Hi! I am a volunteer for Save The Boundary Waters.
My goals of volunteering operate beyond the capitalistic model; far removed from the game of profit motive, where tactics of business do not even apply. Volunteering is a separate pursuit whether political, charity, religion, science or art. I think the most under-acknowledged example is volunteered wisdom (education). It can arrive in a mere seconds of conversation, span decades or weave multiple lifetimes together. Perhaps the human existence itself is one unending quest to transfer and receive knowledge. Perhaps all life functions because of shared information (what we call nature). Does not DNA transfer the information of life? And we all know information is power. Can it defeat profit?
Click Save The Boundary Waters to learn how greed is trying to poison nature and what we are doing to stop that from becoming reality.
In 2017 I went into town hall and asked what was going to happen to 5900 Hithergreen Dr. Dayton, OH 45429 (a public school built in 1966 and about 4 acres of woods). My struggle to find hushed city information ensued because it was pending sale without notice and with utmost secrecy. Oddly it was being severely undersold at $250,000 instead of the listed $950,000. I asked why amongst other questions. "Do you know it holds a natural spring and crucial habitat amidst suburban sprawl? Shouldn't it be a public park?" I didn't like the answer (no). Beacause the school was built in 1966, it had asbestos and needed demolished ($300,000 job). But, that's $400,000 shy. I didn't get it. I did more research and found a county appraisal of the property was a whopping $3,000,000!
I went back to town hall and asked more questions. I was told, "since we don't have income tax here, that's why we have property tax."
AH HA! Now it made sense.
They wanted 35 homes crammed into just 9 acres!
That's 0.38 per lot (.33 after streets) not 0.5.
The neighborhood was zoned to half-acre lots.
The new developer applied to CHANGE ZONING!
So... I began and operated the campaign "Save Hithergreen Now" to do just that. I started talking to people door-to-door with a petition. It was clear 300 neighbors wanted a park but three trustees did not. They wanted an over-crowded mansion-plex instead of a natural park... tax revenue at $3,500 x 35 homes = $122,500 instead of park "expenses." It would take 25 years to reach the appraisal value.
By getting the whole neighborhood involved door-to-door, meeting everyone face-to-face, I organized a crew. Week after week we attended town hall and one by one spoke at the podium announcing that we wanted a park. This went on for over a year. The zoning board met and 5-0 decided to deny development. Next, at public hearing where citizens took turns again advocating for a park, township trustees ignored that voice and approved a zoning change for the developer. We rallied to distribute a referendum petition. Over 3,000 signatures became ISSUE 15 as we fought unsupported over-development.
We won NO on Issue 15 on the May 8, 2018 ballot to
But my work wasn't done. I had to somehow fund-raise over $300,000 to make sure it didn't happen again. My research led me to the Clean Ohio Fund. They secured Glen Helen in Yellow Springs amongst other projects. After writing emails to the right people, $558,000 was granted to buy the sale, donate it as a park for permanent protection and demolish the school. That was 75% of the $744,000 sale. The other 25% was met by the parks department. Soon future generations will hike, bike and play where we did. All I had to do was ask the right questions, canvass the town in my free-time (1,000 doorsteps ÷ 10 days, plus two public canvassing events) and then I typed a bit.
If we can WIN LIKE THIS (here) anyone can, ANYWHERE.
Over seven years I have canvassed door-to-door in three states:
Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky (fundraising litigation on utility
company costs, practices and policy) to advocate sustainable energy growth and a healthy environment with three non-profit organizations...
Talking with residents about energy can be tough ground. One person slams the door in your face, another can't get enough of you. The irony is, we all fund one enormous project: power networking of our homes, businesses and the utilitarian network that engulfs our living environment.
The massive trail of alternating current; or A.C., transfers and stores energy of power plants, "super" power lines, grid stations, main lines, substations, "feeder-lines" and street poles that filter current to your home, this business, that factory, this thing or those things.
We MUST cool the planet. Numbers show we use more and more electricity for cooling our homes. And since we have more gadgets, we consume more energy.
We MUST make MORE clean energy, no matter what your politics.
This BLOG is
My senior year at Ohio University,
I added an engineering course to my class schedule called: "Entropy and Human Activity." It was a 400 level challenge and the professor asked me why I was in it. He thought my dual major of Print and Web Design did not make me an engineer back in the year 2004. Our final assignment was an engineering thesis paper, with the thesis; our own decision.
I chose to research all alternative fuels to petroleum.
I interviewed various faculty and none were optimistic for oil. One professor pin-pointed the 2050s as our projected exhaustion of oil reserves and hypothesized hydrogen fuel-cells as the only solution.
"Waves generate about 2,700 gigawatts of power. Of those 2,700 gigawatts, only about 500 gigawatts can be captured with current technology. As a comparison, the power density of the photovoltaic panels is 1 kW/m2 at peak solar insolation, and the power density of the wind is 1 kW/m2 at 12 m/s for a General Electric (GE)
1.5 MW machine. Whereas, the average annual power density of the waves at e.g. San Francisco coast is 25 kW/m. For the United States in particular, it is estimated that the total
energy amount that could be generated along its coastlines is equivalent to 1170 TWh/yr, which would account for nearly 33% of the total amount of energy consumed annually by the
United States. While this sounds promising, the coastline along Alaska accounted for approximately 50% of the total energy created within this estimate.
Energy availability and consumption grid-wide, from light-bulbs to jumbo jets, is best diversified and free-traded.
Nuclear as Chernobyl has illustrated, is scary and best avoided from monopolization. It only accounted for 19% of American power in 2018
(807 TWh / year). Building up geothermal is a better plan but can only supplement other green sources.
"EIA projects that geothermal electricity generation could more than quadruple between 2012 and 2040 (increasing to over 6.7 TWh)" Source: EIA.gov
"In 2012, the total capacity of U.S. electricity generating plants was approximately 1,100 GW." Source: uCsUsA.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/how-is-electricity-measured.html
1,100 GW / year runs the USA (4,035 TWh). 688.27 GW is coal and "natural" gas combined. Wave power can meet just over half that. Geothermal can an average 44 MW at a 2012, American, (standard) plant. At that rate, building 12,535 plants at 44.5 MW per plant yields 55.78 GW. According to this 2009 article, 55.78 GW total geothermal is possible. Here is where they can be built by density (darkest is strongest in power with pin-points of current geothermal plants)...
Not much from geothermal then. What if wind and solar potential was underestimated in 2012? What if we install windmills across the middle of the great lakes near the Canada border? What if we add to Atlantic and Pacific shorelines? Coal plants are black and white in this next map (below). Current windmills are shown in grey. Even in Lake Michigan they aren't out in the middle yet.
In fact, they aren't in any great lake...
"Officials from Homeland Security confirmed to me that the major shadows cast by these incredibly large structures would make their radar systems useless in that Southtowns' coastline.
The frequency of illegal drug smuggling and human trafficking in this corridor is reason enough for me to oppose this wind turbine project."
- NY Senator, Chris Jacobs Is that actually true that windmills would ruin the coast guard radar?
I wrote an email to the District 9 (Great Lakes) Coast Guard...
I request an answer to a big question. Do new windmills over bodies of water make radar impossible for the Coast Guard?
Thank you for your time today and for your service to America."
"Good Morning Brian,
No they do not affect our radar."
Petty Officer Brian McCrum
Furthermore, the U.S. Coast Guard has published "nearly identical guidance established by the United Kingdom in its 2008 "Safety of Navigation: Offshore Renewable Energy Installation."
"No, offshore wind farms don't make maritime radar impossible, but they do have some effects that need to planned for and mitigated." - William O'Hearn, Communications / Outreach Manager, OffShoreWindUS.org
The GOP Senator from New York promotes another irrational fear of "potentially toxic sediments" poisoning the public drinking water during windmill installation. However; the most toxic metal, mercury, is liquid at lake temperatures above -37.89°F.
"Until 1970, mercury was not listed as a harmful chemical, according to the United States Federal Water Quality Administration.
