Topic Closed: June 30, 2007 - September 04, 2007
Not a member? Register Now. * Required
Renewables becoming the most dynamic "Energy Industries"...............
posted by JPN on 9/4/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Worldwide energy business can easily achieve a 20% share for renewables in its energy mix, nuclear can be phased out and second-generation biofuels technologies will arrive in time to meet bioenergy targets sustainably. As an example, European Commission is preparing legislative proposals to increase the share of renewables in the its energy mix, and growth in renewable energies such as solar power likely to continue. One option for doing that could be to share the target equally among the regional groups and associated member states. Increasing the renewables share from current level of 7% to 20% by 2015, means an increase of 13 percentage points." A general 13% increase in renewables for every across the globe is an option that may be achieved with a view to sharing efforts and benefits fairly and equitably among all regions and nations, taking into account different national circumstances, starting points and potentials". The renewables debate also touches on issues of energy security, as some observers warn that increasing reliance on renewables, to the detriment of "traditional" energy sources such as nuclear, is risky from an energy-security standpoint. In June, the International Energy Agency (IEA) urged Germany not to phase out nuclear too quickly, as this would have "significant impacts on energy security, economic efficiency and environmental sustainability".
www.aadityaenergyfoundation.org
Passive cooling and air conditioning
posted by Youssef Hassan on 9/3/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
The site www.builditsolar.com shows lot of ideas to cool houses with very low cost and very low energy. Each idea is suitable for certain climate and environment. If the best ideas, covering all possible climates and environments all over the world, are chosen and produced in an economic price, all people in the world will start to use these products in their houses instead of the air conditioning units, and a huge amount of energy will be saved.
www.builditsolar.com/
Renewables cost competitiveness, market share, technology & product mix!
posted by bill f. on 8/24/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Five more nails for that coffin! 1. With the price of fossil fuels continuing to drop it has got to be hard to get renewables started. Nail #1. 2. With the lack of presence in the market place of E85, bio-diesel and etc. its hard to gain market share. Nail #2. 3. Renewables have absolutely abdacated to fossil fuels except for hybrids feeble gains compared to the massive difference that could be made. Nail #3. 4. The price of mid-size sedans is almost up to luxury levels which will slow new vehicle sales even more. Nail #4. 5. I have not seen flex-fuel used as a marketing tool by any vehicle manufacturers. Nail #5. We can discuss this subject until we are blue in the face but manufacturing actions or lack-thereof speak louder than all our words. Bill f.
view all 4 replies
Re: Renewables cost competitiveness, market share, technology & product mix!
posted by Kent L. on 8/28/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Bill, Manufacturing actions certainly do speak louder than words. What they are telling me is, "we won't reduce our production or consumption of fossil fuels, until either it's in our financial interest or the government forces us to do so." And that, Bill, is why I am hoping, like many others, that the goverment will actually take action: action to increase CAFE standards and finally force auto companies to produce cars that use less fuel, action to subsidize renewables so they can compete with cheap fossil fuels, and action to increase the cost of energy overall, so that manufacturers finally get the message in their board rooms that conservation is "smart." We did it once before, in the 70s. But since Jimmy Carter left office, our government has been asleep at the wheel. (unless you count Al Gore) I and many others, not sure if you are in that group, are hoping nonetheless that our fellow citizens will demand of their elected representatives, that our leadership wake up to the problem of fossil fuels' contribution to global warming, air pollution, and political instability in the Middle East. Based on what I know is happening right now in Congress, at least there appears to be movement in that direction... but not nearly enough movement, I believe. In any case, I wouldn't put that nail in the renewables coffin just yet.
posted by bill f. on 8/28/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Bless you Kent L.for standing up and speaking your peace. Do you know what it means to be placed in the middle of a lose-lose-lose cituation, with three backs butted together? About the time the Automotive Manufactures react with product changes: the negative impact makes oil companies drop fuel prices, like they are presently. Lower fuel prices sells more new SUVs, Trucks and HOT Rods. All the government cares about is getting re-elected; so they all go and hide until folks like you holler too much. Frankly, I don't have a good answer for you and No, I am not a groupie to anybody. I noticed in the news that one US manufacturer's new cross-over is to be more economical to operate. HOLD ON RIGHT THERE, they are saving their best shot for Europe: a 2.0 diesel that out trumps all the rest's MPG; WHY not us? A few years back when there were lots of 4cyl diesels in compact US vehicles, their MPG was great and performance acceptable to everybody except the young and/or wealthy YUPPIES. I remember a Dr. friend that hated his 5cyl 180D because, after 10 years, it just would not die so he could justify buying a new one. Mark my words, The government may look like a free ride but we just can't afford their gift. You stated! "In any case, I wouldn't put that nail in the renewables coffin just yet". Coffin nails are a good example because they can always be pulled out with the other side of the same tool they were driven in with. I know for a fact that there is Ethanol production and distribution in the corn belt; I just havn't seen it in my area of Texas and that was the reason for my heads-up and Sunday's paper advertised (1) flex-fuel vehicle, maybe they read us too? Thanks, Bill f.
