Hi Kat,
On day I will find my way to Alaska. My dad went down on the USS Grunion off Kiska during WWII. Thanks for all your hard work up there. Let us hope in the near future we will no longer have to import oil.
Hi Kat,
I just got a 3KWHr solar panel system installed on my roof. With the stimulus funds and the city of Austin rebate, it pays for itself within 2 years!
C O N S E R V A T I O N :
Free Alternative Energy Available Now !
America Continues to Waste over 70% of the Energy it Consumes.
100's of millions of lights unnecessarily burn during the day and night, over heating and over cooling is the norm, over packaging, inadequate recycling, toxic landfills, horrendous road congestion, and our perverted obsession with road construction. Public and Private buildings, Schools, Churches, Homes, ... America's blatant energy waste and overuse is culturally pervasive, and abominable !
1- ONLY with a substantial and tangible economic reward/consequence will most Americans care to conserve.
Crude oil must be taxed at $200 per barrel and offset by making income tax begin at $60k.
Taxing energy is simple, fair, economically sound, and available TODAY.
2- The American auto industry must quickly transition to the 6.4 BILLION people reason$ to manufacture solar, wind, and other alternative energy producers. They already have the needed infrastructure. Every home and building in the world, could be using solar energy. We are fast running out of fossil fuels !
Humanity is racing toward extinction, via global warming, for our failure to stop our energy waste.
Taxing energy (in lieu of income taxes) is the ONLY incentive that will stop energy waste and cause renewable energy sources to be employed.
Michael Knight, PhD Energy Conservation Policy mk.ConservationMatters@gmail.com
The Military Responds to Global Warming
BY EMILY GERTZ
CATEGORIES: CLEAN ENERGY, FOSSIL ENERGY, POLICY & LEGISLATION, POLITICS, SECURITY
PUBLISHED MAY 25, 2009 @ 04:47PM PT
Could the U.S. military help lead the nation into a clean energy future?
Even as the Bush administration sought to suppress science and delay action on climate change, the Department of Defense began working on freeing itself from reliance on oil, and to plan for the risks of global warming.
I first encountered this myself in 2004, when I wrote up the Pentagon's report on the military and environmental risks of extreme climate change for a news service. Global warming "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern," declared the authors of that study.
A couple years later I was reporting and writing two articles about community biodiesel plants for Grist in in 2006. One of my sources told me that the Air Force was among those most interested in small-scale biodiesel and wind power technologies -- viewing it as a national security risk to remain dependent on foreign oil imports, and vulnerable to the volatility of oil pricing.
Since then, the information's become much more common knowledge, and Defense cites both green and security concerns in its push for energy independence. As Reuters & New Scientist reported jointly last year,
The US military has a history of fostering change, from racial integration to development of the internet. Now Pentagon officials say their green energy efforts will help America fight global warming.
By size alone, the US Department of Defense can make waves. It accounts for 1.5% of the nation's energy consumption.
The military has set a goal that 25% of its energy should come from renewable sources by 2025 and aims to create machines and methods to help "Main Street America" reach similar targets, says Alan Shaffer, a retired air force officer who leads the Pentagon's research and engineering arm.
"It's only the Department of Defense that is big enough and has the federal mandate for the necessary scope of development" of new energy technologies and products, he says.
...These energy technologies may one day spread to households, as a byproduct of a more efficient military, said Colonel Dave Belote, commander of Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas, Nevada. The biggest solar power array in the US has been operating at Nellis since November in a public-private partnership.
On the downside, even the pragmatists in the Department of Defense sometimes fall prey to magical thinking. Last year, the US Joint Forces Command issued a long-range planning report, "Joint Operating Environment 2008," claiming that the scientific data on what's causing climate change was still open to doubt. Recycling this tired disinfo meme earned the agency rebukes from both strategic and scientific experts, as the Boston Globe reported:
Sharon Burke, a former Pentagon and State Department official who is now a specialist at the Center for a New American Security, said the report was factually "wrong" and "out of line," saying that there is a wide consensus that human activity, namely the production of greenhouse gases, is responsible for global warming.
