David Lea’s Letters from Home to the West Wing: Door County Wants Green Energy Alternatives

Posted on 06. Feb, 2010 by in News

“I found your recent comments on Green Energy to be very misleading. You state that you are all for Green Energy, but that it would be too expensive and would not create new jobs.”

Dear Rep Bies,

According to the very thoroughly researched article in November’s issue of Scientific American, the only logical direction our energy supply can pursue is “renewable energy”, that is, those energy systems for which we do not need to be digging up or harvesting material.

These energy sources are: Solar Power, Wind Power and Geothermal.  The article makes it very clear that once installed, these power sources quickly outdistance oil, coal, biofuels, nuclear and hydro-electric since they just keep giving more power without having to “fetch” the fuel from some other place.  The combination of these three could, with a reasonable and sustained “investment” (why call it a “cost”) become the very backbone of our national and world wide power systems in a surprisingly short time.

All our other fuel sources are drying up at a much faster rate than the oil and coal industries want us to believe.  And even if we have another 50 years, we know that this kind of constantly replenished energy is the only solution that will stand the test of time.  We are very close to running out of U235 and Thorium would not be far behind.  We are probably already on the downhill slope of the peak of oil production world wide, just as we peaked out in 1973 for the United States.  Coal is so destructive not only to our atmosphere, but also to one of our most vital resources:  Natural Beauty, the foundation to the worlds number one industry: tourism.  Coal mining is now one of the greatest destroyers of our water, soil and forest resources as well.

These kinds of renewable energy installations can be put up almost anywhere and don’t need to be centralized. The roofs and sides of existing buildings, in our own front and back yards, etc. This would lead to a much more widely distributed work force installing, maintaining and updating this equipment, plus failure of one windmill here or a photo voltaic assembly there will barely effect the overall system, whereas centralized power plants make the system very vulnerable to shutdowns.

I urge you to obtain this issue of Scientific American (follow the link).  It represents one of the clearest and best supported surveys of the whole energy issue that I have seen yet.

It is also available on their website in a little different form, which I do not find as informative, but which contains most of the charts and graphs that make their explanations so clear.

Jobs in manufacturing require a very great reinvestment.  These jobs have left the US because they were sold off in the 80′s to the low bidders in South East Asia.  We have a long way to go to regroup and fire up the manufacturing engines in this country!

Thanks for listening.

Dave Lea,
Fish Creek

Tags: , , ,

  • Craig skip Weis

    First let me preface my random commits by saying;

    For me no global warming is possible. Only two sources of energy on earth are the sun and nuclear. Say just for giggles one huge solar panel was needed to power the U.S. This panel would need to cover all of Spain. Turning all of Spain under this solar panel into a permafrost, endless and lifeless wasteland. Of course another solar panel the same size would be needed 180 degrees around the globe for power when night befalls Spain. Plus long electrical extension cords of fiber optics. “Ain't gonna happen.”

    California is a desert, always was, always will be. Want water? Build nuclear power plants to power 100+ foot~head pumps and squeeze the ocean through some membranes for fresh water. And since the land West of the Mississippi River is up hill from the land East of the Mississippi River not enough electric power can be found to pump and push the east coast water to the west coast's need.

    The sun evaporates water and makes rain fall, makes the barometer move and wind blow, makes algae bloom and store btu's, makes plants synthesize light. 'C', in, 'O' out. Where does the 'C' stay? In the plants. Cap and Trade my butt Mr. Al Gore.

    Nuclear heat in the core of the globe makes the Old Faithful gusher, faithful. Some 13 foot of sea water is equal to one foot of lead shielding. Admiral Rickover's NR-1 submarine used seawater astern of the nuclear 'kettle' and 1 foot of lead forward where 100% of the crew was stationed. Woods Hole now sails the NR-1.

    For me no energy sources are renewable. Alternatives yes. Renewable no. Entropy is the opposite of energy. Entropy is what everything with energy in it, turns into. It is not possible to renew or add energy into 'something' without putting more energy into that 'something' then was taken out.

    For me more costly alternative sources can be had. How many more electric power plants would be needed if cars were electric? Two identical cars. One gasoline engine. One electric motor. Both cars require the same exact btu's to cruise down the road at the same speed. The btu difference is the efficiency between a engine and a motor. Waste heat. But an electric generating powerplant is still needed for the motor. Oh I forgot Fan Laws. Resistance through the air squares as speed doubles. Slow down. Drive like you have a raw egg between the gas pedal and your foot. Ever notice the driver in front of you is a moron and the driver passing you is a maniac? Why don't motors [full torque at anything above zero rpm's.] have multispeed transmissions while engines do. Why not multispeed transmissions on yachts?

    Some very weird things–>I heard but have no idea if these are true.

    Out the Stack:

    The U.S.A. has a small number [maybe 5?] steel mills limping along at a reduced tonnage, cold blast furnaces, and a huge 'brain drain' and over all regulated out of business but with clean stack emissions.

    China around 2,800 steel mills humming along at a high rate of tonnage without regulation and dirty stacks and a ton of workers enhanced by the whole trickle down effect thing.

    India has 3 steel mills, unregulated, well oiled with workers and cash, and out producing all that China rolls out.

    Over The Side:

    Subaru is owned by Fuji Heavy Industries that have behemoth sized factory ships that travel to Australia, load the sand/bauxite off the beach and once in international waters, fire up the propane fired smelters and pricepate the aluminum out of the beach sand/bauxite, tossing the dregs over the side and freely exhausting the effluents to the atmosphere. Unregulated but very cost efficient. I also heard that Subaru moved some production from Japan, to China. That became too expensive so now moved again to Korea. Of course Subaru still assembles cars in Indiana, south of Chicago. [Indiana has lower taxes then Illinois. Whitch is why the $44 million Palmer Johnson Yachts in my town of Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin sells and tranferrs ownership in Indiana waters, as well.]

    It was interesting to note that when Toyota needed extra capacity for a short time that Subaru allowed Toyota to assemble their cars at Subaru~Indiana. Do you think GM would allow Ford to do this?

    Anyone want to talk or rant about the multiplicities of life?

    skip.

Switch to our mobile site