White House Chronicle

News Analysis With a Sense of Humor

Requiem for the American Dream

by Leave a Comment

There is such a chorus from the punditocracy declaring the American Dream dead that one is scared to lay one's head down at night. A quick Google search reveals that there are at least a dozen books declaring the end to what is the American ethos: a dream in which everyone could graduate to the middle class with a lifetime of dignified employment with a pension, and good educations for their children.
 
Like all declines, there are many threads to the change that is wracking the country. Some of them:
 
  • There has been a dislocation between the growth in productivity and the growth in wages. Hedrick Smith points this out in his excellent and detailed book, “The American Dream and Who Stole It.”
 
  • The years of great national prosperity lasted from the end of World War II until it began to erode savagely toward the end of the last century. Smith dates the rot all the way back to the Carter administration, but most of us were not aware of it until much later.
 
  • If the workers are not sharing in the growth in productivity, we have severely reversed upward social mobility and the enduring belief of an immigrant people that their children would have a better life.
 
The failure of institutions to mobilize against what was patently happening is extraordinary and, in its way, peculiarly American. Our sense of exceptionalism leads us to avoid collective action.
 
Unionism, which has always been a force for incorporating productivity gains into wage packets, has been muted and itself has failed to grasp what is happening. While the world was changing, the unions were lost in old labor-management struggles of an irrelevant past. Management learned they no longer had to sit and take it: They could move to union-free locations like the South, and ultimately Asia. Collectively we watched our own decline in silence.
 
The monied class learned how to buy Congress and turn the watchdog into the enabler of the looter. A powerful new breed of lobbyist — often men and women who had served either in Congress or as congressional aides — threw themselves into the business of making sure that the money people (the corporations and super-rich individuals) got whatever the wanted; subsidies, light regulation, tax breaks and exemptions and, finally, light taxes.
 
As running for office — never easy in the House with its two-year election cycle — became more expensive, elected officials became more vulnerable to campaign contributions. Now it is a giant system of bribery in which neither the bribers nor the bribed feel shame; there are willing buyers and sellers of the U.S. government as farmers buy and sell cattle. This trading money for favors is well documented in Mark Leibovich's book, “This Town.”
 
Everyone who works on Capitol Hill and its lobbies knows what is going on. Money is changing hands for influence, and legislation is being passed favoring big business and big money. You can buy permission to pollute, buy a change in securities laws and buy favorable tax treatment. And you can secure the minimum wage at below poverty levels.
 
It used to be, as one long-term lobbyist explained to me, that if you wanted favors on Capitol Hill you had to assemble a large and transparent coalition of people who would benefit from the change in law that your client wanted. You had to get many interests on board and persuade some newspaper commentators of your high purpose. Now, this veteran said, you just do it with money — in the dark, he might have added.
 
The Chinese did not send an armada of junks to take out jobs; we exported them for short-term gain. We embraced the myth that cheaper goods were better for our people. They are – if we have money to pay for them.
 
The middle class, to use the vernacular of the moment, has been thrown under the bus.
 
The tea party, briefly the hope for middle-class salvation, drank from the horn of myths spread by the monied class. Now, in their folly, they are supporting a destructive shutdown of the government, which will further damage the middle class.
 
Of course it is not just venality that has brought us to our dreamless state: rapid technological change, and the decline in the need for whole classes of work present a serious challenge. But who is taking up the challenge? Not Congress, whose members are mostly millionaires; not the tea party; not the unions.
 
Fancy a double espresso before bed? — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate
 
 

Getting a Seat at the Table

by 3 Comments

Think of this as a primer for all of those, like the sufferers of the awful disease Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, who need to be heard in Washington and aren't. Silence has a price.
 
There are two branches of lobbying in Washington. The first is big lobbying, with big money making big campaign contributions. The second is everyday lobbying, which is quietly effective, scarcely organized and part of the fabric of decision-making. Call it "informational lobbying."
 
Congress cannot expected to be knowledgeable about a myriad of issues, and this is where the lobbyists perform their often more innocent function. Simply, they know stuff. Their advice isn't always objective, but it's informed.
 
Certainly, Congress has the best research available through the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress and all the executive branch agencies. But it's a lot easier to call a friend, where a question can be asked and answered in the vernacular: “Joe, what's the story on the helium shortage?” It can be argued that, at this level, lobbying is not suspect but efficient.
 