Within the past ten years mercury has become more apparent in water tests. Mercury compounds have been used in paper mills to
prevent slime from forming during their production, and chemical companies have used mercury to separate chlorine from brine solutions.
Studies conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency have shown that when the mercury comes in contact with many of the bacteria and
compounds in the fresh water, it forms the compound methyl mercury, which has a much greater impact on human health than elemental mercury
due to a higher propensity for absorption. This form of mercury is not detrimental to a majority of fish types, but is very detrimental to
people and other wildlife animals who consume the fish. Mercury has been known for health related problems such as birth defects in humans
and animals, and the near extinction of eagles in the Great Lakes region."
"Bats are capable enough to miss the blades, but as they dart past, the extreme air pressure changes near the blades blast the bats' lungs. They shortly thereafter succumb by drowning as their lungs fill will fluid." - Lonnie E. Schubert, B.S. Metallurgical Engineering, M.S. Nuclear Engineering
So, what about offshore windmills outside bats' feeding and migration routes?
"Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually - a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers
and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats, according to the peer-reviewed study by two federal scientists and the environmental consulting firm, West Inc.
"We estimate that on an annual basis, less than 0.1% ... of songbird and other small passerine species populations in North America perish from collisions with turbines,"
says lead author Wallace Erickson of Wyoming-based West."
So yes .1% of birds will die from windmills onshore. But offshore is a safer place to install. Some will, some won't make it over windfarms 260m (12MW) or even 300m tall (16MW)...
"Flight altitudes varied among species groups, although the majority of birds in all groups flew below 300m.
In general, swans, geese, ducks and cranes flew higher than did raptors, shorebirds
and passerines. There was a great amount of variability in flight altitudes
among species. Seasonal and/or annual differences in flight altitudes were found for
all species. Flight altitudes of most species groups tended to be higher in fall than spring and lower in 1989
than in other years."
Do mindmills make too much noise for fish? More than boats??
I can't imagine they do or GE wouldn't be making so darn many of them to sell.
The amount of noise windmills produce is much less than a cargo ship or trucks going 55 miles per hour. They are much quieter than lawnmowers.
"At a residential distance of 300 metres (980 feet) this may be around 45 dB, which is slightly louder than a refrigerator."
Can we really afford to avoid installing offshore windmills?
If the answer is no, how many do we need anyways??
I decided to find out, and ironically 100,000 is reachable. How quickly that number can be installed, depends on the speed of manufacturing more so than installing.
In 2018 the USA consumed 1,100 GW of power. How does the biomass / geothermal / solar / wind / wave equation add up?
Over deserts and over water, wind power increases. Altitude also increases it.
"The potential energy that can be extracted over the ocean, given the same area, is
at least three times as high. If each turbine removes something like half the energy flowing through it,
by the time you get to the second row, you've only got a quarter of the energy.
The ocean is different. First, wind speeds can be as much as 70 percent higher than on land.
But a bigger deal is what you might call wind replenishment.
The new research found that over the mid-latitude oceans,
storms regularly transfer powerful wind energy down to the surface
from higher altitudes, meaning that the upper limit here for how much
energy you can capture with turbines is considerably higher.
The North Atlantic could theoretically power China, the USA and then some at 7 terawatts annually.
Over land, the turbines are just sort of scraping the kinetic energy out of the lowest part of the atmosphere,
whereas over the ocean, it's depleting the kinetic energy out of most of the troposphere, or the lower part of the atmosphere,"
said Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California.
But, don't worry cargo ships fit between each mill.
"Some of the world's biggest container ships are about 1,300 feet long - that's nearly 400 meters or the distance around an Olympic running track - with a maximum width of 180 feet (55 meters)."
The diameter of the blades times seven is the distance between mills (1,050m - 1,540m). The largest wind farm in the world, Gansu Wind Farm in China's Gobi Desert had a capacity of over 6,000 MW in 2012, with a goal of 20,000 MW by 2020. As of September 2018, the 1026 MW Walney Wind Farm in the UK is the largest OFFSHORE wind farm in the world. It has 189 mills at 5.5 MW each in waters 19m to 23m deep and cover an area of approximately 73 km2 (45.3 mi). There are new windmills of 12 MW capacity, 16MW and 20MW expected soon. Winds gust enough to operate offshore mills on average 32.5% (15-50%) of the time. My 100,000-mill sum of 310 GW accounted for the loss (from 956 GW capacity). But those were mostly in American waters.
Can American windmills be installed within international waters? 200 miles encompases the exclusive economic zones (EEZ).
"Beyond the 200 nautical mile boundary of
the EEZ-the "high seas" - the right to construct a wind or wave farm is
uncertain. Under UNCLOS, the high seas are a commons: open to the
use and exploitation of (most) resources by all countries so long as their
activities do not interfere with the high seas freedoms of other nations."
Source: Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, 2010
The Pacific has much more wind potential than the Atlantic by size. Plus, it also has fewer shipping lanes. For the sake of imagination, let's say America can put windmills in the north eastern Pacific and Gulf of Alaska.
I am not sure why we find such drastic graphs but apparently shipping is not restricted to primary and secondary lanes.
On Google maps the Pacific is split in half by a dividing line.
Since there is no rule against building windmills out at sea (as long as they don't interfere with other countries)
let's design a windfarm in the Gulf of Alaska and the eastern Pacific. Perhaps a "wind farm" half of the 4,597,000
meters from Juneau to Hawaii by a quarter of that wide...
Using 12 MW mills spaced apart 1,540 meters yields
746 mills wide. How many lines of 746 can we make across the 2,298,500 length?
Subtract 15,840 meters for a 3-mile set-back from Alaska
= 2,282,660m ÷ 1,540 = 1,482 rows. 1,482 times 746
= 1,105,756 mills = 13,269,072 MW
= 13,269 GW ÷ 32.5%
= 4,312 GW
That's close to four times the power American needs annually.
But what does this cost and how long will it take?
Let's say to make math easy we put 1,000,000 windmills out there. If we put in one windmill per month it takes 83,333 years.
Let's start over.
Let's say we can put in one windmill per week. And we're only concerned with 250,000 mills being done to meet our energy need.
Subtract two weeks for holidays in July and December.
250,000 ÷ 50 is 5,000 years.
Or we could install 5,000 mills per week. LOL
Let's say two per week. Since the minimum installation time reported in 2018 is one per day, privately funded, we need to work faster.
Working the Army Corps of Engineers round the clock in shifts... 100,000 mills is only possible in 274 years.
It would take 69 years to put in four per day at 1,460 per year.
Dare I say it takes 34.5 years installing eight per day?
That's not as bad equalling 1,200 GW or 390 GW at 32.5% operating time.
Off coal and natural gas by 2055 sounds good.
But we really need to know how fast GE can make these. Then there's some maintenance issues out at sea.
"Saltwater corrosion and damage from winter storms mean that equipment wears out faster. A study in Britain in 2012 found that both on and offshore windmills had not reached their expected lifespans. The industry had predicted that the turbines would have a 20 year lifespan. However, the study found that most of the turbines were only able to effectively generate power for 12 to 15 years and that turbines' efficiency decreased sharply as they aged.
When looking at the "load factor," the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum, turbines fell from operating at 24 percent during their first 18 months of operation to 11 percent after 15 years. For turbines located offshore, the decline was even starker, falling from 39 percent to 15 percent after 10 years.
Larger windfarms seemed to have worse performance, both in terms of production and maintenance, than did smaller farms. The researchers suspected that this might imply that windmills may interfere with each other when operated in close proximity.
Wind power advocates argue that as long as the turbines continue to produce power, they are continuing to return the investment."
Does the 13-year curse mean it's all for not? What is wrong with creating windmill-maintenance jobs and a thriving industry recycling them?? Norway recently (Octoer 2019) halted onshore-wind development after protests and local municipality opposition. I too am only pro-offshore wind, in order to keep bats 100% safe and birds safer, avoiding major migration routes. Avoiding saltwater on the freshwater great lakes means no salt corrosion.
How many windmills can go on Lake Michigan? It's the third-largest great lake by surface area (22,404 sq mi [58,030 km2]).
