TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE: WHY NOT STIRLING SOLAR POWER?

By Francis C W Fung, Ph.D.

James C Townsend, Ph.D.

“On July 17, 2008 Al Gore, former US Vice President, made an important US energy
independent announcement. The main theme was to announce the timely and important
initiative of converting all US electricity production to green energy in a decade, by 2018.
The initiative is wise and admirable, but is it realistic? Is it achievable and how?
Currently the US electricity generation is 70% by fossil fuel, 20% by nuclear power and
only 10% by solar, hydro, wind and other forms of renewable energy. Gore’s ambitious
goal is achievable if supported by concerted national efforts of Solar–Stirling Engine
programs to gradually replace existing fossil fuel power plants, large or small.
“America is a country of vast resources and can do spirit demonstrated by the mass
mobilization of WWII in airplane manufacturing capability. Half a century later the
world has not yet caught up. In the urgency of the present national energy and climate
crisis, the same ‘can do’ attitude can be applied to the Green Energy for Electricity
Initiative (GENEI) for success. The GENEI policy will put US so far ahead in Solar–
Stirling system manufacturing that the world will not be able to catch up. The
momentum of GENEI advocacy will make us the largest energy technology and Stirling
Engine export nation in the history of world green energy technology and product export.
The potential world market of GENEI technology and products together with our
reduction in oil imports can be so great as to more than halve the current American trade
deficit. The US is in great need of a president who will adhere to the mission and vision
advanced by Al Gore.”
Above are the opening two paragraphs from a paper titled “Green Energy for Electricity
Initiative (GENEI), Alternative to Nuclear and Fossil Energy” (Appendix 1) by the first
author on July 18, 2008. Now, on Feb. 16, 2010 President Obama announced an $8.33
billion loan guarantee for the new Vogtle nuclear reactors, the first step in the
Administration's push to jump-start the dormant U.S. nuclear construction industry.
Obama also urged Congress to set aside political differences and triple the budget for
nuclear loan guarantees. "On an issue that affects our economy, our security, and the
future of our planet, we can't keep on being mired in the same old stale debates between
the left and the right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs," Obama said.
In view of this unprecedented announcement by Obama, for the first time in over 30
years, the Nuke debate has come back in full force, so as to be able to bring back a
“Nuclear Power Renaissance” according to some circles. As stated by Michael Grunwald
in “Why Obama’s Nuclear Bet Won’t Pay Off” (Appendix 2), “Obama did acknowledge
‘some serious drawbacks with respect to nuclear energy,’ but the drawbacks he
mentioned — waste disposal and reactor safety — are not the real obstacles to a rebirth.
It would be nice to have a permanent Yucca Mountain-style repository for spent nuclear
fuel, but for now plants have been storing their waste on-site without major problems.
 TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE

And the nuclear industry's safety record has improved dramatically in the 30 years since
the Three Mile Island meltdown, although there are still occasional blips like a recent
radioactive leak at a Vermont plant. The NRC is not exactly a hostile regulator, but
sometimes it does show teeth; in October, it identified problems with the Westinghouse
AP 1000 reactor design, which could create additional delays for nearly half the proposed
new reactors, including the ones at Vogtle.
“But waste disposal problems, safety issues and regulatory delays do create a much more
serious obstacle to a nuclear comeback: They jack up the already exorbitant cost of
construction. That is the truly serious drawback of nuclear energy. Recent studies have
priced new nuclear power at 25-30 cents per kilowatt-hour, about four times the cost of
producing juice with new wind, or coal plants, or ten times the cost of reducing the need
for electricity through investments in efficiency.
“Meanwhile, nuclear costs keep spiraling out of control; last year, the estimates for
several reactors doubled, and for one Pennsylvania reactor more than tripled. This is why
credit rating agencies keep downgrading utilities with nuclear ambitions, which increases
their borrowing costs and makes their projects even more expensive.”
As explained in Appendix 1,”The cost of nuclear power plants is manifolds higher than
the equivalent Solar–Stirling Engine power plants because of the strict need and
regulation requirements to prevent nuclear radioactivity leaks. All nuclear power plants
must be housed in huge fortified containment housing, and all systems of hot and cooling
water circulation must be heavily protected and isolated. The construction cycle is also
unduly long, generally over 5 years. Whereas, for Solar–Stirling power plants, without
need for civil structures, site constructions can be less than a year. Despite all the built in
safety factors for nuclear power plants, mechanical failures and human errors do occur.
Accidents like Three Mile Island in the US and Chernobyl in Russia is unavoidable and
the consequences are too dear to accept.”
Besides the unlikelihood of Wall Street financing of nukes without a prohibitive Federal
subsidy and the issues of safety and nuclear proliferation of nuke spent fuel treatment
mentioned above, there are a multitude of reasons not to go for a Nuclear Power
Renaissance. Following are some of the pro and con reasons to say no to Nuke:
1) The five years required for nuclear site construction (after all delays for
permits and environmental reviews) is so long that nuclear plants cannot
answer current financial and job recovery needs.
2) In comparison, the short onsite construction time of typically less than one
year for a field of Solar–Stirling engine power plants can provide immediate
jobs in both manufacturing and construction, helping to meet current financial
and job recovery needs.
3) Massive Stirling engine fabrication for electric generation can utilize surplus
Detroit internal combustion engine manufacturing facilities that will otherwise
be idled as automobile electrification comes in full force in the very near
future.

