National energy policy (1 Viewer)

[Kandahar]

What do you think the US government's national energy policy should be?

 

[Kandahar]

I voted for:

Increase funds for R&D for alternative energy technology
Approve more nuclear plants to go on line
Gasoline consumption tax to reduce demand
Announce the government will only buy hybrid (or better) vehicles by 20xx


Ordinarily I would be against the government trying to screw with the free market, but the energy market is a little different because it directly affects our national security. Weaning ourselves of oil is a much more effective way of fighting terrorism and Islamism, than putting hundreds of thousands of troops in the Middle East.

Of the options I listed, I think the most important is the gasoline consumption tax. $2 per gallon, phased in at ten cents per month, seems appropriate. If necessary, we could make it "revenue neutral" by cutting income taxes a proportionate amount (although with the deficit being as large as it is, that might be unwise...but I digress). A consumption tax would be the fastest way to wean us off of oil. It would immediately make hybrid cars cost-effective, which would greatly increase the demand for them. Eventually, the gasoline consumption tax could be phased out, after most of the country had moved on to other sources of energy.

Nuclear technology is also very important. It's safe, clean, cheap, and efficient. Our government should encourage the construction of nuclear plants with incentives for those corporations that built them.

 

[tryreading]

I voted for:

Increase funds for R&D for alternative energy technology
Approve more nuclear plants to go on line
Gasoline consumption tax to reduce demand
Announce the government will only buy hybrid (or better) vehicles by 20xx


Ordinarily I would be against the government trying to screw with the free market, but the energy market is a little different because it directly affects our national security. Weaning ourselves of oil is a much more effective way of fighting terrorism and Islamism, than putting hundreds of thousands of troops in the Middle East.

Of the options I listed, I think the most important is the gasoline consumption tax. $2 per gallon, phased in at ten cents per month, seems appropriate. If necessary, we could make it "revenue neutral" by cutting income taxes a proportionate amount (although with the deficit being as large as it is, that might be unwise...but I digress). A consumption tax would be the fastest way to wean us off of oil. It would immediately make hybrid cars cost-effective, which would greatly increase the demand for them. Eventually, the gasoline consumption tax could be phased out, after most of the country had moved on to other sources of energy.

Nuclear technology is also very important. It's safe, clean, cheap, and efficient. Our government should encourage the construction of nuclear plants with incentives for those corporations that built them.

I vote all of the above except for rationing.

I am ashamed we didn't begin serious development of a plan back in the 1970s to develop alternative energy systems. We saw first-hand how quickly prices could rise and supply could fall when we depended on third-world suppliers of possibly the most important thing we import.

Hindsight is perfect, right? But saying that isn't good enough. We can tell, at the time it occurs, when something happens important enough that it can endanger our national security and economy again in the future.

 

[tryreading]

I vote all of the above except for rationing.

I mean all of the above except for rationing and the government staying out of it.

 

[jfuh]

I vote all of the above except for rationing.

I am ashamed we didn't begin serious development of a plan back in the 1970s to develop alternative energy systems. We saw first-hand how quickly prices could rise and supply could fall when we depended on third-world suppliers of possibly the most important thing we import.

Hindsight is perfect, right? But saying that isn't good enough. We can tell, at the time it occurs, when something happens important enough that it can endanger our national security and economy again in the future.

We did - not only that but we had and have several such technologies to supplement over oil. Problem? Oil is too cheap as well as oil companies bullying out the competition through lobbying firms as well as buying out said patents and technologies. End result - oil companies control government and economy and the politicians just didn't care as long as "things were all fine and dandy".

 

[jfuh]

I voted for:

Increase funds for R&D for alternative energy technology
Approve more nuclear plants to go on line
Gasoline consumption tax to reduce demand
Announce the government will only buy hybrid (or better) vehicles by 20xx


Ordinarily I would be against the government trying to screw with the free market, but the energy market is a little different because it directly affects our national security. Weaning ourselves of oil is a much more effective way of fighting terrorism and Islamism, than putting hundreds of thousands of troops in the Middle East.

Of the options I listed, I think the most important is the gasoline consumption tax. $2 per gallon, phased in at ten cents per month, seems appropriate. If necessary, we could make it "revenue neutral" by cutting income taxes a proportionate amount (although with the deficit being as large as it is, that might be unwise...but I digress). A consumption tax would be the fastest way to wean us off of oil. It would immediately make hybrid cars cost-effective, which would greatly increase the demand for them. Eventually, the gasoline consumption tax could be phased out, after most of the country had moved on to other sources of energy.

