Energy Independence, How Homeowners can Reduce Energy Needs.

Everyday there are news reports on how we are in an 'energy crisis.' We need solutions to this 'crisis' and we need them now. We need to take a look at technology available right now that works and implement it. We need to stop looking at the ‘future’ as it is getting in the way of now. We cannot allow perfect to get in the way of good enough.
In the United States approximately 21% of energy demand comes from Residential Demands. If we could reduce this by half it would save 330 Gigawatts of electricity in the United States every year. That is more than the amount produced by all the nuclear power plants in the United States combined. Or imagine turning off 15% of coal fired plants. It is a pretty big impact.
American households use on average 7,500 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electrical power a year. This depends on location as seen here. 32% of electrical demand comes from space heating alone. Another 13% to water heating. 12% goes toward lighting and air conditioning each. 70% of electrical demand is in the top 4 uses for electricity. That is a lot of power going toward just one thing, personal comfort.

But the big question is: How do we reduce residential power consumption without sacrificing our comfort?
Yes, and the solution is all around us. We see and feel it every day. It is called nature.
Okay , is it called the sun, wind, rain, and earth, but all of this can play a part in reducing residential power needs. Here is my proposal on how.
In truth the system in actually a power production system, not a conservation device. This is not the most efficient way of doing things, but it is the least intrusive to daily life, and as such more likely to fit into the average users life.
Homes need to provide an average of 3500 kWh a year. New homes need to provide 6000 kWh a year. To do so uses technology currently available and reasonably priced. When the price is rolled onto new home costs it would add less than 1% (assuming a home base cost of $175,000) of the total price.
This system would primarily use a combination of solar and wind power. Depending on location, this would be supplemented by micro hydro power. Each setup would have to be tailored to each home. The basics of the kit would be photovoltaic cells (solar cells) for electricity, solar water heater for water and space heating, and wind generators for electricity. All of the solar components could be squeezed on the roof or some could be used to make shade structures for landscaping or parking garages.
For $15000 a 7000 kWh a year system could be installed and used for new homes. This would provide the majority of power needs for the home. If conservation and green design are integrated, the house could be almost completely energy self-sufficient, minus that occasional spike in demand. Older homes could easily be retrofitted with solar panels to gather electricity to help offset some of the lighter loads drawn from the electrical grid.
If these technologies were used consistently we could lower the demand on the power grid by residential properties. These same technologies could be used to help offset commercial and industrial demands as well. Use parking lots as solar energy power plants. Place wind generators on tall buildings. There are opportunities to use current technology in positive ways for producing clean power. Let us use it, and let us use it now.

Here is a company that does exactly what I just said:
http://unlimited-energy.com/content/view/117/67/

Food, Why Ethanol is the Wrong Move

A bushel of corn was $1.86 at the end of 2005. It is now $6.10 (22 April 2008) Why? Ethanol.
The United States has jumped on the Ethanol bandwagon and is starving peoplebecause of it. The United States looked to Brazil (which uses sugar cane) as a model and tried to copy it. Only the United States didn't do the math right.
Brazil uses ethanol effectively for two reasons: A better source for ethanol and less demand.
The source plays a huge factor. Brazil, being tropical, can grow large amounts of dense sugar cane fields. On top of that, sugar cane contains
huge amounts of available sugars for ethanol production. This makes Brazil's feedstock a decent choice for ethanol production. A lower demand also means that the small amount produced has a very visible
impact on overall oil demand.
The United States has neither of these factors going for it. While the United States has amazing amounts of corn, it is only half as good as sugar cane for ethanol production. On top of that the corn grows less densely than sugar cane in the tropics. So it will take more land area to make the same amount of ethanol.
The United States also has a much larger demand for ethanol that Brazil.
Even if the production capabilities approached Brazil's, it would have a small impact on the overall demand.
So you have an inefficient system making little impact. Why else is it bad?
It takes away from feeding people.
Corn is the mainstay of the poultry, pork and beef industry. While humans generally only consume one specific type of corn (in America it is the selected sweet variety) the rest goes toward feedstock and corn meal. With the price jumping up over 3 times in as many years this impacts all the rest of the food following the chain. With corn becoming the new cash crop, other crops are shunned in favor of corn. So this makes a shortage of wheat and soybeans, which are mainstay food crops. Less supply and raising demand mean prices in these sectors rise as well.
As these prices rise, less is available for poor countries and less is sent via food subsidies. The food riots in Haiti can in some part be traced back to the ethanol misstep.
We need to look at ethanol as not a final solution, but an interim piece to the bigger picture. While ethanol is useful for certain applications, it will never be able to produce enough fuel to make a large enough impact without consuming too much arable land necessary for sustenance of the human species.

