[GJM] Fw: SPECIAL: Towards a New-Energy Breakthrough - 10

[marguerite hampton]

 FYI, letter from Brian O'Leary -- thanks to Keith 

IMHO, we need to research ALL forms of energy
and not put limits on ourselves -- particularly at 
this critical time.  

Let's not let the renewable energy cartel deflect us 
from something that could be much better as the 
fossil fuel cartel has done in the interests of money. 

Two wrongs do not make a right. And, if this little old
lady from the wilderness can research and understand 
zero point energy with a little effort, then anyone can.  

Instead of "bad-mouthing" may I suggest time in 
research would be better spent. 

marguerite      
 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: President, USA Exile Govt.
Date: 01/07/07 19:41:57
To: keith lampe
Subject: SPECIAL: Towards a New-Energy Breakthrough - 10
 
                                        GOVERNMENT OF THE USA IN EXILE
                                                Free Americans Reaching
Out to Amerika's Huddled Masses Yearning to Breathe Free
          
      Via <prez at usa-exile.org>
 
            January 7, 2007
 
                                Towards a New-Energy Breakthrough  --
Part Ten
 
 
From: "Brian O'Leary" <oleary1998 at yahoo.com>
Date: December 30, 2006 9:53:26 AM EST
To: prez at usa-exile.org
Subject: Fwd: response to critique of Gore letter
 
Hi Pondo,
I thought you'd be interested in this thread of the debate--this time
with some solar lobby groups in D.C.
Lots happening.  Feliz año nuevo!
Fondly,
Brian
 
--- Brian O'Leary <oleary1998 at yahoo.com> wrote:
 
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 05:37:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian O'Leary <oleary1998 at yahoo.com>
Subject: response to critique of Gore letter
 
Dear friends,
 
Thanks for forwarding this to me, Steve, and feel free to share this
response.  It is important for these kinds of critiques to come up,
because then the debate becomes joined, at many levels--as it must.
I've been involved in a number of animated debates with other
individuals and chat groups as well, who correctly perceive the gravity
of our situation and have a thirst for solutions, of which new energy
is still somewhat "outside the box" yet perhaps tangible. This process
does take some time, but it can't take a whole lot of time, because
time is short.  So I welcome dissenting points of view.
 
After my world tour of new energy demonstrations during the 1990s, it
took me some time to digest the importance of these experiments.  A
part of me felt the human species was not mature enough to embrace
these technologies, because, as in so many other cases, it would be
abused.  I therefore wanted to make the implementatiion of any new
energy technology have the utmost public oversight, as reflected in the
language of the Energy Innovation Act of 2007.  We can't mess this one
up too, and we certaiinly don't want Dick Cheney to control it!
 
I have always thought that conventional renewables, plus a
power-down/improved efficiency scenario could be fallen back upon, in
the event new energy doesn't do it for one reason or another. That was
made clear in my book of three years ago, Re-Inheriting the Earth.  I
still believe that, and also believe many forms of solar (such as for
cooking, hot water heating, etc.) and the development of thin
photovoltaic films are all significant steps in the right direction,
and need public support.
 
Consideration of new energy options, however, truly represents a
quantum leap in having clean, cheap, decentralized energy.  It
potentially is not materials-, land- and capital-intensive, is not
diffuse or intermittent, and  does not rely on antiquated grid systems
or awkward storage devices.  We ignore this remarkable new energy
possibility, or at least addressing it, at our collective peril.
 
A general question underlying future energy choices each of us must
make is, to what degree are my preconceived notions or vested interests
threatened or enhanced by the prospects of new energy?  Could the
option I had placed my bets and career on go the way of the dirigible?
For the greater good, vested interests are a filter we may need to
remove if we are to have a sensible discussion of the broad range of
possibilities. It is premature to bet on a particular horse at this
point, we'll need to develop parallel pathways as the debate unfurls,
always looking ahead, not behind.
 
As you can probably see, the scale of economic conversion programs from
old to new energy would be unprecedented in human history,  so we will
need to be careful about evaluating our future energy policies in the
face of the urgent global climate crisis.  First and foremost, we need
a sustainable energy-environmental future, and the economics will
follow--not the other way around.  These are physical problems
demanding physical solutions.  Therefore, we have a huge opportunity to
make democracy work for our greater good, putting the environmental
horse before the economic cart.
 
It is increasingly apparent that this is not the time to retreat; we
need fresh perspectives while being sensitive to those who have been
rightly advancing more sustainable, but incremental, specific solutions
such as solar and wind power.  It seems, though, the conventional
solutions just don't cut it the face of current global energy demand
when full life-cycle environmental costs and benefits are evaluated,
unless the potential of new energy is also considered.  We need to be
honest in this assessment, without any conflict of interest.  This is a
broad-based technology assessment project which must begin now, and
include a wide variety of views.
 
