Foreign Oil

[CA renter]

[quote=sd_matt]I’m starting to send out letters to representatives asking a question.Here it is.

“A question for you.  Has it ever been considered to award money to any entity that develops any green energy that competes directly with oil or coal? Specifically to award the money only after the technology has demonstrated it’s viability. To me this kind of policy is the simplest and most obvious approach. I imagine that a cash prize of 5 billion would stir up a lot of competition and development.

Regards”

Mind you all that the letters have only gone out to a few Dems and Green party reps. I figure they would be most likely to answer. Well see. [/quote]

I like it. Please let us know if you hear any responses.

[mwtosd]

[quote=sd_matt] I imagine that a cash prize of 5 billion would stir up a lot of competition and development.

Regards”

Mind you all that the letters have only gone out to a few Dems and Green party reps. I figure they would be most likely to answer. Well see. [/quote]

Though it is not close to $5 billion, there is $10 million http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/

It is for high energy efficient cars.

[mwtosd]

[quote=sd_matt] I imagine that a cash prize of 5 billion would stir up a lot of competition and development.

Regards”

Mind you all that the letters have only gone out to a few Dems and Green party reps. I figure they would be most likely to answer. Well see. [/quote]

Though it is not close to $5 billion, there is $10 million http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/

It is for high energy efficient cars.

[mwtosd]

[quote=sd_matt] I imagine that a cash prize of 5 billion would stir up a lot of competition and development.

Regards”

Mind you all that the letters have only gone out to a few Dems and Green party reps. I figure they would be most likely to answer. Well see. [/quote]

Though it is not close to $5 billion, there is $10 million http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/

It is for high energy efficient cars.

[mwtosd]

[quote=sd_matt] I imagine that a cash prize of 5 billion would stir up a lot of competition and development.

Regards”

Mind you all that the letters have only gone out to a few Dems and Green party reps. I figure they would be most likely to answer. Well see. [/quote]

Though it is not close to $5 billion, there is $10 million http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/

It is for high energy efficient cars.

[mwtosd]

[quote=sd_matt] I imagine that a cash prize of 5 billion would stir up a lot of competition and development.

Regards”

Mind you all that the letters have only gone out to a few Dems and Green party reps. I figure they would be most likely to answer. Well see. [/quote]

Though it is not close to $5 billion, there is $10 million http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/

It is for high energy efficient cars.

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

Meanwhile in other news:

Tesla Roadster managed to cover 241 miles on a single charge, with another 38 miles of juice still left in the battery.
“That would give the Roadster a theoretical maximum touring range of nearly 280 miles — 36 miles more than Tesla itself reckons the car will cover on a charge. If the numbers stand up to official scrutiny, Tesla will hold the world record for the longest distance traveled by a production electric car on a single charge. Of course, it should be pointed out that the Tesla was driven by a company staffer doubtless practiced in eking out every last mile from a charge, and that the speeds averaged on the run were hardly blistering — 90kph (56mph) on the motorways, 60kph (37mph) on trunk roads and 30kph (19) in the mountain roads. Tesla reckon the average speed for the entire journey was 45kph (28mph).”

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

Meanwhile in other news:

Tesla Roadster managed to cover 241 miles on a single charge, with another 38 miles of juice still left in the battery.
“That would give the Roadster a theoretical maximum touring range of nearly 280 miles — 36 miles more than Tesla itself reckons the car will cover on a charge. If the numbers stand up to official scrutiny, Tesla will hold the world record for the longest distance traveled by a production electric car on a single charge. Of course, it should be pointed out that the Tesla was driven by a company staffer doubtless practiced in eking out every last mile from a charge, and that the speeds averaged on the run were hardly blistering — 90kph (56mph) on the motorways, 60kph (37mph) on trunk roads and 30kph (19) in the mountain roads. Tesla reckon the average speed for the entire journey was 45kph (28mph).”

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

Meanwhile in other news:

Tesla Roadster managed to cover 241 miles on a single charge, with another 38 miles of juice still left in the battery.
“That would give the Roadster a theoretical maximum touring range of nearly 280 miles — 36 miles more than Tesla itself reckons the car will cover on a charge. If the numbers stand up to official scrutiny, Tesla will hold the world record for the longest distance traveled by a production electric car on a single charge. Of course, it should be pointed out that the Tesla was driven by a company staffer doubtless practiced in eking out every last mile from a charge, and that the speeds averaged on the run were hardly blistering — 90kph (56mph) on the motorways, 60kph (37mph) on trunk roads and 30kph (19) in the mountain roads. Tesla reckon the average speed for the entire journey was 45kph (28mph).”

