Jonathan Biley Island and Prairie Suction Tech Inc. Suite 115 - 19567 Fraser Hwy, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada V3S 9A4 islandirishmoss@icloud.com werent (604) 440-6206 dune 11, 2019 Dr, James E Hansen Climate Science, Awareness, and Solutions Earth Institute Columbia University 475 Riverside Drive (Room 401-0) New York, NY 10115 USA, Dear Dr, Hansen, It has been 7 years since your “Ted Talk” appearance urging humans to dramatically shift away from carbon emitting activities, for the sake of your grandchildren and the continued existence ‘of humanity. Notwithstanding, since then atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen to the prehistoric level of 415 parts per million (I, global carbon emission rates have accelerated steadily as countries renege or fail to meet their Paris Agreement commitments, inter alfa , the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts humans have about 11 more years to significantly alter global emissions to avoid irreversible environmental consequences |, the Antarctic ice sheet and Greenland are melting at “worst case scenario” rates ‘wild inhabitants of the oceans are dying with unprecedented movement towards annihilation 15, the United Kingdom and Ireland recently declared national climate emergencies '§! with Canada to follow, and many ecosystems are rapidly plunging into Earth’s sixth extinction [8 As ‘seemingly no substantial progress has been made, it is obvious despite the abundant rhetoric regarding “saving the planet”, that most human beings including philanthropists and scientists are fundamentally self-absorbed with the enjoyment of their own limited duration lives ®™, which take priority above the imminent global disaster that will most severely impact the children. | am the first to publish and thereby humbly present to you the specifics of a “drop-in replacement” liquid fuel energy system based on a marriage of drone harvested algae biofuel and fission nuciear energy, such novel combination predicted by elementary mathematics to aggressively undercut the current market price of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, while possessing an inherent scalability in the ocean that has the potential to satisfy the energy needs of the entire global transportation system (9), achieving a net energy return which rivals or exceeds refined petroleum, sequestering many gigatons per annum of existing atmospheric carbon through mass farm production I", simultaneously mitigating and reversing other major global environmental problems such as recycling the plague of plastic waste into cultivation structures that physically support kelp, filtering anthropologic nutrient pollution (eutrophication) (2, further providing edible fish habitat to produce enough plant and animal food to provide for every person on Earth !'3. This profitable corporate, co-op, or union business model would generate substantial income to an ethical, dedicated large group of people that | Wholeheartedly believe would dedicate themselves to making such nobble results reality, if the “experts” would simply lead the way. “Every battle is won or lost before it is ever fought” - Sun Tzu, Art of War Page 1 of 11‘A novel combination of the most efficient photosynthesis in the kingdom of organisms (14, an ultra-low energy consumption drone-based harvesting system, a processing and transportation infrastructure designed to minimize the total overall movement of biomass, wherein such biomass is processed into liquid fuel by heat and electricity from fission nuclear energy, would lower the unit cost of biofuel substantially enough to realistically compete against gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel "5, wherein the war against catastrophic climate change can be won on economics alone. A battle based primarily on the price of fuel would negate the need for carbon taxes and the implementation of unrealistically expensive, drastic measures such as geo-engineering !"8). Whereas, geo-engineering may prove catastrophic within itself (17, while carbon taxes are resulting in violent opposition from people who are already enduring economic disadvantage and vulnerability 1'8, further providing ammunition for sociopathic, political leaders living in “climate change denial” to secure popular votes, thereby obstructing and sometimes reversing progress towards our already inherently difficult world transition to clean energy "9, When | encounter a person who fundamentally misunderstands principles of science but wishes to discuss an energy system such as perpetual energy, from basic ethical obligation | volunteer a brief amount of my time to explain the violation of Newton's first law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy. Or simply in other cases, | explain the proposed system cannot mathematically demonstrate a net energy return, the system lacks scalability, the person is embracing beliefs which deny fundamentals of science, or most importantly the system lacks economic competitiveness against existing systems. Yet, | am amazed and disheartened by how many scientists have cowardly dodged any conversation with me, wherein not one scientist nor engineer has ever stated a single criticism (either constructive or destructive) of the enclosed energy system. Antithetically, physicist Dr. Christoph Pahl from CERN has emphatically stated he is willing to present his results of a physics model simulating my proposed energy system in a peer reviewed science paper, to the media, to the general public, et alia, once funding is made available for him to complete several months of work. Dr. Pah'’s curriculum vitae is hereby attached (ATTACHMENT A pages 1-4), whereas it is seemingly my sole financial and ethical responsibility to move this energy system into the public eye, even though | have little if any financial benefit to gain, and little of my own time or money left to do so. The development of offshore kelp-to-fuel technology is currently being funded by the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) 1, whereas Professor Tim Flannery of Australia vaguely describes robot based cultivation and harvesting