Open Letter to the People of The World

Open Letter to the People of The World


Dear Friends,

First, I would like to say something about oil and also make a few other comments:
It took nature probably 200 to 300 million years to create the entire supply of earth’s oil and we have, in approximately 150 years already used up about half of it. To think that it is right and proper for us to continue to search for and extract more oil now is quite improper. The rest of the oil does not rightly belong to us (we have inadvertently already used up much more than our fair share… the rest belongs to future generations).
Even with our limited scientific knowledge, we know that oil can be converted into wonderful products and miracle-like compounds, such as medicines and plastics. We need to conserve the rest for these kinds of uses, some of which we might not even be able to imagine right now.  We should not continue to extract as much oil as we can find to burn up as fuel when other alternatives are available or could be made available if we had the political will.
Is there anything more selfish and arrogant than for us to continue to extract more oil for fuel, when our fervent hope is that our children and grandchildren and their progeny will continue to make Earth their home perhaps at least for as long as mankind has already been here. Whether the current amount of oil left in the ground will last another 50, 100, or 1,000 years is not the point. We should be preserving the remaining supply (or as much as possible) for future generations.
A little research can demonstrate quite clearly that there is no need whatsoever for us to be so dependent on oil. And there’s no need whatsoever for us to mismanage our land either, as we are now doing, having foolishly embarked on a new project to squander our rich soil to grow plants that we intend to burn as fuel just like we did with oil. We and future generations need that land for food. 
Managing our resources the way we do now is insane when you consider that other technologies are already available or nearly so, and better suited. Every day the sun sends us more energy than we will ever need.  We would be wise to focus our sights on learning how to use it.
What needs to be done…

1. We need to restructure and repair our government so that our most capable, wise and responsible citizens are the ones who end up representing us.
2. We need to insist that corporations do not and should not be treated as if they had human rights.  Only people should have human rights.  People who run corporations need to be held accountable and should not be able to hide behind a corporate veil in order to absolve themselves of culpability when they make decision that do not serve the public interest.
3. We need to believe in the power of telling the truth and we need to make justice and peace our personal and national purpose and goal… not as rhetoric, but as true intention.

Please consider these thoughts and see how you might contribute to expanding and refining them as you participate in the various aspects of your life. 

Selling Renewable Energy (Solar Etc.) Without Incentives

 

 

Selling Renewable Energy (Solar Etc.) Without Incentives

In short, we need to market solar as an investment that will save money while you own it and return most or all of your investment when you sell the building it's sitting on.

Chances are, as natural gas and oil prices go up, there will be a corresponding jump in your monthly electricity bill. So, instead of promoting a solar power system based on today's savings in electricity, we need to have easily understandable projections on what the savings will be over the life of a system. These numbers need to reflect what's really happening to the cost of energy!

Here are some ideas I'd like to share. First, we need to find a way to make renewable energy economically competitive without the tax incentives. We do this by answering the question: "What is the opportunity cost of not using solar to decrease your energy bill?"

There's something interesting I've found. There's a direct correlation among electrical rates, the cost of air conditioning a building, the heat index and the amount of sunshine on any given day. In other words, on the hottest, sunniest days, we use more electricity that costs more per kilowatt. So, why do we continue to promote average hours of solar production, when in fact (at least down here in California), we produce far more solar power per day during the heat of the summer when energy costs are highest, than we do in our temperate winter months when energy costs are lowest. A sound marketing approach would be to evaluate solar energy in "dollars" of production per year instead of in kilowatts. I'm sure there are some smart people out there who can match kilowatts of solar production on any given day of the year to what the rates will be (based on the projected costs of electricity).

