Comments on: Air-fueled car is so close to completion you can’t smell it http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it what's next in gadgets and tech Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:34:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: jessie http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-29640 Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:40:45 +0000 http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-29640 we should have the nextlust car in america.... we should have the nextlust car in america….

]]> by: YJ Draiman, Energy Analyst http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-12027 Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:13:45 +0000 http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-12027 AMERICANS INSATIABLE THIRST FOR ENERGY MUST BE MODERATED R4 By YJ Draiman, Energy Development Specialist As you know, many serious problems are associated with our insatiable thirst for energy. The reason is simple: To gain the energy we must burn the fuels. The combustion, by the way quite inefficient, causes huge gaseous emissions polluting the air and forming an invisible screen responsible for the famous “ green house effect ”, i.e., blocking the dissipation of heat and thus causing the feared warming up of our planet, with deadly consequences for nature and man. There is only a finite amount of oil in the world. Everybody knows this. Someday, we'll run out. It will be gone. Meanwhile, our insatiable thirst for oil -- which we burn -- has put enormous sums of money into the hands of fanatics who hate us and everything we stand for, and who use that oil money to fund the terrorists who murder Jews and Americans wherever they can. We can't burn oil forever. And it's bad strategy to base our economy on cheap oil when we have to buy at least some of it from our enemies. Optimists tell us that the free market will eventually deal with the problem. Their theory is that as oil gets harder to extract cheaply, the price will go up; then other forms of energy will become economically attractive and we'll switch over to them. Here's why their optimism is nothing short of suicidal. First, there's no guarantee that without intense government-funded research and financial incentives now, the new energy sources will be available in quantities large enough to replace oil when it does run out. In other words, if we wait until it's an emergency, our economy could easily crash and burn for lack of energy sources sufficient to drive it. It's easy to supply energy for an economy that's only a tenth the size of the world's economy today. The question is how many people will die in the resulting chaos and famine, before new free-market equilibrium is established? Second, how stupid do we have to be to wait until we run out of oil before acting to prevent its waste as a fuel? Petroleum is a vital source of plastics. We could use it for that purpose for hundreds of generations -- if we didn't burn any more of it. But if we wait till we've burned all the cheap petroleum, it won't be just fuel that we have to replace. Third, market forces don't do anything for our national defense, our national security. We had a clear warning back in the 1970s with the first oil embargo. What if terrorism in the Middle East specifically targets all oil exports, from many countries? And even if they keep the oil flowing, why are we pumping money into the pockets of militant extremists who want to destroy us? Why are we subsidizing our enemies, when instead we could be subsidizing the research that might set us free from our addiction to oil? You notice that I haven't said anything about polluting the environment. Because this is not an environmental issue. In the long run, it's an issue of whether we wish to provide for our children the same kind of prosperity that we've luxuriated in as a nation since World War II. It is foolish optimism bordering on criminal neglect that we continue to think that our future will be all right as long as we find new ways to extract oil from proven reserves. Instead of extracting it, we ought to be preserving it. Congress ought to be giving greater incentives and then creating mandates that require hybrid vehicles to predominate within the next five years. Within the next fifteen years, we must move beyond hybrids to means of transportation that don't burn oil at all. Within thirty years, we must handle our transportation needs without burning anything at all. Predicting the exact moment when our dependence on petroleum will destroy us is pointless. What is certain is this: We will run out of oil that is cheap enough to burn. We don't know when, but we do know it will happen. And on that day, our children will curse their forebears who burned this precious resource, and therefore their future, just because they didn't want the government to interfere with the free market, or some other such nonsense. The government interferes with the free market constantly. By its very existence, government distorts the market. So let's turn that distortion to our benefit. Let's enforce a savings program. But instead of putting money in the bank, let's put oil there. Oil in the bank ... so our children and grandchildren for a hundred generations can slowly draw it out to build with it instead of burn it. Oil in the bank ... so we'll be free of the threat of fanatics who seek to murder their enemies -- including us -- with weapons paid for at our gas pumps. Do you want to know who funded Osama bin Laden? We did. And we continue to do it every time we fill up. You don't have to be an environmental fanatic to demand that we control our greed for oil. In fact, you have to be dumb and a fool not to insist on it. But ... foresight just isn't the American way. We always seem to wait until our own house is burning before we notice there's a wildfire. Oh, it won't reach us here, we tell ourselves. We'll be safe. Talk about foolish optimism. Fair Threat to World Economy But Oil Boycott Improbable Energy Efficiency Must Be North America’s Priority but Canada and U.S. Fail on Energy Efficiency Policies “The despots of the moderate Middle East are non-players save for their oil in the ground… My concern is that my grand kids might see parts of the Middle East turned into a nuclear waste land, and Ali Baba and The Forty Thieves. The world community needs to see a checkmate within the next 60 - 90 days. Failing that, Iran and Syria will be emboldened.” Reiterating an almost universal view on the panel, this CEO emphasized that the world’s seemingly The Chinese contribution to the energy crisis The quest for resources. The dynamic Chinese economy, which has averaged 9 percent growth per annum over the last two decades, nearly tripled the country's GDP, has also resulted in the country having an almost insatiable thirst for oil as well as a need for other natural resources to sustain it. The PRC has been a net importer of petroleum since 1993, and has increasingly relied on African countries as suppliers. As of last year, China was importing approximately 2.6 million barrels per day (bbl/d), which accounts for about half of its consumption; more than 765,000 bbl/d – roughly a third of its imports – came from African sources, especially Sudan, Angola, and Congo (Brazzaville). To get some perspective on these numbers, consider that one respected energy analyst has calculated that while China's share of the world oil market is about 8 percent, its share of total growth in demand for oil since 2000 has been 30 percent. The much publicized purchase, in January of this year, of a 45 percent stake in an offshore Nigerian oilfield for $2.27 billion by the state-controlled China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) was just the latest in a series of acquisitions dating back to 1993 whereby the three largest Chinese national oil companies – China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (Sinopec), and CNOOC, respectively – have acquired stakes in established African operations. Our insatiable thirst for Middle East energy is “the oil [that] feeds the fire.” This idea that we can live in a homogenous cul-de-sac suburban development in our plastic homes driving 50 to 100 miles to work in a 4700lb SUV to our middle management job at Bed Bath and Beyond and expect this way of life to just continue on indefinitely with no consequences represents mind boggling ignorance and negligence towards our future. The "American Dream" is a relic of the Baby Boomer generation and will die with our parents and grandparents. To quote author James Kunstler: "Suburban development in this country represents the single largest misallocation of wealth and resources in the history of the planet." So could a 900 acre photo voltaic array power a major metropolitan grid. No, probably not. But the question isn't how do we squeeze enough energy out of the technology to accommodate our seemingly insatiable thirst for electricity and fuel but rather how do we cut the fat and waste out of our civilization and our lives and actually live WITHIN our environment with some sort of sustainability. There is no one technology that will provide all our solutions. It will have to be a combination of wind turbines, solar and hydroelectric excluding the remote possibility that some new form of energy production (i.e. cold fusion or something equally fantastical) is unleashed on the world by CERN or ET. These power plants will operate primarily at a local level servicing on a much smaller scale than what we here in North America have been so used to in the last 70 or so years. IS TECHNOLOGY BEING HELD BACK New Solar Electric Cells - 80% efficient Mr. Marks says solar panels made with Lepcon or Lumeloid, the materials he patented, ... Most photovoltaic cells are only about 15 percent efficient. ... If the American public's insatiable appetite for automobiles continues, uncurbed by any sense of responsibility, someone must, like a parent with a selfish child, at least start slapping wrists. Perhaps we should ration gasoline, and insist that all cars meet a miles-per-gallon minimum -- one higher than many sport utility vehicles, for example, achieve now. The rationing would not be a wartime figure, of course, but a reasonable amount allowed for business and pleasure. Americans consume the largest portion of gas in the world and cry the loudest about the price. The government should repeatedly increase the price of gasoline in an effort to slow our country's insatiable thirst for oil. Utilize the excess profits and taxes to fund research and rebates for renewable efficiency and renewable energy. YJ Draiman, Energy Analyst – 9/26/2007 – renewableenergy2@msn.com PS. but they will keep pumping more in the years ahead to quench our insatiable thirst for energy. A new source of energy storage is in the works using ULTRACAPCITORS. AMERICANS INSATIABLE THIRST FOR ENERGY MUST BE MODERATED R4
By YJ Draiman, Energy Development Specialist

