Why aren't they rich?

I read about many alternative energy companies and I have bought stock in a number of them.  Besides realizing the great need for more intelligence towards our energy choices they seem to have something else in common; they are going broke.  Solyndra made big news with its bankruptcy.  Politically it is a touchy topic and sometimes it appears supporting alternative energy is a negative in a political campaign.

It is to be expected that the road to energy independence and to clean energy will be paved with failures and mistakes.  That is the path forward with any technology.  Oil is a myopic solution but we tend to a a myopic society. 

Here are a couple companies I have followed over the years. 

Beacon Power  

Power plants have a sweet spot where they run the most efficient but that spot is only ever passed through as they power up during the day for peek energy usage and then power down for lower night time loads.  It is intuitive to conclude that the longer the plan can run at peak efficiency the cheaper it is to run the plant and it follows we get cheaper electricity.  It also pollutes less but that point seems to carry less weight for some reason.

The logical solution is to run at peak efficiency one hundred percent of the time by storing excess power during low usage times and then using that power to supplement power needs during peak hours.  Storage is the issue.  Houses which are not connected to the electrical grid use batteries.  Batteries have a draw back due to life span, dangerous chemicals, rare Earth minerals, etc. On a large scale such as a power supply for a city, batteries are impractical.

Beacon Power's solution is exciting.  They are using carbon fiber flywheels.  Modern material science and other technologies are used to build flywheels to turn chemical energy in to kinetic energy.  These carbon fiber flywheels spin up to 16,000 rpm in a vacuum containment chamber.  This is a very efficient way to store energy and reduce CO2 in the process.
 

Energy Conversion Devices

Battery technology is one of the things holding back many alternative energy solutions.  The auto industry has not produced electric cars or hybrid cars until recently because battery technology was not to the point to make it feasible.  Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) was one of the companies pushing the technology forward, getting it to the point it is today to allow us to have hybrids on the road.  They are the company who produced the batteries for GM's EV1.   But that wasn't enough to support a business model and the company is no more.

They also produced a very interesting product, solar shingles.  Most people don't like the look of solar panels on roofs so ECD produce solar shingle which were installed pretty much like conventional shingles, stopped rain like conventional shingles, looked much like conventional shingles but they also produced electricity while acting like shingles. 



These are just a couple companies I have been interested in over the years with marvelous technology yet sadly watched them sink into nothingness.  At the same time I have seen oil companies reporting record profits.  The Solyndra story is fuel for the anti-alternative energy argument and is being used to slow the funding of other such companies.  This is extremely sad because we need companies such as these who are willing to risk failure to drive the technology forward to make it a viable and sustainable solution.

Black Friday

You can get The Infinite Jeff for free at Smashwords today and tomorrow (11/22/2012 - 11/23/2012) with the coupon code: YJ84T.  If you like the book then share what you liked in a review on Smashwords or the Facebook page.  Happy Thanksgiving and enjoy the story.

How we can change gas prices

How we can change gas prices

Personally, I don't care how much gas costs per gallon.  In fact, I would like to see gas prices increase even more.  I would even support a hefty tax on gas to pay for the roads and other infrastructure.  To me, that idea is much better than toll ways.

The reason I like high gas prices is because that is when I start to see a change in people's behaviors.  For example, the last time gas prices increased substantially my neighbor with the massive quad-cab, four wheel drive, ten mile per gallon, Ford pick-up which he uses to go to the doughnut shop or church, bought a small Volkswagen pickup to serve the same purpose. But once gas prices dropped, the gas sucking Ford came back out.

A few weeks ago I had a discussion with a woman in which she complained about gas prices.  Afterwards she drove away in her shiny new Cadillac Escalade (14 mpg city, 18 mpg highway). 

If we want low gas prices the best way to do that is reduce demand.  One way to reduce demand is to demand high gas mileage vehicles.  And, if prices don't drop but we are driving highly efficient vehicles we are still spending less for gas plus reducing dependence on foreign oil.