posted by Alternative-guy on 9/3/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Bill f, Here is another nail for that coffin.Cost- I recently had to purchase another solar panel and pump for my outdoor pond. I use it to power the water feature for several reasons including my landlord will not allow me to hook up from my apartment to outside needs. Anyway if what it cost me for a panel and pump is any idea of what the larger systems cost I can understand why it has not gained much momentum here in the northeast. My panel and pump which came from a facility in New York State was over 200.00 and although I have only had it for a few weeks it is already giving me trouble. I had better luck with the one from overseas but with changes in shipping it is too expensive. Seems if a 1x3' panel with a pump that was rated to a 1.5meter rate of flow(height) through a 1/2" tube and is already having trouble does not say much for "made in USA" if it was. Regardless without getting too far off point it seems that the cost effective part of any equation is a long way off even for the smallest of systems.
posted by bill f. on 9/3/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Good to hear from you AG. Here are a couple ideas: 1. Get the wood shop at a local school to build you a tiny "Dutch Windmill" and use it to power a water wheel. 2. small water oump. 3. or perhaps a small bicycle alternator. You may get just as much watts from one of those bicycle alternators as a small solar panel. 4. The solar panels that the farmers get to power their gates are tough and my one friend has had his for a few years with no trouble and since he still has half of his first nickle, they must be low cost. 5. Check a farm store that will let you bring defective products back to them. 6. High School shop classes would probably jump at an energy project for a small donation and I don't mean $200.00. Good luck; let us know how you come out. A lot of that stuff is DIY due to the fact that the technology has to be adaped to special needs just like you did. Bill f.
Making Bio-fuels environmentally acceptable.......
posted by JPN on 8/30/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
As bio-fuel usgae increases, it faces trade-off with food, water, fertilizer, land use as well as with logistical issues. European were surprised when they learned that their bio-diesel deamnd was causing in South East Asia, the opening up of more land to cutivation, burning of forests and consequently an increased production of carbon dioxide. Also, conventional bio-fuels are much leveraged to the costs of agricutlural products from which they are made. Biofuels can raise rural incomes, which is one reason for their political popularity. But over the past six months, the fuel - versus - food issue has come to the fore, due to the impact of ethanol production on food availability and prices. That trade - off will put a definite limit on the market sahre of conventional ethanol, and that is why there is no so much interest in what are called, " second generation", bio-fuels such as cellulosic ethanol made from agricultural waste or especially grown energy crop. But the deabte is quite fierce as to when cellulosic etahnol could be made vailable on commercial scale.
Re: Making Bio-fuels environmentally acceptable.......
posted by bill f. on 8/30/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Try telling us what you are doing to get help getting the coal mine fires extinguished in China and India as they produce far more polution and CO2 than you have told us about from all other sources; that would increase your credability with me volumes and increase my interest in your work. Since it's in your own back yard you should have better information than what we have. Thanks Bill f.
posted by Ronald David on 8/31/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Hello JPN, At last I found time to visit the website you plug in each of your comments. One by Dr Giri caught my attention. Dr Giri wrote; "Climate change - largely caused by burning fossil fuels - threatens major consequences across the nations, regions, continents and worldwide, most seriously for the poorest countries who are least able to cope with the shortage of energy, as well as global warming issues." Dr. Giri has bought the BIG LIE's. The first, "Climate change - largely caused by burning fossil fuels..." is a false argument, unproven, and simply ridiculous. Climate change is certainly a complex natural phenomenom, but to blame one thing - burning fossil fuels - for climate change is extremely simplistic. If burning fossil fuels offends Dr. Giri's nose it is okay to blame noxious fumes, but it is not okay to blame it for global climate change. His false premise implies there were NO climate changes prior to and while mankind learned to harness fire! Second lie, "Climate change - largely caused by burning fossil fuels - threatens major consequences across the nations...most seriously for the poorest countries..." Climate change does not respect wealth. Rich and poor nations alike endure natural climate events, like too much or too little sunshine, rain or snow, cold or heat, wind or calm, and so forth. Alll of mankind copes with climate after the fact, so it will always be. Third lie; global warming issues. It is a non issue, like the moon orbiting the earth, nothing mankind does or has done will affect climate much less the heating or cooling of the dirt beneath our feet or the atmosphere we breathe. A few educated people who have time for such things observe changes in climate, and changes in the temperature of dirt and air. It is interesting stuff, like watching meteors strike Saturn. But scaring the hell out of people, and assigning blame to fossil fuels, should not be part of their agenda. Drawing such wild conclusions, and threatening theories does a huge disservice to everybody. We all started from poverty, some progress at a greater pace than others to prosperity and comfort. Don't make more of it than exists.
