Energy and the Environment

[admin]

The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:

• Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
• Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
• Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
• Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
• Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

ENERGY PLAN OVERVIEW:

Provide Short-term Relief to American Families

• Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.
• Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation.
• Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices.
Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years

• Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
• Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
• Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
• A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
• Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.
Create Millions of New Green Jobs

• Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.
• Weatherize One Million Homes Annually.
• Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.
• Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.
Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
• Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.

[2008]

These all sound good, especially the hybrid cars. The problem is that Obama won't be president by the time he claims those projects will be successful. Even if he does start it right now, and manages to win two terms, he would have to make sure that the next leader keeps pursuing these concepts which is not too likely. But as long as he does his best while in office I'll be satisfied I just hope that the future administrations respect these plans and don't go backwards..

[flaco]

I like the fact about plug-in cars as well. Hopefully Obama will be able to accomplish this, as not more than a few thousand of these cars exist again. The other part I enjoy about this is the fact that Obama wants make sure oil companies use the land they are given and that they don't abuse it!

[Lex]

Good effort, the hybrid cars is a good idea.
Creating new job opportunities and doing green work at the same time is great.
But I personally feel that 25% renewable energy by 2025 isn't enough, they need to do more than that. They need to put more money into researching alternative sources.

[Right]

It is a very novel concept and definitely needs more push forward.

I have heard of many venture capitalist that promote primarily the projects that are eco-friendly.

Perhaps, a policy in this direction would not be bad either which makes it compulsory for major financial institutions to undertake promoting such "GREEN" initiatives.

Regards,

Right

[helper]

Ha ha ha another plan by Mr. Obama.He should first care to rescue the american economy rather then making such hoax claims.I dont know if he would be able to any of them.

His plan is very good but i dont if it would be economically viable and do any good to american economy.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by helper

Ha ha ha another plan by Mr. Obama.He should first care to rescue the american economy rather then making such hoax claims.I dont know if he would be able to any of them.

His plan is very good but i dont if it would be economically viable and do any good to american economy.

On the long run it definitely will
Renewable energy sources will be cheaper with enough research, people won't have to rely on oil nations, paying huge sums for their oil.
This will also create a lot of job opportunities

But economy aside, energy sources is something that needs looking at.

[scout swimmer]

This is all good. Having been a cutting edge active solar developer in the 1970s, I still caution that this country uses mega-huge quantities of energy and I wonder if some people are going to over promise and over depend upon green approaches to the point that the green movement comes up hugely short and poisons the entire market for this energy. Lastly, it seems important to keep pointing out that some versions of " clean coal " have reduced CO2 emissions and others are clean only in other chemicals and emissions. We should not consider a situation involving CO2 satisfactorily addressed unless one is using " CO2 clean coal " technologies. Where will the energy come from to power 1,000,000 plug in cars?

[Frank]

I haven't seen any mention of planting more trees in any of President-elect Obama's program to reduce CO2 emissions. Trees are very economical and efficient in storing CO2 in usable wood and release O2 to fresh air. It is why "green" is tied to environment. To plant more trees should be one of primary credit of economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Companies should be able to get credit scores by inplement a program to plant more trees either in public lands or company purchased non-productive or sub-productive lands or private lands.
We should promote trees, bushes, and flowers garden design instead of grass lawns because they are more efficient in storing CO2. Well designed ones could be more beauty than grass lawns and save time and water in maintenance.
All non-productive/usable ocean shores and beaches should plant salt-tolerable trees.
All deserts and rock mountains should aggressively plant draught-tolerable bushes or plants or grasses.
All sub-wet lands, which is non-productive, should plant tall bamboos.