Secondly, we should stop trying to sell a solar package as a "cost." In real estate, there is a principle that says anything affixed to real estate becomes an integral part of the real estate. Once a solar package is installed, it immediately increases the value of a property. So how can you predict how much more a building will be worth in 5-10 years with a package as opposed to without one? In the real estate appraisal business, there are three approaches to appraising a property. The market approach (what are comparable properties selling for), the reproduction cost (the cost of creating an identical building at current construction and material prices) and the actual original cost adjusted for inflation. In all three methods, there's a strong case that a system installed today will make the building worth more today and in future years.

We need some realistic numbers to predict how much more a property will be worth in the years following installation. I believe that if you sell a building 5-10 years after installing solar, you should recoup all of your investment in the system plus an added bonus. If the rumors are true, a residential system (using the market approach) adds $20 of value to a home for every $1 it saves on the electric bill.

For commercial appraisals, you would divide the income (savings) by a cap rate (which was about 9% at last report). A system that saves $2000 a year then would be worth $40,000 on a home or $25,000 on a business. But if the cost of electricity goes up (if that is remotely possible), then wouldn't the value of the solar power system increase as well? In reality, we are not selling something that costs — we are actually offering a financial investment that grows comparably with other forms of energy.

In short, we need to market solar as an investment that will save money while you own it and return most or all of your investment when you sell the building it's sitting on. In commercial real estate, they use a "Cash Flow Analysis" form as the tool to evaluate a building's value using the income approach. We need a similar tool for putting a value on solar. If solar makes sense with this approach, then just think of how much better the systems look when you add the tax advantages!

This approach also applies to the cost of Energy efficiency implementation.

Reducing operational costs increases the value of the business and or property.

Compiled by Jay Draiman, Energy analyst

Cut Your Energy Bills fast - today

Cut Your Energy Bills fast - today

Do you know where your energy dollars go each month?

Most people do not. It is like shopping in a store where prices are not marked.

You know it is expensive to heat your home in winter and cool in the summer. But you might not realize that you may be spending as much on energy for hot water, appliances and lights each year.

Because these energy costs are year-round, small changes in these areas add up to big savings.

You realize it when you see the bill in mail after the fact.

It may not seem like using a different kind of light bulb (CFL/LED) or tightening up your windows will really make a difference. But with at least these 10 easy ways to save energy, you can cut your energy bills - fast! – Today.

1. Set back your thermostat. If you lower the temperature ten degrees for at least eight hours a day, you can save ten percent on your energy bills – without sacrificing your comfort.

2. Do a home energy audit. These surveys analyze how and where you use energy, helping you pinpoint easy ways to cut back on electricity and natural gas consumption throughout your home.

3. Upgrade your attic insulation. Upgrading attic insulation from three inches to 12 inches can cut your heating bills by 20 percent – and air conditioning bills by 10 percent. (install attic fan)

4. Weatherize doors and windows. A few inexpensive tubes of caulk and rolls of weather-stripping can help reduce heating bills by 20 percent and cooling bills by 10 percent.

5. Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs. Or LED. They last ten times longer than ordinary bulbs, and they use 75 percent less energy. You’ll save $40 over the life of just one bulb!

6. Check your furnace filter. Failing to clean or replace a filter can make your furnace and central air conditioner run harder, quickly reducing its operating efficiency and life span. (insulate the ducts and install a humidifier)

7. Install a water-saving showerhead. A family of four can cut their water-heating costs by $250 a year just by switching to an energy-saving showerhead. (aerators for faucets and reduce toilet tank water capacity)

8. Use smaller kitchen appliances. Microwaves, toaster ovens and slow cookers can use 75 percent less energy than a large electric oven, and they won’t heat up your kitchen on hot summer days. (more efficient appliances)

9. Get rid of that old refrigerator or freezer. It could be adding more than $100 to your electric bill every year. A new high-efficiency refrigerator uses less electricity than a light bulb! (get the rebates to subsidize your costs)

10. Give your appliances a vacation too. Before you leave on a trip, turn off and unplug everything you can, lower your thermostat to 50 degrees, and set your water heater to the lowest setting.