Energy, Why We Need Coal and Oil and Nuclear Power

We are being told that we need to get rid of 'dirty energy.' We are told that we cannot build any more 'dirty power' plants, instead we should build expensive (and immature) renewable plants all over the world.
But what is 'dirty energy?'
Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, Nuclear Fission generated power.
Why?
All of the fossil fuels must be burnt to produce power, causing greenhouse gases to be released into the air. This is 'bad.' Nuclear fission produces radioactive byproducts that must be stored. This is also 'bad.'
Why do we need them?
Without these forms of power, modern human life ceases to exist. Communication would be completely disrupted and the modern economy would collapse. Food supplies would dwindle then disappear as packaged foods stopped being made. Transportation grids would fall apart and any sort of monetary transaction would be done in cash or barter.
If you do not believe this could happen take a look at Africa and see how life exists without clean water(electric pumps and water treatment) and cheap power.
The main reasons for getting rid of dirty power is that it hurts the environment and hurts Humans. No doubt it hurts the environment (see this blog on how to reduce that.)
However, the argument that it hurts Humans is a fallacy. Let me show you why.
My first argument is refrigeration. Without refrigeration millions of people would die. Food would spoil, supermarkets would be useless and the current density levels in cities would be unsustainable. Our food production chain would become so inefficient that is would effectively collapse. Millions would starve in the 'famine.' Note that it may be possible to produce similar amounts of food at the start of the food chain, but with food spoilage throughout the chain the end of the chain would lack the sustenance to support our current demand. Reducing heavy metal contents in the air to reduce 'possible' diseases for exposure (a few hundred, maybe thousands, of occurrences) hardly justifies millions starving to death.
My second argument is computers. Without computers, our current economy would collapse. Assuming the world economy did not collapse, the ensuing inefficiency of other data collection and processing methods would kill off millions of people. How? Modern medicine would cease to exist. Modern health care systems would disappear. Emergency response would cease to functions. Modern medicine increases the lifespan and quality of life for millions. Health care does the same. Effective emergency response (fire, ambulance and police) save thousands each year. Does less soot in the air preventing a 'possible' lung cancer or asthma case (thousands cases, admittedly) justify allowing millions to go without treatment?
Our 'dirty power' has bettered the lives of Humans for generations now. To prevent us from continuing to spread these gains in technology (which all need reliable power) is criminal. We need to expand our 'dirty power' to continue the gains around the world.
'Dirty power' saves lives. We can do better, no doubt, but right now it is better to have imperfect than not having any.

Student Flag Project

I just finished reading an article by Fox News.
It cause a lot of emotions to run through me and I thought this would be a useful topic here on this blog.
A college student (Susan Crane) in Maine (see picture) completed a Project for her class : Cultural Relationship of Art and the Personal Politic. For this class she decide to place Copies of the American Flag on the floor in a maze like pattern, then watched to see how many people would step on the flags or avoid them.