Rather, how many 7 MW mills will fit? Bigger blades means you need to space them apart more = fewer mills. The 12 MW mills are; however, more efficient and I'll get back to them shortly for Atlantic, Pacific & Gulf installs.
Lake Michgan has an average depth of 46 fathoms (279 ft; 85 m), while its greatest depth is 153 fathoms (923 ft; 281 m). Scotland's Beatrice offshore mills are the planet's deepest at 288 meter-long "jackets" (legs) fixed under mills. Lake Michigan is 307 miles (494 km) long by 118 miles (190 km) wide with a shoreline 1,640 miles (2,640 km).
"Wind turbines need to be positioned so that the distances between them are between 3-10 rotor diameters." Source: PlanningNi.gov.uk
For 7 the constant of separation at 164m diamater spacing to 1,148m apart for 307 miles or 4,940,000m. Account for set-backs of 3 miles from shorelines (4,828m x 2 = 9,656m) reducing it to 4,930,344m.
For $51.5 billion, Lake Michigan yields 4,294 mills in just one row from north to south. Triple that with another row on each side (off-set to avoid proximity interfence)
= 12,882 mills.
7 MW each = 90,174 MW. That's 90 GW and operating in wind at 32.5% of the time is still twice the output of the Gansu farm (costing $17.5 billion to build). And 20,000 more could line the shore (3-mi set-back) costing $240 billion.
$394,584,000,000 covers both the length (three rows) and the shores once for 230 GW on 32,882 mills (74.75 GW at 1/3 op-time). That's 75% of the global projected wind installs (100 GW for 2020-2030), according to GE. But Michigan isn't the greatest lake.
Why is it SUPERIOR? It's 406m at its deepest.
Not only the deepest but largest great lake. And, it is the world's largest, freshwater lake in surface area.
To dot just 40% of the shores' 1,729 mi (2,783 km) would equal 11,132,000m around it.
Let's say we have $150 billion.
That equals exactly 12,500 6MW mills
(GE Haliade 150m-wide).
States do not pay for this. Army corps of egineers can build it so that reduces the bill to out-source. Despite the 12 MW mills existing (use those for oceans and gulf)... 150m diameter times 7 = 1,050m apart. On 40% shoreline that's 10,600 mills. Merely $127.2 billion parts, leaving $22.8 billion for transportation (diesel). That's 63,600 MW or 63.6 GW power. But that's just 40% of the shore. How about building along the Canada border 307 km (191 mi)? Subtract 6 miles for set-back to 185mi = 297729m. Another 283 mills run the border once = 1,701 MW. Output reaches 65.29 GW for 10,883 mills.
At 32.5% op-time
= 21.21 Gigawatts LOL!
Length = 193mi (310,603m) minus 6mi = 310,597m for set-backs
= 295 windmills.
Shoreline = 330mi (531,084m) figuring 40% = 212,443m
= 200 windmills.
Triple it to fill the shore = 600 mills
Total = 895 windmills at 6 MW each = 5,370 MW or 5.37 GW.
Length = 241 mi (387,852) figuring 1% loss for set-backs of 3mi = 383,973m
= 365 windmills.
Shoreline = 470mi (756,392m) figuring 40% =302,556
= 288 windmills.
Triple it to fill the shore = 864 mills
Total = 1,229 windmills at 6 MW each = 7,374 MW or 7.37 GW.
This one is quite tricky.
The length is not the same angle as the jagged US-Canada border.
Surface area = 59,600 square km. Hypothesis... let's take a third of it as useful on the American side = 19,668,000m
Now we have to use the square root x 4 to draw our wind-lines
= 4,434 x 4 = 17,736m
Spacing apart 1,540m = 11 mills
Triple it for 33 mills at 12MW = 396MW or .39GW.
Not much in the middle of Huron.
But the American third of the shore = 983,400m
= 638 mills x 3 = 1,914 mills + 33 = 1,947 x 12MW
= 23,364 MW = 23.36 GW
230.00 GW Lake Michigan
65.29 GW Lake Superior
23.36 GW Lake Huron
07.37 GW Lake Erie
05.37 GW Lake Ontario
331.39 GW CAPACITY
107.7 GW = 1/3 TIME
That's 9.8% of the 1,100 GW America needs to run annually. Offshore windmills operate on average 32.5% of the time out at sea. The great lakes being land locked could be less.
Let's find more power.
I assume that 12 MW mills cost over $12,000,000 but I cannot find a price yet from GE. You would expect that twice the power of 6 MW mills would mean twice the diameter. But it's 150m for 6 MW and just 220m not 300m for 12 MW. 16 MW and 20 MW mills are expected to roll-out shortly. The closer to shore the better for power transfer. The power losses (Pw) in the wire are a product of the square of the current (I) and the resistance (R) of the wire, described by the formula: Pw=I2R
That excludes Alaska coasts.
Using 12 MW mills at 1,540 apart
= 12,910 windmills.
Triple it to get proper bandwidth
= 38,730 windmills along the coasts
= 464,760 MW or
= 464.76 GW
= 42.25% of American Power / YEAR
= 150 GW at 1/3 Time
= 13.63% of American Power / YEAR
But there's three areas left to cover.
Let's add more to the Gulf of Mexico across the middle... 1,500 km (932.06 mi - 6)
= 926 mi = 1490.25 km = 1,490,250 ÷ 1,540 = 967.69
= 2,901 mills x 12 MW
= 34,812 MW
= 34 GW
= 11.05 GW at 1/3 Time
Now for Alaska's shoreline. Since the western shores are used by migrating birds (as shown below), an area
left for windmills is the north-east of Alaska and the entire southern shores. We can probably find more there but 2,826 mills totals 33,912 MW
= 33.91 GW
"In the US alone it is estimated that there are more than 2 million acres of uncovered parking area, representing 200-400 GW of undeveloped of solar parking capacity.
To-date, only 1,200 MW of solar carports have been built, primarily due to high structure cost." - P4PEnergy
From 2020-2045 it's possible to add 1,000 panels for each that currently exist.
In Germany (2003-2015) solar "rose around 100-fold from 0.44 GW to 39.7 GW."
We can do it too. Here's how...
P4PEnergy has a bigger, brighter, BOLDER and crucial SOLUTION.
PLEASE read on about advocacy of ...
According to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, pavement makes up 35 to 50 percent of total surface area in cities, and 40 percent of that pavement is parking lots.
Suspended, tensile-cable panel-canopies CAN harvest electrical revenue HERE consistently and indefinitely over the hot, black & yellow asphalt ; whilst solving a PROBLEM plaguing the over-developed world... too many HOT-PARKING LOTS are wide open to the sky!
Imagine, your grocery shopping ends in the middle of summer with a cool trunk!
is an unspoken catalyst of climate change and actually HEATS marine life.
In August of 2001, Cedar Rapids, Iowa experienced a fish kill due to the water temperature increasing 10.5C (18.9F) in just one hour. Heat affects insects' behavior too since they are exothermic, altering symbiotic relationships among various microorganisms, plants and animals (including humans).
It also increases the energy demand of air-conditioning units.
The federal SunShot Award, granted P4PEnergy with $1,000,000 to scale up suspended-cable solar-production and make them far LESS expensive. It worked & they ARE!
Please read about SunShot Awards and the COMMUNITY CHALLENGE at...
What state can fund-raise and PUT UP THE MOST parking lot canopy panels first? Don't let LOCAL offices CLAIM that zoning should be denied. Zoning for something so new as tensile-cable canopy-panels CAN approve. A solid starting platform is schools' stadium lots. Especially large HIGH SCHOOL LOTS!
What about HAIL?
Actually a canopy shelters students' and teachers' cars FROM damage. Solar panel manufacturers test their products to ensure that they are capable of withstanding impacts even from LARGE hailstones.
MYTH: solar panels don't work when it's cloudy. FACT: solar panels do produce electricity in cloudy weather. They don't produce as much electricity; true. But, they have been shown to produce 25% of what they produce on a sunny day, or 10% when it's very cloudy.
Germany has fewer hours of sunlight. But, it is currently the global leader in solar system implementations.
