Category Archives: President Obama

What Next? – For the 21st Century

What should we do now?

Strengthen the safety net.
Reverse the Citizens United and Florence v Burlington rulings.
Place reasonable restrictions on Second Amendment rights, as reasonable restrictions exist on First Amendment rights. And tax properties and income of religious institutions.
Address Climate Change.
Develop a Renewable & Sustainable Energy Infrastructure – Clean & Green within 15.

As President Obama said, in his Second Inauguration, (White House . Gov / The Atlantic)

“The commitments we make to each other … do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.

“The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition, we must lead it. “

Continue reading →

Congratulations President Obama on Your Re-Election

The Editors would like to congratulate President Obama, and the American People, on his reelection.

We see that President Obama is an intelligent and thoughtful person who looks at the evidence before making a decision. He is able to take risks and has thus far show good judgment, leadership, self-confidence, and humility. As has been pointed out on the campaign trail, “bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.”

While we disagree with the President on certain issues, we hope he is successful, because when the President is not successful, then America is not successful.

Where do we disagree with the President? Energy, the Economy, and Health Care, what we call the “Bio-Humano-Sphere”.

Continue reading →

The World Will Not End & Other Predictions for 2012

Here are my top 10 predictions for 2012. These are less readings of the tea leaves or the entrails of goats and chickens and more simple extrapolations of patterns in progress. Altho that may be the way effective oracles. They just masked their observations with hocus pocus, mumbo-jumbo, and guts.

This list runs a gamut from business and technology to energy, instability in the Middle East, micro-economics in the United States, politics, and not-yet-pop culture.

Apple and IBM will continue to thrive. Microsoft will grow, slightly. Dell and HP will thrash. A share of Apple, which sold for $11 in December, 2001, and $380 in Dec. 2011, will sell for $480 in Dec. 2012.
The Price of oil will be at $150 to $170 per barrel in Dec., 2012. The price of gasoline will hit $6.00 per gallon in NYC and California.
There will be another two or three tragic accidents in China. 20,000 people will die.
There will be a disaster at a nuclear power plant in India, Pakistan, Russia, China, or North Korea.
Wal-Mart will stop growing. Credit Unions, insurance co-ops and Food co-ops, however, will grow 10% to 25%.
The amount of wind and solar energy deployed in the United States will continue to dramatically increase.
The government of Bashar Al Assad will fall.
Foreclosures will continue in the United States.
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio will resign. Calls for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from matters involving his wife’s clients will become louder, but Justice Thomas will ignore them. A prominent politician who says “Marriage is between a man and a woman,” or her husband, will be “outed” as gay. President Obama will be re-elected.
The authors of Vapor Trails will not win a Nobel Prize for literature. They will not win a “MacArthur Genius Award.” Nor will I despite my work on this blog or “Sunbathing in Siberia” and the XBColdFingers project.

Here are the details … Continue reading →

Protesting Marked Cards and a Stacked Deck

_ Tweet I spoke with two of the Wall Street protesters this morning. We discussed credit unions, other cooperative ventures, Buckminster Fuller’s ideas, capitalism, and productivity. (“A 4-day work week,” Fuller was quoted as saying, “would give us time to enjoy the wealth we create.”) We didn’t talk about Warren Buffett or President Obama, but it seems that both would agree with the protesters’ sentiments, as I do, that our financial system “favors the rich and powerful at the expense of ordinary citizens.” (The protests and the protesters’ motives were described here by Colin Moynihan in the New York Times, Sept. 17, 2011.) The protests are also covered by Think Progress, here.

Buffett, in “Stop Coddling the Super-Rich“, published in the NY Times, said

I paid … only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

Obama’s initiative is explained on White House . gov and Talking Points Memo, and by Obama in recent days, “It’s not class warfare,” he said, “it’s math” and “If it’s class warfare,” he said in Ohio and Kentucky, while discussing an old bridge between southwestern Ohio and Kentucky that needs to be renovated, “I’m a warrior for the Middle Class.”