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

Meanwhile in other news:

Tesla Roadster managed to cover 241 miles on a single charge, with another 38 miles of juice still left in the battery.
“That would give the Roadster a theoretical maximum touring range of nearly 280 miles — 36 miles more than Tesla itself reckons the car will cover on a charge. If the numbers stand up to official scrutiny, Tesla will hold the world record for the longest distance traveled by a production electric car on a single charge. Of course, it should be pointed out that the Tesla was driven by a company staffer doubtless practiced in eking out every last mile from a charge, and that the speeds averaged on the run were hardly blistering — 90kph (56mph) on the motorways, 60kph (37mph) on trunk roads and 30kph (19) in the mountain roads. Tesla reckon the average speed for the entire journey was 45kph (28mph).”

[Nor-LA-SD-guy]

Meanwhile in other news:

Tesla Roadster managed to cover 241 miles on a single charge, with another 38 miles of juice still left in the battery.
“That would give the Roadster a theoretical maximum touring range of nearly 280 miles — 36 miles more than Tesla itself reckons the car will cover on a charge. If the numbers stand up to official scrutiny, Tesla will hold the world record for the longest distance traveled by a production electric car on a single charge. Of course, it should be pointed out that the Tesla was driven by a company staffer doubtless practiced in eking out every last mile from a charge, and that the speeds averaged on the run were hardly blistering — 90kph (56mph) on the motorways, 60kph (37mph) on trunk roads and 30kph (19) in the mountain roads. Tesla reckon the average speed for the entire journey was 45kph (28mph).”

[sd_matt]

Here’s a reply from a Green party rep.

“Matt,

Thank you, for asking the question. Sustainably Responsible Investing
(SRIs) encourages people to re-think how they invest in the energy
sector, which stimulates growth in “green energy.”

There are grant programs that are geared to establishing, researching
and maintaining the techologies that will likely grow exponentially in
coming years, because it is fueled by growing demand. However, viability
is not the issue, whereas, sustainability is the key to green energy.

Fossil fuels are in finite supply and introduce scarcity of supply,
along with environmental distruction and degradation, and enormous
taxpayer subsidies that come with nuclear, oil and coal…. none of
which are “clean” or “carbon-free.”

What you don’t pay at the pump or on your energy bills… we pay in
tax-payer subsidies, bailouts, environmental clean-up, and war,
conflict, humanitarian crisis, and occupation to make the world safe for
multinational corporations and their obscene profits for resource
extraction.

Competition wouldbecome a non-issue if we stopped subsidizing nuclear,
oil and coal (the things we don’t want) and, instead, funded the green
shift toward renewable energy systems. So, the award you speak of is a
great idea (I agree) to fund the things that we do want and stop paying
for the things we don’t.

What’s more, we should give that money to the people, so that we can
create our own grid right from our own homes and, then, we become our
own power company. Huge windmill farms are great, as long as they are
owned and opporated by the people they serve, not BIG multinational
corporations that monopolize the centralized wind and solar market.

That is where people should decentralze the grid, so that we can care
for our own energy needs and bring the commons back to the people. The
People should control their own destiny and to that end should condemn
the utility giants and making the petroleum industry a Public Utility.

Let’s give that 5 billion back to The People… so that WE ARE the
competiton.

Cordially,
Chris Henry ”

Matt,

Thank you, for asking the question. Sustainably Responsible Investing
(SRIs) encourages people to re-think how they invest in the energy
sector, which stimulates growth in “green energy.”

There are grant programs that are geared to establishing, researching
and maintaining the techologies that will likely grow exponentially in
coming years, because it is fueled by growing demand. However, viability
is not the issue, whereas, sustainability is the key to green energy.

Fossil fuels are in finite supply and introduce scarcity of supply,
along with environmental distruction and degradation, and enormous
taxpayer subsidies that come with nuclear, oil and coal…. none of
which are “clean” or “carbon-free.”

