My Energy Plan

[Captain Shays]

My name is Dave. I'm out here in New Jersey very close to Philadelphia. During the day, I sell and install solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal units, rain water collection systems, and we also do home energy audits and remediation such as spray in insulation ect.

The energy issue has been my area of study since 1973. This is the main issue that got me interested in politics. I equate our energy policy with our national security.

Over the years I have seen and heard numerous plans, and policies and proposals from various politicians yet we're still dependent upon our enemies for the life blood of this nation.

Like many people I started out as a liberal thinker. But after I got internet access and began to study in earnest our history I became more and more conservative. Now, I'm a huge Hayek fan, and a fan on Von Mises as well. I have a pretty good understanding of both the free market and energy.

I have combined my two interests into a revolutionary energy policy for America that can set us free, in a free market way.

I believe in my heart that my plan could set Ron Paul apart from the rest and help propel him into the White House. It would even make more sense than ANYTHING that ANY Democrat can propose relative to energy policy. I also feel that this is one of Ron Paul's weak spots but my plan can strengthen his position dramatically.

My question to you all, is how can I get RP's ear to present him with this plan for his scrutiny? Trust me. It makes sense and it WILL make him look good and revolutionary and it WILL work.

Please help me get in touch with the right people or with RP himself.

Thanks in advance.

Peace and Freedom

Your compatriot,

Dave

[Harald]

Would you like to share your energy plan with us first?

There are plenty interested people here that are accustomed with free market philosophy you can bounce your ideas of.

[Captain Shays]

Yes I would. And, I would love to have criticism from you guys because I know we're on the same page. I can deal with your honesty so please don't pull any punches and please feel free to ad as much input of your own.

First of all a little understanding of how we product and distribute energy in America. Its centralized. Bearing in mind that decentralization works best in just about everything from government (obviously), to farming to water distribution and the military, it would also work best to energy production.
Centralized means that we produce energy in huge chunks and then send it out through the 500kv distribution grid that was invented by Nicola Tesla in the 1800's

Decentralized means that we would produce energy in literally millions if not billions of different places like your rooftop, your lawn, your business, our schools and along roads. Basically everywhere.

There are many disadvantages to remaining in a centralized paradigm. One is that only a few large conglomerates control pricing, production and distribution. Another is that its inherently inefficient and another is that it cannot be protected either from natural disasters or terrorism, let alone my dog.

Decentralization will protect us from all three threats (until I can train my dog to disrupt the grid).

1) Efficiency--Centralized production is inefficient because of line losses. This comes in various forms. Voltage drop is when you send electricity over great distances. Accumulative resistance in the conductors impedes the flow of electrons which is basically what electricity is. The greater the distance, the greater the resistance and the greater the loss. Another way electricity is lost during distribution is by electromagnetic bleed. In other words, it escapes right through the insulation of the wire. Another way electricity is lost is through inefficiency in the components and switchgear used in distributing energy. Things like transformers and capacitors or whenever you connect two wires together you lose a certain amount of electricity.
The total amount of line loss averages out to be 53.2% of all the energy we produce in America. Its just wasted.

2) Natural disasters-- When we have a major storm event or earthquake or God forbid some day an attack to our grid, being that we have millions of miles of wire criss-crossing this country, we basically have to revamp everything that has been brought down by whatever event occurred. If we produced energy in millions of different places no longer could the grid EVER be taken out again unless whatever event occurred destroyed our entire country but by then it wouldn’t matter. We would have bigger problems than energy to worry about.

So Decentralization is KEY to energy security

End of Part I

[Captain Shays]

The method for dealing with the energy crisis since the days of Jimmy Carter have been to use the tax code as a carrot or stick (however you look at it from whatever end of the stick you're on) to entice people to start using alternatives to oil, gas, coal and nuclear but primarily oil which we import from maniacs.