Nuclear technology is also very important. It's safe, clean, cheap, and efficient. Our government should encourage the construction of nuclear plants with incentives for those corporations that built them.

I voted for all the above and agree with you're rationals. I also voted though for tougher efficiency requirement for automobiles. Why? THis is an issue about energy demand and usage. Thus efficiency ties directly in with conservation. The more efficiently we use our energy, the more energy we have to use.
ie contrast an incandescent light bulb with a fluorescent with an LED - same lighting power yet the energy consumption just goes keeps going down - should be the same with our transportation industry. Newer cleaner more efficient use of energy = high tech industry growth and clean environment that is also ethically sound - you can strike two birds with one stone.

 

[tryreading]

We did - not only that but we had and have several such technologies to supplement over oil. Problem? Oil is too cheap as well as oil companies bullying out the competition through lobbying firms as well as buying out said patents and technologies. End result - oil companies control government and economy and the politicians just didn't care as long as "things were all fine and dandy".

But I meant a serious effort. In the 1970s, ethanol was being added to gas, but that was phased out after a few years. There should have been a requirement to increase the amount of ethanol produced and used, maybe increasing usage by 10% a year. So, 10% automobile use of ethanol would be 11% the next year, and then 12.1% the next year after that (if I'm doing the math right) and so on. Ethanol would have become cheaper as we went along, and at some point costs would have leveled out compared to pure gasoline. And most importantly, we'd be using a home grown product, revitalizing our agriculture system and keeping that fuel money at home.

That's a very simplified plan, but I think if we had tried something along those lines we could be using a significant percentage of ethanol in our engines now.

There is a product called butanol that, when feasible to be used as a fuel, will replace gas gallon for gallon with no modifications needed to any gas engine in order to burn it. And there is almost no pollution from using it. I've posted a link to a butanol site here before, will have to find it again.

 

[tryreading]

This is the butanol site, to be taken with a grain of salt, and a DOE paper on butanol.

http://www.butanol.com

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/843183-rqlY2a/843183.PDF

 

[Synch]

Two words, nuclear power.

Instead of the trillions(if you add up all implicit cost of Iraq War, vet benefits etc) we spend on maintaining hegemony in the Middle East with wars with Iraq and funneling billions if not trillions to Israel, we could spend it on thousands of nuclear power plants and electric cars.

 

[jfuh]

Two words, nuclear power.

Instead of the trillions(if you add up all implicit cost of Iraq War, vet benefits etc) we spend on maintaining hegemony in the Middle East with wars with Iraq and funneling billions if not trillions to Israel, we could spend it on thousands of nuclear power plants and electric cars.

I still wince at electric cars for now for other reasons but agreed with everyother part of your premise.
One word, Nukes.

 

[Skip]

I voted for everything except do nothing, ration gas, and drill for more. They why did you's have been rationalized pretty well, so I'll cover the why didn't you's.

Do nothing will send this country and maybe this globe to hell in a handbasket. I don't care how hands-off you are about the economy, this is more then capitalistic freedom.

Rationing gas is too extreme at the moment, although if we do nothing and it gets worse, we might have to.

Drilling for more will hurt the environment further, and, if we do find any sort of a supply, it will place our efforts to find alternatives on the back burner while we continue along like everything's perfect... until we encounter this again in 20, 30 years.

 

[Topsez]

I voted for the first selection not knowing you could select multiple choices. Regardless, government funded R and D support is a start but a functioning Energy Plan will only work if both parties compromise and allow the desires of each party's path to move forward. The environmentalist, trial lawyers and other splinter groups support the left and big oil supports the left and the right. If you research donations to political parties you will find both get big bucks from big oil but the right gets more.

The democrat plan is to tax big oil to fund AE R and D but this will result in, if not vetoed higher gas prices when big oil passes on what they consider a loss of revenue. Since the left can't challenge big oil for winfall profits with the increase some money will simply change hands in politics.

The killer to energy development is trial lawyers and federal restrictions along with strong environmental group lobbist. The only way without a joint venture of the left and right working together is for the government to demand all state and federal government vehicles and buildings go green to spur AE developments... But Prez Jimmy Carter tried this and he was hated by his party and the right.