posted by bill f. on 8/31/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
RD, I agree with your conclusions completly and have asked JPN (Dr. Giri) to explain about the coal mine fires in China and India; with reference to global warming.$br$ $br$ Hiding behind fossil fuel burning and not fixing local problems is also a major part of the big lie, you refer to. $br$ $br$ Those fires are so intense that they may well be causing our atmosphere to heat up more than normal. Lets work to get them put out and see what happens before we revert back to "Shanks Mare", foot travel.$br$ $br$ Bill f.
FOOD and FUEL: “European were surprised when they learned that their bio-diesel deamnd was causing in South East Asia, the opening up of more land to cutivation.” Don’t you mean that the South East Asians saw an opportunity to make money as a result of world demand for renewable fuels. It takes time to develop farm land and money for project expenses. Project management requires people that can Plan, Organize, Direct and Control the project to be completed on time and in budget. That my friend, JPN, is just good business. Burning forrests was not logical because some rare-wood trees may be worth 10’s of thousands of dollars each. Just the vegetation other than trees may have yielded millions of dollars worth of pharmaceutical compounds. There is your start-up money. I was raised on a farm and we always left some trees by plowing around them, it gave us a cool place to eat lunch? Those little dots could be the base for the forrest to grow back when the land played out and that land is only good for a few years. This is a little insurance. Increased production of carbon dioxide, is not the problem its all the lost resources. Now we even harvest stumps to gain resins and energy stocks to produce electricity, profitizing any project. With all the amount of knowledge at SE Asia’s finget tips, someone should ask why they are wasting so much money, resources and not even mention the polution. That philosophy will work. Conventional bio-fuels may leverage the costs of the edible agricutlural products from which they are made and that is why they should use genetically engineered, non edible products designed specifically for the fuel industry. Imagine Caster Beans or corn kernels as big as water mellons and worms as big as anacondas. ”Biofuels can raise rural incomes, which is one reason for their political popularity”. Isn’t that great for the farmers and their customers? It just needs a little work. The fuel - versus - food issue can quickly go away, with out impacting the production of ethanol, food availability and prices. The same expert farmers that grow crops for fuel, would have just as good luck at growing some crops for food at the same time. Key ratios could be government mandated and everybody would win Converting waste into renewable fuel is a good idea for another time. Good luck, Bill f.
Living - Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow
posted by Ronald David on 8/30/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
A new generation is born every year. Each enjoys and suffers similar experiences -- growing, learning, yearning, working, paying taxes, dying -- success & failure, health & disease, plenty & famine, peace & war, and so forth (too many to list here). Americans recall movies depicting colonial life and war in the 1700's, pioneer life and war in the 1800's, fast life and war in the 1900's, leaping into the industrial age, the TV series 'Little House on the Prairie', our ever expanding use of fossil fuels: coal, oil, and gas, and more of the same in the 2000's and war. Oddly, in spite of obvious changes in our gadgets and tools, some still moan and others still rejoice over their relative positions in todays' world: almost exactly as our ancestors did! No matter what generation or what century, poverty and wealth, stupidity and brilliance, war and peace still exist side by side. The drudgery of cutting wood and growing crops, has given way to painlessly adjusting a thermostat and opening the fridge. That grand leap 'forward' in material wealth, due entirely to fossil fuels, has made us complacent, soft, and fearful. It took guts to survive in centuries past, it takes guts to survive today, and will too in the future. If ever fossil fuels are slowly consumed, and no replacement is found or invented, gutsy people will continue to survive. On the other hand, if ever a replacement is found for fossil fuels, gutsy people will continue to survive. The 'whole picture' is, mankind today is no different than 300 or 3000 years ago. Yes, fashions have changed, but growing, learning, yearning, working, paying taxes, dying, is no different. The older and younger generations, learn nothing of value from each other (other than doing this or that more efficiently, like brushing ones teeth). Telling the younger generation what to do while the older generation at the same time continues on apparent paths of complacency and self destruction is THE definition of hypocracy. We work (or play con artist), we pay taxes, save, invent, and invest to get ahead. That formula seems to pay-off for some, but not for others. Cry babies, charities, and stupidity notwithstanding, that's Living - Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow.
view 1 reply
Re: Living - Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow
Good job Ronald David, I liked this philosophy. Bill f.
