U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington, DC Dear U.S. Department of Energy,

Transcription

1 Patrick Post - Executive Director March 29, 2016 Sustainable Planet USA Organization PO Box 1392, Naples, FL U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington, DC Dear U.S. Department of Energy, An average of one million new homes and buildings are constructed in the U.S. every year. We are proposing an annual $2.5 billion Apollo type renewable energy and job creation program to promote the installation of small $2500 four-part renewable energy systems for all new U.S. structures. The systems will include one unit each of solar, wind, thermal hot water, and battery power storage. They will generate $360 annually in electricity or 10-15% of a typical homeowner s consumption. The systems will provide structures with an emergency backup system and they will last years with a payback period of 6-8 years. Benefits include lower energy costs, less pollution, reduced dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power, and a stronger and flatter U.S. electric grid, which will increase America s national security. The battery power storage also can be recharged from the main electric grid during off-peak hours (11 pm-5 am) when electricity can cost 50% less. The problem with U.S. renewable energy is that it is installed in the most inefficient way possible. Today, 98% of on-site renewable energy is being installed in America s existing homes and buildings which often requires extensive custom work. This makes the project difficult and expensive, when compared to installing renewable energy systems in new structures. Changing our focus to new construction would be comparable to Henry Ford s change from making vehicles one at a time, to mass producing one-design vehicles at a low price that everyone can afford. After ten years of perfecting the systems and reducing the costs by 50%, we will begin installing them in America s 125 million existing structures. If larger systems are desired by home or building owners, they can pay all additional costs. We need to change how we think about the production and distribution of electricity. Instead of starting at big power generation facilities and transmitting power to end-users, we need to start with the end-user and work outward. This is how microgrids are created that can operate independent from the grid as needed. Every on-site system will connect to large batteries at transformer substations with enough power to run 10,000 homes. AC (Alternating Current) that is generated at power plants would be transmitted to large DC (Direct Current) battery power storage facilities located near towns and cities and used to recharge depleted medium-size DC batteries near neighborhoods. This will reduce the loss of electricity that occurs when transmitting and distributing AC power long distances to end-users because once the power is created, it can be stored for long periods of time. (1)

2 This system will operate on the same principle as rechargeable flashlights, cell phones, and laptop computers that pull AC power from the grid to recharge the DC batteries inside a device and stores the power until needed. Low-voltage DC 12V-96V is used to run lights, electronics, and appliances in yachts, motorhomes, and airplanes. We must use its energy saving and safety benefits in homes and buildings. Structures create more pollution than all forms of transportation combined. If this project is implemented across America, it will reduce electricity costs and energy waste by 50%, which will significantly reduce pollution. We can reduce waste further by upgrading weatherization, appliances, and equipment. Most people know that Thomas Edison demonstrated the first DC electric lightbulb at his lab in Menlo Park, NJ on Dec. 31, But most people don t know that in May 1880, the second application and first commercial demonstration outside his lab was on a new 334 ft. passenger and freight steamship called Columbia using 120 Edison DC lightbulbs. DC power in U.S. homes and buildings was first installed two years later by Thomas Edison in 1882 in New York which provided electric power to 59 customers in Lower Manhattan. By 1887, Edison had installed DC systems in 121 U.S. locations. He promoted DC for safety and energy efficiency reasons because it powered lights and electrical devices at V versus AC at V. The reason DC was replaced by George Westinghouse s AC is that during those early years DC electricity could only be sent efficiently 1.5 miles. This is not the case today with modern equipment that can send DC 1500 miles. It is a tragedy that Edison and Westinghouse were such bitter rivals because if they had worked together, they could have created an infinitely better system. We should take the best from DC and AC electricity and use them to create a cleaner, safer, cheaper, and more reliable system. Edison received 1093 patents and he filed a patent for a DC electric subway train in Today, most of the world s subways run on DC electricity because it is less expensive and more reliable. Edison built his first of three electric vehicle prototypes in 1895 and in 1910 there were more electric cars in the U.S. than gas cars. From , Edison worked extensively with Henry Ford, a former Edison employee, to develop electric vehicles. But when Ford was about to order 100,000 of Edison s DC batteries and start manufacturing electric vehicles in 1918, the availability of cheap gas caused Ford to cancel the project. The goal of this project is to use both DC and AC power and Henry Ford s mass production concept to manufacture these systems to create a more efficient electric power system. Implementing this program will create 50,000 U.S. jobs. Millions of the renewable energy systems also could be manufactured in America annually and sold worldwide considering that there is a great need globally for electricity since the majority of people on our planet only have power for a few hours every day and one billion have no power. Each system will create % of the electricity needed for families living in the world s developing nations and all of the energy produced from the sun and wind will be free. Fossil fuels are a finite resource and considering the world has 7 billion people today and we will increase to 10 billion by 2060, now is the time to change to a clean, unlimited, and free alternative. (2)

