If you have a serious piece of legislation wrote feel free to speak with me about it if it is an environmentally friendly alternative to current methods.  I primarily am looking for Hydrogen related technologies such as Desalination and Hydrogen fuel based projects.  If you have any proposals please feel free to send them my way and I’ll be more than happy to look them over before deciding weather or not I will legislate on behalf of the advancement or weather or not I feel there needs to be anything done to it.  I happen to be quite good in this area if you are interested in entering this forum of debate with someone who is serious and have a serious plan as stated I am available.

I also am looking to find more technologies in the area of treating epilepsy.  This is very relationed with this field due to the nature of the frequencies that are associated with each.  If you have any or are interested in sharing any I would be more than happy to correlate data projects and sets with you.

Sincerely,

Andrew Strasser

I was researching large power source generation a year ago and found a special section in the Minnesota law that gave Xcel energy certain responsibilities in this area. I am wondering what the various state laws say, versus federal law. These are laws that are on the books and may affect the distributed energy efforts so many people think is a better approach to the future. The Federal government has earmarked (so to speak) $108 Billion for the power grid.

Michigan’s energy policy is closely aligned with Washington’s (sound like a puppet government?). We have a State mandate to produce a certain percentage from “renewable sources” which I believe is ambitious relative to most states and has bleak prospects without FF production absorbing the jobs and capital which I believe these programs were meant to create in solar, wind, and possibly the continental grid.

Further, I believe that attempting to pass legislation is putting the cart before the horse. When a million FFs are pre-sold- with or without confirmation by Big Science- enough political influence will appear “as if by magic” to grease the enabling regulatory legislation.

In graphic terms, who (that wants to get re-elected) could vote against giving his or her constituency a decided energy price advantage, fleeting as it may be with FF in full production by a horizontally and vertically integrated research, sales, service, and marketing company?

Aeronaut - 05 July 2010 04:35 PM

Michigan’s energy policy is closely aligned with Washington’s (sound like a puppet government?). We have a State mandate to produce a certain percentage from “renewable sources” which I believe is ambitious relative to most states and has bleak prospects without FF production absorbing the jobs and capital which I believe these programs were meant to create in solar, wind, and possibly the continental grid.

Further, I believe that attempting to pass legislation is putting the cart before the horse. When a million FFs are pre-sold- with or without confirmation by Big Science- enough political influence will appear “as if by magic” to grease the enabling regulatory legislation.

In graphic terms, who (that wants to get re-elected) could vote against giving his or her constituency a decided energy price advantage, fleeting as it may be with FF in full production by a horizontally and vertically integrated research, sales, service, and marketing company?

Prezakly. Or, flipping it about, who would vote to give his or her constituency a decided energy price disadvantage, which would be permanent and deadly as long as they persisted in their folly? 

As for the “integrated company”, that may or may not be the case in each locale; a number of firms that assemble, ship, and/or install components provided by competing sub-contractors might also do perfectly well

Aeronaut - 05 July 2010 04:35 PM

We have a State mandate to produce a certain percentage from “renewable sources” which I believe is ambitious relative to most states and has bleak prospects without FF production absorbing the jobs and capital which I believe these programs were meant to create in solar, wind, and possibly the continental grid.

Several cities in in Minnesota purchased used Wind generators for $300,000. each, from Arizona and set them up near schools. They purchased only the top 1/3 of the support structure so they could not generate the full amount of wind energy. That was not the worst part. The hydraulic fluid involved was not winterized for Minnesota. After 18 months they still do not work. The Cities were trying to comply with the mandate, sort of, but not with any real intent.

I once purposed the idea to a government official about the idea of each city supplying energy to its residents, just like sewer and water services. The Mayor stated his two areas of concern were more responsibility in providing services based on fees, and expanding the amount of employees needed to service a power generation facility. Comments?

Big Science is funded by an attitude that I refer to as the “Popular Science” and “Popular Mechanics” objectives. The common copy writing theme seems to always include the phrase “May one day provide a solution”. Never anything aimed at short-term, results-oriented developments in a field. Wesley coined a great phrase in the FB discussions today, referring to the coming rout of 2010.

