A ROUTE TO ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY
William C. Gough
650-941-7462
To email Bill Gough
ABSTRACT:
Dr. Ruth-Inge Heinze, cultural anthropologist, said just
before she died that this conference should begin to address the
application of a heart focused consciousness to world issues. In the
spirit of Ruth-Inge’s wish this paper will focus upon the critical
importance of closing the materials cycle to achieve a sustainable
future. The science and technology needed to close the materials cycle
from use to reuse will be presented as well as the environmental,
economic, and social implications.
INTRODUCTION:
The general public is becoming aware that our earth is being “squeezed”
to death because the people and governments of this planet are pulling
in so many different directions. The accelerating factors driving the
worldwide environmental and security/political problems are population
growth and the rapidly expanding demands for greater material wealth
and energy in the developing world -- China, India, Russia,
Brazil, etc. World population is estimated by the United Nations to
increase from 6.5 billion in 2005 to 9.2 billion in 2050 (United
Nations, 2008). The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that the United States
population will rise from the 304 million in 2008 to 439 million by
2050 (Swift, 2008). When I was attending grade school at the time of
the Great Depression the U.S. population was 132 million.
There exists great frustration in the scientific community since the
clear warnings about the dangers ahead for the world’s population are
continually being ignored – long range planning and concrete actions by
governments are falling far short of what is needed. To draw humorous
attention to this serious issue, the Union of Concerned Scientists held
a contest for the best cartoon that illustrated the distortion,
manipulation, and suppression of scientific information on the major
issues facing the world. The cartoon that won the competition shows a
scientist in front of a large chart presenting his data. The chart says
“Research concludes: WE ARE DESTROYING EARTH.” On the opposite side a
business executive stands next to a government representative who says
to the scientist, “Could you kindly rephrase that in equivocal,
inaccurate, vague, self-serving and roundabout terms that we can all
understand?” (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2008).
The root structural cause underlying the global environment and
security problems is the fact that ecology has become a subsystem of
the economy. This occurred because the world is operating an open cycle
economic system in which resources are extracted from the earth to
enter the cycle and exit as wastes. The entire system has been powered
by polluting energy sources. Each person in the USA is producing 4.5
pounds of garbage per day. Only 1% of the wastes we produce in the
United States are being recycled, the other 99% is trashed in six
months. For every can of garbage we produce, 70 cans are produced
upstream in the production process. (Leonard, 2008). Even when material
is recycled it eventually downgrades due to the buildup of chemical
impurities. Then it is down-cycled to a lower purpose, such as filler
material, and eventually becomes a waste (Hawken, Lovins A., &
Lovins L. H., 1999, p.79). In this open cycle economy there
are only three sinks for the waste material to be deposited. They are
the air, water, and soil -- the life support systems for planet earth.
The citizens of our world need to become aware of the environmental,
security, economic, and social implications of continuing to use an
open cycle economic system. Nature operates as a closed materials
system powered by a clean energy source, our sun. The human species
cannot continue to operate and increasingly expand an open materials
economy within Nature’s closed materials system, and power this
expansion with polluting energy sources. In fact if the developing
world models our open materials economy and our lifestyle, we would
require three to five additional planet earths (Leonard, 2008).
Humans need to develop the technologies necessary to close our
materials cycle and this paper will suggest how that can be done. In
addition we will need to adjust our current economic system. Economists
now use the term “ecological economics,” in the past this was called
“closed cycle economics,” or “stationary-state economics” (Daley
& Farley, 2004; Daley, 1991; Boulding, 1973). In our current
open cycle economics great emphasis is placed upon increasing the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP). GDP is the total market value of all final
goods and services sold in an economy in a particular time period. It
is a measure of economic activity. Hence, the GDP indicates how fast we
can push “things” through our open-ended system.
However, GDP is flawed as a measure of economic and societal wellbeing.
Much economic activity does not improve quality of life – for example,
low quality products, natural disasters, and war. In fact, GDP
increases when we pay the costs of pollution, the costs of crime, and
the economic losses from natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina. GDP
also excludes volunteer activities, elder care by family members, etc.
Even worse for our future, GDP does not measure the sustainability of
growth. This can’t continue since we are already observing the first
negative effects of operating and growing as an open system while
living inside of Nature’s closed system -- earthship Earth (Robins,
2008; Mack 2006).
