GoingTrueGreen's Blog Postings

Are We Getting Energy & Enviro Solutions?

12/27/2022

Fusion, fusion power, Jedi, energy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NASA, goingtruegreen, hydrogen, hydrogen fuel cells, sustainable, William Godwin, Marquis de Condorcet, Thomas Robert Malthus

Lawrence Livermore Lab

The United States of America celebrated at the end of 2022 a major breakthrough with nuclear fusion at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. Early December, 2022, a team of Scientists, for the first time in the history of the world, had a safe and controlled fusion reaction that produced more energy than consumed.

Toyota's Hydrogen Fuel Cell Pickup

In Japan, Toyota is reaching for a clean future with Hydrogen fuel as an alternative to battery power. Zero emissions is the goal. The other goal they have is to sell us the hydrogen at retrofitted gasoline stations. No making hydrogen ON DEMAND with our onboard Membrane System to separate the Hydrogen from water... See below for more on this being a good thing or us being milked like with so many other products we buy.

Goingtruegreen, notpla, not plastic, imperial college, royal college, no plastics, paslier, gonzalez, seaweed, sustainable, William Godwin, Marquis de Condorcet, Thomas Robert Malthus

Notpla Products From Seaweed

Also co-founders Rodrigo Garcia Gonzalez and Pierre Paslier, who met while studying Innovation Design Engineering at Imperial College London and the Royal College of Art, started a company called NOTPLA (Not Plastic). The all-natural packaging solutions made from seaweed and plants are naturally biodegradable and home-compostable. Everything they make is an answer to a specific plastic issue. Such as: electronics, fashion, cosmetics, food, paper and toilet paper.

Impressive, but are we Jedis yet?

A closer look at all the facts for a complete picture with nuclear fusion we have a potentially source of endless non-polluting energy. Can this be the solution to all our energy needs?

In a word, no, because you cannot pour fusion energy into a fuel tank. Unless we can have safe and small enough fusion reactions on every vehicle, then we still have issues. Additionally, the breakthrough we had in December 2022, is said to be one or two decades away from commercial use. How many times have we heard ten years away and twenty years later we still are hearing, "Ten years away." I don't want to be cynical, but only a few major programs in the world were successful in less than ten years. Our American Apollo space program was one of them. The reason is because the Apollo program was never done for making MONEY. Bring in commercial use and profits, then greed will sink its ugly teeth in very deep. That is why we still don't have Hydrogen Fuel Cells on our cars making hydrogen ON DEMAND to operate our vehicles carbon free. Once you buy your own system, everything else you need is FREE.

Free electricity from the sun with a solar panel to separate the two hydrogen molecules from the oxygen (H2O) aka, water in our onboard Membrane system. That hydrogen then runs the fuel cell for free to make electricity to run the car for free. All made on demand, no storage or delivery of hydrogen. We are not beholden to some conglomerate company selling us Hydrogen fuel at old retrofitted gasoline stations! All on-board a vehicle or in-house for power production. NASA has used this type of system on the space shuttles since 1981, but no research dollars are available to commercialize something that is only purchased once and maintained. This self operating and owned system, without monthly fuel bills, will set us free.

So keep in mind that even if all goes well with nuclear fusion over the next ten years with commercial development, we are still beholden to pay a monthly fee to whatever conglomerate is supplying the nuclear fusion energy.

Compare that to collecting FREE rain water off your roof, FREE electricity from a solar panel to operate the Membrane system separating the hydrogen from oxygen and the fuel cell making Free electrical power to run your car, your home, (heat, lights, and cooling) with electricity you made.

Now you will hear that nuclear fusion is needed to make clean electricity to separate hydrogen from oxygen for hydrogen fuel cells. What is wrong with solar panels making that electricity? Along with some backup batteries that the Fuel Cell's freely made electricity is always recharging we are good to go. Alas, an affordable and compact working system isn't available yet... Because there are no research dollars due to making an energy producing system that doesn't have a monthly bill attached to it!

You shall also hear that nuclear fusion will make clean energy to charge the batteries that run cars, trucks, homes, etc. Well, the complete picture shows much damage being done to our environment to dig up all the natural resources necessary to make batteries, then calculate the manufacturing damage to our environment and we realize we do not have enough natural resources to meet a world wide complete demand for batteries.