What most people don't get, maybe because the don't think about it, is the connection between the energy we use for cars/transportation, and the energy we use for power for homes, businesses and government institutions. Right now, there is little connection because the energy we use for electricity in our homes or businesses, schools, government office building ect is generated mostly with coal, nuclear and hydro-power and that which we use for transportation is basically from oil. But energy is energy and oil is not necessarily synonymous with energy and transportation is not always synonymous with automobiles.
But if or when we completely decentralize the two shall meet because there will be more than enough electricity being produced in more than enough places to produce all or most of the energy we'll need for ground transportation and shipping with electricity and never run out because we have enough resources right here in our contiguous land area to produce electricity forever with no help from outside countries.

Since the Carter days there are three main artificial government support mechanisms that have been used to entice us to change our habits.

1) Tax breaks

2) subsidies

3) Grants-usually for R&D

Its all otherwise known as "corporate welfare"
But these haven't gotten us much further to where we need to be. In fact they are the main reason why we're in the mess we're in because most of the corporate welfare has gone usually to the largest campaign contributors of those who engineered them in the first place. Its a quid pro quo and that’s all it is.
Not only that but it throws off the market to the point that we all really don't even know what we're really paying because the real prices are obfuscated behind our income tax. This is also the reason we don't really understand the true cost comparisons between say, solar and nuclear, or wind and coal.

Even when our government seemingly benevolently redistributed our hard earned wealth for the purpose of renewable energy development it went to those who comprise the dominant paradigm oil, gas, coal and nuclear.

During the Clinton/Gore administrations (8years) our government gave over $91 BILLION in corporate welfare just to the fossil fuel, auto cartels, and nuclear cartels. ENRON got huge monies to develop clean coal technology and wind energy. They became one of the dominant centralized wind energy providers until they went belly up and then sold them to GE who now advertises them in their commercials. What they don't say, is that they bought them from evil ENRON and ENRON got them from benevolent Clinton/Gore and Clinton-Gore took the money from you and me.
The same story can be repeated with Texaco, (fuel cells and alternative methods of drilling offshore) and Shell (developed oil in ANWR and solar panels) Now Shell is the biggest if not one of the biggest producers of photovoltaic solar panels in our country and still we're no closer to energy independence of energy security than we were in 1973.

The so called "conservative" Bush administration and a Republican majority in both Houses has produced even larger amounts of corporate welfare and now my industry applauds Bush for increasing the federal tax credit for solar to 30%.

So what's my plan?

[Captain Shays]

This is only part of my plan to solve the problem of corporate welfare and redistributions of wealth from taxpayers to large energy conglomerates and other taxpayers.

Since the government is by far the single largest energy consumer and therefore the worst polluter and they will always need energy by making them energy independent they would reduce our overall consumption and overall pollution dramatically if they took the first steps to become energy independent.

This will also secure our government in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

If Ron Paul were to propose the people forcing the government to buy billions of solar panels for their usage i.e. government office buildings, military bases, bridges, streetlights(Millions of them around the country) traffic signals, schools, police depts. fire depts., stadiums that taxpayer monies were used to build, and airports where taxpayer monies were used to build ect. it will accomplish some of the things listed (among other benefits)

Bear in mind that solar panels last for at least 100 years. That means once we buy them for our government we have purchased all the energy they will produce for the next 100+ years.

Also bear in mind that this plan isn't the government forcing us, or enticing us to do anything, its us forcing them to do what we want them to do.

1) It will strengthen our infrastructure.

2) It will be the first of many steps toward our goal of decentralization

3) it will eliminate all forms of corporate welfare and redistributions of wealth.

4) It will create a higher rate of efficiency for our grid. Remember that we waste 53.2% of all the energy we produce. That means that the solar panels' energy production on site, right where the energy will be used, will not be wasted so they would only have to produce a fraction of what a nuclear power plant or coal plant would have to produce from many miles away.

5) Government function ability will be up faster and cheaper after a disaster.