[scout swimmer]

Originally Posted by Frank

I haven't seen any mention of planting more trees in any of President-elect Obama's program to reduce CO2 emissions. Trees are very economical and efficient in storing CO2 in usable wood and release O2 to fresh air. It is why "green" is tied to environment. To plant more trees should be one of primary credit of economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Companies should be able to get credit scores by inplement a program to plant more trees either in public lands or company purchased non-productive or sub-productive lands or private lands.
We should promote trees, bushes, and flowers garden design instead of grass lawns because they are more efficient in storing CO2. Well designed ones could be more beauty than grass lawns and save time and water in maintenance.
All non-productive/usable ocean shores and beaches should plant salt-tolerable trees.
All deserts and rock mountains should aggressively plant draught-tolerable bushes or plants or grasses.
All sub-wet lands, which is non-productive, should plant tall bamboos.

Should be given serious consideration.

[Unbooked]

Frank has a very good point about the trees here in America and I agree completely. Although I think Barrack Obama is off to a great start with his plan to get more hybrid cars on the road although I hope we can develop a car in the near future that runs off of something completely safe for the enviroment that wont require any gas at all.

[Lex]

Well, trees in suburban and rural areas isn't really that much of a problem. There are plenty already, and if more is desired, plenty of space is available

Planting trees in urban areas will prove to be a challenge. Planting trees along the sidewalk would be the obvious choice, but another idea might be planting plants in the roofs of flat topped buildings?

[GreenGiant]

Originally Posted by scout swimmer

...We should not consider a situation involving CO2 satisfactorily addressed unless one is using " CO2 clean coal " technologies. Were wil the energy come from to power 1,000,000 plug in cars?

Scout Swimmer I believe that "clean coal" is a myth. There's plenty of info out there to support my view. Try google-ing Mountain Top Removal.

Having said this, wouldn't the efficiency gains from electric powered vehicles more than compensate for the added coal burning. I've read that something like 90% of the energy converted in an internal combustion engine is lost as heat. With this in mind, I hope that President-elect Obama will consider moving some (not all) money from hybrid vehicle production into 100% Electric Vehicle production, as the technology exists and it can meet most people's driving needs.

Perhaps another more cost efficient option is Euro-style bike borrowing programs for major metro areas. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/wo...pe/10bike.html

Finally, I'm an optimist AND a realist, so I think that most of our dependency reduction must come from conservation. This was mentioned in the policy outline, but I hope that it is truly a focus and not just lip-service. It's not going to be easy to tell the country to do more with less. This will be a test of the administration's courage and integrity.

[DeaJay]

To whom it may concern,
It is wonderful that our President elect has embraced technology to give more Americans a voice, kudos!
Now to the issues and my suggestions. First, I suggest we take a region by region approach to the nations energy needs. Out west we utilize Geo-thermal, wind farms and some nuclear power plants . In the midwest we use primarily wind farms and nuclear for our electricity. In the East and Northeast we use Natural Gas and clean coal for homes as well as natural gas for autos. Nuclear power and the possibility of creating a river and lake dam system could be used to generate more electricity in the east.
Geo-thermal has not entered into the nations discussion of possible energy sources for energy independence. Geo-thermal is simply tapping into the earths natural heat that escapes via steam and other means. I forgot which European nation, I believe Iceland or Norway are already using this technology that is completely clean and renewable. They simply capture this energy, and use it to create electricity and pipe it directly to homes. The French have nearly perfected the use of Nuclear energy and have the most advanced way of disposing of spent waste. The point being is the technology is already in use and will not require lots of R&D. These things can be done now! Lets be prudent in deciding where there things go but let us get on with building! The sooner we start the sooner we finish and get our economy and future back.
This will create thousands of construction, maintenance and engineering jobs. I am sure that the plan being worked on will be comprehensive and forward thinking.

