Renewable Energy and the Tough Realities
I may have mentioned that I’m working on another book. One of the problems I face is that, other than that it further investigates the path to renewables, I really don’t know what it’s about yet. I’m gathering information, conducting interviews with super-smart and well-positioned people, and so I have reason to hope that an organizing theme will be coming along any time now — but right now it’s eluding me.
It’s certainly possible that the “tough realities” theme (that I invoked in my last book) has more legs. Each of the major reasons to move off of fossil fuels comes with its own unique challenges. Let’s take the subject of partiotism as an example.
In my mind, the most patriotic thing anyone can do is to get behind solutions that will lessen the US dependence on oil. Unless you favor war, crushing debt burden, increasing ownership of American assets by foreign entities, empowering terrorists, the erosion of the middle class, etc. you really have to think that electric vehicles, mass transit, and other technologies to reduce oil consumption are good news. In fact, I would say they’re as patriotic as the 4th of July.
But here’s a piece of tough reality: you won’t find Fox News and the other right-wing flag-wavers in the US saying anything resembling this. In fact, Fox’s coverage of this subject is essentially non-stop condemnation and ridicule. “What’s the Fisker (high-end plug-in hybrid electric passenger car) product called again?” Bill O’Reilly asks with a mocking sneer. “The Karma? Oooooh, the Karma! Now that’s a product we really need here,” he dismisses smugly. Plus, keep in mind that O’Reilly’s by far the most sophisticated one on the whole team — and the best he can do is a kind of sophomoric name-calling? Isn’t that odd? In any case, it’s part of the large ensemble of tough realities with which we live day to day.
Yes, I think I’ll explore this theme further. In fact, each of the reasons to migrate to renewables (environmentalism, healthcare, peak oil, national security, job creation, etc.) is chock full of these controversies.
While I’m at work developing this more deeply, I hope you’ll let me know if you have any comments or suggestions.
A more important action would be to get off of foriegn oil…green energy technology is probably 50 years and billions of research dollars away(taxpayer money). Have a look at Mr. Pickens and his surplus wind generators. At last report he had 1300 plus wind generators for sale. Unless we want to live in tee-pee’s until technology can find the dough to progress we need a domestic scource for OIL. ANWAR and on shore drilling come to mind. Have a look at Thomas Gold’s book titled ” The deep hot biosphere.
There is a movement dubbed “The Green Hawks” who see energy independence and conservation as a national security issue. The US military is becoming a big advocate of renewable energy for bases and operational units. The less energy they use, the less they have to transport – sometimes through hostile territory.
Yes, our military sees the point of oil-abstinence very clearly. It’s ironic, to say the least.
One major limitation of the “energy independence” argument is that, while most people can agree it’s an admirable goal, there are wildly divergent visions of what that looks like. For instance, to some it means Marcellus shale gas exploitation — the faster, the better. Forget about all the toxic minerals and gases that hydrofracking brings up along w/ the natural gas. That’s what government regulators are for — and fines, etc. Too bad if an entire community’s water supply becomes tainted, as has happened in Pennsylvania already. Or, it could mean increasing mountaintop removal to get at more of that good-ole American coal.
It is certainly important to find ways to reach people where they live — to understand their values and appeal to their good sense. But, sooner or later, we’re going to need a bigger framework. One like the Natural Step system condition which says that a sustainable society does not use fossil fuels that were safely deposited in the earth’s crust over millenia b/c they are toxic to life in the biosphere.
Ha! I just had an image of what Bill O’Reilly would say to THAT!
P.S. Energy efficiency is still the cheapest, lowest-tech, most feasible way to get to energy independence. See http://www.architecture2030.org
What a great comment. And I love what you folks at http://www.architecture2030.org are doing. Next time I’m in Sante Fe (great town!), I’d love to sit down and talk.
Getting off of our addiction to foreign oil is not a controversial proposal. There is much less agreement about whether we can do it in a timely way in a totally green manner.
I think that nuclear, clean coal, low head hydro, geothermal and wind turbines in the back yard of politicians will be just as essential as biogas digesters, more efficient solar, and longer range batteries for e-cars.