6) By making purchases of something the government already needs anyway, production levels will increase dramatically. In a competitive environment companies who supply the components and materials that go into solar panels will solidify their supply lines. Innovations will take place as companies scramble to meet this huge government demand so efficiency in the production processes will become more streamlined along with engineering refinements resulting in lowered costs. We've seen this with TVs radios, VCRs and computers over the years. I estimate that costs for solar panels will come down by as much as 75% below what they are at present. Then you and I and easily afford them for our homes and businesses.
Of course the same effect would occur with battery technology, wind turbines ect for I only mentioned solar (PV) as an example.

7) Millions of new jobs in brand new sectors will be produced.

Of course a lot of pollution will be eliminated in the process.

End Part III

[Captain Shays]

All government fleet vehicles should be powered with domestically produced energy sources and the vehicles themselves must be domestically produced wherever applicable.

The government is a huge market. So no more corporate welfare would be needed if the American auto makers had a built in market for their hybrids. They would all be scrambling to compete to meet those demands. They would throw their own money into R&D and come up with new methods of transportation, and new types of vehicles in a free market environment.
Of course this is impractical with police cars and military vehicles.

But once the auto makers invest their own money into the proper infrastructure improvements and engineering refinements they will seek a broader market--us and the world.

Another element would be to convert ALL traffic signals at night time wherever possible to blinking red on the secondary roads, and blinking yellow on the primary roads. This may seem insignificant but accumulatively across our nation, we're wasting millions of gallons of fuel every year just by having to slow down to a stop, sit there idling, and then re-accelerating at arbitrary timed traffic signals when its simply not warranted and we rational thinking individuals can make the proper safe decision ourselves.

Most of the larger bridges are at a high enough elevation that at their pinnacle, they can reap a huge harvest from the winds. The higher up you go, the steadier the winds become, and the more linear they become. There is enough wind at the top of most large bridges to power up everything on the bridge and the offices below. This will also increase the production of wind turbines with the same result. Lowered costs.

Being that higher elevations produce strait lined winds (the straighter, the less maintenance) we could also build mega-high tower complexes which have numerous turbines on them. When I say mega high, I'm talking about elevations in excess of 3,000 feet and possibly over 10,000 feet some day.

Here is a simple rule of thumb for wind energy production. To make an investment feasible, you need to locate your turbines in a place that has at least a 10 mile per hour wind velocity. But, for every increase of 1 mile per hour in velocity, the amount of energy output is cubed. That’s significant!

For example. The World Trade Center was 1465 feet tall. They experienced an average wind speed at their top of 35 mph. and sometimes in excess of 100 miles per hour. These sorts of wind velocities also exert a tremendous amount of wind load on the buildings themselves because the sides of the building act like sails, catching the wind. This the reason the WTC towers swayed at least 15 feet in either direction. That’s 30 feet in total from one side to the other.
This is one of the main reasons why engineers have such a difficult time going up as high as that with high rises. Wind load.

Now imagine buildings with no sides on them where the wind can pass right through. The wind loads are reduced exponentially thereby allowing buildings much taller than anything we can now imagine. But these towers would only be used to produce wind energy for the government purposes. For now. I could see private sector construction once this gets out.

By doing this, not only would Ron Paul produce millions of new jobs, but he would dramatically stimulate our domestic steel industry.

I'm not done yet with this aspect.

Hydrogen can be produced in two ways (with variations for each)

1) Start with water and separate the oxygen from the hydrogen

2) extract the hydrogen from the atmosphere, run it over a fuel cell combining with oxygen with the by-product being water.

The first way requires a lot of energy to complete the process. Right now, they're researching using oil gas, nuclear, coal to start the process but its still too expensive and we'll still need to use a lot of fossil fuels or nuclear power. The trade off isn't really worth it.

But water can be electrolyzed by wind energy to separate the hydrogen from the water. The hydrogen can be captured and burned in cars and trucks boats ect.
The oxygen can also be captured in the same process.

With this method America can transform itself from the worlds largest net energy importer into the world's largest net energy exporter within 10 years.

