Economic Stimulus - from anisotropic.us

With all the talk in Washington about a 'job stimulus' plan, I'd like to offer mine. I would offer a tax credit to all small businesses who hire new employees in 2009. Specifically, I would provide a 50% matching tax credit of up to $250,000 for every dollar in salary or wages paid to new employees hired in 2009. I would set the expiration for this at 2 years, with an option to renew or alter it as needed at that time; a hard expiration limit would be set at 4 years.

We don't need taxes at the moment, we need jobs....and, if we create jobs, the taxes and the economy will begin to take care of themselves. Additionally, small business credits will encourage growth everywhere and in all sectors of the economy.

Do you agree? Disagree? Have a better idea? I'd love to hear your thoughts (and so would your Congressional delegation ;) ) Just click discussions and chime in!

Energy - Part 2 - from anisotropic.us 10Dec2008

Yeah, so I took longer to get back to this than I had planned. I was busy. :)

So, last post, I laid out the current technology gaps that would prevent the United States from divorcing itself from fossil fuels. Today, I'll offer a few more and then propose what I would do about it, were I Steven Chu (our Energy Secretary-to-be).

First another issue. Gasoline. Or more to the point, petroleum fuels in general. There has been a fair amount of attention paid to how we might make a 'non petroleum' car; prototypes and production vehicles have included all-electric cars, hydrogen cars, fuel cell power sources and biomass. One of those will likely emerge as the leader in the coming decade. What is NOT commonly discussed is a power source or fuel for trucks and jet airplanes, yet these two sectors consume twice the volume of oil as personal cars - approximately 10 million barrels per day or roughly 40-50% of our overall oil consumption (depending on whose numbers you use). Seems like we need a solution, right? I mean we all want bananas in Ohio and blueberries in Florida, so trucks and planes are going to be around for the duration.

The US military has been thinking about this for some time. You don't win wars without oil (or fuel) and history has taught many nations this lesson. So, they asked, "since it's sometimes hard to defend an oil supply chain, what could we use instead?" It has been the topic of many research investigations and it turns out that there are some options...but they aren't quite ready. They work on the prototype level, but there are gaps in how to field them at the production level and there are many unanswered questions.

Having said all of that, it turns out that the solution to the problems in my first post just might be tied to the solutions in the transportation sector. Were I Mr. Chu, I would call for a 'Manhattan Plan' for energy independence.

Goals:

- By 2033, the United States is 100% energy self-sufficient.

- By the same time, the United States uses renewable sources for a minimum of 50% of all power production

- Create a viable method (or methods) for energy storage and re-delivery that will:

-----> Facilitate a departure from foreign petroleum in transportation, including heavy freight and air travel

-----> Enable greater deployment of wind and solar as measured by % of total grid production

Years 1 -5: Technology Development - Cost $200 billion ($40B per year)

- Invite all stakeholders, including the oil companies to work on solutions. See comments, below.

- Use existing federal labs and public/private universities to create technology umbrella groups. These main partners would lead the development in their own area, encouraging collaboration wherever possible.

- Heavily fund small and medium-sized businesses.

- Invest in research aimed at bringing high capacity fuel cells, aviation hydrogen, grid-capable chemical-electrical storage (batteries) and mechanical-electrical storage (among others) to a TRL of 6-7. Grid-capable storage and shunting allow for wind and solar to be deployed for more of the grid power demand.

- Form teaming ventures in areas of strength, pairing small, innovative businesses with major corporate partners who have the funds and resources to carry forward.

- If you want the federal funds, your research is NON-PROPRIETARY in years 1-5. If you think you can go solo, see you in Year 5.

Year 5: Downselect Summit

- This is a painful year, some ideas are abandoned...some survive. In the end, pick two leading technologies to carry forward toward real production readiness and national deployment.

- A handful of production leaders (private companies) are identified within each umbrella group.

Years 6-10: Prepare for Roll Out - Cost: $25 billion ($5B per year) with a $50 billion cost share from the industries.

- The roles of the universities and labs diminish as the production leader companies take the lead.

- In this phase, the research and development becomes proprietary and the cost-share reflects this.

- Small-scale roll outs take place in years 8-10. These help work out the bugs.

- Competing technologies are encouraged, though not mandatory.

- Ramp up production of domestic wind and solar. These industries are currently poised for a 20% market share; once solutions are identified to allow greater grid reliance on these options, the wind and solar industries will respond in order to capitalize on the opportunity.

Years 10-25: National Deployment - Cost: $10 billion per year initially, diminishing to $5 eventually - all to be repaid.

- Converting our nation's transport sector, electric grid, etc... isn't going to happen overnight. As vehicles age and substations are repaired, gradually 100% of the infrastructure, trucks, planes and fueling stations will be converted.

- The initially higher costs reflect that the fuel system will likely need to be updated to some minimum level of national availability quickly. Trucks heading from Florida to Ohio need to be able to refuel at predictable intervals.

