A Fable by Unknow Author:
Once upon a time, I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President. I am a respected businessman, with a factory that produces memory chips for computers and portable electronics. There was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, but I paid it no mind. I live in a free country. There's nothing that the government can do to me if I've broken no laws. My wealth was earned honestly, and an invitation to dinner with an American President is an honor. I checked my coat, was greeted by the Chief of Staff, and joined the President in a yellow dining room. We sat across from each other at a table draped in white linen. The Great Seal was embossed on the china. Uniformed staff served our dinner.
The meal was served, and I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked a dinner roll off my plate, and began nibbling it as he walked back to the kitchen. "Sorry about that," said the President. "Andrew is very hungry." "I don't appreciate.." I began, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I felt immediately guilty and petty.. It was just a dinner roll. "Of course," I concluded, and reached for my glass. Before I could, however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and swallowed the wine in a single gulp. "And his brother Eric is very thirsty." said the President. I didn't say anything. The President is testing my compassion, I thought. I will play along. I don't want to seem unkind. My plate was whisked away before I had tasted a bite. "Eric's children are also quite hungry." With a lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me. I stood, brushing myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room. "And their grandmother can't stand for long." I excused myself, smiling outwardly, but inside feeling like a fool. Obviously I had been invited to the White House to be sport for some game. I reached for my coat, to find that it had been taken. I turned back to the President. "Their grandfather doesn't like the cold." I wanted to shout - that was my coat! But again, I looked at the placid smiling face of my host and decided I was being a poor sport. I spread my hands helplessly and chuckled. Then I felt my hip pocket and realized my wallet was gone. I excused myself and walked to a phone on an elegant side table. I learned shortly that my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank accounts emptied, my retirement and equity portfolios had vanished, and my wife had been thrown out of our home. Apparently, the waiters and their families were moving in. The President hadn't moved or spoken as I learned all this, but finally I lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face him. "Andrew's whole family has made bad financial decisions. They haven't planned for retirement, and they need a house. They recently defaulted on a subprime mortgage. I told them they could have your home. They need it more than you do." My hands were shaking. I felt faint. I stumbled back to the table and knelt on the floor. The President cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak and drank his wine. I lowered my eyes and stared at the small grey circles on the tablecloth that were water drops. "By the way," He added, "I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories. I'm firing you as head of your business. I'll be operating the firm now for the benefit of all mankind. There's a whole bunch of Eric's and Andrews out there and they can't come to you for jobs groveling like beggars." I looked up. The President dropped his spoon into the empty ramekin which had been his creme brulee. He drained the last drops of his wine. As the table was cleared, he lit a cigarette and leaned back in his chair.
He stared at me. I clung to the edge of the table as if it were a ledge and I were a man hanging over an abyss. I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived. The life I had earned with a lifetime of work, risk and struggle. Why was I punished? How had I allowed it to be taken? What game had I played and lost?
I looked across the table and noticed with some surprise that there was no game board between us. What had I done wrong? As if answering the unspoken thought, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to mine, and bared a million teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands.
"You should have stopped me at the dinner roll," he said.
Wake up America!
Monday, September 7, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Energy 102-Green Energy
What are renewable (or green) sources of energy? They generally include solar, wind, and geothermal conversion to electricity. Other renewables, such as electrical energy derived from the movement of ocean currents, waves, and tides are also considered renewables.
They are considered to come from natural sources, and to be naturally replenished (renewable). They are considered to be 'environmental friendly' by some because they are perceived as not damaging the environment, and they are thought not to be consumed in the generation of energy (naturally replenished), therefore they go on forever without 'stealing' from the earth (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy).
Of course, both oil, natural gas, and nuclear are all from natural sources. However, you will NEVER hear of nuclear as a renewable energy source even though the "burning" of nuclear materials in a reactor can produce new nuclear fuel to produce more energy.
Much to do has been made by politicians about doing more research to make renewable energy more competitive by reducing their cost. This is all a distraction to keep supporters of renewable energy at bay because most politicians know renewables can not replace traditional energy sources. They just want you to think they are doing all they can to replace traditional sources of energy. Technology can always be tweaked, but at some point the hard decision has to be made to lock in the existing technology and move forward. So why haven't we done that?
