The Turbine Highway

Comment

Comment by Kevin Espeseth on October 28, 2008 at 3:31pm

Well Wade, I have a concept for you:

If my local factory could buy electrical power from me (at a fair rate for us both - $.05/KWH -), that factory becomes more profitable. And if I, and my farm / small acreage neighbors, all have 20 HP capacity (reasonably constant) X 5,000 homes, that results to $7,000,000 EACH MONTH into that community -alone-.

So, what are you going to do, for us, to beat that?

(copy sent to author)

Comment by Wade Wilson on October 28, 2008 at 1:12pm

My name is Wade Wilson and I am President of Legacy Energy Group, LLC. Our primary focus at this time is Community Wind and Biomass Power projects. These type projects support local economies with good-paying jobs; landowner fees; and, taxes paid to schools, towns, counties and others.

A community organization such as Cities, Counties, Schools, Economic Development Organizations, Non-Profits or most groups serving the community as a whole may participate in up to 20% ownership of a wind farm with no capital expenditures and they have the OPTION to increase participation by an additional 10% with very little capital outlay. This program helps promote energy independence as well as providing good paying green jobs within the community and provides long term income that stays in the community.

Our program includes all development capital as well as construction funding. If you would like to help promote a community wind project in your community please join our group or contact us for more information. We are currently working on several projects and are more than willing to give references to serious parties.

Thank you,

Wade

Comment by Kevin Espeseth on October 26, 2008 at 8:08pm

Thanks for your response on the blog. One of my primary complications on this concept is actually getting the information to people that can actually do something with it. As the primary credo for the CIA states; "control of the communication is the first step in control of the country".

Commercialization for export is a long term objective for this, and being able to produce as many of the subassemblies as possible would be in everyone's interest, but (as far as economical exportation is involved) just being able to stuff the necessary stock material in the container (i.e. "cut to lengths", etc.), with adequate equipment (generator, welder, circular saw w/metal blades) and instructions to complete the job, would be plenty to start the export business with.

The more important focus (to me, at this point) is to make aware the -real- potential market of this concept to the most effective sources of communication distribution. The only way to create such a market, is to allow the people that the product is sold to, to make money from the investment -in a secure manner- (a 21 st century "Homestead Act" if you will).

"Carpet bombing the developing countries with -clean- energy production housing" is a great, grand concept, (with all that that implies), but in order for this to work, they are going to need a fair price for the energy they generate, to continue to produce the product, to expand the market )for the "production" facilities).

We can't even remove the economic terrorism within the united states, to allow this concept to be developed. How are we going to be able to export the product? Although long term involvement with the distribution of this individual level of development (with communication, education and clean water as a automatic part of it) would require some sort of PRO-ACTIVE population control, a responsible regulatory structure (profitable economics @ a fair price of $.05/KWH) has to be in place for it to be able to develop at all.

As for me, I can -probably- build this home on my own, with just the monthly social security check (as it does not specify an apartment address for it to be sent to), but that doesn't really show much integrity, or depth of intelligence for our "great society", (if this is as far as it is allowed to expand), does it?

