The Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generator & The World's First Near-Zero CO2 Plan (self-funding)

The paradise islands of Tuvalu are on the brink of being swamped by the sea due to the Ice Caps melting. In February of 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that human activity is "very likely" to be responsible for most of the observed warming in recent decades. Susan Solomon, co-chair of the IPCC working group warned: "If we keep emitting greenhouse gases at current rates we will see bigger changes this century than we did in the previous century. The amount of warming will depend on choices that human beings make." The report is signed by 2000 scientists, and yet the rich countries at the United Nations that are responsible for most of this global warming are ignoring the efforts of the Tuvalu people to save their country. If Tuvalu is allowed to fall then other nations will follow. Our choice must be to act.



The picture above is a map of the UK if both polar ice caps are allowed to totally collapse over the next 200 to 300 years. This would cause flooding 100 metres above today's shoreline.

 

In 2006 the United Nations climate change monitoring program measured a sea-level rise of around 22mm. This compares with the official IPCC estimate of 3mm, a factor of over 7 times above what was expected. The speed at which the sea rises could well rise.

Scientists are saying that we must start to reverse global warming now and some are saying that we have until 2016 to do so before global warming becomes unstoppable.


 

This map shows a moderate projection of the likely temperature increases on the planet by 2090-2099 by the IPCC. It shows that we must make all countries near-zero CO2 emitters now.

Whilst all ideas must be utilised in order to minimise the damage done by the pollution that industrialisation has caused, what we need is low tech electricity generation which does not have career scientists lying to the electorate about safety and price issues. Tony Blair has said that he is waiting for an invention with the capability of reversing global warming. And here it is.

 

A Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generator is a lined and capped well, filled with water, which is ten kilometres deep. Because the ground heats up at a constant rate the deeper one digs, the cap of the well is at three times boiling point, the precise temperature at which power stations generate electricity with their turbine generators. Any power station can easily be converted to Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generators. The power they can generate is only limited by how wide the well is dug, and energy generation greater than nuclear power stations is easily possible. It should be noted that due to temperature variations in different localities, the well would have to be dug until the temperature at the bottom reached three times boiling point, which is an average of ten kilometres.

As far as the cost of such a project is concerned, the recent Aachen bore hole was dug to a depth of 2.5 kilometres in three months, so we can assume that it would take just a year to get down to a depth where the rocks are at the temperature of three times boiling point. Figures available on the internet say that a bore hole of 5.54 kilometres costs £4.7 million, which equates to £8.5 million for a ten kilometre bore hole. This is thus a very cheap way of cleaning up the pollution caused by present power stations. There are approximately 107 main power stations in the UK producing 47 million tonnes of carbon (2004 figures) or 30% of the total UK production of carbon, and this would take £909.5 million to convert to BGTGs. A drop of 30% in carbon production would go a long way towards the Government's present target of 60% of 1990 emissions by 2050. We must also compare the cost of converting all power stations to BGTGs with the conservative estimate of £2 billion to build just one nuclear power station.

A further cut of 20% in carbon emissions can be produced if all vehicles on the road make use of this cheap electricity rather than petrol. This may seem to be an anathema to 'petrol heads' but this displeasure can be simply overcome. At the moment when inventors come up with new technologies for electrical vehicles Oil Companies buy and destroy the patents and designs. These patents have a shelf life of ten years so we could soon put together a group of past inventors in this field to reproduce their work legally, as an intergovernmental concern. Thus a 50% cut in Carbon emissions is achievable with the use of Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generators.

At least another 41% cut in CO2 emissions can be realised if we convert all houses and industries to near zero-carbon emissions. This does not have to be expensive. The cheapest and simplest method would be to paint the surfaces of all rooms with Starlite, invented by Maurice Ward; this would prevent heat escaping and so minimise heating requirements.

http://www.starlitetechnologies.com/

(This figure assumes that 80% of heating is by gas, and that domestic gas use is 29%, and industry heating is 22% of total energy consumption.)

We thus have a cut of 91% in carbon emissions, the cost of converting all the power stations and the redecorating of the houses of the less well off could be paid for by the savings made from implementing the wide-scale use of the Kadir-Buxton Method, which according to ''The Ecologist'' magazine, would save £100 billion per year in the UK alone. We would thus not need any new money for such a large project.

This cut of 91% in carbon emissions exceeds the Live Earth target of 90% reductions, and can be increased to 93% by using the following invention.

 

It is estimated that aircraft produce 4% of all CO2 emissions and this figure could be halved by an international consortium producing a jet engine that can run on paraffin oil based fuel mixed with water using an ultrasonic device to a ratio of 50% or more. This engine would have the added advantage of burning at a lower temperature so less cooling devices would be needed which would lead to a drop in the cost of jet engines.

 

Near-Zero Carbon Countries


It is difficult to get hold of all the figures necessary to show that countries can become Near-Zero carbon countries. However, there is a simple explanation that adequately reveals how this target can be achieved. All our power requirements are for lighting, heating, transport, and energy for such things as industry on down to exercise machines. We can assume that each category is 25% of total power. The lighting can be zero rated by building BGTGs, the heating can be near-zero rated by installing Starlite coatings on the walls and ceilings of all premises, and by having electrical heating we cut heating emissions to zero. Transport can be made near-zero in terms of carbon emissions by ensuring that all vehicles use carbon zero electricity, the only difficulty we have in aeroplanes and shipping. However, their carbon footprints can be at least halved by having their fuels mixed with water using an ultrasonic dibber. Finally, the power needed for energy can be made entirely of carbon free electricity.