Move On has a petition here, saying, “I agree with Buffett – and Obama.”

Despite the evidence, from the 2001 to the present, that cutting taxes on rich people does not create jobs, Charles Gasparino, in the New York Post, a Rupert “We-hack-cell-phones-for-fun-and-profit” Murdoch product, said, here, “taxing the rich will destroy jobs.”

Gasparino is clearly wrong. And Buffett and Obama are clearly correct. Rich people can afford to pay higher taxes, and asking them to pay 17.4% while others, who need to spend a much higher percentage of their income on food, clothes, and housing, pay 33% to 41% does not seem fair.

But the question is “What do we do with the money?” Buffett has also said that he would never have made the money he made had he not been born in the United States, and had he not gone to Columbia University and studied “Value Investing.” He basically argues that the cultural climate and economic systems in the United States enabled him to become wealthy, that this is a good thing, and others deserve the same opportunities. “We must plan for the future and invest in infrastructure. And the wealthy should pay their fair share. ”

Tax policy must be linked to fiscal policy. What we are doing today, Obama, Buffett, and the protesters would say, is using tax policy to make rich people more rich. They would argue, and I would agree, we should use tax policy to develop infrastructure. One idea is to build a 40 kilowatt photovoltaic solar array on each of the 92,000 public schools in the United States. Solar only generates power during the day; schools need most of their power during the day. This would use tax revenues to pay for infrastructure upgrade – and tax revenues pay public schools electric bills. PV Solar systems provide energy without pollution, without toxic wastes, without greenhouse gases. And in the event of an emergency, if disconnected from the grid, we would have a network of 92,000 local emergency shelters with power during the day, when the sun is shining.

Marked cards and a stacked deck are great when you’re doing card tricks. But don’t play poker against a cheater using them.

Saving the Economy, Part Deux

Tweet In Part 1, I criticized “How to Really Save the Economy“, an op-ed in the New York Times, published Sept. 10, 2011. So how do we really save the economy?

“One of the best kept secrets in New York City,” I wrote, “is the existence of a 40 kilowatt (KW) photovoltaic solar array on the Whitehall Street terminal of the Staten Island Ferry,” pictured above, and first covered in Popular Logistics in 2007, here.

There are 90,000 public schools in the United States. Suppose we were to install a 40 KW solar energy system on each of them. PV solar modules require very little maintenance over their 35 to 45 year life expectancy. My initial thought was $5 per watt or $5,000 per kilowatt, but $4,000 per kilowatt is more realistic for the near term price of solar, particularly at the utility scale. This is where we expect the cost of solar in the Q4 2012 timeframe, without subsidies.

At $4,000 per KW of nameplate capacity, each of these 90,000 systems would cost $160,000. This 3.6 gigawatts of distributed daylight-only capacity would cost about $14.4 billion.

It seems to make sense to use taxpayer monies to finance these systems; taxpayers pay the electric bills for public schools and other public infrastructure, so rather than pay a utility to burn coal, oil, or gas, or harness nuclear fission, we could buy solar modules, put them on the roof and transform sunlight into electricity. But what are the other implications? What would it give us? And what do we do at night? How much juice do we get?

The US Dept. of Energy’s (DOE) National Renewable Energy Lab’s (NREL) PV Watts solar energy calculator tells you the power you can expect from a given solar system anywhere in the US. Regarding night-time; solar is effective in conjunction with other sources of energy, and other clean, renewable, sustainable sources include wind, geothermal, micro-hydro, biofuel.

Every public school in the country would have a power plant that generates power, during the day, with no fuel cost and no waste., and no associated mining, processing, transportation, fuel costs and no waste management costs. At $5.00 per watt, or $5 billion per gigawatt, the capital costs are lower than the costs of new nuclear and significantly lower than the costs of coal with carbon sequestration, with none of the risks or hazards associated with the systems: no arsenic, mercury, lead, thorium, uranium, zinc, or carbon.