In addition to the 30 percent tax credit available for businesses that construct solar canopies (and other types of solar panel systems), Americans can write off the value of their solar energy systems through the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS), which reduces businesses' tax burden and accelerates returns on solar investments. Qualified solar energy equipment is eligible for a cost recovery period of five years. Accelerated depreciation can reduce your net system cost by an additional 30 percent.
I am very hopeful to SOLARIZE the multi-purpose arena parking LOT of Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio which is known as the "Nutter Center" of Ervin J. Nutter!
What I wonder, is what unrealized, unimagined or merely uncommunicated processes are actually available to "power companies" BUT intentionally avoided by its defenders (investors of fossil fuel).
Duke has harnessed some "green" energy to please the outcry...
Duke Indiana Help Desk 800.343.3525
Read about Duke online...
So, that's 36 hours of 200 MW from 1700 simple wet-cell batteries and an array of _______ panels?
Where are the rest of these? One fire station in one town is a start. But, we need bigger changes. How??
I strive to reduce the lack of structural change, to reduce the wall of red tape. I have introduced my ideas to politicians. Talk to them in your community and country. If they don't listen, SAY IT AGAIN. Then, join in hands and fund-raise. Use a public park! Co-op to buy abandoned modest lots to build solar canopies that return their investment within 8 - 10 years. Or add rooftop panels to your own home.
RESEARCH and LEARN!
"The typical solar payback period in the U.S. is between close to 8 years. If your cost of installing solar is $20,000 and your system is going to save you $2,500 a year on foregone energy bills, your solar panel payback or "break-even point" will be 8 years ($20,000/$2,500 = 8)."
Most people don't have $20,000 on hand. But installing the setup of a system and one or more panels per year isn't impossible. In the words of
MYTHBUSTERS' Adam Savage...
"I REJECT your reality and substitute my OWN."
Amazon has a basic kit for 3 prices:
100 watts = $129
200 watts = $218
400 watts = $404
So, for $1 per watt you can reach 1,000 watts (1kw) in ten years easily. Yes, 1100 watts is only enough to power a large microwave. But, panels last about 40 years.
"If solar panels are not forcefully damaged the average lifespan of a solar panel is 40 years. The above figure is based on replacing a solar panel when the efficiency drops below 80%. Most solar panel manufacturers carry an 80% efficiency guarantee for 25 years. The only reputable study about the degradation of solar panels comes from a study by the NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) in 2012."
The protruding structures that tower over our farm fields and landscapes hold not just
the power lines themselves, but are the shoulders of a solar future. My idea for solar panels to exist on / under / between EXISTING power line structures and OVERHEAD EXISTING STATIONS is simple (obvious even)...
I envision a SOLAR NETWORK of suspended, smart panels tracking the sun that plug right into the existing grid.
While residential roof-top solar
crawls like a snail due to home-owner sentiment... I deem it wise and lucrative for utility companies like Duke to deploy smarter
grid solutions like solar and water-tower hydrological turbines. First, just for back-up power. Next to recreate the main sources (petrol, invasive gas fracking, coal & nuclear).
To boot, NEW rural jobs installing and maintaining biomass, geothermal, solar, wind, wave and sustainable hydro projects across America, would regain consumer approval ratings of power companies. But what does it cost to go green?
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
"in 2008 coal cost between 7 and 14 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh); natural gas cost between 7 and 10 cents per kWh;
and wind between 4 and 9 cents per kWh. In terms of new nuclear, some estimates put its price at 15 cents per kWh, or more.
Two and a half cents per kWh is making efficiency the cheapest option available."
"In 2017, the solar industry achieved SunShot's original 2020 cost target of $0.06 per kilowatt-hour for utility-scale photovoltaic
(PV) solar power three years ahead of schedule, dropping from about $0.28 to $0.06 per kilowatt-hour (kWh)."
Right now on the Canary Islands of Spain, sustainable hydro is coupled with windmill power. By retaining a large amount of water in an elevated reservoir...
a simple, powerful means of low input, high output occurs.
Shoreline windmills allow for water to go up as the plant pumps water uphill to a reservoir that can later release its energy via gravity spinning a large
turbine into electricity.
GreenGarageBlog.org lists the top-ten pros and cons...
5. Poor Fuel Efficiency
4. Poor Supply for Demand
3. Affects Food Production / Cost
2. Damages Rubber Parts
1. Freezes or Gels in Winter
5. Decrease Foreign Oil Purchase
4. Lubricates Engine & Extends Life
3. No Re-Engineering Engines
2. Non-Toxic & Biodegradable
1. Safer Storage & Safe Emissions
A July 2010 Associated Press investigation revealed that there are over 27,000 abandoned oil and gas rigs in the Gulf of Mexico,
and that no one is monitoring them. One of these wells was abandoned in 1940, before many of the current regulations were put in place.
The report goes on the show that even the current regulations are often ignored.
The northern half of the Gulf is American waters,
as shown below...
It really all depends on if American mills can go in international water or not. If so, wind energy is easily viable enough because of the Pacific.
But international waters law does not say yes or no to wind from my research.
Without the three lines of windmills from L.A. to Hawaii generating 92 of the 1,186 GW, it reduces to 1,094 GW green energy. Just shy of the 1,100 GW need in 2018.
One alternative would be installing within that 200-mile threshold offshore of Hawaii. Another location is the Alaska archipelago economic zone.
The Hawaiian Islands stretch 1,523 miles from the island of Hawaii to Kure Atoll in the North Pacific Ocean. That is broken in the map with the main islands on the left edge
and Kure Atoll (still in our economic zone). Since the tourism industry probably would not want windmills visable, they could be set-out 50 miles (over the range of visibility).
2451030 x 2 (each side north and south shores) = 4,902,060 meters divided by 1,540 meters blade-buffer yields 3,183 windmills of 12 MW
= 38 GW x .325 = 12.35 GW Power.
Could windmills go in Okeechobee which has been drying up for years? Its ecosystem, wildlife and businesses are threatened by the 11.23 foot elevation. Okeechobee was 12.5 feet to 15.5 feet in previous years.
Does it matter that lakes are drying up? In 2013 it was reported that
Lake Huron and Michigan had hit their lowest water levels ever recorded, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
"capping more than a decade of below-normal rain and snowfall and higher temperatures that boost evaporation.
The low water has caused heavy economic losses by forcing cargo ships to carry lighter loads, leaving boat docks high and dry,
and damaging fish-spawning areas. And vegetation has sprung up in newly exposed shoreline bottomlands, a turnoff for hotel customers who prefer sandy beaches."
"There's a lot of young people who really think this planet is not going to be habitable by the time they're 65. These people are ruining peoples' lives. They're ruining their futures. All in the pursuit of power for themselves. Grr... And, it's disgusting on one level to me. And they need to be called out. And this stuff needs to be said point-blank to them. Uhh because the media's not. The media is their best buddies. The media is their support group and so forth. It's a big battle. I'm just optimistic. I'm confident that these people can be beat back." - Rush Limbaugh
(Fox News Alert)
"We have departed from that limited government until we have created a Frankenstein: unlimited government that threatens to destroy us." - Milton Friedman: American economist and statistician best known for his strong belief in free-market capitalism. During his time as a professor at the University of Chicago, Friedman developed numerous free-market theories that opposed the views of traditional Keynesian economists. Keynesian economics was developed by the British economist John Maynard Keynes during the 1930s in an attempt to understand the Great Depression. Keynes advocated for increased government expenditures and lower taxes to stimulate demand and pull the global economy out of the depression. The New Deal was a series of programs, public work projects, financial reforms, and regulations enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States between 1933 and 1936. It responded to needs for relief, reform, and recovery from the Great Depression.
Milton's son, Patri Friedman co-founded The Seasteading Institute (TSI) "focused on three areas: building a community, doing research, and building the first seastead in the San Francisco Bay. The project picked up mainstream exposure after having been brought to the attention of PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel. Thiel donated $500,000 in initial seed capital and has contributed more since." Thiel wrote: "The Education of a Libertarian."