What you don’t pay at the pump or on your energy bills… we pay in
tax-payer subsidies, bailouts, environmental clean-up, and war,
conflict, humanitarian crisis, and occupation to make the world safe for
multinational corporations and their obscene profits for resource
extraction.

Competition wouldbecome a non-issue if we stopped subsidizing nuclear,
oil and coal (the things we don’t want) and, instead, funded the green
shift toward renewable energy systems. So, the award you speak of is a
great idea (I agree) to fund the things that we do want and stop paying
for the things we don’t.

What’s more, we should give that money to the people, so that we can
create our own grid right from our own homes and, then, we become our
own power company. Huge windmill farms are great, as long as they are
owned and opporated by the people they serve, not BIG multinational
corporations that monopolize the centralized wind and solar market.

That is where people should decentralze the grid, so that we can care
for our own energy needs and bring the commons back to the people. The
People should control their own destiny and to that end should condemn
the utility giants and making the petroleum industry a Public Utility.

Let’s give that 5 billion back to The People… so that WE ARE the
competiton.

Cordially,
Chris Henry Chris

My response

Allow me to clarify. By viability I mean a green energy that is cheap enough that the common buyer will prefer it over fossil fuels. Personally I feel that whomever invents that technology not only should get financial help but also deserves to be rich.

These programs you talk of. Do they reward results or do they throw money with the mere hope of results, ie Tokamak fusion reactors?

Matt

[sd_matt]

Here’s a reply from a Green party rep.

“Matt,

Thank you, for asking the question. Sustainably Responsible Investing
(SRIs) encourages people to re-think how they invest in the energy
sector, which stimulates growth in “green energy.”

There are grant programs that are geared to establishing, researching
and maintaining the techologies that will likely grow exponentially in
coming years, because it is fueled by growing demand. However, viability
is not the issue, whereas, sustainability is the key to green energy.

Fossil fuels are in finite supply and introduce scarcity of supply,
along with environmental distruction and degradation, and enormous
taxpayer subsidies that come with nuclear, oil and coal…. none of
which are “clean” or “carbon-free.”

What you don’t pay at the pump or on your energy bills… we pay in
tax-payer subsidies, bailouts, environmental clean-up, and war,
conflict, humanitarian crisis, and occupation to make the world safe for
multinational corporations and their obscene profits for resource
extraction.

Competition wouldbecome a non-issue if we stopped subsidizing nuclear,
oil and coal (the things we don’t want) and, instead, funded the green
shift toward renewable energy systems. So, the award you speak of is a
great idea (I agree) to fund the things that we do want and stop paying
for the things we don’t.

What’s more, we should give that money to the people, so that we can
create our own grid right from our own homes and, then, we become our
own power company. Huge windmill farms are great, as long as they are
owned and opporated by the people they serve, not BIG multinational
corporations that monopolize the centralized wind and solar market.

That is where people should decentralze the grid, so that we can care
for our own energy needs and bring the commons back to the people. The
People should control their own destiny and to that end should condemn
the utility giants and making the petroleum industry a Public Utility.

Let’s give that 5 billion back to The People… so that WE ARE the
competiton.

Cordially,
Chris Henry ”

Matt,

Thank you, for asking the question. Sustainably Responsible Investing
(SRIs) encourages people to re-think how they invest in the energy
sector, which stimulates growth in “green energy.”

There are grant programs that are geared to establishing, researching
and maintaining the techologies that will likely grow exponentially in
coming years, because it is fueled by growing demand. However, viability
is not the issue, whereas, sustainability is the key to green energy.

Fossil fuels are in finite supply and introduce scarcity of supply,
along with environmental distruction and degradation, and enormous
taxpayer subsidies that come with nuclear, oil and coal…. none of
which are “clean” or “carbon-free.”

What you don’t pay at the pump or on your energy bills… we pay in
tax-payer subsidies, bailouts, environmental clean-up, and war,
conflict, humanitarian crisis, and occupation to make the world safe for
multinational corporations and their obscene profits for resource
extraction.

Competition wouldbecome a non-issue if we stopped subsidizing nuclear,
oil and coal (the things we don’t want) and, instead, funded the green
shift toward renewable energy systems. So, the award you speak of is a
great idea (I agree) to fund the things that we do want and stop paying
for the things we don’t.