Proximity is a force in Washington, familiarity a lever. There are no fingerprints; it's how the system works. A chance meeting in a restaurant can change the course of policy; influence a congressional opinion about something obscure but important, like the Endangered Species  Act, which is now receiving attention on its 40th anniversary.
 
The indictment of this informal lobbying regime is not that it exists and works, but that if you aren't at the table, you won't be heard. Woe betide those who don't have a lobbying operation, however modest, in Washington.
 
The lobby-less must suffer in obscurity: no lobby means no input. No conversation after church or at a kid's soccer game means no information is spreading about actions and decisions that will have impact down the line.
Make no mistake, proximity means a lot in the informing of government. A few casual words will often trump a great academic study.
 
For the past several years, I've taken a keen interest in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), also known as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. It's a disease associated with the suppression, for reasons unknown, of the immune system. To get it is to contract a life sentence of daily suffering, often so severe that patients can be bedridden for years. They think of themselves as “the damned.”
 
This community has issues with the federal government; specifically with the Department of Health and Human Services, which has oversight of the National Institutes of the Health. Yet the advocates for CFS — many of them superbly articulate – aren't heard in Washington.
 
This is very clear, at the moment, when the department, acting through the NIH, has signed a contract with the Institute of Medicine to, according to NIH, to develop “clinical diagnostic criteria” for CFS.
 
This has so enraged the top tier of 35 doctors and researchers in the field that they — risking good relations and future research funding — have written to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius, imploring her to halt this folly. The Institute of Medicine doesn't have expertise in this field, according to the CFS doctors.
 
Most CFS specialists agree that an effective definition of the disease, known as the Canadian Consensus Criteria, is working fine and should be retained. Confusion and expense from Washington aren't needed. A wrong definition can be destructive to research, treatment and patient well-being. It will have consequences.
 
But the protests may have come too late, as knowledge of what the NIH was up to came too late.
 
To me, this bureaucratic shuffle by HHS is an example of the dangers of not having a presence in Washington. Government responds to pressure. No presence, no pressure, no result — or worse, a bad result.
 
You don't need huge money to lobby. Effective lobbying is often a case of simply being there and being known to be there: walking the halls of Congress catches the attention not only of Congress, but also wayward federal departments and the media. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate

Guns and the Middle Class

by 7 Comments

The thing about gun lovers is that they are passionate. The thing about those who aren’t gun lovers, is that they simply want the killing to stop. That makes the argument asymmetrical and gives the advantage to the gun lovers.
 
After every mass shooting – Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, and now the Navy Yard – there is outrage among the articulate middle class, but in time it dies down. This, too, is asymmetrical.
 
The thing about mass shootings is that, as often as not, the victims are middle class. The middle class can't get to the barricades fast enough when it is they who are in trouble; but it is notably absent when their members aren't being shot or, for that matter, imprisoned, frisked, or fighting on the front lines.
 
In Chicago, an average of three homicides occur every night. On Labor Day alone, 12 people were killed and 25 wounded. But these are almost all in the ghetto and are black-on-black.
 
We lose 31,000 people to gun deaths, accidental suicide and murder every year. By 2015, gun deaths will exceed road fatalities. Most of the gun deaths will be among youngsters on the street.
 
Cars are getting safer by design, as new technology is incorporated. Guns are getting more dangerous by design, as more civilian versions of military weapons flood the country.
 
Military weapons are supposed to be lethal. The most obvious example of a modified battlefield weapon is the AR-15; it is the civilian version (semiautomatic instead of fully automatic) of the U.S. Army’s basic assault rifle, the M16. The AR-15 featured in the Sandy Hook shootings.
 
Let’s take time out for people like me who like guns. I love the feel of them, the inherent majesty of them, the transference of power when you heft one. Yes, they make you feel more manly, more like a card-carrying member of the warrior class.
 
I learned to shoot when I was quite young, maybe 11. The thrill — the sense of being augmented — stays with you. Guns are seductive. If you are young and male, the seduction is complete; you have a pocketful of machismo.
 
