Judging by the company's recent infatuation with
energy-efficient LED lighting solutions, we're not at all surprised to see
General Electric launching a daunting initiative that aims to cut
homeowner energy consumption to zero by 2015. The so-called 'Smart Grid' is part of the Net Zero Home Project, which combines solar and wind energy (for on-site power generation) along with specialized appliances that can "communicate with utilities to participate in utility-run demand-response programs." In other words, these intelligent devices can turn themselves down or off when no one's around in order to shave peak-time consumption, and the in-your-face nature of always knowing exactly how much juice you're wasting should also encourage conservation. Of course, we have all ideas that a Smart Grid-certified home will run you quite a bit more than you're willing to pay, but hey, Ma Earth deserves it -- doesn't she?
[Via
CNET]
posted Jul 15th 2009 9:46AM
Really ZERO?
What's coming out of the chimney then? lol
This will never happen, and the sooner the dumb liberals realize that the better off we will ALL be.
It does no good for the US to cause the people financial harm to do this, when china and india (The 2 largest polluters) do nothing except pollute more.
Energy CONSUMPTION, not emissions.
He's talking about what's burning in the fireplace, not exactly what's coming out of the chimney.
They're burning fuel (energy consumption).
The inaction of others is no reason for inaction on your part.
As a European, it always amazes me to see the reactions of Americans on this. Quite alot still tend to see it as a Liberal thing. We all have to do our bit. GE deserve some praise for this.
Now the carmakers need to get emissions down quite a bit.
you're right. the chinese do completely ignore the climate crisis. we should too.
we should also revoke your right to protest, criticize your gov't, take away your right to fair trial, free speech, bear arms, etc.
that's the most 8th grade moronic comment i've seen in a bit.
the US became great by leading the way not falling in with the lot. if we're gonna talk the talk we need to walk the walk.
i was blessed with a daughter a year ago this week. i'd love for her to have clean air to breathe and still be able to see a polar bear here and there. oh yeah, and not be under water.
and what part of this article says it will do the american people harm? i would imagine the part about it being 2015 before it's viable would also contribute to the tech being cheaper as well. i would also thing that GE is simply saying people will have the option of a zero footprint home by that year based on technologies they are working on.
This comment is prime evidence for putting lifeguards on the gene pool
Of course, dlewis, why should we do good when everybody else isn't? It's completely absurd, I don't know where people get these ideas.
as
We all have to do our little bit - and you (Conor) cite Americans as having a problem? How about China and Russia?
Of course, they've already told you to piss off, and rightly so.
The fascist hypocrisy is amazing...criticize George Bush for being in bed with mega corps and big oil, but it's perfectly kosher for GE, GM, unions, Time-Warner, Google and the whole damn financial sector to sleep with Obama? Americans had better get a grip and understand what is really happening here - this administration's deals with these corporations is going to affect every single life in this country far beyond a couple seasons of high gas prices ever did.
This IS NOT about climate change. This IS about control. Can I have six more Czars and an Amen?
The only energy consumed by what you see coming out of that chimney is the energy the artist spent drawing it into place. It's an illustration, not a precise schematic they will base all their plans on.
This is mere speculation, but I'm guessing you're not a science major.
Awesome picture.
The question is not to be self sufficient but is the cost to achieve it.
You knows, a electric car cost from x3 to x10 the price of a regular one, a solar panel project usually is around a 4 digit (or higher), and wind projects are useless for most places.
That's why it is called "Net Zero Home Project". The net consumption "inside" home will be zero. But you will spend lots of energy to build solar panels, energy efficient & smart appliances and to dump the old appliances. But those contribute to "industrial energy consumption". We can even build these stuff in China and claim that USA does not consume any energy.
Equal to The Simpsons - Indian Outsourcing ?
Hey mitt...You made an absurd statement now prove it!!!
oh hey lookie here!!!!
“Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
I've always wanted swimming windmills!
you are so right, what is the cost to achieve this? and the study you are citing shows a very interesting perspective on this. And since we are in america and the issue is a bit more complex it will be quite entertaining to boring to have all the politically polarized come out and pound their chest about their position. But unless you are really able to make an apple to apple comparison of energy cost from different sources, all subsidized by public money in their own way, all these arguments are futile. But this proposal is about monitoring and managing use of energy, not energy generation. Since it costs money to generate energy either way it might be best to embrace this initiative, get involved and make sure that it will not infringe on our daily lives and our privacy. At the end of the day everyone can make their own decision on implementing this based on return of investment and other factors.
netzero is coming back?
