Anyone Want to Help with an Energy Policy Creation?

[celestialvisionz]

I have to write an Energy Policy for one of my Classes and was wondering if anyone had any ideas to help heal the world?

 

[nicklebleu]

I have to write an Energy Policy for one of my Classes and was wondering if anyone had any ideas to help heal the world?

Could you give us a bit more information what this Energy Policy would need to be about and who the target audience would be?

While I am very interested in energy and the policy around it, the way you posted is a bit vague ...

And my view certainly would "ruffle a few mainstream feathers", because the basis would be "global warming is a scam" and there are most likely already abundant and limitless energy technologies around, just not released into mainstream, so that everybody can fight over oil and make a buck out of it! But even with available or emerging technologies, I still think that oil is going to stay for a little while - so not sure that would go down well!

 

[Buddy]

I have to write an Energy Policy for one of my Classes and was wondering if anyone had any ideas to help heal the world?

You mean a National Energy Policy like what a government like the U.S. 'should' implement?

 

[celestialvisionz]

Correct Buddy exactly like a National Energy Policy that the government should implement.

 

[Ruth]

You could think about how to implement a plan that includes free energy i.e. energy from the sun, wind and tides. Of course, it's not free to collect, though.... :(

 

[Buddy]

Correct Buddy exactly like a National Energy Policy that the government should implement.

Sorry, I may not be much help here then. I'm not aware of any 'successful' national energy policies or any by any country that aren't based on concepts of the global warming fraud. That may just be a gap in my knowledge ATM, though, but I'm looking. It's not that there is a lack of ideas out there, like Ruth points out; the problem is going to be placing them in a political context.

To help create a setting for your ideas though, you may find the contents of the below linked article useful:

_https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/columns/2012/12/10/already-has-energy-policy-and-that-problem/uLEMEUVSwRElf7VLCOyM2L/story.html

 

[Laura]

First thing that comes to mind is that an education policy should be implemented that encourages birth control. Then, good care of children that are born. Reducing the population thereby would lessen demands for energy.

Better utilization of human resources, too. If a technology excludes humans, it is wasting energy and people don't have jobs. Thus, making sure that any industrial process utilizes at least 50% human input for production. That would equal better utilization of available energy, including human. Giant corporate farms should be broken up and distributed to families who can use their human energy to grow things.

People should be encouraged to live off the grid, to utilize solar and wind power for minimal electronic needs. Society in general should give up a lot of technology that uses energy in unnecessary ways, including social interactions, and be encouraged to get back to human basics of working and playing together without such intermediaries.

We've become a society of waste and our technology is going to make US disposable in addition to requiring more and more external/artificial energy.

 

[nicklebleu]

OK - here a few (disjointed) thoughts:

I think it is useful to split the energy production into two categories - low tech (water, solar up to a point, wind) and high tech (efficient coal/ gas and nuclear). So in the end, one first has to decide which way we want to go down: low-tech or high-tech (the problem with high-tech is that only big corporations have the resources to develop/ test/ produce these technologies, which is a problem in itself, because they "control" the energy sector)

On the energy generating side:
- Distributed energy grid with lots of user/ producers, as opposed to big networks/ generators owned by one big corporation - the community "owning" the grid is responsible for maintenance of infrastructure (relatively low-tech)
- potentially thorium reactors could be useful: they can be quite small, radioactivity is much less a problem than the current batch of mega-reactors, much safer (high tech solution) and may have a very, very long service life, but technology has been neglected due to preference for mega-reactors to produce weapon-grade plutonium (high-tech)
- geothermal energy, but needs to come from deep in the core to be sustainable/ efficient/ scalable (low-tech, but becomes very high-tech if well needs to go deep)
- all energy production should be non-profit, essentially a user-fee subsistent endeavour, nothing more
- all energy production should be based on non-toxic, renewable energies, even if they are more expensive

On the energy usage side:
- not much more to add than what Laura said, except ...
- public transport should be free and based on renewables, which would reduce the dependence on oil, which is a relatively high-tech thing, thus involving big corporations, at least initially - long-term the need to travel should be reduced, à la "produce locally, use locally, stay locally".

I think overall we need to decrease government interference in our daily lives - the more the government interferes, the more complicated and expensive things get, the more we loose the ability to find creative solutions locally.

Not going to happen any time soon!

 

[Buddy]

First thing that comes to mind is that an education policy should be implemented that encourages birth control. Then, good care of children that are born. Reducing the population thereby would lessen demands for energy.

Better utilization of human resources, too. If a technology excludes humans, it is wasting energy and people don't have jobs. Thus, making sure that any industrial process utilizes at least 50% human input for production. That would equal better utilization of available energy, including human. Giant corporate farms should be broken up and distributed to families who can use their human energy to grow things.

