Heard It At the Low Carbon Investors Conference
A few other quotes from the conference, which provided me a great excuse to be in San Francisco, one of my very favorite cities. I couldn’t resist adding my comments.
• Renewable energy has not fully recovered from the Carter-Reagan transition.
That was a horrible setback, but I have to disagree. Look at the progress that solar PV and wind have made in the last few years. Viewing the situation from 50,000 feet, we’re 40 years into a process that will take several more decades to complete, and we’re going strong. Trillions of dollars are flowing into this arena from all over the world.
• Outside the OECD countries, no one gives a … (no one cares) about clean energy or the environment. China has wind farms so they can show you that they’re doing something.
True. Renewable energy will not hit China, India, and certain other countries until it becomes so cheap that market conditions push them that way. I appreciate the work of Raj Pachauri and the IPCC, but I don’t see an end to the frustration he clearly faces in negotiating multi-national deals.
The following came from a conversation I had with Ron Litzinger, ex-president of Southern California Edison, who gave me permission to quote him.
• The utilities will soon be out of the business of selling power altogether; the future business model will be building and selling “the pipes.”
I believe this is true, but it still doesn’t bode well for the utilities, as people build microgrids and find other ways to go off the grid entirely.
• People don’t understand the importance of the grid. When you start your air conditioner every day, you’re drawing a huge amount of power for the first second or so. Doing that with your PV and batteries will kill your system.
Batteries aren’t very resilient, and this is true in many cases now, but it won’t be forever.
• People who don’t want fracking are incredibly uninformed. Fracking bankrupted coal; it has shut down far more coal than all the efforts in renewable energy to date—combined.
True, as I’ve noted numerous times.
• Fracking has forced renewable energy to sharpen its game.
True. I had previously written: “The people who are putting real heavy-duty resources behind the espousal of fracking, i.e., the oil companies, couldn’t care less about you, your health, your kids, the skies, the oceans, the plants, or the animals. As hard as it may be for most people to fathom, they care only about one thing: money. Fracking makes the continued exploitation of fossil fuels cost-effective indefinitely.” Though a lot of this is true, I’ve changed my overall thinking on this, per the above.
• The EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration) radically underestimates everything. We’re experiencing exponential, not linear growth. The migration to renewables is happening far faster than people realize. Check out what Singularity University is doing.
Needless to say, I agree with that. But hearing it from him was great news. If that’s not a reason for optimism, I don’t know what is. And yes, Singularity University is terrific.
From the article:
” People don’t understand the importance of the grid. When you start your air conditioner every day, you’re drawing a huge amount of power for the first second or so. Doing that with your PV and batteries will kill your system.”
Total nonsense! The person who said that assumes that it is impossible to design air conditioning systems that will not draw a huge amount of current upon startup. There are various ways to do that. Even now, there are air conditioning systems that provide variable frequency to the compressor to make it variable speed; the electronics have no difficulty with a power surge upon startup. Obviously that would be no problem for batteries in a PV system. Car batteries have for well over 100 years been able to deal with the current surge caused by the starter. And, if it were really a problem for batteries, they could be supplemented with ultra capacitors which can quite easily handle huge current surges.
That one statement makes that speaker’s biases, lack of objectivity, and lack of honesty, inescapably clear and would lead me to ignore anything else he says.
Not sure how to respond. It was this guy: http://www.edison.com/home/about-us/leadership/edison-international-leaders/ronald-l-litzinger.html.
Hi Frank,
I think you’re being a little hard on Ron Litzinger . True, it’s quite possible to design air-conditioning that don’t draw a huge amount of current upon start-up, and even the existing grid would appreciate such technology.
However, such technology is expensive. Like auto-manufacture, air-conditioning is a high capital cost/low profit business. Most air-conditioning sold is very low tech and very inefficient.
Of course there will always be an affluent minority, who can afford and appreciate energy design, but the majority will just buy a cheap mass produced unit from Wall Mart.