To achieve growth in the GDP the open system fosters planned
obsolescence. How many of you have noticed that things tend to fall
apart after a few years? It also encourages perceived obsolescence –
the promotion of new clothing designs and new car styles, something we
have come to expect and anticipate.
In a closed cycle economy the pressure is to minimize the recycling
costs. Growth would be fostered in intellectual pursuits, the arts,
music, and social activities. Financial rewards through a more equable
distribution of wealth would need to evolve – society is beginning to
recognize these needs, for example the efforts to increase teacher’s
salaries to strengthen our education system (Gough & Eastlund,
1971; Daley, 1991). At the present time the statistics of GDP are
guiding this Nation rather than values. Society is paying a price for
the focus upon growing the GDP. Research data shows a clear
relationship of GDP to increasing unhappiness. The World Health
Organization predicts that by 2020 depression will be the second
leading cause of disability after heart disease (Robins, 2008).
Alternative indices are being proposed that account for societal and
environmental factors related to real human development. We need this
“Enlightened Economics!” For example, Friends of the Earth
support the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) (Friends of
the Earth, 2008). Other indices being proposed are the Genuine Progress
Indicator (GPI), the UN’s Human Development Index, etc. (Robins, 2008).
An urgent need exists to settle upon a new measuring index that can
help guide our leaders and citizens. The GDP can still be calculated
but it should no longer serve as the guide to national policy. It was a
tool developed over 60 years ago to measure our increase productivity
during World Was II and has lost its appropriateness as the driving
index for society in the 21st century. Its principal creator Simon
Kuznets cautioned that “the welfare of a nation can scarcely be
inferred from a measurement of national income” (Wikipedia, 2008)
OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE:
However, before these Ecologically Friendly indices can become a
driving force for society, we need to develop the technologies for
closing the materials cycle. We believe that society can create both
clean energy sources and the technology to close the materials cycle.
This is a clear challenge that we must face as we begin to recognize
the implications of global warming and the effects of resource
depletion and pollution. Failure to do so will lead the world into a
precarious future. We have a number of technological options for
producing clean energy. They are solar, wind, geothermal, and
controlled fusion power. Extensive research and development are
required to bring these energy sources into widespread commercial use,
especially for fusion power. The key missing link for solving the
environmental and associated political and security problems is the
need for a technology for closing the materials cycle. The
technological options for achieving that option will now be discussed.
The technologies are available to solve this problem, they need to be
integrated into a system capable of closing the materials cycle from
use to reuse – no laws of physics exist that would prevent humanity
from achieving this goal.
However, public awareness of the urgency of the need to close the
materials cycle must exist before sufficient funding will become
available for this to become a national priority. The driver for major
social change has always been the introduction of new technologies. Dr.
Ervin Laszlo, President of the Club of Budapest, states, “The
transformation of society is not a chance-ridden haphazard process. –
In society, fundamental change is triggered by technological
innovations that destabilize the established structures and
institutions. The decider, however, -- is the rise of new thinking,
i.e., new values, perceptions, and priorities, in a critical mass of
the people who make up the bulk of society (Laszlo, 2006).
FUSION TORCH:
The new technology that we are suggesting to close the materials cycle
is the use of the ultra-high temperature plasmas developed by the
fusion power research program. The temperature of such ionized gas
plasmas are hotter that the core of our sun. A technique for achieving
the objective of closing the materials cycle from use to reuse was
discovered in 1968 by Dr. Bernard Eastlund and William C. Gough, and
was named the Fusion Torch. (Eastlund & Gough, 1969; Miley,
1976) The fusion torch concept consists of a chamber designed
to contain an ultra-high temperature plasma (ionized gas). This plasma
can be produced by the use of injectors that accelerate particles to
energies that create a dilute plasma equivalent to many hundreds of
millions of degrees. At these temperatures and by using the appropriate
fusion fuels, large amounts of energy can be produced with very little
fuel, assuming adequate plasma confinement can be achieved. For
example, fossil fuels produce about 1 electron volt per atom, hydrogen
– boron fuel (p-B11) produces 4,700,000 electron volts per atom. A
portion of this plasma flows into a second chamber where the plasma
density is increased by adding material, which lowers the temperature
to the optimum temperature level for completely ionizing and
dissociating the added materials into their basic elements.