[Prechersforchange]

I am so proud to have witness the election of President Obama. I worked very hard for this to become a reality and has been involve as a political active since 1967 starting in Ms. with the Freedom Democratic Party to the Loyalist Democratic Party to the Ms. Democratic Party. Ran voter registation campaigns,ran for pubic office doing the time when it was very unpopular to do. Unless you were born in this area of the south there is no way you can understand what those of us had to go through who sought to make changes in the 60's to the 80's. I feel a renewed courage with the election of President elect Obama and what this will mean to many of our children and grandchildren. But this also mean that community leaders in every community must work harder with a difference approach and be willing to see opportunity and people in a difference light because there is no shortage of opportunity available only short sightness. There is room for all to have the vision for their life come true without seeking to deny others of theirs. That being said I feel a strong committment to our small towns and rural communities a large segment of our population but to many time over looked when it come to getting attention from our elected officals. I believe the Farmers have the potential to solve our energy problem with a little help from the federal goverment and do with much more speed than any other segment of currently being offered. I propose that the President Elect expand the Agriculture Department to include a research a development department focused specially on energy development that will include tax breaks and low interest rate loans for Farmers to produce various energy producing crops that will also include grant to agriculture reseach colleges and universties to help research, market and manage these efforts. Also make special efforts to encourage farm ownership and maintaince of ownership especially for the small farmer. So I agree with the regional approach. There are many countrys that are using farmer produce crops for energy supply. Let's do the reseach and move this middle class group of people to the level of income necessary to promote farm ownership otherwise we are headed for some real problems of dependent and we should have learn the lesson from the past.

I am very hopeful for a much brighter future despite the problem we will face. We are up to the task. God Bless America.

[nrgcre8r]

I have heard President Elect Obama mention that there are folks creating new clean green energy systems in their garages. I would like to see Patent Laws corrected to give the little guy a chance without fear of having their hard work stolen from them by Corporations or Patent Trolls.

[randi.holloway@sbcglobal.]

RE: Oil and Gas leases on or near Utah's National Parks

he current, unexpected and sudden release of lands near or on our National parks is pure destruction. and irresponsible by the Bush Administration. Why aren't we using our oil reserves? Why must this land be destroyed? Why is energy being spent to destroy spectacular landscape? Why are oil companies allowed to destroy the air quality, water quality, wildlife habitat and tourism industry? There are millions of acres of land in WESTERN Utah to drill. There are the Salt Flats between Tooele and Wendover where drill rigs can put their footprint without doing damage to the environment. Most of Nevada is arid and drilling can be put in the desert where hardly anyone lives. Where is the oil we have stockpiled for the US? Why are we buying oil from other countries. Why is the administration drilling in areas that have little oil?

Irresponsible selling leases in this areas that are supposedly preserved is not viable. Allowing leasing of these lands in Utah destroys prescious lands that have taken eons to create and many cultural artifacts. This land is also part of our heritage from our founding fathers of the United States of America.

Please stop the selling of these destructive leases. There is no need to destroy our environment.

Sincerely,

Randi Holloway

[Frank]

Lex, I think that you haven't gotten my point. My main point is not to beauty the environment. My main point is to use natural tree to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Growing 1 ton in term of dry wood can obsorb about 1.5 tons of CO2 and release about 2.3 tons of O2. The beauty of green environment and release of O2 is just a bonus. The wind and the property of CO2 will flow and distribute CO2 quite uniformly in atmosphere. As long as we plant enough trees anywhere, we don't have to collect CO2 and expensively transport and embed it in deep ocean. This plant-trees program can be started right away and President-elect Obama can inspire all citizens to participate it. It does not cost much.

[Gene]

Thruup. The electric cars are here already. Nobody wants them. The 100 mile a gallon car is here check out past issues of Mother Earth News.

I could have made hundreds of gallons of alcohol from potatoes left in the field. But I'm not going to. Lots of red tape just to get a still to make the alcohol. Then I'm not going to pay $600 a year to have my car checked by the EPA. Even if I did it wouldn't be long until somebody would have to tax it.

We can transport goods a lot cheaper by rail then we can by truck but nobody wants to put any money into the rail system.

Yesterday the news was about a mini nuclear reactor that could provide power for 20,000 homes. How long until we see it? Will we ever have it?