As you know, many serious problems are associated with our insatiable thirst for energy. The reason is simple: To gain the energy we must burn the fuels. The combustion, by the way quite inefficient, causes huge gaseous emissions polluting the air and forming an invisible screen responsible for the famous “ green house effect ”, i.e., blocking the dissipation of heat and thus causing the feared warming up of our planet, with deadly consequences for nature and man.
There is only a finite amount of oil in the world. Everybody knows this.
Someday, we’ll run out. It will be gone.
Meanwhile, our insatiable thirst for oil — which we burn — has put enormous sums of money into the hands of fanatics who hate us and everything we stand for, and who use that oil money to fund the terrorists who murder Jews and Americans wherever they can.
We can’t burn oil forever.
And it’s bad strategy to base our economy on cheap oil when we have to buy at least some of it from our enemies.
Optimists tell us that the free market will eventually deal with the problem. Their theory is that as oil gets harder to extract cheaply, the price will go up; then other forms of energy will become economically attractive and we’ll switch over to them.
Here’s why their optimism is nothing short of suicidal.
First, there’s no guarantee that without intense government-funded research and financial incentives now, the new energy sources will be available in quantities large enough to replace oil when it does run out.
In other words, if we wait until it’s an emergency, our economy could easily crash and burn for lack of energy sources sufficient to drive it.
It’s easy to supply energy for an economy that’s only a tenth the size of the world’s economy today. The question is how many people will die in the resulting chaos and famine, before new free-market equilibrium is established?
Second, how stupid do we have to be to wait until we run out of oil before acting to prevent its waste as a fuel? Petroleum is a vital source of plastics. We could use it for that purpose for hundreds of generations — if we didn’t burn any more of it. But if we wait till we’ve burned all the cheap petroleum, it won’t be just fuel that we have to replace.
Third, market forces don’t do anything for our national defense, our national security. We had a clear warning back in the 1970s with the first oil embargo. What if terrorism in the Middle East specifically targets all oil exports, from many countries?
And even if they keep the oil flowing, why are we pumping money into the pockets of militant extremists who want to destroy us? Why are we subsidizing our enemies, when instead we could be subsidizing the research that might set us free from our addiction to oil?
You notice that I haven’t said anything about polluting the environment. Because this is not an environmental issue.
In the long run, it’s an issue of whether we wish to provide for our children the same kind of prosperity that we’ve luxuriated in as a nation since World War II.
It is foolish optimism bordering on criminal neglect that we continue to think that our future will be all right as long as we find new ways to extract oil from proven reserves.
Instead of extracting it, we ought to be preserving it.
Congress ought to be giving greater incentives and then creating mandates that require hybrid vehicles to predominate within the next five years.
Within the next fifteen years, we must move beyond hybrids to means of transportation that don’t burn oil at all.
Within thirty years, we must handle our transportation needs without burning anything at all.
Predicting the exact moment when our dependence on petroleum will destroy us is pointless.
What is certain is this: We will run out of oil that is cheap enough to burn. We don’t know when, but we do know it will happen.
And on that day, our children will curse their forebears who burned this precious resource, and therefore their future, just because they didn’t want the government to interfere with the free market, or some other such nonsense.
The government interferes with the free market constantly. By its very existence, government distorts the market. So let’s turn that distortion to our benefit. Let’s enforce a savings program. But instead of putting money in the bank, let’s put oil there.
Oil in the bank … so our children and grandchildren for a hundred generations can slowly draw it out to build with it instead of burn it.
Oil in the bank … so we’ll be free of the threat of fanatics who seek to murder their enemies — including us — with weapons paid for at our gas pumps.
Do you want to know who funded Osama bin Laden? We did. And we continue to do it every time we fill up.
You don’t have to be an environmental fanatic to demand that we control our greed for oil.
In fact, you have to be dumb and a fool not to insist on it.
But … foresight just isn’t the American way. We always seem to wait until our own house is burning before we notice there’s a wildfire.
Oh, it won’t reach us here, we tell ourselves. We’ll be safe.
Talk about foolish optimism.
Fair Threat to World Economy But Oil Boycott Improbable
Energy Efficiency Must Be North America’s Priority but Canada and
U.S. Fail on Energy Efficiency Policies
“The despots of the moderate Middle East are non-players save for
their oil in the ground… My concern is that my grand kids might see parts of the
Middle East turned into a nuclear waste land, and Ali Baba and The Forty
Thieves. The world community needs to see a checkmate within the next 60 -
90 days. Failing that, Iran and Syria will be emboldened.” Reiterating an almost
universal view on the panel, this CEO emphasized that the world’s seemingly
The Chinese contribution to the energy crisis
The quest for resources. The dynamic Chinese economy, which has averaged 9 percent growth per annum over the last two decades, nearly tripled the country’s GDP, has also resulted in the country having an almost insatiable thirst for oil as well as a need for other natural resources to sustain it. The PRC has been a net importer of petroleum since 1993, and has increasingly relied on African countries as suppliers. As of last year, China was importing approximately 2.6 million barrels per day (bbl/d), which accounts for about half of its consumption; more than 765,000 bbl/d – roughly a third of its imports – came from African sources, especially Sudan, Angola, and Congo (Brazzaville).
To get some perspective on these numbers, consider that one respected energy analyst has calculated that while China’s share of the world oil market is about 8 percent, its share of total growth in demand for oil since 2000 has been 30 percent. The much publicized purchase, in January of this year, of a 45 percent stake in an offshore Nigerian oilfield for $2.27 billion by the state-controlled China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) was just the latest in a series of acquisitions dating back to 1993 whereby the three largest Chinese national oil companies – China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (Sinopec), and CNOOC, respectively – have acquired stakes in established African operations.
Our insatiable thirst for Middle East energy is “the oil [that] feeds the fire.”
This idea that we can live in a homogenous cul-de-sac suburban development in our plastic homes driving 50 to 100 miles to work in a 4700lb SUV to our middle management job at Bed Bath and Beyond and expect this way of life to just continue on indefinitely with no consequences represents mind boggling ignorance and negligence towards our future. The “American Dream” is a relic of the Baby Boomer generation and will die with our parents and grandparents. To quote author James Kunstler: “Suburban development in this country represents the single largest misallocation of wealth and resources in the history of the planet.”

So could a 900 acre photo voltaic array power a major metropolitan grid. No, probably not. But the question isn’t how do we squeeze enough energy out of the technology to accommodate our seemingly insatiable thirst for electricity and fuel but rather how do we cut the fat and waste out of our civilization and our lives and actually live WITHIN our environment with some sort of sustainability. There is no one technology that will provide all our solutions. It will have to be a combination of wind turbines, solar and hydroelectric excluding the remote possibility that some new form of energy production (i.e. cold fusion or something equally fantastical) is unleashed on the world by CERN or ET. These power plants will operate primarily at a local level servicing on a much smaller scale than what we here in North America have been so used to in the last 70 or so years.
IS TECHNOLOGY BEING HELD BACK
New Solar Electric Cells - 80% efficient
Mr. Marks says solar panels made with Lepcon or Lumeloid, the materials he patented, … Most photovoltaic cells are only about 15 percent efficient. …
If the American public’s insatiable appetite for automobiles continues, uncurbed by any sense of responsibility, someone must, like a parent with a selfish child, at least start slapping wrists.
Perhaps we should ration gasoline, and insist that all cars meet a miles-per-gallon minimum — one higher than many sport utility vehicles, for example, achieve now. The rationing would not be a wartime figure, of course, but a reasonable amount allowed for business and pleasure.
Americans consume the largest portion of gas in the world and cry the loudest about the price.
The government should repeatedly increase the price of gasoline in an effort to slow our country’s insatiable thirst for oil. Utilize the excess profits and taxes to fund research and rebates for renewable efficiency and renewable energy.
YJ Draiman, Energy Analyst – 9/26/2007 – renewableenergy2@msn.com
PS. but they will keep pumping more in the years ahead to quench our insatiable thirst for energy.
A new source of energy storage is in the works using ULTRACAPCITORS.