But if you are young and male and you live on the streets of a city like Chicago or Houston or Los Angeles, entrapped by drugs and gangs, your gun will seem like your best friend until someone else’s gun takes your life, or you take another life. In this demimonde, children who are too young to have been in love are not too young to kill or be killed.
 
Joe Madison, a tireless crusader for many causes, and broadcaster on SiriusXM Satellite Radio, urged after the Sandy Hook shooting rampage that the bodies — the broken, bloody, shattered bodies — of the schoolchildren, should be shown on television. That way, he argued, the nation would be shocked into action.
 
No good, in other words, showing the flowers and the teddy bears. Guns don’t make flowers and teddy bears; they make gaping, lethal wounds.
 
It was the pictures of the wounded and the dead that turned the tide of public opinion during the Vietnam War; it was stark pictures that drove home the horror of lynching.
 
If the day in, day out murders were documented, if the agony of the street killings were exposed by a modern-day Charles Dickens, this national veneration for the tools of killing would pass. Guns would begin to go where they belong: under lock and key, or in a well-ordered militia.
 
Guns don’t enhance freedom, they curtail it; they put our cities off limits to many after dark and take life. Death is the absolute confiscation of freedom.
 
The gun lobby cannot be fought the way Piers Morgan of CNN fights it — with logic. The victims must speak from the grave through photography, video and even fiction.
 
You don’t fight the gun lobby; you undermine it with the silent voices of those it has claimed. Guns kill people. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate

 
 

Cry, the Beloved Elephants

by 4 Comments

 
The elephants of Africa have have a fix on family values. They look out for their calves and each other. When an elephant dies, often from a bullet, the herd tries to raise the fallen animal; to lift it back on its feet; to make it whole again. They do not appear to understand death, these the largest and most glorious of land mammals.
 
They walk their young much as human families do, often the adults sheltering the young'uns between them. Soon there may be no African elephants left in the wild.
 
The great, kindly beasts are facing a holocaust. They are being slaughtered on an industrial scale by poachers for their ivory, which is fetching record prices in Asia. A similar extermination of the rhinoceros is taking place, but it is to the elephant that I feel an affiliation, an affiliation tinged with guilt.
 
My mother and one of her brothers hunted elephants in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, the 1920s. She was proud, and as time passed, a little ashamed of her hunting days. It may even have been that she liked to be thought of as a retired big game hunter and had never actually pulled the trigger. As elephant became more endangered, she clammed up.
 
My own sin is that in Kenya, at the Nairobi airport, I once bought a small ivory pendant for someone. It had a government certificate of guarantee that it was made of “old ivory” that had been taken – I find it hard to say harvested — when it was legal. I wanted to believe that and I did at the time, but I doubt it now. I wish, to my soul, that I had not bought it.
 
That piece of ivory, my mother and life in Zimbabwe all came back to me with pain when I learned of the latest, greatest, most ghastly slaughter of elephants – and, in the course of it, many other innocent creatures and maybe people, too – the poisoning with cyanide of the watering holes of 41 elephants. Cyanide is widely available in Zimbabwe, where it is used in gold mining.
 
It happened in the Hwange National Park southwestern Zimbabwe. There are photographs of the carcasses on the Web. They died horribly and, because of their size, probably slowly.
 
The thought of those magnificent animals, bellowing in pain, trying to save each other and writhing as the poison did its atrocious work has been with me for days. I cannot shake the horror of the holocaust in the bush.
 
There is a horror aplenty to go around, from Syria on down. But the gross indecency of the slaughter of the Zimbabwe elephants and the way it was done; cow and calf and bull alike going down in agony for money.
 
There is blame to go around for the elephants' poisoning outside of the lawlessness of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe. There is the unfettered trade for rhino horn — Didn't Viagra take care of that? I had hoped so. — and for the ivory used in jewelry and fine furniture. I have seen, in my youth, elephant tusks mounted just for show. And their feet, after treatment, used as indoor planters. Deadly decorations.
 
There is an international regime to intercept and prevent the looting of Africa but, like many international agreements, it is underfunded. It has also fallen prey to, of all things, sequestration on Capitol Hill.
 
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mans the front lines in persuading other governments not to allow trade in ivory, rhino horn and other products from endangered species. Most importantly though, this small but critical corps fights the use of the United States as a transhipment point. Yet, according Daniel Ashe, writing in Scientific American, there are only 216 agents covering the global movement of animal contraband and there are 63 vacancies that cannot be filled because of budget sequestration.
 