2
 TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE

4) The strategy of reusing engine-manufacturing facilities provides hope for

reviving Detroit’s economy; this is a national priority that demonstrates the
principle of efficiency and conservation manifested to the nth degree.
5) Massive deployment of nuclear power plants nationwide will need expansion of
expensive special manufacturing machinery and facilities, which will be very
time consuming and further extend the dilemma of the nuclear site
construction time being too long to help the current financial crisis. (For one
discussion of the costs, see
<http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/calvert/highcostnpower_mdpirg.pdf>.)
6) Stirling electric generation is inherently modular. Individual modules range in
power from 1kW to 50 kW or more and can be grouped together in multiples
to generate as much power as a nuclear plant. So, a Solar–Stirling power plant
can be built up incrementally to any size desired as the need grows.
7) Stirling electric generation can also be built in a distributed manner at all
appropriate locations; a single 50 kW module can easily fit in a less than 0.1-
acre site. Nuclear plants are very location sensitive because of their large
structural size and area requirements for safety and strong security.
8) Nuclear plants must be built near water for massive cooling, which will
infringe upon prime land and can cause thermal pollution. The Solar–Stirling
power plant does not need cooling water and thus can be built in unoccupied
desert lands such as those in the U.S. west and southwest.
9) Stirling engines are multi-fuel external heat engines. Besides solar energy, they
can be powered by geothermal heat, waste heat, and biomass or any
combustible waste as fuel.
10) Currently America Solar–Stirling Engine technology development leads the
world. We must act in time to stay ahead, so as not to loose the massive
market for Solar–Stirling power plants in the developing world. An
economically attractive approach is to jump start development by teaming up
with China immediately to exploit the win–win advantages offered by both
sides. The biggest Solar–Stirling engine market will be China, followed by the
developing world.
11) The World Harmony Organization is already in active discussion with leaders
of China on a “Grand Alliance Strategy for Stirling Power”. The developing
world is ready and willing to go forward with electrification by Solar–Stirling
power. It is not ready for Nukes and should be discouraged from going on that
wrong track.
12) In his Feb. 16, 2010 speech, President Obama made a strong pitch that
America must retain its capability as the number one exporter of nuclear
power plants by building the new Vogtle plant and other nuclear reactors.
But, the export of nuclear power plants concurrently necessitates the shipping
of enriched uranium fuel to developing countries. The devastating effect of

3
 TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE

nuclear proliferation is not limited to the explosive destruction of nuclear

weapons but also includes the radioactivity of the enriched uranium and its
fission products. Transporting nuclear fuel is more dangerous than
transporting a biological virus because the effect of any nuclear fuel leakage
has a longer life span than any leakage of a biological virus. The world is
more connected than most people realize — what we leak will eventually
spread around the world. It is not responsible for a Nobel Peace Prize winner
to advocate the export of nuclear fuels.
13) America is fortunately very abundant in solar power. We do not need to resort
to more Nukes when we have the technology to quickly exploit that readily
available, safe, and environmentally friendly energy. We already have 104
nuclear power plants spread around the country; that’s enough.