When we go to a car dealership and drive off the lot with a 14MPG vehicle we have told the auto industry gas mileage does not matter.

But, when those inefficient vehicles sit on the lot unsold, we have told the auto industry gas mileage does matter and they will act accordingly.

The government has Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards which is great and needed.  But the consumer can do more by making gas mileage one of the main criteria for buying a car.

So, how can we change gas prices?  We can reduce demand.  Don't complain about gas prices, complain about gas mileage.  

 

Anti "Anti" Campaign

We are in the midst of the presidential election and the Republican National Convention just finished up.  I didn't watch it but have caught bits of it on different online news sources, also caught the reactions on social networks, and what I am noticing bothers me.  On both sides of the political aisle, the chatter is all anti-other-party and I don’t recall any political person being “pro" anything.

Can it be that we’ve come to a point where all we really have is a two-party government run by people whose main drive is solely to be against the other party?  Yes, I know each side has a platform with talking points, but that’s not what I’m hearing or seeing.  And isn't it the rhetoric and behavior which truly defines what a party values?

I'll be upfront and disclose I tend towards the liberal side.  (Friends and family are at this point sarcastically saying, "Really?")  So I tend to follow more liberal news sources, blogs, twitter, etc.  One source I started following is written by a Christian Democrat.  After my Inherit The Wind post, I became more interested in the Christian Democratic perspective, thinking maybe a Christian who was Democrats would have positive things to say.  Well, it was more of the same; negative; us vs. them.  I don't think I have seen a single positive or constructive comment coming from that writer yet.  The Christian Democrat writer’s sole purpose seems to be to spew the same negative rhetoric back at their opponents that their opponents are spewing.  Which doesn't strike me as very Christian-esque.

But, before I start throwing too many stones, I’ll admit that I trend towards behaving in the same negative way.  It is so much easier and maybe more exhilarating to be angry, to be against something, than it is to be for something.  A fight is always exciting and easy to get emotionally caught up in.

But it doesn't take a huge intellectual leap to see the flaw in this approach, not only in our government, but our lives, too.

I was talking to someone about this recently, and they gave me a Mother Teresa quote, "I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there."  And I thought, That’s it!  That’s the direction I want to go.  That is the rhetoric of the party I want to vote for.

Isn't the idea of being positive and pro-something-- pro-anything-- better than being against everything?

And before you say it’s only semantics, let me point out that “war” is life-destructive and negative, and “anti-war” is angry and negative, but “pro-peace” is positive and life-affirming. Just think about what the two rallies would be like.  An “Anti-war” rally would be lots of loud angry slogans and hate-filled speeches, whereas a “Pro-peace” rally could be equally loud, but it wouldn’t be angry or hateful.  Nobody can focus on peace and remain angry or hateful; anger and hate are the opposites of peace.

When I heard a Republican congressman say, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President", that closed the Republican door for me.  If, instead, I’d heard, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is to work with the current administration to achieve our platform objectives for the betterment of America and our constituents," I’d have been on board.  I like many of the Republican platform points.  I like many of the Democrats platform points.  But I almost always vote third party because I don't like how either party behaves. 

I don't think Mother Teresa would have liked seeing America’s current “anti” political campaigns, and she may not like an anti-anti campaign but that's the catchiest title I could come up with.  What I’d really like to see is a political system that-- instead of being focused on defeating the other guy at any price-- is focused on what’s good for our country and its people.

Update on "The Infinite Jeff" progress

New Cover

This is the newest version of the cover.  It is still the same image but modified slightly and more character has been given to the cover text. Thanks to Nate Wallis of Broken Star Studios for his work on the cover design. The  photo is by Timothy K Hamilton.

 

I am looking for some feedback, so if your comments aren't too bad you can leave them here.  If you have very critical things to say and don't want to say them in public you can contact me directly at theinfinitejeff @ gmail.com (no spaces). 

Part 2 Update

Part 2 is moving along nicely and we hope to get it to the copy editor very soon.  Once that is done there will be one more pass with some trusted beta readers to attempt to catch the last typos before it goes to a wider audience.  I know part one ended at a cliff hanger so I want to get this out so everyone can sleep peacefully at night knowing Stanley is okay.