My first response to reading this was one of disgust. I was initially appalled that someone would plaster the floor with the American Flag then see how many people stepped on it. This girl should be reprimanded for desecrating such an important symbol. I was taught that you should never allow this. If I went to that school I would have been trying to pick the flags up or block them off. I was genuinely offended.
Then I read further along in the article.
The student (Susan Crane) noted : "Ninety-five to 98 percent of the people didn't walk on the flags."
I cheered inside, glad that people respected the symbol that means so much to so many. I read further and discovered that the student was hoping to make people think about their patriotism by placing this symbol in their path.
This is when my disgust disappeared. I was now approving of this stunt, as her goal was increase people's awareness of their patriotism, a noble goal indeed.
However, after I finished reading the article I came to a final conclusion:
I should have supported the student's project from the start, regardless of her intentions or the methods she used to get there.
Her right to free speech should have been supported by me at all times. I wanted her school to have stopped this before it started because I disagreed with her opinions (which I assumed were negative!). I wanted her right to free speech to be infringed so I would be more comfortable.
I feel ashamed.
So I say, BRAVO!, Susan Crane, for both increasing the awareness of personal feelings of patriotism, but also (and more importantly) reminding us why free speech is important.

Link to the Fox News Story

Link to the Original Story

Image copy write:
Bobbie Hanstein photos

Economy (Opinions about Housing)

I have not voiced any opinions on the crisis with the U.S. Economy and figured it was time to share my thoughts.
I guess I will start with the 'housing crisis.'
I do not believe it is a crisis. Yes, people are losing their homes. Yes, people are getting buried under monthly housing payments. At the risk of sounding callous, SO? I fail to see how bad financial planning constitutes a crisis that my tax dollars should go toward fixing.
If the companies that sold the loans used unfair tactics, sleight of hand tricks or any other sort of illegal (or perhaps simply immoral) methods to get people these loans, then it would be different. But since all reports seem to be that people got loans using variable rates (starting a low introductory rate! Sounds like a credit card, huh?) and now that the economy took a slight downturn the rates went up and people cannot afford their homes.
NEWSFLASH!
These people never could afford their homes to begin with. If they could not afford the fixed rate loans, they had no business HOPING they could continue to pay. They gambled their lives on interest rates. If they gambled their life savings in Vegas and lost, would I be hearing about it on the news? No. Why is this gamble any different from the others?
Again, I am not dispassionate. I think that banks should offer new loans at fixed rates, or perhaps variable rates with caps. Give the people a chance to redo and start over from their mistakes. If they are behind on payments, maybe give them some extra grace time or a slightly lower rate for certain amount of time. It does the banks no go to default on all of these loans either. Work together for a solution.
However, do not involve my tax dollars in this. I understand that the 'housing crisis' is causing or is at a minimum increasing the trouble in the U.S. Economy. I understand people are losing their place to sleep. Yet, at the same time, millions of people in the United States continue to make their home payments on time despite the rise in rates. They had enough buffer to get them through this 'hard time'. Why do we, the one that planned for this, have to bail those that didn't plan out of debt?
I do not think we should. I think that we need to help these people find affordable housing. Helping them keep these homes does not qualify, because this has proven that their current living conditions are not 'affordable.'
I believe we need, as a society, to look at other nations for guidance in terms of family units. In our own country you can see from immigrants or their children that they generally have close family units, with multible generations living in the same household. Grandparents living with their children, living with their children. Many Latino and Asian cultures show this. It seems to be a viable method of both keeping a close knit family group, and providing better living conditions for all. Why not try going back towards that?
Just a thought.
Because if you can't pay your housing payment, you may end up in mom's basement anyway.

Thoughts from: Dakar

What We Need

I have finished reading an excellent book while on a long flight back from my business trip to Japan.
"What We Need (Extravagances and Shortages on America's Military)" by Barrett Tillman.
While I do not agree with everything that is says, I think that it has a good handle on the overall division within the U. S. Department of Defense concerning Big Ticket Items vs. Common Items. I will explain why the Big Ticket Items and Congress are hurting the U.S. Military by putting pet projects before basic necessities.
The budget of the DoD Is approximately 440 Billion Dollars a year. Yet, every year, the U.S. Congress receives a 'wish list' of items from each branch of service that could not be bought that year do to 'budget limitations.' 'How can this be?' you ask. With just under 4% of of the GDP going toward military hardware it would seem that the US Military would want for nothing. This, however, is not the case.
The problem lies in the BIG ticket (we are talking hundreds of millions if not billions for individual projects) vs. the little ticket (guns, ammo, armor) disparity in the Congressional Budget Game.