I wonder if any members of Congress can hear, in the far recesses,of their minds, the ghostly trumpeting of 41 beautiful giants as they go down to cyanide poisoning? I can, and I always will. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate


 
 
 
 

Stop the Airline Merger

by 2 Comments

Those nice people who run two of the largest airlines, U.S. Airways and American Airlines have this nifty idea: they will merge. But the Justice Department — showing uncommon good sense for once — has said "no" to the merger.
 
So the airlines have done what multibillion-dollar outfits do: they have hired the best lawyers (i.e. the most expensive), the best lobbyists and the top public relations operatives to persuade a judge and the public that the Justice Department is off its rocker and that if the merger happens, the traveling public will be transported on aircraft as comfortable and as safe as magic carpets.
 
A new and glorious era in air travel would be at hand.
 
Don't you believe it. The last thing we need is a new monster company with monopoly control of many airports and life-and-death control of the prosperity — even the survival — of small towns. If the merger goes through, go long on bus companies.
 
Airlines, to give them their due, have their problems; starting with the ups and downs in the price of jet fuel, the vagaries of a market that is spooked by terrorism, a downturn in the economy or the difficulty of getting landing rights at top airports, particularly those serving the North Atlantic route.
 
But the vagaries of the commercial space occupied by the air carriers has not brought out their humanity. Instead they have become predatory, turning on their passengers with the viciousness of hungry snakes. Flights are overbooked with the certain knowledge that customers will suffer extreme discomfort. Likewise flights are canceled arbitrarily if the passenger load is not high enough, and fees have spread through the industry like the Black Death in the Middle Ages.
 
The airlines don't answer their phones and they juggle prices endlessly, so you can't predict the cost of travel. And if you should even think of modifying your itinerary, you become an economic target.
 
Recently on an international flight on one of the two carriers trying to buffalo a judge, the Justice Department and Congress that they should get into bed together, I tried to change the last leg — flying from Philadelphia to Washington instead of Philadelphia to Providence, R.I. My original itinerary said there would be a change fee of $150, and I had credit card in hand ready for this extortion. But I underestimated the ingenuity in kleptomania of the airline. Sure there would be a change fee, but there would also — get this — be a much higher fee for re-writing the ticket. Oh, even if I tried to get off the plane in Philadelphia, I'd have to pay a fee.
 
But, like the Ginsu knives ads on television, that was not all. To fly the last leg as needed, I would have had to pay more than the original ticket cost.
 
The airline would not check my bag to Philadelphia; nor would they allow my wife to put it on her ticket, while I took a few toiletries in the cabin. That change would cost $100 because they knew I was going to jump ship and take a bus to Washington.
 
The airlines are simply out of control. They de facto collude to fix prices on non-ticket items. One airline decides to charge for baggage, bang, and they all do. One decides that any change in itinerary is a revenue stream, and as fast as you can say “cleared to land,” they all have. One decides to charge for food, and in days they're all at it.
 
The Justice Department is right to oppose this merger which has, at its heart, what economists call “market power” or the ability to gauge their defenseless customers. If Justice loses its suit, Congress should act to block the merger — and it should outlaw non-transport fees and other thievery within the present law.
 
We should be able to see airliners for what they are: the triumph of the ascent of man, not as winged predators. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate
 

The Coming Carbon Composite Revolution

by 1 Comment

The other day I was musing over how materials throughout history have improved our lives. Take the ordinary candle, which is made of beeswax. It helped us overcome our fear of the dark. The candle provided a totally new capability: People had a portable light source to allow them to see and read anywhere they wanted.

Today we have hand-held devices that not only enable us to read anywhere we want, but also access reading material anywhere it is available in the world. We owe this revolution to ordinary beach sand, which is a source of silicon that makes digital circuits work.

And the remarkable materials of history do not end here. For example, corn provides the basis for biodegradable plastics, and we have even invented flexible concrete that widens its application.

Materials are fundamental to revolutions that improve our lives.

A new emerging class of materials, carbon composites, is revolutionizing the performance of mobile platforms. Carbon fibers, which are thin and flexible like ordinary sewing thread, can dramatically reduce weight, and therefore vehicle fuel consumption, but at the same time provide greater safety because of their toughness.