This plasma mix of materials then flows into a region for element
separation and energy extraction. Since all materials must be ionized
and dissociated the use of ultra-high temperature plasmas appears to
represent the only route to completely close
the materials cycle. The possibility of injecting and
ionizing material in a fusion plasma has been accomplished and over 300
scientific papers address this technique. The challenge remaining is to
do this on a large scale with multiple materials. The plasma process is
unique because it provides multiple separation options, since elements
can be separated by mass, charge, electronic state, or by combinations
of these. At least nine different separation processes have been shown
to be useful with the fusion torch after an investment of over $100
million with the issuance of many patents. (Gough & Miley,
2008; Eastlund, 1997 & 1999; Gough & Eastlund, 1971,
April 26-27)).
There are at least ten active p-B11 research and development programs
underway with many of these funded by private investment money.
Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC) permits these experiments to
be done in small sizes and therefore at a relatively low cost, with
reasonably rapid R&D turn-around times. The supply of boron is
abundant and ubiquitous with the United States being a major producer.
80% of boron is the fuel isotope B11. Thus, the United States energy
supply could become self-sufficient (Gough & Eastlund, 2007).
The environmental problems are rapidly increasing in
severity. Most people are now familiar with the global warming issue
and how we are polluting our life support system of the atmosphere. One
important near-term ecological application would be to combine an
electrically driven fusion torch unit with current fossil fuel plants.
The flue gas from a coal power plant would be directed into the
electrically driven IEC-produced plasma to separate the carbon and
other elements. Electricity could be generated by cascading the high
electrical conductivity exit gas through a magneto hydrodynamic process
(MHD) followed by a steam Rankin cycle. The carbon would have valuable
uses, such as for electrical conversion via fuel cells. Dr. Bernard
Eastlund calculated that if the energy equivalent of the carbon is
added to the MHD electrical production, a net energy output from the
overall system appears possible despite the electrical input required
to the generate the IEC plasma. In the longer run, achievement of a
p-B11 fusion plasma would add a key positive energy boost to the
process, enabling the economic large-scale units needed for complete
recycle of materials into elemental products (Gough & Eastlund,
2007).
Here are a few examples of what is happening to another of our life
support systems – the water on this planet. Our industrial society has
been producing many new chemicals including nylon, plastics, medicines,
pesticides, etc. that have been mixed with other materials to create a
pollution “soup” that is poisoning this planet. For example, let’s look
at plastics -- simple molecular configurations of carbon and hydrogen
that we have been making from fossil fuels. Except for a small amount
that's been incinerated, every bit of plastic manufactured in the world
for the last 50 years remains somewhere in the environment. A total of
over one billion tons of plastics have been produced, which includes
hundreds of different plastics with untold permutations. A large amount
of this plastic is ending up in the oceans even though most (80%) of
this plastic was originally discarded on land. It is being concentrated
in areas of the ocean known as gyres -- there are seven. These are
created by a slowly rotation high-pressure vortex of hot equatorial air
causing the water beneath to make slow whorls toward a depression at
the center. The North Pacific gyre is estimated to contain on the
surface 3 million tons of plastic with much more sinking to deeper
depths. This gyrating Pacific dump is 10 million square miles, almost
the size of Africa. Besides the effect on sea life of the larger pieces
of plastic in the oceans, there are bite-sized pieces of plastic known
as nurdles that are being swallowed by little sea creatures. About 5.5
quadrillion, approximately 250 billion pounds, are manufactured
annually. Environmentalists are now documenting the effects of this
plastic upon sea live and our food supply (Weisman, 2007).
There are increasing dead areas of the seas where life (our food
supply) cannot survive due to lack of oxygen. In the Gulf of Mexico one
exists that is the size of the state of New Jersey (Hawken, et al,
1999). The problem is spreading exponentially. In the decade of the
1940s the cumulative number of aquatic dead zones worldwide reported in
scientific papers was 19, by the 1960s it was 43, by the 1980s it was
137, and for the first seven years of the 2000 decade it has already
reached 405 (R.Diaz & R.Rosenberg, 2008).
If the total U.S. waste generation was ionized for recycling into basic
elements via the “boron fusion torch” it would require less than 1% of
the total U.S. energy consumption. In addition to separating out toxic
elements like mercury and strategic metals like titanium, the process
would produce enough hydrogen fuel to power about 56 million cars (U.S.
Department of Energy, 2004). Hydrogen also could be produced directly
from water using the IEC fusion torch ( Miley, Gough, & Leon,
2008).