The amount of imported energy that we need to replace is just to large to do it quickly with unproven new green technology. In the long term our lives will powered by a much greener stable of dynamos than at present but until then we cannot accomplish our goal with one hand tied behind our back.
Larry Lemmert
Wautoma, WI
As others here have pointed out there is no Silver Bullet that will magically eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels for this century, it’s more like Silver Buckshot – i.e. we must use every available new technology plus our own natural resources to make this leap to energy independence. One obvious huge resource that Boone Pickens has pointed out is our natural gas reserves that at least could put vast sums of U.S. capital to work here rather than sending it to Islamic countries who see us as Infidels and according to their own religion must be killed in order for them to go to Heaven?
The solution will never even get off the ground until this country has a real National Energy Policy / Plan passed by Congress to put us on the right path. Since we currently have no such Energy Plan, we will continue to run down all the rabbit holes without making any real dent in our addiction to foreign oil.
Someone should write a book outlining a rational approach to crafting such a National Energy Plan and outline steps that every American can start employing right now to help contribute to this Plan. You might call it the Energy Bill of Rights after first Bill of Rights which were added to our Constitution.
Hi Craig.
What ever happened to the Indian compressed air powered car?
Also the French version?
An Australian inventor about 2 years ago produced a rotary version compressed air engine that was far superior to the Indian one.
The range on a full air charge is good, and it only costs $2.00 for a fill.
Exhaust is AIR.
If you want air conditioning, this is easily obtained, as the exiting air is at the temperature of frost !
This keeps pollution off the roads, but I concede that the power to operate the charging station compressor (or one you have at home) is run from electricity that in some countries comes from oil or coal fired power stations.
We here in New Zealand are very fortunate in that most of our power comes from hydro stations.
The problem with compressed air cars is physics. Unfortunately, using compressed air for power is extremely energy inefficient.
When air is adiabatically compressed, it becomes extremely hot. Unless some use can be found for the heat generated, it represents wasted energy. And, of course, when energy is recovered by expanding the compressed air in some sort of engine, it becomes extremely cold. In theory, efficiency could be improved if the air were compressed and expanded isothermally, but I know of no proposals to do that or just how practical it would be.
Battery electric vehicles are much more efficient than vehicles which run on compressed air. Even now they are practical for moderate distances. It is likely that as battery technology improves, prices will decline and driving ranges will increase. Another solution for the range problem would be to have a limited number of standardized batteries and have battery exchange stations.
Of course one must consider the source of electricity to recharge electric cars, but that would require less electricity than providing compressed air for cars which run on compressed air.
Drilling in ANWR and on shore as suggested by Gary adds insignificant amounts to the total and can be called “Strength through exhaustion”.
Renewables would be more affordable if subsidies of non-renewables were switched to renewables.
Energy efficiency on the other hand can provide a 75% reduction in energy demand as outlined by Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute.
The German Passivhaus uses 90% less energy than the traditional existing ones.
Carbon Busters has the design of an eco village that will be zero carbon and export surplus renewable power.
Rep. Bachman does not wish to switch from incandescent lighting to 4x more efficient alternatives. With politicians like these America is doomed. Politicians like inhofe, who do not understand science should not even be allowed to speak for the electorate on matters like climate change and prevent the shift to renewables that would keep billions inland to create local jobs instead of supporting cleptocrats in the Middle East.
The switch from steel to carbon fiber for cars would reduce their weight by about half and reduce their fuel consumption accordingly.
Serious Windows has revolutionized window technology by increasing the R-value of the current double glazed window with an R-2 value to R-11. Republicans are successful making the US an “also ran”.
Almost all books and articles on this issue prior to 21st century included very heavy focus on substantial reductions in energy use to lower costs and complications before converting to alternatives. I began my design/consulting/education biz in 1983, while Reagan was dismantling the Carter energy incentives, so I may have a longer view than some. In contrast, I see many in current advocacy and political groups as not having very long-term views, so they often miss the connection between how much use & demand and how difficult & expensive it will be to move away from conventional energies.