]]> by: YJ Draiman http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-5820 Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:22:20 +0000 http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-5820 Homeowners can cut energy bills by making their houses more energy-efficient R2 _________________________________________ By YJ Draiman HOMEOWNERS can practically hear the meters ticking as their air conditioners fight this summer's sweltering heat. But that doesn't mean there aren't some things they can do to ward off high energy bills now--and once winter sweeps in. Just ask THE ENERGY EXPERT, who conducts residential energy audits as National Energy Efficiency Auditor. "The most common problem is air infiltration," he said, "where unconditioned air meets conditioned air." THE ENERGY EXPERT, who uses smoke pencils to detect leaks and infrared scans to check insulation, windows, attics and roofs, said poorly insulated "room additions" over garages top the list of energy wasters. "Builders don't always sheathe the back side of the drywall in insulation, so hot attic air infiltrates the room," he said. "There's only one piece of drywall keeping the hot air out." THE ENERGY Experts’ solution is to install energy-efficient foam board with an aluminum-foil backing behind the drywall. A recent job cost about $300 and or insulation and attic fans in the attic – there is also a rebate and tax credits (check with your local utility). (Insulation in the attic and attic fans reduce energy consumption substantially). "It pays for itself in one season," THE ENERGY EXPERT said. Homeowners typically spend about $1,600 a year to heat and cool the house, turn lights on and off, and operate appliances, said spokeswoman for the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy. But they can cut those expenses by as much as $600 by switching to more energy-efficient products and taking a variety of other energy-saving steps. Those can be as simple as replacing a 15- to 20-year-old refrigerator with a new Energy Star model, which uses about a fourth as much electricity as an older appliance, and/or putting compact florescent bulbs or LED bulbs in at least the five most commonly used light fixtures in the house. You should also replace burned out motors/compressors with energy efficient multi-stage motors. "Compact fluorescents cost more up front, but you really make it up because they use somewhere between 20 and 25 percent of the energy required for an incandescent and they last 10 times longer," the Energy Expert said. "Plus, they don't burn as hot, so they don't heat up the place during the summer and your air conditioner has to work less hard." A good place for homeowners to start in determining how their energy usage stacks up is to log on to the Home Energy Saver at homeenergysaver.lbl.gov. Developed by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, this site calculates energy use and savings tips based on information that users provide. Type in a ZIP code and up pop the energy costs of an average home and an energy-efficient home for that area. The program also includes a questionnaire that asks for more detailed information so it can provide a customized answer. It also has links to sites that provide a wealth of information about its energy-saving recommendations. On various utility companies Web sites, shoppers can order a similarly helpful gizmo called Watts Up? Plug in any standard 120-volt appliance or electronic device, and it will analyze such things as current draw, incoming voltage and cost of operation. The Watts Up? Basic model costs $89.95 and the pro version costs $123.95. Rather leave audits to professionals? Some auditors offer a standard audit for $100 that includes a visual inspection of the house and its heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems. An expanded audit, which costs $200, includes tests to check for leaks in air ducts and the house's air-tightness. Your local utility company may do audits, also has a list of providers on its Web site. Low-income homeowners can get help for free through the Aging weatherization assistance program. "We go into the house and do various tests to find problem areas," said the Energy Consultant. "What we do in most cases is make minor repairs and blow in insulation." Last fiscal year, many families got help through the federally funded program. Sometimes, however, the most effective ways to trim energy usage are the easiest, the Energy Expert said. Putting up weather-stripping, for example, is something anyone can do yet many people overlook, he said. The same goes for changing a heating system's air filters on a regular basis or a set-back thermostat. The Energy Expert also recommended installing ceiling fans and programmable electronic thermostats. A fan can make a room feel cooler so the air conditioning can be turned up, and a programmable thermostat automatically lowers the heat setting while homeowners are at work and raises it just before they return. The Energy Expert has also learned that putting the screens/shades on the south-facing windows of the house in the summer will help block out some of the sun's fierce heat. In some states especially the western parts of the United States temperature at night falls to 50-60 degrees – open the windows and shut the air-condition and or utilize a fan to bring in the fresh cooler air – it is also healthier and reduces indoor pollution. In areas of the country that have a high humidity – you can install a dehumidifier in the summer to reduce energy cost and a humidifier in the winter. "I take the screens and or shades off in the winter," The Energy Expert said. Increasing a house's energy efficiency not only lowers the owner's bills, it also raises the value of the property. According to an EPA-funded study done in 2005, the latest year for which figures are available, a house's value jumps $10 to $25 for every $1 the owner is able to save on annual fuel/energy bills. You can also utilize rainwater and grey water to reduce your water and sewer bill. Some utility companies will allow you to install a sub-meter for the water used for landscaping, swimming pools and ponds – which eliminates the sewer charge from that portion of your water bill. "You'll get a better price because you can show them your heating and cooling bills, which are reasonable and not outrageous," said The Energy Expert, national energy-management coordinator. The Energy Expert oversees many Energy Saver Home programs, which inspects houses as they're being built to insure they're properly insulated and sealed. The inspections cost $250 and come with a year-long warranty. For an added service The Energy Expert will perform a site inspection for the installation of Solar/Photovoltaic system for the home and/or business and its benefits, costs, rebates, tax credits, financing and ROI. Prospective buyers of energy-efficient houses can get a break, too. "Some mortgage companies will allow you a better debt-to-income ratio," The Energy Expert said. "They know your electric/gas utility bills will be less so you'll have more income to put toward your mortgage." YJ Draiman - Energy Savers 7/16/2007 – renewableenergy2@msn.com PS. The politician’s intentions were captured perfectly. The eco-pretensions of the rich and the stupefying gullibility with which they received the task of energy savings are to be the laughing stock of society. Homeowners can cut energy bills by making their houses more energy-efficient R2
_________________________________________
By YJ Draiman
HOMEOWNERS can practically hear the meters ticking as their air conditioners fight this summer’s sweltering heat.
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t some things they can do to ward off high energy bills now–and once winter sweeps in.
Just ask THE ENERGY EXPERT, who conducts residential energy audits as National Energy Efficiency Auditor.
“The most common problem is air infiltration,” he said, “where unconditioned air meets conditioned air.”
THE ENERGY EXPERT, who uses smoke pencils to detect leaks and infrared scans to check insulation, windows, attics and roofs, said poorly insulated “room additions” over garages top the list of energy wasters.
“Builders don’t always sheathe the back side of the drywall in insulation, so hot attic air infiltrates the room,” he said. “There’s only one piece of drywall keeping the hot air out.”
THE ENERGY Experts’ solution is to install energy-efficient foam board with an aluminum-foil backing behind the drywall. A recent job cost about $300 and or insulation and attic fans in the attic – there is also a rebate and tax credits (check with your local utility). (Insulation in the attic and attic fans reduce energy consumption substantially).
“It pays for itself in one season,” THE ENERGY EXPERT said.
Homeowners typically spend about $1,600 a year to heat and cool the house, turn lights on and off, and operate appliances, said spokeswoman for the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy.
But they can cut those expenses by as much as $600 by switching to more energy-efficient products and taking a variety of other energy-saving steps.
Those can be as simple as replacing a 15- to 20-year-old refrigerator with a new Energy Star model, which uses about a fourth as much electricity as an older appliance, and/or putting compact florescent bulbs or LED bulbs in at least the five most commonly used light fixtures in the house. You should also replace burned out motors/compressors with energy efficient multi-stage motors.
“Compact fluorescents cost more up front, but you really make it up because they use somewhere between 20 and 25 percent of the energy required for an incandescent and they last 10 times longer,” the Energy Expert said. “Plus, they don’t burn as hot, so they don’t heat up the place during the summer and your air conditioner has to work less hard.”
A good place for homeowners to start in determining how their energy usage stacks up is to log on to the Home Energy Saver at homeenergysaver.lbl.gov.
Developed by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, this site calculates energy use and savings tips based on information that users provide. Type in a ZIP code and up pop the energy costs of an average home and an energy-efficient home for that area.
The program also includes a questionnaire that asks for more detailed information so it can provide a customized answer. It also has links to sites that provide a wealth of information about its energy-saving recommendations.
On various utility companies Web sites, shoppers can order a similarly helpful gizmo called Watts Up? Plug in any standard 120-volt appliance or electronic device, and it will analyze such things as current draw, incoming voltage and cost of operation. The Watts Up? Basic model costs $89.95 and the pro version costs $123.95.
Rather leave audits to professionals?
Some auditors offer a standard audit for $100 that includes a visual inspection of the house and its heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems. An expanded audit, which costs $200, includes tests to check for leaks in air ducts and the house’s air-tightness.
Your local utility company may do audits, also has a list of providers on its Web site.
Low-income homeowners can get help for free through the Aging weatherization assistance program.
“We go into the house and do various tests to find problem areas,” said the Energy Consultant. “What we do in most cases is make minor repairs and blow in insulation.”
Last fiscal year, many families got help through the federally funded program.
Sometimes, however, the most effective ways to trim energy usage are the easiest, the Energy Expert said.
Putting up weather-stripping, for example, is something anyone can do yet many people overlook, he said. The same goes for changing a heating system’s air filters on a regular basis or a set-back thermostat.
The Energy Expert also recommended installing ceiling fans and programmable electronic thermostats. A fan can make a room feel cooler so the air conditioning can be turned up, and a programmable thermostat automatically lowers the heat setting while homeowners are at work and raises it just before they return.
The Energy Expert has also learned that putting the screens/shades on the south-facing windows of the house in the summer will help block out some of the sun’s fierce heat. In some states especially the western parts of the United States temperature at night falls to 50-60 degrees – open the windows and shut the air-condition and or utilize a fan to bring in the fresh cooler air – it is also healthier and reduces indoor pollution. In areas of the country that have a high humidity – you can install a dehumidifier in the summer to reduce energy cost and a humidifier in the winter.
“I take the screens and or shades off in the winter,” The Energy Expert said.
Increasing a house’s energy efficiency not only lowers the owner’s bills, it also raises the value of the property. According to an EPA-funded study done in 2005, the latest year for which figures are available, a house’s value jumps $10 to $25 for every $1 the owner is able to save on annual fuel/energy bills. You can also utilize rainwater and grey water to reduce your water and sewer bill. Some utility companies will allow you to install a sub-meter for the water used for landscaping, swimming pools and ponds – which eliminates the sewer charge from that portion of your water bill.
“You’ll get a better price because you can show them your heating and cooling bills, which are reasonable and not outrageous,” said The Energy Expert, national energy-management coordinator.
The Energy Expert oversees many Energy Saver Home programs, which inspects houses as they’re being built to insure they’re properly insulated and sealed. The inspections cost $250 and come with a year-long warranty. For an added service The Energy Expert will perform a site inspection for the installation of Solar/Photovoltaic system for the home and/or business and its benefits, costs, rebates, tax credits, financing and ROI.
Prospective buyers of energy-efficient houses can get a break, too.
“Some mortgage companies will allow you a better debt-to-income ratio,” The Energy Expert said. “They know your electric/gas utility bills will be less so you’ll have more income to put toward your mortgage.”
YJ Draiman - Energy Savers 7/16/2007 – renewableenergy2@msn.com
PS. The politician’s intentions were captured perfectly. The eco-pretensions of the rich and the stupefying gullibility with which they received the task of energy savings are to be the laughing stock of society.