3 Most of the people on our small planet live in sunny climates between the Equator and the North and South 45 th Parallels. They have lots of sunshine but what they lack is the technology to convert nature s greatest gift into on-site electricity. This would include power for refrigeration, water purification, well pumps, lights, fans, radios, TVs, phones, and computers. The U.S. could sell the systems globally and save more than one million lives lost annually to disease and malnutrition. The decline of clean water is a contributing factor to these deaths, which is partly caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels. Last year the U.S. government provided $2.5 billion in subsidies to help home and building owners install renewable energy equipment at 250,000 existing structures. The average project cost $25,000. The government provided $10,000 (40%) and the owners provided $15,000 (60%). This money was given to wealthier U.S. citizens who owned a home or building and had $15,000 to contribute. None of the $2.5 billion in taxpayer funds was intended for low income citizens who need the most help in reducing their electric bills. All 50 U.S. states can become involved in implementing this renewable energy and job creation program. The $2.5 billion in federal funding would be divided by each state s population to install the systems in new structures. A major focus would be to provide employment to capable citizens who are receiving unemployment benefits. Instead of spending money to pay people to look for work, federal funding could be used to train and provide jobs that will help to strengthen America s national security. This project will be increasingly effective over time from technology improvements and cost reductions. A state with 3.2 million residents or 1% of the U.S. population would receive 1% of $2.5 billion each year, equaling $25 million to install the renewable energy systems in all of their new residential and commercial construction projects. Since the systems would be designed into the original architectural plans for the structures, the costs will be reduced to 25% of the cost for retrofitting similar systems into existing U.S. homes and buildings. Considering that the U.S. spends $2.5 billion annually to help pay for installing renewable energy equipment at 250,000 existing structures, providing $2.5 billion to install this same kind of equipment in one million new structures would be four times more cost-effective. We are requesting every governor across America to contact their U.S. Senate and House leadership and encourage them to support the funding of this revolutionary $2.5 billion national renewable energy and job creation program (50,000 jobs x $30,000 annual wages = $1.5 billion + $1 billion for raw materials = $2.5 billion). This project will be the most cost-effective program created to date to help in making the U.S. energy independent. Installing this equipment in every new home, apartment, condominium, and commercial building would be the most practical and efficient way to install 1,000,000 energy systems annually throughout the United States. If a 20 unit apartment building or 20 unit strip mall was being constructed, 20 systems would be installed on the roofs or on carports or other outdoor structures. All of the residents and building tenants could share and exchange their electric power, which would be considered a small neighborhood microgrid system. (3)

4 This U.S. renewable energy program will be promoted as the best alternative to declining fossil fuels and nuclear power. We want to demonstrate that nuclear power provides the least benefits to consumers and taxpayers at the highest cost and renewable energy will provide the greatest benefits at the lowest cost through the development of the project. For every $1 invested in this innovative renewable energy program, it will generate $3 in free electricity. For every $1 spent on building new nuclear plants, it will cost consumers and U.S. taxpayers an additional $4 to purchase the power and pay all of the future costs including maintaining the reactors, dismantling them after 40 years of usage, and safely disposing of the nuclear waste at a permanent U.S. site that has still not been determined. Solar and wind power that is created on-site by home and building owners is in its infancy and it has a real future capability of recharging small neighborhood electric vehicles. The reason for-profit electric utilities have not supported renewable energy development and installation at structures is because all of the power created would be free to consumers. The alternative is power created from fossil fuels and nuclear power, which is never free. In 2027, we will expand to 10 million systems annually for 14 years so we can install them in all existing U.S. structures, This will create 500,000 jobs and cost $25 billion each year. This will be very cost-effective because it will create $75 billion annually in free power at $500 from each system. This would benefit everyone but people who have the least will benefit the most because they pay a higher percentage of income for electricity. We propose training low income citizens to install systems in low income neighborhoods. Many for-profit utilities and supporters of nuclear power say they want to stop on-site renewable energy because of federal and state subsidies helping fund the projects. They denounce these subsidies and say that since renewable energy can t support itself, the subsidies must be eliminated. But they ignore the fact that nuclear power in America has been 100% subsidized since 1958 by raising electric rates and with help from taxpayers. Nuclear power was once thought to be the future of energy but this was never attained due to high costs, technical problems, environmental concerns, and many safety issues. U.S. nuclear plants require ten years to construct and they cost $10-15 billion to build. For-profit electric utility companies who build, own, and operate U.S. nuclear plants have always said they can t afford to contribute any funding to these immense and expensive projects because it s not cost-effective for their companies or their shareholders. It is only cost-effective for them if they can pass all of the enormous liability, construction, and future costs to U.S. taxpayers and by increasing the power rates of their utility customers. The real goal of America s for-profit electric utility companies is to keep their customers 100% dependent on them. They also have continually mislead the public by saying nuclear power is a less expensive way to generate electricity. This is false and it is easy to disprove by evaluating all of the facts and the actual numbers. Our goal is to help people discover what the true costs are and let them know that they are the ones paying all of these costs. (4)