Comment by Mike Anthony Fernald Sr. on October 23, 2008 at 11:36am

Comment by Mike Anthony Fernald Sr. on October 23, 2008 at 9:45am

An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
Concerning Reform of the Federal Tax Code
Dear Mr. President, Members of Congress, and Fellow Americans,
We, the undersigned business and university economists, welcome and applaud the ongoing
initiative to reform the federal tax code. We urge the President and the Congress to work
together in good faith to pass and sign into federal law H.R. 25 and S. 25, which together call
for:
• Eliminating all federal income taxes for individuals and corporations,
• Eliminating all federal payroll withholding taxes,
• Abolishing estate and capital gains taxes, and
• Repealing the 16th Amendment
We are not calling for elimination of federal taxation, which would be irresponsible and
undesirable. Nor does our endorsement call for reduced federal spending. The tax reform plan
we endorse is revenue neutral, collecting as much federal tax revenue as the current income tax
code, including payroll withholding taxes.
We are calling for elimination of federal income taxes and federal payroll withholding taxes.
We endorse replacing these costly, oppressively complex, and economically inefficient taxes
with a progressive national retail sales tax, such as the tax plan offered by H.R. 25 and S. 25 –
which is also known as the FairTax Plan. The FairTax Plan has been introduced in the 109th
Congress and had 54 co-sponsors in the 108th Congress.
If passed and signed into law, the FairTax Plan would:
• Enable workers and retirees to receive 100% of their paychecks and pension benefits,
• Replace all federal income and payroll taxes with a simple, progressive, visible,
efficiently collected national retail sales tax, which would be levied on the final sale of
newly produced goods and services,
• Rebate to all households each month the federal sales tax they pay on basic necessities,
up to an independently determined level of spending (a.k.a., the poverty level, as
determined by the Department of Health and Human Services), which removes the
burden of federal taxation on the poor and makes the FairTax Plan as progressive as the
current tax code,
• Collect the national sales tax at the retail cash register, just as 45 states already do,
• Set a federal sales tax rate that is revenue neutral, thereby raising the same amount of tax
revenue as now raised by federal income taxes plus payroll withholding taxes,
• Continue Social Security and Medicare benefits as provided by law; only the means of
tax collection changes,
• Eliminate all filing of individual federal tax returns,
• Eliminate the IRS and all audits of individual taxpayers; only audits of retailers would be
needed, greatly reducing the cost of enforcing the federal tax code,
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
-2-
• Allow states the option of collecting the national retail sales tax, in return for a fee, along
with their state and local sales taxes,
• Collect federal sales tax from every retail consumer in the country, whether citizen or
undocumented alien, which will enlarge the federal tax base,
• Collect federal sales tax on all consumption spending on new final goods and services,
whether the dollars used to finance the spending are generated legally, illegally, or in the
huge “underground economy,”
• Dramatically reduce federal tax compliance costs paid by businesses, which are now
embedded and hidden in retail prices, placing U.S. businesses at a disadvantage in world
markets,
• Bring greater accountability and visibility to federal tax collection,
• Attract foreign equity investment to the United States, as well as encourage U.S. firms to
locate new capital projects in the United States that might otherwise go abroad, and
• Not tax spending for education, since H.R. 25 and S. 25 define expenditure on education
to be investment, not consumption, which will make education about half as expensive
for American families as it is now.
The current U.S. income tax code is widely regarded by just about everyone as unfair,
complex, wasteful, confusing, and costly. Businesses and other organizations spend more than
six billion hours each year complying with the federal tax code. Estimated compliance costs
conservatively top $225 billion annually – costs that are ultimately embedded in retail prices paid
by consumers.
The Internal Revenue Code cannot simply be “fixed,” which is amply demonstrated by more
than 35 years of attempted tax code reform, each round resulting in yet more complexity and
unrelenting, page-after-page, mind-numbing verbiage (now exceeding 54,000 pages containing
more than 2.8 million words).
Our nation’s current income tax alters business decisions in ways that limit growth in
productivity. The federal income tax also alters saving and investment decisions of households,
which dramatically reduces the economy’s potential for growth and job creation.
Payroll withholding taxes are regressive, hitting hardest those least able to pay. Simply
stated, the complexity and frequently changing rules of the federal income tax code make our
country less competitive in the global economy and rob the nation of its full potential for growth
and job creation.
In summary, the economic benefits of the FairTax Plan are compelling. The FairTax Plan
eliminates the tax bias against work, saving, and investment, which would lead to higher rates of
economic growth, faster growth in productivity, more jobs, lower interest rates, and a higher
standard of living for the American people.
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
-3-
The America proposed by the FairTax Plan would feature:
• no federal income taxes,
• no payroll taxes,
• no self-employment taxes,
• no capital gains taxes,
• no gift or estate taxes,
• no alternative minimum taxes,
• no corporate taxes,
• no payroll withholding,
• no taxes on Social Security benefits or pension benefits,
• no personal tax forms,
• no personal or business income tax record keeping, and
• no personal income tax filing whatsoever.
No Internal Revenue Service; no April 15th; all gone, forever.
We believe that many Americans will favor the FairTax Plan proposed by H.R. 25 and S. 25,
although some may say, “it simply can’t be done.” Many said the same thing to the grassroots
progressives who won women the right to vote, to those who made collective bargaining a reality
for union members, and to the Freedom Riders who made civil rights a reality in America.
We urge Congress not to abandon the FairTax Plan simply because it will be difficult to face
the objections of entrenched special interest groups – groups who now benefit from the