]]> by: Jeff http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-740 Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:20:55 +0000 http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-740 Would love to have a Nextlust to drive here as an experimental car. Thank you sir, and I hope your product takes of and changes the world for the better, Jeff Would love to have a Nextlust to drive here as an experimental car. Thank you sir, and I hope your product takes of and changes the world for the better, Jeff

]]> by: rob enderle http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-427 Mon, 26 Feb 2007 01:00:35 +0000 http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-427 I heard Michael Richards called Monsieur Negre himself so he could invest. I heard Michael Richards called Monsieur Negre himself
so he could invest.

]]> by: the great AK http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-424 Sun, 25 Feb 2007 21:06:30 +0000 http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-424 Fear not I email my STAE senator CT Fear not I email my STAE senator CT

]]> by: Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-406 Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:59:06 +0000 http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-406 MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R13 In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy Sources must change. "Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American way of life is not negotiable. Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences. The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, retrofits etc. The source of energy must be by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, Ocean-Tidal, Hydrogen-Fuel Cell etc. This includes the utilizing of water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption. (Sales tax on renewable energy products and energy efficiency should be reduced or eliminated) The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy. (This can be done by amending building code) In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer at market price), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause. A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task. As an inducement to buy hybrid automobiles (sales tax should be reduced or eliminated on American manufactured automobiles). This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors’ commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) (rainwater harvesting, water conservation) (energy and natural resources conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence. "To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality." Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant Northridge, CA. 91325 Feb. 26, 2007 P.S. I have a very deep belief in America's capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this. I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis--the one in 1942--President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now. "the way we produce and use energy must fundamentally change." The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence. The Oil Companies should be required to invest a substantial percentage of their profit in renewable energy R&D and implementation. Those who do not will be panelized by the public at large by boy cutting their products. Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs) the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again. Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X's 5 hrs per day X's 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 2 4 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not? Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence. (Installation should be paid “performance based”). Installation of renewable energy and its performance should be paid to the installer and manufacturer based on "performance based" (that means they are held accountable for the performance of the product - that includes the automobile industry). This will gain the trust and confidence of the end-user to proceed with such a project; it will also prove to the public that it is a viable avenue of energy conservation. Installing a renewable energy system on your home or business increases the value of the property and provides a marketing advantage. It also decreases our trade deficit. Nations of the world should unite and join together in a cohesive effort to develop and implement MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY for the sake of humankind and future generations. The head of the U.S. government's renewable energy lab said Monday (Feb. 5) that the federal government is doing "embarrassingly few things" to foster renewable energy, leaving leadership to the states at a time of opportunity to change the nation's energy future. "I see little happening at the federal level. Much more needs to happen." What's needed, he said, is a change of our national mind set. Instead of viewing the hurdles that still face renewable sources and setting national energy goals with those hurdles in mind, we should set ambitious national renewable energy goals and set about overcoming the hurdles to meet them. We have an opportunity, an opportunity we can take advantage of or an opportunity we can squander and let go," solar energy - the direct conversion of sunlight with solar cells, either into electricity or hydrogen, faces cost hurdles independent of their intrinsic efficiency. Ways must be found to lower production costs and design better conversion and storage systems. FEDERAL BUILDINGS WITH SOLAR ENERGY – Renewable Energy All government buildings, Federal, State, County, City etc. should be mandated to be energy efficient and must use renewable energy on all new structures and structures that are been remodeled/upgraded. "The goverment should serve as an example to its citizens" Jay Draiman Northridge, CA 91325 Email: renewableenergy2@msn.com MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R13

In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy Sources must change.
“Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. “Let’s face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy.” The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.

The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, retrofits etc. The source of energy must be by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, Ocean-Tidal, Hydrogen-Fuel Cell etc. This includes the utilizing of water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption. (Sales tax on renewable energy products and energy efficiency should be reduced or eliminated)

The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy. (This can be done by amending building code)

In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer at market price), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.

A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task. As an inducement to buy hybrid automobiles (sales tax should be reduced or eliminated on American manufactured automobiles).

This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors’ commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) (rainwater harvesting, water conservation) (energy and natural resources conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.

“To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality.”

Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA. 91325
Feb. 26, 2007

P.S. I have a very deep belief in America’s capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis–the one in 1942–President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
“the way we produce and use energy must fundamentally change.”
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.

The Oil Companies should be required to invest a substantial percentage of their profit in renewable energy R&D and implementation. Those who do not will be panelized by the public at large by boy cutting their products.

Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs) the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.

Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X’s 5 hrs per day X’s 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 2

4 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?

Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence. (Installation should be paid “performance based”).

Installation of renewable energy and its performance should be paid to the installer and manufacturer based on “performance based” (that means they are held accountable for the performance of the product - that includes the automobile industry). This will gain the trust and confidence of the end-user to proceed with such a project; it will also prove to the public that it is a viable avenue of energy conservation.

Installing a renewable energy system on your home or business increases the value of the property and provides a marketing advantage. It also decreases our trade deficit.