The systems would be tied to the electric grid, after all, while most of their operations are during the day, schools need power at night. If these systems could be disconnected from the electric grid, then we would have 90,000 structures distributed all over the United States, with power during the day in the event of power outages from storms, earthquakes, accidents, etc. Even if we lost 10% of them in a disaster like Katrina, or an event like Irene or the recent earthquake, we would still have 81,000 all over the country. Coupled with efficient refrigeration systems, we would have shelters with power to keep food and medications cold during emergencies; and these would be distributed across the country.

The solar systems would obviously have to be installed here, which would stimulate the economy, and we could even require the components to be manufactured here, further stimulating the economy.

Why not business as usual?

As reported here the North Anna nuclear plants in Virginia were shut down during the earthquake a few days before hurricane Irene. The Dominion plants in Virginia, and the Oyster Creek plant in New Jersey were shut down and the Millstone 2 & 3 plants in Connecticut and the Brunswick plants in North Carolina were brought to reduced capacity during Irene, and the Fort Calhoun plant in Nebraska has been shut down due to flooding, and losing $1 million per day, since June 6, 2011.

In Part 1, I criticized “How to Really Save the Economy, “an op-ed in the New York Times, published Sept. 10, 2011. “The United States,” according to Robert Barro, who teaches economics at Harvard and is a “fellow” at the Hoover Institution, “is in the third year of a grand experiment by the Obama administration.”

“This is inaccurate,” I wrote, Obama is the President, but the US Constitution provides a framework in which power is divided into three branches of the Federal government, and the power of the each of the branches is checked and balanced by the others, and “all power not expressly granted to the federal government is held by the states and the citizens.” It would be more accurate, therefore, to say,

“The United States is in the third year of an experiment in governance between the Obama administration, the Congress, the Judiciary, the Republican Party, various special interests, and the citizens. This appears to be an experiment in governance by not-governing. Due to significant differences of opinion with regards to the direction in which to drive the ship of state, the ship of state appears to be floundering. Governance by not-governing doesn’t work!”

In parts 3 and 4 I hope to present feedback from the telecommunications and wind industries. Meanwhile, another radioactive nail in the nuclear coffin – an explosion in a low-level waste management facility in France killed one person and injured four. DC Bureau, Associated Press reports “An explosion at a nuclear waste facility in southern France killed one person and injured four on Monday. Authorities said there was no radioactive leak, but critics urged France to rethink its nuclear power in the wake of the catastrophe at Japan’s Fukushima plant.The Nuclear Safety Authority declared the accident “terminated” soon after the blast at a furnace in the Centraco site, in the southern Languedoc-Roussillon region, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) from the city of Avignon. One of the injured suffered severe burns…. the body was burned so badly it was carbonized”

Saving the Economy, Numero Uno

Tweet “The United States,” according to Robert Barro, who teaches economics at Harvard and is a “fellow” at the Hoover Institution, “is in the third year of a grand experiment by the Obama administration.” This is inaccurate. Obama is the President, but the US Constitution provides a framework in which power is divided into three branches of the Federal government, and the power of the each of the branches is checked and balanced by the others, and “all power not expressly granted to the federal government is held by the states and the citizens. It would be more accurate to say that the United States is in the third year of a grand experiment by the Obama administration, the Congress, the Judiciary, the Republican Party, various special interests, and the citizens.

Barro published this flawed analysis in “How to Really Save the Economy, “an op-ed in the New York Times, published Sept. 10, 2011.

“How is the experiment going?” Barro asks rhetorically. “Not well,” he answers.

How could it? On January 16, 2009, a week before the Inauguration, Rush Limbaugh, one of the leaders of the right wing of the United States said, “I hope Obama fails.” (The text is on Limbaugh’s site. An audio is on You Tube.) As I wrote, on Popular Logistics, here, a hope that the President fails is hope that the United States fails.