complexity and tax preferences of the status quo. The comparative advantage and benefits
offered by the FairTax Plan to the vast majority of Americans is simply too high a cost to pay.
Therefore, we the undersigned professional and university economists, endorse a progressive
national retail sales tax plan, as provided by the FairTax Plan. We urge Congress to make H.R.
25 and S. 25 federal law, and then to work swiftly to repeal the 16th Amendment.
Respectfully,
Donald L. Alexander
Professor of Economics
Western Michigan University
Wayne Angell
Angell Economics
Jim Araji
Professor of Agricultural
Economics
University of Idaho
Ray Ball
Graduate School of Business
University of Chicago
Roger J. Beck
Professor Emeritus
Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale
John J. Bethune
Kennedy Chair of Free
Enterprise
Barton College
David M. Brasington
Louisiana State University
Jack A. Chambless
Professor of Economics
Valencia College
Christopher K. Coombs
Louisiana State University
William J. Corcoran, Ph.D.
University of Nebraska at
Omaha
Eleanor D. Craig
Economics Department
University of Delaware
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
-4-
Susan Dadres, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Southern Methodist University
Henry Demmert
Santa Clara University
Arthur De Vany
Professor Emeritus
Economics and Mathematical
Behavioral Sciences
University of California, Irvine
Pradeep Dubey
Leading Professor
Center for Game Theory
Dept. of Economics
SUNY at Stony Brook
Demissew Diro Ejara
William Paterson University of
New Jersey
Patricia J. Euzent
Department of Economics
University of Central Florida
John A. Flanders
Professor of Business and
Economics
Central Methodist University
Richard H. Fosberg, Ph.D.
William Paterson University
Gary L. French, Ph.D.
Senior Vice President
Nathan Associates Inc.
Professor James Frew
Economics Department
Willamette University
K. K. Fung
University of Memphis
Satya J. Gabriel, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics and
Finance
Mount Holyoke College
Dave Garthoff
Summit College
The University of Akron
Ronald D. Gilbert
Associate Professor of
Economics
Texas Tech University
Philip E. Graves
Department of Economics
University of Colorado
Bettina Bien Greaves, Retired
Foundation for Economic
Education
John Greenhut, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Finance & Business Economics
School of Global Management
and Leadership
Arizona State University
Darrin V. Gulla
Dept. of Economics
University of Georgia
Jon Halvorson
Assistant Professor of
Economics
Indiana University of
Pennsylvania
Reza G. Hamzaee, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics &
Applied Decision Sciences
Department of Economics
Missouri Western State College
James M. Hvidding
Professor of Economics
Kutztown University
F. Jerry Ingram, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics and
Finance
The University of Louisiana-
Monroe
Drew Johnson
Fellow
Davenport Institute for Public
Policy
Pepperdine University
Steven J. Jordan
Visiting Assistant Professor
Virginia Tech
Department of Economics
Richard E. Just
University of Maryland
Dr. Michael S. Kaylen
Associate Professor
University of Missouri
David L. Kendall
Professor of Economics and
Finance
University of Virginia's College
at Wise
Peter M. Kerr
Professor of Economics
Southeast Missouri State
University
Miles Spencer Kimball
Professor of Economics
University of Michigan
James V. Koch
Department of Economics
Old Dominion University
Laurence J. Kotlikoff
Professor of Economics
Boston University
Edward J. López
Assistant Professor
University of North Texas
Franklin Lopez
Tulane University
Salvador Lopez
University of West Georgia
Yuri N. Maltsev, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
Carthage College
Glenn MacDonald
John M. Olin Distinguished
Professor of Economics and
Strategy
Washington University in St.
Louis
Dr. John Merrifield,
Professor of Economics
University of Texas-San
Antonio
An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people
-5-
Dr. Matt Metzgar
Mount Union College
Carlisle Moody
Department of Economics
College of William and Mary
Andrew P. Morriss
Galen J. Roush Professor of
Business Law & Regulation
Case Western Reserve
University School of Law
Timothy Perri
Department of Economics
Appalachian State University
Mark J. Perry
School of Management and
Department of Economics
University of Michigan-Flint
Timothy Peterson
Assistant Professor
Economics and Management
Department
Gustavus Adolphus College
Ben Pierce
Central Missouri State
University
Michael K. Pippenger, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of
Economics
University of Alaska
Robert Piron
Professor of Economics
Oberlin College
Mattias Polborn
Department of Economics
University of Illinois
Joseph S. Pomykala, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Towson University
Barry Popkin
University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill
Steven W. Rick
Lecturer, University of
Wisconsin
Senior Economist, Credit Union
National Association
Paul H. Rubin
Samuel Candler Dobbs
Professor of Economics & Law
Department of Economics
Emory Univeristy
John Ruggiero
University of Dayton
Michael K. Salemi
Bowman and Gordon Gray
Professor of Economics
University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill
Dr. Carole E. Scott
Richards College of Business
State University of West
Georgia
Carlos Seiglie
Dept. of Economics
Rutgers University
John Semmens
Economist
Phoenix College
Arizona
Alan C. Shapiro
Ivadelle and Theodore Johnson
Professor of Banking and
Finance
Marshall School of Business
University of Southern
California
Dr. Stephen Shmanske
Professor of Economics
California State University,
Hayward
James F. Smith
University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill
Vernon L. Smith
Economist
W. James Smith
Dean of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and Professor of
Economics
University of Colorado at
Denver
John C. Soper
Boler School of Business
John Carroll University
Roger Spencer
Professor of Economics
Trinity University
Daniel A. Sumner, Director,
University of California
Agricultural Issues Center
and the Frank H. Buck, Jr.,
Chair Professor,
Department of Agricultural and
Resource Economics,
University of California, Davis
Curtis R. Taylor
Professor of Economics and
Business
Duke University
Robert Vigil
Analysis Group, Inc.
John H. Wicks, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Economics
University of Montana
F. Scott Wilson, Ph.D.
Canisius College
Mokhlis Y. Zaki
Professor of Economics
Emeritus
Northern Michigan Universit