America is not serious about this and will not be until the pumps go dry. It's all just wishful thinking.

[ksat]

Good, Gene. Also, since 1/20/01, the word has been pronounced NUCULAR. This from the man who hears God, and knows that man was created and did not evolve from tree people with reprehensible tails.
ksat

[Frank]

Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology

There are many processes of clean coal technology. All cost more to construct than current burning process does. But all are more efficeint than current burning process is. Chemistry 101 tells us that when we burn C + O2 becoming CO2, it releases heat and a lot of pressured CO2 (1 molecular gram of C will create 22.4 liters of CO2).
My own idea of clean coal technology is as follows:
Burning C in a concealed heavy insulated reactor. The heat will increase the pressure of generated CO2 which has some pressure during being created. It will pass high temperature tolerated pipe thru water. The water will be heated to become steam then leaded thru steam turbine to generate electricity like regular power plant. The CO2 after cooled to some degree then will pass serial gas turbines to generate electricity. Then it will be input into another simpler concealed heavy insulated reactor to burn the unberned carbon particles and CO. The process is repeated thru several similar reactors until the output CO2 are clean. Then they will be released into a water scrubber in which the SO2, NO, NO2, and mercury compound will be washed down. The clean CO2 and air will be pumped into a compressor to be pressured to about 800 F degrees then suddenly released.Then the CO2 will become CO2 snow. Then it will be compressed into dry ice which is captured pure CO2.
In my clean coal technolody, C is completed burned. Both pressure power and heat power are used to generate electricity. SO2,NO,NO2, and mercury compound are removed. The captured CO2 can be used as dry ice. When it become cheaper, it can be used in residential and commercial cooling purposes to reduce electricity usage. High pressured CO2 has been used in clearing fog for airports. It is possible to be used in making rain. It has been used in growing algae for energy. It is possible to be used in growing mushrooms for food and energy near coal power plant site to save temperature in CO2 and cost of storage and transportation.
The higher efficiency and byproduct value will offset some of additional cost. The use of CO2 will release CO2 into atmosphere. All we have to do is to plant more trees anywhere on the earth to absorb it.

[Desert Biologist]

While I have no illusions about our ability to actually stop detrimental global changes (including pollution, overfishing, habitat degradation, extinction and the big one- global climate change), the fact is that unless we humans learn to work together in some significant way we will either live in a major garbage dump worldwide or become extinct ourselves. This will take more than just policy changes, but a change in human attitudes worldwide. The new President has the ability because of his position to not only change our governmental policies, but to influence people in our own and other countries to at least slow the process and possibly keep it from getting worse. After eight years of neglect this is going to be a lot of work. To start off we need to stop muzzling government scientists and actually allow good science to operate in a professional manner!

[Frank]

I have reviewed water for fuel and participated some forum discussion. I have been convinced that using small device of water for fuel, which for good one only costs a few hundred dollars, could be easyly achieved average 30%more efficeincy. It not only uses less 30% of gasoline but also reduces emission. Please refer to websites:
http://jpovich.com/reviews/water4fuel/ and http://www.water-4-fuel.com/ and http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/hydro...ators-cars.htm

Also the following posting from MarketForum:

"eagle eyes and all interested parties... ntr
Mark B - Thu Aug 14 2008 at 12:19 AM

Having finished my second complete prototype of a hydroxy gas booster for ICEs, I can now verify that we can bring the oil business to its very knees.

Having done much research and a few experiments, I finally settled on a dual helix electrolysis cell in a bank of 10. This is current controlled by a circuit that contains a pulse width modulator hooked up with comparators that monitor voltages from the O2 sensor as well as the map and throttle sensors. It then adds voltage to the sensor circuits and adjust current to the electrolysis cells. This in turn adjusts hydroxy gas (HHO, egas or Brown's gas) production and introduction into the air flow stream on the intake of the engine. It also causes the ecm (car computer) to lean down the fuel injection to somewhere close to the idle setting.