Reminds me of Majora's Mask.
I was thinking google chrome for a second...
the point of this is to create a sustainable model. Once that model catches on and production increases and more people implement the plan, the cost will go down, as does any technology. Once the technology has become less expensive, and these industrializing countries, such as India and China , become wealthier, the technology can be implemented by the rest of the world. This is the plan at least, if we can do that there will be nothing coming out of the chimney, as all heating systems will be electric based.
I'll take it!
The real solution is to switch to nuclear energy, but people wont go that path (think chernobyl ), though nuclear can be done safely...its the people who build their homes near plants that complain (someone shoot these people)
(try weighing CO2 emissions vs energy consumption, then weigh nuclear waste vs energy consumption, there is a surprising difference)
Your theory is flawed though. If we produce a very low level of CO2 and increase the amount of green plant life on the planet, the CO2 will be converted into O2, and thus negated. If we produce nuclear waste forever, it just sits and piles up and we have the landfill problem of the late 1980's all over again, only worse.
Go clean or go home.
Nuclear is NOT clean.
@Ed H
However currently Nuclear is probably the cleanest per KW of any of the options we currently have. Wind, solar and hydro are all flawed when scaled up. For the UK to power itself through wind it would need to cover practically the entire countryside with turbines which are also extremely noisy. I do not call that particularly green. We certainly need to cut down on our consumption by a massive amount but even then the so called clean tech will not be able to produce enough power.
Ed H,
You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
98% of the nuclear waste generated in the US could be recycled, but Jimmy Carter and environmental movement in the 70s banned RECYCLING of nuclear rods that have been used. Why, because it'll purposely generate more waste and make nuclear energy look bad.
France gets 75% of there power from nuclear energy. They recycle their waste. Their nuclear waste containment building is about 14,000sqft or about the size of a small convenience store. Our waste containment center would have to be about the size of a Wal-Mart if we recycled and had about 75% of the country using nuclear energy.
@Ed H,
And this is worse than covering an entire country in wind turbines and all the damage to the ecosystem that this would cause, not to mention the amount of energy and resources used to build that many turbines? Is is preferable to covering enormous amounts of land with solar panels and the damage this would also do to the ecosystem? Is it preferable to hydro electric which creates no end of problems for ecosystems and distribution of water? I am not saying that Nuclear is clean or even ideal, however our other options are next to useless. I have no doubt that in the future we will have new super solar panels which can produce the same amount of energy as a power plant for the same area covered but we are currently nowhere near that. Solar can supplement power stations and help reduce the number we need but it is currently in no state to replace them.
The simplest and easiest solution is conservation tied with efficiency upgrades and onsite power generation. These are measure you can take now, have a solid personal financial gain and are not that difficult inplement. Many of them you can do yourself.
I'm working to make both my home and workplace to be net zero by the end of next year. So far, compared to two years ago, I've cut the energy consumption of both by 60% - which has dramatically decreased the utility bills, while increasing comfort and value of both. Each upgrade has a solid return on investment, and in total saves enough energy to power a typical residential block (now up to about 250 kWh daily saved).
Why we need to focus on reducing energy consumption of buildings & what to focus on to get the best return on investment:
http://geekpi.com/?p=370
What I'm doing to both save money, and energy:
http://geekpi.com/?p=479
http://www.jbdg.com/sustain.html
If you can simultaneously save money, increase property value and have the added benefit of reducing your impact on the environment, why not?
Personally I would like to know where and when my appliances are using electricity.
I think the smart grid is a great idea. If this would encourage non peak use at cheaper rates then i think it is a benefit for the informed consumer.
I know from my own experience that the fuel economy monitor in my vehicle has impacted my driving habits. Having a monitor on electric usage will probably do the same.
Ken, while this device does not tell when, or what time of day your appliances use energy it does monitor how much energy they are using. It's called the P3 Kill A Watt Electricity Load Meter and Monitor, $20 on the web. It is a neat device, amazing what power every day items use/waste. I think there are other meters with more features, but this one is a reasonable price.
Yeah, when hackers get in and shut everything down we will be usinh 0 electricity.
ah the power nazi.. sure u can have the 8 cents a kilowatt price as long as you keep your AC at 78F
but if you turn your AC to 77F you now have to pay 23 cents a kilowatt
i am fully AGINSED the smart grid.. instead i support ISOLATED grids or personnel grids..