WHERE WE ARE TODAY:
How far down the path to using plasmas to recycle municipal wastes have
we progressed? Today municipal solid wastes are already being processed
using arc plasmas. Arc plasmas operate at about the temperature of the
surface of our sun, i.e., a thousand degrees centigrade or so. They
cannot completely dissociate and ionize all materials, although they
can greatly reduce the volume of the waste. Their residue is sludge and
syngas, which has an energy potential – however, CO2 will still be
released.
Nevertheless, this is a very important step in the application of
plasma technology. Many companies world-wide are pursuing the use of
high temperature plasmas for processing wastes. These include:
GeoPlasma, InEnTec, StarTech, EER, Pasco Energy Group, EnerSol,
Recovered Energy, PyroGenesis, and EuroPlasma. For example, InEnTec has
a 25 ton/day demonstration plant in Richland, Washington and is
building a $120,000,000 facility near Reno, Nevada. This plant is
designed to handle 90,000 tons of municipal wastes per year and produce
10,500,000 gallons of ethanol (Integrated Environmental Technologies,
2008; Greentech Media 2008; InEnTec, 2008; Miller, 2006; Stickland 2007
& 2008; EER, 2008; Pasco Energy Group, 2008; Euro Plasma, 2008;
Recovered Energy, 2008; EnerSol, 2008; Startech, 2008; PyroGenesis,
2008).
The ultra-high temperatures being produced in fusion research are
orders of magnitude hotter than arc plasmas. Under construction in
France is the International Thermonuclear Experiment Reactor (ITER).
The cost estimate for this large international fusion experiment has
increased by 1.2 billion to 1.6 billion euro which means ITER Tokamak
will cost up to $12.5 billion U.S. dollars and be delayed to 2018
(Clery, 2008). The ITER tokamak confinement system is designed to
achieve fusion power breakeven conditions. Tokamak systems are
inherently very large because they depend upon a volume to surface area
ratio to reduce loses.
Almost all controlled fusion power research over the last 50 years has
focused upon magnetic confinement. Initially it was believed that the
hydrogen-boron fusion fuel cycle (p-B11) was not a possible option. New
theoretical research has shown that this original assessment was wrong.
The unique fusion system we propose to close the materials cycle would
use inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) with p-B11 fuel being
injected. This is the ideal fuel since neutron activation and tritium
contamination of the materials are avoided. The IEC is chosen for the
demanding task of the fusion torch since its characteristic
non-Maxwellian plasma is favorable for burning p-B11 and the hot plasma
can be conveniently coupled out via a jet-like electrostatic “divertor”
into the processing region. Unlike the ITER tokamak, the core density
and electron temperatures are the main issues for IECs. The IEC ion
energy (effective temperature) is set by the injector’s operating
voltage. Applying ~150 kV is desirable for burning p-B11. The required
ion temperature conditions for p-B11 have already been achieved in IECs
at several labs (Miley & Shresha, 2007). However, to burn p-B11
IECs require a factor of 15 increase in confinement beyond the
international fusion reactor now under construction, plus the stability
of the IECs non-Maxwellian plasma must be maintained.
Although the road to a net fusion power producer (Q>1) using
IECs remains challenging, there are many possible practical
applications along the path (Q<1) that could have commercial
value. Today IEC plasma units have been operated with deuterium-tritium
(DT) to produce neutrons. In addition to their use in research,
application of these neutron sources include the production of positron
emission tomography (PET) isotopes, the detection of weapon grade
uranium and the C-4 explosive, and the study of high temperature
material behavior under particle bombardment (Kulcinski, et al, 2008).
In the near-term to compete with plasma arc systems we propose a new
type of plasma system, the “IEC plasma jet” using argon or similar
inert gas, be used for onsite waste destruction and waste-to-energy
conversion. Because arc temperatures are relatively low, the ultra-high
temperature plasma produced in an electrically driven IEC system would
provide improved waste conversion and valuable fuels. Specific IEC
units could also be designed for the processing and recovery of
elements from E-wastes, toxic chemical and biological wastes, for
producing fuels from plastic, and for ionizing and dissociating
greenhouse gases into their constituent elements (i.e., CO2 into carbon
and oxygen).