The budget game is actually rather simple. If you can get enough states economies involved in a projects, the more likely you will be able to keep the project running no matter what the price. The dark side of that same equation is that is becomes near impossible to get rid of a project that the military no longer wants. (see the Crusader platform)
The flip side of playing the budget game is that smaller items that do not live in multiple states do not get the same protection from cancellation or budget cuts.
With these bigger projects taking up a significant portion of the budget (and the money going to the projects MUST go toward these projects) leaving the rest of the budget to support everything else.
This means that buying tanks, guns, ammo, armor, trucks, and medicine comes from the rest of the budget. Take away from the money needed to pay for the troops, maintain their homes, pay for fuel, food, and uniforms.
Now you have even less.
These issues are rarely resolved until after this lack of budgeting becomes public news. When Humvees and Troops lacked the needed armor for the situation in Iraq, it was not until the media began to report about it that the necessary budget was appropriated to the situation. When the Veterans Administration began to show deficiencies in care due to budgeting it was not until the media made it an issue that Congress fixed the budget shortfalls.
Currently the military is experiencing shortfalls in training, people, and equipment. But as of right now the trend of the U.S. Military an Congress is to push a small lighter faster force made of few troops. While this makes for a more efficient force, it puts a greater strain on those individuals and creates a lack of 'boots on the ground' for the final phase of war, reconstitution of the taken objective.
The U.S. Military will continue to get the job done with less people, with less equipment and new technology, but the strain and sacrifice of the select few who choose to serve will grow ever greater and the public will understand their hardships less and less.
Congress must look at the whole picture, nit just budget dollars, when doing their jobs. While the budget is important, it is the people behind the DoD that make those dollars work. Congress needs to drop the pet projects.
We need to keep our current force levels, possibly expand the Army a little bit to help relieve some pressure on everyone that serves overseas, and skip a generation of equipment while we reconstitute our forces. Congress, please stop playing politics long enough to do your job!

Hello, and notes...

I'm writer II on this blog...This is my first post.

A little about myself: I'm going to stay anonymous, because it is just easier that way. Dakar and FellowMan are very good friends and have known me for years.

I guess my general political philosophy is simple. I would like to live in a society and work in an economy. One cannot exist without the other so it's all about balance for me. I take a holistic approach to the world.

At this point in time, I see society as far too vulnerable to an unstable economy. When I look at Bear Sterns or modern American health care, I see people's lives ruined over money. This is not a good thing.

We are entering this century with a great debate. What, exactly should be the roll of the government in our society and economy? Are we to drown government in a bathtub, so it is unable to respond even to natural disasters? I think most people will agree that Grover Norquist is batshit crazy on that point. Should the government back the debt of a failed financial services business, in effect socializing the risk? Well, the (supposedly conservative) Fed chair just did that. Tell me, American Taxpayer, how do you feel about the government backing $30 billion in bad debt with your money? Should financial institutions that took huge risks in the malformed and under-regulated derivatives market get such a large handout?

Yes, there is bloat in the government, and yes, Bear Sterns needed some type of government support, because it was near the bottom of a house of cards. Though the investors and bankers should suffer for their stupidity, its failure could have put the US into a recession, harming our society. As I said, I see society as far too vulnerable to an unstable economy.

This is the debate of our generation. Thank you, Dakar, for the forum.

Coming soon:
I will get these out over the next month, then probably take a break for a while.

1a-Logistics: Why people who want to be "Out of Iraq in a Year!!!" are utter fools. They could put the world at risk for the next 30 years if they had their way. Try moving the entire MNF-I in a year. 177,000 troops, plus equipment, plus supply chain, plus contractors (150,000 additional uhh...people)...Well, I will give the details soon.

1b-Logistics: Our lack of domestic heavy manufacturing infrastructure directly impacts our ability to support our troops and ourselves. The Jones Act, dams and lock gears, tax inequity in rail infrastructure and the single US-manufactured container gantry crane in existence, coming your way. Trust me. It matters.

2-Why LRF thinks that supporting the troops can be done while not supporting the war. And, a brief summary of what can be done to support the troops and withdraw gracefully.