systems in his books’, But other than a simple drone based cultivation system described by Marine BioEnergy ®, | am confident that to date | am the only person to publish the specific harvesting operations of such a system, mass distribution, elementary mathematics, and transportation infrastructure from seaweed farm to fuel distribution pipeline. However, current commercial ethanol systems consume the majority of produced energy in the distillation stage (average 36,742 BTUs of heat and 14,444 BTUs of electricity consumed to distill 84,100 BTUs of fuel grade ethanol or 60.9% of the total produced biofuel energy 23), wherein Brazil stil maintains a highly competitive production cost of about 95 cents USD/gallon of ethanol 4! with costs expected to decrease in the future 9. The implementation of floating nuclear power plants similar to Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov 28) (ATTACHMENT B page 1) redesigned as floating bio-refineries, would by simple math based on the ibid. data, increase the biofuel output of any given farm area and support infrastructure almost three fold by not consuming any ethanol in the process or transport, effectively reducing the number of vehicles and/or aircraft that emit net carbon pollution three fold over a non-nuclear based energy system. Specifically how this dramatic increase in production output and simultaneous decrease in unit cost is achieved, described forthwith: Page 2 of 11First, since nuclear reactors are far better sources of heat than sources of electricity, due to the inherent physical disadvantage of gas steam turbines generating electricity at 35-40% efficiency 7, the financial cost of a kilowatt of heat before turbine electrical conversion efficiency losses from a conventional pressurized heavy water reactor (CANDU) is calculated to about 1.9 cents USD (ATTACHMENT B page 2), compared to 5.6 cents USD a kilowatt/hour of heat from ethanol at a current market price of 1.39 USD per gallon Pl, However, waste heat from nuclear electrical generation may be considered to have no operating cost other than the electrical generation itself, which is already inherently cost competitive. Ergo, the use of well established fission nuclear energy technology would dramatically lower the unit cost of distilled ethanol from fermentation (perhaps the heat input around 43.7%), steam reform of fermented bio-methane into liquid methanol 3, hydrothermic liquefaction into green crude §°) and catalytic conversion of biocrude/alcohol into jet fuel ®"!, wherein all such processes require a combination of electricity and heat. Notwithstanding, Brazil has for many years successfully produced sugarcane ethanol at an impressive 8 to 1 net energy retum without nuclear energy 2), Whereas, the combination of a water based transportation system possessing inherent physical advantages over land based systems (water transport is roughly 7 to 14 times more energy efficient than transporting mass by heavy truck 5), powered by a floating fission nuclear bio-refinery positioned within the vicinity of harvesting operations, wherein net energy return as raw heat from a conventional and established heavy water Canadian CANDU reactor is calculated without the steam turbine at around 100 to 1 4 (ATTACHMENT B page 3), may achieve combined net energy returns in biofuel which rival the best fossil fuel extraction and processing systems in existence today (20+ to 1 net energy return). Even with the rise to 35% electricity tax, France still maintains through predominantly fission nuclear based electrical generation, among the lowest electricity prices in the European Union (50% less than German consumers) ), while neighbouring Germany through wind and solar has now reached among the highest electricity prices in the European Union 14) Hf 20+ to 1 net energy return ratios are actually achieved, | humbly predict the war against catastrophic climate change will come to a swift, decisive end, as the rapid growth of the industry described within would substantially sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide profitably and competively. Clearly, there is a direct correlation between net energy return and cost to produce energy, whereas hydroelectricity is an excellent example of the lowest cost (ATTACHMENT B page 2-3) and a 40 to 1 net energy return. Ergo, the 1 trillion trees we need to plant to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide to pre-industrial levels can be profitably achieved by growing those “trees” underwater |", wherein kelp fronds falling into the deep ‘ocean undemeath a cultivation structure may sequester carbon for centuries (10 Second, the entire transportation infrastructure and harvester drones of the novel biofuel system is powered by electric batteries/hydrogen gas (or combination thereof) generated by the nuclear reactor, wherein | am not usually an advocate for electrolytic hydrogen generation and use of fuel cells because of the poor combined efficiency compared to lithium ion batteries (about 22% with hydrogen vs. 73% overall efficiency from electric battery #8), However, in these particular circumstances, hydrogen generation from a high temperature nuclear reactor (700°C) such as a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) or any other molten salt reactor, may prove not only efficiency but cost effectiveness F, since electrical generation by steam turbine is inherently inefficient 71. Although, the high temperature of a LFTR does increase electrical conversion efficiency to 45% through higher temperatures and various conversion processes #0, Also, the relatively safe and short lived nuclear waste produced by a thorium reactor |*t) could be entombed in the deep ocean, whereas modular reactors produced small enough while maintaining enough distance from shore, would present negligible hazards to humans '*, ‘And as you have stated in your speeches Ms), these type of modern nuclear reactors are inherently safer than the conventional pressurized, solid fuel light/heavy water reactor as they do not require continuous cooling, inter alla. Also, thorium is a fertile nuclear fuel as abundant Page 3 of 11