Check with you local Utilities as to what rebates you are entitled for in your geographical area, also check governmental tax credits available for you.

Take control of your energy bills

Every day, you make decisions that have a big impact on your electricity and natural gas costs – often without even realizing it.

Compiled by: YJ Draiman, Energy analyst

ERV Energy Recovery Ventilation Systems Reduce Long Term Costs and Improve Indoor Air Quality

ERV Energy Recovery Ventilation Systems Reduce Long Term Costs and Improve Indoor Air Quality


One of the more recent developments in the ‘green’ technology industry is the creation of environmentally-friendly buildings that use energy-efficient technologies to reduce power consumption.

Energy consultants point out that creating ‘green’ buildings and improving the air quality inside such facilities utilizing ERV can and do go hand-in-hand.  ERV Systems that reduce demand for energy while improving ventilation are increasingly in demand.

ERV – Energy Recovery Ventilation systems saves energy, increases indoor air quality, reduces contaminates and odors.
Click here to watch a video featuring Gartner vice president Michael Maoz sharing new insights on innovative technologies and processes shaping the future of customer service.
Click here to learn how Continental Dispatch Accelerates Customer Service with a Hosted Contact Center System.
Click here to learn how to leverage greater long-term value from your CRM system.
Click here to read how Oracle has dramatically improved pipeline management and, in turn, increased sales velocity.

The use of ERV technology “energy recovery ventilation systems,” or ERVs. Such systems are designed to reduce energy consumption and improve indoor air quality (IAQ) by capturing and recycling building energy to humidify, pre-cool or dehumidify incoming air. 

ERVs, the research first said, are most popular in areas with more extreme outdoor temperatures, like Northern states where winters can get quite cold, or Southern states where very warm temperatures and high humidity demand more energy consumption to maintain comfortable indoor environments.

“The focus on IAQ is another key trend benefiting ERV, as people become increasingly conscious of the importance to maintain air quality through properly designed and managed HVAC systems,” Energy consultant said in the energy audit survey.

Market growth for ERVs, Energy consultant said, is driven largely by energy conservation policies that are challenging building custodians to reduce energy consumption for indoor climates. The firm cited as an example the 90.1 standard from American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) which currently dictates “energy recovery systems for applications of 5000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) and larger with 70 percent outside air (OA).”

ASHRAE 90.1 is a standard that specifies at least 50 percent total effectiveness for ERVs, Energy consultant said.

The Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also have various standards and regulations regarding energy recovery and IAQ.

Energy Consultant said two main obstacles lie in the way of more widespread use of ERVs: lack of knowledge and the need to reduce operating costs in the short term. Since building owners and facility managers rely for the most part on contractors to select and install heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment, if the contractors are not up-to-speed on ERV developments they may pick products that aren’t as energy-efficient as they could be.

Also, Energy consultant noted, HVAC contractors work within budgets and therefore tend to buy equipment based on its price rather than long-term cost benefits. It therefore is important to educate contractors about ERVs, and some of that burden falls on manufacturers. The Green Building Council is also playing a role through its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program that evaluates buildings to determine the environmental performance during their entire lifecycle.

ERVs aren’t just good for the planet; they’re good for people, too.

“The focus on IAQ is another key trend benefiting ERV, as people become increasingly conscious of the importance to maintain air quality through properly designed and managed HVAC systems,” Energy consultant said in the report.

When IAQ isn’t managed properly, people living or working in unhealthy buildings can develop sick building syndrome from pollutants in the air they breathe.

“With half of all illnesses attributed to indoor airborne contaminants, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared IAQ a public health priority,” Energy consultant said. “Ventilation with outdoor air is the only strategy that can simultaneously reduce the levels of all indoor pollutants.”

Compiled by: YJ Draiman, Energy analyst – Northridge, CA

We must become independent — not just of imported oil, but of oil itself.

 

We must become independent — not just of imported oil, but of oil itself.

