Wanted Patents, Prototypes, New Products, Inventions, Great Ideas

Add a Comment

Comment by Michael on October 14, 2009 at 4:45am

CAPITAL AVAILABLE TO DEVELOP ENERGY PROJECTS WORLDWIDE.
For details contact me at: michael@wantedpatents.com or
send your contact info at www.wantedscientists.com
Michael

Comment by Michael on October 13, 2009 at 1:44pm

George Soros to Invest $1 Billion in Green Energy
Posted by: Mark Scott on October 12

The upcoming climate talks in Copenhagen are less than two months away, and everyone is looking to throw in his/her two cents. On Oct. 10, it was billionaire George Soros’ turn to get in on the act. Giving a speech in Denmark, the man who famously ‘broke the Bank of England’ in the early 1990s now plans to invest $1 billion in clean energy technology. Another $100 million — doled out in $10 million increments annually over ten years — will fund the newly-created Climate Policy Initiative, a foundation targeted at environmental policy.

That’s a sizeable amount of cash, though Soros didn’t specify where the $1 billion would be spent other than saying ‘stringent conditions’ will be used to evaluate potential investments. And in an ironic twist, Soros, who made a sizeable chunk of his fortune through currency speculation, put his support behind carbon taxes, not cap-and-trade systems. His reason? Financial investors can too easily manipulate carbon markets.

Soros is wise to keep his cards close to his chest. With so much money on the table, potential deals could be given a ‘Soros premium’ if the billionaire focuses on a too-narrow clean energy brief. But some of his likes/dislikes are already known. Soros, for instance, has invested in clean coal technology, including Portsmouth (NH)-based Powerspan Corp that specializes in carbon capture technology.

Yet before we start speculating too much on where Soros will spend his cash, a word of caution is merited.

Other high-profile figures, such as T. Boone Pickens, have made similar promises of multi-million dollar investments. Often, though, their plans have come to nothing. That obviously doesn't mean Soros won't go ahead with his $1 billion scheme. But until concrete plans are announced, I'll reserve judgment. As Rod Tidwell (from Jerry Maguire fame) once said: 'show me the money.'

Indeed, the more important figure -- for me -- is $25.9 billion. That's the amount of money invested in green energy projects in the third quarter of 2009, according to New Energy Finance. After a shaky start to the year, investors are now more willing to fork out for clean energy projects. The gradual thawing of the credit markets certainly has helped. So have government-sponsored funds -- like renewable feed-in tariffs or other subsidies for green technologies -- that were included in global stimulus packages.

So with investment returning to the sector, maybe Soros has picked a good time to buy in. Other investors will keep a close eye where he puts his money.

Comment by Gary Fosburg on September 24, 2009 at 12:55pm

If the Pickens plan (which I support) supported a National Energy Lottery (see blog below) proposal and the 4 million followers donated 5 bucks a week for this Energy Raffle, there would be 800 winners a week or 41,600 winners a year
of a $25,000 voucher good only for Renewable products, ie; solar, wind, hybrid, energy green appliances, etc...and be fully transferrable as well. Take advantage of the Fed's energy credit and it would buy around $32,000 worth of Green product/s.

If the Pickens Plan ran this program and retained 10% for operations, not only would it generate further income for the cause but the donators would have some fun with the potential of winning this voucher and 25,000 to 1 odds. Better than a money lottery that doesn't promote going green.

At $20,000,000 a week @ 10%, that's $2,000,000 for the Pickens Plan for operations. Would certainly be enough for expanding the mission. That's over a Billion for the year! Maybe take that money and invest in a windmill anufacturing company that is owned by the workers. Spread the prosperity and have it Made in USA by the owners/workers.

Comment by allen bauman on August 28, 2009 at 4:51pm

If Carolyn McCarthy is your Congresswoman please add district group NY-04 to your list of groups.
Fall will be here soon and we know where the politicians will be.
We need to be organized and available in larger numbers to get our message across. Please join District Group NY-04 today!!!!!!
Allen Bauman
District Leader NY-04

Comment by allen bauman on August 25, 2009 at 10:00pm

PLEASE READ ENTIRE POST.

Below is a letter written to my Senators and Congresswoman. Within the letter is an article from the New York Times concerning underhanded Chinese tactics to become the world leader in solar panel manufacturing.

PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE AND SEND SIMILAR LETTERS TO YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES. I BELIEVE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND MUST BE ADDRESSED BY OUR GOVERNMENT IMMEDIATELY. COPY AND PASTE IF YOU WANT TO THEN POST ANY RESPONSES YOU RECEIVE.