Yes, we can use safe and carbon free nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion will power the street lights and all the entities that use our tax dollars to pay the energy bill. However, we the people still want our own hydrogen fuel cells so we can be our own energy supplier! In the meantime all the people around the world need ALL the current fuels to give us the ability to transition into a better tomorrow. Realize: If we are lost in the woods, we will need to make a fire to cook whatever food we obtain, so tomorrow we can have the strength and ability to find our way home. If someone throws a bucket of sand onto that fire and we starve to death, there will be no tomorrow.

So yes, Happy New Year! Don't worry, the earth and humankind, with intelligence, will prevail. We will get there with endless energy for all. We will eliminate all issues with plastic with new products like the ones Notpla makes from seaweed.

However, we first need peace in the world. We need pretentious scientists to realize that William Godwin and Marquis de Condorcet are correct and Thomas Robert Malthus has been proven wrong again. All this will happen when we all have the courage to learn the truth with all the facts, through free speech for all. God Bless us all.

Bill Lauto, at GoingTrueGreen.com
Environmental Scientist
International Sustainability and Energy Consultant
Contribute your comments!

0 Comments

PROCESS OF ENERGY PROGRESSION

1/2/2022

2 Comments

The world has stalled with our progress toward hydrogen fuel cells as an energy answer. Additionally the far left, with the acquiescence of the far right, have blocked the production of carbon free transition energy such as 4th generation safe and low waste nuclear power plants, as well as modern hydroelectric dams. Both of these energy sources would help lower our emissions as we progress toward hydrogen fuel cells. Fuel cells that will work with FREE rain water and FREE sunlight. Why is this stall taking place? So both extreme sides can make money.

Energy created by humans started with the burning of wood. From wood we made charcoal. The making of charcoal is an ancient technology. Basically make a fire in a pit, cover it with mud and later reclaim the partially combusted pieces of wood, now called charcoal, to burn again. (Charcoal burns hotter and is used today by people in poor nations.)

From charcoal, humans progressed to coal, a rock dug out of the ground; and mixed in that time frame also came energy from: wind, hydro, oil, gas, solar, nuclear, geothermal and finally the energy answer: Hydrogen Fuel Cells operating with hydrogen molecules obtained from collected FREE rain water.

Needless to say the trauma doesn’t conclude with our stalled energy progress. The process of progression for energy production is also halted in all the disadvantaged nations among us. From Haiti to the Congo the far left, with the unspoken approval of the far right, are helping to keep poor nations poor. In the name of saving the environment, the far left prevents disadvantaged nations from progressing with their energy production process like we did. Harboring arrogance and greed, while yelling, “We must help the poor,” both sides have denied these countries the transition away from wood and charcoal.

The people in disadvantaged countries become trapped by using charcoal and kerosene, causing ill health and carbon footprints that harm our environment. Who are we, in the already energy advanced countries, to tell the people who are poor that they can’t progress on their own toward better solutions?

Perhaps from one of these poor nations a young student with morals and scruples will provide us with the break-throughs for successful hydrogen fuel cells to be our world’s solution. We all know that many countries already have hydrogen fuel cell technology, sadly greed is preventing further development because after equipment purchase there is only maintenance fees, no monthly fuel or utility bills.

A hydrogen fuel cell energy answer would work with a system that collects FREE rain water and as needed, the membrane component, will separate the hydrogen molecules from the freely collected rain water (not from natural gas) with FREE electric power created from the Sun with a few solar panels. A small battery backup will suffice for cloudy days and night time because the electricity made by the fuel cell will always be recharging the battery. The hydrogen molecules run the fuel cell that makes FREE electricity to power the house, office and our car. The byproduct is water.

So because our energy answer and carbon free energy solution has an equation filled with the word FREE, greed has prevented all the established and wealthy nations around the world from reaching the energy answer goal needed for humankind.

The far left and the far right in unspoken harmony hurt the poor even more by causing harm to our world’s environment just to show a profit or secure their position in office. Let it be done through donations, fear mongering, movies, books, corrupt politicians, pseudo-education, implausible plans, suspicious deals, mislead organizations or sales of fuels such as gas and oil.

Now allow me another minute to answer the question that has been circling through everyone’s thought patterns as reading this promulgation.

Why on the topic of energy, would the far right agree with the far left?