Had all the money that has been spent on the Iraq War been invested in AE and known technologies we would be very close to being free from import by 2020. If the federal government would lift regulations and allow states to develop Alternative Energy without being bothered by trial lawyers and environmentalists then much progress could be made but trial lawyers and environmentalists are sacred cows that will not go away willingly. There are enough waterways that could have low impact hydro electricity installed without harming the environment but not according to environmentalists.

Private industry could do it alone if the government would put a tarriff on imported oil to make it profitable but that would look like the government was making big oil rich... We need a new invention to create energy that can't be litigated.

 

[tryreading]

I voted for the first selection not knowing you could select multiple choices. Regardless, government funded R and D support is a start but a functioning Energy Plan will only work if both parties compromise and allow the desires of each party's path to move forward. The environmentalist, trial lawyers and other splinter groups support the left and big oil supports the left and the right. If you research donations to political parties you will find both get big bucks from big oil but the right gets more.

The democrat plan is to tax big oil to fund AE R and D but this will result in, if not vetoed higher gas prices when big oil passes on what they consider a loss of revenue. Since the left can't challenge big oil for winfall profits with the increase some money will simply change hands in politics.

The killer to energy development is trial lawyers and federal restrictions along with strong environmental group lobbist. The only way without a joint venture of the left and right working together is for the government to demand all state and federal government vehicles and buildings go green to spur AE developments... But Prez Jimmy Carter tried this and he was hated by his party and the right.

Had all the money that has been spent on the Iraq War been invested in AE and known technologies we would be very close to being free from import by 2020. If the federal government would lift regulations and allow states to develop Alternative Energy without being bothered by trial lawyers and environmentalists then much progress could be made but trial lawyers and environmentalists are sacred cows that will not go away willingly. There are enough waterways that could have low impact hydro electricity installed without harming the environment but not according to environmentalists.

Private industry could do it alone if the government would put a tarriff on imported oil to make it profitable but that would look like the government was making big oil rich... We need a new invention to create energy that can't be litigated.

The war money would have helped a lot. So would an additional gas tax. I'll gladly pay more for gas if it will help us become more energy independent in the future.

Another issue in this country is apathy. There are two things we can do now to save energy that are free and painless. We can drive our cars slower, and drive them less. That would save a lot of gas. When the President said we are addicted to oil, he could have offered suggestions like those to ask us to begin to deal with the addiction. But nobody asks us to sacrifice a little, and we don't care enough to do it on our own.

As far as the environmental ideas you mention, we have to be careful with that, while filling our energy needs. We are able as a society to turn very large areas into trash dumps and cesspools. I live in Florida, and used to go to the Gulf beaches a lot. But the water is so dirty, and there are frequent 'red tides,' so I rarely go anymore. The Gulf is the toilet that Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas pour their sewage into. I know oil didn't do this to the Gulf, but my point is that environmental concern is important because we tend to let gravity deal with our garbage. We need the watchdogs.

 

[Topsez]

The war money would have helped a lot. So would an additional gas tax. I'll gladly pay more for gas if it will help us become more energy independent in the future.

Another issue in this country is apathy. There are two things we can do now to save energy that are free and painless. We can drive our cars slower, and drive them less. That would save a lot of gas. When the President said we are addicted to oil, he could have offered suggestions like those to ask us to begin to deal with the addiction. But nobody asks us to sacrifice a little, and we don't care enough to do it on our own.

As far as the environmental ideas you mention, we have to be careful with that, while filling our energy needs. We are able as a society to turn very large areas into trash dumps and cesspools. I live in Florida, and used to go to the Gulf beaches a lot. But the water is so dirty, and there are frequent 'red tides,' so I rarely go anymore. The Gulf is the toilet that Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas pour their sewage into. I know oil didn't do this to the Gulf, but my point is that environmental concern is important because we tend to let gravity deal with our garbage. We need the watchdogs.

Here is an idea that wouldn't work in FL but would work on all of our mountains on the East and West Coast... I think...

I thought of a means that could produce large quantities of energy without any impact on the environment a couple years back. The idea is based on the same idea as hybrid cars that use normal engine for power on level roads but use a generator as a brake to charge a battery. I did some tests with automotive alternators some while back and found that they could actually stop a car if hooked to the drive train with a gear and a rheostat… in other words instead of brakes pressing the brake would be like adjusting the power to the element on an electric range… the more resistance on the rheostat the more volts it would produce.