In Service of Stirling Engine Renaissance

General Partner
Green Energy Stirling Engine Partnership (GESEP)
San Francisco, CA

References

1. Green Energy for Electricity Initiative (GENEI) – Alternative to Nuclear and

Fossil Energy, Francis C. W. Fung, Ph.D., July 18, 2008 (See Appendix 1)

2. Why Obama's Nuclear Bet Won't Pay Off, Michael Grunwald, February 18, 2010
(See Appendix 2)

3. Stirling Energy Alliance (SEA) Grand Strategy, Francis C W Fung, Ph.D.,

General Partner, Green Energy Stirling Engine Partnership (GESEP) (See
Appendix 3)

4. Stirling Engine Renaissance in 21st Century, Francis C W Fung, Ph.D.,

September 2006, World Harmony Organization (Available on request from
<francis@worldharmonyorg.net>.)

4
 TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE

Appendix 1. – GREEN ENERGY FOR ELECTRICITY INITIATIVE

(GENEI)
ALTERNATIVE TO NUCLEAR AND FOSSIL ENERGY

BY FRANCIS C W FUNG, PH.D.

July 18, 2008

On July 17, 2008 Al Gore, former US Vice President, made an important US energy
independent announcement. The main theme was to announce the timely and important
initiative of converting all US electricity production to green energy in a decade, by 2018.
The initiative is wise and admirable, but is it realistic? Is it achievable and how?
Currently the US electricity generation is 70% by fossil fuel, 20% by nuclear power and
only 10% by solar, hydro, wind and other forms of renewable energy. Gore’s ambitious
goal is achievable if supported by concerted national efforts of Solar Stirling Engine
programs to gradually replace existing fossil fuel power plants, large or small.

America is a country of vast resources and can do spirit demonstrated by the mass
mobilization of WWII in airplane manufacturing capability. Half a century later the
world has not yet caught up. In the urgency of the present national energy and climate
crisis, the same ‘can do’ attitude can be applied to the Green Energy for Electricity
Initiative (GENEI) for success. The GENEI policy will put US so far ahead in Solar
Stirling system manufacturing that the world will not be able to catch up. The
momentum of GENEI advocacy will make us the largest energy technology and Stirling
Engine export nation in the history of world green energy technology and product export.
The potential world market of GENEI technology and products together with our
reduction in oil imports can be so great as to more than halve the current American trade
deficit. The US is in great need of a president who will adhere to the mission and vision
advanced by Al Gore.

Exactly twenty-four years ago I delivered a key note speech at the Second International
Conference of Stirling Engines in Shanghai, China. The title of my speech was “The
Promising Future of Stirling Engines in China”. This was referring to American Stirling
Engine technology being transferred to China. The idea was for China to deploy
nationwide, small size solar powered Stirling engines as an appropriate renewable energy
technology. The most endearing and commanding source of external heat to power
Stirling Engines without doubt is solar heat. Because of the simplicity of the Stirling
Engine’s operating principle and construction compared to the conventional internal
combustion engine, this is a winning combination from economical and renewable energy
considerations. The operating gas in a Stirling Engine is hermetically sealed and heat is
added to the outside of the engine cylinder. Thus mechanically, high efficiency Stirling
Engines are very simple and maintenance free. Most of all, because of its high heat and
power concentration capability, it is also particularly suitable for large electric utility
applications compared to solar voltaic panels. Solar voltaic panels as alternative utility
power plants have significantly lower thermal efficiency, higher cost and take up much
more space for the same electricity power delivered.

5
 TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE

As of this writing, the two largest Solar power Stirling Engine Utility Plants under
construction are the Solar One Project being built for Southern California Edison at the
California Mohave desert and the Solar Two Project being built for San Diego Gas and
Electric at Imperial County at Southern California. The total designed power for these
two projects add up to be 1750 MW, the size of two large nuclear power plants.

How does Solar Stirling Engine stack up against Nuclear Power plants? The solar
Stirling Engine technology used in these two projects are called the SES SunCatcher
system, they hold the record for the most efficient solar electricity generation technology
in the world. The SES SunCatcher is a highly concentrating solar thermal technology
that converts sunlight into electricity at a rate of 31.25 percent, significantly more
efficient than its closest competitor. The cost of electric power for these Sun Catchers is
1/5 to 1/10 the cost of comparable photo voltaic panels. Each Sun Catcher dish is 38 feet
tall, 40 feet wide and generates 25,000 watts of power, which means they occupy much
less space compared to any solar voltaic panels on per kilowatt basis. The large space
required for solar voltaic panels, high price and low efficiency, disqualified them as
candidates for large utilities in competing with Solar Stirling Engine systems.