I think Ron Litzinger’s means, is although it’s possible for an individual to largely replace grid supplied energy, few are willing or able to do so, for various reasons and circumstances.
That opinion, doesn’t make Ron Litzinger lack of objectivity, or honesty !
Ron Litzinger is working within a different business model, than normal businesses. Power utilities in the US (and many other jurisdictions) can operate as a monopoly, but the market remains government controlled. As a result, power utilities are not in the business of selling more electricity to generate profits, instead by providing and managing, infrastructure. The better managed the infrastructure, the greater return allowed by the regulator.
Those who think that a proliferation of Solar panels would eliminate the grid, should start to calculate the logistics of accomplishing such a feat, even on a modest scale. (I know, I own a very small scale “grid” ).
It’s always difficult explaining to enthusiasts the difference between what’s possible on a small scale, in favourable circumstances, and replication on a large scale, where different circumstances prevail.
Capacitors take care of this problem and they are already built into every electric motor to handle this large sudden load demand.
I think you have misunderstood what Ron Litzinger meant.
Not all air-conditioning units have capacitors, and those that do are designed to protect the unit from power surges, not the grid from the air-conditioner ! The air-conditioner is in no danger, it’s the battery pack replacing the grid that will become damaged by sudden, and erratic large power draws.
Technically, it’s possible to overcome such problems, but at what cost ?
painting fracking in a positive light is a mole in the greening of earth movement. Permanently poisoning water supplies and upsetting earthquake zones is not positive. Chinese solar arrays will not save our eco-system. THE INSTITUTE OF SENSIBLE MEDICINE HAS DEVELOPED SYSTEMS TO GIVE CHEAP ENERGY TO EARTH WHILE PROVIDING ALL THE CLEAN WATER PEOPLE AND AGRICULTURE NEED. ALL WHILE REGREENING ALL THE PLACES DESERTIFIED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY, USING TECHNOLOGIES HUNDREDS AND IN SOME CASES THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD. AND ALL THIS WHILE PROVIDING MILLIONS OF LOW WAGE JOBS TO THE POOREST LOW SKILL WORKERS ON EARTH, IMMEDIATELY AS IT IS VERY LOW COST TO INITIATE “OPERATION REGREEN EARTH”, AS TITLED BY THE INSTITUTE OF SENSIBLE MEDICINE.. YOU SHOULD LOOK TO PEOPLE DOING CRITICAL THINKING.
Re: your comment about fracking, that’s what I used to believe until I went through this exercise: http://2greenenergy.com/2014/10/13/should-we-ban-fracking/.
.Craig, your willingness to adapt to changing circumstance, and new perspectives, does you great credit !
Thanks for the reference to this article. I added a comment there.
Yes, thanks. Here’s my response: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/05/28/bans-on-fracking/
MarcoPolo: Thanks. People who can’t change their perspective given a new set of facts are in pretty bad shape.
“Renewable energy will not hit China, India, and certain other countries until it becomes so cheap that market conditions push them that way.”
I would question that the market is already giving a fairly hefty push in that direction
China installed over 10.5 GW of solar last year, (substantially more than any other country has ever installed in a single year), and is targeting 17.8 GW for this year. As for wind, close to 21 GW was installed in China in 2014. The cost in both cases is only slightly higher than for fossil fueled power plant and has the advantage of effectively fixed costs for the life of the solar array.
The Chinese government is happy to pay the current slight premium for renewables as it helps to create jobs and build capacity for future expansion of export markets. (In fact, they have already paid most of the subsidy for the next few years in the form of loans etc for the various factories which if they had not installed large quantities of solar in the last two years would have operated at an uneconomically low capacity factor.)
As for India, watch this space – India is committed to building an average of nearly 20 GW of solar per annum between now and 2020 – with a distinct possibility of state sponsored and on site projects pushing the rate of installation far higher. In india, solar has for years been competitive with on site diesel generators, is now fully competitive with gas fired power at utility scale, and is rapidly closng in on the price of coal fired power.