- Most costs are picked up by industry. At this point, the solutions are proprietary and are 'products' for all intensive purposes. The small amount of federal funding should be in the form of bridge loans and financing options needed to facilitate the rollout.

.

The side benefits are enormous:

- Job creation

- Foreign policy implications

- Low emissions economy

- Increased industry collaboration

- New inventions and business opportunities.

.

*A few notes about big oil.

- The easiest (cheapest) way to get hydrogen is from HYDROcarbons - i.e. oil.

- The national network of filling stations is a good thing. Be it electricity, hydrogen or spit (LOL) you will need to refuel regularly...why re-invent a system that already works?

- They (big oil) have a vested interest in making money. It doesn't matter if that money comes from oil or dirt...money is money and they aren't picky, contrary to conspiracy theorists' claims. The fact of the matter is they are energy companies...and we need energy. As such, we need them to be at the table with us.

Energy - Part 1 - from anisotropic.us 11Nov2008

What's missing from the current energy debate? Real potential to make progress, unfortunately. If I had the ear of the presidential candidates - any of them - here's what I'd tell them: The United States needs domestic, sustainable energy sources that will allow our economy to grow and prosper. Accomplish this and our nation will own its own destiny - for the long term.

So - I said sustainable, right? That means wind and solar, right? Well, sure....but those are taking care of themselves. Many Americans might be surprised to learn that the United States is the largest market for wind development on the planet; in fact, last year (2007) more wind turbine power(megawatts) was installed in the US than the number 2, 3 and 4 nations on the list combined. Really. And what's more - it's been that way for about 3 years....and is predicted to be that way through 2020. Sometime between 2010 and 2020, the US will pass Europe (as a whole) in total installed megawatts. Part of the reason that this is happening is that major companies (GE, Seimens, Mitsubishi, to name a few) are seeing green. No, not ecological green....money green. Wind turbines are a revenue generating investment for these companies; demand for electricity is always present and there's a good income-to-life ratio for a wind installation these days. The other reason this is happening is technical developments are making 40m and 50m wind blades possible. Because the installation costs don't scale linearly with blade length, yet power generation increases substantially, the base (installed cost per megawatt capacity) is greatly reduced. Short story: it's cheaper to intsall more power these days.

A similar 'perfect storm' of technology and capital are happening with solar installations. That's great, right? Sure.....but....There's always a but, isn't there?

Wind and solar are 'probable' power sources; this means that over the course of a year, one can - with reasonable accuracy - predict how much power will be generated. The wind blows at average speeds...the sun shines for an average of so many hours a day.

What's missing is a tie back to when and where electrical power is needed. Our electrical grid is based on a demand system - as more electricity is needed, more plants are 'turned on' to supply that electricity. In fact, 10% of the existing generating capacity in the US is used for about 50 hours a year. That's it. But - when those 50 hours happen - you need every one of those plants. That's just the reality of the situation.

When demand spikes, more power is needed. In the case of a gas-fired system, you flip on the switch. Ok, to be fair, it's slightly more complicated than that, but it is relatively an 'instant on' solution. With wind you have the unrealistic option of installing 900% more turbines than you need - most spinning and dumping their power into heat because the demand at that moment is low. With solar, you have nothing - if the sun isn't shining - you're out of luck.

Wait, wait you say - what about nuclear? what about hydro? what about....fill in the blank. What about them? You can't 'flip on' a nuclear plant. You don't ever turn off a hydro plant - they are the some of the least expensive generating plants. That leaves burning things. Coal, gas, oil. Combustible materials lend themselves to 'instant on' solutions. The real downside of fossil fuels is that they will run out one day - and that runs against sustainability. Once they run out, we'll be right back buying our power - and sacrificing our independence.

So - how would I deal with this quandary? Stay tuned for the next installment ;)

Fixing Ohio's Voting System

Apparently we have 'security issues' with our electronic voting systems in Ohio. At least that's what our Secretary of State is telling us:

"It was worse than I anticipated," the official, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, said of the report. "I had hoped that perhaps one system would test superior to the others."

At polling stations, teams working on the study were able to pick locks to access memory cards and use hand-held devices to plug false vote counts into machines. At boards of election, they were able to introduce malignant software into servers

***

Ok. Let's talk about this...are we after a system that is foolproof? Because I'd be willing to bet that no such system exists...after all, there will always be idiots who are willing to go to the extremes: theft of ballots, falsification of ballots, dead folks voting, people voting twice and perhaps the 'easiest' - bribery & payoffs.

Beyond that...we are talking about our neighbors. We are insinuating that our neighbors want to pervert our democracy! Because that's who works at your voting precinct. Not the big, bad people from 'the other party' - but your neighbors. The people who are out there in the morning sending kids off to school, that guy who mows his lawn in the diagonal pattern and that lady that baked cookies for the mailman - those people work in your voting precinct.