With that in mind I thought if brake horsepower could be recovered and saved into a battery then it could be used with a power inverter to produce electricity. In the case of a hybrid it produces a charge for the battery to operate an electric motor until the battery is at low charge when normal internal combustion engine replaces the electric motor. Using this logic if you live in a mountainous area you could charge a battery bank with the generator as you use it for braking leaving enough amp hours for several hours of home electric service. Batteries will accept large dumps of volts, even a 12 volt battery could be hooked to an unregulated generator dumping 130 volts as you descend until it is full. Let’s say you have 100 12 volt batteries hooked up in series and as a trailer truck starts down a mountain hauling a cargo container a battery pack is attached to the top of the container and a generator with rheostat has been equipped on the trailer … the truck driver could idle the engine down the mountain as the generator captured all brake horse power to slow the load and quickly unhook the battery pack at the bottom of the hill. The same type of snap coupling of battery packs could be used on trains hauling cargo down hill to use brake HP verses fuel and engine back pressure and brakes.

Either empty trucks could haul the battery packs back up the mountain or a cable car powered by the battery packs would do the job… the result lots of free clean energy with no harm to the environment.

Take the free electricity and offer it free to any state resident that buys a hybrid or electric car or add it to the power grid.

 

[Willow]

The only problem I can see with rationing and with gasoline tax is that for those who live in rural areas the actual need for gas is much greater then in an urban environment . I think in urban areas where alternative transportation is available (buses etc) the gas tax should be much higher. We don't really encourage people to carpool or use the transport systems and that is really a shame.

 

[Topsez]

The only problem I can see with rationing and with gasoline tax is that for those who live in rural areas the actual need for gas is much greater then in an urban environment . I think in urban areas where alternative transportation is available (buses etc) the gas tax should be much higher. We don't really encourage people to carpool or use the transport systems and that is really a shame.

The problem with gas taxes and higher millage standards is that the poorest are harmed most and the poorest drive used vehicles... The poor buy vehicles that are discarded because they use too much gas in these cases causing no advance in the reduction of consumption until years pass. Europe taxes the hell out of fuel, in Germany a gallon of gas is over $7.00 and everyone simply adjusts as they do to the cost of a gallon of milk... then they drive the same.

 

[Red_Dave]

But I meant a serious effort. In the 1970s, ethanol was being added to gas, but that was phased out after a few years. There should have been a requirement to increase the amount of ethanol produced and used, maybe increasing usage by 10% a year. So, 10% automobile use of ethanol would be 11% the next year, and then 12.1% the next year after that (if I'm doing the math right) and so on. Ethanol would have become cheaper as we went along, and at some point costs would have leveled out compared to pure gasoline. And most importantly, we'd be using a home grown product, revitalizing our agriculture system and keeping that fuel money at home.

That's a very simplified plan, but I think if we had tried something along those lines we could be using a significant percentage of ethanol in our engines now.

There is a product called butanol that, when feasible to be used as a fuel, will replace gas gallon for gallon with no modifications needed to any gas engine in order to burn it. And there is almost no pollution from using it. I've posted a link to a butanol site here before, will have to find it again.

Its certainly not beond the realms of possibility that the U.S could switch to bio-ethonal completely [as brazil already has] during the two world wars the economy of the U.S and Brittian where completely overhauled so that resources were focused towards building weapons. Why cant they be overhauled in the same way to produce renewable energy?

 

[tryreading]

Here is an idea that wouldn't work in FL but would work on all of our mountains on the East and West Coast... I think...

I thought of a means that could produce large quantities of energy without any impact on the environment a couple years back. The idea is based on the same idea as hybrid cars that use normal engine for power on level roads but use a generator as a brake to charge a battery. I did some tests with automotive alternators some while back and found that they could actually stop a car if hooked to the drive train with a gear and a rheostat… in other words instead of brakes pressing the brake would be like adjusting the power to the element on an electric range… the more resistance on the rheostat the more volts it would produce.

With that in mind I thought if brake horsepower could be recovered and saved into a battery then it could be used with a power inverter to produce electricity. In the case of a hybrid it produces a charge for the battery to operate an electric motor until the battery is at low charge when normal internal combustion engine replaces the electric motor. Using this logic if you live in a mountainous area you could charge a battery bank with the generator as you use it for braking leaving enough amp hours for several hours of home electric service. Batteries will accept large dumps of volts, even a 12 volt battery could be hooked to an unregulated generator dumping 130 volts as you descend until it is full. Let’s say you have 100 12 volt batteries hooked up in series and as a trailer truck starts down a mountain hauling a cargo container a battery pack is attached to the top of the container and a generator with rheostat has been equipped on the trailer … the truck driver could idle the engine down the mountain as the generator captured all brake horse power to slow the load and quickly unhook the battery pack at the bottom of the hill. The same type of snap coupling of battery packs could be used on trains hauling cargo down hill to use brake HP verses fuel and engine back pressure and brakes.