"I did not get into politics to figure out how to become president. I got into politics because I give a damn." - Bernie Sanders
"If you can't afford to take care of your veterans, then don't go to war." - Bernie Sanders
I admit; honestly, I was drawn to Elizabeth Warren's intensity and I liked what she said.
But... I also like Bernie Sanders. Whom to support? Which campaign do I join and devote my time, my energy, my HOPE?? It comes down to climate control for me. Which candidate INTRODUCES what the frack we need to END the natural gas commodity, obliterate oil obsession, install solar and WIN with wind??? Did Bernie Sanders have his chance???? This answer is NO. HE DID NOT. Now is his chance. And after reading his Green New Deal (LENGTHY! Read when you have an entire evening and more time during lunch all week) at
... I now support the Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign. My decision is
reinforced by these facts and opinions:
1. Bernie Sanders published budget breakdowns along with agenda angles.
2. Bernie Sanders' pro-people politics aren't radical, they're simple.
3. I like my nieces and nephews. That doesn't mean I campaign for their presidency.
4. I can vote for Elizabeth Warren next time if she loses and runs again in 2024.
5. If Bernie Sanders loses and we never see what his presidency could achieve, we'll be in a very bad world at 2024.
6. Bernie Sanders has over half a century in liberal politics, beginning in civil rights. Elizabeth Warren started her political career in 2008 AFTER Obama won. She might just be really good at public speaking (since she's been a professor for decades). Bernie Sanders isn't best at debate. He states his case point-blank and stares you down as if to say, "listen up, seriously."
7. Ability to defeat Trump (red v. blue) is of course quite a heavy factor.
Many of those who were duped by Trump in 2016 are quite aware of that now.
Bernie Sanders can win.
8. Bernie Sanders isn't too old. That's called age discrimiNATION.
9. What finally sealed the deal was August 23 & 24, 2019 on Twitter.com after I tagged SenWarren for the first time in my life quoting myself here:
And I created another tweet...
" @eWarren @SenWarren The DATA on ENERGY industry jobs per $1,000,000 costofsolar.com/management/uploads/2013/07/jobs.jpg "
Her response a few hours later was this:
" Climate change is an existential crisis that threatens all of us-and we need to take bold action now to stop it before it's too late. That's why we need to have a #ClimateDebate. "
- Elizabeth Warren
10. But; ironically, the debate was already underway. And here is the result. Bernie Sanders has outlined (step by step) what is required to control threats to planet Earth AND fix American issues. Elizabeth Warren has vague requests for research, domestic jobs involving that unknown future-research; then, more debate.
11. I was hoping Bernie Sanders would run again.
HE IS NOW!
Was a pro-conservative response in the YouTube.com report (14:17-16:13) simply aimed at swaying support away from Bernie Sanders, making no sense at all?
Why is Elizabeth Warren guarded and vague about the climate issue??
Why won't she straight-answer a simple question, do middle-class taxes go up or not???
How QUICKLY did she gain my support????
Could she hypothetically be a classic, lying (but believable), conservative recruit posing as a democrat?????
Could she be an ivy-league, elitist (her) with tactics aimed at defeating the VOTE for a Bernie Sanders AGENDA??????
Why does her campaign use Facebook for alcohol advertisements???????
That would solidify her as a ...
a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.
"On my first day as president,
I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all
NEW fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands.
And I will ban fracking-everywhere." - Elizabeth Warren
Without a series of infrastructure steps like Bernie Sanders has introduced, this tweet leaves current homeowners and natural gas suppliers at a loss for replacement to natural gas appliances. Which begs the question, what will restaurants do if there is no natural gas (cheap enough) to buy? Will they be forced to replace gas ranges with electric stoves?
The Bernie Sanders agenda states appropriate funding to various areas of transition in the energy game. In doing so, avoiding market transitions' timelines as the driving factor, unlike an Elizabeth Warren "plan for that." Does Sanders have money to give restaurants? Probably not yet but I'll let him try to get four years work done after reading his allocations of funds.
"Biden needs to go home - he's corrupted and has been for a very, very long time.
He's voted for all things that have harmed us. Why is this crony creep still on the stage? He is part of the problem.
Feel the BERN - the opportunity for a clean politician who's been right for decades doesn't come along every day."
- Kelli Elaine
"It's absolutely painful to watch these (corporate) Democrat candidates.
After the young man asked the question about trusting Biden, the first thing Biden
did was cross his arms in front of himself in a defensive move, and then the second thing Biden did was lie. Pathetic."
- West Winds
Which begs the question, why did such a great politician choose him as a running mate? Strategy. Balance. Barack Obama had to choose somebody. For whatever reason(s) Joe Biden won the toss.
Watch a scene unfold as Joe seems ashamed to be distinguished by Barack Obama...
Why did he become president? Simple. To keep us addicted to oil, just as Putin wanted. Once we run out, guess who will have gone GREEN but saved BLACK?
"Since 2014, after the discovery of Universitetskaya-1 in the Kara Sea, the offshore exploration spending has fallen dramatically by 90% in Russia (Figure 1a). The exploration cost fell from 1.8 billion USD in 2014 to around 170 million USD in 2015, an evident impact of fall in oil prices, sanctions, and Ruble deflation. The decrease in exploration spend is also due to reduced activity in western Russian shelf, i.e. the Kara Sea and the Barents Sea, where operation costs are very high. Offshore exploration was active at comparatively low-cost operational areas in the Baltic and Okhotsk Sea. There have been no significant discoveries since 2011, Universitetskaya-1 being an exception. New discoveries accounted for around 200 million boe in total from 2015 and 2016."
"You could kiss goodbye to great swathes of the planet's biodiversity in order to farm enough to process it into a bio-feedstock for plastics. Because the end product will not have the barrier properties or the correct flexibility and tensile strength for every packaging, electrical and automotive application - though it may for some. Because the plastics already used to package everything from paracetamol to life-saving blood for transfusions have been tested to the high standards medical grade polymers have to meet in order to be marketable. To test a bioplastic made of hemp feedstock for every single application would be incredibly expensive and in many cases entirely pointless."
I find that perspective fairly negative. It sounds credible to a degree but perhaps the polymers can be further engineered to meet this degree by blending them
with spider silk or fungi. I just bet there's room for innovative improvement.
Speaking of innovation...
"The launch comes just two weeks after a nuclear-powered engine blew up on a Russian naval test range in the Arctic, killing five nuclear engineers and releasing radiation, though the 1986 Chernobyl disaster was far worse."
American submarines have been nuclear since January 17, 1955. All subs are nuclear now in the US Navy, operating what is called "small modular reactors" and what many new nuclear power plants are proposing to save the planet.
"By shrinking the size of these plants, the hope is to dramatically reduce the large capital costs of nuclear power and reduce the potential impacts of a
large-scale nuclear meltdown. NuScale is leading the charge with this technology and has a project with the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems to build
12 of its 60-megawatt (MW) reactors by 2026, for a total of 720MW. The project reached an important milestone in July after signing contracts to supply more than
150MW to local utilities. But the deal is still far from sealed. MIT Tech Review points out that another small modular reactor producer was in a similar
position less than a decade ago, but the plan fizzled out after they failed to find enough customers."
I had a realization. American politics are like a birthday party where the statue of liberty is cutting the cake for everyone. The first in line are republicans, rushing and shoving to get the cake; demanding the biggest piece possible. They wolf it down and go bonkers for more. They even shout how amazing it is to others as they wait quietly. Conservatives quicker than moderates are next in line. Liberals follow and some struggle just to keep up. Yet, some are so patient (teachers) and cordial (custodians) they let others go ahead of them intentionally, until there is only one piece left. Then, they take turns with a fork.
Allow me to describe it differently. Imagine liberals prescribe weaving a rope for people to be pulled up to the top of the statue of liberty to see the view of America. Meanwhile republicans instruct people to cut trees and build their own ladder for getting to the top. With this case, an independant moderate enjoys life where they stand, admiring America, not worrying about the game to reach the top. But the game DOES affect the moderate independant no matter what they DON'T do. They will be affected by the surrounding culture; especially, if they do nothing. Another factor (nature) should be considered. This is well showcased in past cultures.