Defense systems, like the Predator Unmanned Air Vehicle, pioneered the path to exploiting these materials. The X43 scram jet, at nearly 10 times the speed of sound, set the world airspeed record through the use of carbon composites. We are now seeing the emergence of these materials in the Boeing Dreamliner and automobiles like the Chevy Corvette.

Quite remarkably, you can form a new ceramic material from combining beach sand and carbon, like that contained in soot.

As the ancients understood, ceramics can withstand very high temperatures because they do not melt like metals. There are many advantages to high-temperature, high-strength materials:

1. They are the basis of ceramic brakes that resist wear, even at very high temperatures where metals fatigue.

2. They enable the Space Shuttle to withstand intense heat loading upon reentry in the atmosphere.

3. They can also improve engine efficiency; with a properly chosen medium, you can store large amounts of high-temperature heat. You can then use that high-energy medium to drive mechanical devices, like turbines, to produce high-speed motion and with it electricity at high efficiency.

One such ceramic material, silicon carbide, can withstand temperatures of over 2,000 degrees centigrade without loss of strength — metals exhibit fatigue at 700 degrees centigrade. Its properties suggest some important safety applications, such as replacing the metal tubing that surrounds nuclear fuel in light water reactors.

Silicon carbide can also withstand the intense neutron environment in a nuclear reactor over long periods of time, because it has the remarkable property of self-healing. It repairs itself like living cells.

These properties have inspired engineers at General Atomics to develop a new nuclear reactor concept with potentially far-reaching performance advantages. This reactor, Energy Multiplier Module (EM squared), is the smallest-size, highest-efficiency and highest-power small modular reactor in the world. Because the fuel surrounded by silicon carbide tubing can withstand high temperatures (more than 2 ½ times that of current reactors) and transfer its heat to a high-capacity medium, like helium, the reactor system can achieve 53 percent efficiency, nearly twice that of other small modular reactors.

Since the fuel contained by the silicon carbide tubing can stay in the reactor for longer periods of time (nearly seven separate fuel loadings of current reactors), there is much less waste; in fact, 80 percent less waste. And because the fuel and silicon carbide can withstand much higher temperatures, the safety margins are potentially much better.

Like any new technology that can dramatically improve performance, there are economic benefits. We can reduce the price of electricity by 40 percent relative to current reactors. This puts the price of nuclear-generated electricity within the energy mix in the United States. It also makes such reactors much more competitive in international markets.

This innovation comes at a time when nuclear energy has reached a crossroads. So we have a choice: Embrace new technology, as we have in the past, to improve performance, or continue to look in the rear-view mirror with ideas that just hold back human progress.

John Parmentola is senior vice president of General Atomics, a San Diego-based nuclear physics and defense technology company.

Push Human Rights, Not Potemkin Elections

by Leave a Comment

On paper it is a simple idea, seductive even: Foreign policy should be based on democracy. Countries that favor democracy and hold elections move into the category of good guys, while those who install authoritarian or dictatorial or religious government move into the column of bad guys, or difficult friends.
 
Yet this is the very principle on which the United States and its democratic allies have often stumbled badly in the Middle East, Africa and sometimes in Latin America. In the Arab countries and much of Africa, elections have facilitated authoritarian rule; or the result has been to install a theocracy or some other government hostile to the purposes of democracy — and the interests of the West. As departing colonial administrators in Africa would lament: one man, one vote, once. And so it was.
 
In Africa, the pattern has been for the winner of the first free election to use the power of the result to vote himself into power permanently. While the West applauded initial democratic elections, sinister forces massed to pervert the result for other, contradictory results. For example, radical Islam in Algeria in 1990, a Marxist government under Salvador Allende in Chile in 1970, and crazed Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe after the end of white minority rule in 1980.
 
The list of elections that produced a result that neither served the purposes of the West nor the oppressed populations of the countries concerned is long and growing.
 
Elections have been the prologue to something bad or worse than that which preceded them. Egypt painfully illustrates the dilemma: elections, theocratic tilt, coup, authoritarian military rule. End game: democracy vanquished, United States humiliated, its principles tarnished and business as usual with dictators resumed. America emerges again as the Great Hypocrite.
 