Now why do I say that renewables can't replace traditional sources of energy?
Solar-uses photoelectric or photovoltaic cells to convert sunlight directly into electricity (reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy). Technology to produce solar cells has improved dramatically over the last 20 years. There are no carbon emissions or other emissions from solar generated electricity.
However, there are concerns to be considered. (1) Some environmentalist in the western United States, and others have raise concerns about the large areas of land used for solar farms. They are also concerned about the potential environmental impact to plants and animals that live in those environs to the significant reduction of sunlight reaches those plants and animals over extremely large areas. No one has done a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on these impacts as is required for a coal-fired power plant, a nuclear power plant, or a petroleum refinery. (2) The sun only shines half the time, which means no electricity is being generated at night. That means a solar farm has to be made 2x bigger than a conventional power plant so that enough energy can be produced and stored to meet energy demands. That requires more land area and compounds the issues in item (1) above. (3) Since electricity is not being produced half the time, excess energy must be produced and stored to provide a consistent supply of electricity. The excess energy is stored in batteries. The batteries require a storage area, like a warehouse, that uses more land (see item (1) above). In addition, batteries contain various hazardous materials such as lead, lithium, corrosives, etc. depending on the type of batteries used. These batteries will ultimately need disposal as hazardous waste and/or need expensive recycling with concomitant hazards. And they are expensive which will ultimately increase the cost of the electricity. (4) The photovoltaic cells contain various hazardous materials that will also have to be disposed of as hazardous wastes and/or expensive recycling. (5) A complicated, but potentially real issues that must be addressed in any EIS is the impact, if any, of sprawling solar farms on weather patterns. Yes, the impact on weather. The sun heats the earth, evaporates water, and creates winds. What happens when much of the suns energy is converted to electricity? That part that is converted cannot be used to heat the earth, evaporate water, and cause winds. This potential impact must be evaluated in an EIS before large land mass is dedicated to solar farms.
So how large of land mass is required for a solar farm. Well, if you build one to generate one million kilowatts of electrical power (the typical nuclear plant output, http://www.me.sc.edu/nuclear/NE-FAQs.pdf) you would need to build a solar farm at least the size of Rhode Island. Wow!
More on the other renewable energy sources next time.
They are considered to come from natural sources, and to be naturally replenished (renewable). They are considered to be 'environmental friendly' by some because they are perceived as not damaging the environment, and they are thought not to be consumed in the generation of energy (naturally replenished), therefore they go on forever without 'stealing' from the earth (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy).
Of course, both oil, natural gas, and nuclear are all from natural sources. However, you will NEVER hear of nuclear as a renewable energy source even though the "burning" of nuclear materials in a reactor can produce new nuclear fuel to produce more energy.
Much to do has been made by politicians about doing more research to make renewable energy more competitive by reducing their cost. This is all a distraction to keep supporters of renewable energy at bay because most politicians know renewables can not replace traditional energy sources. They just want you to think they are doing all they can to replace traditional sources of energy. Technology can always be tweaked, but at some point the hard decision has to be made to lock in the existing technology and move forward. So why haven't we done that?
Now why do I say that renewables can't replace traditional sources of energy?
Solar-uses photoelectric or photovoltaic cells to convert sunlight directly into electricity (reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy). Technology to produce solar cells has improved dramatically over the last 20 years. There are no carbon emissions or other emissions from solar generated electricity.
