• 586 Days Ago
• 07/07/2010

Band-aid measures?

I am skeptical as to whether this type of government intervention will make any long-term contribution towards the goal of providing good jobs in the U.S. economy. As former Intel CEO Andy Grove discusses in the most recent issue of Business Week magazine (”How to Make an American Job Before It’s Too Late”), the PV industry was invented in the U.S. but China now dominates global manufacturing of PV panels. He points out that this same situation has occurred in other high value-added industries, such as consumer electronics. Solar is now an “attractive” industry, so it’s receiving this type of government financial support. But the underlying problems that cause industry after industry to migrate offshore are not unique to solar or other “green” industries, and won’t be solved by providing loan guarantees to individual companies. There are more systemic issues that must be dealt with, such as the disparities in labor costs, corporate tax rates, regulatory burdens.

• 585 Days Ago
• 07/08/2010

How About an Energy Plan, Part 1

“President Barack Obama, under pressure to spur job growth, [recently] said ... two solar energy companies will get nearly $2 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to create as many as 5,000 green jobs.”.

Well this is a good start; at least in my opinion; but it doesn't go nearly far enough.   Sooner or later [sooner would be better] we are going to have to do something about burning carbon based fuels and greenhouse gases.  Even if you believe that global warming is just some trumped up environmental thing, wouldn't you like to have cleaner air to breath, cleaner water to drink and be able to eat the fish you catch from our lakes and streams?  I know I would and that has nothing to do with global warming or climate change.  This burning of coal is something we were doing in the stone age – haven't we learned anything since then - well o.k. it is cheap.

So what's wrong with the $2 billion the president has decided to spend to encourage solar.  Nothing except it should have been $200 billion and here are some reasons why.  We don't have an ENERGY PLAN in the U.S. do we?  We just seem to spread some money around from time to time.  No real strategy that I can see.

# Cap & Trade is certainly not any energy plan.
# Carbon sequestration is also not an energy plan - even if it worked well. 
# High temperature gas cooled reactors are not an energy plan,
# Wind turbines are not an energy plan but certainly could be a part of it.
# Research is certainly important – should that be a part of the plan?
# Solar PV and hot water are not energy plans either but could be.
# Cash for clunkers certainly wasn't
# A Smart Grid could be a part of our energy plan don't you think?
# How about gas guzzlers that get 14 MPG.  Should they be a part of our energy plan?
# Is having the EPA control CO2 levels appropriate? 

All of the above and many more, COULD BE a part of an energy plan for our country.  Without an energy plan it seems to me we just throw some money at one technology this week and then a few billion more the next week at something different.  Then when we do find something that works, we seem to ignore it because we don't seem to be able to find ways to implement it.  There are some things our government does well like collecting taxes and passing out our money.  Other things like strategic planning – not so much.  

Great example is our current batch of nuclear power plants we built in the 80's; quite old technology by today's standards, but they work.  For the most part, they run safely and efficiently yet no one seems to want a new one in their backyard.  Solar hot water panels work yet some homeowners associations are still fighting them.  Solar PV works well in most regions of the U.S. and would help utilities cut peak demand yet many homeowners can't afford them because of the structuring of our tax laws.  Heck I would like us to spend another $100 billion and start putting solar panels on every roof in America.  Let's see $100+200 billion is only about 9 months worth of imported oil - is any of this beginning to make any sense?  Wind turbines produce energy efficiently yet unless they are out of sight some people fight to keep them from being used.  Same for many other sources of energy.      

What I want to see for our country is an Energy Plan; NOT a 3000 page BILL.  What we need is a PLAN not a LAW.  What we need are goal, objectives, targets, strategies and action plans.  Something that can be revised maybe on a semi-annual basis and the progress reported to the American people by the President or Secretary of Energy on a quarterly basis. 

How about you – would you like an Energy Plan for America?  If you believe that we need one we could start right here on this form.  Ready to start building a plan?  Have some ideas you want to share?

Tom G.

• 585 Days Ago
• 07/08/2010

Energy Plan, Part 2 of 2

Part 2

One idea I think might have merit is to manufacture small. modular. inherently safe nuclear reactors designed SPECIFICALLY to re-power our coal plants.  The plan would put the talents of companies like Westinghouse, GE, B&W, CE and others together in a consortium to develop the inherently safe design.  Each company who was part of the consortium would then be designated, or would bid on, each of the sub-components they would like to manufacturer just like we do in the airline industry. 