Other specialists had similar reactions when they read the report.
"It's very wrong," said Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose work was cited in the military report. "The jury is not out" on what is causing global warming, he added. "I don't know where that statement came from, but it's pretty bizarre."
Emanuel also took issue with the report's assertions about future storm intensity.
"Everyone pretty much agrees that the intensity of events could go up with global warming, although we argue how much," he said in an interview.
The Joint Forces Command redeemed itself a bit by backing off the "causes" kerfuffle in favor of more pragmatic concerns. "We are in complete agreement that climate change will be a national security driver in the future," Rear Admiral John M. Richardson, director of strategy for the command, told the Globe. "We are focused on the implications of climate change. We see what is happening. What is causing it is not in our purview. The commanders have to deal with the effects...Don't take away that we think it is any less important."
In a recent high-profile report, the Navy affirms the connections between climate change, economics, energy and security, and argues that "confronting these converging risks is critical to ensuring America’s secure energy future."
The Military Advisory Board (MAB) of the Center for Naval Analysis report, "Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security," reaches the following conclusions:
U.S. dependence on oil weakens international leverage, undermines foreign policy objectives, and entangles America with unstable or hostile regimes.
Inefficient use and overreliance on oil burdens the military, undermines combat effectiveness, and exacts a huge price tag—in dollars and lives.
U.S. dependence on fossil fuels undermines economic stability, which is critical to national security.
A fragile domestic electricity grid makes our domestic military installations, and their critical infrastructure, unnecessarily vulnerable to incident, whether deliberate or accidental. Looking forward, the report warns that continuing business as usual is perilous because of the converging national security risks of energy demand and climate change:
The market for fossil fuels will be shaped by finite supplies and increasing demand. Continuing our heavy reliance on these fuels is a security risk.
Regulatory frameworks driven by climate change concerns will increase the costs—both economic and geopolitical—of using carbonbased fuels.
Destabilization driven by ongoing climate change has the potential to add significantly to the mission burden of the U.S. military in fragile regions of the world.
According to this 2007 report from the Brookings Institution, the Defense Department uses 93% of all energy consumed by the federal government. "The DOD spent approximately $13.55 billion on energy as a commodity in FY 2006," the study notes. "Of that, DOD spent roughly $10 billion on mobility fuels and $3.5 billion on facilities and infrastructure. A $10 per barrel increase in the cost of fuel increases DOD 12 operating costs by roughly $1.3 billion per year, which roughly equates to the entire 2007 procurement budget for the United States Marine Corps."
No doubt these vulnerabilities contributed to the $20 billion in stimulus money being directed at the military for energy efficiency and other improvements, as Wired.com reports, as well as "$75 million to each of the services for "near term" energy efficiency technology demonstrations and research."
With the transition in Washington to a more rational, science-friendly administration, hopefully the military will embrace the moment to solve its own strategic concerns, back strong action on greenhouse gas pollution, and help promote clean energy in civilian society as well.
-----
Image: Solar power array at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.
Check this out http://www.pickensplan.com/news/2009/04/30/the-wall-street-journal-on-the-100-year-supply-of-natural-gas/
Natural gas is a major focus for Alaska.
Great results for you district! Just fantastic. Have you or anyone in your area brought aboard 100 new suporters personally - we would love to have them in the 100CLUB!
Hi Kat,
I would appreciate if you would check on a new member from Chitina, Alaska. She could use some local contact and coordination with an energy plan. Sometimes the warriors are so busy fighting, they do not see the immediate needs.
Have a great weekend!