In both cases, the filthy state of the air is a major factor in driving the will to install renewables, as is widespread public awareness of climate change.
Yes, we’re talking about a lot of renewables, but we’re talking about a lot of coal, too. http://2greenenergy.com/2014/01/08/china-coal-capacity/.
• The utilities will soon be out of the business of selling power altogether; the future business model will be building and selling “the pipes.”
Craig says: “I believe this is true, but it still doesn’t bode well for the utilities, as people build microgrids and find other ways to go off the grid entirely.”
I say that statement reflects small thinking!
What I say is I also believe this is true, but it still doesn’t bode well for the utilities, as entire towns and cities build generation assets and find advanced new concept ways for their entire community to go off the grid entirely.
AAEC has developed technology designed to enable towns, cities and even counties to convert nearly completely to cleaner renewable energy. AAEC is for those who understand that clean distributed alternative/renewable energy derived from coal, solar, wind, biomass and waste is a viable pathway to stall global warming and produce a better future for our communities, for our descendants, and ultimately for all humanity. AAEC offers a viable way to move beyond talking about climate change to controlling it. Fossil Fuel firms and utilities oppose what AAEC offers and want to maintain their monopoly positions as sole energy providers and pass unlimited costs in cleaning up their operations on to their customers, even if much better options are available.
AAEC has invented, patented, tested and further developed a new concept low-carbon energy technology we’ve designed for serving as the core technology for far cleaner renewable energy production systems and energy efficiency improvements across the American landscape and around the world. AAEC’s novel new concept technology consists of a biomass, fossil fuel, and municipal waste combustion, gasification and pyrolysis conversion technology that can provide scalable heat and power requirements as well as both biofuel and biochar production. AAEC’s technology is for stand-alone use or as backup for alternative energy systems that depend on solar, wind or other intermittent sources of energy, and in this way it will help enable a doubling of the deployment of alternative energy projects around the world in coming decades.
Les Blevins, President Advanced Alternative Energy
1207 N 1800 Rd., Lawrence, KS 66049
Phone 785-842-1943 – Email LBlevins@aaecorp.com
For more info see
http://aaecorp.com/ceo.html
http://advancedalternativeenergycorp.com
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=45587557&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Advanced-Alternative-Energy/277213435730720
http://buildings.ideascale.com/a/dtd/SCALABLE-MIXED-WASTE-TO-ENERGY-CONVERSION-TECHNOLOGY/84117-33602
One man’s trash… could be his community’s energy-rich biomass
March 22, 2007
The idea sounds so outrageous that one is tempted to dub it Fitch’s Folly.
Warrenton VA Mayor George Fitch has set a new goal for himself: To make his town “energy independent” within the near future.
Fitch wants to create ethanol and generate electricity using biomass as a feedstock and fuel. What kind of biomass? All kinds. The waste that goes into the county landfill. Tree clippings from forest maintenance. Corn husks and switchgrass. Wooden construction debris. Old tires. Sewage sludge.
Virtually any organic waste that can be rounded up from within a 20-25 mile distance from town that other people would let rot or, better, pay to get rid of.
After extensive research, Fitch has conceptualized a project that would cost about $30 million. It would generate about five megawatts of electricity for sale into the electric grid, enough to power about 5,500 households, and would yield 10 million gallons a year of ethanol.
As long as the price of ethanol stays above $1.25 a gallon (it’s about $2.25 right now) and the price of crude stays above $38 per barrel (it’s over $60), he says, the project will be profitable.
“I’m a fiscal conservative,” says Fitch. “Government shouldn’t be wasting peoples’ money. We have a landfill. We’re taking garbage and burying it in the ground.” That just doesn’t make sense, he contends, when the garbage is loaded with BTUs that can be converted into electricity and liquid fuel.