There is information and evidence, on this ungodly agreement showing millions of dollars have exchanged from one hand to another in political donations and failed solutions. The reason for the far right to support the far left’s failed solutions are obvious. In the 1990s, both sides started in earnest to prevent the opening of safe and low waste 4th generation nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is also carbon free. In the name of the “environment,” the emphasis placed on solar and wind to replace oil, hydroelectric dams, gas and nuclear was put on steroids… while keeping their sinister secret just out of sight.

This secret has taken me some time to come to terms with, because after all, we all want to believe the sales pitch. Sadly, we are all being sold a bill of goods. The media doesn’t care about the complete truth because sensationalizing makes them far more money than journalism. Corruption can infect everyone. These dishonest people in the media, politics, Hollywood and corporations, belong to the COC, “Collective Of Corruption”.

Here is the bottom line: If solar and wind replaces oil and gas completely, more harm will be done to our environment due to the need for backup systems. The mathematical equations showing power production comparisons DO NOT add up for these systems. The far right knows this and thus, by supporting solar and wind under the table, they ensure their sales of oil and gas. Oil and gas need no backup batteries, they need no vast amount of land like solar or wind farms. The amount of harm to our environment and land confiscation for solar and wind to meet the world’s energy needs will create more problems in the long run. From carbon emissions with manufacturing to more wildlife displaced or killed as land is consumed. From short production lifespans to toxic waste buildup. The complete picture is unavoidable and unfeasible.

For example, Hydroelectric dams are not popular due to the amount of land needed to hold the built up water. This will displace wildlife and plant life. Yet, why are solar farms popular when they take up more land and produce less power per square meter? More wildlife and plant life is disrupted by solar farms. Additionally, dams last longer, use less material that is toxic in production and in recycling. Some calculations state similar solar output would use 16 times more materials and 300 times more waste than a modern dam. Then the E-Waste goes to poor nations where the toxins will leach into their ground water supply.

As far as a transition source of energy toward Hydrogen Fuel Cells that work off of rain water and on demand so we do not risk storing hydrogen, dams are better than solar. Sadly, these complete facts are not presented by the media which only wants to sensationalize the story. Some data on the scrapped plans for a modern carbon free hydroelectric dam in the Congo would produce enough electric power for the entire country… no wait, enough power for the entire continent of Africa. Thus setting the people free to improve life on their own. They could start by finding better politicians, inventing cost cutting technology for fuel cells and telling foreigners to stop mandating policies upon them under the lie of saving earth. When energy advanced countries keep people poor in energy and spirit, after their own country moves ahead and stops before hydrogen fuel cells save the world, that is a sin. Where there is hypocrisy, there is corruption.

The math doesn’t add up for solar and wind as the complete solution, nor are dams, geothermal, oil, gas and nuclear. However, for those with the authoritarian power:

The more payoffs accepted to stop transitional 4th generation nuclear plants that are safe and operate for 60 years with a fraction of waste; the more oil and gas sold.

The more land needed for solar farms and battery back ups that provide no reasonable payback or needed duration of supply; the more oil and gas sold.

The more wind farms that take up space, kill migrating birds, insects and bats, along with windless days and aged out equipment; the more oil and gas sold.

The more prevention of developing the energy answer hydrogen fuel cells, that operate on demand with water; the more oil and gas sold.

Now don’t misinterpret what I am saying, I have solar, I use solar, I produce more than I consume. However, while I have no electric bill due to my energy efficient house and solar panels, I still need to make hot water and heat my home. So I use the cleanest transition fuel available to me along with my 95% energy efficient heating system. That fuel is natural gas. The previous owner used oil with a 72% efficient heating system. When I researched using solar instead of gas, I found that I would need to double the number of solar panels that I am already using. I don’t have the space nor the money for 25 more panels. Additionally, I would need another 25 solar panels just to charge up batteries for nights and cloudy days so I could be off the grid. Again, I don’t have the space or the money. Then there is no reasonable payback on the costs for the battery backup system and I have yet to charge up any electric car. Additionally, what about the recycling issues after an expected 20 year lifespan for the panels? Read more data at my Dead Solar Panels blog post.

As an individual, I am doing the best I can on many environmental fronts. I must because this isn’t just my job, this is a passion. Yet, I am distraught, because one doesn’t have to look far to see hypocrisy like a major city pretending to help the environment with passing a policy that stops new construction from using natural gas. Electricity must be used instead, but what fuel is being used at the utility’s power plant in the neighborhood with high cases of asthma to make that electricity? Most likely oil, not a solar or wind farm. And yet these same policy makers cry out that we need environmental justice for the poor. Who is hurting the poor when you block one of the cleaner fuels, such as gas, to help us while we transition toward carbon free hydrogen fuel cells. Alas, we are not in transition anymore because monthly money can’t be made off of everyone with their own hydrogen fuel cell in their home, office and car.