A determined pack has begun to race its engines and to try to shoulder us off the road toward energy independence. It’s time for those determined to stay on the track to drive aggressively.
The energy-independence question is really about oil — the rest of U.S. energy use presents important issues, but not the danger of our being subject to the control of nations that “do not particularly like us,” as the president put it. Some of the engine racers have an economic interest in keeping our transportation system 97-percent oil-dependent. Less understandable are the authors of a recent Council on Foreign Relations report accusing those working for such independence of “doing the nation a disservice.”
The authors of that report and their followers define “independence,” contrary to both Webster’s and common sense, as essentially “autarky” — i.e. complete self-sufficiency, or not importing oil even though we remain dependent on it. Such a Pickwickian definition captures none of the thinking of serious advocates of reducing our oil dependence: The point of independence is not to be an economic hermit, but rather to be a free actor. 
It is true that some who promote oil independence spice their remarks by implying that we might substitute oil from domestic sources or from our near neighbors for cheap Middle Eastern imports, and somehow manage to insulate ourselves from the world oil market. 
But speechwriters’ tropes shouldn’t be taken as serious policy proposals. Geology will not cooperate in any such fantasy. There is no reasonable way that we can leave oil in place as the near-exclusive fuel for the world’s transportation systems and simultaneously wall ourselves off from the world oil market. If we want to end dependence on the whims of OPEC’s despots, the substantial instabilities of the Middle East, and the indignity of paying for both sides in the War on Terror, we must define oil “independence” sensibly — as doing whatever is necessary to avoid oil’s being the instrument of despotic leverage and foreign chaos. 
Those who won our independence as a nation didn’t just fling imported tea into Boston harbor — they did whatever was necessary to wrest themselves from British control. We need not call out the Minutemen, but to avoid the consequences of dependence we must become independent — not just of imported oil, but of oil itself.
Does this mean that we cannot use oil or import any? Of course not. Oil is a useful commodity that can readily transport energy long distances. It already has competition from natural gas in industry and from gas and electricity for heating. But in transportation it brooks no competition — it is thus not just a commodity but a strategic commodity. Oil’s monopoly on transportation gives intolerable power to OPEC and the nations that dominate oil ownership and production. This monopoly must be broken. To tell us that in following this path we are doing a “disservice to the nation” and should resign ourselves to oil dependence is like telling us we should not urge an alcoholic to stop drinking, but should rather impress upon him the health advantages of red wine. 
Not long ago, technology broke the power of another strategic commodity. Until around the end of the nineteenth century salt had such a position because it was the only means of preserving meat. Odd as it seems today, salt mines conferred national power and wars were even fought over control of them. 
Today, no nation sways history because it has salt mines. Salt is still a useful commodity for a range of purposes. We import some salt, so if one defines independence as autarky we are not “salt independent”. But to most of us there is no “salt dependence” problem at all — because electricity and refrigeration decisively ended salt’s monopoly of meat preservation, and thus its strategic importance.
We can and must do the same thing to oil. By moving toward utilizing the batteries that have been developed for modern electronics we can rather soon have “plug-in hybrids” that travel 20-40 miles on an inexpensive charge of night-time off-peak electricity at a small fraction of gasoline’s cost. (After driving that distance plug-ins keep going as ordinary hybrids.) Dozens of ordinary hybrids converted to plug-ins now on the road are getting in the range of 100 mpg of gasoline. And millions of flexible-fuel vehicles are also now in the fleet. Producing them adds costs well under $100 and they can use up to 85-percent ethanol (before long to be made from biomass rather than corn) — methanol, butanol, and other alternative fuels produced from grasses and even waste.
A flex-fuel plug-in hybrid that gets 100 mpg and, when it needs liquid fuel, uses only 15-percent gasoline, is approaching a utility of 500 mpg. Other oil-breaking technologies are coming. When Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the newly-independent Americans asked their band to play “The World Turned Upside Down.” Get ready for a reprise. 