End Part IV

[Captain Shays]

Part V--Buildings

I understand that due to previous commitments by our government along with deals in the process we won't revert to a complete free market overnight relative to buildings that are paid for with taxpayer monies. But we can at least require that ALL buildings which tax payer monies are used to build whether airports, stadiums, schools or disaster relief utilize the strongest known construction methodologies and the highest energy efficiency ratings possible with today's technology.

There are concrete domes which no tornado, no hurricane or earthquake can knock over or destroy. They are water rot resistant, bug proof and are the most energy efficient buildings known.

If we're going to use taxpayer money to rebuild New Orleans which sits below sea level right next to the ocean, which I don't think we should do, then at least let's build them with concrete domes that cannot be destroyed by the next hurricane.
If we're going to use taxpayer money to rebuild after tornados, then lets do the same thing. Build them with technology that prevent us from having to rebuild them ever again.
End Part V

ALL government buildings should be constructed this way because they last longer, with less maintenance and are resistant to damage from natural disasters or terrorist attacks. And they only use 1/3 the amount of energy that conventional construction methodologies require and if we the taxpayers are going to pay ongoing energy costs, then our government is where we should start cutting costs for now and the future.

[Captain Shays]

Last but not least.

Of course we will break down barriers to the construction of the modern types of nuclear reactors and embark on the construction of at least 300 additional facilities.

But with the previous parts of this plan we will be producing so much electricity that we can power up every car, and truck in this nation and that is where energy production which is used to transportation with meet perfectly with energy production that is used for powering up homes, businesses and government along with that which is used for shipping.

The shipping part I cannot divulge in a public forum.

The End---for now.

[Seth M.]

my two cents:

AMERICA WORKS TO RID ITSELF OF OIL DEPENDENCE WITH AN ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY PLAN...


Stop subsidizing farmers slowly, no more barren fields... grow or get a job. push for hemp corn potatoes and sugarcane..

refineries in every major city produce ethanol from local farmers product, for distribution locally. similar to beer refineries.. . though burning ethanol from corn etc.. is not lowering carbon emissions 50/50 it is however not advancing the problem.

plastics and oils refined from hemp. sorry dupot you have competition that may good for not only America but the world.

=========================

Your plan looks well researched... thank you for sharing. Hydrogen is a great way to move... It is so abundant.. :) Hydrogen Economy is a valid alternative... but getting there will take lots of effort and investment imo.

[Captain Shays]

Seth,

Thanks for responding. I agree that Hemp should be legalized and so does RP.

My question to you is how do you get from here to there with the construction of the refinaries? I agree that there should be refinaries, but not with government monies.

[Captain Shays]

I'm sorry. I also agree with ending farm subsidies and I also think RP wants to end them as well.

[specsaregood]

//

[Seth M.]

I'm sorry. I also agree with ending farm subsidies and I also think RP wants to end them as well.


No apologizes needed.. I just wish I could present the idea better. :p

Though farm subsidies are needed under the present economy (gov dependence) broad change will most likely have to be presented as more than an alternative. you know? In my opinion it is very much related to National Security, though we as a people find that job a responsibility of the govt. This plan would have to be shown and justified under the fact that the citizens can do better than the govt.

I dont say export resources as much I would try to push technology related to self dependence exported. Knowledge included. This country has much talent that is muted because it does not funnel power up.

[Seth M.]

On your energy plan.

My understanding is that the big problem with the alternative energies is energy storage.

That since it is unpredicatable and energy storage is ineffecient and expensive, we would still need to maintain our existing electrical grid -- or change our way of life. ie: we are always producing more electricity than is actually needed, to handle spikes in usage.

How would you go about keeping the existing grid up to date and available to keep energy levels stable?