That's why I'm against this. If I want my AC running at 72, I should be allowed to do that. I don't want our current Fascist President (PBO) controlling my life.
I am AGINSED butchering of a language. Please use it properly or don't use it at all.
@ polobunny FF doesn't have it underlined so go fuck off u d-bag grammar nazi
Must be broken (might have manually added it to the dictionary yourself), because it's clearly underlined here.
Not that you should need any software to help you type properly the word "against".
I'm not exactly a grammar Nazi, but there's quite the difference between the small typographical error and not knowing how to write a word at all. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Word probably exists in your dialect...
Hey libtards NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC are in business with Obama group via GE lobbyists & bailouts to concoct this utter BS you call Green Energy.
Wanna know how you are dealing with a Liberal Idiot? When they say that Obama or Big Govt or whatever will "CREATE GREEN ENERGY".
Nuff Said :)
Any EE grads around who are willing to explain to the art degree holders what utter crock the green movement is feeding the embolden ignorant masses?
what does it matter to you? green energy is going to be one of the biggest growth industries for the next 20 years. normally people like you have no problem selling utter rubbish to people for a profit. Whats different this time?
Republican troll?
at least is way better that FOX News = Global warming is a myth.
Anyways, doing nothing IS NOT A SOLUTION.
Prove to me human induced global warming or now it is called climate change exist. If you do that, I'll be the biggest supporter of this crap.
The problem is that no scientist can prove it and the more they look the more it appears we have no control over it. It's controlled by a little thing called the sun. And it's influenced more by things like Volcanoes and colliding meteors.
Man made global warming IS a myth.
All the scary models from a decade or so ago saying we'd be baking by now have been WRONG. The 'hockey stick' was proven to be a fraud. We've been in a cooling cycle for 8+ years. Ask yourself why they've changed the line from "Global Warming" to climate change?
Even the father of climate science has come out and said man made global warming is bull. So has the founder of the weather channel. And about 30,000 other scientists. The tide is turning against 'Man is changing the climate' as more evidence is coming in.
MMGW is a tool for environmental activists and crooked businesses to make money and gain power by scaring people with bad science.
Tip for the people who are still trying to push MMGW here: The time is coming to hop off that train. In a couple years you will taken as seriously as those who predicted another ice age in the 1970's. You're on the losing side of history - you just don't know it yet because you either aren't getting all the information, or you refuse to see it.
@kjb434 actually human influence DOSE have a big impact on the earth
t what extent NOONE KNOWS but a fact is certain al gore if a moron and the hippies are too...
we should make a better effort to conserve and not be so destructive.. "love canal" anyone?
hell in the 1800's and early 1900's London was very very dark and foggy because of all the coal that ppl were burning to heat there homes.. and in the 1910's London banned coal fireplaces now its not so bad so we DO have an effect on stuff
and if we can eliminate our impact as much as possible then we CAN find out what the hell is really going on...
btw one last statement i HATE FOX NEWS BUT i enjoy Glenn Beck..
It failed/failing in europe :)
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
I don't get how consumption can be cut to ZERO. I think I'm missing something.
Logic and Rational thinking have no place in Liberal Ideology.....Just drink your cup of hope and change ok!!
I have the same problem. If energy consumption is zero, that means no energy is being used, at all, ever, from any source. Doesn't matter if it's green energy, grid tied or not, if the energy consumption target is zero, everything that uses energy would have to be switched off.
Doesn't eating food count as energy consumption? I'd rather not live in that home...
The key word is *net* zero. Depending on the time of day and year, on-site systems (wind, solar, co-gen) will generate energy and feed the excess back into the grid. At other times, when demand is greater than on-site supply, the building would consume energy from the grid.
When energy consumption and production at the building's power meter are added up over the whole of the year, the the total number should be zero.
@Eyhk
Why should I waste my hard earned money on something that will make ZERO difference because the other 2 big polluters decided to do nothing?
Why should I also serve to fight and protect you people when you don't give damn?
@holto
I'm guessing your one of those liberals I'm talking about there with your little polar bear thing there.
You should open your eyes and ears, and don't believe everything you hear on MSNBC.
Your so pissed because your daughter isn't going to see the polar bears... Oh so sad... maybe go talk to china and india, instead of bitching on there.
One country with this "problem" can not make a difference, no matter how big that country is.
Update on Polar Bears,
Canada and much of the rest of the world that has polar bears are increasing the hunting because the populations are getting to large.