As was reported, here, in the Washington Post on August 6, 2011, and here on Popular Logistics, on August 8, 2011, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and the “Young Guns,” their Republican comrades in the House of Representatives, PLANNED as far back as January, 2009 to use the debt ceiling to create a political crisis. The Republicans have been trying to actualize Mr. Limbaugh’s hopes.

Barro is a professor of neoclassical economics, and a fellow of the Hoover Institution. What he doesn’t understand, and what President Herbert Hoover didn’t understand, is that under economic conditions such as we see today, while businesses and government are able to create jobs, business owners are risk averse, and won’t risk capital. The government MUST create jobs, because businesses won’t. Everyone who has a job and a 10 year old car, and is hesitant with regards to buying a new car, understands this. John Maynard Keynes understood this. Franklin Delano Roosevelt understood this. Herbert Hoover didn’t – which is why he lost to Mr. Roosevelt in 1932, and why, 36 years later, President Nixon said “We are all Keynesians now.” (Note that Mr. Nixon has been called many things. However, “Liberal” is not one of them.)

So how do we really save the economy? See Part Deux.

One of the best kept secrets in New York City is the existence of a 40 kilowatt (KW) photovoltaic solar array on the Whitehall Street terminal of the Staten Island Ferry, pictured above, and first covered in Popular Logistics in 2007, here.

There are 90,000 public schools in the United States. Suppose we were to install a 40 KW solar energy system on each of them. PV solar modules require very little maintenance over their 35 to 45 year life expectancy. At a cost of $5,000 per kilowatt of nameplate capacity, each of these 90,000 systems would cost $200,000. This 3.6 gigawatts of distributed daylight-only capacity would cost about $14.4 billion. The total costs would probably be less because PV Solar is subject to economic forces like Moore’s Law.

It seems to make sense to use taxpayer monies to finance these systems; taxpayer monies pay the electric bills for public schools and other public infrastructure.

Every public school in the country would have a power plant that generates power, during the day, with no fuel cost and no waste. And with no associated mining, processing, transportation, fuel costs and no waste management costs. At $5.00 per watt, or $5 billion per gigawatt, the capital costs are lower than the costs of new nuclear and significantly lower than the costs of coal with carbon sequestration, with none of the risks or hazards associated with the systems: no arsenic, mercury, lead, thorium, uranium, zinc, or carbon.

But what are the other implications? What would it give us? Again. see Part Deux

President Obama – Report Card

Tweet To Say “I hope he fails” about the President is to advocate treason. To question the wisdom in his decisions is citizenship. This post outlines 10 things we think Obama has done right, and three things we think Obama has not done right, at least not yet. We hope Obama’s presidency is successful and effective, if for no other reason than when the President is successful and effective then the nation will be strong and prosperous.

(As noted previously, Popular Logistics is a POLICY blog, not a POLITICS blog. But, to make Policy, you must be effective at Politics.)

Obama Presidency – First Term – What he’s done right.

At his inauguration, Obama corrected Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court on the text of the Oath of Office.
Obama delivered incremental changes to health insurance. These are steps in the right direction, however, our lack of a single payer system puts the United States at a competitive disadvantage compared to Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom, and basically all other industrialized countries.
Obama took steps to allow gay people to serve alongside straight people in defense of our country, which I view as a Second Amendment right.
Obama rescued GM, Chrysler, AIG and Wall Street, which was and remains good for the economy.
Obama took steps to more strongly regulate banks and financial institutions.
Immediately after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, Obama ordered a moratorium on deep water drilling for oil.
FEMA today is arguably more professional and more competent under Obama’s watch than it was under his predecessor.
Obama ordered the CIA to find bin Laden, which it did. Subsequently ordered a “Capture or Kill” mission against bin Laden; which was flawlessly executed and, it was reported, gathered a treasure trove of actionable intelligence against Al Queda.
Obama ordered US armed forces to help the Libyan rebels remove Gadaffi from power. People on the far left appear to believe that we have invaded Libya for oil. People on the far right appear to believe that we should have. I think Obama took a reasonable approach: to provide cover and support to a legitimate insurgency.
Obama extended tax incentives for residential and commercial solar energy, which have since lapsed.