Marilyn
KAT, Just read carefully what I said. Pickens is not crying to the gov't for money or special incentives. He will use private capital to build wind turbines. A lot of the environmental wackos don't want to use CNG for transportation--after all it is a fossil fuel!! Nobody wants to drive an electric car. You can't run heavy equipment and trucks on electric so we are always going to need gasoline and diesel. If PV/solar was economical Orlando Utilities would be permitting one rather than the new nuclear plant they just proposed. Again I tell you, use proven clean coal technology to capture CO2 and transmitt to old oil fields for half again more oil production and use in hothouses to accelerate food and fiber growth and yields. This means CO2 sequestration has a payback and will not turn the economy upside down. Dr Robt S Poston PhD
KAT, I do consider AlGore a complete wacko. Go to globalwarmingfarse.com and see what over 250 renowned scientists think about man made global warming. You and the other environmental wackos are trying to hijack the PickensPlan. The Koyoto Accord signed by Slick Willie was rejected 99-1 in the senate. You didn't know this? Far from "settled science" like AlGore and BHO say. Look at what the stock market thinks about BHO's recommendations. Let the free market decide between winners and loosers and stop running to the gov't asking for more socialism with loss of individual freedoms and reduced std of living. All you alternate energy people need to sell this stuff to the open market. Hans Kluger says PV & solar is cheaper than coal, so go for it. Start selling to users and stop crying for gov't money. Bob Poston
Alaska already has a significant number of alternate energy groups. I'm thinking we should identify the groups, find or recruit PickensPlan members who have contacts in those groups and enlist them in the plan. Now that I'm out of the hospital, I can help. Joyce
Hi Kat, Here is a way to help and give tools to all of us for getting more RE projects started. I have been pushing for the sell of US Treasury "Energy Independence Savings Bonds". Savings bonds are normally purchased in $25 increments. This gives a way for just about any American to tighten their belts just a bit by skipping a meal at McDonalds or Pizza Hut and buying a RE savings bond to support a project. I need help pushing this project, I've faxed and emailed many in Congress/Senate already. My email is ke6cvh@yahoo.com. Here is a copy of a fax sent to Nancy Pelosi yesterday:
27FEB09
Honorable Speaker of the House Congresswoman Pelosi,
I am an Electronic Technician Chief in the US Navy with 27 years service stationed overseas. I’m outlying an idea to assist and work with current plans for achieving energy independence. I urge you, as speaker of the house and the driving force to form the select committee on energy independence and global warming, consider for discussion and introduction into the house US Treasury Savings Bonds for Energy Independance.
In WWII America sold war bonds supporting the war effort. When young, my mother told me her primary school raised enough money through bonds to build a tank to support troops. I am impressed with the patriotism and purpose of our greatest generation that accomplished so much.
Selling energy bonds for RE (Renewable Energy) development would lower foreign oil imports and assist with the complex problem of funding. Bonds sold as “Energy S” could support new solar trough plants, “Energy W” to support wind farms, Energy “H” to support hydroelectric plants, Energy “T” to support RE transportation such as electric bullet train routes powered by RE, Energy "C" COOPS for small communities only needing a small quantity of turbines, and Energy “I” for needed infrastructure high voltage power lines to the RE site. Bonds will have the project name and include an artist’s perspective of the project and an American flag. President Obama had great success with the internet during his campaign. In a similar manner, using the internet, energy bonds could have a website listing current projects and an “electronic checkout” could purchase a bond $25 or higher. Simpler methods of payment such as “PAYPAL” and credit cards would be available and after an electronic purchase is complete a color print out of the bond is available with a follow up of the bond in the mail. The website would limit quantity of projects for each category until funding is complete. After a project becomes funded, a new project will be available. A tab on the site will show history and status of previous projects. Purchasers may take great pride in “collecting” and displaying bonds of various RE projects and participating at different levels of financial support. Solar trough plants in the multi-hundred MW size capacity with molten salt energy storage in California, Arizona, and West Texas can provide a major portion of electric needs. North Dakota has potential to support 1/3 of our nations electric needs in it’s class 4 wind zone areas. There are plenty of suitable proposed wind turbine farms now around the nation to significantly increase our RE if funded. Mid sized hydro-electric has not been used in America to it’s full potential. Following the example of our neighbor, Canada, it would provide a significant increase in percentage of electric production. Developing all three we could provide the majority of our electric and heating needs through renewable energy in a "New New Deal" fashion allowing natural gas for transportation as T. Boone Pickens is working for. Bullet train routes have proven a viable alternative to commercial domestic air service and when powered by electricity provided by RE suppliers America would be in the forefront of world technology. Example, I heard of discussion for a commuter train from Denver to Colorado Springs. Such a route built as a renewable energy project with charter requirement legally requiring to only purchase electricity from available renewable energy sources would be a model example. There are many train routes, city bus systems, and government vehicles that can be converted to run from alternative energy sources and fuels. Jobs created would bolster the economy, lower trade deficit, and strengthen national security. I would take great pride in print outs of bonds with graphics of each project I supported and many other Americans would also. The energy bonds could have tax breaks. BLM lands may be a viable place to start for some projects.