Nations of the world should unite and join together in a cohesive effort to develop and implement MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY for the sake of humankind and future generations.
The head of the U.S. government’s renewable energy lab said Monday (Feb. 5) that the federal government is doing “embarrassingly few things” to foster renewable energy, leaving leadership to the states at a time of opportunity to change the nation’s energy future. “I see little happening at the federal level. Much more needs to happen.” What’s needed, he said, is a change of our national mind set. Instead of viewing the hurdles that still face renewable sources and setting national energy goals with those hurdles in mind, we should set ambitious national renewable energy goals and set about overcoming the hurdles to meet them. We have an opportunity, an opportunity we can take advantage of or an opportunity we can squander and let go,”
solar energy - the direct conversion of sunlight with solar cells, either into electricity or hydrogen, faces cost hurdles independent of their intrinsic efficiency. Ways must be found to lower production costs and design better conversion and storage systems.
FEDERAL BUILDINGS WITH SOLAR ENERGY – Renewable Energy
All government buildings, Federal, State, County, City etc. should be mandated to be energy efficient and must use renewable energy on all new structures and structures that are been remodeled/upgraded.
“The goverment should serve as an example to its citizens”
Jay Draiman

Northridge, CA 91325
Email: renewableenergy2@msn.com

]]> by: Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-405 Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:57:35 +0000 http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-405 Energy Policy Posted in software by on the February 24th, 2007 U.S. Energy Policy, as it stands today, is broken because it is not sustainable in the long term, and provides far too little foresight to ever become sustainable. A lot of people agree, but they are split into groups that prevent enough action from being taken. The largest group agrees with the problem, but is concerned that the necessary action will disrupt their lives through economic impacts. This is understandable, since it?s true, but the disruption is exaggerated due to factors of uncertainty. Another group would advocate every possible action, all at once. While their concern is justifiable, the view is not realistic. It might be economically feasible to enact all or most of those changes at once, but it would require sacrifices beyond what the public will support. I doubt most people in this group believe they?re unreasonable because they rarely put all those actions together into one set. But if you ask them about any specific action, their response will undoubtedly be ?right here, right now?. There is ground between these two groups, but it?s relatively unpopulated. There are also people who stubbornly believe that because the current system is functioning today it?s not broken. Only when they can divide the other two groups, as they have done, do these people have power. In order to maintain the confidence of the pragmatic first group, there needs to be a plan stating what?s in, what’s out, and when. Today, it seems, we leave this up to our elected officials to create through compromises. This is a mistake as these efforts become heavily influenced by powerful interests. This prevents the taking of enough action to produce a sustainable plan. If, however, a plan had solid support from pragmatists and idealists, it could deliver a message strong enough and clear enough that our elected officials would not need to make compromises with those hostile influences. While I hardly consider myself qualified to draft such a plan, I did think I?d try and write something up that might at least be heading in the right direction. The energy situation in the U.S. requires more than quick fixes. The demand for energy continues to increase for good and bad reasons, and almost assuredly will continue to. On the other hand, it would be irresponsible to not take action today to put into use the most practical advances available to us today. Many of the most promising long term options still require additional research and refinement. Many others require infrastructure changes that will take time to enact even with sufficient consumer and political support. Oil and Vehicles The current situation with oil is orders of magnitude larger than we can sustain long term. In fact, due to worldwide consumption our long term plans should not be to reduce petroleum consumption, but to almost entirely eliminate it. There is, however, no short term method to entirely eliminate oil consumption compatible with the technological, economic and political limitations of today. However, there are still short term motivations for reducing petroleum consumption and methods available to accomplish this less ambitious goal. Ethanol Short term considerations are why I support ethanol usage. In the long term there are more efficient means of powering transportation devices, but presently we have a very large quantity of cars designed to run on gasoline. Likely, these cars will be on the road for another 10 to 20 years, and will not be retrofitted to be more efficient. However, ethanol can reduce the gasoline consumption of these vehicles by 10 to 15 percent when used as an additive to gasoline. This is a tried and tested practice, yet of the 140 billion barrels of gasoline consumed in 2006, less than 3.8 billion gallons of ethanol were used. That comes out to about 2.7%. Even if today?s cars could use 100% ethanol, it would be difficult to produce that much ethanol. However producing 14-20 billion barrels of ethanol yearly is possible. That won?t solve all the problems but it will reduce pollution and reduce dependence on the volatile world producers of oil for the next 20-30 years that gasoline only vehicles remain in service. People often put down ethanol by pointing out the factors that make it unsuitable as a long term fix. They?ll point out the difficulties of producing enough ethanol to meet the national demand, much less the international demand. They?ll point out the stress that diverting farmland toward the production of ethanol producing crops will place upon food supplies. These are valid points, but not when applied to a much less aggressive goal of 100% E10 (a mix of 10% ethanol, 90% gasoline) usage. The US currently has a surplus of the crops used to produce ethanol, and has difficulty economically exporting these crops to the places in the world where they are needed because of the high transportation and distribution costs. Another argument against ethanol is the erroneous claim that ethanol requires more energy to produce than it generates. This claim is untrue and is based upon old surveys of facilities using old methods and not benefitting from economies of scale. Admittedly the raw number of a 10% positive gain is marginal, but this number is not a fair comparison. The production of ethanol produces byproducts which, if not producing ethanol, would directly consume production energy. Also, the production of gasoline itself requires the use of energy. Also, ethanol use in E10 has energy benefits beyond the pure energy value of the ethanol added. E10 burns cleaner and more completely than regular gasoline because ethanol enhances the octane of fuel. The result is burning 10 gallons of E10 produces more energy than burning 1 gallons of ethanol and 9 gallons of gasoline separately. Fuels like E85 don?t have this advantage, but E10 does. Lastly, energy input is not the same as petroleum consumption. Ethanol production (and use) consumes a great deal less petroleum (or petroleum substitute) than the use (and production) of petroleum. In terms of energy production per acre, ethanol will never come close to the efficiency of solar power, but that?s not the point because we have no method to directly power the cars already in service through solar power and almost certainly do not have the political will to gather up all the existing cars and replace or retrofit them. The purpose of batteries or hydrogen is not the production of power, but as a vehicular energy delivery device. Ethanol is less efficient than solar as a renewable energy source and less efficient than batteries and hydrogen as a vehicular energy delivery device, but it does have the advantage of doing both in a way that is compatible with today?s vehicles. Electric In the long term the gasoline powered car must be replaced, and we need to start the process today, or very soon. The best long term replacements are electric powered cars because they are readily adaptable to whatever clean power generation technology we employ in the future. Electric cars have challenges, such as range for which technological solutions need to continue being pursued. Despite these challenges, it is entirely possible to build electric cars today that meet the needs of many. It is also possible to enhance the support infrastructure to mitigate the impact of these challenges. The car linked above can be charged in 10 minutes through an off board charger, which if as ubiquitous as gas stations would make the charge process almost the same as a fill up. Or, battery packs could just be ?swapped? out for fully charged packs if that infrastructure existed. It would be nice to steer consumers toward electric cars today, but public sentiment is not yet mature enough for this step. What we can do is to take the ?early adopter? edge off the technology through incentives to consumers, manufacturers and researchers. In addition we can place more research money into the challenging areas in the hope that solutions will develop to mitigate the remaining consumer objections, or at least broaden the customer base. Efficiency Beyond the question of what powers a vehicle, there is the question of efficiency. For conventional car engines the efficiency of converting gasoline into mechanical energy varies substantially. Beyond this, the weight, and thus amount of mechanical energy required to move different vehicles varies dramatically. The result is that some vehicles have mileage ratings of 10mpg and others have ratings of 60mpg. The 60mpg vehicles are not generally impractical, or even expensive, yet quite often the small differences in practicality or price, or other even less important characteristics cause consumers to purchase the 10mpg vehicle instead. The problem is not what can we do, but what are we doing? It?s not just the choice of vehicle; many other decisions result in less efficient energy use. Buying a home an extra 10, 20 or 30 miles away from your job, to get an extra 100sq ft; or avoiding public transportation, because it makes you feel safer. Driving a car most definitely is not safer, by the way, but the perception is that it is. While not all such decisions are so illogical, usually there are at least some advantages, from the point of view of those making them, that encourage them to consume more energy and create pollution. Personally, I?m not sure they?re worth what others think, but if they really are, they?ll withstand an increase in gas prices. But if they aren?t, an increase in gas prices will show they aren?t even worth an extra $500 per year, per person. If they aren?t worth an extra $500 per year, how can they be worth the