As part of NewsTrust's news hunt on the Environment, in partnership with the University of Nevada's Reynolds School of Journalism and Scientific American, here's an update on what junior and senior level journalism students at UNR are learning and working on.
As a group, we have been reading and reviewing news articles on NewsTrust that deal with the Environment. Our next step is to take what we have found and apply it to our own project on what Reno, Nev., can do to become a green city. Recently, Washoe County declared its intentions to make Northern Nevada leader in green technologies. Our project for the RSJ will focus on what college students and other UNR staff and faculty can do to make the campus more eco-friendly. We hope to promote awareness for busy college students that this is a hot topic for our generation.
Some of the story ideas that we are working on include recycling programs at apartment complexes, features on what happens in the life span of a water bottle and easy ways to go green for at least a week. These are just our starting off points.
Because our project will be entirely Web based, we want to include as much multimedia and user interactivity as possible. To do so, we are constructing photo assignments such as following a water bottle through its life cycle and Earth Day events around Reno. We plan to "go green" for a week and produce a video showing our efforts and some of the trials we encountered along the way.
We hope that our final package will inspire UNR students to change some aspect of their lifestyle in order to incorporate a greener approach. We want this to be a social and cultural change, not just a product produced in a classroom setting. This is journalism in action and I am excited to be part of the wave of future journalists who can reach out to the community and ignite change.
Basically, if a person can get a (reasonably) guaranteed price of $.05 / KWH for energy that they generate, (20 HP @ $.05 = $1,500/mth per home, & $7,000,000/mth per 5,000 homes, for watching the windmills go round) then people can profit in finding ways to make the machinery to do so.
Once that is done, 20 HP energy generation (that results in $1,500 / month in return) will allow banks to be comfortable in lending the money for the solar-home / car-convertors (whatever) that do this. With a car payment of $300, and a mortgage payment of $800 (possibly distributed automatically), that still leaves $300 for taxes, and insurance, and food. All this without being any burden on the State.The figures are ballpark, but I would expect the banks to adjust the levels to provide a better level of food / personal income for the kind of return this represents.
One example:
The LP gas utility increases production of thawing methane resources to capture the gas before it can escape to the atmosphere. It sells the gas to the home owner who can turn the gas into heat and electricity for the home, (plus 2 HP constant extra), using a auto engine equipped with an extra catalytic converter that turns the carbon dioxide into calcium carbonate (this is effective for this range of engine conversion size to 40(?) HP constant). for a check from the utility company of $150 each month (about the cost of the LP gas bill). -No changes required to utility infrastructure, and the utility doesn't have to build, man, or maintain the energy generation source; they become a _more profitable_ broker.-
If larger generation capacity is wanted, (20 HP for $1,500 return), a larger monthly connection fee is billed the location, for the upgrade in the wire, equipment, and transformer size, and the LP gas bill would be about $750, with a balance of $700 for profit each month. Any windmills or solar would result in reducing the LP gas bill, making small farms more secure in growing food/energy crops instead of some of the crap they now -have to- sell.
More than that; correct type of homes built / upgraded get more jobs, in the local area. Energy costs for manufacturing and transportation go down -and remain low-. Labor benefits improve for workers, because they don't need a job , absolutely, right away, and small business will have more money to move around.
Free home, security, transportation, food, and insurance,... and all a person has to do is sign a paper (and maybe get a vasectomy in the dangerously over populated parts of the world).
Page 2:
Some math;
20 HP of CLEAN energy conversion machinery per household, (@ $.05 / KWH) = $1,500 per home of extra income, - each month - .
Multiply that by a community of 5,000, and that = $7,000,000 of restructured money flow - per month - for that community alone!
Not to mention how much carbon it removes from the planet.
Do us all a favor and promote the following....
Why CAN'T I sell CLEAN ENERGY to my neighbor (for $.05 / KWH)?
Simple concept isn't it? We all want cheaper (elect.) energy. We all would prefer to buy clean energy if it were available. And, most of us would prefer to buy from a local supplier (especially if the main grid goes down). Why is this concept so "radical" that no politician wants to touch it with a ten foot pole? Just what is really going on here? Isn't the local utility just an ISP, that both you (the content supplier), and
your neighbor (the content customer), pay to, for the right of connection?
If you can show (on an annual inspection) that the energy you generate (on a small farm say) is clean, (or
actually -removes- carbon from the atmosphere), with today's technology for phase regulation, and line
safety, then the only price regulation concerning the local utility should be the size of the transformer and wire coming into your source required to feed your electricity to the grid, and your connection fee be adjusted accordingly. Who cares how it is generated; ethanol fuel cell auto, LP fuel cell home kit, solar, wind,... pig spit (!), as long as it meets the standard for the carbon load to the utility. How many
new business would this technology generate?
I should (as a consumer) be able to go to a web site and purchase -clean- energy futures for any rate that anyone (within a local area) wants to sell it to me for.
The arguments being presented by the utilities are a "tobacco up" mentality that has -never- shown a benefit to any of those involved. The currently existing equipment is similar to the phone system was being operated before the Internet; -mostly unused-. If a transformer is rated to drain 2 HP (constant) into a residence, then it can just as easily handle 2 HP being pumped into the grid without any effect to any
equipment. Additionally, the 60 Hz phase would be strengthened, not corrupted because of the current
technology used to regulate this kind and range of power. There is -much- less power line loss with this type of local consumption. The power companies don't have to build or maintain any new generation locations or expensive high power lines, they only need maintain the local "NET".
Even though an argument can be made for the "ISP" perspective,
this needs to be actually presented in a court case for the rights of free trade in this issue.
Not only will the advertisement move clean free trade in energy in this country, it will be adopted by the rest of the planet (proved profitable). "Germany does it." At that point a lot of things change, potentially irreversibly ... as some potential examples:
Foreign Policy;
STOP SENDING MONEY!
If we (in the US) send machinery, of the type indicated in this post, -only- (instead of money that gets funneled into corrupt pockets), how much would the spending of that national money within the country, improve the countries' business climate?. We would, in effect, be making a profit by improving the world community, to a point that terrorism results in the opposite effect intended.
With this kind if free trade in clean energy, we would be able to reliably establish a "energy homestead act"; A low interest loan (as potentially a social security buyout) to establish self supportive residences that will generate more (clean) energy than they require, enough so that the loan is automatically paid back for said energy sale, with possibly enough left over to provide for food and medical. This would be a $50,000 home (to start), paid in 15(?) years, not the "requiring a credit rating, for bank that charges you $300,000, -over thirty years-, for a place to live, that kills the planet"). What if we (in the US in particular) did that, with energy equipment (in a loan program with the excuse of "terra formation") "to "fix the planet"? What kind of response would that get for us, to prove we can improve our living conditions -so substantially-, by helping so many others on the planet, that no terrorist involvement can never find -effective- support, again?
A bit over the top I guess, but if you follow somewhat the direction I suggest here, at least you won't have to deal with the heat during the next grid brown out. ...without sending people to go die in "coal holes"...or on " US military private security escort" for the oil company trucks in Iraq...
more: Just "google" "be1st2"
Posted by: Kevin Espeseth | April 18, 2008 at 10:27 PM