|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
> Meanwhile "Operation Independent Iraq" (OIL for
> short)...
Ooops. That would be "Operation Iraqi Liberation" or
OIL.
BTW, circa 1983 we approached the US military command
on Oahu and offered to retrofit all military housing
there with solar water heaters *at our expense* (we would lease the
the installation back to the government for a percentage
of the savings: the government would cut their electric
bill over 25% for the first 7 years, and own the installation
free and clear after that saving 50% with zero out of pocket
expenses). The generals refused because they "didn't want those
damn ugly windows on their roofs". Which of course makes sense
as military housing on Oahu is so Home and Gardens gorgeous....
in a ghetto barracks sort of way.
--- On Sat, 7/5/08, tradewynne@xxxxxxxxx <tradewynne@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: tradewynne@xxxxxxxxx <tradewynne@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: RES: stock to buy- GPRE
> To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx, "Gary Fritz" <fritz@xxxxxxxx>
> Date: Saturday, July 5, 2008, 11:34 AM
> Right on the money Gary....only one problem:
>
> The US Federal Govt has its head up its ass:
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/18/MNVE11ALRM.DTL&tsp=1
>
> "Even as lawmakers of both parties talk about the need
> to shift the country toward clean, renewable energy,
> Congress is in danger of letting key tax credits that have
> fueled the growth of wind and solar power expire at the end
> of the year.
>
> The Senate failed for the second time in a week Tuesday to
> pass a bill to help businesses and homeowners switch to
> renewable energy. The tax incentives have strong bipartisan
> support, but they have been caught up in a fight between
> Democrats and Republicans over how to pay for them."
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us/27solar.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1215281671-/eejwuMhe4HHdTKvougG0g
>
> "DENVER — Faced with a surge in the number of
> proposed solar power plants, the federal government has
> placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land
> until it studies their environmental impact, which is
> expected to take about two years."
>
> Solar was booming as far back as the 1970's into the
> 80's until
> Reagan eliminated federal tax credits. 30 year old solar
> technology
> can virtually eliminate water heating costs (25-50% of
> your total
> utility bill) for much of the world.
>
> Meanwhile "Operation Independent Iraq" (OIL for
> short), offshore drilling,
> and nuclear plants on fault lines along the Pacific coast
> is where the
> money has gone.
>
> Oh yeah, and there's already a car that gets over 200
> MPG for under $30K:
>
> http://www.aptera.com/
>
> IOW, *current technology* would cut oil and coal demand by
> over 50%
> if implemented. You have to ask yourself why the PTB are
> actually
> fighting against these changes.
>
>
> --- On Sat, 7/5/08, Gary Fritz <fritz@xxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Gary Fritz <fritz@xxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: RES: stock to buy- GPRE
> > To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Saturday, July 5, 2008, 9:39 AM
> > On 4 Jul 2008 at 21:41, Randy wrote:
> > > No matter how much we want or hope for a solar ,
> wind
> > alternative
> > > energy solution .....it's not going to
> happen .
> > Lump them all together
> > > and the most optimistic forecasts are 5-10
> percent of
> > current
> > > consumption.
> >
> > It doesn't have to be. I did a back-of-envelope
> > calculation once to see how
> > much solar energy could be produced on the
> government-owned
> > lands of the
> > desert Southwest. It would take an area of roughly
> 40,000
> > square miles to
> > produce energy equal to the ENTIRE energy budget of
> the US,
> > assuming
> > only 10% efficiency. The US Govt owns 200,000 square
> miles
> > of prime solar
> > real estate in Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. If
> they
> > would cede 50k or
> > 100k of that land to a US Energy Trust, they could
> launch a
> > "man-on-the-
> > moon" class of initiative that could make the US
> > entirely energy self-
> > sufficient, and virtually eliminate our dependence on
> > polluting energy
> > sources like coal or nuclear.
> >
> > Yes, there would be environmental impacts in the area
> --
> > but consider the
> > environmental and economic impacts of coal mining,
> burning
> > coal or oil,
> > disposing of nuclear wastes -- or engaging in wars in
> the
> > Mideast.
> >
> > Should we try to replace 100% of the US energy
> consumption
> > with solar?
> > Probably not, as there are other problems involved.
> But it
> > could provide a
> > HUGE percentage of the energy this country needs, with
> a
> > self-built and self-
> > owned source of endless clean energy.
> >
> > Gary
|