The cost of nuclear power plants is manifolds higher than the equivalent Solar Stirling
Engine power plants because of the strict need and regulation requirements to prevent
nuclear radioactivity leaks. All nuclear power plants must be housed in huge fortified
containment housing, and all systems of hot and cooling water circulation must be
heavily protected and isolated. The construction cycle is also unduly long. Despite all the
built in safety factors for nuclear power plants, mechanical failures and human errors do
occur. Accidents like Three Mile Island in the US and Chernobyl in Russia are
unavoidable and the consequences are too dear to accept.

For the sheer amount of enormous energy needed for Green Energy for Electricity
Initiative (GENEI), from a safety point of view, Solar Stirling Engine System utility wins
hands down over other renewable energy choices. California has voted for Stirling
Engines from expert experience and is moving ahead. Since the accident at Three Mile
Island over thirty years ago, the US has consistently delayed building nuclear power
plants. That is very responsible and to be commended. I was one time the China country
representative of Combustion Engineering for the sales of moth-balled Tennessee Valley
Nuclear power plants. The nightmares of TMI and Chernobyl still haunt me. The cost of
disposal of spent fuel and its adverse effect of long lasting radioactivity on nature and
mankind is well known. No nuclear power plant is permanent. The eventual need to tear
down old dilapidated nuclear power plant for safety has also never been adequately
addressed.

After the unprecedented severe Sichaun earth quakes, the construction of huge hydro
power plants such as the three Gorges anywhere in the world will be most likely put off
for a long time if not forever. Medium and small size hydropower stations are better
alternatives.

6
 TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE

Aside from the fact that Solar Stirling Engine for electricity generation is non polluting
and renewable, the final merit is the economic pay back of its low life cycle cost due to
ease of manufacturing and maintenance of the engine. Solar Stirling Engine systems
have long life cycle and do not require the many additional ancillary accessories as diesel
and steam engines. In a Solar Stirling Engine System the working gas is permanently and
hermetically sealed. There is no replacement or treatment necessary of the working gas
in the life cycle of the engine as is required in steam and internal combustion engines.

In conclusion, as a national and local GENEI policy to reduce environmental pollution, to

steer away from long term radioactive degradation of the earth, and to reduce national
financial burden, all point to the choice of using Solar Stirling Engine Systems as the
most viable solution. Large Stirling Engine power plants can be incrementally added in
small modular units. They are much more thermally efficient than Solar voltaic panels.
The recommendation of using Stirling Engine alternative for GENEI policy is based on
my over two decades of experience as a practitioner of international Solar Stirling Engine
technology transfer. The US oil imports is 24% in the 1970’s and 42% in the 1990’s.
Today we import 70% of our oil and at a staggering cost of $700 Billion. This increasing
trend and heavy cost are absolutely unsustainable.

It is imperative for us to support Al Gore’s recommendations and advocate GENEI policy

as a national priority. To play a responsible role as the leader of the world, the US must
also set an example in her renewable energy policy. Other major fossil fuel consuming
nations such as China and India will inevitably follow. With ample evidence as discussed
here, not to include the Solar Engine Systems for consideration as a major part of US
GENEI imperative is unconscionable. Financially the US will be the biggest energy
technology transfer nation in world history and the beneficiary thereof.

In fact the US is already ahead of the world in Solar Stirling Engine technology. The
GENEI policy will put US so far ahead in Solar Stirling system manufacturing that the
world will be hard put to catch up. The potential export of Solar Stirling Engine systems
to meet the pent up demand for rest of the world will be a great stimulus to the US
sagging economy. Together with the reduction in oil imports, the US trade deficit can be
significantly reversed. The summation of total reduction of oil imports as the world
follows our GENEI imperative will no doubt instantly halt the oil price speculation. It
will not be surprising that a world concerted GENEI effort will instantly drive the oil
price down by more than half. Our next president must show the vision and leadership to
endorse Al Gore’s recommendations and implement the GENEI imperative as our energy
independence policy. Yours humbly is available for consultation by invitation from
relevant national energy implementation departments and local government heads.

In Service of Energy Independence

Francis C W Fung, PH.D.