The United States and its allies are not wrong in wishing for a democratic world; it is just that democracy requires a popular will to defend it and strong independent institutions to protect it. Democracy cannot be parachuted in. Elections are not democracy; they are the first step, that is all.
 
Another organizing principle that has been passed over in the rush to Potemkin democracies is human rights. Not the human rights that the U.S. State Department has monopolized as a policy tool (negotiating government to government often with a Congressional chorus in the background), but rather the concept of human rights championed by none other than former President Jimmy Carter, and lauded by Jacobo Timerman, the Argentine journalist and publisher, who was imprisoned by the Argentine junta during its “dirty war” waged from 1976-83.
 
Timerman’s idea — and he gave lavish credit to Carter — was to promote the concept that every human being is entitled to be seen as encased in an invisible bubble of their rights, dignity and security of their person, where they cannot be touched, coerced or imprisoned without due process and always with transparency. It is a concept identical but more developed than that of habeas corpus, which has been enshrined in English common law and derivative systems for centuries.
 
Timerman’s book “Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number” was a runaway international bestseller at the time of its publication; although Timerman, an ardent Zionist, fell out of favor with the foreign policy elite in this country when he criticized Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
 
Yet I clearly remember Timerman praising Carter for the concept of the invisible, human rights sheath. It spoke to me because of my experience as a young man in Africa. I am no fan of Carter — I found him unctuous — but I thought this was a brilliant, exportable, durable idea that, if promoted, could point people toward democracy. I could see how it would be adopted by the lowliest peasant in Malawi and, hopefully, his jailer.
 
The concept of the inalienable right of the human being to justice and safety is very American; it is also a practical organizing principle for a foreign policy that must deal with such differing regimes — a Saudi Arabia and Cuba — both in deficit for human rights and democracy. You do not always have to hector a government if it knows where you are coming from; ideas get through. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate

A New Industrial Revolution Is Beginning

by 1 Comment

Some people are calling it the Third Industrial Revolution. That may be hype, but it is going to be big; probably the biggest thing since the Internet, and nearly as revolutionary
 
It is additive manufacturing or three-dimensional printing, most commonly known as 3D printing. It is the process of making three-dimensional solid objects from digital designs.
 
The first working 3D printer was created by Chuck Hull of 3D Systems in 1984. Currently, there is a $1.7 billion market for 3D printing. By 2015, that number is expected to double.
 
In its simplest form, 3D printing uses a polymer or plastic feedstock to make a three-dimensional object from a computer-aided design. The printers make passes over a platform, depositing thin layer upon thin layer of material, until the design is accurately reproduced. Architects and automobile designers were early users of the technology; they could see what that new building or car would look like without making a traditional model.
 
Medicine also has been an early beneficiary. A brain surgeon can make an absolute model of a patient’s head before operating. Take, for example, the case of a child who lost his hearing in one ear because a bone deformity was blocking the canal. The surgeon knew exactly how to proceed, aided by a 3D-printed model of the child’s head.
 
In another medical example, a large German manufacturer of dental implants and related products has gone from traditional molds to 3D-printed parts. Increasingly, 3D printing is being used to create prosthetic devices.
 
In Holland, one company is attempting to print a house. DUS architects in Amsterdam is using a 3D printer that is big enough to make one room at a time for a traditional canal house.
 
Some parts of modern aircraft are made with 3D printers. General Electric, which bought a feedstock supplier a decade ago, is working on its own additives — as the raw material is known — and will use 3D in its turbine manufacture.
 
The trick for large, serious manufacturing is in the adaptive feed stock. Not everything can be made of colored plastic. Wood, metal and other materials can be and are being used. To get the wooden parts of their canal house right, the Dutch architects are using wood shavings mixed with a polymer. They say the result has all the characteristics of real wood; you can drive a nail into it, plane and saw it.
 
Metal objects are created using a technique known as sintering. In this application, metal powder is heated to just below its melting point, and when applied with a laser, it fuses into a sheet. Next year, patents on the metal sintering technology run out. There will be a giant leap forward in the 3D industries when inventors do not have to worry about getting expensive licenses or violating patents inadvertently.
 