I contacted the US treasury department and was told that the marketing department for savings bonds closed several years ago. I was told there would be problems because savings bonds are at the federal level while the projects will be at the state and local level. I disagree and believe that these can easily be figured out in the way of grants to the state and local level using money from the bonds for those specific projects. I was told to check out auctions on the www.treasurydirect.gov website and found them to not apply to citizens wanting to buy savings bonds to support a cause such as energy independance. I was told by the treasury department to look into CREB (Clean Renewable Energy Bonds). I found CREB to be large scale funding that a citizen would not be able to participate in as a US Treasury Energy Independance Bond would provide. If given the tools to participate directly, the power of the citizens of the United States to help achieve energy independance could not be denied. Americans mean well and the Energy Independance Savings bond program will give citizens the power at their level to make it happen. If marketed through a web page, commercials, and to federal employees the word would get out and participation would spread like wildfire.
Mr. Paul Gipe, a resident of Bakersfield CA, an author of several books about wind energy, and recipient of multiple awards as a pioneer in the industry since the 1970's has put a letter I wrote to Senator Dorgan on this subject as well as an older letter I wrote on wind COOP in JAN07. These websites are:
I don't know how many of you have been troubled by a certain Pickens Plan member, Windenergy7, a salesman who greets new members with a sales pitch usually before we, or an official Pickens Plan greeter can welcome them into the Pickens Plan Army
If you’ve encountered this “person” or have heard complaints of such ilk, please raise your complaints to all Regional Leaders as this “shyster” is playing havoc in my group and very few of the new people he greets first will join our group!
KAT, My long time personal secretary's father now age 87+ worked in the coal mines in W Va for all his life. For his age he is in good health and suffered no occupational related bad health. No one wants to have unsafe or unhealthy work places. But we shouldn't kill an entire industry because of past bad practices. Enforce OSHA. I made reference to 3 clean coal articles in the Journal of Petr Tech, Jly '08 issue. This is an Oil & Gas Expl & Prod journal, not anything to do with petrochemicals. You might consider getting on board with clean coal. Coal generates 50% of our electricity at the lowest cost and it employs millions in low skill, high paying jobs. There is not near enough votes in congress to kill coal. Dr Robt S Poston, PhD
KAT, Read the article on Denbury Resources on pg 47 of the Dec '08 issue of Oil and Gas Investor. This oil producer uses all the CO2 it can get to recover half again as much oil that has previously been produced from an old field. They are one company of many that use pure CO2 in EOR and they make money doing it. The technology to remove the 15% CO2 in flue gas off a coal powered power plant is known. Or instead of burning air, pure O2 can be used to burn coal and pure CO2 will result. Ready to be compressed to 2,000 psi and sent by pepeline to the nearest oil field to recover more oil. Congress will support clean coal way before all these pie in the sky gov't schemes that turn the economy upside down. I had not heard that 350ppm CO2 in the atmosphere was the goal. We are at 390 ppm now. Use the wind like TBP wants, and sequester the CO2 from the 600 coal fired power plants and we will be well below 350ppm in the USA. For more references on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) go to pg 87 in the July "08 issue of the Journal of Petr Tech. There are three articles on CCS. Don't worry about 15 states not wanting coal fired power plants. They don't want to pay more for electric and coal is tied with nuclear for the cheapest power for consumers. Congress will not vote against coal mining--our most abundant energy source. They will support clean coal after they debate the alternates and the voters weigh in. Dr Robt S Poston, PhD
KAT, I just got back to Lk Mary from a Disney cruise. Our Grandparents did not have the idealistic life you suggested. By any and all standards of living we enjoy a much better life today. Their average life expectancy was 45+/- yrs, they died from diseases which had no cure, medicines were crude, quacks practiced medicine, an infected tooth often swelled the jaw to the size of a soft ball, antibiotics had not been invented and minor infections often resulted in painful death. No thanks we don't want to return to this. Now for the PickensPlan. It is fundamentally a way to quickly (in 10 yrs) switch natural gas fired power plants producing electricity to wind generated electricity using BTP's capital. Who can oppose this? He may need a little infrastructure help, but it will be free enterprise. No need for $15 billion a year spent by gov't to "invent" new green energy alternatives. We know how to use clean coal which is our most abundant domestic fuel. So we do not want this simple concept of the PickensPlan hijacked by environmentalist no matter how good intended they are. Dr Robt Poston, PhD
Hello Kat,
Thank you for joining Green Jobs Now!
My email is: coordinator@green-jobs-now.com
Fell free to contact me if I can help.
Happy Holidays
Melissa
Kat's Comments
Comment Wall (33 comments)
You need to be a member of PickensPlan to add comments!
Join this Ning Network
On day I will find my way to Alaska. My dad went down on the USS Grunion off Kiska during WWII. Thanks for all your hard work up there. Let us hope in the near future we will no longer have to import oil.
I just got a 3KWHr solar panel system installed on my roof. With the stimulus funds and the city of Austin rebate, it pays for itself within 2 years!
Free Alternative Energy Available Now !
America Continues to Waste over 70% of the Energy it Consumes.
100's of millions of lights unnecessarily burn during the day and night, over heating and over cooling is the norm, over packaging, inadequate recycling, toxic landfills, horrendous road congestion, and our perverted obsession with road construction. Public and Private buildings, Schools, Churches, Homes, ... America's blatant energy waste and overuse is culturally pervasive, and abominable !
1- ONLY with a substantial and tangible economic reward/consequence will most Americans care to conserve.
Crude oil must be taxed at $200 per barrel and offset by making income tax begin at $60k.
Taxing energy is simple, fair, economically sound, and available TODAY.
2- The American auto industry must quickly transition to the 6.4 BILLION people reason$ to manufacture solar, wind, and other alternative energy producers. They already have the needed infrastructure. Every home and building in the world, could be using solar energy. We are fast running out of fossil fuels !
Humanity is racing toward extinction, via global warming, for our failure to stop our energy waste.
Taxing energy (in lieu of income taxes) is the ONLY incentive that will stop energy waste and cause renewable energy sources to be employed.
Michael Knight, PhD Energy Conservation Policy mk.ConservationMatters@gmail.com
BY EMILY GERTZ
CATEGORIES: CLEAN ENERGY, FOSSIL ENERGY, POLICY & LEGISLATION, POLITICS, SECURITY
PUBLISHED MAY 25, 2009 @ 04:47PM PT
Could the U.S. military help lead the nation into a clean energy future?
Even as the Bush administration sought to suppress science and delay action on climate change, the Department of Defense began working on freeing itself from reliance on oil, and to plan for the risks of global warming.
I first encountered this myself in 2004, when I wrote up the Pentagon's report on the military and environmental risks of extreme climate change for a news service. Global warming "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern," declared the authors of that study.
A couple years later I was reporting and writing two articles about community biodiesel plants for Grist in in 2006. One of my sources told me that the Air Force was among those most interested in small-scale biodiesel and wind power technologies -- viewing it as a national security risk to remain dependent on foreign oil imports, and vulnerable to the volatility of oil pricing.
Since then, the information's become much more common knowledge, and Defense cites both green and security concerns in its push for energy independence. As Reuters & New Scientist reported jointly last year,
The US military has a history of fostering change, from racial integration to development of the internet. Now Pentagon officials say their green energy efforts will help America fight global warming.
By size alone, the US Department of Defense can make waves. It accounts for 1.5% of the nation's energy consumption.
The military has set a goal that 25% of its energy should come from renewable sources by 2025 and aims to create machines and methods to help "Main Street America" reach similar targets, says Alan Shaffer, a retired air force officer who leads the Pentagon's research and engineering arm.
"It's only the Department of Defense that is big enough and has the federal mandate for the necessary scope of development" of new energy technologies and products, he says.
...These energy technologies may one day spread to households, as a byproduct of a more efficient military, said Colonel Dave Belote, commander of Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas, Nevada. The biggest solar power array in the US has been operating at Nellis since November in a public-private partnership.
On the downside, even the pragmatists in the Department of Defense sometimes fall prey to magical thinking. Last year, the US Joint Forces Command issued a long-range planning report, "Joint Operating Environment 2008," claiming that the scientific data on what's causing climate change was still open to doubt. Recycling this tired disinfo meme earned the agency rebukes from both strategic and scientific experts, as the Boston Globe reported:
Sharon Burke, a former Pentagon and State Department official who is now a specialist at the Center for a New American Security, said the report was factually "wrong" and "out of line," saying that there is a wide consensus that human activity, namely the production of greenhouse gases, is responsible for global warming.
Other specialists had similar reactions when they read the report.
"It's very wrong," said Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose work was cited in the military report. "The jury is not out" on what is causing global warming, he added. "I don't know where that statement came from, but it's pretty bizarre."
Emanuel also took issue with the report's assertions about future storm intensity.
"Everyone pretty much agrees that the intensity of events could go up with global warming, although we argue how much," he said in an interview.
The Joint Forces Command redeemed itself a bit by backing off the "causes" kerfuffle in favor of more pragmatic concerns. "We are in complete agreement that climate change will be a national security driver in the future," Rear Admiral John M. Richardson, director of strategy for the command, told the Globe. "We are focused on the implications of climate change. We see what is happening. What is causing it is not in our purview. The commanders have to deal with the effects...Don't take away that we think it is any less important."
In a recent high-profile report, the Navy affirms the connections between climate change, economics, energy and security, and argues that "confronting these converging risks is critical to ensuring America’s secure energy future."
The Military Advisory Board (MAB) of the Center for Naval Analysis report, "Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security," reaches the following conclusions:
U.S. dependence on oil weakens international leverage, undermines foreign policy objectives, and entangles America with unstable or hostile regimes.
Inefficient use and overreliance on oil burdens the military, undermines combat effectiveness, and exacts a huge price tag—in dollars and lives.
U.S. dependence on fossil fuels undermines economic stability, which is critical to national security.
A fragile domestic electricity grid makes our domestic military installations, and their critical infrastructure, unnecessarily vulnerable to incident, whether deliberate or accidental. Looking forward, the report warns that continuing business as usual is perilous because of the converging national security risks of energy demand and climate change:
The market for fossil fuels will be shaped by finite supplies and increasing demand. Continuing our heavy reliance on these fuels is a security risk.
Regulatory frameworks driven by climate change concerns will increase the costs—both economic and geopolitical—of using carbonbased fuels.
Destabilization driven by ongoing climate change has the potential to add significantly to the mission burden of the U.S. military in fragile regions of the world.
According to this 2007 report from the Brookings Institution, the Defense Department uses 93% of all energy consumed by the federal government. "The DOD spent approximately $13.55 billion on energy as a commodity in FY 2006," the study notes. "Of that, DOD spent roughly $10 billion on mobility fuels and $3.5 billion on facilities and infrastructure. A $10 per barrel increase in the cost of fuel increases DOD 12 operating costs by roughly $1.3 billion per year, which roughly equates to the entire 2007 procurement budget for the United States Marine Corps."
No doubt these vulnerabilities contributed to the $20 billion in stimulus money being directed at the military for energy efficiency and other improvements, as Wired.com reports, as well as "$75 million to each of the services for "near term" energy efficiency technology demonstrations and research."
With the transition in Washington to a more rational, science-friendly administration, hopefully the military will embrace the moment to solve its own strategic concerns, back strong action on greenhouse gas pollution, and help promote clean energy in civilian society as well.
-----
Image: Solar power array at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.
Find more photos like this on PickensPlan
Natural gas is a major focus for Alaska.
Great results for you district! Just fantastic. Have you or anyone in your area brought aboard 100 new suporters personally - we would love to have them in the 100CLUB!
Best,
Kim
I would appreciate if you would check on a new member from Chitina, Alaska. She could use some local contact and coordination with an energy plan. Sometimes the warriors are so busy fighting, they do not see the immediate needs.
Have a great weekend!
Marilyn
27FEB09
Honorable Speaker of the House Congresswoman Pelosi,
I am an Electronic Technician Chief in the US Navy with 27 years service stationed overseas. I’m outlying an idea to assist and work with current plans for achieving energy independence. I urge you, as speaker of the house and the driving force to form the select committee on energy independence and global warming, consider for discussion and introduction into the house US Treasury Savings Bonds for Energy Independance.
In WWII America sold war bonds supporting the war effort. When young, my mother told me her primary school raised enough money through bonds to build a tank to support troops. I am impressed with the patriotism and purpose of our greatest generation that accomplished so much.
Selling energy bonds for RE (Renewable Energy) development would lower foreign oil imports and assist with the complex problem of funding. Bonds sold as “Energy S” could support new solar trough plants, “Energy W” to support wind farms, Energy “H” to support hydroelectric plants, Energy “T” to support RE transportation such as electric bullet train routes powered by RE, Energy "C" COOPS for small communities only needing a small quantity of turbines, and Energy “I” for needed infrastructure high voltage power lines to the RE site. Bonds will have the project name and include an artist’s perspective of the project and an American flag. President Obama had great success with the internet during his campaign. In a similar manner, using the internet, energy bonds could have a website listing current projects and an “electronic checkout” could purchase a bond $25 or higher. Simpler methods of payment such as “PAYPAL” and credit cards would be available and after an electronic purchase is complete a color print out of the bond is available with a follow up of the bond in the mail. The website would limit quantity of projects for each category until funding is complete. After a project becomes funded, a new project will be available. A tab on the site will show history and status of previous projects. Purchasers may take great pride in “collecting” and displaying bonds of various RE projects and participating at different levels of financial support. Solar trough plants in the multi-hundred MW size capacity with molten salt energy storage in California, Arizona, and West Texas can provide a major portion of electric needs. North Dakota has potential to support 1/3 of our nations electric needs in it’s class 4 wind zone areas. There are plenty of suitable proposed wind turbine farms now around the nation to significantly increase our RE if funded. Mid sized hydro-electric has not been used in America to it’s full potential. Following the example of our neighbor, Canada, it would provide a significant increase in percentage of electric production. Developing all three we could provide the majority of our electric and heating needs through renewable energy in a "New New Deal" fashion allowing natural gas for transportation as T. Boone Pickens is working for. Bullet train routes have proven a viable alternative to commercial domestic air service and when powered by electricity provided by RE suppliers America would be in the forefront of world technology. Example, I heard of discussion for a commuter train from Denver to Colorado Springs. Such a route built as a renewable energy project with charter requirement legally requiring to only purchase electricity from available renewable energy sources would be a model example. There are many train routes, city bus systems, and government vehicles that can be converted to run from alternative energy sources and fuels. Jobs created would bolster the economy, lower trade deficit, and strengthen national security. I would take great pride in print outs of bonds with graphics of each project I supported and many other Americans would also. The energy bonds could have tax breaks. BLM lands may be a viable place to start for some projects.