What Obama has not done right.

Obama did not develop public works programs to shift the energy paradigm away from fuel based technologies such as coal, oil, methane, and nuclear power, to one based on solar, wind, geothermal, wave, and other clean, renewable, sustainable energy systems and efficiency. As Amory Lovins said, “The cheapest unit of energy is the one you don’t have to pay for, the Negawatt.” The next cheapest unit of energy is the one which consumes no fuel, which might be called the “Negafuel power.” And as Franklin D. Roosevelt and John Maynard Keynes proved, during economic times such as these, when private sector employers are able but unwilling to risk capital to hire, the only employer able and willing to hire is the government.
Obama did not create a single-payer health care system, or extend Medicare to cover every American.
Obama did not end what he has previously described as the “Paris Hilton Tax Breaks.” Altho it is Congress’ responsibility, he is not demanding Congress raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

Treason versus Wisdom

It’s one thing to question the President’s judgment, wisdom, intelligence, capabilities and character. We should do that, not just for this president, or his predecessor, but for each president and every viable candidate for every elected office. That is our right as citizens of the United States, and it is a right not granted to “citizens” of Iran, N. Korea, or China, or subjects to the King of Saudi Arabia. More than our right, it is our obligation.

Further, it is one thing to say “I am concerned that the President has made a decision that will have disastrous consequences… I am concerned that the President will fail.” Because when the President fails the country suffers; we the citizens – and our children – suffer. But saying “I hope he [the President] fails” is the same as saying “I hope the country fails.” (Not because the President is King – he isn’t – but because the President is, by the power vested in the President by the Constitution, the Chief Executive of the Federal Government and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.) This, “I hope he fails” is to advocate treason. People who say that should be recognized for what they are.

President's Remarks on Fiscal Responsibilty

Tweet President Obama’s speech on Fiscal Policy was summarized by Hans Nichols and Roger Runningen on Bloomberg.com here.”

“President Barack Obama vowed to cut $4 trillion in cumulative deficits within 12 years through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, setting the stage for a fight with congressional Republicans over the nation’s priorities.

“In presenting his long-term plan for closing the federal budget shortfall, Obama set a target of reducing the annual U.S. deficit to 2.5 percent of gross domestic product by 2015, compared with 10.9 percent of GDP projected for this year. He reiterated his support for overhauling the tax code to lower rates while closing loopholes and ending some breaks to increase revenue.

“We have to live within our means, reduce our deficit, and get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt,” Obama said in a speech today at George Washington University in the capital. “And we have to do it in a way that protects the recovery.”

The full text can be found at Whitehouse.gov.

Extract of Remarks by the President on Fiscal Policy, George Washington University, April 13, 2011.

“One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates. It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.

“Those are both worthy goals for us to achieve. But the way this plan achieves those goals would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history.

“A 70% cut to clean energy. A 25% cut in education. A 30% cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. That’s what they’re proposing. These aren’t the kind of cuts you make when you’re trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings in the budget. These aren’t the kind of cuts that Republicans and Democrats on the Fiscal Commission proposed. These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in. And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic.

“It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them. If there are bright young Americans who have the drive and the will but not the money to go to college, we can’t afford to send them. Go to China and you’ll see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. South Korean children are outpacing our kids in math and science. Brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run half their cars not on high-priced gasoline, but biofuels. And yet, we are presented with a vision that says the United States of America – the greatest nation on Earth – can’t afford any of this.

“This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.

“Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.

“The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.”

President Reagan's Legacy

As we consider the Centennial of President Reagan’s birth, it is important to note that while he cut taxes on some taxpayers, he raised taxes on other taxpayers. As the graph, presented by Barry Ritholtz at Business Insider, shows, the deficit shot up under President Reagan, as it did under Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.