Though I am no expert.. and I'm sure this question was probably directed toward Captain Shays.. I'll quickly add a storage medium. :)

Air. Compressed Air that is... Efficient generators and compressors are key, but the technology is there. Compressed air is very safe and the energy contained keeps forever. In a decentralized energy plan MANY! compressor sites would be needed. The air/energy does not have to be stored above ground either. "pretty"

Compressed air site could serve as a capacitor to the system... buffering spikes and storing on low demand.

sorry if i sound to outlandish.

[Captain Shays]

On your energy plan.

My understanding is that the big problem with the alternative energies is energy storage.

That since it is unpredicatable and energy storage is ineffecient and expensive, we would still need to maintain our existing electrical grid -- or change our way of life. ie: we are always producing more electricity than is actually needed, to handle spikes in usage.

How would you go about keeping the existing grid up to date and available to keep energy levels stable?

Storage is a problem right now but remember that in a decentralized grid, everyone will be both an energy consumer and an emergy producer. At night when solar panels aren't producting, the wind turbines will help to make up the difference along with fuel cells, nuclear, coal gas ect.
If or when we embarked on this plan we would begin to see so many new inventions and innovations that in no time, we'll be free forever from foreign nations. We'll see new types of batteries that last longer and operate in harsher conditions. We'll see the advent of new types of solar panels that are now in development. But what we have right now works well enough to get started. No new technological breakthroughs are necessary to start this plan. All we need to do is start it. Impliment the technologies that work today and incorporate new technologies as they come along.

I think another misconception is that there will be some magic bullet technology that is a cure all. Its very unlikely that this will happen and we should all pray that it doesn't ever happen because that would mean some kind of monopoly or control of something so inportant to our liberty and our way of life as energy in the hands of a few people. Very dangerous.

And also remember that when some huge energy producer builds benevolent mega wind turbines, its usually with the aid of taxpayer money through grants, tax breaks or subsidies and its still usually centralized. We'll never break free and become energy secure within our own country as long as we continue to centralize.
Same thing goes with food, water, trucking, transportation and government.

Thank you for asking me these questions.

[Captain Shays]

Seth,

It doesn't sound outlandish at all. I personally haven't looked into it that much but I will.

As far as farm subsidies go, if we can get hemp legalized we could pretty much end them the next day.

I am firmly against genetically modifying foods and sending them into markets without propert testing and at the very least, I think they should be labeled so that we have a choice to buy them or not.

But I am not agaisnt genetically modifying hemp to produce a higher fiber or oil content simply because it wouldn't effect our food supply if something goes wrong like with GMO foods. Not to get off topic, but Hemp could really play an important role in our energy future.

[Therion]

"Energy Independence" seems like just a spin on protectionism for domestic energy. However, the basic idea of free trade is that those who are best at producing something, should produce it. If foreigners can better meet our energy needs, then why not trade American goods for foreign energy?

In any case, it's my understanding that nuclear is by far the best source of energy, and is watt-for-watt better for the environment than wind or solar. The only problem is the high barrier to entry costs, which make it difficult to enter and leave the marketplace and therefore slow to adjust to a changing economy.

[Gee]

I think independence is usually ment as "independence from the middle east and their crazy politics".

Shays, have you seen this?
http://www.nanosolar.com/

[Captain Shays]

"Energy Independence" seems like just a spin on protectionism for domestic energy. However, the basic idea of free trade is that those who are best at producing something, should produce it. If foreigners can better meet our energy needs, then why not trade American goods for foreign energy?

In any case, it's my understanding that nuclear is by far the best source of energy, and is watt-for-watt better for the environment than wind or solar. The only problem is the high barrier to entry costs, which make it difficult to enter and leave the marketplace and therefore slow to adjust to a changing economy.

(Captain Shays)Therion, I do agree with you except for one thing. ENergy is as important to our survival as air and water at this point, and I think most Americans do not feel very confortable with something that important being in the hands of people who are hostile to us.

But back the cost per kilowatt hour or other comparisons.