Humanity is poised on the threshold of either disaster or a
renaissance.  The choice is ours, and we need to leave no stone
unturned in our quest for authentic environmental sustainability, and
that's also the higher purpose of the New Energy Movement--to
facilitate the debate and help make the right choices for our energy
future.
 
Respectfully,
 
Brian O'Leary
www.brianoleary.com
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
 
--- Stephen Kaplan <stephenkap at gmail.com> wrote:
 
Dear Brian and Joel:
Nora is very tied in to a wide range of
organizations in D.C. and elsewhere
which are working on renewable energy.
Her point needs to be addressed, as does the
commentary of Paul (don't know
yet his last name). We need to specify
more carefully why even advanced forms of solar
are not likely to be able to
handle the whole task of converting the world
economy away from use of fossil fuels and nuclear power,
and also show very
specifically where and under what circumstances
new energy technologies are likely to be a better answer.
 
Our argument needs to be solid enough so that even
those who are supporting
solar and wind recognize there is a place for new
energy technologies.
Unless we are able to enter into this dialogue
effectively, our point of
view and our legislation will get nowhere. If it
gets to be a competitive,
zero-sum game, we may lose, as the existing
renewables have a  powerful
lobbying effort underway. We will certainly want
to reach some accomodation,
if new energy legislation is to gain their respect
and support.
 
I would appreciate feedback from everyone to whom
I am sending this message.
I want to start an intelligent dialogue
with these folks when I go to D.C., which will be
Jan. 9th.
 
Best,
Steve
 
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nora Maccoby <nora at maccoby.com>
Date: Dec 29, 2006 8:17 AM
Subject: fyi - O'Leary's letter to Al Gore
To: Todd Hathaway <umd2008 at gmail.com>, Stephen
Kaplan <stephenkap at gmail.com>
 
This letter has upset people pushing solar and
other established forms of
renewableenergy - and not without reason. O'Leary
must not realize that the
advances in solar are exponential
and moving more quickly every day. I would advise
against dismissing other
renewables as they
should be allies and are going to be lobbying for
their Energy Acts during
the same time.
 
 
*From: *Paul Werbos
*Date: *December 29, 2006 10:49:06 AM EST
*To: *EnergyConsensus
*Subject: **Re: [EnergyConsensus] Dr. Brian
O'Leary
Letter to Al Gore*
*
*
 
At 09:45 AM 12/29/2006, solarsklar wrote:
 
Talk about long term prospects without any
demonstration of viability - he's
been in the ivory tower for too long - needs a job
in the private sector. -
Scott Sklar
 
 
I agree -- "1000%"
 
O'Leary's open letter is profounding disturbing to
me, in many ways,
as I keep asking myself what the probability is
that the human species
will survive all these challenges. Gore does need
something like
an open letter... but O'Leary's is more like a
listing of how to fall into
new pitfalls even worse than the old.
It represents a number of serious problems in our
culture...
 
What I found most disturbing was his claim that
prominent scientists like Nate Lewis, etc.,
etc., have affirmed that solar energy is not
enough to meet our electricity demands.
I have heard that nonsense from an otherwise
excellent scientist recently,
and I find it
deeply shocking. It takes just a few minutes with
the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and such
to do the calculations -- even assuming only 10%
efficiency and operation 8 hours a day,
the sunlight falling on desert lands is many, many
times greater than the world's electricity needs.
(I hope that Rick Smalley's web site at Rice
University is still up, with those calculations.
Smalley ahs his own Nobel Prize...)
 
To say that solar is not enough is a flat out lie,
and a very serious one indeed.
Probably O'Leary is relying on second-hand sources
here -- but even so, it is
a serious problem when inaccurate stuff like this
gets passed along.
 
MOST of the solar energy sources today are too
expensive to compete with natural gas today
in the daytime, and storage will present a very
real difficulty for nighttime use (though for
now we need new daytime power more than new
nighttime power, as prices tell us).
But there is plenty of the resource available, and
there are ways to lower cost by technologies
a whole lot more near-term and reliable than what
O'Leary talks about.
 
It IS true, as O'Leary says, that we have not
found good enough mechanisms to support
high-risk high-potential new kinds of approaches
--
but one needs a very effective filtering
mechanism (better than the trust OLeary shows in
unreliable sources) in
order to do justice to what might be possible.
 
Best of luck to us all,
 
     Paul
 
========================================================================
================================================
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20070108/c9a63d5d/attachment.html