Comment by Kevin Espeseth on October 20, 2008 at 3:04am

Posted on my page today, some housing / wind turbine designs that can make money for the owner, only one political complication to resolve... (with free trade for clean energy - @ $.05 / KWH-). More info on the mechanical systems soon.

Comment by Richard Wickberg on October 17, 2008 at 6:35pm

I sent a revised copy of the same letter to Washington's governor and my state senator and legislators, all who are involved in elections. I'll resend the letter after the general election.

This issue is what we pay our elected officials to study and accomplish. If they can't follow the wishes of their constituants they can be voted out! During these economicly hard times, A state's stewards must think outside the box to get the best for it's citizens they can or face being voted out for being complacent.

Comment by Pat & Jenni Votrobek on October 17, 2008 at 6:54am

This article from the Omaha World Herald kind of explains why the wind energy movement isn't being adopted very quickly in many states. This all comes down to lack of information by the companies putting the windmills up. I think some effort needs to be placed on the companies to release more information on land leases and land requirements. Follow the link below to read the article.

www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10461159

Comment by Kevin Espeseth on October 16, 2008 at 9:26pm

Preaching to the choir here, but there are some good concepts stated. As far as I know, our governor (in NM) has started implementing the "smart grid" for development in the direction you mention. I -as uninformed as I sometimes am- don't really see why that particular upgrade is absolutely necessary to be able to sell clean energy to the grid, but at least it is a start.

Not a real fan of feed lot encouragement myself, but anything that turns methane into calcium carbonate instead of greenhouse gas or carbon dioxide works for me.

Again, if we could get a fair price for the energy we generate (as long as it is clean), then people will find a way to develop the machinery to do so, and SO MANY of the problems we face just go away!

If I didn't say this before, check out my page -this week in particular- on some concept(s) on "how". Excuse the pun, the money laundering through the casinos is just not working out the way those nations were hoping it would. Just another in a long line of cr*p we continue to sell to these people...

Comment by Richard Wickberg on October 16, 2008 at 12:45pm

Right now with all the talk by the presidential candidatures about the looming energy crisis (little), I believe it's time to put the heat on the governors of each state. A governor can introduce legislation to change the regulations so that wind farms can be built on the property of private citizens. In many states, laws impede private parties from building wind and solar farms because of regulations set up to aid the power companies. Here in Washington State if one has a wind or solar generator, which generates more than the household uses, they are only allowed to make $1000.00 per year. After that, the rest is gifted to the power company! This is a law that needs to be changed! Grain and cattle farmers and the Native American Tribes have the land to sustain wind, solar and geothermal farms and in our Free Market System, the electric companies should have to purchase the output at market rate. Governors and state legislators need to be made aware of these impedments to fair interstate trade and the power monopolies who have had these laws enacted in their favor. Some states have taken this action and they are to be commended and should be used as a model for other states to follow.

When in the future the federal government decides to build an infrastructure of wind, nuclear, solar and geothermal energy farms in every state, those states who have already taken the iniative and built their energy infrastructure can take their allotment and use it on other needed matters. State energy bond sales should not be over looked.

In states, which have coastal areas away from the coast or off the coast, which could sustain turbines, not only wind, but also wave. Dairy, beef and pork farms and sewage treatment plants can also be tapped for methane. The technology for this is already here. A smart company could tap into this poo market. Moreover, the captured urine can be made into nitrogen; some added to the left over remaining composted poo and you have great nitrogen rich compost.

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last