CHALLENGE
posted by Magellan on 7/24/2007 - This comment was recommended 1 time
MY CHALLENGE to Chevron: build a model community utilizing the best current technology. Start with geothermal, wind, wave, and solar energy sources as applicable. Besides storage banks at dedicated substations, make each home an active part of the renewable energy grid (REG), able to have its energy storage system (ESS) topped off during periods of peak production. Construct homes of printed photovoltaic polymer panels and store electricity with Firefly's carbon-graphite foam-based batteries and connect each home to the REG-management network. Within less than a 100-mile radius, grow crops using sustainable organic practices and greenhouses of construction similar to that of community homes. Construct dedicated electric vehicles with a quick-change modular ESS (such as battery-powered tools currently use) comprised of Firefly batteries with the capability for a 90% recharge in 10 minutes, 240V AC drive systems, and the amenities of a modern car. Build a network of battery maintenance stations at which racks of fully-charged ESSes are available at a nominal fee and will fit any vehicle. As the community/REG expands, extend the “fueling” network. Liquid hydrogen production, distribution, and safe end use should parallel expansion of the network, allowing for fuel cell powered airplanes and other machinery in which electric-drive alone is insufficient. Offer extensive free public transportation in a bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly community with plenty of parks. As for local industry, the community should be actively engaged in discovering and exporting solutions in energy extraction, distribution, and efficiency. After initial construction of the core community, vehicle fleet, and REG, any expansion requiring fossil fuels or pollutant chemicals should be expressly forbidden (with exceptions being petroleum lubricants and plastics, though synthetics should be given priority if environmentally superior).There should be restrictions on industries that are unsustainable or create an unmitigated carbon footprint. The REG should be connected with outlying grids with the explicit intent of annexing, upgrading, and expanding. "Urban renewal" in communities incorporated into the REG would involve upgrading homes, industry, and vehicles to sustainable power. Those outlying communities demonstrating the greatest commitment to sustainable practices would be first in line for annexation. There is no time like the present.
www.evdreams.blogspot.com/
view all 28 replies
Re: CHALLENGE
posted by bill f. on 7/25/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Thank you for sharing your dream world with us, Magellan. Please translate the results into a real world ending by answering a few questions. 1. What would be in it for Chevron? 2. What does the middle to lower class folks have to look forward to? 3. Is there room in your world for Seniors living on a fixed income? 4. What would be done with poor, indigent, illegal aliens or Criminals trying to get a fresh start? 5. Please don't quote the philosophy of some from the 200+ IQ group, "that believes, every one else is expendable". The problem is that we all have relatives that fit in one or more category besides "RICH and FAMOUS; but the RICH and FAMOUS have access to all these options right now. Go to ALASKA and see just how many common folks live perfectly satisfactory lives with out going to this extreem or having all the whistles and bells you have tried to replace economically. Remember PV's are less that 15% efficient. Just by increasing that to 85% plus adding 12volt batteries would allow us to disconnect from the grid and facilitate power train conversions, providing most of that new technology is affordable. Your idea sounds great but it doesn't sound affordable? On the other hand, if it were not for dreamers like you we would still be starting fires with two rocks and dry leaves.