Trust democracy?

Trust democracy?

Comment about those who trust democracy enough to offer themselves up to its abuses in every election cycle. His comment lauded those who put themselves on the line for the opportunity to serve the public. I found much to agree with in what he said, and a good deal to differ with as well.

While those who trust democracy in offering themselves for public service are to be praised, not everyone running for office trusts democracy to that extent, and many display a decided distrust of democracy. They are easy enough to pick out.
A candidate's trust in democracy is measurable by the way that their campaign is conducted. When they are running their campaign on a shoestring without professional campaign staff, it tells you that their level of trust is high, both in democracy and democratic principles and in their confidence in their own ideas. Often the value of their ideas can be measured by the number of volunteers who are willing to offer their own time and effort to see that those ideas get a hearing in governance.
This is not to say that a well-funded campaign cannot evince a trust in democracy, but the idealist's campaign nearly always does.
Conversely, there are candidates whose level of distrust in democracy is clearly evident. The symptoms of that condition are as easily picked out, because in spite of the candidate's efforts, they are almost impossible to conceal from anyone who is looking for them.
Those symptoms include inordinate amounts of cash, to be used in an effort to buy the election. In this election cycle, the first since the Supreme Court edict regarding the Citizens United case, we have hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions being funneled through money laundering operations such as American Crossroads, Americans for Prosperity, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The sources of these funds are jealously guarded from public disclosure, but you can bet your bottom billion that the candidates receiving those funds know exactly where they came from. The candidate being in the dark about those facts would defeat the object of the exercise, which is to buy a candidate and make sure that he stays bought. If he didn't know who his new owner was, he might cast an errant vote, and that's not what he was purchased for in the first place.
There is also the ultimate in cynical distrust of democracy that is demonstrated by efforts to manipulate the electorate in casting its votes. These are mostly techniques to reduce turnout for the opponent by voter caging, leading to illegitimate challenges to individual voters at the polls, or, as we see happening in Nevada this year, cynical campaign commercials featuring appeals to the opponent's supporters to stay home on Election Day.
Other ways to depress turnout require confederates in control of the voting apparatus so that the allotment of facilities to conduct the election can be skewed to reduce availability of those facilities in selected areas to make voting more difficult and increased in those areas that the fraudulent candidate sees as more solidly in his favor.
Then there is good old-fashioned election fraud. In this age, the intention to engage in election fraud is frequently telegraphed by the dishonest candidate's admonishments against, or intention to oppose, voter fraud, a crime that is astonishingly rare, but played up by those who wish to deceive the electorate
The methods for election fraud are many, but in this day the most common is the manipulation of data streams from those eminently hack able electronic voting machines, especially those without a paper trail to provide a check on the electronic results. Of course, election fraud has always been with us, sometimes elevated to an art form as in the electoral depredations of Tammany Hall.
It's what inspired Josef Stalin to say, "It's not the people who vote that counts, and it’s who counts the votes." We may safely conclude from this that Josef Stalin didn't have much trust in democracy.
Up to now, I have been leaving it to the reader to conclude who does and who does not trust democracy, understanding that they are well capable of rendering that judgment, but to refrain from naming names seems like an act of ignoring the elephant in the room. We all know that these various cheats and frauds are those that are predominantly employed by Republicans in this century, so I might as well make the general statement, Republicans do not trust democracy, and they have good reason not to.
They understand as well as anyone that the direction in which they intend to move the country is one that is unacceptable to a free and open society. To trust in democracy is to take part in their own destruction, and they will not countenance that without employing every dirty trick, telling every lie and violating every public trust and every applicable law to advance their narrowly selfish aims.

It is up to us, the People of the United States, to perpetuate our democracy, our values and our society by stepping into a voting booth and choosing candidates who do trust democracy. By doing so we can make our democracy worthy of the trust that we all place in it.