When I converted my office from coal-fired power to solar + batteries (no backup) in Nov 2001, that was after I had reduced my demand for electricity by over 75%. That reduction allowed me to reduce the size and cost of my solar + batteries setup by 75%. Since I did my conversion prior to all the current subsidies, this was how I made the conversion affordable. In fact, I paid cash! None of my neighbors were asked to pay higher utility bills so I could buy my solar stuff. And my governments didn’t need to borrow money from Japan, China or Saudi Arabia (to be paid back by our grandkids) so I could do it. I simply traded 1-year’s vacation for a solar system for my office. I also installed it myself to save even more money. Still working today!
After I bought my last 2 houses, both pre-owned, I spent a huge amount of effort, time and money to substantially reduce energy use by adding more insulations, sealants, more efficient windows & lights, EnergyStar appliances and summer solar screens. Then I added or improved the homes’ passive solar features to reduce heating and cooling energy needs. Added solar water heating to both houses after first cutting how much hot water we used.
Starting with the oil crisis of the 70s, I sold my first energy-guzzling car (a Volvo in the 70s, low 20s mpg) and began buying higher mpg vehicles. After Exxon Valdex oil spill, Audobon magazine published an article saying if all our noncommercial vehicles got mpg in the 40s, we wouldn’t need to import oil at all nor upgrade all the big tanker hulls to double-hull (what Congress mandated after the Valdez spill). So starting in 1992, I began buying only 40 mpg or higher vehicles. My current car, a Honda Fit, has averaged 42 mpg since I bought it in 2007. In other words, I have also learned to drive substantially more efficiently than what US-DOE expects from the car which is rated mid-30s. Indeed, I have eeked out 5-7 mpg more than DOE ratings on each car I’ve owned since 1989.
To further reduce my car fuel use, I discontinued having an out-of-home office and moved my office into my home. This reduced another 5000 to 6000 miles per year of driving. At 40 mpg, that translated to another 125-150 gallons not used per year. Also means I contribute less to rush-hour traffic and high-cost wear-and-tear of the roads.
None of these alterations in my home, business or transportation has reduced my functions or profits. They demonstrate a wide diversity of measures we all can and should take to make our transitions away from the high volumes of fossil fuels we now use. I’ve reduced vehicle fuel use by two-thirds, going from almost 600 gallons per year to abt 200. Both homes’ energy use was cut in half or more. Learning to be most efficient and conservative in how I use energy substantially reduced how much I pay for conventional energy AND how much I have had to pay for alternative energies. Even though I’m still a conventional energy user, I use far less than many folks who neglect or ignore the efficiency and conservation steps and implement supply-side solutions first.
Much of our current dilemma is how we’re measuring what and what we do in what order. Many count how much renewables are added. But that’s not a good way to track progress away from conventional energies. It’s not uncommon to find examples where more renewables are implemented but demand and use of conventional energies is not reduced. I measure how much less or fewer conventional energies are used, NOT how many or more renewables are implemented. In the final analysis, we shouldn’t care whether conventional energies and related pollutions are reduced because of free conservation and avoided energy use, relatively low-cost efficiency measures or higher cost supply-side renewable solutions. Yet most current subsidies not only count and track only the highest cost and most technical solutions, but they actually ignore tracking how much if any conventional energy is actually avoided. I’ve seen too many cases where awards and credits are given to projects which have more renewable energy but not less demand for conventional power.
For example, where I live (KY), coal-fired electricity is the norm. It’s a heating dominated climate here in the entire eastern half of the state. Electric utility system peaks here are pre-sunrise on cold winter mornings. PV solar energy during sunny afternoons which are fed into the utility grids cannot in any way reduce the amount of needed coal-fired power before sun rises in the winter. Yet solar advocates too often lobby for laws and tell their members that their sunny afternoon solar surpluses are usable to offset, even cancel out their carbon and other emissions related to coal-fired electricity used overnight or on cloudy days. This kind of misinformation is pleasant-sounding but just confuses consumers, especially well-meaning consumers. The best way to lower demand for coal-fired electricity is to superinsulate and airtighten homes which have electric heat. After so doing, remove some of the heating capacity since the electric furnaces and heatpumps no longer need to be so powerful. Yet cutting electric heating load isn’t even part of any program advocated by any anti-coal or environmental group in KY. Environmental advocates keep lobbying for more renewable energies, even on houses with poor insulation and airtightness.
