Topic: Energy
How to solve world energy problem in transportation. Open letter to US Congress and future US President.The need to create strategic plan for renewable energy.4/3/2008 9:51 AMCongress must create strategic plan for development of renewable, sustainable and pollution free energy.by James Montgomery
(Centrist Liberal Libertarian)
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Letter to US congress 3 08
How to solve world energy problem in transportation.
Open letter to US Congress and future US President.
The need to create strategic plan for renewable energy.4/3/2008 9:51 AMCongress must create strategic plan for development of renewable, sustainable and pollution free energy.We are living in USA the most technologically advance country in the world. We are living in the era of diminishing oil and high energy cost. We are living in time where pollution is highest ever and getting worst. We are living in a country where people and congress are divided in respect to many subjects including but not limited to: war, illegal immigration, healthcare cost, economy, subprime mortgagesWe Americans are also divided on one of the most important subject energy and pollution and how to solve the diminishing supply and high cost.The laws passed in the last few years on renewable energy will have in my opinion very limited success for several reasons:1. Biofuels from renewable crops can satisfy at most 20 to 30% of total energy in transportation even if all land is used for such crop and the cost of food will skyrocket. 2. Biofuels are not efficient fuels because they produce about 25% more energy than they take.3. Biofuels need lots of energy to produce, transport and in the process they pollute the air.4. Other renewable methods of producing energy such as: hydro plants, geothermal, solar, wind, use of ocean and river waves and flow have many other limitations and they cannot replace the petroleum fuels in transportation. 5. Nuclear energy has many limitations and one the most critical is how to neutralize and dispose the radioactive plutonium which has life span of over 100,000 years and it is one of the most deadly pollution. 6. Hydrogen appears to be the most promising, but it is too expensive to make, store and transport and for now it is in my opinion just in experimental stage. I read that some scientist ware able to produce it more effectively, but the metal they use are too expensive. As a result the fuel cell technology will be in limited use for now.What congress should do?First Create at least $10 billion dollars reward for the development of the Best Alternative, Renewable, Sustainable and Pollution free Fuels.Such proposal was made in US news magazine article "The No-Fun Presidency "in March 10 2008 issue page 51 and the link is:[link edited for length]In the article James Pethokoukis writes: "What uncle Sam could do to inspire entrepreneurs and researchers to turn those challenges into reality is to offer innovation prizes, much like privately funded, $10 million Ansari X-Prize for spaceflight." "Yet even if the reward was $1 billion or $10 billion, it would still be relative pittance on a cost benefit basis"I strongly agree with the above statements and congress should consider it.Second thing congress can do is to pass a law and provide grants and loans with at least $50 billion a year programs similar to programs like "Manhattan project" of the development of the nuclear bomb and the project to send men on the moon. In such programs it should include even individual inventors who are looking outside of the envelopes of possibilities even consider crazy ideas because one crazy idea could become the ray of hope to humanity and may solved the energy and pollution problems for the next 100 years and beyond.We have to remember that the inventors of the rockets, jet engines and other great inventions had been ridicule and consider by many experts crazy and not practical. American professor and the father of the US rocket program Robert Goddard was called "Loony moony.." because he predicted that the rockets can be used to visit the moon. Only the Germans took him seriously and the rest is history.Some experts concluded that the jet engine will never work on airplanes because it will be too heavy to be able to take off. The facts are that a jumbo jet now can carry 1,000 passengers (Russian AN 225) and American SR 71 can fly about 4 times the speed of sound. That was considered crazy and impossible 100 years ago. According the editor of Forbes magazine in April 12 1993 Today's crackpot may be tomorrow's genius in the article Golden Mine, "From Russia, with patents," relating to the Russian Immigrant Alexander Kalina was reject it by most experts, but he collected over $100 million dollars in royalties few years later from his Energy inventions.I strongly agreed with editor's statement and the history is proof of it. (Editorial statement can be sent to you upon request)Third thing congress must do is to require that the inventors and scientist to go in uncharted territory and start discovering the next fuel of the future from the side of which is consider impossible by looking first what is the most abounded on our planet and then to find way to convert such elements in