These are the truths. Humankind has always faced truths such as these. Until regular honest people step up to serve the people and not get rich off of the people, we will always have the poor, along with the poor of heart, mind, soul and a politicized environment.

To LEAD, one must SERVE.
Wishing and praying for all of us to have a happy New Year.

If anyone wishes to see sources of implicating data in support of this blog, please email me with full contact info and I will be happy to respond.

Bill Lauto, at GoingTrueGreen.com
Environmental Scientist
International Sustainability and Energy Consultant
Contribute your comments!

2 Comments

Batteries Included

1/1/2019

0 Comments

Apollo 11, Tesla, Lithium-air batteries, Lithium-ion batteries, power wall, nuclear, solar, fuel cells, hydrogen, electric cars, non-renewables, sustainability, going true green, going green, bill lauto

Tesla's Current Power Wall Battery

This New Year will bring us the 50th anniversary of America's Apollo 11 Moon mission. This American accomplishment, against all odds, proves what Team Work will always give us... Success.

Currently a Team effort for better batteries is underway at the University of Cambridge. Scientists from Cambridge have recently pointed out that in less than the necessary time it takes to build a Nuclear Power Plant, lithium-air batteries could be contributing to making oil, coal and nuclear obsolete. Lithium-Air batteries are five times cheaper and lighter than today's lithium batteries.

These new developments place the technology of battery storage comparable to non-renewable fuels. Lithium-air batteries have a density that is ten times more than a lithium-ion battery. That is over 90% efficient through the discharge and recharge cycle. Also these batteries can be recharged well over 2,000 times before a need to replace them. This can drive down the cost for an electric car with batteries to a fifth of current costs. Additionally, these newer lithium-air batteries will weight a fifth of current batteries, thus allowing a car drive of over 400 miles possible on one charge.

Now technically the energy density is still lower than energy produced from oil. However, much of that oil producing energy is wasted by today's trucks and cars. The oil fuel is not utilized efficiently and as much as three-quarters of the oil fuel energy is lost in heat. Nevertheless, researchers at the University of Cambridge have shown how the development of a lithium-air battery looks very promising.

A New Year is upon us and time will tell. Meanwhile, Fuel Cells that make electricity by running off of free Hydrogen obtained from free rain water with power from free sun light working a photovoltaic panel are also moving closer to the launch pad, where we will all hear those heart stopping words, "Mission Control, we are GO for launch!"

Bill Lauto, at GoingTrueGreen.com
Environmental Scientist
International Sustainability and Energy Consultant
Contribute your comments!

0 Comments

Nuclear Reality Check

1/27/2014

3 Comments

I revisited one of my previous Blog postings on Nuclear Power that had been posted on EnergyHotwire.com dated April 20, 2011. (The postings on EnergyHotwire are no longer available, but I am slowly updating them to be posted on GoingTrueGreen.com. Thank you for being patient with this move, because I have Blog postings going back to 2001 and articles going back to 1987.)

Ronald Reagan, USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier

Aircraft carrier is a small floating city

The reason why I revisited and now re-posting on GoingTrueGreen's Blog is because of the updated news I read today about sailors from the USS Ronald Reagan Aircraft carrier and seals dying in Alaska.

America sent U.S. Navy sailors on the USS Ronald Reagan to Japan for support and help with the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster. After a few days off the coast, a snow fall fell upon the ship, a snowball fight between sailors on deck and contaminated water used on-board, there were reports after returning home that some sailors now have thyroid cancer. If this is true and the report about 71 sailors only in their twenties, having radiation sickness caused by Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy plants that exploded, this is a horror. Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) downplayed the dangers of nuclear radiation leaking from the site initially, thus causing many to enter into harms way.

Nature and humankind is damaged far greater by the nuclear power plants exploding then by a tsunami. Seals have been reported to be losing hair and dying off the coast of Alaska and California. Also Sea Lions, Polar Bears, Bald Eagles, Sea Stars, Turtles, King and Sockeye Salmon, Herring, Anchovies and Sardines in the Western part of North America are suffering and dying in large numbers. If this is from Fukushima Daiichi's disaster, then we have contaminated a major food supply.