I think its pretty safe to say that our involvement relative to the Middle East is heavily informed by our dependence on their product. (singular for they have no other products that we need)
So when we send our sons and daughters over there to secure, procure and protect oil, that treasure if or when they don't come homs, or when they do come home without limbs, is incalculable. But then, there the matter of what its costs us in military expenses which are huge and ongoing.
But then ad to that the subsidies, grants and tax breaks, and still we don't know the real costs associated with oil because its hidden behind our income tax. I admit that by electing Ron Paul, much of that will rectify itself.

But to the nuclear, coal, autos ect, they too are heavily subsidized. More so in the past 34 years than ALL of the other technologies combined.

But in a decentralized paradigm, solar panels would only have to produce a fraction of what a nuke plant would being many miles away. And many miles away is likely the way it will always be, since most people could be persuaded to allow for the construction of more nuke plants, but not as easily in their back yard.
But as long as we have nuke plants, there are added military costs associated with protecting the plants and the irradiated fuel rods (waste) for many years intot he future.
So doing an accurate cost comparison between solar and nuke is very difficult at this time for you would have to compare, forst the decentralized to centralized and subtract the military expense from nukes to get a closer view of the costs associated with solar.
There's no waste with solar, no military and they produce the same amount of energy 100 years from now as they do today so we're reallt stretching out the costs over many more years.

But with the plan that I am proposing we're (hopefully) going to use the government's buying power to break up any supply-demand log jams that exist relative to solar, wind, fuel cell ect and then the free market will take over because the costs will come down to the point where people won't need any tax breaks or subsidies in order to buy solar panels and that will spur on production even more, and innovation even more.

[Captain Shays]

I think independence is usually ment as "independence from the middle east and their crazy politics".

Shays, have you seen this?
http://www.nanosolar.com/

(Captain Shays) I agree Gee. It does mean no longer being subject to the whims of ancient tribal disputes and the idiosycrasies of Islamic crazies and their twisted view of politics.

Yeah. I'm familiar with nanotechnoogy. Pretty soon Bro. Pretty soon we'll be painting our homes with little solar bugs. lol

[Seth M.]

Seth,

Thanks for responding. I agree that Hemp should be legalized and so does RP.

My question to you is how do you get from here to there with the construction of the refinaries? I agree that there should be refinaries, but not with government monies.


Im sure there are many investors that would love to get into the energy business but cannot because of the energy cartels (oil, gas, elect.) and their "govt" backing.. etc.. Budweiser can build distilleries that refine consumable alcohol which costs much more to produce and has more regulations... See my point? The product of the ethanol refineries would go directly into local circulation as an alternative. Of course the cost of transport would be low so the price of this alternative could be highly competitive with the existing market.

the point of spreading it out.. money stays locally... stable prices... security overall for the nation. Break the dam on energy production! its gotta be done.

[Captain Shays]

Seth,

I love it.

At what point can we refine this and present it to Ron Paul though? Do you think he would be interested? And do you think it would help his campaign?

[Lesgov]

You can try sending mlpyeatt a pm(on this forum), he is Ron Pauls grandson. He may be able to help.

[Seth M.]

Seth,

I love it.

At what point can we refine this and present it to Ron Paul though? Do you think he would be interested? And do you think it would help his campaign?


Im not sure how to start an action plan or even if he would be interested...

Now, on to "would this help Ron Paul's campaign..."

Yes. I believe there are many Americans that are into the environment and protection of it.. With this plan RP could show one way that citizens will secure themselves. Etc.. and in the process protect the environment/future. "Payoff is infinite" I would try and show how the two are connected as a campaign benchmark. It is an automatic agree to most.. but the details are what is important.. and what will mark Ron as environmentally friendly.

[PennCustom4RP]

Every home has the capacity to be a 'Power Mill" If you have prevalent sun or wind, a solar panel or windmill makes electricity, if you have a water resource on your property, you have a power resource, water makes electricity. You can make ethanol at home, its called a still, and you can recycle spent cooking oil into bio diesel to run your car, my brother in law does.
We are so dependent on foreign oil/energy, and even on the domestic producers, because its convienent, everyone wants turn key..poof..there it is.
Every American would be much more energy conscious if they had to individually produce what they consume.
Do a Google search on Off Grid Living...youll be surprised as to what can be done.