Renewable, sustainable, pollution free and low cost of energy.In my view such products and elements I would consider in developing the most practical renewable sustainable and pollution free fuels are: (not in any particular order)1. Carbon dioxide CO22. Waste from domestic animals3. Water, the most abounded and free element on the surface of the earth (70%) (and according 2 US scientist water has potentially about 3 times more energy than gasoline and if we find low cost way to extracted it could be the best choice for development of renewable energy) 4. Used tires (Over 300 million a year are pileup in US alone) according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), tires deliver 25 percent more energy than coal.5. OthersIn my view if America create a "Marshal" plans as I mention above and create crash program in 10 to 15 years we could have found and developed the newest of renewable, sustainable and pollution free energy for cars, trucks, airplanes, ships and spacecrafts. And it can happen only if the congress takes at least similar actions as I mention in my presentation, because 99% of the privet industry look the profits in the short run and development on revolutionary new renewable and pollution free energy may take decades. Congress must create strategic plan for development of renewable, sustainable and pollution free energy now, and the first step can be to create at least $10 billion dollars reward for the development of the Best Alternative, Renewable, Sustainable and Pollution free Fuels.
PS. I am in process of interviewing top notch Patent Attorneys to prepare my patent applications for Renewable sustainable pollution free and low cost energy propulsion system using new energy fuel never used before. It is a combination of new engine and new fuel.The new propulsion system may be able to burn also most conventional fuels with higher efficiency. I believe that my inventions could solve at least 50% of the energy and pollution problems in transportation not just for US, but for the world. Links to energy information [link edited for length]
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5 thumbs so far
2008 James Montgomery, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, April 3, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, April 3, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of James Montgomery only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. James Montgomery is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
This is truly the challenge of our time. This is something peaceful we can all get behind. Why would anyone be against cheap, clean, renewable fuel? This is a good mix of the free market and government working together for a worthy cause. Urgency is needed as the cost of oil is only going to continue to rise. Most neglect to realize that we will need the cheap oil to discover and implement the solution. Oil is currently trading for >$100 a > 65% increase form last year. Let's get out from under the thumb of our own oil companies and the despots in the Middle East. Good luck on your endeavor, I hope you find a solution that works and is scalable.
10 billion would certainly light a fire under someone's ass. I think I would throw my hat into the pool and I gt a C in biology.
All sarcasm aside, where would this 10 billion come from? Printed? Taxes? If the United States had more wealth at its disposal than this may have been a plausible idea. And then there is the threat of a loser taking there plans to different countries and getting paid to do so. Though that's not a big fear.
This sounds like one of those awesome "in theory" ideas that would just be too difficult to launch.
This is a bad idea. You don't need a "prize" to solve energy needs. The U.S. Government already gives grants to oil companies and universities for energy research, courtesy of you and me. Those grants are already in the billions of dollars.
If prices were allowed to rise naturally, inventors would step up and fill the gap. By pushing this prize, you are trying to put in place an incentive to make this occur sooner than later. That's admirable and I wish you the best. But as a taxpayer, I'd rather you didn't push your cause with my dollars.
If you want to do this the right way, you form a company with venture capital. The investors take the risk and reap the rewards. Check out Wave Uranium dot com. I'm looking at other companies as well to invest in. I want the profits as well as the benefits.
Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-03 11:10:57
The ability to create fuels from cellulose based sources or plants came about in the late 1800's. In the early 20th Century was banned as a liquor, it is notable that the American oil barons where coming to power at the same time. In the 30's Ford had made an automobile constructed (mostly) and powered by HEMP. This also coincides with the advent of a Hemp thrusher, making the seperation of hemp pulp for paper more cost efficient than wood. Hemp was essentially squashed ( the Melon Bank, Hurst publishing and an ignorant Congress) by the Marijuanna Tax act of 1937 (marijuanna is a slang term penned by Hurst, in order to further villanize hemp for paper thru xenophobia) which attempted to tax it out of existance.
