Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2862RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

Expand Messages
  • Mike Ewert
    Dec 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Message
      Gary,
       
      You wrote:
      "PS:  I disagree with the statement that 'A majority of the energy consumed in the US can by provided through biomass, wind and solar sources'.  The numbers just don't support this (unless a back-to-the Future 'Mr. Fusion' starts getting sold at Kmart).  Conservation would have the biggest impact, but since that is out of vogue see a more comprehensive review of the real now and future energy numbers in a presentation done by Rice’s noble prize winner Richard Smalley - try this link:"
       
      I totally agree with you on the importance and value of conservation, which is of course changing behavior to use less energy.  But to that I would add "energy efficiency", which can allow us to do the same things while using less energy (throught better designed houses, machines, etc.).
       
      Also, I want to show that the statement "'A majority of the energy consumed in the US can by provided through biomass, wind and solar sources'" is true!
       
      US energy use is about 100 quads (quadrillion BTU's) per year.
       
      I have not yet found a very good source for the US as a whole, but a nice study was done for Texas several years ago and here is some data from it:
      Renewable energy potential in Texas alone is
      12 quads/yr from wind
      13 quads/yr from biomass
      4300 quads/yr from solar
      Granted, we can only convert 10 - 70% of the sunlight into energy we can use (depending on application and technology) and we can't use all our land area for energy production, but do the math.  There is enough out there!
       
      Put another way, 700,000 acres would be needed to produce all the electricity that Texas needs - 1/3 the land area needed to produce it with gas (granted the gas is underground).
       
      For information on the global level, check out this recent report by the International Solar Energy Society.
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Gary Beck [mailto:eco@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 5:11 PM
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

      Oh Politics!

       

      I think Roxanne is on the money with this advice to contact our officials and to try to influence them. Anyone know a website that lists all the best government "green", "renewable", "sustainable" energy buttons to push? (i.e. a list of names with fax machine #s and emails).

       

      Use this to take some action rather than simply "writing-off" renewable energy efforts for the next 4 years just because my guy W is president. That would be negligence on our part.  The oil PACs, related cronies, and general fossil side energy policy influencers are funded, positioned, very well organized and will always strongly influence whoever sits in that #1 seat.   

       

      For ‘renewable energy’ or ‘sustainable energy’ proponents to have any impact without a PAC budget, a guerilla style campaign may be one way to go.  Take the website link and send it with Roxanne’s message to every university, news link, and like minded group that HREG (inter)net-works with. 

       

      To make such a message harder to ignore, use it to create an “event” by telling everyone to send it at one time and on one date.  My suggestion is to pick a notable time like 10:56 pm EDT (the time of Armstrong’s 1st moon message) and a date like December 11th (Day of the last manned moon landing).  Besides getting the receivers attention, if everyone pushed their "SEND" button at that minute the network might sag and it would become international news.

       

      Gary Beck , P.E.  

      Eco-Holdings LLC 

       

      PS:  I disagree with the statement that 'A majority of the energy consumed in the US can by provided through biomass, wind and solar sources'.  The numbers just don't support this (unless a back-to-the Future 'Mr. Fusion' starts getting sold at Kmart).  Conservation would have the biggest impact, but since that is out of vogue see a more comprehensive review of the real now and future energy numbers in a presentation done by Rice’s noble prize winner Richard Smalley - try this link:

      (http://smalley.rice.edu/emplibrary/columbia09232003.ppt#1)  or see all his group’s discussions at http://smalley.rice.edu/smalley.cfm?doc_id=4862

       

       -----Original Message-----
      From: Roxanne Boyer [mailto:rox1@...]
      Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 9:54 PM
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

      I think there is a lot of pressure on our Government from both sides of the energy spectrum - the fossil fuel side and the renewable/sustainability side.  Sustainability support is growing and fossil fuel support is shrinking.  We must not give up pushing for sustainability because the other side is winning at the moment.  Sustainability will win eventually - the goal is to prevent a major catastophe from being the final push.  The concerned citizens of this nation must, and I believe will, require our government to make the initiative for sustainable energy and energy independence.  How do you contribute?  Here is an example of a letter you can send to the governor, your representatives, the president, members of DOE, members of DOD, and anyone else who might have an influence on our nation's energy direction. 

       

      To the Honorable [Name]:

       

      Please pass legislation that will transition the United States to a sustainable energy economy over the next ten years. 

       

      The consumption of fossil fuels is passing the sustainable limit as seen by:  1)   The investment cost for exploration and production of fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas, is rapidly increasing per unit produced, causing higher energy costs and realizing unsecured debt for industries relying on cheap energy.  2)     Emissions from burning fossil fuels have reached ecological limitations, threatening health and the standard of living.  3)      The atomic energy option is negative due to the high cost/risk of security and hazardous waste storage. 4)      The large fraction of energy imported contributes significantly to a trade deficit in the US, and in turn suppresses the economy.  5)      The lopsided dependence on resources from the Middle East is resulting in violent conflicts.

       

      The US needs to transition to a sustainable energy economy in order to relieve the problems listed above before they cause a major crisis.  A majority of the energy consumed in the US can by provided through biomass, wind and solar sources.  National investment in these areas will have a greater long-term return than any investment in fossil fuels.  Thank you for your efforts and I look forward to reading your reply.

       

      Sincerely,

       

      [Your Name]

       




    • Show all 18 messages in this topic