Cats, Mice, and Sustainable Energy

“Join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.” – President Barack Obama, State of the Union, January 25, 2011.

When a mouse makes noise, only other mice and local cats take notice. When a lion roars, however, everyone notices; other lions, elephants, zebras, gazelles, smaller cats, mice ….

New Jersey is one of 27 states, which, like the District of Columbia, have a Renewable Portfolio Standard, or RPS, mandating that by a certain date, a specific target of a renewable energy capacity will be deployed. An additional five states have non-binding goals. (This are listed by the U. S. Dept. of Energy at Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.)

In New Jersey the RPS is 22.5%, about 1.6 gigawatts (GW), by 2021. New Jersey today, in January, 2011, has about 300 megawatts of renewable energy capacity. I am confident that New Jersey will meet, and possibly exceed its RPS goal. We started with 9.0 kilowatts (KW) of photovoltaic solar in 2001. We were up to 211 megawatts (MW), by the end of September, 2010, and we added an additional 24 MW in December, 2010. Even when you factor in 30 MW of biomass, 8 mw of wind power, and 1.5 mw of fuel cells, this is less than 20% of the goal of 1.6 gw. (This is shown at the NJ Clean Energy Program Renewable Energy Technologies page.) However paradigm shifts are systems phenomena. They occur at exponential rates. We went from 9.0 kw in 2001 to 211 mw in mid-2010, to 360 mw by the end of 2010. In December, 2010, we added an additional 10% – moving from 236 mw to 260 mw. We are hitting the handle of the hockey stick.

California’s RPS is 33% by 2030. In Texas, the RPS calls for 5,880 MW by 2015. California , New Jersey and Texas are the roaring mice in domestic US clean energy policy. And a cat – the lion in the Oval Office – the President of the United States – has listened to the mice in California, New Jersey, and Texas. Last night he roared.

Courtesy of the White House.

In his “State of the Union” address, January 25, 2011, President Obama set a lofty goal: “80% clean electric generation by 2035.” While I think we can do better – 100% clean renewable sustainable energy by 2025 – Obama’s goal is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound. It’s SMART. It’s also wise.

As a President should, Obama is thinking, and thinking long term. We at Popular Logistics wish him success because success for a President means a better future for the nation.

–

Two observations.

There is no such thing as “Clean Coal.” Even if we capture and sequester all the carbon dioxide produced from burning coal, which is expensive, there are still impurities, such as arsenic, lead, mercury, uranium, zinc in coal. And mining and processing coal is a very dirty business.
Nuclear is heavily regulated. We exercise tighter control over the wastes. In practice, nuclear power is arguably cleaner than coal. But in reality, things happen.

One question is “Can we achieve Obama’s Clean Electricity Goal?” But a better question is “How can we achieve this goal? ” My back of the envelope response is:

100 gigawatts offshore wind,
100 gigawatts land based wind,
50 gigagwatts solar,
75 gigawatts stored micro-hydro or biofuel, for when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

And as Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, says, “The cheapest unit of energy is the ‘Negawatt’ – the energy you don’t have to buy.” How much can we reduce our energy requirements? How much can we gain by conservation?

McChrystal Had To Go

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, at work in a C-130. Photo by Petty Officer 1St Class Mark O'Donald, US Navy, Nato

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, on a C-130. Photo by Mark O'Donald, US Navy, Nato

film downloads

speed-dating film downloads

OBAMA AND CREDIT CARD COMPANIES

Obama is expected to press the companies to change practices the Administration sees as “Deceptive”
that have saddled consumers with high debt and high interest rates.

CONGRATULATIONS, BARACK OBAMA AND AMERICA!

President-Elect Obama’s campaign was focused, disciplined, and effective. He has shown himself to be bright, calm, and decisive. He listens, and he has good judgment. We at Popular Logistics wish him and the country well. And we know this: If President Obama governs the way President-Elect Obama campaigned, the country will do well. Very well.