Organizers and Leaders: Start Here

Comment

Comment by Robert Schultz on September 11, 2009 at 8:43am

Good commentary Lee.

Our world is evolving, and I believe we are headed for many major changes as we go forward past the era of cheap oil. We will need to find other forms of fuel for our vehicles, and more importantly, we should reduce the distance we have to ship material goods. By becoming more "community based" or regional in how we make products, grow food provide energy, etc. Our local economies will be based on a more independent supply system of materials and resources produced locally, which will be more self-sufficient. If our cars run on Natural Gas, Bio-diesel, or electricity produced nearby. We will have fewer fluctuations in price and availability due to the World Economic Market, our local economies will have a built in resilience and sustainability, making them much more stable.

See more info on post-cheap oil at TransitionUS.org
The coming shocks are likely to be catastrophic if we do not prepare. As Richard Heinberg states: “Our central survival task for the decades ahead, as individuals and as a species, must be to make a transition away from the use of fossil fuels – and to do this as peacefully, equitably, and intelligently as possible”.

Comment by Lee Taylor on September 11, 2009 at 6:48am

A note to Richard Barnard, new Friend at Pickens Plan

Hi, Richard,

Re Pickens Plan, I spend some time thinking about what is happening in the world, and why.

The thing that comes across to me is that much of our world, as we now have it, just kinda "evolved", in the easiest way that was possible. And the thing that is the easiest, is to just improve on what we were already working on. Doesn't matter that much what it is, it is easier to "improve" on something, than to start over with something that makes more sense.

That is where I feel we are with energy. When motor vehicles started out, their energy needs were pretty basic, and the crude fuels for them came on line at just about the same time. Fuel technology developed at the same time as the needs, and it was both plentiful, and available, as long as we could produce enough of it to keep it cheap, and the economies of scale followed so that we could do that.
And an entire economy followed. One that has a tremendous investment financially and scale-wise. Half the world, one way or another, now depends on delivering that stinky stuff to our cars. AND KEEPING THAT SYSTEM WORKING, so that the investment can be recouped.
However, there are so many things that make that make petroleum fuels not overall desirable now. WE WILL PROBABLY NEVER ELIMINATE PETROLEUM FUELS, there are many, many uses that are not easily changable, (aircraft use, for one major application), but two things become so incredibly important now.
First, we are spending WAY too much of our money overseas to acquire the excess oil that we need to feed our totally petroleum-based economy. Sending money overseas, money that does not regenerate the American economy. Money that is just plain lost to us, and buying a product that is totally expended. That's just plain foolish, when, with some rather minor changes to the way that we utilize our energy assets, we can just about eliminate oil importation. And I am only concerned about supporting the American economy, not providing all our assets to an Arab world. Especially an Arab world that supports activities like 9/11. It is OUR money that supplied the money to support that activity. That's just plain stupid of us.
We have "enough" oil in the US to supply our necessary needs, if we can cut down on the overall usage. Only by restricting the growth of petroleum usage can we keep the costs of it under control. We are not doing that right now. Use is exceeding availability, and costs rise exponentially with that fact.

Second, petroleum fuels used to the extent that we use them now, have tremendously destructive side effects Incredibly complex, and environmentally, financially destructive. If you have ever actually looked at an oil refinery, you will be amazed to understand how gasoline and other fuels can possibly be produced by these unbelievably complex factories at anywhere even remotely affordable prices. It is all economies of scale----we can afford to build these kinds of incredibly complex systems, IF we continue to consume the quantities of fuels they are capable of producing.
But that kind of investment can be so much more efficiently utilized to produce other kinds of energy. It takes a windmill to produce electricity. It takes a filter, and a compressor to produce CNG. That statement is overly simplistic, but In comparison to what it takes to convert oil into its usable products-------------------------------There is no way in the world that an alien studying the Earth could ever comprehend why we would use petroleum as a fuel, when there are so many other, MUCH EASIER energy sources available. Cheaply, and cleanly.

The reason that we keep using petroleum as fuels is because the investments have already been made. The money has been spent, and now the profits from that money depend on continuing to use the volumes that make the profits possible.

My feeling is that we can no longer afford to keep increasing petroleum usage, when other much more practical energy sources are now available and do-able. And we need ALL energy resources, INCLUDING OIL, to continue increasing our lifestyle comforts.

And that's what it is all about. Making life as comfortable as we can, economically and in a manner that isn't so destructive to our environment.

Lee Taylor

Comment by helen allison on September 9, 2009 at 3:59pm

google in not the only commercial place to have solar panels andrew lessman owner of procaps labs has his five acre parking lot and all of his buildings covered with solar panels ...he had to get the nevada legislator involved and he now sells back to he electric company his surplus electric power ...... his whole plant only uses electric power from his solar panels he is pushing for more plants in nevada to turn to solar it is a step in the right direction.......the best this state can come up with is nuclear power plants.....i do not understand how any body could even think about that when there is so much more to use in the way of power google and andrew lessman are just a start on changing the world

Comment by James Tracy on September 9, 2009 at 7:15am

The people who are crazy enough, to think they can change the world, are the ones who do!