Ironically a severe drought, exacerbated by widespread logging, appears to have triggered the mysterious Mayan demise in the Yucatan. Mayans watched human sacrifices to the Aztec sun-God, Huitzilopochtli. But, that's not worse than racial shootings in America. American police should not become Aztec priests. We should not live in a society which expects police to inflict such acts... Most recently, an unarmed African American, Atatiana Jefferson, was shot and killed by a white officer in her own home. The Texas (Fort Worth) Police Department said an officer perceived a threat then drew his weapon.
I don't think police even should have guns. 100% ILLEGAL! I think tasers are optimal. I know, I know... They need guns to shoot other shooters now. What if the shooters are secretly a domestic terrorism tactic; a sick, psychological tool of the munition profession itself... increasing fear to the point where we regard it necessary that police remain armed? To weaponize teachers (as Trump and DeVos proposed and now 14 states already have provisions allowing teachers to carry guns in school). Guns in order to "protect" children, is the fools' gold here. It's the segue into "don't we all need protected?" But the irony is that there is no threat if the shootings never happen. Removing the example of armed to kill is the prerequisite to lasting peace. Do we even need fataly-armed police? Robotic cameras can do their traffic job better, safer, more accurate and more often now. Do they need guns to stop high-speed chasers if they have helicopters and barracades with tire spikes? Honestly, police CAN stop shooters with tasers, while waering bullet-proof vests. I know many will not agree. But, either way there is a risk of being shot back. Gun or taser.
The irony is, shootings are now occuring in OTHER places besides schools. So focusing on them seems in-line with those who aim to keep their second ammendment out of fear rather than actually solve the problem, or make it worse. Worse scenario: we all have guns, even kids. Best scenario: guns are condemned as best we can condemn them, promoting peace as widely and positively as possible.
The Dayton, Ohio "Oregon District" was the site of a recent shooting. My favorite restaurant is there and I have been to concerts there. It could have been me. This shooting was painful to me unlike other news. That's why I've written all this. It's now my challenge, not someone else's.
So how do we change this perception that guns are necessary? Law.
This law won't change without a massive radical demonstration. Our emancipation didn't occur without a war.
I prescribe all officers to turn in their guns for tasers on one single,
congressionally ordained day. Making this change seen, not heard
will take PEACEFUL demonstration no smaller than
what the sixties saw in America...
"Mass socialist or communist movements grew not only in the United States, but also in most European countries. The most spectacular manifestation of this were the
May 1968 protests in France in which students linked up with strikes of up to ten million workers and for a few days the movement seemed capable of overthrowing the government."
There is an important lesson to learn from Kent State University in Ohio on May 4, 1970 when four student were shot by national guards whom claimed their shooting justified because they "feared for their lives" as college students threw rocks at them... Keeping protests peaceful, completely non-violent is paramount. Because some people, especially once they put on a uniform, are too stupid to just watch and learn.
A demonstration at the capitol can demand this change. In fact the entire political scene should be overthrown by a massive American-citizen mob in my dream. Yes a chaotic power struggle will result (perhaps a large scale Bolshevik revolution), evolving into dictatorship / monarchy, oligarchy, or a democracy begins whether representative or direct. Is it not actully possible with the internet to hold single-vote decisions of a new, direct democracy? Since classic Greeks held slaves captive, we can't really call it a true democracy. A nearly true (direct) democracy has existed in Switzerland since 1322, the most neutral country on Earth, historically. Unfortunately, they have only been truly democratic for just over 40 years having just granted women suffrage in 1971. But, the longest standing representative-democracy started right here.
"Although there is no precise date for the establishment of the league, The Six Nations (of Native Americans) claim to have enjoyed a system of consensus
government for over 800 years, well established long before the arrival of the Europeans. Founded to maintain peace and resolve disputes between its members,
the Six Nations primary law was the Kainerekowa, the 'Great Law of Peace' which stated, simply, that Iroquois should not kill each other.
They had a written constitution, laws dealing with ownership and trade routes and a funeral rite that allowed shared mourning at the passing
of leaders from other tribes. From 1660, the nations combined to form a united front in negotiations with the European settlers. With the focus
on maintaining peace with their neighbours, the Iroquois tribes were free to develop their predominantly agragian society. Their leaders were chosen,
by their women, for their knowledge of the earth and their skills at providing for their villages."
Native American reservations experience great poverty despite casinos. Gambling is actually good for the economic mechanism of tribal lifestyle but the reservations face such poor treatment by the USA overbearing, down-sizing and micro-managing as it has since the BIA was founded. Here is an interesting, powerful speech by Russel Means in 1989.
I wonder if those Native Americans who own the casino consider themselves republican. Here's my problem with modern republicans...
They simply create debt, then complain about it. Originally a democrat, as was his father, United States Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry,
"later a proclaimed proponent of fiscal conservatism.
Perry often campaigned on job growth and tax issues, such as his opposition to creating a (Texas) state income tax. In 2002, Perry refused to promise
not to raise taxes as governor, and in the following years did propose or approve various tax and debt increases.
In 2009, Perry signed Grover Norquist's pledge to "oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes". Texas began borrowing money in 2003 to pay
for roads and was projected to owe $17.3 billion by the end of 2012, increasing total state debt from $13.4 billion in 2001 to $37.8 billion in 2011...
Perry ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for president in 2012 and 2016."
I did enjoy a Rick Perry quote, saying
"What Mr. Trump is offering is not conservatism, it is Trump-ism: a toxic mix of demagoguery and nonsense.
Donald Trump continues to demonstrate his fundamental misunderstanding of border security."
I recall a conversation over text while I promoted Hillary Clinton as opposed to Trump. The other person remarked, "I'm voting for Trump because he's going to make me rich." This friend of mine actually believed that. I tried to use rational argument but there is little one can do when demagoguery has taken over sense.
"According to both right-wing critics and certain social democratic supporters alike, policies supported by SOCIAL DEMOCRATS and DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS such as free healthcare and
education, among others, are "pure Socialism" as they are opposed to "the hedonism of capitalist society". Partly because of this overlap, some political commentators use the
terms interchangeably, especially in the United States. The difference between the two is that
SOCIAL DEMOCRATS support practical reforms to capitalism as an end in itself whereas
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS ultimately want to go beyond
social democratic reforms and advocate systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism."
The global financial crisis of 2007-2008 / Great Recession occurred because "lax regulation allowed predatory lending in the private sector, especially after the federal government overrode anti-predatory state laws in 2004." Who did this? Republican$ trying to cheat at economics (irresponsible, extreme capitalism rewarding the absence of labor)! And they don't want anyone to realize that nor remember that fact. Progressive democrats have moved on without dwelling. As if to say, "don't worry, we're cleaning up the mess." And guess what... I was taking part! I had just begun my first and only 401K ever. I researched the hell out of it and looking at the projected numbers also grabbed up real estate stock at a whopping 22% average return gain. I was raking it in for months. It did actually feel crooked! I eventually got the money out, leaving the black-jack table behind me never to return to high-risk. My timing was good. The market dropped off soon after. Yes I am bragging. I had a feeling it was too crooked to be legal.
"Heinz Dieterich argued in 1996 that both free-market industrial capitalism and 20th-century socialism have failed to solve urgent problems of humanity like poverty, hunger,
economic oppression, sexism, racism, the destruction of natural resources and the absence of a truly participative democracy."
Socialist systems are divided into non-market and market forms. NON-MARKET socialism involves replacing factor markets and money with engineering and
technical criteria based on calculation performed in-kind, thereby producing an economic mechanism that functions according to different economic laws
from those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with capital accumulation and
the profit system. By contrast, MARKET socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and in some cases the profit motive, with respect to
the operation of socially owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled
directly by the workforce of each firm, or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend."
After watching the impeachment hearing on Sep 17, 2019, here on YouTube.com, lasting over three hours,
it seems party affiliation has now resulted in rogue lawlessness in someone like Trump and thus Lewandowski his loyal defender and lawful obsession on the left to thwart it.