We humans are our own worst enemy. We drill up oil in the gulf and poor plans allow leaks into the gulf coast. We polluted the waters of the east coast, and now the west cost and Gulf of Alaska may need to post warnings.

Therefore, my blog posting written back on April 20, 2011 is published once more below. With today's news about the sailors and wildlife, the words I wrote 3 years ago about nuclear power, hold an unpropitious truth.

3 Comments

Nuclear Reality Check

5/3/2011

0 Comments

I have refrained myself from writing this blog since the day after tragedy hit Japan. The devastating earthquake and horrifying tsunami were heart wrenching, but the fear for the possible long term suffering from the compromised nuclear power plants was unquenchable. So I stifled my writing to avoid over reacting and calmly said prays like most people in this world.

Perhaps our prayers have prevented a full melt down at Japan's nuclear plants, but one thing is for sure - Man's illusion of playing God or at least having control over our planet's environment, evaporated as the first plant exploded and then the other.

You may now say the previous paragraph was a rash statement. After all, nuclear power is safe, right? Please allow me to substantiate why I stand by those words:

In 1979 I interned with an Environmental Company that was conducting several studies at a new nuclear power plant that had yet to start operations. These studies were to have results "before" operating so they can be compared to "after" starting up. The plant to this day has never operated to create energy from nuclear power, but that is another story.

My first visit to this nuclear power plant while under construction included a brief tour. At the front gate was a tower, it reminded me on the towers in the old television show call Hogan's Heroes. I was told there was a guard with a machine gun in the tower and remember this was 1979, not post world 2001.

This nuclear power plant was reported to have a long operating life of forty years. A plant engineer told that to me very proudly. I eventually asked that engineer two questions. The first was, "What occurs after forty years, reconditioning of the reactor or replacement?" The answer depended on different variables. If necessary, the contaminated core could be sealed up and the plant would be closed down. Welcome to the real world of making money today, leaving major problems for tomorrow. How fast is forty years? Well if this plant did open, today it would be about 9 years away from its expected life span expiring.

The second and last question I was able to ask was, "What are you going to do with forty years of radioactive waste?" This time I remember the answer having a smug overtone. I was told that the first twenty years of waste was going to be buried right there on the property by the nuclear power plant. I thought to myself, not far from a fairly large body of water and not far "above" the domestic drinking water table. I was then informed that the second twenty years of radioactive waste would be shipped to a facility in another state and buried within a mountain. Additionally, I was told shipping the waste out of state would not be necessary, because in twenty years we will have the technology to breakdown the radioactive waste to harmless levels.

My response caused my brief tour to end abruptly. I had spoken words similar to the following, "Oh really, it takes Mother Nature over 5,000 years to complete one half-life* of certain radioactive waste and the stuff can still kill us, but we are going to figure all that out in twenty years?"

*One half-life is the amount of time for the atoms, that are radioactive, to disintegrate to half of their original radioactive level.

Also please refer to an article I wrote ten years ago called: A U.S. Energy Plan

Here we are some 32 years later and science is not one step closer to knowing how to breakdown radioactive waste to a safe level for humans. So in about 9 years if that nuclear plant operated, we would have bequeath to the human race and our planet, 40 years of radioactive waste. Twenty years buried in the back yard of almost one million people. Another twenty years being shipped, some how, through New York City.

Now this is the concerning part. That line the engineer tried to sell me 32 years ago, is being used again by a "few" politicians and people in the nuclear industry. I personally was told this line again by a young, want-to-be-a-politician. When I heard, "In twenty years we will have the technology to make radioactive waste safe" my mouth dropped open.
Because of this complacency presented to me 32 years ago and the naive beliefs presented today, I do not believe that I made any rash statement. So the question that begged to be asked then and now is:

What are you going to do with the waste?

Also how can we be sure the containment packages for the waste will not fail? How can we be sure the stored waste is secured not just from nature, but man himself?

Nevertheless, let us continue to examine additional sources of knowledge:

The Chernobyl nuclear disaster started in April of 1986. I say started, because many believe the rippling effects have yet to cease. Most of Western Russia and Europe had radioactive contamination of their atmosphere. The Soviet economy was paralyzed by the war they had to fight with 500,000 workers in order to contain this catastrophe. The evacuation of people continued from 1986 to 2000. To date about 350,400 people had to get up and leave their lives, knowing they and their children's children would never return. Arguments will continue for decades about how many lives were lost or cut short as a result of radioactive contamination. One Russian publication on Chernobyl stated that 985,000 excess deaths*** happened from 1986 to 2004.