Fitch is working to “tee up” the project, ensure a reliable supply of biomass feedstock, find a private-sector operator to take ownership, and lobby for federal loan guarantees to reduce the risk for investors.
His goal is to negotiate terms that would allow him to re-sell the electricity to Warrenton residents for about half of what Dominion charges.
“If my residents are paying 5.9 per kilowatt to Dominion,” he says, “let’s bring that down to three cents.”
The gasification technology is well understood, although the engineering probably will need tweaking to accommodate the wide range of waste products that Fitch contemplates.
As the mayor describes it, the process entails heating the waste materials to an extremely high temperature in the absence of oxygen – as high as 2,000 degrees – then cooling it to 98 degrees.
The material would not burn, it would gasify, leaving about 2 percent of the original volume as residue to dispose of.
Waste heat from the cooling would be used to generate electricity, while the organic compounds in the gases would be converted into ethanol.
If the Warrenton project pans out, Fitch sees the idea spreading nationally.
There are implications for Virginia energy policy, too. The environmental community is pushing a Renewable Portfolio Standards bill that would require Virginia electric utilities to generate 12 percent of their power from renewable energy sources by 2020.
Although the legislation has been sidetracked while the General Assembly takes up re-regulation of the electric power industry, the issue is not likely to go away. Municipal projects built around local landfills across the state could make a significant contribution to that 12-percent goal.
Small-scale projects like the one Fitch proposes, are consistent with a “distributed generation” approach to organizing the electric power grid.
In theory, an electric grid consisting of many small producers located close to their consumers is more stable and less vulnerable to disruptive blackouts than a system depending upon massive power plants linked by equally giant transmission lines.
“If you drop in a five-megawatt plant and flow the power into the distribution grid, there’s a range of benefits,” says Brad Schneider, founder of Recovered Energy Resources, a Rappahannock County company that designs biomass-to-energy plants, who has advised Fitch.
Balancing the grid with locally generated electricity affects the harmonics and stability of the system.
For Warrenton and the northern Piedmont, grid harmonics are no small thing.
Dominion wants to run a transmission line through the region in order to wheel more electricity from the Midwest into Northern Virginia. Not only would a Warrenton power plant increase the supply of locally generated electricity, a better load balance in the region might enable the power company to increase the capacity of existing transmission lines.
Fitch has had conversations with oil giant Chevron, which wants to get into the field.
The next phase of the project is finding $300,000 for design and engineering. That’s more than Warrenton can afford, but Uncle Sam is handing out renewable-energy grants like bingo cards in an old folks’ home.
Fitch thinks he has a shot at getting support. His argument: A successful demonstration of the technology in Warrenton could open up opportunities for municipalities across the country.
Fitch insists that his project would stand on its own merits. But as gravy for investors, there is a host of credits and incentives. There’s a 51 cents per gallon credit for ethanol, plus an extra ten cents a gallon for small producers.
There’s a credit of 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour for producers of “green” electricity, and $20 per ton for using agricultural/forest residue to produce energy. A loan guarantee from the federal government would eliminate any remaining risk for private investors.
Also working in Fitch’s favor: The Kaine administration is eager to support renewable fuels in Virginia.
Although the Commonwealth has limited resources to devote to the sector, it can function as an intermediary between entrepreneurs like Fitch, academic resources and market opportunities.
Dr. Y.H. Percival Zhang at Virginia Tech has developed a promising biochemical process to convert cellulosic material (wood waste, corn stalks, and switchgrass) into ethanol in small-scale biorefineries.
Meanwhile, the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy has spotted some potentially large-scale ethanol customers in the state – the oil refinery in Yorktown is one, military bases are another – to which local vendors could sell.
Fitch is bursting with enthusiasm at the potential for his project. He thinks he’s got all the angles covered, although he’s wise enough to temper his comments with a note of caution: “There’s a huge caveat. Like most things new, you go through a trial-and-error process. You go up the learning curve.”