5 An example of the high costs of nuclear power expansion in the U.S. can be shown by evaluating Florida Power & Light s efforts to add two new reactors at their Turkey Point nuclear facility located 25 miles south of Miami next to the Atlantic Ocean, Everglades National Park, and Biscayne National Park. FP&L estimates that the cost for this project will be $25 billion and it will take over ten years before the reactors start creating power. The reactors will use 90 million gallons of water daily for cooling. This will have a negative impact on all of the fish, birds, mammals, and animals living in this fragile environment. The State of Florida has approved that all of the $25 billion costs to build the two nuclear reactors will be paid by raising the power rates of FP&L s 4.7 million customers in Florida at $5320 per customer. There is extreme opposition to building the plants from mayors, business leaders, and residents. They oppose the high costs, environmental damage, and damage to historic business and residential districts where 100 ft. high distribution towers will be installed. It should be noted that if the two plants are not completed, FP&L has been authorized by the state to keep all of the money they collect and they never have to pay it back. This concept is being promoted in other states considering nuclear projects. A better choice would be to increase utility rates to install renewable energy at structures. We are proposing that this same amount of money ($25 billion) should be provided by the U.S. government and used over ten years ($2.5 billion annually) to install small $2500 four-part solar, wind, thermal hot water, and battery power storage systems in all of the one million new homes, apartments, condominiums, and commercial buildings that are constructed in the U.S. annually. Each renewable energy system will generate and save an average of $30 a month in power or $360 annually x 1,000,000 systems = $360 million x 10 years installing the systems nationwide = $3.6 billion annually in free electric power! As a comparison, when the two Florida Power & Light $25 billion nuclear power reactors begin operating after a minimum of ten years of construction, they will only collectively generate up to $1.5 billion annually in electricity. The big difference is that all of FP&L s nuclear power must be purchased and the $3.6 billion in renewable energy electricity will be 100% free. Another benefit supporting the renewable energy systems is that it only requires 2-3 days to install each system and then they can start generating power. During the first 10 years installing the energy systems, they will collectively generate $18 billion in electricity and the nuclear plants will not generate any power during this time period. In the 2nd ten-year period, the ten million systems will generate an additional $36 billion in free electricity equaling $54 billion during the first 20 years. In this same time period, the two reactors will generate up to $15 billion in electricity. The alternatives are receiving $54 billion in free power or paying $15 billion for 72% less electricity. In 2040, the U.S. will have 150 million structures. They will create $105 billion annually in free power at just $700 from each system. This will be easily attained from new technology innovations. This is $30 billion more power than created annually by all U.S. nuclear plants. Installing the systems nationwide will provide every U.S. structure with an emergency backup system. (5)

6 This concept would be an excellent alternative to allowing Iran to develop nuclear power. Iran s warm and sunny climate makes it an ideal location to install solar power and when you consider that Iran has 19% of the world s natural gas and 9.5% of its oil reserves, they don t need nuclear to generate electricity. The U.S. must use its immense technology and manufacturing capabilities to create tens of millions of these renewable energy systems every year. We should sell them globally to guide the world to a clean energy future that focuses on energy from the sun and wind as well as the storage of electricity in batteries. We must begin to reduce nuclear power and start expanding renewable energy because this will reduce the potential of nuclear wars in the future. This will help to eliminate the need for the U.S. and our allies to spend hundreds of $billions expanding our militaries to provide a deterrent to Iran becoming a nuclear threat. Iran s biggest supporter is Russia and these two countries have 33% of the world s fossil fuels. The global expansion of solar, wind, thermal hot water, and battery power storage will lower the price of fossil fuels and reduce revenues in Russia and Iran as well as deprive funding to ISIS and Al Qaeda. This is the easiest and least expensive way to undermine America s enemies and because we consume 20% of the world s energy, a low price for fossil fuels benefits the U.S. the most. Russia is positioning itself in The Middle East to displace America s power and influence in this important and volatile region. Their goal is to help Iran develop nuclear weapons so they both can control The Middle East and so they can work together to achieve their mutual goals that include greater world domination. The U.S. has the capability to stop them and lead the world in generating clean, safe, abundant, and 100% free electricity from the sun and wind. This effort will reduce worldwide pollution which is causing global warming and rising ocean levels which will eventually cause flooding in large coastal cities. We are requesting $7 million in support from the U.S. Department of Energy to pay for the testing of our proposals. The money will be used to fund a three year pilot project to install small solar, wind, thermal hot water, and battery storage systems at a new unit futuristic U.S. residential microgrid community. This renewable energy project will demonstrate the benefits of using both DC and AC electricity and battery power storage to significantly lower energy consumption, reduce pollution and electric costs, and create a stronger and flatter U.S. electric power grid. This will reduce America s dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power and help in strengthening our national security. The project funds needed are listed as: 1 st year $1 million, 2 nd year $2 million, and 3 rd year $4 million. We look forward to your response and a more detailed proposal is available upon request. Kind regards, Patrick Post - Executive Director Sustainable Planet USA Organization (6)