Part 1 Feedback

Thanks to everyone who has read part one and given me feedback.  I should have asked for permission to use comments I received.  I may do that and update this post.  They have been overwhelmingly positive.  "I loved it" was a common phrase.  If you read it and are okay with me using your comments please let me know.

If you have not read part one you can find it at Smashwords: The Infinite Jeff - Part One

Inherit The Wind

My wife and I went and saw the play Inherit the Wind a little while ago.  A friend of ours who we have both done many plays with was in it.  It was an outstanding show which fictionalizes the Scopes Monkey trial.  Our friend played Matthew Harrison Brady, the three time presidential candidate and adamant prosecutor of the teacher who broke the Tennessee law by teaching Darwin's theory of evolution. 

As I was watching the play I wanted to know more about the real life characters and story, so I pulled it up on my Android.  Isn't it great we live in a time where knowledge is instantly available?  What I learned surprised me.  The character, Matthew Harrison Brady, a deeply religious, famous high power lawyer, who so personally took issue with evolution being taught in a public school that he himself took the part of prosecutor, was portraying the real life William Jennings Bryan. Wikipedia says Bryan was a "dominant force in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party."  So, what was a left wing Democratic Christian ideology is nowadays a conservative right wing Republican Christian ideology?  This shocked me.  How did ideologies move so far?  I had heard before that the Democratic party used to be the party the Christian would go to but now it is the Republicans.  This got me thinking more about that shift.

I have never understood the alignment of Christianity with the Republicans.  While growing up it was explained to me that Republicans were the pro-business party and the Democrats were the pro-people party, protecting us from big business. Yes, I know those are simplistic categorizations but that basic teaching from my youth still plays a role in defining the parties.  But even with a broader look at the parties, what platforms align better with Christian values? James 1:27 says "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."  That sounds a lot like helping the poor and needy, a pro-people party's values.

Granted, our social welfare system is a mess and I believe it enables some people to live lives off of a system without returning anything to that system.  It needs to be rethought and revised but at the same time, it does help many people who need the help.  I have had friends and family who have been on food stamps and other programs to get them through rough times and now they are working again, paying taxes and supporting the system that supported them in a time of need.  What a blessing that was for them.  I quit teaching because it didn't pay enough (that is a whole nother topic) and went back to college and my wife went back to college at the same time.  We got Pell grants and low interest student loans.  And now I have a much higher salary and can give even more to the system that helped me take a positive step forward. What a blessing that was for me and my family. So the system can be used by the people that truly need it but it can be abused by some that don't.  Sounds as humanly flawed as any system we have ever come up with.

When I ask Christians aligned with the Republican party why they support it, inevitably the first answer is abortion.  I think abortion is a terrible thing also, and let's just make a blanket statement that abortion is something we should avoid and move to the next most popular answer I have heard from Christian Republicans: morality.  Stop right there!  Whose morality are we going to legislate?   There are some white areas, murder, stealing, but it gets very grey very fast. If we are going to legislate morality then we can get to the point that burqas are required.  That is a moral issue in many people's views so it is as valid to legislate that as it is to legislate on same sex marriage.  But let's move to the third issues that the Christians I have spoken to give to align to the Republican party.  Well, the list ends there.  Many can't even give reasons other than emotional ones. "The Democrats are destroying the country." Refer back to reasons one and two for the how on that.  This devalues the Republican party to a one issue party or a marginal two issue party.   Personally, I like much of the Republican platform, I just don't like the Republicans.  I like much of the Democratic platform, too and the Democrats are marginally more tolerable than the Republicans.  Personally, I usually vote third party because of the senselessness of the main two parties.