Oh no, I can't say that. It would mean Al Gore is a liar. Of course he is. He's in this Global Warming hoax to make tons of money.
And guess what; if everybody had the same train of thought as you, nothing would ever change!
One country is better than zero. As two is better than one and so on. Doesn't take lot of scholarship to understand that.
Plus, if you're only doing something good to get recognition, you're stepping at a pretty low level. What happened to doing something good because it just felt right to you? Don't you strive for something better than what you currently have? Don't you wish to improve as a being?
While we're there, what's the point of your life? Live through it on our wonderful planet and leave it fscked for others?
Oh the wonderful joy of wishful thinking. But hey, one guy trying to put some sense into others is better than zero...
You americans always blame others countries. You start this mess so you should clean your dirt.. lol
You americans always blame others countries. You start this mess so you should clean your dirt.. lol
Hey mitt...You made an absurd statement now prove it!!!
oh hey lookie here!!!!
“Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
Yep,
The silly rules being pushed in DC have been tried in Spain for years with horrible consequences and it does work.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that means the utility can enable or disable your applicances when they want.
This allows them to:
1. not build any more power plants which yields them savings
2. match the electrical load of the power grid exactly to their power production which yields them savings on the production end
3. maximise the cost per kwh of the energy provided by extending peak hours which yields them revenues
To sum up: Help the utilities make more money. I'm not saying their idea is a bad one. I'm just saying describe it like it is.
"Ma Earth deserves it -- doesn't she?"
No.
Global warming, pollution, and going green is all bulls**t. I think we should just carry on with our current situations and cemmence with operation 2012.
I had a device on my power meter for a while that would switch off certain appliances during peak demand. It saved me about $4 per month on my bill. When it got hot, my air conditioner wouldn't work. At dinner time, I couldn't cook dinner. It SUCKED. I had it removed.
Zero energy consumption home? It's called a cave. Try living in one. You won't like it.
Thank you....Why don't people understand that "peak time" means "the time when you probably want to use your electronics". It's only peak time becuase it is probably needed at that time. What happens when everyone stops cooking dinner at 7 o'clock because it is "peak time" and electricity cost more then? Everyone will start cooking at 5:30 and that will become the new "peak time". You can't win with idealogues.
Anybody grow up when we didn't have A/C or electric clothes dryers?
I did and I remember how my mom suffered in SoFla.
Y'all go right back to the third world, I'll take nuclear FTW.
I haven't read all of the paper that you cited, but I will not trust results from it until some basic questions are answered. How did they generate the average capital stock per worker data? What sectors did they do it for? Why is it valid to compare this to a seemingly totally different stat for government subsidy? These are questions from just one paragraph that did not appear to be answered, although as I say I have not read it all or in detail.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1333&context=are_ucb
damn comments, should be @nastro
Man has influence on the globe in a microscopic way, not macroscopic.
I assume for the sake of discussion you know the following:
- Global human fossil-fuel use accounts for about 2% of the CO2 emitted annually, mother nature provides the rest;
- water vapor (good old H2O) retains solar heat about 23,000 times as much as pathetic CO2 does;
- NASA’s “Y2K corrected” US temperature data has the hottest year on record as 1934, 5 of the top 10 hottest years in the US are before WWII;
- Greenland was inhabited (and truly “green”) during the Medieval Warming Period of about 1,000-1,300 AD, which had much lower CO2 levels;
- The scientific data shown that the rise in CO2 trails natural temperature increases as an indicator, not a cause. [“Ice Core Record of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations”; Science; 283 (1999) 1712-1714]
Back on topic, I actually wonder more when GE will apply their "egomagination" (or is that "egomagination"?) to clean up the Hudson river basin of their PCB contamination...
I live in the Bay Area. *all* homes run quite a bit more than I'm willing to pay.
This is total BS. This is simply to further the control of the people. Lets make up some project like "smart meters" so we can find a way to give money to some big companies, and have total knowledge of how, and when you use your electricity. Then when its time to start telling you all that we need to charge the crap out of you to "save the planet" and encourage you to save power, you can mindlessly obey. Lets put in windmills and solar when nuclear would simply and safely solve the problem. I am all for keeping the planet clean, I would love to have some solar panels on the roof, but being scared into all this is a bunch of BS. I would drive a hybrid to save gas money, but not because I am so diluted to think the emissions I am saving are any better then the batteries I would eventually discard.