[specsaregood]

//

[Hawaii Libertarian]

Overall, I'm very impressed, but having worked in the Federal Government for 22 years, I offer a few additional thoughts for your consideration:

1. Most government buildings are old and their insulation is horrible. Just by improving the very basic insulation of legacy buildings could save a substantial amount of energy.

2. There is a big NIMBY problem with wind energy production facilities--just ask Ted Kennedy about the one proposed offshore from his summer home, for example. How do we address this? Using force (the Law of Eminent Domain) to permit the construction of wind generation facilities goes against the libertarian grain.

3. Given the huge increase in entitlements social spending, there is not much left for the substantial infrastructure investments required to attain your vision unless there is a fundamental overhaul in our nation's approach to entitlements (badly needed, but politically very difficult.)

4. I'm all for being a good steward of natural resources and the environment, but the EPA and other agency environmental regulations are so cumbersome, it might make it very difficult and costly to implement many of these proposals without significant regulatory reform.

5. It might be worthwhile to outline the plan in near, medium, and long term phases. FWIW, I think a renewed investment in nuclear and fusion reactors combined with regulatory reform should be a cornerstone of any plan until the details of a large scale solar and wind grid can be worked out.

6. As I understand it, our current biggest shortfall is domestic oil refining capacity, much of which was eliminated in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Likewise, regulatory reform is critical here because we will need substantial fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.

7. Renewable fuels are a good idea, but from what I've read, ethanol requires a substantial subsidy in order to be viable, even at current fuel prices. Am I wrong?

8. Operation and maintenance costs are as important as acquisition costs. From what I've read, maintenance costs for hybrid vehicles tend to offset their savings in fuel costs. Of course, with larger scale production and usage of hybrid vehicles, per unit prices for replacement parts should decrease.

9. Finally, the big challenge is how to structure a national energy policy that is consistent with Dr. Paul's "smaller government" view.

Lots of potential here and I'm supportive of your effort. I just wantd to offer these for your consideration as you see fit. Thanks for the effort.

[giskard]

I'll quickly add a storage medium. :)

Air. Compressed Air that is... Efficient generators and compressors are key, but the technology is there. Compressed air is very safe and the energy contained keeps forever.

I don't know of any compressor technology that is more than about 75% efficient in one direction (that's ~50% storing and releasing), not to mention over a wide range of pressure ratios (say 3000 psi down to 500 psi as it's spend).

[giskard]

There's no waste with solar, .. and they produce the same amount of energy 100 years from now as they do today so we're reallt stretching out the costs over many more years.
Are you sure about this? I thought they had a falloff in their output over time yielding a certain usable life.

[giskard]

In any case, it's my understanding that nuclear is by far the best source of energy, and is watt-for-watt better for the environment than wind or solar. Better than fossil fuels, yes, but better than wind or solar, no, unless you have a specific definition of "better" different than mine.

[giskard]

Hydrogen can be produced in two ways (with variations for each)

1) Start with water and seperate the oxygen from the hydrogen

2) extract the hydrogen from the atmosphere, run it over a fuel cell combining with oxygen with the by-product being water.

The first way requires a lot of energy to complete the process. Right now, they're researching using oil gas, nuclear, coal to start the process but its still too expensive and we'll still need to use a lot of fossil fuels or nuclear power. The trade off isn't really worth it.

But water can be electrolized by wind energy to seperate the hydrogen from the water. The hydrogen can be captured and burned in cars and trucks boats ect.
The oxygen can also be captured in the same process.


I don't understand "extracting it from the atmosphere". AFAIK H2 is a very small fraction of the atmosphere.