However, there are concerns to be considered. (1) Some environmentalist in the western United States, and others have raise concerns about the large areas of land used for solar farms. They are also concerned about the potential environmental impact to plants and animals that live in those environs to the significant reduction of sunlight reaches those plants and animals over extremely large areas. No one has done a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on these impacts as is required for a coal-fired power plant, a nuclear power plant, or a petroleum refinery. (2) The sun only shines half the time, which means no electricity is being generated at night. That means a solar farm has to be made 2x bigger than a conventional power plant so that enough energy can be produced and stored to meet energy demands. That requires more land area and compounds the issues in item (1) above. (3) Since electricity is not being produced half the time, excess energy must be produced and stored to provide a consistent supply of electricity. The excess energy is stored in batteries. The batteries require a storage area, like a warehouse, that uses more land (see item (1) above). In addition, batteries contain various hazardous materials such as lead, lithium, corrosives, etc. depending on the type of batteries used. These batteries will ultimately need disposal as hazardous waste and/or need expensive recycling with concomitant hazards. And they are expensive which will ultimately increase the cost of the electricity. (4) The photovoltaic cells contain various hazardous materials that will also have to be disposed of as hazardous wastes and/or expensive recycling. (5) A complicated, but potentially real issues that must be addressed in any EIS is the impact, if any, of sprawling solar farms on weather patterns. Yes, the impact on weather. The sun heats the earth, evaporates water, and creates winds. What happens when much of the suns energy is converted to electricity? That part that is converted cannot be used to heat the earth, evaporate water, and cause winds. This potential impact must be evaluated in an EIS before large land mass is dedicated to solar farms.
So how large of land mass is required for a solar farm. Well, if you build one to generate one million kilowatts of electrical power (the typical nuclear plant output, http://www.me.sc.edu/nuclear/NE-FAQs.pdf) you would need to build a solar farm at least the size of Rhode Island. Wow!
More on the other renewable energy sources next time.
Compromise Begets Mediocrity
Some politicians champion compromise as a virtue. Senator John Magoo (R-AZ) comes to mind hailing himself as a maverick who compromises his conservative principles (if he indeed has any) to accommodate the likes of the former Senator Ted Kennedy.
But is compromise all that it is cracked up to be? Not at all; compromise begets mediocrity. The best one could ever hope for when a compromise is reached is average, but the results are usually below average.
There is a notable exception to compromise, which the Democrats have successfully exploited because they have a long-term plan; unlike Republicans like Senator Magoo who compromises to show how magnanimous he is.
Let's examine compromise in a practical example:
First, pretend that you are a liberal, progressive Democrat. I know how creepy, repulsive, gag-in-the-mouth it is pretending you are a liberal Democrat, but it's necessary for the greater good. As a liberal, progressive Democrat you want everybody but yourself to have government controlled, nationalized, public option health care plan.
Second, as an intelligent, conservative American with sound principles and common sense, you want a health care plan that provides the best health care in the world (like 85% of us already have) to be available to all who want it, where you don't have to wait in long lines (which we also have except in the emergency room because of illegal aliens), where you can talk to your doctor and make your own decisions along with your doctor and your family (not the government), and without the government deciding that you are no longer worth spending money on to see a doctor. That's basically what we have now for 85% of legal Americans. You recognize that there are some problems with the current system, but most of the problems are the result of 133,000 pages of regulations currently in the Federal Register. These problems can be fixed without completely overhauling a health care system that most (85%) people are pretty satisfied with.
If you are Senator John Magoo you might blurt out at a town hall meeting without thinking that "what we need to do is work with the Democrats to find a compromise on health care reform." Well, if the Senator does that what might the result be?
First, one might conclude that some of the things you like about your current health care plan will go away, because the good Senator from AZ will have to give up something. So now 85% of us are a little less happy with the health care we have than we are now.
Second, you might also conclude that some sort of government option, such as the public option, health care co-ops, or a "trigger" might be included by the other side. But don't worry, it's 'just in case.' And, of course, being a compromisor Senator Magoo goes along with it. Now 85% of us happy Americans are just a little less happier than we were before.
Now, remember that the long-term plan the Democrats have. They just got part, a big part, of what they want. They know that all they have to do is sit back, wait, then come back to the table later to carve out another piece of the pie from their original plan. Compromise is good for them, because they don't give up anything; they keep picking away at the public option, or whatever their progressive agenda calls for them to do.
The Republicans on the other hand skip off into lala-land thinking how great they are, and that they won a big victory by making the Democrats compromise. All the while not having a clue that they, the Republicans, just eroded a little bit more of our freedom.
And what did we get? A government health care plan that 85% of the people are lot less happy with because the government is now involved with our health care decision-making, that really cost more than what we previously had because not only do you now pay for your government health insurance, but your taxes have gone up to pay for the inevitable deficit, the fraud and abuse, and to pay off all of the special interest on both sides of the aisle.