"A consensus of scientists agree..." Yeah sure the same consensus that said we would not have this high of unemployment if we pass that terrible stimulus plan.
We do not have the ability to control the weather, nimrods. If there is any "climate change" its caused by things like THE SUN. Do some research and stop just believing all the BS you are told. Who is getting all the government money (our money) to do this? GE! Who tells you this is all so important? The news stations that GE owns! There is so much more to it, but I guess you people all feel really good when you think that you are somehow "saving" the planet when your really just another one of the mindless masses who buy in to so much with so little real knowledge or research.
This is one more way, ultimately, the government wants to control us. If I want to waste as much energy as Al Gore's Nashville house in a day, as long as I can afford it, it should be provided to me. I see commercials for conservation where the wife puts the thermostat up to 78. Yeah right. I want my thermostat between 70 & 72, MAX. People need to stop meddling in the affairs of the citizens of this great country and let's get back to what we're good at, consuming energy, making more of it and along the way making this country and the world a better place, without forcing on us Socialism/Marxism/Communism or any other ism, I just want to be me. ;)
I really like the image it's all sort of model train set / snowglobe :)
This is exactly what we need to start lowering our energy consumption. Homeowners need to have the technology to monitor all of their energy consumption within the home and turn off everything when it is not being used, from a centralized device. Also, the structure of the energy utility industry needs to be altered. Utility companies need to be rewarded for saving energy, not using more energy.
There are people in my town already putting up wind turbines, which will pay themselves off in 10-14 years. With GE's support all of these things are possible. This is definitely a step in the right direction, hats off to GE.
But what is the working lifespan of those wind-turbines? Maintenace and remanufacturing costs includd in that 12-14 year estimate?
I am guessing at the 12-14 year point, they will be near end-of-life.
Plus, all your neighbors will stop speaking to you, let the air out of your tires, or resort to more drastic action due to the noise produced by the wind turbine. One of your neighbors a lawyer? Say goodbye to your "public nuisance". NIMBY.
It is very possible to "go off the grid", but individuals who chose to do so make significant lifestyle changes.
Clothes dryer? How about a clothes line. Air conditioner? hmmm... Want to run your microwave? Better check your storage battery state of charge first. Oh yeah, you have to recycle those storage batteries every 7 years or so at a significant cost. Hot water heater? No, that is done by a tank and heat exchanger on the roof that the sun warms. Get used to some tepid, short showers in the morning.
until they (the industry) can get stuff like ACPI right, then I'll believe it.
That cake looks delicious
GeekPI above is right; net-zero energy is achievable affordably. (His site: http://geekpi.com/?p=479). I'm an architect with a "grid-tied" occupied and zero-energy home project in its second year now. Here's an update on this very affordable design with electric bill of zero/year with all electric appliances, dw/refrig/stove/dryer/wash1er/hotwater, and other household devices and lighting: Small house: 1,000 s.f. area. Extra initial cost for all features: about $20,000. Cold winter climate (i.e. less than 14 degreesF 1% of year). Modest PV 2kw solar collector on roof ($11,000); Superinsulated (2x8@24"o.c. stud walls R-30 fiberglass batts; 1" foam under siding); ceiling insulation R:60; underslab foam insulation R-7.5; Windows' U-value:0.25; careful construction techniques, including elimination of unneeded wall studs; caulked and sealed essentially all leaks; non-toxic interior materials; controlled ventilation; water-sourced heat pump and a/c. Now you're bored. But the design looks rather conventional other than smaller windows, and the electric bill is a joke it's so low. Costs a little in the winter, averages 0 per year, and in the summer the power company sends you a check every month.