I contacted the US treasury department and was told that the marketing department for savings bonds closed several years ago. I was told there would be problems because savings bonds are at the federal level while the projects will be at the state and local level. I disagree and believe that these can easily be figured out in the way of grants to the state and local level using money from the bonds for those specific projects. I was told to check out auctions on the www.treasurydirect.gov website and found them to not apply to citizens wanting to buy savings bonds to support a cause such as energy independance. I was told by the treasury department to look into CREB (Clean Renewable Energy Bonds). I found CREB to be large scale funding that a citizen would not be able to participate in as a US Treasury Energy Independance Bond would provide. If given the tools to participate directly, the power of the citizens of the United States to help achieve energy independance could not be denied. Americans mean well and the Energy Independance Savings bond program will give citizens the power at their level to make it happen. If marketed through a web page, commercials, and to federal employees the word would get out and participation would spread like wildfire.
Mr. Paul Gipe, a resident of Bakersfield CA, an author of several books about wind energy, and recipient of multiple awards as a pioneer in the industry since the 1970's has put a letter I wrote to Senator Dorgan on this subject as well as an older letter I wrote on wind COOP in JAN07. These websites are:
http://www.wind-works.org/coopwind/RenewableEnergyBondsforEnergyIndependence.html
and
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/AmericanEnergyIndependencethroughCooperativeInvestmentinWindEnergy.html
Sincerely and very respectfully,
ETC(SW/AW) Mike Kendall USN
Mailing address: PSC 476, Box 879, FPO AP, 96322 USA
Telephone (803) 265-4756, Email: ke6cvh@yahoo.com
I don't know how many of you have been troubled by a certain Pickens Plan member, Windenergy7, a salesman who greets new members with a sales pitch usually before we, or an official Pickens Plan greeter can welcome them into the Pickens Plan Army
If you’ve encountered this “person” or have heard complaints of such ilk, please raise your complaints to all Regional Leaders as this “shyster” is playing havoc in my group and very few of the new people he greets first will join our group!
Thank You,
Richard Wickberg
District Leader WA-05
Thank you for joining Green Jobs Now!
My email is: coordinator@green-jobs-now.com
Fell free to contact me if I can help.
Happy Holidays
Melissa
Welcome to
PickensPlan
Sign Up
or Sign In
Featured Discussion
Members
Twitter Feed
pushpickens: RT @martinpribble In #Energy #news World's Largest Wind Farm Coming To Oregon http://bit.ly/5vzUnW #technology .. http://bit.ly/6f29Ve
pushpickens: pickensplan: The bill recently approved to extend tax credits for using domestic #natgas as transport fuel was .. http://bit.ly/5wjNdo
pushpickens: Great article about #oil: Why you won't want to rely on OPEC down the road. http://ow.ly/MG38 #pickensplan http://bit.ly/58CbmP
pushpickens: pickensplan: The US has 3x the amount of #naturalgas it thought it had in 1966: now more than 2,000 trillion cu.. http://bit.ly/7cu4DF
pushpickens: Connect with the #Pickensplan on Facebook! http://ow.ly/Mx6w http://bit.ly/7JYP3C
© 2009 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service