Comment by Dr. Hans J. Kugler, PhD on September 8, 2009 at 2:55pm

Robert, Richard:
Our overall effort must be - - and already is to some degree - - multi-factorial, meaning that we use ALL available modalities to achieve our goals.
a) Installation of PV systems on roofs. This includes solar arrays on industrial facilities, like Google and HP:
The 1.6 megawatt solar installation at Google's corporate headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. In addition to panels on building roofs, Google has constructed a car port with solar panels as a roof, under which people can charge up plug-in hybrids.
Hewlett-Packard is installing a 1-megawatt solar array in its San Diego facility. The installation will be made up of 5,000 panels on seven buildings. It’s a large solar array, but smaller than Googles 1.6 megawatt solar array is thought to be the largest corporate installation to date in the United States.
Sun Power will install its solar panels and sell the electricity the panels generate to HP at fixed rates under a power purchase agreement. The system will save HP $750,000 over 15 years and offset 1 million pounds of carbon dioxide per year, the equivalent of taking 100 cars off the road each year.
b) Adding wind-power turbines to the PV systems; several new systems are literally noiseless.
c) Using plug-in hybrids and EVs. Have you seen the - - US built - - Fisker Karma?
d) Greatly reduce cutting down trees
e) Plant more trees; they inhale CO2 and exhale Oxygen.

Naturally, the Solyndra company is a very good step forward; we need more companies that produce here in the US.
Read more at ElToroEXPOSED.com

Comment by Richard Barnard on September 8, 2009 at 11:37am

Dr. Kugler:

I don't know that much about solar. Is the following bad?

Fremont, CA, September 4, 2009 – Solyndra, Inc. today commenced construction of its second solar panel manufacturing plant (Fab 2). Located near its current manufacturing facility in Fremont, California, Fab 2 is designed to produce 500 megawatts per year. The new facility will enable Solyndra to fulfill its announced contractual backlog of over $2 billion and create additional jobs. Solyndra's two Fabs will produce enough solar panels over their lifetime to cut over 350 million metric tons of CO2 emissions or 850 million barrels of oil.

Comment by Robert Schultz on September 8, 2009 at 11:34am

Estimates say we need about 200,000 sq.miles of solar panels to power the world. Could be the time to install solar shingles on every rooftop in the USA. Now what about environmental impacts of solar panel production?

Comment by Dr. Hans J. Kugler, PhD on September 8, 2009 at 11:10am

Solar plants - - with power transmission lines that lose energy - - are already out-dated.
Solar roofs (PV) in people's homes, connected via an "intelligent grid" are the future.
Quote from energy experts Khosla and Ehrenpreis:
"Forget about wind farms and solar plants run by conventional utility companies. In the new energy regime, the people are the utilities and their houses are the power plants.”

Comment by Richard Barnard on September 8, 2009 at 9:49am

Solyndra - New Solar Plant in Fremont, CA

http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/13204/

Richad Barnard

Comment by Dr. Hans J. Kugler, PhD on September 7, 2009 at 9:31pm

Let's face it: Neither CNG nor propane is THE clean energy solution of the future! BOTH ARE CARBON FUELS THAT, IN THE LONG RUN, NEED TO BE ELIMINATED. OK as a transition and, because the US has good amounts, a good energy source for US energy independence (hopefully replacing imported oil).
They are both cleaner burning than gasoline, and MUCH cleaner burning than coal; both produce mainly CO2 and a small amount of water when burned.
Coal is the real polluter; besides producing 100% CO2 when burned, coal also contains large amounts of toxic minerals like mercury, cadmium, arsenic, others.
With "clean coal" - - there is really no such thing as clean coal - - some of the toxic minerals are removed.
In the US alone, the major polluter "clean coal" still contributes to putting 49 TONS of mercury into the environment and into oceans - - - to such a degree that now pregnant women are advised not to eat fish (the mercury would harm the developing fetus).
The toxins, contained in slush "fly ash" are stored in humongous ponds (-poisons forever-), and recently we had one of those ponds broken and the slush spread all over the land, poisoning it for hundreds of years to come, getting into rivers and waterways and killing everything in it.
But you rarely hear about that; the coal industry has everybody (paid off?) under control.
The worst way of mining coal is strip mining - - - a true environmental disaster. But - - - the coal strip mining industry put $ 38 million into the Obama campaign - - this administration just assured W-VA congressman (also coal lobbyists) that it would not stand in the way of 24 future strip mining projects. What a shame!

The solutions:
AS A START: Learn about real problems, don't drink the water, pray a lot, install a PV system on your house, and buy a plug-in hybrid.
and check out www.ElToroEXPOSED.com

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last