I won't speak for you - but I know my precinct volunteers. One of them lives down the street from me...she's a nice old lady. I don't believe for a minute that the thought of tampering with the card readers (or ballots, or lock boxes, or anything for that matter) has ever crossed her mind...or will ever cross it.

I trust my neighbors. I believe that they trust me. If you can't say the same...there isn't a voting security system in the world that can ally all of your fears. And I'm truly sorry for you.

Fixing Baseball by the Start of Spring Training

Commisioner Selig, Senator Mitchell and Players' Union Leader Donald Fehr were all on Capitol Hill today. The tone of today's committee meetings was nearly a complete 180 from the tone of the meetings three years ago; today's meetings were almost congratulatory in nature.

To be sure, MLB and the Players' Union have re-opened their collective bargaining agreement several times and Baseball now has the toughest anti-doping policy among all of the US & Canadian professional sports leagues. Cause for a pat on the back? Yes. Are they done? No.

Selig and Fehr want to put all the questions to rest before Spring Training opens in just over a month. Selig and Fehr have agreed to adopt many of Sen. Mitchell's recommendations outlined in his report. In his opening statement, Selig vowed to develop a program "to require top prospects for the major league draft to submit to drug testing before the (amateur) draft." Plus Fehr and Selig have reached an accord allowing for 'no advance warning' of drug testing at the ballparks. They went on record saying that it is MLB's goal to have those policies in place by Spring Training.

But to truly restore the image of Baseball after the black eye that it has given itself - the administration and monitoring of these anti-doping policies should be handed over to a trusted third party. This is something that Selig has so far resisted in interviews, saying that Baseball can 'handle this internally'. I'm calling BS; handling things internally is how we arrived at today's situation.

I say hand the testing and monitoring over to the US Anti Doping Agency (USADA); the USADA manages in- and out-of-competition testing for athletes in the U.S. Olympic Movement including Olympic, Pan American, and Paralympic athletes. The USADA is experienced, it is trusted and the USADA is transparent. When it comes to restoring the luster of the game - letting the light in may be just what we need.

Senator Clinton Cried Today...

Ok, to be perfectly accurate, she had 'wet eyes'.

In any event I heard two stories on NPR today that, in my opinion, are related...and bode poorly for our country.

The story about Senator Clinton becoming emotional after being asked by Marianne Pernold Young, a freelance photographer, "...how do you do it? [...] How do you, how do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?"

Sen. Clinton replied that, "It's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country just don't want to see us fall backwards." She said this with a tremble in her voice and a tear in her eye.

The second story was actually earlier in the day, but the piece on Senator Clinton sets the stage well for it. The story was on NPR's Talk of the Nation and was discussing, among other topics "Political Branding". One of the points made by the panelists was that after Gov. Huckabee's and Sen. Obama's won the Iowa Caucus, the other candidates were seeking to change their brand and messaging'. Many callers wanted to know what I was thinking - aren't they really just saying whatever people want to hear?

Which brings us back to Senator Clinton, today; she was one of the 're-branders' mentioned in the Talk of the Nation discussion. Specifically, she's re-branding herself to be more in line with what Obama is saying. Nothing really shocking, there...he's doing well...she wants to be doing well. All good, right?

No. Not in my book. If she was actually as passionate about her message as she claimed today, she wouldn't change it. She would be stoked about her message....her goals...her vision. Instead, she's stoked about taking power. Lest anyone think that I am just bashing her - I'm not. John Edwards and Mitt Romney are also hopping on the 'change' bandwagon. To me, that says these folks care more about getting into office than they do about why they are getting into office.

Whether you like these candidates or not - there is a problem. Compounding that problem is a shortened (compressed) primary season and LOTS AND LOTS of money. When all is said and done, I'm concerned that we will have glossed over why we are picking candidates to run for President.

So...why are you?

Brought over from the old site - 8/3//06

In the 1960's & early 70's, NASA sent a series of missions to Mars (and Venus) under the Mariner program. Of the probes headed to Mars, Mariner 3 failed on launch, Mariner 4, 6 and 7 turned up craters. No Marianas Trench, no Olympus Mons, nothing...except a surface that looked like our moon. Then Mariner 8 had a second stage failure that ended the mission before it could ever reach Mars.

NASA just kept launching and looking. Then, Mariner 9 hit the jackpot. The valleys, the volcanoes what looked like ancient rivers....it was all there. Mariner 9 *is* the reason that kids, today, think they want to go to Mars.

Now think about our own times. If we had found nothing on 3 previous missions and had two failures, to boot, do you think that Congress would give NASA more funding to go on what is, to a casual observer, a wild goose chase? Would you be supportive of continued exploration in the face of these facts? What wonders still lie undiscovered simply because we gave up looking for them, too soon?