Back in Reagan days, there was the persistent argument about supply-side vs demand-side economics. Reagan’s advisors kept insisting that cutting taxes on the rich would result in “trickle-down” benefits for the rest of us and stimulate the overall economy. Now this is happening in our energy sector where almost all advocates want more high-tech energy supply solutions like solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, etc., before making a substantial effort to first reduce the energy loads in a huge way. We could aim first for cutting conventional energy use by a third or half, by any methods possible.
Imagine how simpler and lower cost it would be to implement enough renewable energies if we needed far less! By lowering use first, we save a huge amount on what we pay for conventional energy, and we can use those savings to help pay for lesser amounts of renewables. But instead, it’s not uncommon in my area for people and companies with insufficient insulation, still using incandescent lightbulbs, still driving overweight behemeth vehicles, still commuting instead of telecommuting, still using energy in the old-fashioned ways yet receiving subsidized expensive high-cost solar power which only produces power upto 20% of the year. And instead of measuring how much less actual conventional energy and emissions, we allow poetic descriptions which confuse people, like saying that coal-fired electric vehicles are “zero emissions” or that overnight electric use and emissions are “net-zero” because afternoon solar surpluses are fed into the grid. What ever happened to the idea of energy storage? It’s in all the old books.
I do not aim myself or my clients toward zero fossil fuels, not even zero oil. I aim for substantially less reliance and use of fossil fuels and related emissions. Be honest in how we count, measure and report these matters. Especially be honest with ourselves. Don’t give awards based on predictions. Instead, pay attention to actual outcomes, like how much fuel use and emissions actually occur yesterday vs today, last year vs next year. Right now we’re in a recession so energy use is down. After past recessions it has typically risen again. So don’t be confused by energy use fluctuations which result from other factors besides actual improvements.
Sure, it would be great to be completely free of demand for oil. But let’s start with a one-third reduction, then one-half, then two-thirds. In other words, we don’t climb flights of stairs in one giant leap. We take one step at a time. In football we don’t expect the team to make touchdowns in just one play. Many plays are usually needed, sometimes one or three yards at a time. If we thought like this with energy, we’d report progress by how many amps we removed from our electric main this year, how many next year. We’d report not how many hybrids and EVs were sold but how many fewer conventional energy units were used. Just as insulation and airtightness are critical to home thermal efficiency, less vehicle weight is critical to less transportation fuel. Whether it’s an EV, hybrid or flex-fueled vehicle, buy the lightest vehicle you can and drive it the least number of miles per year.
Thanks for making an excellent case for conservation of energy as the primary path to resource independence.
To even up the political jabs at the leadership who simply doesn’t get it….. I would add Al Gore. His carbon footprint is more than that of all the Reps you mentioned. His addition of “green technology” to a bloated lifestyle is exactly what you were preaching against. It was appropriate to point out Michelle Bachman’s rejection of CFLs but big Al’s hypocrisy didn’t get a mention. As long as environmentalists look at politics as Dem= good and Rep= bad, progress will be impeded.
Larry Lemmert
Wautoma, WI
Hi Larry, There are many grevances to go around, and in both political parties, if that is what we think will help. Grievances only promote attack and then guilt, which cripples true thought until they are forgiven. There may be a call for a third party today, as was once needed. I am in Wautoma also. Look me up. West of town on 21. Been it green tec for years, and mind healing is a significant part of it. I have seen that the worlds people believe that projection of grievances onto others will get rid of them, but this is impossible. Tho it is the cause of all wars and conflicts worldwide.
I have moved into solar heating and electricity, triple pane windows, HE furnace for backup, and moving into electric vehicles and hydrogen. Also have examples of Stirling heat expansion engines that work well with solar energy as well as anything else that makes significant heat. 7877966
Forecasts for 2030 show that the world is missing 40% of energy, measured against the needs and the total energy supply in the world.