Allen Bauman
District Leader NY-04

The following article is from the New York Times. It is outrageous that China be allowed to use any back handed behavior necessary to capture the solar panel market without serious admonition from the American Government. As my Senator I insist that you light a fire under any and every agency involved in trade with China, contact the Chinese government and let them know in no uncertain terms that what they are doing is unacceptable and we will do what is necessary to protect this fledgling industry which I believe is critical to the future health and well being of the American economy. I am not a protectionist and I believe in global free trade, as long as there is a level playing field. I will also be sending this article to Senator Gillebrand and Congresswoman McCarthy imploring them to take action as well. It is my hope that you will meet with them and as many NYS Representatives as you can muster. This issue directly affects Long Island which has the potential to become a research, development and manufacturing center for solar technology. This also has the potential to affect upstate New York as well. Its a perfect lower wage, educated area which could benefit from new green industry. SUNY Binghamton is doing cutting edge research in this technology.


China Racing Ahead of U.S. in the Drive to Go Solar
Ryan Pyle for The New York Times

Suntech, China’s biggest solar panel maker, has reduced the price of panels sold in America to build market share.

* Sign in to Recommend
* Sign In to E-Mail
* Print
* Reprints
* ShareClose
o Linkedin
o Digg
o Facebook
o Mixx
o MySpace
o Yahoo! Buzz
o Permalink
o

Article Tools Sponsored By
By KEITH BRADSHER
Published: August 24, 2009

Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
China’s Solar ShareGraphic
China’s Solar Share
Related
Times Topics: Solar Energy
Enlarge This Image
Ryan Pyle for The New York Times

Chinese companies like Suntech, above, plan to build assembly plants in the United States.
green inc.
Green Inc.

A blog about energy, the environment and the bottom line.
Go to Blog »

WUXI, China — President Obama wants to make the United States “the world’s leading exporter of renewable energy,” but in his seven months in office, it is China that has stepped on the gas in an effort to become the dominant player in green energy — especially in solar power, and even in the United States.

Chinese companies have already played a leading role in pushing down the price of solar panels by almost half over the last year. Shi Zhengrong, the chief executive and founder of China’s biggest solar panel manufacturer, Suntech Power Holdings, said in an interview here that Suntech, to build market share, is selling solar panels on the American market for less than the cost of the materials, assembly and shipping.

Backed by lavish government support, the Chinese are preparing to build plants to assemble their products in the United States to bypass protectionist legislation. As Japanese automakers did decades ago, Chinese solar companies are encouraging their United States executives to join industry trade groups to tamp down anti-Chinese sentiment before it takes root.

The Obama administration is determined to help the American industry. The energy and Treasury departments announced this month that they would give $2.3 billion in tax credits to clean energy equipment manufacturers. But even in the solar industry, many worry that Western companies may have fragile prospects when competing with Chinese companies that have cheap loans, electricity and labor, paying recent college graduates in engineering $7,000 a year.

“I don’t see Europe or the United States becoming major producers of solar products — they’ll be consumers,” said Thomas M. Zarrella, the chief executive of GT Solar International, a company in Merrimack, N.H., that sells specialized factory equipment to solar panel makers around the world.

Since March, Chinese governments at the national, provincial and even local level have been competing with one another to offer solar companies ever more generous subsidies, including free land, and cash for research and development. State-owned banks are flooding the industry with loans at considerably lower interest rates than available in Europe or the United States.

Suntech, based here in Wuxi, is on track this year to pass Q-Cells of Germany, to become the world’s second-largest supplier of photovoltaic cells, which would put it behind only First Solar in Tempe, Ariz.

Hot on Suntech’s heels is a growing list of Chinese corporations backed by entrepreneurs, local governments and even the Chinese military, all seeking to capitalize on an industry deemed crucial by China’s top leadership.

Dr. Shi pointed out that other governments, including in the United States, also assist clean energy industries, including with factory construction incentives.

China’s commitment to solar energy is unlikely to make a difference soon to global warming. China’s energy consumption is growing faster than any other country’s, though the United States consumes more today. Beijing’s aim is to generate 20,000 megawatts of solar energy by 2020 — or less than half the capacity of coal-fired power plants that are built in China each year.

Solar energy remains far more expensive to generate than energy from coal, oil, natural gas or even wind. But in addition to heavy Chinese investment and low Chinese costs, the global economic downturn and a decline in European subsidies to buy panels have lowered prices.