The Pentagon has been excited about 3D printing but has its own set of legacy problems. For example, it is reported to have deployed portable 3D printers to Afghanistan, but the parts made there have not been certified as required by military rules and congressional fiat. If you make a part in the field, say, for a Humvee, how do you certify it as meeting standards when you are on the move and need to get the Humvee up and running again?
 
Likewise, as a consumer, if you need a tool or a replacement part for a coffee maker, do you have the right to make it? Can you be prosecuted as music-downloaders have been?
 
The practice of 3D law also looks set to take off, and firms across the United States are exploring the intriguing legal issues of copyright and patent infringement that 3D printing presents.
 

So far the market is sharply divided between consumer printers, which sell for less than $1,000, and sophisticated, high-end machines that can make parts for aircraft or model a new car. The first machines sold in shops rather than on the Internet are appearing, and UPS is experimenting with putting 3D printers in its stores. The race is on. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate


Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/08/26/2937020/king-3d-printing-is-the-new-way.html#storylink=cpy

The Scramble for a New Nuclear Reactor

by 1 Comment

You can build a car with three or four wheels. But mostly, you would want to do so with four for stability and marketplace acceptance. Basically, you need a wheel at each corner, after which you can do what you like. Flexibility comes in how you use the vehicle.
 
For nuclear power, the reverse of that truism applies. There are many, many ways of building a reactor and fueling it. But its purpose is singular: to make electricity. And making electricity is done in the time-honored way, using steam or gas to turn a turbine attached to a generator.
 
Around the world, some 460 reactors are electricity makers. Even allowing for events like the tsunami which struck Fukushima Daiichi, they are statistically the safest and most reliable electricity makers.
 
Yet they are large and built one at a time; one-offs, bespoke. They rely predominantly on two variations of a technology called “light water,” originally adapted from the U.S. Navy. This has left no room for other designs, fuels and materials.
 
Now there is a new movement to design and build smaller reactors that are not as wedded to the light water technology, although that is still in the game.
 
The U.S. Energy Information Administration calculates the demand for electricity will double by 2050, which means that the demand for nuclear-generated electricity with its carbon-free attributes should soar.
 
To understand the heft of a nuclear plant, which range from about 900 to 1,600 megawatts of electrical output (MWe), one needs a visual comparison. Most of the windmills that are now seen everywhere generate 1 MWe, or a little more when the wind is blowing. So it takes 1,000 or more windmills to do the job of just one nuclear power plant. That stark fact is why China, in environmental crisis, has the world’s largest nuclear construction program.
 
But the days of the behemoth light water reactor plants may be numbered.
 
The challenge comes from what are known as small modular reactors (SMRs), rated at under 300 MWe. Stimulated by a total of $452 million in matching funds from the U.S. Department of Energy, the race is on for these smaller reactors. Call them the new, improved, front-wheel drive reactors.
 
The future for these is so alluring that eight U.S.-based manufacturers are competing for seed funding from the DOE for reactors that range in size from 10 MWe up to 265 MWe. Other countries are also revved up including Argentina, China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and South Africa.
 
Whatever the design, one of the big advantages the new entrants will have is that they will be wholly or partly built in factories, saving money and assuring quality. Some designs, like those of Babcock & Wilcox (which won the first round of funding) and Westinghouse, are sophisticated adaptations of light water technology.
 
Others, like General Atomics’ offering, called the Energy Multiplier Module, or EM2, are at the cutting-edge of nuclear energy. It relies on a high operating temperature of 850 degrees Centigrade to increase efficiency, reduce waste, and even to use nuclear waste as fuel. It is designed to work for 30 years without refueling, relying on a silicon carbide fiber ceramic that will hold the fuel pellets.
 
“The ceramic does not melt and if it is damaged, the material tends to heal itself,” says John Parmentola, senior vice president at General Atomics, which developed the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle and the electromagnetic launch system for aircraft carriers, which replaces the steam catapult.
 
Others designs include thorium fuel instead of uranium, the use of molten salt as a moderator and coolant. Three of them, including General Atomics' design, are so-called fast reactors, where a moderator is not used to slow down the neutrons as they collide with the target atoms. Think fission on steroids.
 
It is as though nuclear designers have thrown off the chains of legacy and are free to dream up wondrous new machines, similar to the start of the nuclear age. — For the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate