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

crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

Expand Messages
  • Environment Associates Architects
    Here is an editorial from Sunday s NY Times by three time Pulitzer Prize Winner Thomas Friedman of the NY Times. Let us all hope it has some influence. LaVerne
    Message 1 of 18 , Dec 5, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Here is an editorial from Sunday's NY Times by three time Pulitzer Prize Winner Thomas Friedman of the NY Times. 
       
      Let us all hope it has some influence. 
       
       
      LaVerne A. Williams, AIA, LEED AP
      architect & building ecologist

       
       

      Fly Me to the Moon

      By

      THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

      Of all the irresponsible aspects of the 2005 budget bill that the Republican-led Congress just passed, nothing could be more irresponsible than the fact that funding for the National Science Foundation was cut by nearly 2 percent, or $105 million.

      Think about this. We are facing a mounting crisis in science and engineering education. The generation of scientists, engineers and mathematicians who were spurred to get advanced degrees by the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik and the challenge by President John Kennedy to put a man on the moon is slowly retiring.

      But because of the steady erosion of science, math and engineering education in U.S. high schools, our cold war generation of American scientists is not being fully replenished. We traditionally filled the gap with Indian, Chinese and other immigrant brainpower. But post-9/11, many of these foreign engineers are not coming here anymore, and, because the world is now flat and wired, many others can stay home and innovate without having to emigrate.

      If we don't do something soon and dramatic to reverse this "erosion," Shirley Ann Jackson, the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told me, we are not going to have the scientific foundation to sustain our high standard of living in 15 or 20 years.

      Instead of doubling the N.S.F. budget - to support more science education and research at every level - this Congress decided to cut it! Could anything be more idiotic?

      If President Bush is looking for a legacy, I have just the one for him - a national science project that would be our generation's moon shot: a crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation to make America energy-independent in 10 years. Imagine if every American kid, in every school, were galvanized around such a vision. Ah, you say, nice idea, Friedman, but what does it have to do with your subject - foreign policy?

      Everything! You give me an America that is energy-independent and I will give you sharply reduced oil revenues for the worst governments in the world. I will give you political reform from Moscow to Riyadh to Tehran. Yes, deprive these regimes of the huge oil windfalls on which they depend and you will force them to reform by having to tap their people instead of oil wells. These regimes won't change when we tell them they should. They will change only when they tell themselves they must.

      When did the Soviet Union collapse? When did reform take off in Iran? When did the Oslo peace process begin? When did economic reform become a hot topic in the Arab world? In the late 1980's and early 1990's. And what was also happening then? Oil prices were collapsing.

      In November 1985, oil was $30 a barrel, recalled the noted oil economist Philip Verleger. By July of 1986, oil had fallen to $10 a barrel, and it did not climb back to $20 until April 1989. "Everyone thinks Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviets," said Mr. Verleger. "That is wrong. It was the collapse of their oil rents." It's no accident that the 1990's was the decade of falling oil prices and falling walls.

      If President Bush made energy independence his moon shot, he would dry up revenue for terrorism; force Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to take the path of reform - which they will never do with $45-a-barrel oil - strengthen the dollar; and improve his own standing in Europe, by doing something huge to reduce global warming. He would also create a magnet to inspire young people to contribute to the war on terrorism and America's future by becoming scientists, engineers and mathematicians. "This is not just a win-win," said the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum. "This is a win-win-win-win-win."

      Or, Mr. Bush can ignore this challenge and spend the next four years in an utterly futile effort to persuade Russia to be restrained, Saudi Arabia to be moderate, Iran to be cautious and Europe to be nice.

      Sure, it would require some sacrifice. But remember J.F.K.'s words when he summoned us to go to the moon on Sept. 12, 1962: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

      Summoning all our energies and skills to produce a 21st-century fuel is George W. Bush's opportunity to be both Nixon to China and J.F.K. to the moon - in one move.

       

      Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |

       
    • chasmauch@aol.com
      Great article, Laverne. Thanks for posting it. Friedman has written several columns pushing for a Manhattan Project - Moonshot type effort for energy
      Message 2 of 18 , Dec 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Great article, Laverne. Thanks for posting it. Friedman has written several columns pushing for a Manhattan Project - Moonshot type effort for energy independence, and this is the strongest one I have seen. It's very logical and reasonable. Too bad it will never happen as long as Bush is in the White House. He has too many cronies and financial backers in the oil business - not to mention personal and family interests.

        If we had followed up on Carter's beginnings back in the late 1970s we would be well on our way to energy independence by now and not be facing a Peak Oil energy crisis. But Reagan put an end to what Carter started as soon as he came into office - did away with the subsidies, took the solar hot water heater down off the White House roof, and took all the other well-known actions to squelch the fledgling alternative industry.

        It seems that wars, environmental degradation, health problems, political corruption, and all kinds of other bad effects are directly or indirectly related to our addiction to oil, but there is just too much money involved to change things easily. I'm afraid we will have to face a real crisis before things start to happen. But maybe I'm wrong. I hope so.

        Charlie Mauch
      • Roxanne Boyer
        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.
        Message 3 of 18 , Dec 5, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          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]
           
        • Gary Beck
          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
          Message 4 of 18 , Dec 7, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Message

            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]

             



          • Mike Ewert
            MessageGary, 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
            Message 5 of 18 , 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]

               




            • Gary Beck
              Thanks Mike, Vacation is over so I am refreshed enough to contemplate some of these ‘higher’ renewable energy thoughts. Sorry, but we differ here. Saying
              Message 6 of 18 , Jan 2, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks Mike,

                Vacation is over so I am refreshed enough to contemplate some of these
                ‘higher’ renewable energy thoughts.

                Sorry, but we differ here. Saying "A majority of the energy consumed in the
                US can be provided through biomass, wind and solar sources" is just not
                realistic. This is due to the shear scale of our energy thirst, the limits
                of all available renewable technologies, the limits on transmission
                technologies, and the limits of any economy and to pay for dramatic energy
                system changes. Plus all renewables, even solar and wind, are not always
                environmentally cleaner or environmentally better solutions.

                I'll stick to the energy outlook and arguments by the guy with the Nobel
                Prize. See a clear energy presentation at
                (http://smalley.rice.edu/emplibrary/columbia09232003.ppt#1) and other
                similar discussions at their link at
                http://smalley.rice.edu/smalley.cfm?doc_id=4862). I accept the basic energy
                resources and energy timing predictions his group researched and quoted as
                better than most. (I don't agree with the idea that nano-energy technology
                will save us, any more than I thought fuel cells and hydrogen will save us.)
                Mechanical energy efficiency has been my area of work for half of my career,
                and most recently I have pushed and supported energy system optimization in
                different forms (check out www.wasteheat.com). And while I support different
                renewables for different reasons, I feel it is important to have a realistic
                view of their time, technology, and economic limitations. All good
                ideas/discussions, but economics unfortunately has proven repeatedly it will
                rule over all but the 'no brainer' energy arguments.

                Only conservation is immediate. All it takes is individual behavior change
                like a green product buying decision or a green design decision for a system
                that better supports energy conservation.

                Gary Beck. P.E.

                Eco-Holdings LLC
                Design Consulting
                USGBC-LEED(Accredited), BSE(Civil), TDI(Wind Storm - Structural)
                Texas P.E.(Mechanical), Authorized Service (Capstone Microturbines)

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Mike Ewert [mailto:mewert@...]
                Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 10:10 AM
                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for
                alternative energy and conservation

                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 be provided through biomass, wind and solar sources'" is true!
                 
                US energy use is about 100 quads (quadrillion BTU's) per year.
                Source: http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/statistics/energy.htm
                 
                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:
                Source: http://www.infinitepower.org/resoverview.htm
                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).
                source: http://www.infinitepower.org/pdf/FactSheet-08.pdf%c2%a0
                 
                For information on the global level, check out this recent report by the
                International Solar Energy Society.
                http://www.ises.org/shortcut.nsf/to/wp%c2%a0
                -----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]
                 




                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                ADVERTISEMENT





                Yahoo! Groups Links
                • To visit your group on the web, go to:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hreg/
                 
                • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                 
                • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              • Roxanne Boyer
                Gary, I kind of agree with you that renewable energy can not economically provide our energy needs now. I also think it is realistic that renewable energy can
                Message 7 of 18 , Jan 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Gary,
                  I kind of agree with you that renewable energy can not economically provide our energy needs now.  I also think it is realistic that renewable energy can become a larger fraction of our energy supply as time goes on.  I have reviewed Smalley's presentations and I think he agrees.  It is quite realistic that renewable energy could dominate the electric market by 2050.  Current trends - technical and economical - point that direction.  Transportation and industrial energy remain a big question; but a question that must be answered by 2050.  The search for a solution starts today.  A nation that controls the solution will be the next world superpower.  Professionals that are part of the solution will be in the wealthy class.  I also think the answer will have multiple solutions.
                   
                  I have summarized my finding on the Renewable Energy Potential in the US in a paper.  It is too large to attach as e-mail here, so I'll hand it out at the next HREG meeting. 
                  Regards,
                  Chris
                   
                   
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Gary Beck
                  Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 11:19 PM
                  Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                  Thanks Mike,

                  Vacation is over so I am refreshed enough to contemplate some of these
                  ‘higher’ renewable energy thoughts.

                  Sorry, but we differ here. Saying "A majority of the energy consumed in the
                  US can be provided through biomass, wind and solar sources" is just not
                  realistic. This is due to the shear scale of our energy thirst, the limits
                  of all available renewable technologies, the limits on transmission
                  technologies, and the limits of any economy and to pay for dramatic energy
                  system changes. Plus all renewables, even solar and wind, are not always
                  environmentally cleaner or environmentally better solutions.

                  I'll stick to the energy outlook and arguments by the guy with the Nobel
                  Prize. See a clear energy presentation at
                  (http://smalley.rice.edu/emplibrary/columbia09232003.ppt#1) and other
                  similar discussions at their link at
                  http://smalley.rice.edu/smalley.cfm?doc_id=4862). I accept the basic energy
                  resources and energy timing predictions his group researched and quoted as
                  better than most. (I don't agree with the idea that nano-energy technology
                  will save us, any more than I thought fuel cells and hydrogen will save us.)
                  Mechanical energy efficiency has been my area of work for half of my career,
                  and most recently I have pushed and supported energy system optimization in
                  different forms (check out www.wasteheat.com). And while I support different
                  renewables for different reasons, I feel it is important to have a realistic
                  view of their time, technology, and economic limitations. All good
                  ideas/discussions, but economics unfortunately has proven repeatedly it will
                  rule over all but the 'no brainer' energy arguments.

                  Only conservation is immediate. All it takes is individual behavior change
                  like a green product buying decision or a green design decision for a system
                  that better supports energy conservation.

                  Gary Beck. P.E. 

                  Eco-Holdings LLC
                  Design Consulting
                  USGBC-LEED(Accredited), BSE(Civil), TDI(Wind Storm - Structural)
                  Texas P.E.(Mechanical), Authorized Service (Capstone Microturbines)     

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Mike Ewert [mailto:mewert@...]
                  Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 10:10 AM
                  To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for
                  alternative energy and conservation

                  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 be provided through biomass, wind and solar sources'" is true!
                   
                  US energy use is about 100 quads (quadrillion BTU's) per year.
                  Source: http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/statistics/energy.htm
                   
                  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:
                  Source: http://www.infinitepower.org/resoverview.htm
                  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).
                  source: http://www.infinitepower.org/pdf/FactSheet-08.pdf 
                   
                  For information on the global level, check out this recent report by the
                  International Solar Energy Society.
                  http://www.ises.org/shortcut.nsf/to/wp 
                  -----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]
                   




                  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  ADVERTISEMENT





                  Yahoo! Groups Links
                  • To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hreg/
                   
                  • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                   
                  • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                • Robert Johnston
                  Gary, I agree that there is no short term renewable energy solution that can meet this nation s needs economically. However, one thing I had driven into me in
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jan 3, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Gary,

                    I agree that there is no short term renewable energy solution that can
                    meet this nation's needs economically. However, one thing I had driven
                    into me in a previous e-mail debate with Charles Mauch was the extent to
                    which we are subsidizing our hydrocarbon economy today. I hadn't
                    thought about the full extent of it before that discussion, but I must
                    confess that my scientific prejudices against the hype of the hydrogen
                    economy etc. had blinded me to the full range of subsidies that
                    undergird the low cost of fossil fuels today, and Charlie taught me a
                    thing or two that round! :-)

                    I think if we were to take Smalley's "nickel and dime" proposal and
                    perhaps even expand it, i.e., to recover from consumers the full cost of
                    subsidies such as war expenses, then we could put fossil fuels and
                    renewables on a more even footing to "let the best technology win" from
                    an economics standpoint. The "fuel tax" money could be plowed into R&D,
                    conservation, etc. The R&D should be on both fossil fuels/nuclear as
                    well as renewables--to hedge our bets and to keep the subsidization
                    somewhat neutral, but heavily weighted towards renewables (and fusion?).
                    I think that between increased R&D and higher fossil fuel costs we'd see
                    a faster rate of conversion to renewables. That would drive further R&D
                    and lower costs through economies of scale. We'd get there faster than
                    we will at our present rate of expenditure and fossil fuel cost.

                    That is my conjecture, at least. It would be interesting to see a
                    careful analysis of this and see how various fossil fuel/renewable cost
                    ratios affect the rate of conversion. Maybe someone has done this and
                    one of you have a link you could post?

                    As a polymer chemist, I'm all for preserving oil and natural gas for
                    plastics! :-)

                    Robert Johnston




                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: Gary Beck [mailto:eco@...]
                    > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 11:20 PM
                    > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for
                    > alternative energy and conservation
                    >
                    >
                    > Thanks Mike,
                    >
                    > Vacation is over so I am refreshed enough to contemplate some of these
                    > ‘higher’ renewable energy thoughts.
                    >
                    > Sorry, but we differ here. Saying "A majority of the energy consumed
                    in
                    > the
                    > US can be provided through biomass, wind and solar sources" is just
                    not
                    > realistic. This is due to the shear scale of our energy thirst, the
                    limits
                    > of all available renewable technologies, the limits on transmission
                    > technologies, and the limits of any economy and to pay for dramatic
                    energy
                    > system changes. Plus all renewables, even solar and wind, are not
                    always
                    > environmentally cleaner or environmentally better solutions.
                    >
                    > I'll stick to the energy outlook and arguments by the guy with the
                    Nobel
                    > Prize. See a clear energy presentation at
                    > (http://smalley.rice.edu/emplibrary/columbia09232003.ppt#1) and other
                    > similar discussions at their link at
                    > http://smalley.rice.edu/smalley.cfm?doc_id=4862). I accept the basic
                    > energy
                    > resources and energy timing predictions his group researched and
                    quoted as
                    > better than most. (I don't agree with the idea that nano-energy
                    technology
                    > will save us, any more than I thought fuel cells and hydrogen will
                    save
                    > us.)
                    > Mechanical energy efficiency has been my area of work for half of my
                    > career,
                    > and most recently I have pushed and supported energy system
                    optimization
                    > in
                    > different forms (check out www.wasteheat.com). And while I support
                    > different
                    > renewables for different reasons, I feel it is important to have a
                    > realistic
                    > view of their time, technology, and economic limitations. All good
                    > ideas/discussions, but economics unfortunately has proven repeatedly
                    it
                    > will
                    > rule over all but the 'no brainer' energy arguments.
                    >
                    > Only conservation is immediate. All it takes is individual behavior
                    change
                    > like a green product buying decision or a green design decision for a
                    > system
                    > that better supports energy conservation.
                    >
                    > Gary Beck. P.E.
                    >
                    > Eco-Holdings LLC
                    > Design Consulting
                    > USGBC-LEED(Accredited), BSE(Civil), TDI(Wind Storm - Structural)
                    > Texas P.E.(Mechanical), Authorized Service (Capstone Microturbines)
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: Mike Ewert [mailto:mewert@...]
                    > Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 10:10 AM
                    > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                    > Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for
                    > alternative energy and conservation
                    >
                    > 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 be provided through biomass, wind and solar sources'" is
                    > true!
                    >
                    > US energy use is about 100 quads (quadrillion BTU's) per year.
                    > Source: http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/statistics/energy.htm
                    >
                    > 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:
                    > Source: http://www.infinitepower.org/resoverview.htm
                    > 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).
                    > source: http://www.infinitepower.org/pdf/FactSheet-08.pdf
                    >
                    > For information on the global level, check out this recent report by
                    the
                    > International Solar Energy Society.
                    > http://www.ises.org/shortcut.nsf/to/wp
                    > -----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]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    > ADVERTISEMENT
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > • To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hreg/
                    >
                    > • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    > • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • J. P. Malone
                    All this discussion is interesting and heart felt. The following is not intended as a rant, but to put our problem in perspective. Our government, both
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jan 3, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment

                       

                      All this discussion is interesting and heart felt.  The following is not intended as a rant, but to put our problem in perspective.

                       

                      Our government, both parties, is so tied to big oil money, anyone who really believes anything will change it our lifetimes is living in la-la land.

                      It would take solar panels covering every square inch of the state of New Jersey just to equal the energy used in New Jersey.  So the size of the oil dependency is almost beyond our reason.

                       

                      A breakthrough, one not foreseeable by current science is most likely the only hope in the US.  Outside the US there may be some help because of the different mind set of the non US-Oil cartel.

                       

                      China is graduating more engineers & scientists each year than the US graduates all college students of all degree fields.  China has a massive energy problem.  They also have a growing economy that it partly controlled & partly free market.  As they inevitably pass the US number of educated citizens (check out our schools systems if you doubt this) and the controlling government forces capital & research in to alternative energy research because of their vast needs and lack of resources they may turn this thing around.

                       

                      I hope I live long enough to see the beginning.

                      In the interim, conservation, voting, getting activity in politics may be the only drop in the bucket we have. I hope I’m wrong.

                       

                       

                      J. Patrick Malone

                       

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Robert Johnston [mailto:junk1@...]
                      Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:36 PM
                      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                       

                      Gary,

                      I agree that there is no short term renewable energy solution that can
                      meet this nation's needs economically.  However, one thing I had driven
                      into me in a previous e-mail debate with Charles Mauch was the extent to
                      which we are subsidizing our hydrocarbon economy today.  I hadn't
                      thought about the full extent of it before that discussion, but I must
                      confess that my scientific prejudices against the hype of the hydrogen
                      economy etc. had blinded me to the full range of subsidies that
                      undergird the low cost of fossil fuels today, and Charlie taught me a
                      thing or two that round!  :-)

                      I think if we were to take Smalley's "nickel and dime" proposal and
                      perhaps even expand it, i.e., to recover from consumers the full cost of
                      subsidies such as war expenses, then we could put fossil fuels and
                      renewables on a more even footing to "let the best technology win" from
                      an economics standpoint.  The "fuel tax" money could be plowed into R&D,
                      conservation, etc.  The R&D should be on both fossil fuels/nuclear as
                      well as renewables--to hedge our bets and to keep the subsidization
                      somewhat neutral, but heavily weighted towards renewables (and fusion?).
                      I think that between increased R&D and higher fossil fuel costs we'd see
                      a faster rate of conversion to renewables.  That would drive further R&D
                      and lower costs through economies of scale.  We'd get there faster than
                      we will at our present rate of expenditure and fossil fuel cost.

                      That is my conjecture, at least.  It would be interesting to see a
                      careful analysis of this and see how various fossil fuel/renewable cost
                      ratios affect the rate of conversion.  Maybe someone has done this and
                      one of you have a link you could post?

                      As a polymer chemist, I'm all for preserving oil and natural gas for
                      plastics!  :-)

                      Robert Johnston




                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Gary Beck [mailto:eco@...]
                      > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 11:20 PM
                      > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for
                      > alternative energy and conservation
                      >
                      >
                      > Thanks Mike,
                      >
                      > Vacation is over so I am refreshed enough to contemplate some of these
                      > ‘higher’ renewable energy thoughts.
                      >
                      > Sorry, but we differ here. Saying "A majority of the energy consumed
                      in
                      > the
                      > US can be provided through biomass, wind and solar sources" is just
                      not
                      > realistic. This is due to the shear scale of our energy thirst, the
                      limits
                      > of all available renewable technologies, the limits on transmission
                      > technologies, and the limits of any economy and to pay for dramatic
                      energy
                      > system changes. Plus all renewables, even solar and wind, are not
                      always
                      > environmentally cleaner or environmentally better solutions.
                      >
                      > I'll stick to the energy outlook and arguments by the guy with the
                      Nobel
                      > Prize. See a clear energy presentation at
                      > (http://smalley.rice.edu/emplibrary/columbia09232003.ppt#1) and other
                      > similar discussions at their link at
                      > http://smalley.rice.edu/smalley.cfm?doc_id=4862). I accept the basic
                      > energy
                      > resources and energy timing predictions his group researched and
                      quoted as
                      > better than most. (I don't agree with the idea that nano-energy
                      technology
                      > will save us, any more than I thought fuel cells and hydrogen will
                      save
                      > us.)
                      > Mechanical energy efficiency has been my area of work for half of my
                      > career,
                      > and most recently I have pushed and supported energy system
                      optimization
                      > in
                      > different forms (check out www.wasteheat.com). And while I support
                      > different
                      > renewables for different reasons, I feel it is important to have a
                      > realistic
                      > view of their time, technology, and economic limitations. All good
                      > ideas/discussions, but economics unfortunately has proven repeatedly
                      it
                      > will
                      > rule over all but the 'no brainer' energy arguments.
                      >
                      > Only conservation is immediate. All it takes is individual behavior
                      change
                      > like a green product buying decision or a green design decision for a
                      > system
                      > that better supports energy conservation.
                      >
                      > Gary Beck. P.E.
                      >
                      > Eco-Holdings LLC
                      > Design Consulting
                      > USGBC-LEED(Accredited), BSE(Civil), TDI(Wind Storm - Structural)
                      > Texas P.E.(Mechanical), Authorized Service (Capstone Microturbines)
                      >
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Mike Ewert [mailto:mewert@...]
                      > Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 10:10 AM
                      > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for
                      > alternative energy and conservation
                      >
                      > 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 be provided through biomass, wind and solar sources'" is
                      > true!
                      >
                      > US energy use is about 100 quads (quadrillion BTU's) per year.
                      > Source: http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipbldg/statistics/energy.htm
                      >
                      > 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:
                      > Source: http://www.infinitepower.org/resoverview.htm
                      > 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).
                      > source: http://www.infinitepower.org/pdf/FactSheet-08.pdf
                      >
                      > For information on the global level, check out this recent report by
                      the
                      > International Solar Energy Society.
                      > http://www.ises.org/shortcut.nsf/to/wp
                      > -----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]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      > ADVERTISEMENT
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > • To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hreg/
                      >
                      > • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      > • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >




                      --
                      No virus found in this incoming message.
                      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                      Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004


                      --
                      No virus found in this outgoing message.
                      Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                      Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/2004

                    • Roxanne Boyer
                      Mr. Malone, I quite dissagree with you on many of these issues, and so do most scientists. Read any of the articles today on energy in Scientific American,
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jan 4, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Mr. Malone,
                        I quite dissagree with you on many of these issues, and so do most scientists.  Read any of the articles today on energy in Scientific American, Physics Today, Discovery, Science, .... and you will find that our current oil consumption trends can only be sustained to about 2050, plus or minus 20 years.  Renewable energy is growing exponencially.  Europe is aiming for 20% renewables by 2020.  I believe many of the US States already have similar goals and many more will join in as time goes on.  There will be a change within the next lifespan.
                         
                        Even the "Oil" companies realize this and have published reports that say so.  They are starting to call themselves "Energy" companies and investing quite heavily in renewable energy.  See Shell Solar, Shell Wind, Shell Renewables, BP Solar, GE Solar, GE Wind, for example.  And if the oil companies don't lead, the electronics companies will.  Sharp is already the leading manufacturer of solar cells.
                         
                        I don't know how you did your math about not enough solar energy in New Jersey (is that the state with the highest energy to land ratio and the least sunny state?).  But the math I have done shows that I can supply all of my Houston household electrical needs (averaged) by covering half of my roof with solar panels.  No breakthrough technology needed; it already exists.  If you trend retail electric prices and solar PV prices, you will see the cost cross in the year 2025 - then it will be more economical to buy PV than grid electricity!
                         
                        If you read up on the technical progress of photoelectrics, you will see incredible breakthroughs in the last 10 years.  Right now, solar cells are expensive because production can not keep up with demand.  And new record breaking production facillities are being opened each year.
                         
                        If you want a "heart felt" change, read the July-August issue of Renewable Energy World each year and see the growth of RE for yourself.  It is amazing.  Maybe we can discuss some of the facts at the next HREG meeting, Sunday, 2:00pm, Jan 30th at TSU.
                        Sincerely,
                        Chris
                         
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:43 PM
                        Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                         

                        All this discussion is interesting and heart felt.  The following is not intended as a rant, but to put our problem in perspective.

                         

                        Our government, both parties, is so tied to big oil money, .

                        It would take solar panels covering every square inch of the state of New Jersey just to equal the energy used in New Jersey.  So the size of the oil dependency is almost beyond our reason.

                         

                        A breakthrough, one not foreseeable by current science is most likely the only hope in the US.  Outside the US there may be some help because of the different mind set of the non US-Oil cartel.

                         

                        China is graduating more engineers & scientists each year than the US graduates all college students of all degree fields.  China has a massive energy problem.  They also have a growing economy that it partly controlled & partly free market.  As they inevitably pass the US number of educated citizens (check out our schools systems if you doubt this) and the controlling government forces capital & research in to alternative energy research because of their vast needs and lack of resources they may turn this thing around.

                         

                        I hope I live long enough to see the beginning.

                        In the interim, conservation, voting, getting activity in politics may be the only drop in the bucket we have. I hope I’m wrong.

                         

                         

                        J. Patrick Malone

                         

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Robert Johnston [mailto:junk1@...]
                        Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:36 PM
                        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                         

                         

                      • burner_22
                        hi i wanted to attend this Sunday s meeting at TSU School of Technology and was wondering what room number do you have your meetings? thanks, David A.
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jan 4, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          hi

                          i wanted to attend this Sunday's meeting at TSU School of Technology
                          and was wondering what room number do you have your meetings?


                          thanks,
                          David A.



                          __________________________________
                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
                          http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
                        • Mike Ewert
                          The next HREG meeting will be Sunday January 30 from 2-4pm at TSU School of Technology room 225. We will send an agenda closer to the date. ... From:
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jan 5, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The next HREG meeting will be Sunday January 30 from 2-4pm at TSU School of
                            Technology room 225. We will send an agenda closer to the date.

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: burner_22 [mailto:burner_22@...]
                            Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 11:00 PM
                            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [hreg] (unknown)



                            hi

                            i wanted to attend this Sunday's meeting at TSU School of Technology
                            and was wondering what room number do you have your meetings?


                            thanks,
                            David A.



                            __________________________________
                            Do you Yahoo!?
                            Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
                            http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail



                            Yahoo! Groups Links
                          • Mike Ewert
                            2 points: Note the land area required for solar energy in Richard Smalley s presentation. http://smalley.rice.edu/emplibrary/columbia09232003.ppt#1 I like PV
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jan 6, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              2 points:
                              Note the land area required for solar energy in Richard Smalley's presentation.
                               
                              I like PV too, but solar thermal is even farther along in terms of cost competitiveness (large scale).   It is one of the most cost-effective renewable power technologies, with present power generation costs of US¢12-20/kWh and long-term costs of US¢5-10/kWh. Source: Renewable Energy World
                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Roxanne Boyer [mailto:rox1@...]
                              Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:20 PM
                              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                              Mr. Malone,
                              I quite dissagree with you on many of these issues, and so do most scientists.  Read any of the articles today on energy in Scientific American, Physics Today, Discovery, Science, .... and you will find that our current oil consumption trends can only be sustained to about 2050, plus or minus 20 years.  Renewable energy is growing exponencially.  Europe is aiming for 20% renewables by 2020.  I believe many of the US States already have similar goals and many more will join in as time goes on.  There will be a change within the next lifespan.
                               
                              Even the "Oil" companies realize this and have published reports that say so.  They are starting to call themselves "Energy" companies and investing quite heavily in renewable energy.  See Shell Solar, Shell Wind, Shell Renewables, BP Solar, GE Solar, GE Wind, for example.  And if the oil companies don't lead, the electronics companies will.  Sharp is already the leading manufacturer of solar cells.
                               
                              I don't know how you did your math about not enough solar energy in New Jersey (is that the state with the highest energy to land ratio and the least sunny state?).  But the math I have done shows that I can supply all of my Houston household electrical needs (averaged) by covering half of my roof with solar panels.  No breakthrough technology needed; it already exists.  If you trend retail electric prices and solar PV prices, you will see the cost cross in the year 2025 - then it will be more economical to buy PV than grid electricity!
                               
                              If you read up on the technical progress of photoelectrics, you will see incredible breakthroughs in the last 10 years.  Right now, solar cells are expensive because production can not keep up with demand.  And new record breaking production facillities are being opened each year.
                               
                              If you want a "heart felt" change, read the July-August issue of Renewable Energy World each year and see the growth of RE for yourself.  It is amazing.  Maybe we can discuss some of the facts at the next HREG meeting, Sunday, 2:00pm, Jan 30th at TSU.
                              Sincerely,
                              Chris
                               
                               
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:43 PM
                              Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                               

                              All this discussion is interesting and heart felt.  The following is not intended as a rant, but to put our problem in perspective.

                               

                              Our government, both parties, is so tied to big oil money, .

                              It would take solar panels covering every square inch of the state of New Jersey just to equal the energy used in New Jersey.  So the size of the oil dependency is almost beyond our reason.

                               

                              A breakthrough, one not foreseeable by current science is most likely the only hope in the US.  Outside the US there may be some help because of the different mind set of the non US-Oil cartel.

                               

                              China is graduating more engineers & scientists each year than the US graduates all college students of all degree fields.  China has a massive energy problem.  They also have a growing economy that it partly controlled & partly free market.  As they inevitably pass the US number of educated citizens (check out our schools systems if you doubt this) and the controlling government forces capital & research in to alternative energy research because of their vast needs and lack of resources they may turn this thing around.

                               

                              I hope I live long enough to see the beginning.

                              In the interim, conservation, voting, getting activity in politics may be the only drop in the bucket we have. I hope I’m wrong.

                               

                               

                              J. Patrick Malone

                               

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Robert Johnston [mailto:junk1@...]
                              Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:36 PM
                              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                               

                               

                            • Gary Beck
                              Incredible breakthoughs or not, one thing I have to point out is that solar cells should not be thought of as free or even renewable. The energy they capture
                              Message 14 of 18 , Jan 6, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Message
                                Incredible breakthoughs or not, one thing I have to point out is that solar cells should not be thought of as free or even renewable. The energy they capture is not free. They make electricity by capturing energy that is otherwise reflected back into space. All this captured energy will be released as sensable heat. 
                                 
                                The other point is that every solar cell I have ever seen is very dark color and that on a sunny day I assume you can fry and egg on them during operation.  And they would remain warm for a few extra hours each night.  Sounds like a hot city that has 1/2 of the area of every roof covered in in solar cells. 
                                 
                                This vision of a 'solar roof on every house' is the opposite of significant eco design efforts to try to cool cities by adopting building specifications changing commercial roof colors to white and residential roofs to very light shingles (plus a cooler roof means cooler living working space). Or better yet like USGBC-LEED and other efforts that support 'green' garden roof on new commerical buildings. 
                                 
                                What is the best approach to satisfy both concerns? Is there a light colored solar cell? Any one have a design for a solar cell garden roof?
                                 
                                Gary Beck
                                Eco-Holdings LLC
                                 
                                I read ocasionally Scientific American, Discovery, Science etc. - they are great for 'what if' and 'think about this' , but not very good predictors at all. What were they saying about fuel cells 10 or 20 years ago? My son get Popular Science - a recent article is called "Hydrogen's Bomb - Decoding the Hype".  My favorite recent new science release? The spinach plant that is designed to generate electricity (no joke) (here's a joke: It is a good thing since will require more candle lit dinners - cause after you finish your salad it's light out!) 
                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Roxanne Boyer [mailto:rox1@...]
                                Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:20 PM
                                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                                Mr. Malone,
                                I quite dissagree with you on many of these issues, and so do most scientists.  Read any of the articles today on energy in Scientific American, Physics Today, Discovery, Science, .... and you will find that our current oil consumption trends can only be sustained to about 2050, plus or minus 20 years.  Renewable energy is growing exponencially.  Europe is aiming for 20% renewables by 2020.  I believe many of the US States already have similar goals and many more will join in as time goes on.  There will be a change within the next lifespan.
                                 
                                Even the "Oil" companies realize this and have published reports that say so.  They are starting to call themselves "Energy" companies and investing quite heavily in renewable energy.  See Shell Solar, Shell Wind, Shell Renewables, BP Solar, GE Solar, GE Wind, for example.  And if the oil companies don't lead, the electronics companies will.  Sharp is already the leading manufacturer of solar cells.
                                 
                                I don't know how you did your math about not enough solar energy in New Jersey (is that the state with the highest energy to land ratio and the least sunny state?).  But the math I have done shows that I can supply all of my Houston household electrical needs (averaged) by covering half of my roof with solar panels.  No breakthrough technology needed; it already exists.  If you trend retail electric prices and solar PV prices, you will see the cost cross in the year 2025 - then it will be more economical to buy PV than grid electricity!
                                 
                                If you read up on the technical progress of photoelectrics, you will see incredible breakthroughs in the last 10 years.  Right now, solar cells are expensive because production can not keep up with demand.  And new record breaking production facillities are being opened each year.
                                 
                                If you want a "heart felt" change, read the July-August issue of Renewable Energy World each year and see the growth of RE for yourself.  It is amazing.  Maybe we can discuss some of the facts at the next HREG meeting, Sunday, 2:00pm, Jan 30th at TSU.
                                Sincerely,
                                Chris
                                 
                                 
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:43 PM
                                Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                                 

                                All this discussion is interesting and heart felt.  The following is not intended as a rant, but to put our problem in perspective.

                                 

                                Our government, both parties, is so tied to big oil money, .

                                It would take solar panels covering every square inch of the state of New Jersey just to equal the energy used in New Jersey.  So the size of the oil dependency is almost beyond our reason.

                                 

                                A breakthrough, one not foreseeable by current science is most likely the only hope in the US.  Outside the US there may be some help because of the different mind set of the non US-Oil cartel.

                                 

                                China is graduating more engineers & scientists each year than the US graduates all college students of all degree fields.  China has a massive energy problem.  They also have a growing economy that it partly controlled & partly free market.  As they inevitably pass the US number of educated citizens (check out our schools systems if you doubt this) and the controlling government forces capital & research in to alternative energy research because of their vast needs and lack of resources they may turn this thing around.

                                 

                                I hope I live long enough to see the beginning.

                                In the interim, conservation, voting, getting activity in politics may be the only drop in the bucket we have. I hope I’m wrong.

                                 

                                 

                                J. Patrick Malone

                                 

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Robert Johnston [mailto:junk1@...]
                                Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:36 PM
                                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                                 

                                 

                              • Ooi, Han
                                Well, In my solar engineering textbook, it states that a solar cell will get hot IF the electricity generated by it is not used. This makes sense since energy
                                Message 15 of 18 , Jan 6, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Message
                                  Well,
                                      In my solar engineering textbook, it states that a solar cell will get hot IF the electricity generated by it is not used.  This makes sense since energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  If the power doesn't take the form of electrical energy, then it will take to form of thermal energy.  So as solar cells get more and more efficient, they will run cooler and cooler.
                                   
                                  Han Ooi
                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Gary Beck [mailto:eco@...]
                                  Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 9:55 AM
                                  To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                                  Incredible breakthoughs or not, one thing I have to point out is that solar cells should not be thought of as free or even renewable. The energy they capture is not free. They make electricity by capturing energy that is otherwise reflected back into space. All this captured energy will be released as sensable heat. 
                                   
                                  The other point is that every solar cell I have ever seen is very dark color and that on a sunny day I assume you can fry and egg on them during operation.  And they would remain warm for a few extra hours each night.  Sounds like a hot city that has 1/2 of the area of every roof covered in in solar cells. 
                                   
                                  This vision of a 'solar roof on every house' is the opposite of significant eco design efforts to try to cool cities by adopting building specifications changing commercial roof colors to white and residential roofs to very light shingles (plus a cooler roof means cooler living working space). Or better yet like USGBC-LEED and other efforts that support 'green' garden roof on new commerical buildings. 
                                   
                                  What is the best approach to satisfy both concerns? Is there a light colored solar cell? Any one have a design for a solar cell garden roof?
                                   
                                  Gary Beck
                                  Eco-Holdings LLC
                                   
                                  I read ocasionally Scientific American, Discovery, Science etc. - they are great for 'what if' and 'think about this' , but not very good predictors at all. What were they saying about fuel cells 10 or 20 years ago? My son get Popular Science - a recent article is called "Hydrogen's Bomb - Decoding the Hype".  My favorite recent new science release? The spinach plant that is designed to generate electricity (no joke) (here's a joke: It is a good thing since will require more candle lit dinners - cause after you finish your salad it's light out!) 
                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Roxanne Boyer [mailto:rox1@...]
                                  Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:20 PM
                                  To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                                  Mr. Malone,
                                  I quite dissagree with you on many of these issues, and so do most scientists.  Read any of the articles today on energy in Scientific American, Physics Today, Discovery, Science, .... and you will find that our current oil consumption trends can only be sustained to about 2050, plus or minus 20 years.  Renewable energy is growing exponencially.  Europe is aiming for 20% renewables by 2020.  I believe many of the US States already have similar goals and many more will join in as time goes on.  There will be a change within the next lifespan.
                                   
                                  Even the "Oil" companies realize this and have published reports that say so.  They are starting to call themselves "Energy" companies and investing quite heavily in renewable energy.  See Shell Solar, Shell Wind, Shell Renewables, BP Solar, GE Solar, GE Wind, for example.  And if the oil companies don't lead, the electronics companies will.  Sharp is already the leading manufacturer of solar cells.
                                   
                                  I don't know how you did your math about not enough solar energy in New Jersey (is that the state with the highest energy to land ratio and the least sunny state?).  But the math I have done shows that I can supply all of my Houston household electrical needs (averaged) by covering half of my roof with solar panels.  No breakthrough technology needed; it already exists.  If you trend retail electric prices and solar PV prices, you will see the cost cross in the year 2025 - then it will be more economical to buy PV than grid electricity!
                                   
                                  If you read up on the technical progress of photoelectrics, you will see incredible breakthroughs in the last 10 years.  Right now, solar cells are expensive because production can not keep up with demand.  And new record breaking production facillities are being opened each year.
                                   
                                  If you want a "heart felt" change, read the July-August issue of Renewable Energy World each year and see the growth of RE for yourself.  It is amazing.  Maybe we can discuss some of the facts at the next HREG meeting, Sunday, 2:00pm, Jan 30th at TSU.
                                  Sincerely,
                                  Chris
                                   
                                   
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:43 PM
                                  Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                                   

                                  All this discussion is interesting and heart felt.  The following is not intended as a rant, but to put our problem in perspective.

                                   

                                  Our government, both parties, is so tied to big oil money, .

                                  It would take solar panels covering every square inch of the state of New Jersey just to equal the energy used in New Jersey.  So the size of the oil dependency is almost beyond our reason.

                                   

                                  A breakthrough, one not foreseeable by current science is most likely the only hope in the US.  Outside the US there may be some help because of the different mind set of the non US-Oil cartel.

                                   

                                  China is graduating more engineers & scientists each year than the US graduates all college students of all degree fields.  China has a massive energy problem.  They also have a growing economy that it partly controlled & partly free market.  As they inevitably pass the US number of educated citizens (check out our schools systems if you doubt this) and the controlling government forces capital & research in to alternative energy research because of their vast needs and lack of resources they may turn this thing around.

                                   

                                  I hope I live long enough to see the beginning.

                                  In the interim, conservation, voting, getting activity in politics may be the only drop in the bucket we have. I hope I’m wrong.

                                   

                                   

                                  J. Patrick Malone

                                   

                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Robert Johnston [mailto:junk1@...]
                                  Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:36 PM
                                  To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                                   

                                   

                                • Jim & Janet
                                  Message Gary Beck Eco-Holdings LLC Wrote: Is there a light colored solar cell? Well, the reason the cells surface is dark is to help it absorb as much light
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Jan 6, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Message
                                     
                                    Gary Beck
                                    Eco-Holdings LLC
                                     
                                    Wrote:    Is there a light colored solar cell?
                                     
                                    Well, the reason the cells surface is dark is to help it absorb as much light energy as possible. A light colored cell would reflect more photons reducing the cells output significantly. If you looked at the cell surface under magnification, you would see the surface is jagged and rough to increase the surface receiving sunlight. The heat is just an unwanted byproduct.
                                    Possibly the quickest way to improve module efficiency by 1 to 2 % is to figure how to eliminate resistance at the interconnections between individual cells. No one has yet figured how to effectively 'solder' wires to silicon. This is why most PV manufacturers advertise the individual cell efficiency as slightly higher than the overall module efficiency. That's driving the industry away from silicon and toward other methods of electrical production; spinach for example.
                                    Jim Duncan
                                  • Robert Johnston
                                    Am I missing something, or is this much to do about nothing? Sure, any radiant energy captured by a solar cell is not reflected back into space immediately.
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Jan 7, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Message

                                      Am I missing something, or is this much to do about nothing?

                                       

                                      Sure, any radiant energy captured by a solar cell is not reflected back into space immediately.  But:  (a) even if you had a perfect mirror there instead, not all reflected light would make it back to space [light scattering, greenhouse effect, etc.]; (b) surely one can coat the cell with a reflective surface that transmits UV (or whatever wavelengths the solar cell optimally uses) and reflects others; (c) if the solar cell weren’t there, it is unlikely that the surface that would be there instead would reflect light back perfectly either.  It would absorb at least a portion of it and the radiant energy would be converted to heat.  Even biomass merely stores it as potential energy that is later released as heat by burning, digestion, etc.  And, (d) some of the absorbed radiation that is converted into heat will eventually be emitted back to space.  Ever notice how much the earth cools on a clear night with no cloud cover?  That is heat loss by a relatively cool substrate, e.g., the earth at 15-30°C.

                                       

                                      I don’t think we are talking about a big deal here.  Even if 1% of the U.S. land mass were covered with solar cells, that would not absorb as much radiant energy as our forests do today.

                                       

                                      Why not just do a radiant energy balance on the planet?  Smalley’s presentation says in 2003 we used 14 terawatts (TW) of energy per day.  This compares to 165,000 TW of sunlight striking the planet per day.  Even at the 50 TW he projects we’ll need in 2050, that is only 0.03% of the sun’s radiant energy being needed.  If we have perfectly absorbent solar cells that absorb all the solar spectrum, and if they operate at only 10% solar efficiency, that means that the solar cells necessary to supply our energy needs in 2050 (assuming we go 100% solar cells for energy needs) would absorb just 0.3% of the sun’s radiant flux on earth.  Do you think we’d even notice that?  Remember, a significant fraction of that 0.3% is already absorbed by whatever substrate is there today.  We’re talking about an extremely small effect here!

                                       

                                      There remains a debate about whether global warming is real or not.  But if we assume it is, I think most scientists would argue that the cause of global warming is not the heat we are emitting but rather the greenhouse effect, e.g., the heat we are trapping.  If we quit using fossil fuels and drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, any additional heat absorbed by solar cells would be more than compensated for by the increased emission to space.  In other words, we can afford to convert more energy into sensable heat so long as we have less greenhouse effect.

                                       

                                      If you are concerned about localized effects, such as in cities, there would be ways to mitigate it.  For instance, you could make covered parking lots, with the cells on the roof; this would merely absorb what would have otherwise been absorbed by the asphalt.  There are indeed efforts to convert roofing membranes from black rubber sheeting or asphalt to white TPO roofing membranes.  However, as happened at MinuteMaid Park, mold and mildew can quickly stain a white roof to a dark color, so it is not a very robust approach today, and I’m not sure what the long term contribution to urban micro-climates is.  Personally, I’d prefer a dark roof since it is more UV stable and should last longer.  That makes sense from an economic and sustainability standpoint.  If I were a roofing membrane installer, though, I’d sure rather work on a white roof!  (At least in Houston in the summer)!

                                       

                                      Robert Johnston

                                       

                                       

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Gary Beck [mailto:eco@...]
                                      Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 9:55 AM
                                      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                                       

                                      Incredible breakthoughs or not, one thing I have to point out is that solar cells should not be thought of as free or even renewable. The energy they capture is not free. They make electricity by capturing energy that is otherwise reflected back into space. All this captured energy will be released as sensable heat. 

                                       

                                      The other point is that every solar cell I have ever seen is very dark color and that on a sunny day I assume you can fry and egg on them during operation.  And they would remain warm for a few extra hours each night.  Sounds like a hot city that has 1/2 of the area of every roof covered in in solar cells. 

                                       

                                      This vision of a 'solar roof on every house' is the opposite of significant eco design efforts to try to cool cities by adopting building specifications changing commercial roof colors to white and residential roofs to very light shingles (plus a cooler roof means cooler living working space). Or better yet like USGBC-LEED and other efforts that support 'green' garden roof on new commerical buildings. 

                                       

                                      What is the best approach to satisfy both concerns? Is there a light colored solar cell? Any one have a design for a solar cell garden roof?

                                       

                                      Gary Beck

                                      Eco-Holdings LLC

                                       

                                      I read ocasionally Scientific American, Discovery, Science etc. - they are great for 'what if' and 'think about this' , but not very good predictors at all. What were they saying about fuel cells 10 or 20 years ago? My son get Popular Science - a recent article is called "Hydrogen's Bomb - Decoding the Hype".  My favorite recent new science release? The spinach plant that is designed to generate electricity (no joke) (here's a joke: It is a good thing since will require more candle lit dinners - cause after you finish your salad it's light out!) 

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Roxanne Boyer [mailto:rox1@...]
                                      Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:20 PM
                                      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                                      Mr. Malone,

                                      I quite dissagree with you on many of these issues, and so do most scientists.  Read any of the articles today on energy in Scientific American, Physics Today, Discovery, Science, .... and you will find that our current oil consumption trends can only be sustained to about 2050, plus or minus 20 years.  Renewable energy is growing exponencially.  Europe is aiming for 20% renewables by 2020.  I believe many of the US States already have similar goals and many more will join in as time goes on.  There will be a change within the next lifespan.

                                       

                                      Even the "Oil" companies realize this and have published reports that say so.  They are starting to call themselves "Energy" companies and investing quite heavily in renewable energy.  See Shell Solar, Shell Wind, Shell Renewables, BP Solar, GE Solar, GE Wind, for example.  And if the oil companies don't lead, the electronics companies will.  Sharp is already the leading manufacturer of solar cells.

                                       

                                      I don't know how you did your math about not enough solar energy in New Jersey (is that the state with the highest energy to land ratio and the least sunny state?).  But the math I have done shows that I can supply all of my Houston household electrical needs (averaged) by covering half of my roof with solar panels.  No breakthrough technology needed; it already exists.  If you trend retail electric prices and solar PV prices, you will see the cost cross in the year 2025 - then it will be more economical to buy PV than grid electricity!

                                       

                                      If you read up on the technical progress of photoelectrics, you will see incredible breakthroughs in the last 10 years.  Right now, solar cells are expensive because production can not keep up with demand.  And new record breaking production facillities are being opened each year.

                                       

                                      If you want a "heart felt" change, read the July-August issue of Renewable Energy World each year and see the growth of RE for yourself.  It is amazing.  Maybe we can discuss some of the facts at the next HREG meeting, Sunday, 2:00pm, Jan 30th at TSU.

                                      Sincerely,

                                      Chris

                                       

                                       

                                      ----- Original Message -----

                                      Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:43 PM

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

                                       

                                       

                                      All this discussion is interesting and heart felt.  The following is not intended as a rant, but to put our problem in perspective.

                                       

                                      Our government, both parties, is so tied to big oil money, .

                                      It would take solar panels covering every square inch of the state of New Jersey just to equal the energy used in New Jersey.  So the size of the oil dependency is almost beyond our reason.

                                       

                                      A breakthrough, one not foreseeable by current science is most likely the only hope in the US.  Outside the US there may be some help because of the different mind set of the non US-Oil cartel.

                                       

                                      China is graduating more engineers & scientists each year than the US graduates all college students of all degree fields.  China has a massive energy problem.  They also have a growing economy that it partly controlled & partly free market.  As they inevitably pass the US number of educated citizens (check out our schools systems if you doubt this) and the controlling government forces capital & research in to alternative energy research because of their vast needs and lack of resources they may turn this thing around.

                                       

                                      I hope I live long enough to see the beginning.

                                      In the interim, conservation, voting, getting activity in politics may be the only drop in the bucket we have. I hope I’m wrong.

                                       

                                       

                                      J. Patrick Malone

                                       

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Robert Johnston [mailto:junk1@...]
                                      Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:36 PM
                                      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                                       

                                       

                                    • Richard D. Kelley
                                      Mountains out a molehill? Buy some panels a put that Texas cooker to work. ... From: Robert Johnston [SMTP:junk1@plastability.com] Sent: Friday, January 07,
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Jan 7, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Mountains out a molehill? Buy some panels a put that Texas cooker to work.


                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: Robert Johnston [SMTP:junk1@...]
                                        Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 4:57 PM
                                        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation

                                        << File: ATT00029.htm >> Am I missing something, or is this much to do about nothing?



                                        Sure, any radiant energy captured by a solar cell is not reflected back
                                        into space immediately. But: (a) even if you had a perfect mirror
                                        there instead, not all reflected light would make it back to space
                                        [light scattering, greenhouse effect, etc.]; (b) surely one can coat the
                                        cell with a reflective surface that transmits UV (or whatever
                                        wavelengths the solar cell optimally uses) and reflects others; (c) if
                                        the solar cell weren't there, it is unlikely that the surface that would
                                        be there instead would reflect light back perfectly either. It would
                                        absorb at least a portion of it and the radiant energy would be
                                        converted to heat. Even biomass merely stores it as potential energy
                                        that is later released as heat by burning, digestion, etc. And, (d)
                                        some of the absorbed radiation that is converted into heat will
                                        eventually be emitted back to space. Ever notice how much the earth
                                        cools on a clear night with no cloud cover? That is heat loss by a
                                        relatively cool substrate, e.g., the earth at 15-30°C.



                                        I don't think we are talking about a big deal here. Even if 1% of the
                                        U.S. land mass were covered with solar cells, that would not absorb as
                                        much radiant energy as our forests do today.



                                        Why not just do a radiant energy balance on the planet? Smalley's
                                        presentation says in 2003 we used 14 terawatts (TW) of energy per day.
                                        This compares to 165,000 TW of sunlight striking the planet per day.
                                        Even at the 50 TW he projects we'll need in 2050, that is only 0.03% of
                                        the sun's radiant energy being needed. If we have perfectly absorbent
                                        solar cells that absorb all the solar spectrum, and if they operate at
                                        only 10% solar efficiency, that means that the solar cells necessary to
                                        supply our energy needs in 2050 (assuming we go 100% solar cells for
                                        energy needs) would absorb just 0.3% of the sun's radiant flux on earth.
                                        Do you think we'd even notice that? Remember, a significant fraction of
                                        that 0.3% is already absorbed by whatever substrate is there today.
                                        We're talking about an extremely small effect here!



                                        There remains a debate about whether global warming is real or not. But
                                        if we assume it is, I think most scientists would argue that the cause
                                        of global warming is not the heat we are emitting but rather the
                                        greenhouse effect, e.g., the heat we are trapping. If we quit using
                                        fossil fuels and drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, any
                                        additional heat absorbed by solar cells would be more than compensated
                                        for by the increased emission to space. In other words, we can afford
                                        to convert more energy into sensable heat so long as we have less
                                        greenhouse effect.



                                        If you are concerned about localized effects, such as in cities, there
                                        would be ways to mitigate it. For instance, you could make covered
                                        parking lots, with the cells on the roof; this would merely absorb what
                                        would have otherwise been absorbed by the asphalt. There are indeed
                                        efforts to convert roofing membranes from black rubber sheeting or
                                        asphalt to white TPO roofing membranes. However, as happened at
                                        MinuteMaid Park, mold and mildew can quickly stain a white roof to a
                                        dark color, so it is not a very robust approach today, and I'm not sure
                                        what the long term contribution to urban micro-climates is. Personally,
                                        I'd prefer a dark roof since it is more UV stable and should last
                                        longer. That makes sense from an economic and sustainability
                                        standpoint. If I were a roofing membrane installer, though, I'd sure
                                        rather work on a white roof! (At least in Houston in the summer)!



                                        Robert Johnston





                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: Gary Beck [mailto:eco@...]
                                        Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 9:55 AM
                                        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for
                                        alternative energy and conservation



                                        Incredible breakthoughs or not, one thing I have to point out is that
                                        solar cells should not be thought of as free or even renewable. The
                                        energy they capture is not free. They make electricity by capturing
                                        energy that is otherwise reflected back into space. All this captured
                                        energy will be released as sensable heat.



                                        The other point is that every solar cell I have ever seen is very dark
                                        color and that on a sunny day I assume you can fry and egg on them
                                        during operation. And they would remain warm for a few extra hours each
                                        night. Sounds like a hot city that has 1/2 of the area of every roof
                                        covered in in solar cells.



                                        This vision of a 'solar roof on every house' is the opposite of
                                        significant eco design efforts to try to cool cities by adopting
                                        building specifications changing commercial roof colors to white and
                                        residential roofs to very light shingles (plus a cooler roof means
                                        cooler living working space). Or better yet like USGBC-LEED and other
                                        efforts that support 'green' garden roof on new commerical buildings.



                                        What is the best approach to satisfy both concerns? Is there a light
                                        colored solar cell? Any one have a design for a solar cell garden roof?



                                        Gary Beck

                                        Eco-Holdings LLC



                                        I read ocasionally Scientific American, Discovery, Science etc. - they
                                        are great for 'what if' and 'think about this' , but not very good
                                        predictors at all. What were they saying about fuel cells 10 or 20 years
                                        ago? My son get Popular Science - a recent article is called "Hydrogen's
                                        Bomb - Decoding the Hype". My favorite recent new science release? The
                                        spinach plant that is designed to generate electricity (no joke) (here's
                                        a joke: It is a good thing since will require more candle lit dinners -
                                        cause after you finish your salad it's light out!)

                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: Roxanne Boyer [mailto:rox1@...]
                                        Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:20 PM
                                        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: Re: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for
                                        alternative energy and conservation

                                        Mr. Malone,

                                        I quite dissagree with you on many of these issues, and so do most
                                        scientists. Read any of the articles today on energy in Scientific
                                        American, Physics Today, Discovery, Science, .... and you will find that
                                        our current oil consumption trends can only be sustained to about 2050,
                                        plus or minus 20 years. Renewable energy is growing exponencially.
                                        Europe is aiming for 20% renewables by 2020. I believe many of the US
                                        States already have similar goals and many more will join in as time
                                        goes on. There will be a change within the next lifespan.



                                        Even the "Oil" companies realize this and have published reports that
                                        say so. They are starting to call themselves "Energy" companies and
                                        investing quite heavily in renewable energy. See Shell Solar, Shell
                                        Wind, Shell Renewables, BP Solar, GE Solar, GE Wind, for example. And
                                        if the oil companies don't lead, the electronics companies will. Sharp
                                        is already the leading manufacturer of solar cells.



                                        I don't know how you did your math about not enough solar energy in New
                                        Jersey (is that the state with the highest energy to land ratio and the
                                        least sunny state?). But the math I have done shows that I can supply
                                        all of my Houston household electrical needs (averaged) by covering half
                                        of my roof with solar panels. No breakthrough technology needed; it
                                        already exists. If you trend retail electric prices and solar PV
                                        prices, you will see the cost cross in the year 2025 - then it will be
                                        more economical to buy PV than grid electricity!



                                        If you read up on the technical progress of photoelectrics, you will see
                                        incredible breakthroughs in the last 10 years. Right now, solar cells
                                        are expensive because production can not keep up with demand. And new
                                        record breaking production facillities are being opened each year.



                                        If you want a "heart felt" change, read the July-August issue of
                                        Renewable Energy World each year and see the growth of RE for yourself.
                                        It is amazing. Maybe we can discuss some of the facts at the next HREG
                                        meeting, Sunday, 2:00pm, Jan 30th at TSU.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        Chris





                                        ----- Original Message -----

                                        From: J. <mailto:JPMALONE@...> P. Malone

                                        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

                                        Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 8:43 PM

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





                                        All this discussion is interesting and heart felt. The following is not
                                        intended as a rant, but to put our problem in perspective.



                                        Our government, both parties, is so tied to big oil money, .

                                        It would take solar panels covering every square inch of the state of
                                        New Jersey just to equal the energy used in New Jersey. So the size of
                                        the oil dependency is almost beyond our reason.



                                        A breakthrough, one not foreseeable by current science is most likely
                                        the only hope in the US. Outside the US there may be some help because
                                        of the different mind set of the non US-Oil cartel.



                                        China is graduating more engineers & scientists each year than the US
                                        graduates all college students of all degree fields. China has a
                                        massive energy problem. They also have a growing economy that it partly
                                        controlled & partly free market. As they inevitably pass the US number
                                        of educated citizens (check out our schools systems if you doubt this)
                                        and the controlling government forces capital & research in to
                                        alternative energy research because of their vast needs and lack of
                                        resources they may turn this thing around.



                                        I hope I live long enough to see the beginning.

                                        In the interim, conservation, voting, getting activity in politics may
                                        be the only drop in the bucket we have. I hope I'm wrong.





                                        J. Patrick Malone



                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: Robert Johnston [mailto:junk1@...]
                                        Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:36 PM
                                        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: RE: Oh Politics! RE: [hreg] crash science initiative for
                                        alternative energy and conservation








                                        _____


                                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                                        * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hreg/

                                        * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                        hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                        <mailto:hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

                                        * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                        Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.