Either empty trucks could haul the battery packs back up the mountain or a cable car powered by the battery packs would do the job… the result lots of free clean energy with no harm to the environment.

Take the free electricity and offer it free to any state resident that buys a hybrid or electric car or add it to the power grid.

I understand your concept. An alternator, when charging, adds a resistance to the revolution of the engine. Actually, it forces some braking to the wheels in the conventional set up, by slowing the wheels from the drag it causes on the engine and therefore through the transmission. You are saying this lost energy could be trapped in batteries. You're right, but I don't know if the energy gained would be enough to offset the gas needed to run the vehicle with the extra weight of the battery bank.

We need advances in the storage battery field in general. Nickel-metal hydride and lithium batteries are excellent for storage, but you would need a lot of them to supply a significant amount of power, and they are expensive. Lead-acid batteries are cumbersome and inefficient. Its strange to me that we've been trying to improve batteries for maybe 150 years, and the advances we've made aren't that great.

The same is true with solar batteries. Their efficiency is very improved from a few years ago, but they are nowhere near efficient (and therefore cheap) enough to justify their use on the grid or on your house. I'd love to install a photovoltaic system on my house and be self sufficient, but a system big enough would cost $30,000. The cost would be offset by a lower utility bill, and some months no utility bill, and some months making money from the utility operator who has to buy my excess energy. But by the time the system's useful life was over, I'd only break even.

I hate to say it, but nuclear energy is probably where we have to go. Its cheap, and we don't have to buy its power source from our enemies. I think use of it will slow the research and development of alternative energy, though.

 

[tryreading]

The only problem I can see with rationing and with gasoline tax is that for those who live in rural areas the actual need for gas is much greater then in an urban environment . I think in urban areas where alternative transportation is available (buses etc) the gas tax should be much higher. We don't really encourage people to carpool or use the transport systems and that is really a shame.

Well, if you use more gas, you should have to pay more. And I live in the county, a long way from most things, so my money is where my mouth is.

Rationing should never be necessary. We can limit the gas we use by making patriotic decisions. Most of us don't care to do that, though. There are times when we need to drive, use energy to heat and cool our houses, etc, but there are also lots of situations where most of us can use a little less unrenewable power.

 

[tryreading]

Its certainly not beond the realms of possibility that the U.S could switch to bio-ethonal completely [as brazil already has] during the two world wars the economy of the U.S and Brittian where completely overhauled so that resources were focused towards building weapons. Why cant they be overhauled in the same way to produce renewable energy?

Because we don't want to sacrifice even a little bit, and our leaders are afraid to ask us to anyway.

 

[Topsez]

I understand your concept. An alternator, when charging, adds a resistance to the revolution of the engine. Actually, it forces some braking to the wheels in the conventional set up, by slowing the wheels from the drag it causes on the engine and therefore through the transmission. You are saying this lost energy could be trapped in batteries. You're right, but I don't know if the energy gained would be enough to offset the gas needed to run the vehicle with the extra weight of the battery bank.

Check out this link on permanent magnet motors Tape Drive Motors I have one of these and purchased the bridge chip that changes the motor into a generator... a flip of the switch turns the generator back to a motor... I think this is the way Hybrids work... this is a very small motor but can pull down an lathe motor when turned too fast. A car alternator is contoled to regulate electricity at DC 12 Volts using diodes, if the diodes burn out the drive belt instantly breaks because it cannot turn the alternator at the alternators full ability of unregulated power... some people change the diodes in car alternators to produce 120 electricity for work sites rather than buy generators, this can be done outside of the alternator so the charging system will work normally when using the vehicle for regular use. I plan to use the little motor to charge my solar battery bank using a steam engine I'm working on powered by a waste oil burning boiler.

Yes, the battery weight and life span could be a problem but consider this... think of the hybrid above and think of electric street cars early in the 1900's... they used the same method for breaking using the motor to send power into the grid to fuel the streetcars going uphill. Motors and generators are basically the same thing and don't let the size fool you... take a look at the 5 KW attached to a ten HP at a hardware that produces 120/220 for power outtages... turn on a large microwave and the engine labors... If these generators were gear connected to each trailor truck rear tandems the could stop the truck cold in its tracks by merely adjusting the resistance.