posted by Magellan on 7/30/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
I am an automotive systems engineer with no relationship with Chevron other than as a filling-station customer. Keeping in mind that the community I envision would be bound by the same laws and social order of every other town in the U.S. (I'm not suggesting building an island nation), here are a few answers: 1. Within the proposed community, Chevron would invest in renewable energy infrastructure, including implementation, distribution, maintenance and expansion, allowing diversification of interests away from petroleum (of course they are already doing this, but focusing on a single model community would improve feedback and resource coordination). After initial investment, Chevron would maintain control of energy distribution and regulation, particularly in regard to the "fueling" network of ESS exchange stations. 2. Middle and lower class people in the community would find that per capita cost of energy and housing significantly decrease, with commensurate improvement in living standards. Even at the outset, not every family invited to live within the township would be supported by tech-sector jobs. As in any community, a broad range of employment would exist in construction, sanitation, recycling, food service, security and policing, and maintenance (to name a few). As the model expanded there would be little change to existing socio-economics except as they relate to energy and environmental impact. Additionally, even lower income families would be attracted to incentives such as improved employment and lower cost of living. 3. Those living on fixed incomes would benefit from lower housing and energy costs and greater freedom of movement via free public transportation (within city centers). Mass transit in outlying areas would be less costly than in current practice due to greater component reliability (electric drive vs. gasoline/diesel) and lower energy costs. 4. If inexpensive and abundant energy allows diversion of government funds to education (both for minors and adults) and reform programs, we all benefit. Keep in mind how much federal tax revenue is currently devoted to war and political maneuvering in efforts to control dwindling resources (particularly petroleum). (Comments continue below)
posted by Ronald David on 7/25/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Hello Magellan, I can hardly believe you are real. Assuming you are, please tell us about mundane subjects such as the police, firemen, hospitals, and the local military base, let alone day care, schools, postal service, senior citizen housing, et cetera. Consider the local lockup, maybe even a state prison, supermarkets, and other 'local industries'. Ignore all the above -- please explain 'fuel cell powered fighter aircraft'.
posted by Magellan on 7/27/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
5. No one is expendable. Right now, inequitable energy-distribution creates social stress and disillusionment that devalue human life. Abundant renewable energy will decrease geopolitical hostility and free up resources for social programs that improve the "value" of each individual. 6. This solution isn't for everyone. If anything, it enables those who prefer to be off-grid by allowing economies of scale for PV technology, insulating materials, energy storage and regulation systems, energy-efficient appliances, and more. Trickle-down economics from the REG would be a good thing for individualists everywhere. 7. As for affordability, you ask a loaded question. Can we afford to do business as usual? No. Can we afford to invest in a new model that creates its own renewable energy and resources for further growth? It is possible already, even without further (inevitable) advances in technology. Building the first "prototype" community will cost billions in terms of energy generation facilities, storage substations, factories to build components unique to the REG, homes, streets, sanitation, and the many other support systems of any modern housing development. But billions are already spent on development of suburban communities, with little expectation of residual return on investment. 8. Regarding fuel-cell powered fighter planes, I’m not talking about national defense here, but a small community within the U.S. There's no need for fighter planes in such a community. The age of civilization powered by fossil fuels has proven to be equivalent to "starting fires with two rocks and dried leaves". In the long run, investing in a new energy paradigm is the only thing we CAN afford to do. If existing petroleum companies don't diversify to maintain an interest in an era of renewable energy, they only stand to become an unpleasant memory.
posted by Ronald David on 7/27/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Incredible idea (as in ridiculous). You would build a utopian model community using 100% fossil fuel industries and then ban those industries. Better think it through again. Having built your utopian model community, assuming anyone else would consider it practical, how to you propose to keep it self supporting without fossil fuel industry to repair and maintain it? How high a fence do you propose to build around it to keep out interlopers? What makes you think any small community with the USA is immune from international terrorism? You wrote; "If existing petroleum companies don't diversify to maintain an interest in an era of renewable energy, they only stand to become an unpleasant memory." Existing oil corporations are diversifying as common sense dictates they must, however, slowly, depending on many factors. "...an unpleasant memory". Building a worldwide industrial revolution and you call that an unpleasant memory? You call upon Chevron to build a model community -- is that in the job description of an oil corporation? YOU might consider offering YOUR idea to the American public and solicit funds on your own.