NotForMe - I'd love to hear more details of your project. stevea at jbdg.com
Ok here is why this is complete BS! All the technologies proposed in this initiative are the most expensive to implement. While the truly effective and cheap method of thermal power generation is completely ignored. A thermal generator consists of an enclosed system filled with R134a which has a boiling point of −26.3 °C, housed in a pool of water at any temp above oh well freezing ( But which is still above the boiling point of R134a!) the water heats the R134a and it's then pressurized gas is run through a turbine to make the power. It cools down and returns to the area in the water to be heated again. Which means on any day where the temp is above freezing it makes power. The heat from the turbine can be captured and feed into the water tank to keeps it's temp above freezing. One could also use a small amount of Solar power to heat the water, or a small amount of natural gas. Or heck for those health fanatics a stationary bike with a generator. Why would large corporations ignore this form of power production? Well because the technology to produce it already exists. There are no huge government grants needed to develop it. It's also easy enough to build that anyone with moderate fabrication skills could do it. It's fact that Green house gases can raise the temp, but it's also fact that those pushing for climate change laws are the ones standing to profit from what those bills will bring about. Face it people you are being used to push an agenda that is only good for those in power, and in the business already. They are not doing it for the planet. they are doing it to get rich off of YOU! Thermal power production could be used in electric cars, but then Battery manufactures would lose out, as would those already producing the power to charge them. While we are on the subject CO2 is a huge cause of global warming right? Well isn't CO2 what plants use to breath? So the more CO2 in the air the faster, bigger and stronger plants should be growing. So to really help reduce CO2 shouldn't we be paying farmers and timber companies to plant and grow more plants? Then why are we paying them to reduce the amount they plant and grow? Oh that reason would be because the less they plant and grow , and the more forests we cut down the more CO2 builds up! The theory of global warming is correct in that the more green house gasses we release the more the temp should rise, but it's not taking in to consideration that those fighting global warming the most are the ones behind the scenes writing bills to prevent the actual reduction of CO2 levels! People you are being used, and you are happily letting yourself be used. You are not being told the whole story, nor are you stepping back and rationally thinking about the whole story. They are proposing we build huge CO2 scrubbers to remove large aounts of CO2 from the air. Well that alone is a good thing, but it's what they will do with the captured CO2 that is wrong. They want to store it in the seafloor. That is stupid. Why not build huge greenhouses for growing food, or biomatter for fuel? Oh if we did that it would actually help I see now. We would have an excess of produce, and biofuel ingredients. It would lower fuel costs. it would help aid world hunger. It would help lower green house gases. Those all sound like good things to me, but those in power pushing the climate bills would not profit from that! They would actually stand to lose huge amounts of money, and even larger amounts of ROI. ROI is return on investment. It's fact that the biggest proponent of global warming is Al Gore, well mister Gore has one of the largest personal carbon foot prints int he world, and his personal wealth has increased 5,00% since he started his global warming campaign. I'm sorry to have to tell you, but he isn't doing it for the planet. He is doing it to make more and more money. He owns a company that has made billions of oil speculation. This is fact.
In closing it's all good to want better for the planet, but face it in the present form your desire to make the world a better place is being used against you for personal gain of those in power! There are very good forms of energy that are being over looked, because they will not be profitable for those pushing change and change now! We can make fuel right here in our own back yard. We can use biofuels, and we can use biomatter to produce the oils to lubricate the cars running that biofuel. We can each at home make fuel cheaply and effectively with thermal generators. I mean we all have hot water heaters don't we? Well that little hotwater heater produces enough heat to make power enough to power your whole home. Face it the tools to fix the problem already exist, but they are not profitable for those in power, and those in business. One could take an old gasoline powered generator and easily turn it into a thermal generator relatively cheap. We could also pass law that all new homes build have a natural gas generator, because we have enough natural gas here in our hemisphere to power us for centuries, but that's not profitable for those in power, and those behind the scenes. We could aslo pass legislation to have all new homes build have a thermal generator, but that would be to esy and too cheap. If you doubt the effective ness of thermal generators know that Iceland and greenland get most of their power form them. THere are whole towns in Alaska that get power form them. Even in the dead of winter! Oh, but Alaska is a predominantly republican state so we don't hear about that. Well that and the fact that after the generator is built there is not profit to be made off of it.
One last thing if global warming is such a huge thing how come this past week is the first time this summer it's been hot here in the deep south? This is the coolest summer we've had on record in a seriously long time. Not to mention just a week or two ago people up north were still wearing jackets! It's July people. Normally here in the south it's been 100 degrees for two to three months. In no way am I saying that green house gases can not cause the global temp to rise, but I am saying people are being lied to, and the problem is being over inflated for personal gain. There are much bigger problems we as humans should be addressing. Like litter, and water contamination, and the release of carcinogens in our air, the fact that high tension power lines produce radiation that can be harmful. All these things are falling by the wayside in favor of profit from global warming propaganda. If we all produced our own power there would be no need for High tension power lines. The money it cost to put up, maintain, and upgrade them alone is staggering.
Please for the love of the planet and the future wake up, and look at things as they truly are. There is still time to fix the problems, and fix them in a way that is better for the world not just for the increase in wealth for those behind the scenes.
Oh great. How long do I have to leave my refrigerator door open and blast my A/C to nullify all of this green crap?