In the 1940's the Dept of Agriculture made a film called "Hemp for Victory" in which it was the Patriot farmers duty to grow Hemp for the war effort. At the End of the War Hemp again became evil and rope began to be made from petroleum products.
In the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, Hemp became a Schedule I substance which means it has ZERO accepted use other than being evil and detrimental to society.
Currently bio-mass diesel can be made from Hemp for around 38 cents a gallon, meanwhile cutting carbon emmissions by greater than 90%.
Can you imagine how cheap our consumer goods would be if it only cost the tucking company $1 a gallon for bio-deisel.
Can you imagine having the entire OTR fleet independant from OPEC?
But current "regulation" of the markets allows the oil industry to further bankrupt us, allows OPEC to dictate our lives and has tremendous adverse effects upon all of our environment.
The market and technology have been there for over 1/2 a century, but the regulatory powers that be continue to feed the rich by suppressing the competition at our and our planets expense.
99.999% of the time a 'subsidy' hurts more than it helps. But I don't see what the OP has suggested is anything like a subsidy. This is a cash reward for a solid, provable, solution. Now to make it even more worth our while the 10 billion should be for the patent on the solution. It would be of tremendous benefit for the American people to actually own the new fuel source. Instead of paying a company to use the fuel we could be paying ourselves as we would not be the only country using it if it proves to be all it's cracked up to be.
I think we need to let free market work and energy prices will float up. We need to conserve more. Then we won't need prizes or subsidies. $5 gas and 0.20 kW/hr electricity. You mention that bio-fuels could save only 20 to 30% of fuel. Yet, if we all carpooled to work we would easily save that today. No expensive plants, no pollution in growing crops, no fertilizer, etc... As an added bonus less traffic on the roads so longer road life. Let's really get serious about solving this problem and not let the government do it. We the people need to get motivated.
.20 electricity and we will be buying CCFL lights, turning off the computer at night (how many people leave theirs on at work?), turning off lights when not in use and justifying solar and new appliance purchases.
If you pay for research that's what you will get...research, not solutions. Offering a reward of $10 billion is a better idea, although its probably not necessary. If you find the solution to our energy problem people will beat a path to your door. You will make Bill Gates look like a pauper.
I'm sure we have all heard stories of viable new technology that would benefit the consumer with lower prices that has met it's demise at the hands of the powerful entrenched interests. If not watch this trailer for Who Killed the Electric Car
This is not my endorsement of the electric car (unless electricity can be derived from solar, wind, ocean or nuclear) but it's just an example of how so called free market forces don't always mean the best idea's make it to the market place on time. Once a certain industry reaches a level were they can afford to put undue influence on the market then ....what are we left with? That doesn't seem so free to me.
So if some patriot wants to spend his/her time figuring the problem out for all of us with the promise that he/she will be rewarded sufficiently then the existing industry that might serve to stop the implementation of said good idea would be neutralized. Maybe.
"If prices were allowed to rise naturally, inventors would step up and fill the gap. By pushing this prize, you are trying to put in place an incentive to make this occur sooner than later. That's admirable and I wish you the best. But as a taxpayer, I'd rather you didn't push your cause with my dollars."
You're the kind of sucker I love.
Read that bit on the Electric Car again. I guarantee you, the more prices move up, the LESS INCENTIVE big buisness has to do anything at all except maybe buy Krugerands to use as game tokens and tips.
You can't live in today's society without transporation. You're over a barrel. You'll pay what you're told and you'll like it.
Free energy is already here and has been for many years. There is two problems stoping free energy from being a realality. Goverment and oil companys. As of right now one in the same.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 James Montgomery, all rights reserved.