What’s more, we should give that money to the people, so that we can
create our own grid right from our own homes and, then, we become our
own power company. Huge windmill farms are great, as long as they are
owned and opporated by the people they serve, not BIG multinational
corporations that monopolize the centralized wind and solar market.

That is where people should decentralze the grid, so that we can care
for our own energy needs and bring the commons back to the people. The
People should control their own destiny and to that end should condemn
the utility giants and making the petroleum industry a Public Utility.

Let’s give that 5 billion back to The People… so that WE ARE the
competiton.

Cordially,
Chris Henry Chris

My response

Allow me to clarify. By viability I mean a green energy that is cheap enough that the common buyer will prefer it over fossil fuels. Personally I feel that whomever invents that technology not only should get financial help but also deserves to be rich.

These programs you talk of. Do they reward results or do they throw money with the mere hope of results, ie Tokamak fusion reactors?

Matt

[sd_matt]

Here’s a reply from a Green party rep.

“Matt,

Thank you, for asking the question. Sustainably Responsible Investing
(SRIs) encourages people to re-think how they invest in the energy
sector, which stimulates growth in “green energy.”

There are grant programs that are geared to establishing, researching
and maintaining the techologies that will likely grow exponentially in
coming years, because it is fueled by growing demand. However, viability
is not the issue, whereas, sustainability is the key to green energy.

Fossil fuels are in finite supply and introduce scarcity of supply,
along with environmental distruction and degradation, and enormous
taxpayer subsidies that come with nuclear, oil and coal…. none of
which are “clean” or “carbon-free.”

What you don’t pay at the pump or on your energy bills… we pay in
tax-payer subsidies, bailouts, environmental clean-up, and war,
conflict, humanitarian crisis, and occupation to make the world safe for
multinational corporations and their obscene profits for resource
extraction.

Competition wouldbecome a non-issue if we stopped subsidizing nuclear,
oil and coal (the things we don’t want) and, instead, funded the green
shift toward renewable energy systems. So, the award you speak of is a
great idea (I agree) to fund the things that we do want and stop paying
for the things we don’t.

What’s more, we should give that money to the people, so that we can
create our own grid right from our own homes and, then, we become our
own power company. Huge windmill farms are great, as long as they are
owned and opporated by the people they serve, not BIG multinational
corporations that monopolize the centralized wind and solar market.

That is where people should decentralze the grid, so that we can care
for our own energy needs and bring the commons back to the people. The
People should control their own destiny and to that end should condemn
the utility giants and making the petroleum industry a Public Utility.

Let’s give that 5 billion back to The People… so that WE ARE the
competiton.

Cordially,
Chris Henry ”

Matt,

Thank you, for asking the question. Sustainably Responsible Investing
(SRIs) encourages people to re-think how they invest in the energy
sector, which stimulates growth in “green energy.”

There are grant programs that are geared to establishing, researching
and maintaining the techologies that will likely grow exponentially in
coming years, because it is fueled by growing demand. However, viability
is not the issue, whereas, sustainability is the key to green energy.

Fossil fuels are in finite supply and introduce scarcity of supply,
along with environmental distruction and degradation, and enormous
taxpayer subsidies that come with nuclear, oil and coal…. none of
which are “clean” or “carbon-free.”

What you don’t pay at the pump or on your energy bills… we pay in
tax-payer subsidies, bailouts, environmental clean-up, and war,
conflict, humanitarian crisis, and occupation to make the world safe for
multinational corporations and their obscene profits for resource
extraction.

Competition wouldbecome a non-issue if we stopped subsidizing nuclear,
oil and coal (the things we don’t want) and, instead, funded the green
shift toward renewable energy systems. So, the award you speak of is a
great idea (I agree) to fund the things that we do want and stop paying
for the things we don’t.

What’s more, we should give that money to the people, so that we can
create our own grid right from our own homes and, then, we become our
own power company. Huge windmill farms are great, as long as they are
owned and opporated by the people they serve, not BIG multinational
corporations that monopolize the centralized wind and solar market.

That is where people should decentralze the grid, so that we can care
for our own energy needs and bring the commons back to the people. The
People should control their own destiny and to that end should condemn
the utility giants and making the petroleum industry a Public Utility.