 

[Topsez]

Work or what the energy required to move something is equal minus any friction. For example if you desire to lift a 500 pound object to your roof without motors or outside power you could do so with equal weight + - friction. Or, it takes the same work to go down a hill as to go up the hill plus the mechanical friction. Regardless of the weight involved the work is equal so if the downhill work can be captured the trucks and trains exchange energy to leave the effect of moving on flat land plus mechanical friction. Take a look at the drawing and think about it... add water to the bucket on the left to lift the bucket on the right.

 

[Topsez]

Here is another very low environmental impact energy idea I have. As simple as water running down hill… Think about how water reservoir water is withdrawn… when the reservoir is built a large pit of gravel covered with sand is located at a low point and in the gravel is a large pipe that takes the water by gravity to be delivered directly to a water treatment plant or through aqua ducts to the plant. Fish nor other habitat is disturbed as significant amounts of water is taken from the manmade lake. Now take a glance at this map of major rivers of the US

major rivers of the united states map Consider that at numerous locations along the major rivers small reservoirs are fed by river backwater to replace water withdrawn from the reservoirs. OK remember this and now think about how city water pressure is maintained at constant high pressure using elevated water tanks… the taller the tank the higher the pressure. Alright, back to the original thought of low impact water removal as mentioned above and consider connecting a very high pressure pipe to the reservoirs exit and run it for several miles to a much lower elevation resulting with a very high head pressure at the lower elevation capable of turning a very powerful water turbine to produce electricity. The exhaust water from this source would provide water to a city water reservoir at the lower elevation. The construction would be a one time effort creating many job and costs could be reduced by using prison labor, armed forces reserve engineer soldiers creating an almost maintenance free nearly free source of renewable electric power that does not harm the environment.

 

[tryreading]

Here is another very low environmental impact energy idea I have. As simple as water running down hill… Think about how water reservoir water is withdrawn… when the reservoir is built a large pit of gravel covered with sand is located at a low point and in the gravel is a large pipe that takes the water by gravity to be delivered directly to a water treatment plant or through aqua ducts to the plant. Fish nor other habitat is disturbed as significant amounts of water is taken from the manmade lake. Now take a glance at this map of major rivers of the US

major rivers of the united states map Consider that at numerous locations along the major rivers small reservoirs are fed by river backwater to replace water withdrawn from the reservoirs. OK remember this and now think about how city water pressure is maintained at constant high pressure using elevated water tanks… the taller the tank the higher the pressure. Alright, back to the original thought of low impact water removal as mentioned above and consider connecting a very high pressure pipe to the reservoirs exit and run it for several miles to a much lower elevation resulting with a very high head pressure at the lower elevation capable of turning a very powerful water turbine to produce electricity. The exhaust water from this source would provide water to a city water reservoir at the lower elevation. The construction would be a one time effort creating many job and costs could be reduced by using prison labor, armed forces reserve engineer soldiers creating an almost maintenance free nearly free source of renewable electric power that does not harm the environment.

I get what you're saying. Is this not being done anywhere? The idea makes sense as long as the piping distance is feasible.

Interesting about the tape motors and their efficiency. The windmills that are used for electricity in some areas must have very efficient motors for their generators. I would like to see those used in Florida. The seabreeze is almost constant.

 

[Topsez]

I get what you're saying. Is this not being done anywhere? The idea makes sense as long as the piping distance is feasible.

This idea came to me because when I was a child growing up on a farm in WV we had a fresh water spring about a half mile up the valley that ran cold clear water year round even in the worst drought. The water collected in a 200 gallon concrete tank and a 3/4 inch pipe ran directly to our house and in the winter we would leave the faucets wide open so the water wouldn't freeze... it had great pressure. I thought what if a great clean unpoluted source was in northern Canada and a chain of high pressure pipes ran between cities there would never be a worry about polution or drought and energy could be collected at each city water reservoir that would help power the city.

Interesting about the tape motors and their efficiency. The windmills that are used for electricity in some areas must have very efficient motors for their generators. I would like to see those used in Florida. The seabreeze is almost constant.

The link I provided at otherpower.com has a lot of information on permanent magnets applications and loads of information on wind produced electricity... the site also has a forum for people living off grid that rely on home produced green power, check out their homepage. Lots of people complain about windmills and I've even read where one community was suing residents to have solar PV electric panels removed because they thougth they looked bad on the roofs. Some people are smakable while soldiers go to the ME to keep their oil flowing.