Lawlessness can brag it is like "liberty" but does not operate like true democracy.
Liberty is ironically strengthened by unity. No argument against that exists.
Organizing multiple people to advocate their liberty,
But, organizing freely into government does not equal communism. It equals organization, order and system.
Polemical speech by some republicans that democrats equal communists, is illogical.
America needs a direct democracy (not a representative government) now more than ever. Otherwise this tug-of-war will never end.
"The Republican Party in its role as forerunner, pushing the limits of the capitalist model to the brink of fascism; and the Democratic Party
in its role as governor, providing intermittent degrees of slack and pull against this inevitable move towards a 'corporate-fascistic state of being."
While canvassing, someone remarked to me that my candidate "goes against the constitution, if you read it." So I did. First let's enjoy some constitutional history...
Why did the constitution even come about? The Stamp Act of 1765 is one factor. Britain not only imposed a tax on Americans but required premium paper to circulate for legal, leisure or any publishing. It went a step further to eliminate the colonial currency requiring that only British currency could purchase such items. Needless to say colonists were not happy. This is what originated the phrase: "No taxation without representation" and boycotts to Britain's rules. The British responded with an Ireland-tested Declaratory Act. The Declaratory Act was not repealed until 1964, by which time the handful of remaining British colonies in the West Indies were governed under constitutions explicitly granted under the authority of Parliament. Soon the Declaration of Independence aired 27 grievances against King George III. The Lee Resolution (also known as "The Resolution for Independence") was the formal assertion passed by the Second Continental Congress on July 2, 1776 which concluded that the Thirteen Colonies in America were "free and independent States", separate from the British Empire and creating what became the United States of America. The Declaration of Independence is the formal document officially announcing and explaining the Lee Resolution, approved two days later, July 4, 1776. It reads...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The new world was now a country. Although independant of Britain, the new country needed organized governing none the less. The first constitution was the Articles of Confederation in 1776 which basically put state above federal power. Ten years into its life, the American economic, diplomatic and geographic status was in peril from various factors. Its politics were worse...
"Congress was paralyzed. It could do nothing significant without nine states, and some legislation required all thirteen. When a state produced only one member in attendance, its vote was not counted.
If a state's delegation were evenly divided, its vote could not be counted towards the nine-count requirement. The Congress of the Confederation had "virtually ceased trying to govern".
The vision of a respectable nation among nations seemed to be fading in the eyes of revolutionaries such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Rufus King.
Their dream of a republic, a nation without hereditary rulers, with power derived from the people in frequent elections, was in doubt."
They were convinced that an EFFECTIVE central government power MUST replace the weaker Congress which the Articles of Confederation allowed. 1787 resulted in two plans proposed to govern; the nationalistic "Virginia Plan" (also known as the Large State Plan or the Randolph Plan) made of bicameral bodies versus the patriotic "New Jersey Plan" of a unicameral body. The "Great Compromise" (or the Connecticut Compromise) ended the debate between these two plans and consisted of among other things, the "Three-Fifths Compromise" counting three out of every five slaves as people. It "gave southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally. The compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney on June 11, 1787."
The Contitution drafting began on July 24, 1787, in the "Committee of Detail" consisting of five elected drafters: John Rutledge (South Carolina), Edmund Randolph (Virginia), Nathaniel Gorham (Massachusetts), Oliver Ellsworth (Connecticut), and James Wilson (Pennsylvania) aimed at reflecting resolutions passed up to that point (roughly 23 articles). Later discussions on September 8 resulted in a "Committee of Style and Arrangement" including Alexander Hamilton (New York), William Samuel Johnson (Connecticut), Rufus King (Massachusetts), James Madison (Virginia), and Gouverneur Morris (Pennsylvania). The final document was crafted by Jacob Shallus using either goat, calf or sheep parchment (still unknown which) likely with a goose quill, iron ink in oak gall that was black when applied but now brown, on Monday, September 17, 1787 at the final convention session.
A state-wide ratification resulted in anti-federalists opposed to the constitution and federal loyalists. Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay, under the moniker Publius, wrote commentary; The Federalist Papers, in support of ratification for New York. The constitution had been ratified by nine states (Article VII required a nine state minimum) on June 21, 1788. The Continental Congress passed resolution on September 13, 1788, after eleven states ratified it. March 4, 1789 marked the beginning of our federal government. George Washington was inaugurated as the nation's first president 8 weeks later, on April 30. North Carolina and Rhode Island ratified the Constitution on November 21, 1789, and May 29, 1790, respectively.
The 1787 constitution describes presidential power to " make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.... grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment... He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. "
I can tell you the president is not an autocrat, monarch nor dictator. The judicial and legislative branches aim to limit presidential power. Someone now is bending the rules in a sort of feat of strength. Many Germans swore loyalty to Adolf Hitler. Perhaps loyalty oaths like that which Trump asked of former FBI Director James Comey, which Comey denied to sware causing the president to fire him. Although, other people do hold such an allegiance.
"We saw Speaker Pelosi abuse her oath of office.
They're not going to allow this president to have due process.
They're not going to be fair." said House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member, Doug Collins to Fox News.
[Trump] is "not in jeopardy of being removed from office.
He's in jeopardy of having to continue that onslaught of lies and attacks and half-truths from a one-sided investigation in the House." -Doug Collins
Then, "Kurt D. Volker, the State Department's special envoy for
Ukraine who got caught in the middle of the pressure campaign by President Trump and his lawyer,
Rudolph W. Giuliani, to find damaging information about Democrats, abruptly resigned his post on Friday. The unidentified intelligence official who filed the whistle-blower
complaint that brought the president's actions to light identified Mr. Volker as one of the officials trying to "contain the damage" by advising Ukrainians how to navigate
Mr. Giuliani's campaign. After the Ukrainian president described his need for more American assistance against Russia,
Mr. Trump asked him to "do us a favor, though" and look into Democrats."
The most powerful role of the most powerful country entices MORE power. But the constitution is clear about (unpardonable) impeachment for bribery. So how can republicans or should we call them Trump loyalists, still defend him under this new evidence? Since the office of president is elected by the peoples' vote, republicans can easily say to themselves EVEN IF Trump withheld aid to Ukraine (bribery), then requested they smear Biden, it will always be the Americans who decided votes. They can't even recognize they just pronounced immunity to a criminal. Or perhaps it's like thinking if a police officer sees a crime being committed and does nothing because the criminal might also be a cop, it's not a crime the on-duty officer didn't detain the criminal.
By getting a clear answer "no" repeatedly, when asking the campaign manager of Trump 2016 (under oath), was the campaign in collusion with Russia;
it's easy to concede (convince one's self) that Trump himself is the police officer running bias and Russia or Ukraine is the only criminal.
But there are two counts here; involving foreign influence on American elections
AND bribery to do so. In fact both likely add up to treason as a third count.
Which is why democrats are having a swell time organizing the case presentation. It's such a mess deciding how and when to litigate, given there's likely MORE evidence
that could also
LOCK HIM UP!
The bribery count is open-shut now. But the Muller report was different.
It all came down to interpretation of collusion; "secret or illegal cooperation." To know that Russia has influenced other countries' elections, in turn
automatically influencing the 2016 election propaganda is NOT secretive. The Trump campaign (thus) admits no fault, wholeheartedly.
However, the flaw is using the next argument that the Obama administration
failed to block secret
attempts of Russian influence in secrecy. The irony is, Trump loyalists are the ones saying Russia was secretly infiltrating.
If Russia had, as found with other country election processes, infiltrated ours, the fault is NOT on an Obama admin. The criminal is again Russia, correct? Well yes...
AND the collusion party is not just Trump
but all the staff and Mike Pence too.
But this jaw about Obama does accomplish the republican red-herring of degrading a democratic party. "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.
It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion."
LEt's take a step back. How did we even get here? Rewatching the final 2016 debate is excrutiating. It's like we're in the courtroom of the worst divorce case ever recorded with the custody of America being defended.