The American economic stimulus plan requires any project receiving money to use steel and other construction materials, including solar panels, from countries that have signed the World Trade Organization’s agreement on free trade in government procurement. China has not.

In response to this, and to reduce shipping costs, Suntech plans to announce in the next month or two that it will build a solar panel assembly plant in the United States, said Steven Chan, its president for global sales and marketing.

“It’ll be to facilitate sales — ‘buy American’ and things like that,” Mr. Chan said, adding that the factory would have 75 to 150 workers and be located in Phoenix, or somewhere in Texas.

But 90 percent of the workers at the $30 million factory will be blue-collar laborers, welding together panels from solar wafers made in China, Dr. Shi said.

Yingli Solar, another large Chinese manufacturer, said on Thursday that it also had a “preliminary plan” to assemble panels in the United States.

Western rivals, meanwhile, are struggling. Q-Cells of Germany announced last week that it would lay off 500 of its 2,600 employees because of declining sales. It and two other German companies, Conergy and SolarWorld, are particularly indignant that German subsidies were the main source of demand for solar panels until recently.

“Politicians might ask whether this is still the right way to do this, German taxpayers paying for Asian products,” said Markus Wieser, a Q-Cells spokesman.

But organizing resistance to Chinese exports could be difficult, particularly as Chinese discounting makes green energy more affordable.

Even with Suntech acknowledging that it sells below the marginal cost of producing each additional solar panel — that is, the cost after administrative and development costs are subtracted — any antidumping case, in the United States, for example, would have to show that American companies were losing money as a result.

First Solar — the solar leader, in Tempe — using a different technology from many solar panel manufacturers, is actually profitable, while the new tax credits now becoming available may help other companies.

Even organizing a united American response to Chinese exports could be difficult. Suntech has encouraged executives at its United States operations to take the top posts at the two main American industry groups, partly to make sure that these groups do not rally opposition to imports, Dr. Shi said.

The efforts of Detroit automakers to win protection from Japanese competition in the 1980s were weakened by the presence of Honda in their main trade group; they expelled Honda in 1992.

Some analysts are less pessimistic about the prospects for solar panel manufacturers in the West. Joonki Song, a partner at Photon Consulting in Boston, said that while large Chinese solar panel manufacturers are gaining market share, smaller ones have been struggling.

Mr. Zarrella of GT Solar said that Western providers of factory equipment for solar panel manufacturers would remain competitive, and Dr. Shi said that German equipment providers “have made a lot of money, tons of money.”

The Chinese government is requiring that 80 percent of the equipment for China’s first municipal power plant to use solar energy, to be built in Dunhuang in northwestern China next year, be made in China.

Dr. Shi said his company would try to prevent similar rules in any future projects.

The reason is clear: almost 98 percent of Suntech’s production goes overseas.
Sign in to Recommend More Articles in Business » A version of this article appeared in print on August 25, 2009, on page A1 of the New York edition.

Comment by Gary Fosburg on July 30, 2009 at 6:54pm

http://nationalenergylottery.blogspot.com/

I added a blog for the National Energy Lottery proposal should anyone be interested.
Best Regards,
Gary

Comment by Gary Fosburg on July 26, 2009 at 8:08pm

Hi Fred,
Thanks for the endorsement.
My small R&D company is also working on Road Power. I've been seeking Angel Investors as well as potential government grants. A small excerpt of my business plan is below.
Best Regards,
Gary

WHAT IS ROAD POWER
Road power is a new device capable of converting vehicle traffic patterns and the weight of the vehicle to electricity via a submerged air-conditioner size dynamo along side the road. Road Power is submerged as a thief prevention deterrent. A 1” sawcut across all lanes of the highway is required for the installation of a pliable bladder that will be glued into this sawcut. 25% of the hose will protrude above the road in order for the weight of the vehicle to compress this soft bladder creating over 200 lbs pressure which will turn a flywheel alongside the roadway. The inertia of this flywheel allows for continuous electricity to be generated even when traffic patterns slow to 1 vehicle every five minutes (highly unlikely). All respective utility connection requirements to the grid along with safeguards for shutting down generation in the event of power outages are implemented.

POWER GENERATION (Approximation)
One Road Power units generates 90KWH per 24 hours. If we multiply by 365 days we come up with 32,850KWH per year. Dividing by 12 months we arrive at 2737.5KWH per month. Since a home typically on average (for 112 million homes) uses 1000KWH per month, we divide by 3 the 2737.5KWH and arrive at 912.5KWH. Therefore, one Road Power generates enough electricity for 3 homes per year.