Compromise is not inevitable; it is a cop-out!
Live free or die at the hands of the government.
But is compromise all that it is cracked up to be? Not at all; compromise begets mediocrity. The best one could ever hope for when a compromise is reached is average, but the results are usually below average.
There is a notable exception to compromise, which the Democrats have successfully exploited because they have a long-term plan; unlike Republicans like Senator Magoo who compromises to show how magnanimous he is.
Let's examine compromise in a practical example:
First, pretend that you are a liberal, progressive Democrat. I know how creepy, repulsive, gag-in-the-mouth it is pretending you are a liberal Democrat, but it's necessary for the greater good. As a liberal, progressive Democrat you want everybody but yourself to have government controlled, nationalized, public option health care plan.
Second, as an intelligent, conservative American with sound principles and common sense, you want a health care plan that provides the best health care in the world (like 85% of us already have) to be available to all who want it, where you don't have to wait in long lines (which we also have except in the emergency room because of illegal aliens), where you can talk to your doctor and make your own decisions along with your doctor and your family (not the government), and without the government deciding that you are no longer worth spending money on to see a doctor. That's basically what we have now for 85% of legal Americans. You recognize that there are some problems with the current system, but most of the problems are the result of 133,000 pages of regulations currently in the Federal Register. These problems can be fixed without completely overhauling a health care system that most (85%) people are pretty satisfied with.
If you are Senator John Magoo you might blurt out at a town hall meeting without thinking that "what we need to do is work with the Democrats to find a compromise on health care reform." Well, if the Senator does that what might the result be?
First, one might conclude that some of the things you like about your current health care plan will go away, because the good Senator from AZ will have to give up something. So now 85% of us are a little less happy with the health care we have than we are now.
Second, you might also conclude that some sort of government option, such as the public option, health care co-ops, or a "trigger" might be included by the other side. But don't worry, it's 'just in case.' And, of course, being a compromisor Senator Magoo goes along with it. Now 85% of us happy Americans are just a little less happier than we were before.
Now, remember that the long-term plan the Democrats have. They just got part, a big part, of what they want. They know that all they have to do is sit back, wait, then come back to the table later to carve out another piece of the pie from their original plan. Compromise is good for them, because they don't give up anything; they keep picking away at the public option, or whatever their progressive agenda calls for them to do.
The Republicans on the other hand skip off into lala-land thinking how great they are, and that they won a big victory by making the Democrats compromise. All the while not having a clue that they, the Republicans, just eroded a little bit more of our freedom.
And what did we get? A government health care plan that 85% of the people are lot less happy with because the government is now involved with our health care decision-making, that really cost more than what we previously had because not only do you now pay for your government health insurance, but your taxes have gone up to pay for the inevitable deficit, the fraud and abuse, and to pay off all of the special interest on both sides of the aisle.
Compromise is not inevitable; it is a cop-out!
Live free or die at the hands of the government.
Energy 101-What Energy Policy?
Since the 1970's Energy Crisis, no one, Republican or Democrat has put on the table a comprehensive Energy Policy. Everyone in elected office has decried our dependence on foreign oil while obstructing the pursuit of domestic oil production in the name of environmentalism. Even after September 11th when terrorist attacked us on our own soil using money obtained from our importation of foreign oil, not a single politician of either party sought to put forth an Energy Policy that would make us relatively independent of foreign oil. Our governments apathy regarding energy independence has resulted in the continued increase of foreign oil imports with the result of billions of dollars being transferred to terrorist states, or at the least states sponsoring terrorism. These insane policies are not limited to the United States; recently Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of Great Britain brokered the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the killer of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in exchange for British Petroleum to obtain rights to oil in Libya. As bad as that is, the United States under both Republican and Democratic leadership has been and is as irresponsible.
Both Republicans and Democrats have hidden behind the guise of needing to develop new sources of energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and the like. They have all spent millions of dollars on the development of such whimsical ideas as electric cars as our salvation. Just a few months ago, Barrack Obama told some workers in Ohio that he would spend $15 billion on the development of new battery technology to power the cars of the future, and create thousands of new jobs. I guess he knows something that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of Energy (DOE) doesn't already know. NASA and DOE have both spent millions of dollars trying to develop new battery technologies as early as the mid-1060's for the space program, and later in response to the energy crisis in the 1970's. These are all just distractions so that Congress and the President can continue to "fiddle while Rome burns."