The title of the play mentioned at the start comes from Proverbs 11:28. "He that troubles his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart."  As I see it, we have many calling themselves Republicans who are inheriting the wind.  This presidential election is straining my understanding of human's ability to reason.  The Democrats have Obama, United Church of Christ (aka: Christian) and Biden, Catholic (aka: Christian).  The Republicans have Romney, a Mormon.  I have plenty of friends and family who fall into the right wing conservative Christian category and up until recently, if you asked if Mormons were Christians the answer would have been an adamant  "Hell no!"  Now we have Paul Ryan, his VP running mate, who is a Catholic (aka: Christian) but a strong follower of Ayn Rand.  Ayn Rand, an atheist, is know for a philosophy directly contrary to any Christian teaching.  Take the sermon on the mount, turn it 180 degrees and you have Ayn Rands teachings.  Yet this is who Paul Ryan sites as his main influence.  More disturbing is that the conservative Christians are still on board with the Republicans and still calling Democrats immoral.  The party helping the poor, orphans, widows, environment is the the immoral party and the party enabling the rich, driving a destructive energy policy for corporate gain, restricting personal rights is the moral party.  Friends, we are inheriting the wind.

I do not pretend to be right or have all the answers.  Where you see I am wrong please calmly and rationally explain why.  I will truly listen to what you have to say.  I encourage a civil discussion on this because I am beside myself in disbelief and would like to understand the rational driving what I see as insanity. Please avoid terms that set people off and just explain your position.  If I have used terms that are offensive and may set you off please look past my ignorance and do a better job than I have of civil discourse.  I look forward to having a deeper understanding.





  

What you say?

My wife and I watched a very bad movie recently and it seemed the film makers felt they could make it better if it was laced with profanity.  I mean, it didn't serve a purpose, didn't drive the plot,  wasn't for shock value, didn't emphasize tense or emotional points in the story.  It didn't even serve one of the main reasons people use to justify profanity in a movie, "That's how people in <name the setting> actually talk."  As far as I could tell it was there to give the movie an 'R' rating.

I remember when I was in my late teens, working as a dishwasher at a restaurant, I said something to one of my co-workers and he looked at me.  He said that was the first time he had ever heard me swear.  I had never really thought about it.  In no way was I a well behaved kid in those days but I won't list the ways.  My parents or kids may read this and they don't need to know the things I did.  I was a follower and like most teenagers, I wanted to be cool and accepted.  But I guess that never included trying to impress people with my lack of language skills.  Like I said, I hadn't really thought of it up to that point. 

Currently, I am writing my first novel.  So, language has taken on a new importance in my life.  As I was writing a scene where "That's how people in biker bars" talk, I found I didn't want to put that language in there.  It would be justified because, that's how people in biker bars talk, but I fought the urge and in the end wrote around it.  Consequently the concept of profanity has been on my mind lately.

I was talking to a couple of very intelligent writers lately, who don't mind profanity in their writing and brought this up.  There were a couple of themes about the topic.  One, words are words.  We as humans assign meaning and we as humans make words naughty or nice.  Words are tools of the craft.

Well ... I don't know. That doesn't seem like a complete answer to me.  I went to the ultimate source for answers.  Sadly,  when I did the Google search today when writing this I couldn't find the link I really found interesting.  Basically, it said, the brain processes profanity in a completely different place of the brain than other words.  It comes from the automatic parts of the brain which is why, when you stub your toe, you are likely to say ouch or s*** rather than,  "The quality of this experience is less than optimal."  So, we can say words are words but our brain thinks they are different.

Another theme is that words are tools.  I love tools.  I have a garage floor full of them.  When I was in high school autoshop, the Snap-On truck came and I bought a 13mm combination wrench;  the main wrench anybody working a 1970's VW Beetle needs.  I paid a good sum at the time for it but it is a marvelous tool.  Thirty years later, that wrench is in my tool box and not on my garage floor.  I go through screw drivers like mad and buy more packages of them at Harbor Freight.  If I had a Snap-On screw driver I would be able to tell you right where it was but those things are expensive.  If language is a tool then we are in great luck!  It doesn't cost me anymore to use high quality words than it does to use cheap words.  We have a language full of Snap-On words so why use Harbor Freight words?