posted by Magellan on 7/28/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Ronald, I meet people who say "It can't be done!" every day. If I listened I wouldn't get up in the morning.$br$ $br$ Frankly, the model community could be built anywhere in the world (but why not here?). Some Middle Eastern investors have already recognized the need to diversify in view of depletion of proven petroleum reserves. Dubai is one example (though it was never particularly oil-rich), catering to tourism and wealthy real estate investors. It may fail in the long term, but it's certainly an ambitious idea.$br$ $br$ The next step is to power a community with 100% renewable energy. Call it Utopian if you will, but there would still be crime and punishment, greed and corruption, and people who say it should not/cannot be done. I'm not proposing perfection, only progress. If someone wants to blow it up, there's not much anyone can do that isn't already being done in other cities. Is that alone a good reason not to try?$br$ $br$ You said, "You would build a utopian model community using 100% fossil fuel industries and then ban those industries." Initial groundbreaking and construction would be completed using existing equipment and methods, but for each tool/product/building solution involving petroleum use, there is an alternative that utilizes renewable energy. It would be the primary objective of the community to develop and implement those alternatives and phase out use of petroleum-based industry (imagine electric or fuel-cell-powered bulldozers with half the noise and none of the smoke).$br$ $br$ Yes, an unpleasant memory, IF they fade into oblivion by failing to invest fully enough in renewable energy infrastructures to secure continued revenues and shareholder confidence as oil reserves diminish and become prohibitively expensive as a fuel source. It's true that "oil corporations are diversifying as common sense dictates they must, however, slowly". That's great! Let's take it a step further.$br$ $br$ Yes, I call upon Chevron to do it, in association with other investors and large corporations ,the American public and anyone else with the foresight to see the pressing need to develop such a community. It is not the sole responsibility of oil companies, but who better to take the lead in building a renewable energy $br$ paradigm? $br$ $br$
posted by bill f. on 7/27/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Thank you for your most recent comments, magellan the magnificient! 9. You are on a roll, don't quit now tell us more details about your vision please. I am genuinely interested now. Thanks Bill f.
posted by bill f. on 7/29/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Ronald and Magellan, thank you both for your comments. Frankly, a new model community should be built here. However, Middle Eastern investors and business men have already recognized the need to diversify away from petroleum exclusively and they are adding other items to their portfolio or so my friends tell me. Dubai is one example of a country that is getting some funds from wealthy investors. They have the necessary funds. Is the next logical step to power a community with 100% renewable energy, the same way the Amish exist with out any outside energy sources? Will it be more Utopian if it is set in the East or Mideast, where crime, punishment and corruption are dealt with more harshly? The people who say it should not/cannot be done may be amazed by the calming effect a community like this may just have on that part of the world? Progress is certainly the best precurser to perfection if it is ever to exist. The people that I know are simply trying to make more money by diversifying and growing what they already have. Construction design, materials and energy choices are just as much a consideration as the equipment used to build such a place, as this or the methods used. Ruling out all fossil fuels, makes this sound more like an exclusive club and not a village from our era (imagine electric or fuel-cell-powered bulldozers with half the noise and none of the smoke at 10 X the price). Why not just make those construction machines, battery powered, like my forklift or do one energy project at a time? Yes, its unpleasant to hear the hype as oil reserves are touted to diminish and become prohibitively expensive as a fuel source. Consider that "oil corporations are diversifying slowly" and not like they are in a race for their existance. Let's take it a step further, do they know something that we don’t? Yes, I too call upon Chevron, in association with other investors and large corporations ,the American public and anyone else with the foresight to see the pressing need to develop alternatives including where we live, work, shop, relax, construction plus HVAC methods and how we travel to get where we need to go. It is not the sole responsibility of oil companies, like chevron, to foot the bill; but who better to take the lead in building a renewable energy paradigm when and where it is needed or to stay the course when that is better? Thanks Bill f.
posted by Ronald David on 7/29/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Hello Magellan, You wrote; "5. No one is expendable. Right now, inequitable energy-distribution creates social stress and disillusionment that devalue human life. Abundant renewable energy will decrease geopolitical hostility and free up resources for social programs that improve the "value" of each individual." Your dream sounds a lot like what I wrote a while back to justify generating abundant electricity with nuclear fission plants, world-wide. It is a pipe dream. It is apparent that the common people in the oil rich nations of the world are not inclined to do anything to change their status quo. Their masters are not about to build model communities. Everyone IS expendable. There are many, many, self-sufficient individuals in the USA, even a few thriving self-sufficient communities. They have proven even in our indulgent society, being self-sufficient is practical. Your idea will not establish precedent. In a successful democratic, rich society, building a showcase community certainly is possible. You might consider establishing a foundation to build one for the next Worlds Fair.
posted by lookingforpositive on 7/30/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
RD Did it not take a "show case" World's Fair" to show the populus that there was such a thing as a light bulb? There are days when I realize that the hill we have to climb may just be too high. Especially when idiots insist on chaining heavy balls to our legs. But we have to try. We have to. The model community sounds like a good idea to me. If anything as a large scale laboratory. I'm in. I wish that it were constructed near me or that I could be involved in it's construction. Keep something in mind. Automobiles replaced horses, but horses were needed to build automobiles. At least initially. I don't know if Chevron or Exxon needs to "foot the bill". But they can kick into the effort by investing in this endeavor, either by direct investment, or by being responsible and paying taxes even when they can win the avoidance "game". There is a little bigger game, or challenge, to be won than the petty one of tax limitation.