Each manufacturers quality program would be reviewed/approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] much as they are today.  The NRC would participate from the initial design review through the final acceptance of the completed reactor installation at each coal plant site.  The NRC would further assure reactor quality by assigning inspection personnel to each step in the manufacturing process. Since the NRC will be involved from the very beginning, there should be no reason why design reviews should take the current 4 years to complete.  You can't construct nuclear power plants or even build specialized nuclear reactors to re-power coal plants when the design reviews take longer to accomplish than the term of a president. Are you beginning to see why we haven't built any new nuclear units in 30 years.

The aircraft industry has mastered these types of programs and many different manufacturers build components for the aircraft we fly in every day.  Now I will be the first to admit that aircraft are not the same as nuclear reactors, but we could find ways to make this work – IF - we wanted to.  There is no reason why we can't build 600 small modular reactors on a factory production line where the quality of each component can be easily controlled and verified.  Every manufacturer working on their own unique design is not getting us anywhere.  If we don't start working together the entire industry will fail.  Incorporating design changes at construction sites is not cost effective.

Re-powering coal plants with small modular reactors solves two major problem for us.  It will reduce the creation of pollutants such as CO2, mercury, acid rain, ground water and air pollution AND ensure that we have a reasonably priced source of electricity for about the next 20-40 years.  After that we will have probably figured out how to use the sun above our heads to provide all the energy we will ever need. 

If the reactors were an inherently safe design operating at near atmospheric pressure then the massive thick pressurized reactor vessels and large containment structures would also no longer be needed significantly reducing cost.  Also the balance of the coal plant like the turbines, generators, condensers and other components could be re-used to further reduce cost.  Since we have to protect reactor vessels from terrorists flying airplanes into them anyway, why not just dig a hole in the ground and cover the reactor portion of the plant with 40' of earth and concrete. 

Anyway this is just one ideas.  Please notice I did not say it was even a good idea, LOL it's just an idea and I welcome all comments.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention this.  Do you want the United States to buy their reactors from France, China, India or Russia?  Seems to me this might be something Americans might like to build - just saying. 

Tom G.
tomgarven@hotmail.com

• 585 Days Ago
• 07/08/2010

FAILURE

Taxpayers will have to cover the loan guarantees.

This scheme is just another way of rewarding BAD decisions. Read http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-does-the-u.s.-taxpayer-make-out-in-the-solyndra-affair, titled: Does the U.S. Taxpayer Lose in the Solyndra Affair? What are the terms of that $535 million loan guarantee? Can that money be recouped?

From the article:
“What if the DOE's "thorough investigation" wasn't thorough enough? If Solyndra can't dramatically lower its costs, it will continue to lose money at a rapid pace. Eventually, the VC spigot will shut down, and that leaves the DOE -- and essentially, the U.S. taxpayer -- holding the bag for $535 million. (It is our understanding that only a portion of the loan guarantee has been dispensed and that it does require matching funds.)
What are the repayment terms for the DOE loan? How does the U.S. expect to get this money back from a company that is losing cash with every shipment? We are trying to nail down the exact repayment terms of this loan but have yet to get a response from either Solyndra or the DOE. We'll let you know when we find out.”

But even if balance-of-system costs were being driven to zero, the sheer complexity of the Solyndra design, the richness of the bill-of-materials in the face of First Solar execution, and Chinese c-Si scale makes the Solyndra value proposition seem increasingly fragile.

Years ago, I had a conversation with one of the original founders of Solyndra, a gentlemen whose name is on many of the original patents. He revealed that his own calculations suggested that the packaging costs of the Solyndra design doomed it to being commercially uncompetitive. That revelation came from the product's inventor.

• 585 Days Ago
• 07/08/2010

Another source of energy?

The US Mint must have already solved the problem. They seem to have inexhaustible sources of energy to print inexhaustible amounts of money.

Blurp... there is another $2 billion. Just like that!

• 581 Days Ago
• 07/12/2010

Old newspaper Lottery draw of 666 on Nov. 6. 2008 reveals Obama's victory announcement timing is Antichrist's Mark of the Beast

I'm writing to the MIT Review because I'm trying to find the back issue of the Nov. 6. 2008, newspapers of Illinois, which was Obama's victory special edition and that had the Lottery draw of 666 in it.
I just need the screenshot of the Lottery draw page so if anyone has a collector's item newspaper of that day, could they send me a scan-photo of that page ?
I'm going to make videos for U Tube to send out to the internet with that. It's the famous Bible omen of the Mark of the Beast (Antichrist). My e-mail is geir.smith@yahoo.fr