 

New ways of making industry CO2 neutral will be needed, but these are not insurmountable problems given that the Governments of the world have ten years to achieve the target. For example, cement manufacture creates 5% of the world's CO2 emissions. Making traditional cement results in greenhouse gas emissions from two sources: it requires intense heat, and so a lot of energy to heat up the ovens that cook the raw material, such as limestone. That then releases further CO2 as it burns. Nikolaos Vlasopoulos, chief scientist at Novacem, says that cement based on magnesium silicates, not only requires much less heating, it also absorbs large amounts of CO2 as it hardens, making it carbon negative. According to Novacem, its product can absorb, over its life cycle, around 0.6 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of cement. This compares to carbon emissions of about 0.4 tonnes per tonne of standard cement.


Reversing the Damage Done
Already by Industrialisation

I once muted the possibility that sufficiently large Buxton Geothermal Power Stations could power gigantic freezer units at both Poles so that the melting of the ice caps could be reversed and then maintained. This will be necessary to reduce the heating of the planet caused from the beginning of industrialisation up until all countries become near-zero carbon countries. (which should be within the next ten years.)

 

The electricity cable to the freezer units would have to be suspended over the snow, and the best way to stop the cables being buried in snow is to have the pylons put on legs which have the ability to step out of snow drifts, thus keeping the power cable above the snow surface. As freezer units generate heat, this would have to be captured by fluids in pipelines that were lagged with Starlite, invented by Maurice Ward. The Starlite would keep all the heat in until it could be used to heat towns in the countries that the BGTGs are built in. Another alternative suggested, would be to release the heat by way of infra red radiation into space.

Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generators are cheaper and faster to build than nuclear power stations, generate more electricity and are far cleaner. The electricity generated is cheap because there are no technically sophisticated and expensive parts, no fuel costs, and no expensive waste to care for. Labour costs are also lower.

Only one Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generator has been built, in the then West Germany, by Helmut Kohl, generating as much electricity as a nuclear power station. Because is was classified as an official secret in Germany no publicity is made of my invention, this in spite of the fact that UK politicians of the time went to see it.

Because electricity generated by Buxton Geothermal Turbine Generators is so cheap, just a few in a country would force down the price of electricity, and this would have the effect of making the building of nuclear power stations economically unfeasible because their electricity is far more expensive. Now would be a good time to campaign for more to be built.

Sweden in planning to go Fossil Free by 2020 and Norway is planning to cut CO2 emissions by 50-80% by 2050. If we are not to be part of the solution we are going to be part of the problem.


Nuclear Energy is Part of the Problem

Ex Prime Minister Tony Blair came out in favour of more nuclear power stations in the UK, and various governments are to spend £6.6 billion on The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Now, instead of Chernobyl exploding with the power of an Atom Bomb, we are to have power stations going off with the force of a Hydrogen Bomb. The ITER will be too little and too late.

As well as being dangerous, nuclear generated electricity is four times more expensive than most alternatives, not taking into account the cost of safely storing dangerous levels of radioactive waste for a billion years. It also takes more energy to fuel, build, and run nuclear power stations than they ever generate. Uranium alone takes more energy to produce than it will ever generate. The only reason that nuclear electricity looks competitive in the UK is because it is heavily subsidised by a European Grant. (This Grant is not big enough to dispose of the dangerous waste safely, and the technology still has not been developed to do so. At the moment it is estimated that the UK bill for disposing of nuclear waste is some £70 billion). Hazardous materials from the milling would take four times the amount of energy that was needed to extract the ore to clean up properly afterwards, so this is not attempted, although it should be.

Because there is no logic to having nuclear power stations except in order to build nuclear weapons, and the Cold War is over, we can only assume that NATO wishes to have another arms race with either Russia or China. The best advice that can be given to both countries is to warm relations between each other and not get involved in the economic drag of another arms race.

 

If the plan to double the number of nuclear power stations comes to fruition then there is only enough uranium for twenty years, we will have ''peak uranium'' soon. In addition, the new report by Environmental Economist and Author David Fleming concludes that at current levels of uranium ore deposits, the nuclear industry will need to divert all its energy generated to cleaning up its waste by 2025. Just how desperate are governments to have nuclear weapons of mass destruction?


Mahatma Gandhi: "It's the action, not the fruit of the action, that's important. You have to do the right thing... You may never know what results come from your action. But if you do nothing, there will be no result."  

 

An article in 'The Welwyn & Hatfield Times' appeared on 22 November 2006. You can see this article at: Welwyn & Hatfield Times

 

An article, in 'The Gainsborough Standard' newspaper on 28 December 2006 has been published on this subject. You can see this article at:

Gainsborough Standard

 

 On 19 January 2007 the newspaper 'Bourne Today' printed an article which can be seen at:

Bourne Today