USA TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (Background information)
According to the US Dept. of Transportation (FHWA), there are 46,747 miles of Interstate highways in the United States. About 67.1 percent of this 2004 mileage was in rural areas, 4.5 percent was in small urban areas, and 28.3 percent was in urbanized areas. In 2004, Americans traveled approximately 267 billion vehicle miles on rural Interstates, 26 billion on small urban Interstates, and 434 billion on urbanized Interstates. Taken together, this represents approximately 24.5 percent of all U.S. travel in 2004. The Interstate Highway System accounts for only 1 percent of all highway mileage but carries 25 percent of the total vehicle miles of travel. In 1999, the system carried 2.7 trillion miles of travel by cars and trucks, and nearly 700 million rail freight train miles.
Miles of Paved Roads in the US (according to wiki.answers.com) there's more than 5.7 million miles of paved highway in the USA. The public road mileage per "Our Nation's Highways" by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) –"The vast majority (75.2 percent) of the Nations roadways are under the jurisdiction of local governments (town, city, county). Only 4.3 percent are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government which includes roads in national forests and parks and on military and Indian reservations. The rest of the roadways (representing 20.5 percent of the total 3,933,985 miles and including the entire Interstate System) are controlled and maintained by the State governments".
According to nationalatlas.gov transportation contributes 11 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product, amounting to approximately $950 billion. Transportation accounts for 19 percent of spending by the average household in America - as much as for food and health care combined - and is second only to spending on housing.
The U.S. transportation system carries over 4.7 trillion passenger miles of travel and 3.7 trillion ton miles of domestic freight generated by about 270 million people, 6.7 million business establishments, and 88,000 units of government.





As the Road Power and the National Energy Lottery takes hold, excess electricity will start to become a reality. This, along with the Stimulus Bill, T. Boone Pickens & Al Gore’s plan will make the Nations Goal of Renewable Energy a reality. Thinking forward 10 years, the nation should consider building up our Cargo Container Fleets for storing and transporting electricity to Foreign Lands using the battery technology of the year 2019. Ironic, that America would go from a consuming oil nation to a exporter of renewable excess energy.

Comment by Fred Mars on July 26, 2009 at 3:36pm

You know Gary, the more I see what is going on in America and the rest of the world, the more I really like the National Energy Lottery idea. And I think that there are so many new technologies that are increasing the efficiency of photovoltaics while reducing the costs of manufacturing.

And contrary to the high maintenance costs myths about wind turbines, it is only true for the large commercial unites. Honeywell will introduce a new 6 foot diameter turbine in December through Ace Hardware with a package of CFLs for $4,500.00 MSRP. Specially designed to begin effective generation of power as low as 2 MPH. Older solar cell technology cam costs upward of $50,000.00 and at about 2.2KW in the Pacific Northwest, that would take 16 years to see a good ROI. Newer technology includes flexible panels for innovative architectural design and efficiency to produce power while conforming to the structural energy efficiency designed within.

One of the most innovative technologies brought to us here on Pickens has to be Scot Brusaw's Solar Roadway. Replacing an equal section of asphalt roadway with Scot's Solar Roadway would cost about the same, but the solar road will last about 20 years, melt ice and snow from its surface using its own energy, provide energy storage and distribution. It also will carry telecommunications so no overhead power lines or telephone or television cables are needed. It would be the smartest grid because it would be a decentralized power producer and distributor which would enable all of the energy produced at the home, solar or wind or bio-diesel generators, it will be distributed through the SolarRoadway.

These are projects that our tax dollars can be funding instead of bailing out auto makers that don't make vehicles we want and banks that hold our money for pennies of interest and charge us dollars upon dollars when we want to borrow.

Comment by Gary Fosburg on July 26, 2009 at 1:04pm

Thank you for your reply.
If you paste this in your browser http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/5158972/Starlite-the-nuclear-blast-defying-plastic-that-could-change-the-world.html , you will see that this indestructable plastic is controlled by the inventor of the stuff which he is
keeping secret for reasons unknown.
Since this site title mentions....Great Ideas, I was throwing this out there
for the wealthy company that wants to help the world become a better place.
Gary

Comment by William Engwer on July 26, 2009 at 12:20pm

So, why don't you apply for a patent combining the two ideas and go forward with development? At least get a provisional patent (the filing fee is only $110 for a small entity), as it gives you some intellectual property rights while you research the ultimate patentability and marketability. It's been my experience that development money isn't available unless some kind of intellectual property rights are secured. William Engwer

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last