Jim Bacon, of Richmond, publishes the Bacon’s Rebellion Web site and authors the column of the same name.
©Times Community Newspapers 2007
TAKE THE POLL: Should utilities own distributed energy resources
Choice 1: No, only in very limited circumstances
Choice 2: Maybe, provided clear regulations are in place
Choice 3: Yes, utilities are best suited to own distributed energy resources
Choice 4: Unsure / Undecided
I’ll give the choice to the utility and the town or city. If the utility doesn’t want to repower with locally available wastes and biomass then the city can do so and leave the utility in the dust bin of history. City’s can put locally generated power on the local distribution grid and this is the best way to resolve a long list of power related issues.
Virtual Power Plants Are Real
Japan’s nuclear disaster sparks interest in virtual power plants.
See: http://en.occa.mard.gov.vn/Crawl-Content/Virtual-Power-Plants-Aren%27t-Just-Virtual—-They%27re-Real-RenewableEnergyWorldcom/2011/3/25/43133.news
Les: If for some reason you want to quote a block of something that is already online, please link it to rather than copying it. (Here, I changed all that text to a link.) Google downgrades sites that have “duplicate content.”
COLLABORATORS, STRATEGIC ALLIANCE OR INVESTMENT NEEDED FOR NOVEL NEW CONCEPT REPOWERING TECHNOLOGY ONLY SIX MONTHS FROM MARKET ENTRY. I’LL GLADLY PROVIDE MORE DETAILS ON REQUEST.
AAEC’s product lines can be manufactured in the US and in most any locality on any continent for the local and regional market. This we believe will create licensing opportunities and many thousands of good paying jobs, and these are among the things we are offering to an alternative energy hungry world. For further details please contact:
Les Blevins, President Advanced Alternative Energy
1207 N 1800 Rd., Lawrence, KS 66049
Phone 785-842-1943 – Email LBlevins@aaecorp.com
For more info see
http://aaecorp.com/ceo.html
http://advancedalternativeenergycorp.com
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=45587557&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Advanced-Alternative-Energy/277213435730720
http://buildings.ideascale.com/a/dtd/SCALABLE-MIXED-WASTE-TO-ENERGY-CONVERSION-TECHNOLOGY/84117-33602
Craig: You wrote: “As I told the people who interviewed me on yesterday’s “This Green Earth” radio show, “Any energy solution that doesn’t have a positive effect on the emissions being created in China and India isn’t really a solution at all. We either collectively solve this problem or we doom humankind to unthinkable levels of suffering.” And here’s a bit more urgency associated with the subject: China’s recent approval of a huge increase in its coal production capacity, despite its already crippling levels of air pollution.”
And I agree and the solution I offer can satisfy these concerns. Care to ask me how?
Sure.
Les,
You are obviously passionate about alternate energy, and that’s very commendable.
But there comes a time when passionate enthusiasm starts to look like unrealistic obsessive fanaticism.
I can tell you, from experience, about the difficulties of translating small idealistic concepts, into large scale economically viable projects. I am the proud owner of a small scale bio-mass generator. This generator is capable of providing most of the electricity needs for our family estate, and a small village.
Although it was a satisfying and interesting project as an environmental exercise, it certainly isn’t justifiable economically. Nor could it be extrapolated elsewhere.
Just thinking up designing some technology to apply to a specific set of circumstances, doesn’t mean it’s suitable for widespread adoption.
Craig is quite right, the PRC government’s priority is economic expansion, not environment altruism. The PRC will pursue any technology, but only while it shows economic promise. What they will invest in however, is effective propaganda, for both domestic and international consumption.
I had the privilege of knowing the late George B Fitch. George Fitch was a truly remarkable man, with ‘larger than life’ history. He was a visionary, and charismatic motivator.
The City of Warrenton VA , noted for many great sons) lost a remarkable leader when George died. Many of his achievements survive him, but not his bio-electricity project which was always fraught with technical and economic problems.