"Russia took over vast SWATCHES of land. And then they said we don't want the cease-fire. We are so outplayed on missles... Our country is so outplayed by Putin
and Assad. No one can believe how stupid our leadership is... Well, I'd say they're wrong. Because I'm gonna create tremendous jobs... Nobody does it right.
And, frankly now we're gonna do it right... Such a nasty woman. Your husband disagrees with you... All she's ever done is talk."-Trump
Smearing shit on the opponent and making yourself look so, so good. It's the oldest trick in the book. But we now know Trump goes further than that to win. If Trump welcomed Russia or Ukraine to influence elections in secrecy in any way at any time, there is no counter argument to such actions as being illegal. Trump, appropriately is guilty of treason through conspiracy. In America we judge others based on if they commit crimes against other people. Although some republicans consider lying to the public "for its protection" morally correct, others tell the truth like it is. The "system of checks and balances" was designed to avoid having a president who might abuse power uncontrollably. Common laws are agreed upon by many people in cases, protecting many as best they can from one disobeying them. Law is intended to take control when ethics fails its function. Or, in this case; when checks cannot balance the system.
This corruption is being handled by the judicial AND legislative branch that are well-equipped to create the case that will end his presidency one way; legally. We will though have to deal with "die-hard republicans" none the less. The kind of people who prep for Armageddon. Those incapable of drafting innovations to actually solve problems instead of avoiding them in a hole dugout for their cowardice with guns aimed at the very ironic thing they wish to protect; LIBERTY. It is defined as "the state of being free WITHIN society" not WITHOUT others. It is detailed in our constitution that he "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." We'll see which one gets him prosecuted. P.S. He cannot pardon himself. Also stated in the constitution, he can only "grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, EXCEPT in Cases of Impeachment." After that the only people who will support him are those who articulate rule #1 as "there ain't no rules." And rule #2 is "see rule #1." You cannot reason with these people but we CAN put them behind bars for crime.
Trump dropped over 26,000 bombs on Iraq, Syria and some on Yemen in 2019. An increase of over 20,000 bombs from 2018.
It is as if Trump is nervous he won't drop enough payloads to please his commanders and entertain the troops. He's also entertaining the Evangelical Church crowd. At a recent religious rally, one attendee described the scene...
"I have never seen anything like what I witnessed as I watched President Donald Trump speak to a few thousand of his evangelical supporters at King Jesus International Ministry, a largely Hispanic megachurch in Miami, during the kickoff to his 'Evangelicals for Trump' campaign.
Before Trump's speech, several evangelical leaders laid their hands on the president and prayed for him. 'Apostle' Guillermo Maldonado, the pastor, prayed that Trump would fulfill his role as a new King Cyrus, the Old Testament Persian ruler who released the Jews from captivity and allowed them to rebuild Jerusalem. Paula White, a preacher of the Prosperity Gospel (God blesses the faithful with financial and physical health), prayed against the demonic forces, presumably Democrats, trying to undermine Trump's presidency." -John Fea
Here' the kicker to me. I watched the documentary "World War Two in Color" and it is clear to me, Hitler's rise to power was less sneaky than Trump's.
Hitler had two targets, the rest of the world geographically and the rest of the world racially. Trump revised the game the Third Reich played and went after
five targets at least:
1. Barack Obama
2. Hillary Clinton
4. Mexicans, Central and South Americans
6. Putin Power (Although he sneaks ploys to ploy Putin as pal).
7. Assad Threat (To further dictate militant demagoguery).
But what was so bad about Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Centrism?? Militarism??? No, Trump didn't argue politics on just issues. He vilainized their character and for Hillary appended to criminal conduct for email security, "nasty woman". I don't know about you but I like passwords to my inbox. Why was he doing this???? Trump NEEDED enemies to MAKE himself the savior. Where Berlin torn down its wall, Trump prompted Texas to build one. He took it to the limit by deceiving the Texas conservatives to believe they would make Mexico "pay for it" to boot. Trump could have (use your imagination) been an independant instead of a Republican. But he sought to harness 'religion' in his campaign. The result; a mental disorder of the masses, is exactly why church and state went separated in Europe and abroad. They are supposed to be separate in the USA.
"Congress was not empowered to establish a church because the framers feared that concentrated power,
whether favored religions, standing armies, banking monopolies, or an overarching federal government,
invited tyranny. Church and state were distinct in that the Federal Government could not elevate one
denomination over others. Nor could government and its flawed inhabitants usurp divine authority by
harnessing politics to the church. Faith is no civil contract, but a personal matter not to be profaned
by politics. State controlled churches frequently exploited this latent power for evil." -Bill Flax
It was as if the phrase "just watch me" had such simplicity NOT to fail, its success (as it worked for the Apprentice) would increase ten fold in the campaign and if he won, we would get the show. Well, here we are. Knee deep in pornstar drama, diplomatic horror and relentless fear. That's why Trump is the Republican favorite more than any other reason. He sows deeper fear and takes points by illegal moves. It's like the end of The Karate Kid when the bad sensei says "sweep the leg" (targeting an opponents greatest weakness).
Here is WHY it works on some people but not others...
In 1859 a solar flare hit the Earth, disabling the telegraph.
Less severe storms have occurred in 1921 and 1960, with widespread radio disruption reported.
Australian gold miner, C.F. Herbert, recounts the 1859 experience...
"The northern side from the zenith was also illuminated with beautiful colors. It was a sight never to be forgotten, and was considered
at the time to be the greatest aurora recorded... The rationalist and pantheist saw nature in her most exquisite robes, recognising,
the divine immanence, immutable law, cause, and effect. The superstitious and the fanatical had dire forebodings, and thought it a
foreshadowing of Armageddon and final dissolution."
If I were to agree that the planet is doomed to chaos NOW, it limits my choices. But if I reject a future of chaos and embrace the needs to avoid it, I can begin with a list of tasks; just like I would in any employment title. Assuming that further climate changes are completely unavoidable goes against scientific enthusiasm. To assume is to make an "ass" our of "u" and "me." Time is of course the main factor. And, in order to see such changes avoided, present behaviors must adapt and become a past behind us. The term "progressive" keeps resurfacing in campaigns, I agree upon.
This is where the "left" and "right" wings severely oppose. Liberals who believe in god as well as science do not doom the human race but instead accept the challenge to change with determination to overcome such an obstacle by reforming service to the people. To change behavior through new or ammended laws is not radical. Absolute sentiment of "conservatives" increasing fear and denying responsibility to fix problems, is worse than irrational, it is toxic.
In the "Duty to Rescue Law"... standing by doing nothing; watching a person perish, is illegal. To witness a planet suffocate and lie about it through denial, even worse.
If you want a real answer, just click this Google search to read the top search result about 1080i vs. 720p.
"An email that is anything but plain text will usually be sent as a group of attachments. It's the other side's email read that determines whether it appears to them as such or not. Typically this is handled via a setting with words to the effect of "View Attachments Inline." The easiest way to reduce the number of attachments that appear on the far side you can mandate that all email be sent as HTML email, as most email clients (readers) will be set up to display HTML email as email, though many people disable images in HTML email due to various image-based attacks and spam-verification techniques that rely on the automatic display of images."
posted by rhizome at 12:23 PM on February 25, 2008
This InformIT blog explains.
Allow me to clarify the definition of a podcast: an electronic broadcast seen or heard on a PORTABLE device.
YouTube videos are not podcasts because they cannot be stored on a portable device. Although, you can view them on a smart-phone inside the YouTube app, an internet connection is required. If YouTubes can be saved for offline use, that classifies them as a podcast.
Webinar: any live sharing of monitors, web-cams, or audio.
While a podcast is usually pre-recorded, webinars might contain live broadcasting or share a live transmission through a virtual network. VPN or remote-desktop is essentially a 1-on-1 Webinar. Skype, GoToMeeting, AdobeCONNECT - they all allow for simultaneous transmission of more than one stream.
So... Does a "webcast" encompass pre-recorded media streamed during live web interactivity?
This website obtains cookies to optimize its webpage viewing experience.
2007-2019 © Brian Kennedy Schmitz