Then, all countries adopted the development and saving programs met to 100%.
This should scare most people, if a moment came away from TV and other entertainment boxes.
Very few people are aware of these figures. They live in the moment, to trust that tomorrow is like today.
Personally, I relate completely calm. The reason that I can stay calm is that I have knowledge of the techniques that are able to replace current energy sources to 100%, and that has no upper outlet `s restriction. The world can at any time, expand energy production as needed.
Governments and energy companies, like, a while opposing such energy sources. Their goal is to improve results on your bottom line each quarter. Long term is not for them. Then they would have discovered that the time will soon be looking for them. Saved money will soon be much reduced in value.
Kraft (Gravity field reduction) from the buoyancy in the water provide us with electricity. Electricity provides us hydrogen, Safe storage of hydrogen without pressure is available, as fuel for all moving vehicles, internal combustion engine or electric drive.
The whole energy chain is based on: Water in the closed system. Back to the water without any negative environmental impact.
Patent pending.
Please open http://www.ev-motion.com and see how our land transportation system could be operated 100% carbon free using yesterday’s technologies, creating millions of outsource-proof jobs and declaring independence from all not-so-friendly nations.
Respect is a very strong aspect of culture that has decreased in recent yrs. Point of use generation and point of use reclamation and conservation are a respectful point of view. This perspective is needed for many aspects of life, especially a mature one. I find an absence of respect in Fox news, and most media is a waste of mind space. “Whats in it for me right now,and money is the bottom line ” are “Realities” I do not subscribe too. I subscribe to respect for the world around me at any cost. I think for myself, I do not identify with any media. Most people use logic, however the “facts” they use are at best media factoids..of political agenda. All this creates passionate right and left idiots.
Greg
Greg; That is only one way to look at it. There is another that is without limits and wholy viable. All ways of life that do not make the living environment more enhanced for the succeeding generation are limited and may be pain and death to the species that believes thay are the way. 3.5 million years, or so, of evolution have proved this without exception. We are not the exception. If we believe in what the ego offers, we will not survive. The ego promises life while guaranteeing death. It’s basic premise is insane.
I hear that renewables are 50 years away and I immediatly attribute this as wishful thinking by the big oil and coal companies. The facts are that our so-called recovery is the type of hollywood hype that Wall Street has been selling. The dress the pig is elegant and flowing but this will never change the fact that it is still a pig. We, as a nation, have not resolved the outstanding issues regarding energy. Our nation is hopelessly addicted to oil and coal. We borrow billions from China just to send the money to countries that do not like us. This is inexcusable and my thought is that if big oil companies were patriotic they would not be serving us up to the Middle Eastern countries. It tells me that they are mere puppets of these oil shiekdoms. Those companies who are trying to develop clean energy are confronted with a bewildering array of agencies and laws. The licence process can take as long as 25 years. Right now, the Department of Energy is proud of their record to issue a licence in about 5 years. Tell me of an ivestor who is going to wait that long to get a payback in the United States. Remember we are working with Wall Street people who believe that they should get a thousand percent return on their money in one year and if they do not they whine to the government and they promptly give them billons so they can pay themselves bonuses. There will be no clean energy future beyond this point until the nexus between the government and big oil and coal companies is broken. Big oil represents approximatly 13 percent of the federal budget. We have been talking about moving to clean energy for more than 40 years. Time is telling me that we never listen to what a man says with his mouth-watch is feet. Given a complete utter meltdown of the economy we are never going to see a recovery.
