Some time ago, we introduce this discussion by stating, "This is an mature adult conversation about things done that relate to things to be done. If you have a sincere desire to move the Picken's Plan forward, check in here!" Somewhere along the way, the question of integrity became an issue with reference to the the web sites founder and benefactor, T. Boone Pickens.
From this point forward, we want to be clear about certain points;
Transition is still a lively but insightful discussion of the political ramifications and requirements to employ NG as a bridge fuel to future energy independence; AND a equally informative forum for the side issues that naturally arise in the associated ideas that form the components of action. Participants engaged in this discussion lend their keen minds to unifying a common strategic objective by commenting on the various alternatives with respect to the political agenda necessary to generate a National Energy Policy.
Transition is many voices in addition to the founders. They speak of changes in the American community with regards to energy consumption and production. These voices may come from liberal, progressive, right-wing and conservative thinking, but more importantly they are collaborative. We are looking for the people with knowledge who are willing to share their expertise and intuitions with their neighbors to find a consensus necessary to unity.
Please, add your voice to this discussion by considering what you have to offer in the way of your personal expertise, experience and understanding of alternative fuels such as natural gas, solar or wind energy, hydro or thermal power, and chemical or biological process. If politics are not your forte, keep the following in mind:
Specifically for David.
I have never read the bible but I understand that we are only supposed to follow one God. Then another God came along and, being human, we were able to rationalize 3 into 1.
Placing Jesus above all others is a judgement call.
There is a God and he continues to amaze me. I make up what I do not know and rationalize. I am human.
Is this topic fitly?
Probably not, but establishing tolerance of where-you're-coming-from doesn't hurt. Well, scratch nuclear from the agenda. I think investing heavily in coal and gas is dumb too. There will be tens of thousands of more jobs created and trade deficits vastly lowered if we put some real money into wind, solar, tide, which no one mentions, and geothermal. We need to develop technology we can sell to other people. Tell me we can't build a hydro generator that turns around when the tide does. I'd much prefer ten or fifteen of those out there in the water than even one oil rig. They can't spring leaks. We need to develop world class technology to have something to trade besides what's in our dirt and rocks. The movie and music industries do pretty good, but most of us aren't actors. Tens of thousands of jobs installing onsite power generation would be nice.
Time to really consider what we mean by "alternative." Time to re-explore steam. How much could be generated in capillary tubes under a black panel, in the sun? We need alternative sources. And so does the rest of the world. Why does power production need to be centrally located monolithic? We need to decrease dependence on foreign oil and other stuff that has disgusting side effects. We need jobs. We need something to sell the rest of the world. Of course, it would be a real blow to supply-side economics to create a product for which there is a demand. It's based on the idea you make a product, then create a demand for it. One can't say it doesn't work. Advertising and public relations people are usually well-paid.
Know thine enemy. Corporate structure is an invention; a piece of technology, a machine to make money. We didn't build in an off switch. We built regulators to control its action and assure it meets construction codes, when it adds pieces. But regulators fall off at borders. Profits and success are measured in quarters. A good profit percentage can be worth a couple hundred mil, personally, per year. Currently, the system is producing a very, very big profit. Of course when it will get too expensive to maintain has been calculated, but it's only calculated as profit for the corporation. That's what the employees are paid to do. Of course there will be plans for moving out of the investment before it kaput, but that's not for years and this quarter's profit is the paycheck. It will require a very loud voice to be heard over the money-amplified corporate voices that surround our representatives and learn to recognize when our buttons are being pushed, because an organization divided against itself is no threat.
Paul Passerelli of Solar/Thermal can tell you all about using sun to heat ammonia to drive a Stirling engine which powers a generator to produce electricity. The waste heat from this system can be used for space or water heating, another benefit of local energy production. With a central energy production facility that we have now and long transmission lines up to 2/3 of the energy input is lost before it gets delivered to the consumer. This is the same inefficiency whether we promote the use of nuclear or NG. Nuclear would probably be OK if the plants were small and built in a h*** in the ground so a standby lid could be pulled over them.
The main problem with encouraging the use of small local energy production in a smart grid is that the current infrastructure has not yet been paid for and a switch to alternatives would leave the old suppliers with a big debt and no income.
We (the Government) could of course rescind the Federal Reserve Act, print some new interest free money and pay off all the old debts so that debts on the books could be paid off at $1 a year. Sorry, I think that I am repeating myself.
I found a free movie for you http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7886780711843120756
-something about the monetary problem.
Are you a bigot also?
Is that a personal insult?