Hi Ronald, While I agree that expanded use of fission power plants is a pipe dream, particularly in the U.S., I cannot agree that building a showcase community is a pipe dream. On the other hand, our "masters'" belief that there is a future for them in the status quo IS a pipe dream. The sky over the "business-as-usual" petroleum economy is falling. I'll definitely take your suggestion to establish a foundation under advisement. It's worth noting, however, that there won't be room for today's petroleum industry (in anything resembling its current form) in such a community unless they get in on the ground floor.
posted by Ronald David on 7/30/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Hello lookingforpositive, If you choose, enjoy the phantasy. There are examples of self-sufficient homes all round the nation, even bill f. claims to have a corner on one and moreover says he lives in just such a utopian community as proposed by Magellan. What is the point? Do we need to build a showcase to demonstrate renewables are practicable, when in a hundred years or so it may be a mute situation? Edison built several small laboratories and in one he laboriously found a filament that worked. At the World's Fair he was fighting for DC current as more practical than AC, not light bulbs. Indeed, horses were one among many stepping stones -- just like fossil fuels. The 'ingenious' community suggested above requires fossil fuels big time to build it, not to mention, repair and maintain it. Renewables will not do it! Please exercise some courtesy and stop telling Chevron what they should or should not do.
Re: CHALLENGE(Part1)
posted by Alternative-guy on 8/2/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Having read through all the comments thus far I have a few. While Chevron and other oil Companies are making record profits of late it is not thier responsibility to put the billions in to such a project. They have thier own responsibility. It is called "shareholders" and those on the board who get outrageous benifits packages and the lot. Second in respect to this community it does have the ring of several communities that could be adapted that are already in place. I refer to those communities that are constructed so that everything one would need is within walking distance or that of a "golf cart". Perhaps magellan might consider approaching one of the developers of these types of communities to consider the proposal as well. I am also reminded of a place that was designed by someone who had a vision. It was in fact called tomorrowland and was built inside his theme park with all the items that he envisioned might be in the homes of the future. Sadly it was torn down as all his ideas became reality. Your proposals lacks merit on many scales but has a few ideas. Are you aware that there are those who want to do exactly what you describe in the "9th ward of New Orleans" where there are properties that have not been claimed or were rentals that are condemned. There is a working model of one such community that once funding is located and all the legal issues have been cleared has promise but it like all other proposals shall take time. Your utopia for lack of a better word may sound great on paper but it as others have already stated lacks certain ideas. The biggest obstacle I forsee is if you really believe i this then perhaps you should be the champion instead of just putting it on the shoulders of a company. Perhaps you might consider taking the time to recruit some people who feel as you and draw up something that could be presented to groups. If this idea of yours has merit it should be worth your time to invest in it as well, should it not. The designs for homes that are sustainable are available on the net. The design for a community can be done with help from those who do it for a living. I should end this with one last comment.
Re: CHALLENGE(Part2)
You may be an engineer, but if you are going to challenge a Corporation to build something then you should at the very least have an idea of what it would cost, how many homes are you considering, the types of designs and materials that would be used and most of all how would this project be payed for in the long term. If you were to go to a bank to finance such a project you would need hard facts or they would not even make an appointment. I think those facts need to be made clear even to the author before any further discussion here in is warranted. Keep dreaming the ideas, just do the homework that is required as well
posted by lookingforpositive on 8/2/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Robert Goddard dreamed of flight via rocket propellant. Should he have dipped into his pocket more than he did in order to fund all subsequent testing and manned flight up to and including our first sustained orbits around the Earth? Or should we be grateful that another entity picked up the ball and ran with it? One with deeper pockets.
posted by Ronald David on 8/2/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Hello lookingforpositive, I believe it was a nasty fella whose name was Adolph, ahh, yes, Adolph Hitler, who dipped into the pockets of the citizens of most of Europe and brought a series of rocket powered flying machines into fruition. It isn't lack of money sir, it is lack of common sense that is at the heart of Magellan's hare-brained idea.