In summary, Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (IEC) is one of the few
approaches to fusion that has the possibility of burning the
non-neutron producing fusion fuel cycle that uses hydrogen and boron
(p-B11). If achieved, such a power source would enjoy wide availability
of the fuel, no greenhouse emissions, and essentially no radioactivity
or radioactive wastes. It is the non-equilibrium plasma contained by
the IEC that provides it with this unique ability to effectively burn
p-B11. That capability of using p-B11 fusion fuel in turn leads to
charged-particle reaction products that are non-radioactive (it
produces helium). This makes the p-B11 fusion fuel cycle ideal for
closing the materials cycle from use to re-use. Because of the inherent
nature of IECs, all the research and development can be done on small
sized devices reducing costs dramatically and providing short
turn-around times for improvements and upgrades. The closing of the
materials cycle represents the primary objective of this program.
However, an IEC fusion power generator operating on p-B11 fuel also
would enable the development of a modular direct conversion electrical
power plants operating at more than 80% efficiency, ship propulsion
units, and space mission options. Because of the national security
implications of failure to close the materials cycle and the need for
clean energy sources, it would be appropriate to fund these objectives
in a manner similar to that used in the past for high priority military
and space objectives.
CONCLUSIONS:
There exist two basic technological requirements for achieving a
sustainable modern world. These interrelated requirements are the
availability of clean energy and the ability to close the materials
cycle from use to reuse. Only then will we be able to
duplicate Nature’s cycle and achieve sustainability. Thus, to sustain
the ecological foundation that Nature has provided us, humanity must
alter the technological base that modern society has created. We
believe that the technological potential to achieve this goal exists
today. The appropriate technologies when combined and developed into a
system will permit all nations to have material wealth without
destruction of the environment. The fusion torch provides a unique
opportunity for mankind to achieve these objectives, and this in turn
would produce a gigantic leap toward sustainability of life on earth.
ACKNOLDGEMENTS:
This paper would not have been possible without the scientific
contributions of Dr. Bernard J. Eastlund and Professor George H. Miley.
I greatly appreciate the exceptional artwork contributions of
illustrator Robert Bourdeaux for the presentation of these ideas and
concepts.
REFERENCES:
Boulding, K. E., (1973, Fall). The Shadow of the Stationary State, In Daedalus: The No-Growth Society,Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Clery, D. (2008, June 27). ITER Costs Give Partners Pause. Science, 320, 1707.
Daley, H. E. & Farley, J. (2004). Ecological economics: Principles and applications. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Daley, H. E., (1991). Steady-State Economics, Washington, DC: Island Press.
Diaz, R. J., & Rosenberg, R. (2008, August 15). Spreading Dead Zones and Consequences for Marine Ecosystems. Science, 321(5891), 926-929.
Friends of the Earth, (2008). ISEW Explained. Retrieved August 26, 2008 from http://community.foe.co.uk/progress/java/ServletStoryISEW.
Eastlund, B. J. & Gough, W. C. (1969, May 15). The Fusion Torch: Closing the Cycle from Use to Reuse,Washington, DC: WASH-1132, Division of Research, United States Atomic Energy Commission.
Eastlund, B. J. (1999). Method and Apparatus for Improving the Energy Efficiency for Separating the Elements in a Complex Substance such as Radioactive Waste with a Large Volume Plasma Processor,U. S. Patent No. 5,868,909, February 29, 1999.
Eastlund, B. J. (1997). Method and Apparatus for Ionizing All the Elements in a Complex Substance Such as Radioactive Waste and Separating Some of the Elements from the Other Elements,U. S. Patent No. 5,681,434, Oct. 28, 1997.
Eastlund, B. J. (1997). Method and Apparatus for a Large Volume Plasma Processor That Can Utilize Any Feedstock Material,U. S. Patent No. 5,630,880, 1997.
EnerSol Technologies, Inc. (2008). EnerSol's Plasma-Enhanced Processing Technologies. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://www.enersoltech.com/technology.htm.
Environmental Energy Resources Ltd. (2008). EER for an Enhanced Environment. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from http://www.eer-pgm.com/Media/Uploads/EER_brochure.pdf.
EuroPlasma, (2008). Plasma Torches and Hazardous Waste Destruction. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://www.europlasma.com/non-transferred-arc-technology_20.html;
http://www.europlasma.com/industrial-waste-destruction_36.html
Gough, W. C. & Eastlund, B. J. (1971, April 26-27). Energy, Wastes and the Fusion Torch, AMA 8thCongress on Environmental Health.