One of the dangers facing any hopeful innovator, is that enthusiasm often blinds reality. It’s easy to ignore the negatives, and just leave out potential pitfalls. Idealists often assume because they think something is desirable, or should be done, it can be accomplished.
Sadly, when some passionate idealists find that their idea’s are impractical, or lack general support, they begin demanding that governments compel (by force) those who disagree to comply with their ideals.
Les, I have no wish to dampen your enthusiasm, but if you wish to tout for investment in your proposals, i would suggest:
1) Building a small scale model to demonstrate your concepts with your own money.
2) Seek funding through recognized Venture capital investors, or government(s) grant schemes.
But you will need to concentrate more on the economic, and technical aspect, and less on philosophical rhetoric.
Trying to attract unsophisticated investors, in my experienced, never ends well.
marcopolo:
I’ve done the two things you’ve suggested.
1) Building a small scale model to demonstrate your concepts with your own money.
But it wasn’t just a model. It was a prototype and it proved successful after a small modification to the heat exchanger.
2) Seek funding through recognized Venture capital investors, or government(s) grant schemes.
For your information venture capital investors will only consider firms with significant cash flow. You should know that by now.
By the way;
My first furnace proved capable of saving 75% of my home heating costs during the coldest three winter months and reduced by 90% my household trash disposal at the local landfill. I therefore (believing towns and cities might like to achieve the same results) began my long term efforts to secure funding to build on that success believing some towns or cities might eventually find out about what I’m offering and inquire if my system could be scaled up for them, which it can.
And by the way:
I only had to use my outdoor furnace about 50% of the time during those three cold months to save about 75% of my winter heating costs by simply using it only during the coldest periods.
Thank you for your reply,
Les, once you are convinced you have a worthwhile product, I would suggest you undertake the following steps before you attempt commercialization.
1) Study the suitability of your product, for applications different from your own circumstances.
2) Develop a comprehensive feasibility plan, checked and verified by respected and independent experts.
3) Address any issues of disruption, with practical solutions, avoiding idealistic rhetoric.
4) Seek community input, and adaptations. Don’t expect others to be willing to share, or accept, the same level of inconvenience or lifestyle, you find acceptable.
5) Study the culture, economy, political mindset and personalities ( especially civic leaders) of the community you hope will adopt your project.
6) Develop an economic plan clearly explaining the means of funding, and benefits of your project available. Again, this plan shouldn’t rely on costly aesthetic, or idealistic benefits to justify it’s implementation. be realistic.
7) Find a ‘patron’, with a history of getting “out there” projects successfully implemented.
9) Seek out others with similar interests, and study their successes and failures.
8) Seek professional advice, and listen carefully to objective criticism. Remember, it all about the needs of your customer, not your idealism.
Les, Venture capitalists, make profits by investing in projects that more conventional funding institutions consider too risky.
A Venture Capitalist, who would only fund already existing businesses with positive cash flows, wouldn’t stay in business very long since he would be competing against mainstream funding institutions, who can access much cheaper capital.
Venture Capitalists, only need to understand the economic viability, and potential of a project, to invest. Most venture capitalists work with a network of professionals, who are experts at commercialization. Venture Capitalists, accept a percentage of failure, as part of the risk for high return.
If you find your project being continuously rejected, perhaps your should consider the following possibilities:
a) Your project has insufficient commercial/economic merit.
b) Your presentation, or yourself, doesn’t inspire confidence
c) You haven’t knocked on enough doors.
It’s the same with government grants. The better the presentation, the more likely the chance of success.
I hope this advice is of some assistance.
Thanks for your advice. Unfortunately I don’t accept that marcopolo is your real name so I can’t assign much validity to your suggestions without knowing who they are really coming from. I could provide responses to each point but without assigning much if any validity to your feedback I don’t see it as worth responding to in much depth. I would be willing to respond to any issues you point our if you are willing to disclose who you really are.