7
 TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE

Appendix 2. – Why Obama's Nuclear Bet Won't Pay Off

By MICHAEL GRUNWALD Thursday, Feb. 18, 2010

If you want to understand why the United

States hasn't built a nuclear reactor in three
decades, the Vogtle plant outside Atlanta is
an excellent reminder of the insanity of
nuclear economics. Its original cost
estimate was less than $1 billion for four
reactors. Its eventual price tag in 1989 was
nearly $9 billion for only two reactors. But
now there's widespread chatter about a
nuclear renaissance, so the Southern Co.
is finally trying to build the other two
reactors at Vogtle. The estimated cost: $14
billion. And you can be sure that number is
way too low, because nuclear cost
estimates are always way too low. Alvin W. Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant

That's why no Wall Street moneyman in his

right mind would finance a new reactor. But President Obama has located an alternative
financier: you. On Tuesday, he announced an $8.33 billion loan guarantee for the new Vogtle
reactors, the first step in the Administration's push to jump-start the nuclear construction industry.
Obama also urged Congress to set aside political differences and triple the budget for nuclear
loan guarantees. "On an issue that affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet,
we can't keep on being mired in the same old stale debates between the left and the right,
between environmentalists and entrepreneurs," Obama said. (See the top 10 scientific
discoveries of 2009.)

But the President is ignoring a much fresher debate: between theory and reality. Even if Obama
were correct that a nuclear rebirth is needed to address the climate crisis — and he isn't correct
— the fact is that the rebirth isn't happening. Despite the prospect of new taxpayer guarantees —
and the cradle-to-grave subsidies that already promote this 50-year-old industry at the federal
and state level — utilities keep scrapping or delaying plans for new reactors.

In January, for example, after a Florida commission denied requests for dramatic electricity rate
hikes, plans for two new reactors in the Keys were suspended, and plans for two more reactors
outside St. Petersburg were delayed. Last August, the Tennessee Valley Authority scrapped
plans for three new reactors in Alabama, and delayed a fourth by at least four years. Other
reactors have been cancelled in Texas, Missouri and Idaho; license applications have been
suspended in Mississippi, Louisiana and New York. Peter Bradford, a former member of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has calculated that of the 26 new applications submitted to the
NRC since 2007, nine have been cancelled or suspended indefinitely, and ten more have been
delayed by one to five years. Utilities like Exelon, Duke Energy and FPL have ditched or scaled
back their nuclear ambitions.

In his speech Tuesday, Obama did acknowledge "some serious drawbacks with respect to
nuclear energy," but the drawbacks he mentioned — waste disposal and reactor safety — are not
the real obstacles to a rebirth. It would be nice to have a permanent Yucca Mountain-style
repository for spent nuclear fuel, but for now plants have been storing their waste on-site without
major problems. And the nuclear industry's safety record has improved dramatically in the 30
years since the Three Mile Island meltdown, although there are still occasional blips like a recent
radioactive leak at a Vermont plant. The NRC is not exactly a hostile regulator, but sometimes it
does show teeth; in October, it identified problems with the Westinghouse AP 1000 reactor

8
 TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE

design, which could create additional delays for nearly half the proposed new reactors, including
the ones at Vogtle. (Comment on this story)

But waste disposal problems, safety issues and regulatory delays do create a much more serious
obstacle to a nuclear comeback: They jack up the already exorbitant cost of construction. That is
the truly serious drawback of nuclear energy. Recent studies have priced new nuclear power at
25-30 cents per kilowatt-hour, about four times the cost of producing juice with new wind or coal
plants, or ten times the cost of reducing the need for electricity through investments in efficiency.
Atomic energy is much cleaner than coal, and it provides baseload power when the wind isn't
blowing and the sun isn't shining, so it sounds like a sensible way to accommodate increasing
electricity demand. But it's not nearly as sensible or feasible or affordable as decreasing
electricity demand altogether.

Meanwhile, nuclear costs keep spiraling out of control; last year, the estimates for several
reactors doubled, and for one Pennsylvania reactor more than tripled. This is why credit rating
agencies keep downgrading utilities with nuclear ambitions, which increases their borrowing costs
and makes their projects even more expensive. Even with the federal guarantees, the new
reactors at Vogtle are expected to boost local electricity bills by 9% — and like most nuke-friendly
states, Georgia has enacted a law ensuring that ratepayers won't get their money back if the
utility fails to complete the plant.

Nuclear power really is emissions-free, so we're fortunate that 20% of our electricity comes from
existing nuclear plants. But even if they weren't spectacularly expensive, additional nukes couldn't
come on line quickly enough to solve our climate problems; the industry dream of 45 new plants
by 2030 would barely replace its aging plants scheduled for decommissioning. And nuclear
energy may be the least cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gases, which is why private
investors are pouring billions into efficiency, wind, solar and other renewables instead. Taxpayers
would get more bang for their energy bucks if their elected representatives made similar choices.