People should be encouraged to live off the grid, to utilize solar and wind power for minimal electronic needs. Society in general should give up a lot of technology that uses energy in unnecessary ways, including social interactions, and be encouraged to get back to human basics of working and playing together without such intermediaries.

We've become a society of waste and our technology is going to make US disposable in addition to requiring more and more external/artificial energy.

I'm onboard! :)

celestialvision​z, if you're game, I'll help you break this down into steps that might be taken now, like a carpet being unrolled towards us and stopping at the toes ready to be stepped on to walk the distance.

[quote author=Laura]
First thing that comes to mind is that an education policy should be implemented that encourages birth control. Then, good care of children that are born. Reducing the population thereby would lessen demands for energy.[/quote]

I think that curriculum would start with the latest info on optimum prenatal care all the way through birth, including best birthing practices. It would also include info on the oxytocin connection and 'stages of development' theory, infant immune systems and the stupidity of current infant vaccination policies. Education issues involving things like the variety of ways people learn, the need for frequent breaks and outside play, sunshine-sourced vitamin D, the whole works. Energy needs and energy savings could be tied in here at various points.

When this subject is fully developed and fertile partners become aware of what they will be involved with, I'd bet choices to have a child, or risky behaviors that can result in conception would be taken a lot more seriously and fewer births will result.

[quote author=Laura]
Better utilization of human resources, too. If a technology excludes humans, it is wasting energy and people don't have jobs. Thus, making sure that any industrial process utilizes at least 50% human input for production. That would equal better utilization of available energy, including human.[/quote]

Production lines could get rid of fully automated machinery that doesn't require human interaction, for one.

[quote author=Laura]
Giant corporate farms should be broken up and distributed to families who can use their human energy to grow things.[/quote]

Getting more families in the farming communities involved could increase jobs and quality of foods grown, etc.

[quote author=Laura]
People should be encouraged to live off the grid, to utilize solar and wind power for minimal electronic needs. Society in general should give up a lot of technology that uses energy in unnecessary ways, including social interactions, and be encouraged to get back to human basics of working and playing together without such intermediaries.
[/quote]

I could live that way. No need for cell phones, games, and such. I'd still want a kind of internet available. Not for face-booking and such, but more important issues. Suppose someone on the other side of the country or world goes psycho? Everyone on the planet could become aware of it and networking might quickly nip the problem in the bud or somehow contain it at any rate.

 

[nicklebleu]

Another thing I forgot to mention is the urbanisation that needs to be reversed. Big cities are unhealthy living environments and require a lot of energy to import and distribute goods.

And then manufacturing needs to remain in the country/ locally as well. Reminds me of a doco I saw, where Canadian timber was cut, then shipped around the world to manufacture furniture, which was then reimported to Canada for sale. This is utter madness and "makes (money) sense" only in a sick capitalist system like ours.

 

[lilies]

Vehicles:
Research and develop water powered cars that can run on waste water or non-filtered rainwater and only produce water vapor as exhaust. Mass produce a specific amount of these: who gets how many a cars or a motorcycles is determined by family size.

Diesel generator replacement:
Research the efficiency of waste/rain water fueled generators. If feasible, replace diesel generators.

Wind power:
Build the 12 meter prototype of the McCanney Wing Generator , designed for farm use. If it works, proliferate.

Solar energy:
Research and develop and support the proliferation of thin film solar technologies that can cover house roofs and walls entirely. If it works, accelerate development and test the solar sheet tech on large scale if it can help power farms and small communities.

Demolish current wind generators around the world, because they are faulty design and frequently break down requiring large amount of resources to fix and just left there to rust, these just eat up resources unnecessarily.

Examine avenues of replacing current nuclear and coal power plants and nature-destroying hydro-electric dams.

Slowly reduce oil and gas consumption then stop using them entirely as burnable energy resource on Earth.

 

[Sol Logos]

Seems what China is intending, to mine helium-3 on the moon is promising in terms of solving energy scarcity:

China’s next lunar step? China intends to build a mine on the moon to harvest Helium-3, a rare helium isotope. Scientists believe that mining Helium-3 from the moon may be the energy miracle the world has been waiting for. According to Ouyang Ziyuan, chief scientist of the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program, the moon is rich with Helium-3. Ziyuan says that mining the moon for the isotope could solve the world’s energy problems by providing renewable energy through nuclear fusion.

Whereas nuclear fission is the splitting of atoms to create energy, nuclear fusion is fusing two or more lighter atoms into a larger one to achieve a similar effect. Though nuclear fission doesn’t normally occur in nature, nuclear fusion occurs naturally in stars. The energy produced via nuclear fusion is three to four times greater than the energy produced by nuclear fission.