Les, once you are convinced you have a worthwhile product, I would suggest you undertake the following steps before you attempt commercialization.
1) Study the suitability of your product, for applications different from your own circumstances.
Craig, this is what I’ve been doing for the past 35 years.
This comment came from MarcoPolo.
It’s funny how often MarcoPolo and I agree, and how often we are at odds. I could have written your response here word for word.
Come on Craig, admit it, you and marcopolo are really one and the same… Gotcha didn’t I?
lol. No, in fact, MP and I disagree on almost everything. Please see: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/06/01/sustainable-approach-to-energy-3/
It IS Saturday night here (Sunday morning your time) and yes, I have had a drink, but I’m not rolling on the floor saying, “I love you man!”
It’s just amazing to me that a man of your obvious intelligence holds so many antiquated views on life generally. .
Craig,
Er,.. believe me, I not adverse to the odd libation ! Although, despite my growing years, I try to keep my more riotous behavior for Friday night. ( Saturday night being family time ).
I haven’t really considered my views antiquated, ..some are definitely conservative and traditional, ….but I never really thought antiquated was accurate.
In fact most of my life, I’ve been considered pretty radical, with very ’60’s ‘ socially progressive values. Like most conservatives, I have a high regard for the value of the individual, especially individual freedoms. With freedom, comes responsibility. Including allowing individuals to succeed and fail, according to their own merit. ( the right to fail, is just as important as the right to succeed).
I don’t believe all people are, (or even should be) equal. Rather, I believe all people should have equal rights, and opportunities.
I don’t believe in sacrificing common sense, and effective action, in favour of pursuing idealistic, unrealistic, utopian goals.
I consider most leftist ideology, to be antiquated, and discredited. In fact, I think most “ideologies” are antiquated in the information age.
But, some virtues are timeless, and can never be antiquated. (those are the one that are really important ).
So, cheers ! 🙂
Has anyone else noticed the remarkable similarity of marcopolo’s writing and attitudes and that of Craig’s? What clued me in was how both are obviously not willing to speak about the remarkable potential of my technology for solving the world’s ills and neither will request my position paper on that subject because they don’t want to hear about a universal and viable solution to the world’s ills that have to do with the challenges of repowering in such a way so as to leave combustion of finite fossil fuels behind and adopt a new path and paradigm.
2) Develop a comprehensive feasibility plan, checked and verified by respected and independent experts.
Ho ho ho. Respected and independent experts such as yourself?
3) Address any issues of disruption, with practical solutions, avoiding idealistic rhetoric.
Disruption is what is desperately needed say the real experts and this is exactly what my novel new concept technological approach offers.
I could go right on through the list but there is no point in it when as Niccolo Machiavelli correctly pointed out;
“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things for the reformer has enemies in all who profit from the old order.”
–Niccolo Machiavelli, 1513
The real experts don’t agree with me because they haven’t even heard of me but here are a few experts I agree with;
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
– R. Buckmister Fuller
“There are risks and costs to any program of action, but they can be far less than the long range risks and costs of inaction”
– President John F. Kennedy
–
“It is in our vital interest to diversify America’s energy supply — and the way forward is through technology.”
– President George W. Bush, 2007 State of the Union Address
“Biofuels will play an important role in America’s clean energy portfolio,” “These projects will allow us to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, support the growth of the biofuels industry and create jobs here at home.”
~ Energy Secretary Steven Chu
“It is critical that we do everything we can to reduce our dependence on petroleum based fuels. Turning waste products into energy is good for the economy, local job creation and our environment.”
~ Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
“Basically, the technology for disposing of waste hasn’t caught up with the technology of producing it.”
~ Senator Al Gore 1992 ‘Earth In The Balance’ pg. 148
“The country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable
energy will lead the 21st century.”
~ President Barack Obama
“A fundamental rule in technology says that whatever can be done
will be done”
~ Andy Grove, Co-founder of Intel