destruction of our planet? The simplest way to address all the decisions that result in inefficient usage of gasoline is to raise the price. The economy demonstrated last year that despite all of the gloom and doom, it can handle $3.50 gas. To encourage consumer driven change I feel we ought to institute a much larger federal gasoline tax. I?m not sure of the exact amount, but my general feeling is a $1.00 increase to $1.50 per gallon. Consumer driven change is critical to both short term and long term change, and is the only method by which to cause short term change. For long term change it?s also important to invest heavily in research, but it?s important to remember that additional capabilities developed through research will always still require adoption. Without consumer demand for efficiency improvements, not only does all research need to be centrally funded by the government, which is inefficient, but it often goes to waste as business continues as normal. Hydrogen The purpose of hydrogen is often confused. Hydrogen is better compared to battery technology than to gasoline or ethanol. Though often not employed today, hydrogen production is possible with just water and energy. Hydrogen has long term promise since it is not dependent on limited resources of petroleum or farmland. The energy for hydrogen production could come from the same sources as electric power for batteries. Also, like electric cars, hydrogen requires a completely new vehicle. The engine has more similarities to a gasoline engine than an electric engine, but this has little real world value as it still requires a new car. As far as cars go, I don?t think hydrogen is as promising as batteries, but that?s only a guess since it?s really all a numbers game, and the numbers aren?t yet written in stone. Even the numbers we have so far are very confusing. Batteries are supposedly somewhere around 90% efficient as short term storage devices energy drawn from the power grid. Hydrogen is 40% efficient for this same purpose. However, over long periods of time, hydrogen is more stable, and economic. This advantage may have validity in some applications (such as remote areas that aren?t connected to a power grid), but it isn?t exceptionally pertinent to vehicles. Therefore, while hydrogen research is important, I?d prefer adoption to head toward the electric car, which has a simpler and more efficient support infrastructure. Electricity As visible as cars are, they still account for less than 20% of U.S energy consumption (61% of transportation?s 28%). You could fairly add another 5% to that to account for the energy spent on petroleum refining, but still, there is more than 75% left. Conservation After cars, the largest use of energy is in heating and air conditioning. Better insulation and personal conservation (running air conditioning at 72 rather than 68) can help, but the real culprit for the rise in use in this sector is the increase in average home size. While I feel the obsession with bigger and bigger homes is lamentable, it?s not something I?ve really put much thought into preventing. For one, I think the vast majority of people have no problem with this trend, and as such there is likely to be little public support for it. Secondly, in the area of electricity I feel a more important goal is in the pursuit of sustainable clean method of production. Production Today, the U.S. and the world rely mostly upon fossil fuels for the production of electricity. This is despite the technical knowhow to produce electricity through other non-polluting and sustainable methods. It?s important to make changes to cars so that they can rely upon this infrastructure, but it is just as or more important to reform this infrastructure itself. Solar power in the long term is probably our most solid hope. With the exception of nuclear, all other power sources are really just a byproduct of solar energy. Wind and weather is a result of the solar energy heating our atmosphere, our oceans and our land. Virtually everything else that affects weather is merely a conduit or resistive force that shapes, rather than creates weather. Petroleum products are the decayed remains of animals which ate plants which gained their energy from the sun. So why not just go to the source? Even in the short term solar power is very attractive, but wind is very attractive as well. Hydroelectric power has proven to be fairly economic, but the good opportunities are mostly already in use, leaving fewer opportunities for improvement. Also, in the short term, cleaning up the existing infrastructure of mostly coal burning power plants is important. Accounting Amazingly, one of the largest obstacles to renewable electricity generation is accounting. The most visible example of this is consumer credits for excess power from sources like rooftop solar panels. Even among and inside power companies however there are sometimes issues. I?ve heard of wind turbines being stopped because the billable price to the power company was higher than non-renewable sources. Power companies also worry a great deal about the impact on profitability of existing power plants if demand for their services becomes more variable due to variations in sources like solar or wind. All of these problems are solvable. For each megawatt a coal, oil, natural gas or biomass power plant operates below capacity for which they produce a matching megawatt of clean renewable power positive variation, electric companies should receive a credit. Pricing and accounting practices should insure that the billable price for no production cost clean renewable power sources always remains 5% below the next lowest price. If necessary, credits should also be given to the producers to insure these pricing practices don?t ruin the economics of clean power generation. For each kilowatt of excess clean renewable power a consumer produces, electric companies should pay them market rates. In addition the consumer and electric company should receive credits to insure that it never is in an electric company?s best interest to discourage consumer production. Credits for these policies could come from traditional local, state and federal taxes, but it would be most logical to instead tax the power producers, and distribute the credits from this pool. This will keep average prices relatively unchanged because credits and taxes will cancel each other out, but the internal economics will shift to insure that accounting practices are never the obstacle. Conclusions To sum up, here is a list of actions I would like to see taken: Target 100% replacement of pure gasoline with E10 in all US states within 5 years. 100% sales tax rebate for electric cars from local and state governments. Free vehicle registration for electric cars from local and state governments. Federal tax incentive, similar to the fuel cell credit, for electric cars. For cars this would be a $12,000 tax credit. Electric is better than hydrogen, so reward it as well or better. The subsidization of construction and maintenance of electric charging stations, especially in urban environments and along interstate highway routes. Increase federal gas tax to $1.50 per gallon to target a price of at least $3.50 per gallon. Rewrite the CAFE regulations to average efficiency ratings based upon gallons per mile, rather than miles per gallon. Raise CAFE standards to 5% per year as per ACEEE recommendation. Under gpkm (gallons per thousand miles) ratings this would target 23.4 gpkm (42.6 mpg) for cars, and 27.4 gpkm (36.5 mpg) for light trucks. Include large SUVs in CAFE regulations. Use a 2008 target of 20mpg, rising to 30.7 gpkm (32.6 mpg) Consider consolidating CAFE classes should be one class fits all. Dramatically increase research funding for the key technologies of Solar Cells and Electric Vehicles. Continue or increase funding for Ethanol Production, Wind Power, Hydrogen Production and Nuclear Power. Increase incentives for construction of Solar and Wind Power Generation facilities. Reform consumer and producer excess capacity accounting practices to insure economic viability of both clean renewable power and less consistent and lower usage of existing power plants. Continue to encourage existing power generation plants to modernize their clean up processes. I realize the importance of this, but unfortunately I don?t know enough about the current day laws to say whether we?re doing a good or bad job, and if bad, how to appropriately improve it. If all of these actions were taken, there would be certain other initiatives I?d be willing to sacrifice: There is not a strong need for E85 development or infrastructure. As long as battery development is vigorously pursued, and E10 universally replaces non-reformulated gasoline, E85 conversions would be unnecessary. I wouldn?t take any action to discourage E85 development, but I wouldn?t press for any action to be taken to encourage it either. The development of a hydrogen infrastructure likewise feels unnecessary, although more promising than E85. Other than the gas tax, which might reduce suburban sprawl as a side effect, I would leave the concerns of America?s growing home size and suburban sprawl to be dealt with on their other merits and demerits. It?s tempting to try and address this area, but the forces are simply too complex, and involve too much public emotion. The thing to do here is to continue attempts to change public opinion. Illogical misconceptions should be clarified, and education and development of alternatives that are palatable to the public are necessary. In the short term, I?m not very concerned with whether solar power utilizes some harmful chemicals. The benefit of reducing demand for other types of power, in the short term outweighs those concerns. I?m not saying anything goes, but if the chemicals are only as bad as what goes into gasoline, at it significantly lowers the cost of solar power, that?s a reasonable sacrifice. There will always be environmental impacts to any development. If an initiative saves 5 environmental ?dollars?, but costs 1, it?s a good thing. Other than the gas tax, which might convince some people to retire some of the most harmful vehicles a bit earlier, it wouldn?t be appropriate to force vehicles to be replaced. If progress is made in the types of new vehicles purchased soon, then this won?t be necessary. Forcing existing power plants to close is not possible, nor desirable. Reducing their overall usage, and insuring that sufficient new clean capacity is created to reduce the need for new coal, oil or natural gas plants should be the short and midterm goal. With sufficient clean capacity and proper accounting practices existing plants will eventually close without being forced to do so. Content from: technorabble If you is own this post, And you want to delete this post. Click to delete this post. Energy Policy
Posted in software by on the February 24th, 2007
U.S. Energy Policy, as it stands today, is broken because it is not sustainable in the long term, and provides far too little foresight to ever become sustainable. A lot of people agree, but they are split into groups that prevent enough action from being taken. The largest group agrees with the problem, but is concerned that the necessary action will disrupt their lives through economic impacts. This is understandable, since it?s true, but the disruption is exaggerated due to factors of uncertainty.