Matthew Genge, a scientist and lecturer at the Faculty of Engineering at the Imperial College in London, says that utilizing Helium-3 allows nuclear fusion to produce a tremendous amount of energy without the excess of radioactive waste produced in nuclear fission reactions. Nuclear fusion does not produce any extra neutrons. The interesting thing is that it wouldn’t take much Helium-3 to get the job done.
Scientists say that a mere 40 tons of Helium-3 harvested from the moon, (an amount that could be carried in the cargo bays of two space shuttles), could power the entire United States for over one year at its current energy consumption

http://www.inquisitr.com/1754279/helium-3-china-intends-to-strip-mine-the-moon-to-solve-worlds-energy-problems/#50BAKegAZ3wGdZE0.99

Just to add also Russia is planning to do the same:

How will lunar infrastructure develop?

Scientists, including experts from the Russian Institute of Biochemistry, are currently selecting the exact location for the landing. According to the Head of the Russian Federal Space Agency, Oleg Ostapenko, super-heavy space rockets are scheduled for testing over the next decade.

“This is when the full-blown exploration of the Moon will begin,” Ostapenko said. “Program planning is almost complete and we are now in the process of confirmation. When this stage is over, we will wait for a decision from the government. We estimate that this will happen by the end of 2014.”

Russia’s rocket designers go back to the drawing-board:
According to program participants, the first operations to create infrastructure, which involves the construction of an inhabitable base on the Moon, will begin 15-18 years from now. By 2040, the first space stations for shuttles will be created. In the mid-2050s, a full-fledged scientific and mining base with an observatory will be constructed.

Solar power plants and possibly nuclear-powered generators will be installed on the Moon, Vladimir Koshlakov, Deputy Director General of the Keldysh Research Center, told RBTH.

"By the middle of the next century, or to be more exact, by the time that permanent bases are established on the Moon, we will need more powerful sources of energy,” Koshlakov said. “A possible alternative to solar power plants, which are now scheduled to be installed on the Moon, can be generators powered by nuclear fuel. This option is also being studied today.”

http://asia.rbth.com/science_and_tech/2014/10/26/moon_exploration_will_reduce_the_shortage_of_rare_earth_meta_40887.html

 

[luc]

Demolish current wind generators around the world, because they are faulty design and frequently break down requiring large amount of resources to fix and just left there to rust, these just eat up resources unnecessarily.

Don't get me started on wind energy! Germany is often described (even by the alternative media) as a role model in terms of 'alternative energy'. But what they actually do is they use a centralized, big-corporation-friendly approach that completely counters self-sufficiency, while big investors/big energy corporations make big money on subsidies.

As for wind generators: they put them all over the place, but mostly not in big 'wind farms' - instead, they put a couple on this hill, a couple on that hill, and thus completely destroy the landscape. Not only do they fragment and destroy many beautiful forests this way, these generators look like straight from Mordor! And you have hardly a spot left, even deep on the countryside, where you can't see one of these monsters! I think this has a profound psychological effect... Besides, there are many reports of people having physical reactions and sicknesses who live close to these 'Tripods'. Noteworthy as well is that many of them stand still - that's because the delicate energy network often can't handle the amount of power produced when there's some wind and/or the demand is low, so they just switch them off! Of course, the more efficient and sustainable approach would be to highly subsidize individual, self-sufficient, small-scale power production, but this won't happen.

 

[Ina]

That is a good topic of discussion. Thank you for bringing it up. As I see it the could be two major areas of concern when writing a policy. (1) The area around the policy itself. Do you want to use the current templates ( based on established socio-economic and political goals) or do you want a 21st Century template that takes into account cleaning the current 'mess' and creating the basis of thevelopment for generations to come (without emposing our current understanding of development though).
The second area of concern (2) is looking at energy in a 360 degrees manner as opposed to a limited production and consumption perspective. If carbon emissions can be monetized (in the form of tax) which in my opinion only helps spinning large numbers creating more financial debt, will energy be considered a resource and hence monetised as well? Some might argue that fossil fuels are already currency and I welcome that argument, however, can renewable energy be considered resource? Is energy=money and money=energy or energy=energy? :)
The last aspect (based on the two points above) is the implementation of your policy. After you finish formulating it will the policy be implemetable, meaning can you derive a 5-10 year plan?
I do not know the context of your question but a policy sometimes takes years to formulate and it includes as should be required by a democratic process all sectors of society. If that's a homework subject, then, I suggest you go on the UN website read the energy policies available, and then based on the guidelines available (of how to formulate a policy including public participation) try to formulate a policy for the energetic sustainability of your immediate household, suburb, town, area vis-a-vis the energy needs. I am sure it will be an amasing exercise. Have fun! :)

 

[MusicMan]

An excellent topic.
I would like to see every forward thinking Government cancel all patents on energy saving devices, and put them into the public domain.
This would immediately make cheap power available to everybody, and at the same time reduce carbon footprints everywhere.
Green technology exists, but is suppressed by the [oil companies and others] buying up patents, and sitting on them, while their oil remains the only source of energy released to the public.