But nuclear energy is popular with the public, and wildly popular on Capitol Hill. Obama's push to
expand the loan guarantees was one of the only bipartisan applause lines in his State of the
Union address. New nukes are a priority for unions as well as utilities; the Vogtle project, while
not exactly shovel-ready, is expected to create 3500 well-paying jobs if dirt starts moving next
year. Meanwhile, Republican politicians who don't believe in global warming and didn't even want
the word "French" in their fries can't stop talking about French nuclear plants that slash French
emissions and produce 80% of French electricity. They tend not to mention that those plants were
financed by the French government.

Ultimately, the U.S. may be heading toward a similar brand of nuclear socialism. Obama talks
about massive nuclear subsidies as just one part of his larger clean-energy agenda, but he hasn't
made them contingent on GOP support for that larger agenda. So the nuclear subsidies are sure
to pass, while the larger agenda is likely to stall. Eventually, extravagant government largesse
might create a nuclear rebirth of sorts — but it might end up strangling better solutions in their
cribs, or prevent them from ever being born.

9
 TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE

Appendix 3. - STIRLING ENERGY ALLIANCE (SEA) GRAND

STRATEGY

“Steam Engine Initiated 19th Century, International Combustion Engine Powered 20th
Century, and Stirling Engine Will Herald 21st Century Green Harmony.”

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

World oil prices will continue to rise to unsustainable level by speculative forces unless
major oil import countries immediately implement large and small scale available
technology green energy alternatives. The most effective and imminent policy approach
is Green Energy for Electricity Initiative (GENEI). On July17, 2008 former President Al
Gore recommended that all U.S. electricity generation be converted to green energy by
2018. Green Energy Stirling Engine Partnership (GESEP) responded on July 18, 2008 a
paper titled “Green Energy for Electricity Initiative; Alternative to Nuclear and Fossil
Energy.”

Stirling engines are omnivorous and adaptable to all forms of thermal power. Stirling
engines can be powered by all types of green energy and very scalable, thus the potential
applications to improve our quality of life and ecology are unlimited. During the 2nd
International Conference on Stirling Engines I stated to the effect that “Steam Engine
Initiated 19th Century, International Combustion Engine powered 20th Century, and
Stirling Engine will herald 21st Century Green Harmony.” 24 years later this prophetic
truth still rings true. For the world to move towards Green Harmony it is pertinent that
U.S. and China, the two biggest oil consuming nations, work together on Green Energy
Strategy to cooperate through 21st Century Stirling Engine Renaissance (SER).

Stirling engines are hermetically sealed and can be powered by any external heat. It can
also work ideally in a free piston form sans any crankshaft. In today’s state of the art, the
Stirling engine is the most favored candidate for use in space, on land and deep under the
ocean large or small. One day we will find Stirling engines with sealed power working
routinely inside human bodies to assist our organ functions. Stirling engines have been
developed to thermal efficiency above 40% and combined heat and power efficiency
(CHP) over 80%. It is simple in design and low in maintenance. GESEP has an
overview paper available by request, titled “Stirling Engine Renaissance in 21st Century”
that sums up the promising future of green energy Stirling engine in many fields, large or
small.

Stirling engine can be powered by highly concentrated solar power. Solar Stirling engine
is the chosen solution by California Utilities to scale up to 900 MW capacities, directly
competing with nuclear and fossil energy. The California decision is a strong vote of
confidence for Stirling energy over nuclear and fossil energy. We strongly recommend
countries with ample solar power potential to opt for Stirling power instead of nuclear
power. The promising future of Stirling engines as green environmental solutions for

10
 TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE

both developed and developing countries are unlimited as discussed in afore mentioned
paper. The largest photo voltaic power plant approved or in operation is only 80MW, less
than one tenth the size of the California Stirling energy plants contracted under
construction. “Steam engine initiated the 19th Century, Internal combustion engine
powered the 20th Century and the Stirling will herald 21st Century Green Harmony”
concluded in our two papers mentioned previously.

To fulfill above prophecy we are proposing a plausible Stirling energy initiative of

multinational win-win cooperation. A concerted effort should be launched for the global
community to share in technology and the huge global market for green energy
deployment. This will reduce the cost of production of green energy Stirling engines.
This concerted effort of sufficient scale will be immediately effective in reducing demand
for oil and reduce the threat of global warming, thus benefit all participating nations.
These benefits will be direct financial as well as global pollution reduction and
immediate improvement in ecology. This will be the Stirling Energy Alliance (SEA)
Grand Strategy.