Another group would advocate every possible action, all at once. While their concern is justifiable, the view is not realistic. It might be economically feasible to enact all or most of those changes at once, but it would require sacrifices beyond what the public will support. I doubt most people in this group believe they?re unreasonable because they rarely put all those actions together into one set. But if you ask them about any specific action, their response will undoubtedly be ?right here, right now?. There is ground between these two groups, but it?s relatively unpopulated.

There are also people who stubbornly believe that because the current system is functioning today it?s not broken. Only when they can divide the other two groups, as they have done, do these people have power. In order to maintain the confidence of the pragmatic first group, there needs to be a plan stating what?s in, what’s out, and when. Today, it seems, we leave this up to our elected officials to create through compromises. This is a mistake as these efforts become heavily influenced by powerful interests. This prevents the taking of enough action to produce a sustainable plan.

If, however, a plan had solid support from pragmatists and idealists, it could deliver a message strong enough and clear enough that our elected officials would not need to make compromises with those hostile influences. While I hardly consider myself qualified to draft such a plan, I did think I?d try and write something up that might at least be heading in the right direction.

The energy situation in the U.S. requires more than quick fixes. The demand for energy continues to increase for good and bad reasons, and almost assuredly will continue to. On the other hand, it would be irresponsible to not take action today to put into use the most practical advances available to us today. Many of the most promising long term options still require additional research and refinement. Many others require infrastructure changes that will take time to enact even with sufficient consumer and political support.

Oil and Vehicles
The current situation with oil is orders of magnitude larger than we can sustain long term. In fact, due to worldwide consumption our long term plans should not be to reduce petroleum consumption, but to almost entirely eliminate it. There is, however, no short term method to entirely eliminate oil consumption compatible with the technological, economic and political limitations of today. However, there are still short term motivations for reducing petroleum consumption and methods available to accomplish this less ambitious goal.

Ethanol
Short term considerations are why I support ethanol usage. In the long term there are more efficient means of powering transportation devices, but presently we have a very large quantity of cars designed to run on gasoline. Likely, these cars will be on the road for another 10 to 20 years, and will not be retrofitted to be more efficient. However, ethanol can reduce the gasoline consumption of these vehicles by 10 to 15 percent when used as an additive to gasoline. This is a tried and tested practice, yet of the 140 billion barrels of gasoline consumed in 2006, less than 3.8 billion gallons of ethanol were used. That comes out to about 2.7%.

Even if today?s cars could use 100% ethanol, it would be difficult to produce that much ethanol. However producing 14-20 billion barrels of ethanol yearly is possible. That won?t solve all the problems but it will reduce pollution and reduce dependence on the volatile world producers of oil for the next 20-30 years that gasoline only vehicles remain in service.

People often put down ethanol by pointing out the factors that make it unsuitable as a long term fix. They?ll point out the difficulties of producing enough ethanol to meet the national demand, much less the international demand. They?ll point out the stress that diverting farmland toward the production of ethanol producing crops will place upon food supplies. These are valid points, but not when applied to a much less aggressive goal of 100% E10 (a mix of 10% ethanol, 90% gasoline) usage. The US currently has a surplus of the crops used to produce ethanol, and has difficulty economically exporting these crops to the places in the world where they are needed because of the high transportation and distribution costs.

Another argument against ethanol is the erroneous claim that ethanol requires more energy to produce than it generates. This claim is untrue and is based upon old surveys of facilities using old methods and not benefitting from economies of scale. Admittedly the raw number of a 10% positive gain is marginal, but this number is not a fair comparison. The production of ethanol produces byproducts which, if not producing ethanol, would directly consume production energy. Also, the production of gasoline itself requires the use of energy.

Also, ethanol use in E10 has energy benefits beyond the pure energy value of the ethanol added. E10 burns cleaner and more completely than regular gasoline because ethanol enhances the octane of fuel. The result is burning 10 gallons of E10 produces more energy than burning 1 gallons of ethanol and 9 gallons of gasoline separately. Fuels like E85 don?t have this advantage, but E10 does. Lastly, energy input is not the same as petroleum consumption. Ethanol production (and use) consumes a great deal less petroleum (or petroleum substitute) than the use (and production) of petroleum.

In terms of energy production per acre, ethanol will never come close to the efficiency of solar power, but that?s not the point because we have no method to directly power the cars already in service through solar power and almost certainly do not have the political will to gather up all the existing cars and replace or retrofit them. The purpose of batteries or hydrogen is not the production of power, but as a vehicular energy delivery device. Ethanol is less efficient than solar as a renewable energy source and less efficient than batteries and hydrogen as a vehicular energy delivery device, but it does have the advantage of doing both in a way that is compatible with today?s vehicles.

Electric
In the long term the gasoline powered car must be replaced, and we need to start the process today, or very soon. The best long term replacements are electric powered cars because they are readily adaptable to whatever clean power generation technology we employ in the future. Electric cars have challenges, such as range for which technological solutions need to continue being pursued. Despite these challenges, it is entirely possible to build electric cars today that meet the needs of many. It is also possible to enhance the support infrastructure to mitigate the impact of these challenges. The car linked above can be charged in 10 minutes through an off board charger, which if as ubiquitous as gas stations would make the charge process almost the same as a fill up. Or, battery packs could just be ?swapped? out for fully charged packs if that infrastructure existed.

It would be nice to steer consumers toward electric cars today, but public sentiment is not yet mature enough for this step. What we can do is to take the ?early adopter? edge off the technology through incentives to consumers, manufacturers and researchers. In addition we can place more research money into the challenging areas in the hope that solutions will develop to mitigate the remaining consumer objections, or at least broaden the customer base.

Efficiency
Beyond the question of what powers a vehicle, there is the question of efficiency. For conventional car engines the efficiency of converting gasoline into mechanical energy varies substantially. Beyond this, the weight, and thus amount of mechanical energy required to move different vehicles varies dramatically. The result is that some vehicles have mileage ratings of 10mpg and others have ratings of 60mpg. The 60mpg vehicles are not generally impractical, or even expensive, yet quite often the small differences in practicality or price, or other even less important characteristics cause consumers to purchase the 10mpg vehicle instead.

The problem is not what can we do, but what are we doing? It?s not just the choice of vehicle; many other decisions result in less efficient energy use. Buying a home an extra 10, 20 or 30 miles away from your job, to get an extra 100sq ft; or avoiding public transportation, because it makes you feel safer. Driving a car most definitely is not safer, by the way, but the perception is that it is.

While not all such decisions are so illogical, usually there are at least some advantages, from the point of view of those making them, that encourage them to consume more energy and create pollution. Personally, I?m not sure they?re worth what others think, but if they really are, they?ll withstand an increase in gas prices. But if they aren?t, an increase in gas prices will show they aren?t even worth an extra $500 per year, per person. If they aren?t worth an extra $500 per year, how can they be worth the destruction of our planet?

The simplest way to address all the decisions that result in inefficient usage of gasoline is to raise the price. The economy demonstrated last year that despite all of the gloom and doom, it can handle $3.50 gas. To encourage consumer driven change I feel we ought to institute a much larger federal gasoline tax. I?m not sure of the exact amount, but my general feeling is a $1.00 increase to $1.50 per gallon.

Consumer driven change is critical to both short term and long term change, and is the only method by which to cause short term change.

For long term change it?s also important to invest heavily in research, but it?s important to remember that additional capabilities developed through research will always still require adoption. Without consumer demand for efficiency improvements, not only does all research need to be centrally funded by the government, which is inefficient, but it often goes to waste as business continues as normal.