***UPDATE: The word "excess" was used and is always questionable. Especially now that reports from the UN, WHO and several other organizations state the death toll directly related to this disaster is less than 100 people. Of course, just one death is a horror. Additionally reports from 2006, state a debatable number of 16,000 deaths could be realized over time for the entire continent of Europe. In 2020, thank God, this number has yet to be realized.
As of 2020, significant improvements and changes have been made in waste storage and new 4th generation nuclear plants will have less waste and reuse old waste. My concerns were always about the waste because we were building the cheaper boiling-water reactors that produce more waste than a pressurized-water reactor. Sadly, when a new reactor that had far less waste and was proven to prevent the same kind of disaster at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the Clinton administration in the 1990s ended the program and killed the budget. So due to lies by the process of omission and politics, the newest and safe generation nuclear reactor was Axed. This Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) achieved safe, efficient, and low-waste nuclear energy, but the truth was of no concern to our political leaders at that time, just the tide of popular misinformation.

From this disaster the country of Italy made a decision to shut down all of their nuclear power plants and they did. Within years they made up for the difference in power with wind turbines and solar. Then prior to Japan's ongoing crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, Italy had a committee begin to explore the possibility of using nuclear power again. Within days of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plants exploding, the decision for Italy's nuclear future was made. There will be no nuclear power in Italy, they will find a better way.

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant catastrophe is truly a slow-moving nightmare. Today's news reports claim that Japan will be dealing with this nuclear leak for decades and the radiation contamination will continue well beyond.
A mother of a 32 year old worker at the Fukushima Daiichi facility spoke to reporters while crying. Her son and his fellow workers accept that some of them will probably die from radiation sickness within a few weeks. They accept this in hopes to save the lives of others and their nation.

Now as all this is occurring, I have to endure radio commercials from owners of nuclear power plants. I say endure because of the way the words in the commercial are spun. Words like, "Our nuclear power plant was built to withstand an earthquake 100 times more than strongest earthquake in this area". Saying 100 times more, does not mean much because the Richter Scale indicates a tenfold increase between whole-numbers. A level 6 earthquake is ten times greater than a level 5 earthquake. The difference between a level 7 and a level 9 earthquake increases 100 times. So if the strongest earthquake recorded in the area is a 5.2, and then a level 8.5 earthquake hits, you are well beyond the "100 times stronger than" statement in that commercial.

So who is being rash? Who is playing the odds with people's lives and our planet's ability to support our lives. Using oil or coal fired plants are not a solution. We are better than this nuclear risk, because we already have the technology such as Hydrogen Fuel Cells from our space program. We just have to make them readily available. When the price to pay for nuclear power includes our own lives and our planet's ability to support us, then it is time to find another way. If America doesn't, Japan will. As Japan comes through this disaster, they will shut down all their nuclear power plants. Today from the United States, the world's largest concrete pump truck is being flown to Japan on the world's largest cargo plane from Russia. Eventually these nuclear power plants will be entombed with concrete, like in Chernobyl. Japan will entombed the Fukushima Daiichi facility and it will stand as another monument in that country for the destructive force from mankind, not nature. The entombment will stand for man's short term solutions and long term consequences. Then Japan will be reputed by producing fuel cells that run from H2O (water) on demand for safety and don't need transmission lines. All starting from the very technology America has been using on our Space Shuttles since 1981.

So the question once again, as I stated ten years ago in my article: A U.S. Energy Plan, Who in our country is bold enough to start a monumental effort that will embrace all these facts, evaluate them and implement the best long term solution for all of the people today as well as for our tomorrows? If America keeps walking down the same bumpy road, instead of finding another way, I just pray there isn't a cliff at the end of that bumpy road.

Updated Blog Post - Article on EnergyHotwire.com to GoingTrueGreen.com Blog
Bill Lauto, at GoingTrueGreen.com
Environmental Scientist
International Sustainability and Energy Consultant
Contribute your comments!

0 Comments

A U. S. Energy Plan

5/30/2001

0 Comments

Here is an article I wrote in December of 2000. I published this as my first Blog on my EnergyHotwire.com website, The date was May 30, 2001, long before Blogs were popular. The article provided sound advice, facts and recommendations for our country’s energy plan. This is an article that knew what needed to be done to prevent serious problems so many years before.