Why haven't these alternative energy sources replaced oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear? Many would try to give a very long list of reasons, but the bottom line is that no other alternative energy source is cost competitive with oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear. In fact, if it weren't for government regulation of oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear they would be even cheaper than they are currently, and the alternative (green or renewable) energy sources would be at an even greater cost disadvantage. Then take away the government subsidies for these alternative sources (include ethanol here), the cost differential is enormous.
So, as President Obama much too often says, let me make this perfectly clear: Every US citizen who uses energy pays more for the energy they use due to government regulation and taxes; then every US citizen pays additional subsidies in the form of taxes to make alternative energy, including ethanol, more competitive with oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear. You pay twice. On top of that, all the politicians drag their feet when it comes to developing new domestic energy sources, and they throw every roadblock possible in the way of building new nuclear power plants, reprocessing facilities, and safe disposal sites. These are the reasons why we don't have energy independence, and every single person no matter their economic status or political affiliation PAYS through the nose for energy because both parties are content to sit idly by while the cost continues to grow, and we continue to fund terrorist states who want to kill Americans.
Then we see the wealthy T. Boone Pickens on TV asking us to support wind power; then later natural gas as the ultimate answer. Why? Because he owns many square miles of land throughout the West that he wants to capitalize on for wind farms, and he owns land that holds natural gas that he wants to sell. Now I don't mind that at all really, but everyone should know why he's hawking the snake oil he's hawking. In fact, I actually like natural gas as one alternative that America should unleash. Wind power is something else however.
So what's wrong with the green or renewable energy sources, and what are the sources of energy we should be aggressively pursuing? More on that in the next segment.
Both Republicans and Democrats have hidden behind the guise of needing to develop new sources of energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and the like. They have all spent millions of dollars on the development of such whimsical ideas as electric cars as our salvation. Just a few months ago, Barrack Obama told some workers in Ohio that he would spend $15 billion on the development of new battery technology to power the cars of the future, and create thousands of new jobs. I guess he knows something that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of Energy (DOE) doesn't already know. NASA and DOE have both spent millions of dollars trying to develop new battery technologies as early as the mid-1060's for the space program, and later in response to the energy crisis in the 1970's. These are all just distractions so that Congress and the President can continue to "fiddle while Rome burns."
Why haven't these alternative energy sources replaced oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear? Many would try to give a very long list of reasons, but the bottom line is that no other alternative energy source is cost competitive with oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear. In fact, if it weren't for government regulation of oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear they would be even cheaper than they are currently, and the alternative (green or renewable) energy sources would be at an even greater cost disadvantage. Then take away the government subsidies for these alternative sources (include ethanol here), the cost differential is enormous.
So, as President Obama much too often says, let me make this perfectly clear: Every US citizen who uses energy pays more for the energy they use due to government regulation and taxes; then every US citizen pays additional subsidies in the form of taxes to make alternative energy, including ethanol, more competitive with oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear. You pay twice. On top of that, all the politicians drag their feet when it comes to developing new domestic energy sources, and they throw every roadblock possible in the way of building new nuclear power plants, reprocessing facilities, and safe disposal sites. These are the reasons why we don't have energy independence, and every single person no matter their economic status or political affiliation PAYS through the nose for energy because both parties are content to sit idly by while the cost continues to grow, and we continue to fund terrorist states who want to kill Americans.
Then we see the wealthy T. Boone Pickens on TV asking us to support wind power; then later natural gas as the ultimate answer. Why? Because he owns many square miles of land throughout the West that he wants to capitalize on for wind farms, and he owns land that holds natural gas that he wants to sell. Now I don't mind that at all really, but everyone should know why he's hawking the snake oil he's hawking. In fact, I actually like natural gas as one alternative that America should unleash. Wind power is something else however.
So what's wrong with the green or renewable energy sources, and what are the sources of energy we should be aggressively pursuing? More on that in the next segment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)