Sam Bodman, the former, director of the United States Department of Energy has hired people that are totally committed to fossil fuels. It will take this country being run into the ground and as it does Americans will cling to the idea that the neo cons are going to some how save the day with a secret plan. The big oil companies are reinvsting money back into the economy. In fat for every billion they make off of hard working Americans they put a couple of million into the economy. I am hard on big oil and coal companies. I think they are responsible for destroying the economy and more importantly the complete destruction of planet earth. Scientist are now claiming that nearly 10 million square miles of ocean are toxic waste lands. The amount of toxic sludge and plastic in the oceans is greater than the size of Texas and Alaska combined. Why is this important? The main reason is that the plankton normally scrubs the carbon out of the air. Roughly one third of the carbon emitted by burning fosil fuels is absorbed by these species. This combined with the fact that the acidity level of the oceans is reaching a critical point we are going to suffocate the planet. Hang on that is not all there is to it. In Brazil the Amazon rain forrest has lost more than two billion trees. In the United States we have lost in a little over one hundred years half the virgin forrests. That is more than 26 billion trees. In China the story is even worse. The amount of sulfer in the air is so great entire regions of forrest the size of Montanna have died off. In India the story is much the same. Australia has experiaced a drought that has lasted more than 10 years. The amount of hydro electric has gone from 20% all the way down to 7%. These numbers are staggering. Mankind has set in motion a string of events that will lead to not only the extinction of thousands of species but mankind as well. Real scientist suggest that not only is the planet warming, it is exponentially higher than earlier estimates. I do not know but I trust a man who received his degree from a college than a man who barely granduated from Bixby High School with a GED. Fox Noise issues the same unqualified statements from blathering idiots who know little or nothing about science. There chief blathering idiot did not understand how tides worked. He was not aware that the moon caused the tides and this man is weighing in on a subject that he understands even less about. I think people cling to this as an excuse for what they know to 100 percent false. We all understand that we are addicted to oil. We all understand that we are killing the planet. Hearing these bafoons tell us that carbon is good for us and then Glen Beck exhales into the air and says look that is not bad. I would ask the mindless idiot to place a plastic bag over his head for about 15 minutes. Ok, I am kidding but I can tell you this we would never hear from him again. Carbon monoxide kills in concentrations of 165 parts per million.
Here is where we are headed. The planet is disintergrating around us. The train wreck is happeing right now. There are roughly 5 billion more people on planet earth than were here at the turn of the 21st Century. As the food chain continues to collapse, it will put pressure on the decreasing amount of resouces available. There are two options. The first is that governments watch as its citizens die a horrible death from starvation and disease. The second is they go and take what little resouces their neighbors have. These are not good results. We understand exactly where we are headed and if our worthless sell out politicians do not have a vision for the future it has left us with a nightmare. We are in a lot of trouble. Failure to act will set into motion a chain of events that will lead to an utter colapse of civilization. I look more forward to dying than living. I do not want to be around to see the carnage and the suffering. Mankind can be particually brutal. I pray I do not live to see this day come to pass.
Sustainable energy is viable right now.
Get off yer intelectualizing ass and open your mind, (nothing personal, we all do it). The world is full of limited factoids and thinking that amounts to nothing; YET, you are a teacher, and you teach with everything you do. Step away from the radio and TV. Look within and find a true guide. There are many ideas all about you, and what you focus on will be made manifest in you.
This author says realities are tough. That is illusion— not true. Reality is never tough, but is merely the next step on the path. What many have made of what they believe is real is what seems tough, but it is illusion, and what largely makes up the world you see. There is another world. The Budda knew tthis three thousand years ago.
All of the great religions of the world subscribe to the idea that there is more to life than the physical realm. We need to teach the younger generations that the path to happiness is not built on material things. Energy consumption in this country largely supports a pursuit of goods and services that end up in a land-fill in a few years. Until our priorities are reversed we will not be able to keep up with energy demand, no matter how “green” we think we are. Larry Lemmert, Wautoma WI
Yes, Larry, that may well be true. How, then, would we bring this about for ourselves and the world.
A start in the right direction could include a trip to Naomi’s Blessings thrift shop with a grandkid or two. Take along some items that are no longer needed and donate them. Buy a used puzzle or piece of sporting goods that kids like. Then play with them. Show them that they do not have to go to Walmart or Pamida to find happiness. Kids too often are shoved in front of a TV or are bribed with new toys to get them out of the hair of self absorbed parents.