Everybody - implicit in the first point - hydrogen is NOT a "source" of energy, it's a STORAGE medium, because it does not occur naturally in its free form (i.e. not locked up in a compound such as water, wherein it takes more energy to free it, than you get when you burn it or use it in a fuel cell)

Using wind energy to do electrolysis - you DON'T need hydrogen to make use of wind energy today. You can harness wind energy and distribute it via the existing electrical grid!

Another problem with hydrogen is the storage and distribution. It needs to be stored at very high pressures to store a good amount of energy - you need something like a 5 foot 100 lb tank to have the equivalent storage of 3 gallons of gasoline.

[giskard]

I think a significant reduction in demand for oil can be done in a multi-pronged approach, basically a bit of conservation, a bit of investment in renewable sources, and nuclear.

1 - improvements in energy efficiency wherein you get an ROI - as mentioned, building insulation is one. The building I work in in CA was built in 2000 - it has single pane windows. WTH? Why aren't the greenies working to increase energy efficiency mandates? Answer: they care more about bringing us back to the stone age.

Another is increasing energy efficiency of appliances. Did you know your refrigerator is one of the biggest eaters? And incandescent lighting? And the dryer?

2 - nuclear - need I say more

3 - encouragement of use of diesel vehicles. Diesels are more efficient than gasoline engines, and last longer, whcih is why freightliners are all diesels. Modern diesels are clean (no smoke), quiet, and peppy. Diesel fuel AFAIK can be refined economically from "sour" crude such as that found in Canada, unlike gasoline which needs "light sweet" crude such as that from Saudi Arabia. My friend gets 45 mpg all day long on the freeway at 75 mph in his 4 y.o. Jetta. Why did CA tighten the diesel emissions standards before tightening the sulfur content requirement in diesel fuel which is needed for modern clean diesels? WTF?

4 - R&D in wind, tidal, wave, and solar power. Encourage solar and wind power for homes.

[Gee]

I don't think we need laws on any of that crap. Instead it would be better to tax the undesirable polution, and let the market produce the best solutions. The consumer ends up footing the bill anyways, so if energy cost as much as it should, people would be motivated to save energy via the best means available.

[ButchHowdy]

Great Post Captain! Would like to hear some of your ideas on providing wind and solar electricity for a single family dwelling plus two or three modest rentals on a mountain property I just purchased that features a 3400' elevation ridge parcel in WNC.

[Razmear]

Bumping this because it makes a lot of sense and could easily become a RP energy initiative. Converting all the fed buildings to solar/wind/alternative power would be both the great publics work project of the 21st century and would have a positive impact well into the 22nd.

eb

[Captain Shays]

Great Post Captain! Would like to hear some of your ideas on providing wind and solar electricity for a single family dwelling plus two or three modest rentals on a mountain property I just purchased that features a 3400' elevation ridge parcel in WNC.


yachtman@digital.net


I say take advantage of the 30% federal tax credit and whatever subsidies your state provides. I say this even though I am so opposed to these thnigs that it literally makes me sick to my stomach! But since they're there already and the money is alotted, use it.

Since you're up at 3,000 foot elevation, wind would most likely smoke solar unless you're in an area that recieves more than 300 solar days per year.

Go with insta-hot with solar hot water pre-heaters. For heating I would look into the expensive radient floor systems because they will most lileky pay for themselves in 7 years or less and your solar array or wind or combo of both (preferable if you have the $$$) can provide the electricity for the radiant floor heaters. This type system allows you to use your PVs for heat.

[Captain Shays]

Another thing to consider is that if you have enough yard area its much better to do a ground mounted system than a roof top system because there are no penetrations into your roof. But if you have a driveway you can use a car port type support which serves two purposes. It can house your solar array and provide shade/snow/rain protection for the cars.
This can also be of benefit if your yard or roof doesn't have decent Southerly exposour.

[Bradley in DC]

I'm sorry. I also agree with ending farm subsidies and I also think RP wants to end them as well.

He does.