STIRLING ENERGY ALLIANCE (SEA) GRAND STRATEGY

INTRODUCTION

There are two major countries that have built up technology and manufacturing capability
in Stirling engines for over two decades and also have huge markets for green energy
power. They are also the largest oil consuming nations, with one fast catching up with the
other. In the next two decades these two major countries together will most likely
continue to consume more than half of the world oil output. The fierce competition for
limited oil availability is the major factor in encouraging oil price increase. It is pertinent
for these two countries to enter into immediate strategic energy cooperation. The
proposed SEA Grand Strategy of enough scale can immediately put a halt in oil price
speculation, not the suggested initiative of off shore oil drilling. Compared to the GENEI
initiative to covert electric generation to green in 10 years, increasing off shore drilling is
insignificant. The GENEI initiative for both these two countries using green energy,
large and small scale to replace nuclear and fossil energy for electricity in ten years, the
Stirling engine will be the Commanding factor in the proposed SEA Grand Strategy.

Stirling engines are omnivorous and adaptable to all forms of thermal power. Stirling
engines can be powered by all types of green energy and very scalable, thus the potential
applications to improve our quality of life and ecology are unlimited. During the 2nd
International Conference on Stirling Engines I stated to the effect that “Steam Engine
Initiated 19th Century, International Combustion Engine powered 20th Century, Stirling
Engine Will Herald 21st Century Green Harmony.” 24 years later this prophetic truth still
rings true. For the world to move towards Green Harmony it is pertinent that U.S. and

11
 TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE

China, the two biggest oil consuming nations, work together on Green Energy Strategy to
cooperate through Stirling engine Renaissance.

U.S. and China are currently the two biggest oil consuming countries in the world and
will likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. The former is the wealthiest and most
mobile society and the latter is the most populous, and fast becoming the manufacturer of
the world. The need to reduce oil consumption and environmental pollution by fossil fuel
is keenly felt by both societies. It is very commendable that former vice president Al
Gore recommended on July 17, 2008 that America convert all electric utilities to green
energy by 2018. Currently U.S. electricity utility production is 70% fossil fuel, 20%
nuclear power and only 10% by solar, wind, hydro, wave and so on.

The U.S. is the leading country in Solar Stirling and CHP Stirling energy applications
today. Few are aware however, that after Green Energy Stirling Engine Partnership
(GESEP) successfully transferred Stirling engine technology from U.S. MTI to China
two decades ago, China is also now strong in Stirling engine manufacturing, application
as well as R and D. The two countries development directions during the last two
decades can be totally complementary. Both also have huge needs for Stirling energy for
GENEI initiative. However, the need is more pressing and the market is more than 4
times bigger in China. Additionally, China can readily and immediately gear up for large
scale Stirling engine manufacturing. The best approach for U.S. to participate in that
market is to partner with China in the manufacturing and the application development
process. This requires pooling of resources, sharing of markets, forming of business
alliances, joint manufacturing and mutual assurance of protection of intellectual property
rights.

THE (SEA) GRAND STRATEGY PLAN

We will start our implementation with U.S. and China because of their Stirling engine
technology, market and resources are of large enough scale that must be counted on in the
SEA Grand Strategy. Let us list some key characteristic of both nations that we must
work into our formula for immediate consensus and results. Nevertheless, both sides
must approach this Grand Strategy with nobility, humility and the long vision to reduce
resource competition and increase quality of life and harmony. This SEA Grand Strategy
can be kicked off by small private efforts, in time it will snow ball into a grand vision of
win-win global development as to involve big utilities and national energy strategy
planners.

Among U.S. Stirling energy advantages are strong in applications, especially in solar
power plants, combined heat and power modular units, free piston Stirling generators and
space applications. Also there are ample venture capital and investment funds chasing
after the few leading Stirling energy technology companies. However, the U.S. also has
many distractions of different technology and approaches competing for finance,
resources and national resolve. Also the U.S. economy is currently mired in the
mortgage debacle. Even, the influence of Al Gore may not successfully rally the U.S. to

12
 TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE

focus on the GENEI initiative, which is a very important step in establishing the
commanding position of Stirling energy.