Teaching recycling and reusing to young children can be profitable and enjoyable for everyone when quality time is spent together.
If our goal is to decrease our energy demand through increasing efficiencies throughout all aspects of our lives, there is an obvious, simple, safe, sane, and humane way to do this immediately. We can stop eating animals. Animal agriculture in the United States consumes 1/3 of our fossil fuels produced, and contributes more to global greenhouse gas emissions than all the world’s cars and SUV’s combined. The production of one calorie of animal protein requires more than ten times the fossil fuel input as a calorie of plant protein. Further detrimental fallout from animal agriculture includes deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution, human and animal exposure to toxic pesticides, compromised health from consumption, and yes, bad karma. Even the “pastured” or “free Range” options still can not avoid the fact that it takes up to ten pounds of grain to “make” a pound of beef. In all these conversations about how to reduce our carbon footprint and move into our energy independent future, I am continually amazed at how the subject of animal agriculture gets left out. Anyone who is truly serious about reducing energy consumption I and making efficiency a priority will put their money where there mouth is and commit to a local, organic, plant-based food system.
Eliminating meat from the human diet would certainly decrease our energy footprint. It may be a good choice for many people. Personally I would not want to live in a world where the choice to choose my own diet was restricted by law to the scientific formulation deemed to be best. I would rather eat Alpo. In a free society we have the right to make bad choices. With a fundamentally sound education we probably will make more good choices than bad ones.
Larry Lemmert
Wautoma, WI
Here is the theme for your book. How to get the politicians in Washington do something that is right for current and future generations, yet politicians view as bad for them to get re-elected so the ignore it right now. We have needed a National Energy Policy for the last 60 years but have never written one down.
What is funny is that I wrote this first about 4 years ago. $211B seemed like an incredibly large number. Today it seems too small to effect anything. Our National deficit grow by $212B in February alone. We in this country are spending like mad man and what are we getting for it?
Good luck with your new book. Remember that half of the US population is below average intelligence!
An Energy Policy for American Independence
We like to believe we are intelligent and naturally do the right things, but we aren’t. We are basically economically driven. Changing costs is what we must do to change our habits.
The Justified Energy Development Initiative (JEDI) fund is a “mandatory contribution” when purchasing gasoline or diesel fuel or coal generated electricity. The JEDI fund is about accelerating energy efficiency and alternative energy technologies and will cause Americans to make “better” decisions about energy.
The JEDI fund will be used to develop alternative energy sources – 35%, support mass transit systems – 15%, improve highways, railroads and electrical infrastructure – 15%, help those caught in this cost shift – 25% going to 0, and redevelop urban areas – 10% going to 35%. We need a major kick in the pocketbook.
The mandatory contribution would be a $1.50/gal and rise $0.50/yr over 7 years. This sets a long term program and everybody can see it. Researchers can get serious, car makers can plan their products and the public can start to plan their lives. It will be a Federal contribution with Secretaries of Energy, Transportation and Interior being responsible to administer.
We consumed 137,970,000,000 gallons of gasoline in 2009 (1.25 gallons per day for every man, woman and child)! Currently the Federal tax is $0.18/gal yielding $26 B in revenues. http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2 At $1.50/gal tax, we collect $211B dollars. The American people will accept this, only if they see it going to create energy independence and a better world. I am not a politician, so I can’t “sell” this. Lastly, to keep control (the bureaucrat’s hands off) of the money, we must strictly allocate it with public oversight. The public must see progress.
Talk about this! It is about getting fit and healthy; never easy, but we all know it is right.
The energy problem is not just oil we use in our cars, but also includes electricity generation. There are alternatives to coal generated electricity, but they all cost more or require new investments with questionable returns. To drive Americans to use and demand alternative forms of electricity generation, then we must also change the economics to make alternatives and conservation a priority. I would propose a similar initiative to change the rate structure for electricity produced from dirty coal to make alternative forms more cost effective and desirable. Again the money collected could be fed into new technology and infrastructure to build a sustainable energy market. All of a sudden, people would realize they must conserve because it affects their pocket book.
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result. Are we really insane in this country?