Bill Lauto, GTG
Environmental Scientist
International Sustainability and Energy Consultant
Contribute your comments!

Here are comments on this first Blog post from Yesteryear:

June, 2001:
I just read on your web site your U. S. Energy Plan and I was amazed at the facts about nuclear waste and how much energy we can save. Intelligently written and powerfully executed. A brilliant plan. Now only if our government leaders would read this.
Paul, New York.

---

March 26, 2002:
Bill,
I just emailed my brother Frank to read your outstanding article posted at www.Energy Hotwire.com
Phenomenal writing, I really enjoyed it.
Joe, Buffalo New York

Energy, U.S. Energy Plan, power plants, politics, President Bush, first blog, going green, environmental issues, nuclear, energy efficient refrigerator

Coffee Table Chatter

With all the discussions taking place about the new national energy plan that would build more power plants and have fewer regulations, I was compelled to write about the subject. Mostly due to the multitude of assumptions, enormous potential, misconceptions, new technology, incorrect applications, amazing statistics, stalled ingenuity and the fact that no matter who is conversing about the topic, without all the facts from all the expert circles, the conversation amounts to nothing more than coffee table chatter.

To the reader, I thank you, for allowing me some of your time to read this. I have learned from "both sides of the fence" on energy and environmental issues and I always listen to everyone who expresses opinions or facts about these topics. Nevertheless, I am aware that I do not have all the data on all the topics. No one person or even one review committee can. There is just too much data, research, results, warnings, greed, concern, fortitude and common sense from around our world on these topics. The question and challenge is: Who in our country is bold enough to start a monumental effort that will embrace all these facts, evaluate them and implement the best long term solution for all of the people today as well as for our tomorrows? The remainder of this article will present just a diminutive amount of facts that will demonstrate how acutely we Americans need leadership that will boldly step forward to answer the above challenge with proper administrative policy. One of the primary issues to be determined deals with the question of building more power plants. The direction of this dissertation is to present facts that will answer that very question.

Nuclear is NOT the Answer

I am not ruling out the possibility that some new power plants may have to be constructed. But federal funding should also increase research on new technology that makes other types of safer power distribution feasible. Additional research and development should go toward building better non-recyclable garbage to electric power plants. Then if a power plant is needed, the newest technology should be used to build the most efficient, cleanest and long term operating one. That means no Nuclear or Coal fired power plants. There isn’t any technology that can burn coal cleanly and none that can prevent radioactive waste. Nuclear plants are a short term and dangerous solution. One of the last Nuclear power plants that didn’t open was reported to have the longest operating life of forty years. A plant engineer told that to me very proudly during my internship. I asked the engineer what occurs after forty years, reconditioning of the reactor, replacement or what. The answer was in the "what" category. Depending on how different variables worked out the contaminated core could be sealed up and the plant would be closed down. Welcome to the real world of making money today, leaving major problems for tomorrow. How fast is forty years? Well if this plant did open, today it would be twenty-two years closer to being useless and having forty years of radioactive waste bequeath to us. Waste that takes Mother Nature over 5,000 years to complete one half-life. That is the amount of time for half of the atoms that are radioactive to disintegrate. However, even then, the waste is not safe for human contact.

To be concise, conservation is not needed to save energy and more power plants are not the solution; the proper application of the available technology is. I have never recommended to one of my clients a step that made them conserve. Yet all have saved for their country as well as for themselves. Conservation and pre-Earth Day thinking, is thinking without all the facts . I have done and managed thousands of energy reports for homeowners. Not one report recommended a single action that implied sacrifice. I never stated once that to save money and energy one must turn down their thermostat and wear a sweater. However, I am instrumental in saving my clients money and oil for our country. In my own home we do not sacrifice by doing more with less, in fact we have more and pay much less. I made my house efficient with common sense and the correct application of new technology that really works. Thus, my energy bills are 1/4 of my neighbors with comparable homes. In fact, some of my clients have saved so much that their Utility Companies believed that something was wrong with their electric meter. This is the type of dramatic savings that can be realized when properly implementing energy saving technology in your home or business. Thus, America is wasting up to 75% of our energy, because of using archaic products and the improper application of new technology. Even energy saving products designed cheaply, waste energy. If homeowners were able to implement all the proper energy recommendations, an average savings of eight hundred dollars a year could be realized. However, the cost of new properly designed energy efficient products always cost more than the less efficient ones. Today these energy efficient refrigerators, window/wall air conditions, central air conditioners, heating systems, lighting fixtures and products such as solar operated attic fans are more difficult to find in stores. Then to add insult to injury, it is a challenge to find a well-trained and knowledgeable sales person on the subject.