Yah, windmills and solar fields forever are fun to play at when money is plentiful, but when the crunch is on it’s slash-for-cash time.  Unless you can add a trillion or so to the fiat money supply with a languid wave ... 

You know what’s crazy, Brian, their logic does make sense in terms of creating jobs and contract$ on a very large scale, provided that you either ignore FF, are blissfully unaware of it, or figure that it’s so close and so cheap that if it is brought in anywhere near schedule, it won’t need funding agencies mucking up the program with funding legislation.

And I can live with that. Without that type of thinking, we would have a much more efficient economy.

Aeronaut - 11 July 2010 06:24 PM

You know what’s crazy, Brian, their logic does make sense in terms of creating jobs and contract$ on a very large scale, provided that you either ignore FF, are blissfully unaware of it, or figure that it’s so close and so cheap that if it is brought in anywhere near schedule, it won’t need funding agencies mucking up the program with funding legislation.

And I can live with that. Without that type of thinking, we would have a much more efficient economy.

Spain tried that, and made the mistake of tracking the effects. It was found that the expropriation of that much capital cost 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy for every Green job created. Unemployment headed for 20%, and the only solution seems to be slashing Green subsidies and putting some of the 2.2 back. 

Oops!

Here in 2010, very few of us can actually see FF being produced, marketed, and taking up the slack from all that fossil, wind and solar capacity. To us, the situation is not static. History is about to repeat itself yet again, and this time we can participate if not lead.

“Head ‘em off at the past, boys!”

Aeronaut - 11 July 2010 09:02 PM

Here in 2010, very few of us can actually see FF being produced, marketed, and taking up the slack from all that fossil, wind and solar capacity. To us, the situation is not static. History is about to repeat itself yet again, and this time we can participate if not lead.

“Head ‘em off at the past, boys!”

I think the replacement vs. new installation ratio would be constrained only by manufacturing capacity.  The demand to replace plant with units at 5-20% the capital and operating cost will be insatiable.  And only a damfool would spend another nickel on 20-50¢/kwh renewable nonsense, regardless of subsidies (which would be, I assume, cut off with a sharp cleaver despite special interest group howls).

I would wield the clever. 

I just want to remind you how this thread started. So does anyone has a legislation draft, that for example would support Innovative Fusion Concepts? In case FF does not, maybe somebody else will need to succeed?

Breakable - 12 July 2010 12:34 PM

I just want to remind you how this thread started. So does anyone has [have] a legislation draft, that for example would support Innovative Fusion Concepts? In case FF does not, maybe somebody else will need to succeed?

This requires research to see what’s out there.  Fusion funding is covered under certain government programs and spending comes down to the discretion of a few people. 

Before you can get to “Drafting Legislation” you probably need to have a plan in place and talk it over with all the probable folk who have jurisdiction in the area (of funding research, of disbursing the funds).  You’d have to identify the players. 

And you might not need “legislation”.  Why rush to make laws when you don’t understand the funding environment? 

Understand it first, have conversations with everyone involved (the “constituents”?)  Eventually, you might see some specific laws or amendments that need to be passed

Before randomly drafting legislation, at least be clear on your purpose. 

Some possible laws:
Modify definition of “Renewable Energy” in the codes:  Derek’s “aneutronic” inclusion bill is a nice example. Doesn’t seem to have passed yet. 

Modify “Accredited Investor” requirement for Fusion research investment: An amendment to the SEC rules that allows ordinary people to invest in Fusion (as opposed to accredited investors) provided that they do not exceed a certain portion of their income, and that they sign a waiver saying they know it’s high risk investment would be a fascinating law to pass. 

Better approach to legislation:

Start with a plan, uncover the issues, identify your principles - the causal relationship you see between whatever proposed law and its impact on fusion research.  Start with removing impedimentary legilsation (see what legal blocks there are to fusion research, what exemptions to other laws would be useful), and see what positive changes can be made. 

Most people approach laws by making an overreacting law here or there, with very specific goals in mind, specific constituents to placate. 

Policy making - not something you can do off the top of your head.