posted by Magellan on 8/3/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Dear Ronald,$br$ $br$ What kind of world would we have if you were in charge? No, really, I want to know. Your posts make it abundantly clear that you prefer to tear down, but here's your opportunity to save face. Tell us what you would like to see built.$br$
posted by Ronald David on 8/3/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Hello Magellan, You wrote: 1) "What kind of world would we have if you were in charge? No, really, I want to know. Your posts make it abundantly clear that you prefer to tear down, but here's your opportunity to save face. 2) Tell us what you would like to see built." Ah, what a challenge, thank you for asking -- but first, do you agree?, that we cannot sustain ourselves, let alone build more, at the expanding rate we are using-up available resources, such as fossil fuels and metal ores, which we desperately need to build more. Do you agree? 1) What kind of world if I were in charge? -- in summary -- one community of far, far fewer people; fewer people who are inclined to respect each other and the planet (or to put it another way, far fewer people who are NOT inclined to ravage each other and the planet!). But since we cannot start over, cannot undo what is occuring as we write, we both recognize we must make do with what remains at hand. There is no need to compile a list of all that mankind does to torment each other, and to despoil and plunder the environment -- the list is long, the list is obvious -- but I'll wager all I own, that our lists are complimentary, even will match. You have a dream to build a stand alone community, and I have a dream to stop the human population explosion, to let our numbers decline naturally to less than 2 billion people world-wide and never again let mankind grow above that number. Our starry-eyed dreams are 100% compatible. 2) To attain our goals, we first must tear down, even as we build. WE cannot sustain our growing numbers at the rate we are using-up available resources; thus, something has to give. It is us, versus our survival in an environment we have learned to enjoy.
posted by bill f. on 8/3/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
RD, You and I could mesh on many of our thoughts and goals too; but so could many from this group. Consider that if Magellan gets his little town and has the opportunity to perfect his system; at some future date it may even include voluntary population control. Our ever increasing population isn't from planned parenthood; rather the lack of it! Perfecting a plan and using it to teach by example is more or less a formula for increasing our basic logic skills. Making renewables, alternative energies and conservation become a second nature reflex would mean a win - win cituation for everyone. Magellan's idea is just one way to reach for that goal. Bill f.
posted by Magellan on 8/4/2007 - This comment was recommended 1 time
I agree more than you might imagine. My wife and I have remained childless on the very principle you've outlined above. In my view, two billion is generous. If earth has a disease, we're it. I'm often ashamed to be a member of a species that practices such poor stewardship of the planet that feeds and shelters us, and I would certainly never intended my proposed community to be a band-aid that allows the current standard of materialism, profligate waste, and overpopulation to continue. On the contrary, it seems to me that a community that embraces the best of technology in conjunction with a generous and principled approach to sustainable habitation of the planet would be a heck of a place to live. I can't say I'm optimistic about human nature, but I still believe people can be moved by the power of an idea pursued by those who set a good example. It's the reason I issued the challenge in the first place.
posted by starbuck on 8/28/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Great Idea. Only problem I see is oil companys have Billions invested in oil and want to see a massive return for their stock holders Now. Are they short sided of the future , or only interested in profits of Today? Could they also be a viable business selling other types of energy? I feel as long as there is easy money to be made selling oil they are not interested in moving forward to a large enough degree to seek other ways of making money. Are they good stewards of the earth? I think we all know that answer. Its hard to believe these oil companys will do the right thing. Your suggestion is good, but I dont have hope's of them implementing anything thats not forced on them.Mike$br$ $br$
Mike, thanks for your input. I have mentioned my age more than a few times, however the leaders of most of our industrial-commercial base are my age or even older. The significant point is that we Seniors tend to look at easy money because most of us no longer have as lofty goals as we once had. I can tell you that I met mine 23 years ago when I retired the first time @42. Now I work because I enjoy doing it and retirement is boring. Risk takers are what built this country and we need a transfusion of them again. Outsourcing was yet another way of eliminating some of the costs and risks of doing it all in-house. Some / (a few) are calling their jobs back in house. The Oil & Gas company, that I did consulting work for, did exactly what you suggested until their senior management team wanted to claim their profits and ceased re-investing for the future. They built LPG tanks, appliance controls, appliances as well as energy related products in South America; including gas and oil pipe lines and wells. When you speak of doing the right thing; do you mean for you, for them (Oil Co's) or for mankind? Today I was reading about what the REAL Mr. Harley and the Davidson brothers did to get started. They set up shop in their garage and in 3 years built their first factory. Today they are at the top of the heap. There are just as many energy projects that can begin small and super size overnight as what opportunities existed back in 1900. Does DIY sound a little better now? Thanks Bill f.