Best Regards,
Richard Marks
President
EnVironmental Transportation Solutions, LLC
Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
313-717-4321
http://www.EcoVElectric.com
I agree with you 100%. Renewable Energy Sourcea are Patriotic. I have followed this field for 30 years. Unfortunely, because of politically opposing view pionts, the message gets buried.
For example, I support Alternative Energy Resources and am right of center politically ( Huge Reagan Fan ), but when I tell people about about the benefits of Photovoltaic Systems, I get the typical response. If it is a left-of-center person, they understand the technology, but expect me to subscribe to all the other polically left ideologies. They even get mad if I am dressed in a three-piece suit with Wing-Tips. Some how, I am only suppose to have Berkenstocks.
If I am speaking with a person who is right-of-center, thier first reaction is ” Oh, you’re one of those!”
The fact is, we are all in the same boat. I watch Fox News and get upset when they put-down the innovations of The Alternative Energy Field. They seem to ignore the economic benefits just because the Left endorses the technologies. At the same time, the Left will ignore the message of the technology just because it is being deliveried by someone in a three-piece suit.
Wake Up America, the country is falling apart because of a miopic view point. We need to work together to make our country self-sufficient and preserve our way of life.
I agree with you Vincent.
The technology should stand on its own merits and not need to be propped up by ideologies from the left or right.
Any government subsidy should be directed to technology that will have a payback to the taxpayer not to politicians who are too easily bribed with campaign contributions to support insane project that should be rejected at the starting gate. Larry Lemmert Wautoma, WI
I don’t think it is as simple as that to switch from oil. For the US oil drives a huge chunk of business(cars, refining, overseas oil contractors ,defence contractors, the military, oil exploration to name but a few) as well being a very cheap source of energy. The US doesn’t own the oil reserves but in every other respect it is deeply entrenched to oil. To switch from oil would be an extremely painful process lasting decades. Nevertheless eventually this is a process it will have to begin at some stage, sooner rather than later. The point is how can this be started with national buy-in and a deep understanding that it will take longer to fix than a motivational song playing over a miraculous transformation scene like many popular American films. Our children may provide the leadership we all need but do we want to listen?
Sorry to be slow on the draw here, but there really is an alternative to foreign oil that is not being given attention.
We at Doty Windfuels have shown that there is a new solution that needs to enter the public conversation. Sound analysis and simulations, by a team of distinguished scientists and engineers, show that all types of standard fuels – gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel – can be made from CO2 and water using off-peak wind energy (that is, wind in the middle of the night), which is very cheap and clean. That might sound like science fiction, but we have recently published eight peer-reviewed technical papers showing that it can be done efficiently and at low cost. Eight peer-reviewed technical papers are available for download from this page
http://dotyenergy.com/Home/WhatsNew.htm .
We project the cost of the equipment needed to make fuels from CO2 and off-peak wind energy will be only 1% of the cost of algae farms that could produce an equivalent amount of fuel. The analysis shows there is enough CO2 and potential off-peak wind energy in the United States to make three times as much transportation fuel as we currently use, and do that at prices that will compete, even at current oil prices. Many more technical and economic details are available on the website http://dotyenergy.com/ . Also, a short article recently appeared on GreenTechMedia, http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/guest-post-kicking-oil-addiction-permanently-with-windfuels/
The catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf brought a new awareness to the need for a real alternative to petroleum. Making fuels from CO2 and water using off-peak wind energy is our most viable solution to sustainable carbon-neutral fuels and energy storage. No major breakthroughs are required – just an appreciation for the potential of this new approach to a sustainable solution, and a modest commitment of resources.
Of course, the DOE is too beholden to the fossil fuels companies to consider something that would really compete with big oil, big coal, and big gas, but it’s just a matter of time before they will be forced to wake up and smell the roses. The Air Force might be beginning to appreciate that this is worthy of supporting. 2GreenEnergy could make a major contribution by helping to bring awareness to the really good ideas that are languishing because the DOE doesn’t really believe true innovation is possible in the field of energy. They won’t even look at something not already on their list.