Costly Appliances

As an example, the average American family with 2.5 kids is probably using a 20 cubic foot sized refrigerator from 1985. The yearly operating cost at an average electric rate of .10 per kilowatt hour would be at least $160.00. If that family purchased the most efficient 20 cubic foot refrigerator made today the electric cost would only be $58.00 per year. The problem is that even after you find a dealer who carries the most efficient model the price tag is $809.99 without delivery and sales tax. A model that is the least energy efficient would only cost around $575.00 to buy. Perhaps the best approach in solving just this one aspect of the energy situation is that our administration’s policy should state: When you purchase the most energy efficient refrigerator model made in the 20 cubic foot size between July 4, 2001 and July 4, 2004 you will receive a tax credit of two hundred dollars and pay no state sales tax. (If the tax credit is financially unfeasible for the government, then offer a tax deduction up to 75% of the appliance’s total cost.) An energy policy that includes incentives such as these is not much different from possible tax credits that may be offered to consumers who buy a super-efficient car. However, there are two notable differences, energy efficient refrigerators are available now, super-efficient cars are not. The electrical power saved from a refrigerator is dealing directly with our infrastructure of power plants. A car deals more with our gasoline supply.

With new home construction, most builders install ceiling High-hat lighting fixtures. Unfortunately, the less expensive and smaller High-hat fixture is usually installed. The energy saving light bulbs in a flood light configuration can not fit into these cheaper fixtures. At present, for example, the homeowner is forced to use 75 watt incandescent flood lights instead of the 18 watt energy saving flood lights. The differences between these two sources of light are numerous. For 18 watts you receive the same amount of light as the 75 watt incandescent. The saving on the electric bill not only pays for the more expensive 18 watt flood, but also saves the homeowner approximately $60.00 more per light over its lifetime. The 18 watt flood will last ten times longer, give off the same light color and 1/4 the heat. The savings on the electric bill and drums of oil for America add up immediately. Another fact is that 90% of the energy used by the 1928 designed incandescent light bulb creates heat! Only 10% of the electrical energy produces light! Talk about waste, here is the ultimate example. And infested with this waste is just about every office and home in America. The best approach to this electrical lighting situation is that our administration’s policy should state: Starting from July 4, all new construction utilizing High-hat lighting fixtures must install the large R-40 size fixture with an adjustable socket height to insure that the homeowner can have the option of using energy saving flood lights. A tax credit or deduction should be offered to each existing fixture changed over to use energy saving bulbs and then all incandescent light bulbs should be phased out over a period of time. When a product waste 90% of the energy it uses in order to create light, it is time to make that product both illegal to manufactured and sell. This is a bold step, but here is the reason why it is justified: Only two products have been presented for the home that save energy without sacrifice, a refrigerator and light bulbs, there are hundreds more. Due to this, EnergyHotwire.com has been established to further assist with free facts on saving energy. The few people, who have taking some energy saving steps over the past decade, though small in number, are part of the reason why for 22 years this country did not need to build a single nuclear power plant! Studies have been done and published over the years proving the enormous power individuals have when it comes to saving energy. One study that comes to mind was done in the state of Massachusetts. I believe the results showed that if every homeowner updated their old refrigerator and changed their incandescent light bulbs that were used four hours or more a day to the energy saving light bulbs, enough energy would be saved to close down one oil fired power plant in that state. Talk about power, power saved from just two energy saving steps. A major appliance and lighting! The miniscule and voluntary effort that has occurred over the past twenty years by individuals has been a sufficient example for a sound, comprehensive energy policy. We need a policy that provides the education, tax credit, laws and far less problems for tomorrow by not saying to conserve or build more polluting power plants, but by assisting the correct implementation of effective energy saving technology. -ehw

Updated Blog Post - Article on EnergyHotwire.com to GoingTrueGreen.com Blog
Bill Lauto, at GoingTrueGreen.com
Environmental Scientist
International Sustainability and Energy Consultant
Contribute your comments!

0 Comments