Gough, William C. and Bernard J. Eastlund (1971, February), The Prospects of Fusion Power, Scientific American, 224 (2) pp. 50-74.
Gough, W. C. & Eastlund, B. J. (2007, September 25). A Road to a Sustainable Future: The Boron Fusion Torch. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www.fmbr.org/papers/reports/fusionTorch2.php.
Gough, W.C. & Miley, G. H. (2008). The IEC Fusion-Plasma Torch: A Path for Closing the Materials Cycle, to be published in the Proceedings of the American Nuclear Society 18th Topical Meeting on the Technology of Fusion Energy, September 28 - October 2, 2008, San Francisco, CA.
Greentech Media, (2008, July 18). FulcrumBioEnergy Turns Trash into Treasure. Retrieved October 14, 2008 from http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/fulcrum-bioenergy-turns-trash-into-treasure-1147.html.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, L. H. (1999). Natural capitalism: Creating the next industrial revolution(p.149). New York: Little, Brown and Company.
Integrated Environmental Technologies (InEnTec) (2008), Plasma Enhanced Melter (PEM) Systems Overview. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from http://www.inentec.com/pemprocess.html.
Kulcinski, G. L., Santarius, J. F., Bonomo, R. L., Alderson, E. O., Becerra, G. E., Boris, D. R., et al. (2008). Near Term Applications of Inertial Electrical Confinement Fusion Reactors. To be published in the Proceedings of the American Nuclear Society 18th Topical Meeting on the Technology of Fusion Energy, September 28 - October 2, 2008, San Francisco, CA.
Laszlo, E. (2006). The Chaos Point: The World at the Crossroads(p.11 & p.15). Charlottesville: Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc.
Leonard, A. (2008). The Story of Stuff [Video]. Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www.storyofstuff.com/.
Mack, C. (2006, February 2). Gross Domestic Product (GDP): What is it, how is it measured, and what is it good for? Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www.lithoguru.com/gentleman/data/GDP.html.
Miley, G. H. & Shrestha, P. J. (2007). Proceedings, US-Japan IEC Workshop, July 2007,Argonne, : Argonne National Laboratory.
Miley, G.H., Gough, W. C., & Leon, H. (2008). Large-Scale Hydrogen Production Using a Fusion Torch Process.Abstract submitted for publication to 2008 American Nuclear Society winter meeting in Reno, NV.
Miley, G. H., (1976) Fusion Energy Conversion, (pp. 305-357). Hinsdale, IL, The American Nuclear Society.
Miller, C. S., (2006, October 14). BIOconvesion Blog: Geoplasma Answers Trash Vaporization Questions. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://bioconversion.blogspot.com/2006/10/geoplasma-answers-trash-vaporization_14.html.
Pasco Energy Group (2008). Technology Overview. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from http://www.plascoenergygroup.com/?Technology_Overview
PyroGenesis, (2008). Plasma Arc Waste Destruction System. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://www.pyrogenesis.com/content_en/technologies/pawds.asp.
Recovered Energy, Inc. (2008). Plasma Gasification. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://www.recoveredenergy.com/d_plasma.html;
http://www.recoveredenergy.com/literature/technical.pdf.
Robins, R. (2008). Retiring the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://invesingforthesoul.com/Editorials/retiring-the-GDP-Gross-Domestic-Product.htm.
STARTECH Environmental Corp. (2008). Plasma Converter. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://www.pyrogenesis.com/content_en/technologies/pawds.asp.
Strickland, J., (2007). Plasma Converters. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://www.jmbusca.com/textos/Plasma%20Converters.pdf.
Stickland, J., (2008). How Plasma Converters Work, Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://science.howstuffworks.com/plasma-converter.htm/printable.
Swift, M. (2008, August 14). Census forecast: By 2050, 439 million American. Retrieved August 26, 2008
.
Union of Concerned Scientists, (2008). Retrieved August 26, 2008, from http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ucs-announces-2008-winner-of-0143.html.)
United Nations, (2008). World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision Population Database, Population Division. Retrieved October 13, 2008
.
U.S. Department of Energy, (2004, February). Hydrogen Posture Plan: An Integrated Research, Development, and Demonstration Plan.
Weisman, A., (2007). The World Without Us, Chapter 9 "Polymers Are Forever," (pp.112-128). New York: Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin's Press.
Wikipedia, (2008). Simon Kuznets. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Kuznets.