Let’s give that 5 billion back to The People… so that WE ARE the
competiton.

Cordially,
Chris Henry Chris

My response

Allow me to clarify. By viability I mean a green energy that is cheap enough that the common buyer will prefer it over fossil fuels. Personally I feel that whomever invents that technology not only should get financial help but also deserves to be rich.

These programs you talk of. Do they reward results or do they throw money with the mere hope of results, ie Tokamak fusion reactors?

Matt

[sd_matt]

Here’s a reply from a Green party rep.

“Matt,

Thank you, for asking the question. Sustainably Responsible Investing
(SRIs) encourages people to re-think how they invest in the energy
sector, which stimulates growth in “green energy.”

There are grant programs that are geared to establishing, researching
and maintaining the techologies that will likely grow exponentially in
coming years, because it is fueled by growing demand. However, viability
is not the issue, whereas, sustainability is the key to green energy.

Fossil fuels are in finite supply and introduce scarcity of supply,
along with environmental distruction and degradation, and enormous
taxpayer subsidies that come with nuclear, oil and coal…. none of
which are “clean” or “carbon-free.”

What you don’t pay at the pump or on your energy bills… we pay in
tax-payer subsidies, bailouts, environmental clean-up, and war,
conflict, humanitarian crisis, and occupation to make the world safe for
multinational corporations and their obscene profits for resource
extraction.

Competition wouldbecome a non-issue if we stopped subsidizing nuclear,
oil and coal (the things we don’t want) and, instead, funded the green
shift toward renewable energy systems. So, the award you speak of is a
great idea (I agree) to fund the things that we do want and stop paying
for the things we don’t.

What’s more, we should give that money to the people, so that we can
create our own grid right from our own homes and, then, we become our
own power company. Huge windmill farms are great, as long as they are
owned and opporated by the people they serve, not BIG multinational
corporations that monopolize the centralized wind and solar market.

That is where people should decentralze the grid, so that we can care
for our own energy needs and bring the commons back to the people. The
People should control their own destiny and to that end should condemn
the utility giants and making the petroleum industry a Public Utility.

Let’s give that 5 billion back to The People… so that WE ARE the
competiton.

Cordially,
Chris Henry ”

Matt,

Thank you, for asking the question. Sustainably Responsible Investing
(SRIs) encourages people to re-think how they invest in the energy
sector, which stimulates growth in “green energy.”

There are grant programs that are geared to establishing, researching
and maintaining the techologies that will likely grow exponentially in
coming years, because it is fueled by growing demand. However, viability
is not the issue, whereas, sustainability is the key to green energy.

Fossil fuels are in finite supply and introduce scarcity of supply,
along with environmental distruction and degradation, and enormous
taxpayer subsidies that come with nuclear, oil and coal…. none of
which are “clean” or “carbon-free.”

What you don’t pay at the pump or on your energy bills… we pay in
tax-payer subsidies, bailouts, environmental clean-up, and war,
conflict, humanitarian crisis, and occupation to make the world safe for
multinational corporations and their obscene profits for resource
extraction.

Competition wouldbecome a non-issue if we stopped subsidizing nuclear,
oil and coal (the things we don’t want) and, instead, funded the green
shift toward renewable energy systems. So, the award you speak of is a
great idea (I agree) to fund the things that we do want and stop paying
for the things we don’t.

What’s more, we should give that money to the people, so that we can
create our own grid right from our own homes and, then, we become our
own power company. Huge windmill farms are great, as long as they are
owned and opporated by the people they serve, not BIG multinational
corporations that monopolize the centralized wind and solar market.

That is where people should decentralze the grid, so that we can care
for our own energy needs and bring the commons back to the people. The
People should control their own destiny and to that end should condemn
the utility giants and making the petroleum industry a Public Utility.

Let’s give that 5 billion back to The People… so that WE ARE the
competiton.

Cordially,
Chris Henry Chris

My response

Allow me to clarify. By viability I mean a green energy that is cheap enough that the common buyer will prefer it over fossil fuels. Personally I feel that whomever invents that technology not only should get financial help but also deserves to be rich.

These programs you talk of. Do they reward results or do they throw money with the mere hope of results, ie Tokamak fusion reactors?

Matt

[Author]

Posts