moves have dimmed the prospects for carbon-free power generation from coal. However, a handful of CCS projects are moving forward—including one in Mississippi that broke ground in December—so it might be too early to completely write the technology off.

The U.S. Department of Energy's goal is to start five to 10 large CCS projects within the next five years. The DOE believes those projects could drive down the cost of CCS, which currently boosts generation costs by at least 44 percent—but the incentives it's offering have clearly not been sufficient to entice utilities. Low natural-gas prices have eroded coal's cost advantage, while a national policy to penalize carbon-dioxide emissions has yet to materialize. As a result, utilities have been unwilling to pursue CCS, even with the DOE footing half the bill. "The federal incentives offered to move the technology forward just aren't working," says Kurt Waltzer, a carbon storage expert with the Clean Air Task Force, a nonprofit environmental consulting firm based in Boston.

For example, Columbus, Ohio-based AEP walked away from a $334 million federal grant to cover half of its proposed CCS installation. The plan was to capture at least 90 percent of the carbon dioxide from a portion of the flue gases at its 1,300-megawatt power plant in New Haven, West Virginia. The 1.5 million tons per year of captured carbon dioxide was to be permanently stored in geologic formations below the plant. But expected supports did not come through. The U.S. Senate rejected a cap-and-trade bill last year (AEP supported the legislation), while Virginia and West Virginia's public utility commissions refused to pass along all of AEP's costs to ratepayers.
To read more click here...

Why Is Biomanufacturing So Hard?

Technology Review
July 15, 2011

Earlier this year, the Cambridge-based biotech firm Genzyme announced the latest in a series of manufacturing delays for Fabrazyme, a biological drug that treats a rare genetic disorder, after one lot of the drug was found to be contaminated. The news followed a more severe setback in 2009, when both Fabrazyme and another drug were contaminated with a virus; the problem closed the manufacturing plant and created major shortages.

Genzyme isn't alone in these issues. Biologics—drugs made through a biological process rather than chemical synthesis, a category that includes recombinant proteins, vaccines, and antibodies—are the fastest-growing segment of the pharmaceutical industry. In 2008, nearly 30 percent of revenue from the top 100 drugs came from biologics, a figure that is expected to rise to 50 percent by 2014.

But the same factors that make biologics powerful drugs also make them a challenge to manufacture. They typically mimic proteins and other molecules found in living organisms and can target harmful entities, such as some cancer cells, with great accuracy; many of the most promising new drugs for cancer and other diseases fall into this class. Biologics tend to be larger, more complex molecules than drugs synthesized through chemical reactions, which adds to production challenges and makes them costly. A single dose of some biologic therapies can cost $10,000.
To read more click here...