Hydrogen
The purpose of hydrogen is often confused. Hydrogen is better compared to battery technology than to gasoline or ethanol. Though often not employed today, hydrogen production is possible with just water and energy. Hydrogen has long term promise since it is not dependent on limited resources of petroleum or farmland. The energy for hydrogen production could come from the same sources as electric power for batteries.

Also, like electric cars, hydrogen requires a completely new vehicle. The engine has more similarities to a gasoline engine than an electric engine, but this has little real world value as it still requires a new car.

As far as cars go, I don?t think hydrogen is as promising as batteries, but that?s only a guess since it?s really all a numbers game, and the numbers aren?t yet written in stone. Even the numbers we have so far are very confusing. Batteries are supposedly somewhere around 90% efficient as short term storage devices energy drawn from the power grid. Hydrogen is 40% efficient for this same purpose. However, over long periods of time, hydrogen is more stable, and economic. This advantage may have validity in some applications (such as remote areas that aren?t connected to a power grid), but it isn?t exceptionally pertinent to vehicles.

Therefore, while hydrogen research is important, I?d prefer adoption to head toward the electric car, which has a simpler and more efficient support infrastructure.

Electricity
As visible as cars are, they still account for less than 20% of U.S energy consumption (61% of transportation?s 28%). You could fairly add another 5% to that to account for the energy spent on petroleum refining, but still, there is more than 75% left.

Conservation
After cars, the largest use of energy is in heating and air conditioning. Better insulation and personal conservation (running air conditioning at 72 rather than 68) can help, but the real culprit for the rise in use in this sector is the increase in average home size. While I feel the obsession with bigger and bigger homes is lamentable, it?s not something I?ve really put much thought into preventing. For one, I think the vast majority of people have no problem with this trend, and as such there is likely to be little public support for it. Secondly, in the area of electricity I feel a more important goal is in the pursuit of sustainable clean method of production.

Production
Today, the U.S. and the world rely mostly upon fossil fuels for the production of electricity. This is despite the technical knowhow to produce electricity through other non-polluting and sustainable methods. It?s important to make changes to cars so that they can rely upon this infrastructure, but it is just as or more important to reform this infrastructure itself.

Solar power in the long term is probably our most solid hope. With the exception of nuclear, all other power sources are really just a byproduct of solar energy. Wind and weather is a result of the solar energy heating our atmosphere, our oceans and our land. Virtually everything else that affects weather is merely a conduit or resistive force that shapes, rather than creates weather. Petroleum products are the decayed remains of animals which ate plants which gained their energy from the sun. So why not just go to the source?

Even in the short term solar power is very attractive, but wind is very attractive as well. Hydroelectric power has proven to be fairly economic, but the good opportunities are mostly already in use, leaving fewer opportunities for improvement.

Also, in the short term, cleaning up the existing infrastructure of mostly coal burning power plants is important.

Accounting
Amazingly, one of the largest obstacles to renewable electricity generation is accounting. The most visible example of this is consumer credits for excess power from sources like rooftop solar panels. Even among and inside power companies however there are sometimes issues. I?ve heard of wind turbines being stopped because the billable price to the power company was higher than non-renewable sources. Power companies also worry a great deal about the impact on profitability of existing power plants if demand for their services becomes more variable due to variations in sources like solar or wind.

All of these problems are solvable. For each megawatt a coal, oil, natural gas or biomass power plant operates below capacity for which they produce a matching megawatt of clean renewable power positive variation, electric companies should receive a credit. Pricing and accounting practices should insure that the billable price for no production cost clean renewable power sources always remains 5% below the next lowest price. If necessary, credits should also be given to the producers to insure these pricing practices don?t ruin the economics of clean power generation. For each kilowatt of excess clean renewable power a consumer produces, electric companies should pay them market rates. In addition the consumer and electric company should receive credits to insure that it never is in an electric company?s best interest to discourage consumer production.

Credits for these policies could come from traditional local, state and federal taxes, but it would be most logical to instead tax the power producers, and distribute the credits from this pool. This will keep average prices relatively unchanged because credits and taxes will cancel each other out, but the internal economics will shift to insure that accounting practices are never the obstacle.

Conclusions
To sum up, here is a list of actions I would like to see taken:

Target 100% replacement of pure gasoline with E10 in all US states within 5 years.
100% sales tax rebate for electric cars from local and state governments.
Free vehicle registration for electric cars from local and state governments.
Federal tax incentive, similar to the fuel cell credit, for electric cars. For cars this would be a $12,000 tax credit. Electric is better than hydrogen, so reward it as well or better.
The subsidization of construction and maintenance of electric charging stations, especially in urban environments and along interstate highway routes.
Increase federal gas tax to $1.50 per gallon to target a price of at least $3.50 per gallon.
Rewrite the CAFE regulations to average efficiency ratings based upon gallons per mile, rather than miles per gallon.
Raise CAFE standards to 5% per year as per ACEEE recommendation. Under gpkm (gallons per thousand miles) ratings this would target 23.4 gpkm (42.6 mpg) for cars, and 27.4 gpkm (36.5 mpg) for light trucks.
Include large SUVs in CAFE regulations. Use a 2008 target of 20mpg, rising to 30.7 gpkm (32.6 mpg)
Consider consolidating CAFE classes should be one class fits all.
Dramatically increase research funding for the key technologies of Solar Cells and Electric Vehicles. Continue or increase funding for Ethanol Production, Wind Power, Hydrogen Production and Nuclear Power.
Increase incentives for construction of Solar and Wind Power Generation facilities.
Reform consumer and producer excess capacity accounting practices to insure economic viability of both clean renewable power and less consistent and lower usage of existing power plants.
Continue to encourage existing power generation plants to modernize their clean up processes. I realize the importance of this, but unfortunately I don?t know enough about the current day laws to say whether we?re doing a good or bad job, and if bad, how to appropriately improve it.
If all of these actions were taken, there would be certain other initiatives I?d be willing to sacrifice:

There is not a strong need for E85 development or infrastructure. As long as battery development is vigorously pursued, and E10 universally replaces non-reformulated gasoline, E85 conversions would be unnecessary. I wouldn?t take any action to discourage E85 development, but I wouldn?t press for any action to be taken to encourage it either.
The development of a hydrogen infrastructure likewise feels unnecessary, although more promising than E85.
Other than the gas tax, which might reduce suburban sprawl as a side effect, I would leave the concerns of America?s growing home size and suburban sprawl to be dealt with on their other merits and demerits. It?s tempting to try and address this area, but the forces are simply too complex, and involve too much public emotion. The thing to do here is to continue attempts to change public opinion. Illogical misconceptions should be clarified, and education and development of alternatives that are palatable to the public are necessary.
In the short term, I?m not very concerned with whether solar power utilizes some harmful chemicals. The benefit of reducing demand for other types of power, in the short term outweighs those concerns. I?m not saying anything goes, but if the chemicals are only as bad as what goes into gasoline, at it significantly lowers the cost of solar power, that?s a reasonable sacrifice. There will always be environmental impacts to any development. If an initiative saves 5 environmental ?dollars?, but costs 1, it?s a good thing.
Other than the gas tax, which might convince some people to retire some of the most harmful vehicles a bit earlier, it wouldn?t be appropriate to force vehicles to be replaced. If progress is made in the types of new vehicles purchased soon, then this won?t be necessary.
Forcing existing power plants to close is not possible, nor desirable. Reducing their overall usage, and insuring that sufficient new clean capacity is created to reduce the need for new coal, oil or natural gas plants should be the short and midterm goal. With sufficient clean capacity and proper accounting practices existing plants will eventually close without being forced to do so.
Content from: technorabble

If you is own this post, And you want to delete this post.
Click to delete this post.

]]> by: Craig Mackintosh http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-399 Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:20:22 +0000 http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-399 Jesse - that's the beauty of Web 2.0. With all of us a-watchin' I hope they'd be afeared!! Jesse - that’s the beauty of Web 2.0. With all of us a-watchin’ I hope they’d be afeared!!

]]> by: Tehuberone http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-398 Sat, 24 Feb 2007 05:55:58 +0000 http://nextlust.com/air-fueled-car-is-so-close-to-completion-you-cant-smell-it#comment-398 HOLY MONKEY SHIZ I WANT. HOLY MONKEY SHIZ I WANT.

]]>