On the Chinese side, Stirling engine manufacturing technology is quite advanced and
world class especially after two decades of developmental work starting from a good
foundation of MTI technology transfer from the U.S. However, China’s application
development has not been as broad as the U.S., especially in large solar power plants and
working with utilities. Due to the booming economy and more centralized energy
planning China may be in a better position to mobilize for national priority. National
support is important for SEA Grand Strategy to take hold. Negating this positive
parameter, the current Chinese thinking does seen to lean heavily on using nuclear energy
for large power plants. There is initial thinking to build as many as 30 nuclear power
plants. This undesirable thinking may or may not be too big a distraction. The use of
Solar Stirling energy for large utilities is just too convincing, as demonstrated by the
decisions of two large California utilities. Ultimately what will sway the Chinese nation
towards green energy Stirling power is her pressing and overwhelming growing appetite
for energy and the need to reduce pollution. China’s need for energy will grow many
folds in the coming years. This is unavoidable due to her role as world manufacturer and
automotive ownership will grow exponentially. I can foresee China plays a key role in
this SEA Grand Strategy for sustainability and because of her current policy of scientific
development.

The implementation plan for the proposed Grand Strategy calls for China, acting through
private sectors, immediately join Green Energy Stirling Engine Partnership (GESEP) in
the following 6 step plan:

(I) Set up a US Corporation in California with GESEP and China keeping controlling
interest. The corporation can be appropriately called Green Energy Stirling Engine Inc.
(GESEI) for inclusiveness. The corporation charter is to liaison with US Stirling energy
industry in all dimensions. An office will be set up in San Francisco and will be managed
by staff from China as well as from GESEP with great deal of decision power in defined
areas.

(II) GESEI will have the mission to help China acquire complementary technology and
ownership in at least three major U.S. Stirling energy companies to play an influential
balancing act.

(III) GESEI will arrange for China decision makers to visit the U.S. and make the
necessary introduction to key contacts and facilities leading to the execution of the SEA
Grand Strategy.

(IV) GESEI will work with GESEP contacts and relations to organize an over due
International Conference on Stirling Engines in China. The 2nd International Conference
on Stirling Engines took place in Shanghai, China cosponsored by GESEP. The theme of
the Conference can be Stirling Engine Renaissance in 21st Century but the objective for
GESEI is to hammer out the details of SEA Grand Strategy with as many key players that

13
 TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE

we can attract from the worldwide Stirling energy community. The Conference is also
intended to enhance China’s leading role in the SEA Grand Strategy. A planning
committee on the Conference will be organized by GESEP calling on key Stirling energy
leader contacts.

(V) GESEI in collaboration with relevant responsible energy planners in China maps out
the SEA Grand Strategy. The Grand Strategy and vision include following objectives: 1)
Team up with 2 or 3 selected leading US Stirling energy companies to form an Alliance.
2) Acquire influencing interest in those companies. 3) Obtain agreement for
manufacturing Stirling engines in China. 4) Formulate plan to share U.S. and China and
other Allied nations’ markets. 5) Iron out agreement to assure intellectual property rights
of all team members in alliance. 6) Alliance members drawn up plans to establish sales,
marketing and service organization in each alliance countries to oversee sales. 7) Work
out a feasible plan to invite oil producing nations to invest in Alliance to share in revenue
as hedges against their decrease in future oil sales due to green energy production by
SEA Grand Strategy.

(VI) It is envisioned that above tasks will be accomplished within a reasonable time
frame of 18 months with milestones and details to be worked out. It is desirable that
Stirling engine manufacturing will begin in China as soon as feasible. Continuing growth
of the Alliance in scope and member companies is expected to increase the SEA
influence and market share. As global green energy technology leader, SEA will reinvest
earnings to assist the developing world to achieve energy independence and green
ecology.

A separate contract will be drawn up immediately between GESEP and Chinese

responsible party. GESEP will be compensated by stock options as a substantial minority
partner, monetary payments and bonuses for the Grand Strategy proposal and work
performed. There will be two GESEP board members on the initial board of five.
Monetary compensation for the first 18 months to GESEP for work performed to be
discussed and pay according to performance milestones. Subsequent to the 18 months
implementation period, GESEP staff will be paid officer salaries. This proposal is the
sole property of GESEP. Should the responsible person representing China wishes to
adopt this plan without GESEP, the present proposal and service of GESEP principals
can be contracted for a reasonable sum to be discussed. Details of the Grand Strategy will
be worked out by GESEI and GESEP together immediately after contract signing and
first initial payment to GESEP as consultant.

In Service of Stirling Engine Renaissance!

Francis C W Fung, PH.D.
General Partner
Green Energy Stirling Engine Partnership (GESEP)

14
 TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE

15