My last set of records indicate an average of 57mpg (city/highway combined) on a '93 Chev truck with a 350 that was formerly getting 13.5 mpg. A 325%increase in mileage. All current is generated onboard. And the engine runs a little cooler according to the temp gauge on the dash."

It was an old tehnology but the new high tech has made it more efficient. In short words, the device uses a small jar to electrolyze water into 2H2 and O2 with electicity from car battery. Then the mixed 2H2 and O2 is input with incoming air with O2 controlled sensor. I believe the H2 and O2 improves the efficency of gasoline burning. Since the H2 and O2 generated is small amount and is generated on demand without high pressured storage, therefor, it is safe and no need to modify engine. If we can produce cheaper electricity vs gasoline, then it is possible to make a real plug-in water-hybrid car which converts water into fuel(h2 & O2) eletrolyzing water and does not like electic-hybrid which needs additional motor system.

It is said that the water for fuel has brought the attention of Congresses. I urge President-elect Obama takes immediate action to verify the claims. If the claims are confirmed then take action right away. This would be a program which could reduce the use of gasoline about 30% within 3 to 5 years. It is a good interim program to achieve energy independence.

[Frank]

If we simply create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles, it will mean we use tax payers' money to benefit foriegn producers, too. I think that if we use $7000 tax payers' money to reduce price of domestic made advanced vehicles is better. Of course, if we simply subsidize $7000 to purchase domestic made advanced vehicles, it will violate WTO's rules. What we can do is to waive the payroll taxes, unemployment tax, tool conversion finance, waive of property tax for the factories by local governments, and other new employment tax credit against total unemployment tax, etc.. In this way, we are not only encourage consumer to purchase domestic advanced vehicles due to reduced price by the domestic makers but also encourage new empoloyment without deluting the tax payers' money to benefit foriegn makers.

[Frank]

I have read President-elect Obama's plan for several times. There isn't any mention about nuclear energy. I can understood it because nuclear energy is a controversal issue. I have the following comments mainly for nuclear power plant for his reference:
If we are going to reduce energy dependency on foriegn oil and also achieve reducing carbon dioxide emmision to a satisfactory level, the long term goal on the energy form should be solar, wind, and geothermal energy. All other hydrocarbon fuels will produce carbon dioxide regardless how clean or efficient they are. But solar, wind, and geothermal energy in forseeable future is still very limited. We need nuclear energy. Every body understood that nuclear power plant is dangerous. So are fire, electricity, driving cars, and many other things. People have gotten over the electric shock accidents thru safety code and education. Though we have done the same to fire and driving cars but we still have a lot of accidents. Thousands of pepole died every year. But we still don't prohibit them. Why? because the benefits are more than the disadvantages are. Japan and France have a lot of nuclear power plants and depend on them as their energy source. China has many on the design board and under construction. It has been proved that the nuclear power plants have been pretty safe overall and safer than refinery plants. If we want to keep competitive we have to build them now.
I would like to present some of my knowledge hereby:
That the process we used in this country is much safer. It is different from what the Russian used many years ago which caused a terrible accident.
That the process have been improved compare with what we used in existing neuclear power plants.
That the advancement of robot tecknology can reduce the disaster and robots can be used to replace human workers in higher rediation area.
That the land needed to store the nuclear waste for one nuclear power plant is about the size of a football field. The problem is that there isn't any material can last about thousand years to make as container to contain them until the radiation decaded to the safe level. It is said that our national laboratory is researching it. Meantime I think the easier way is to design the container in a small size which can be repacked in every 100 years by machine. If the container is small enough, then, the earthquake can not damage it. They can be stored inside a very strong secured concrete castles in dry region and area. It even does not need to be embedded in a very deep ground. So we can drve machine in to inspect and repack them.
That the reactor or waste castle will never explore like a nuclear bomb as some people might think so.
I hope President-elect Obama and his advisers to study more and to consult both pro and con then to make decision based on his own judgement.