Alternative Energy Education

Learn more about Alternative Energy Education at the website RouhNeckChronicles.com.

Q: Where can I get an Alternative Energy education?
I have my A.S. Degree in radiologic technology, but I want to get in on the ground floor of this Business.

A: At AltE we are passionate about renewable energy. Our AltE University classes are one way we share this passion with folks and encourage the widespread use and safe installation of renewable energy systems in your personal and professional lives. Each year we offer a range of workshops that are aimed at helping the homeowner become an informed consumer; the do-it-yourself-er proudly install their own system; and the professional work toward certification. We are pleased to announce that as of May 15, 2009, our 300 level courses are ISP accredited. AltE U is one of thirteen organizations in the country who meet these high quality standards. Our 300 level training classes count toward NABCEP educational requirements. We are also an approved provider of the NABCEP Entry Level Certificate of Knowledge Exam. Check out our full list of classes and their descriptions.

Q: Who is doing renewable energy education? How are you accomplishing the task? What are you focused on?
I am researching the current energy and renewable energy issues facing the world. The task is very extensive and complicated. Each region has renewable energy opportunities that can be important to environmental issues, economic development, and social needs for all humans. Government agencies, industry, agriculture, educational and research organizations are focused upon massive research efforts. This seems to provide a way to share information, thoughts and ways to help people to improve our lives by conserving energy, find alternative energy resources and realize that fossil fuels are depleting and non-renewable. Can renewable energy be a way to produce additional energy? Networking can provide valuable information to further the advancement of changing habits about energy. I am a farmer with a background in sustainable energy and educational degrees in agriculture. A sustainable energy for industrial and developing countries can improve the quality of life of all human beings.

A: wow – i’ve already done my college work… sorry – i don’t feel like doing yours.

Q: Why the govn’t does not invest 700B$ in education, heath care, alternate energy but bailout the banks instead?
I mean the role of the banking system and the capital market is supposed to funnel capital sectors that are good investment. The recent banking crisis can be attributed to the failure of this system to allocate money to where is needed, but rather over allocated to an excess sector like housing. Bailout will violate the principle of free market but saving a system that made serious mistake. Why not the government take control with direct investment in education, health care, alternative energy to create jobs and economic activities instead of saving a failed banking system? Many countries after the WWII such as Japan has government controlled strategic investment and produce good economic results. Is bailout of the banks really a solution that make sense or just because the politics? can someone explain to me?

A: The roll of the banking system to really to provide credit, not provide capital to fund sectors in the economy.

“An important part of the Federal Reserve’s statutory mandate is promoting the availability of credit throughout the banking system.”

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/Kroszner20070613a.htm

Banks loan money based on risk models. Clearly their models failed miserably. They over lent in the real estate market and assumed two things.

1. Real estate prices can never go down.
2. Interest rates can never go up.

The FED Funds rate went from 1.00% on 06-25-2003 to 5.25% 06-29-2006 – a 425% rate increase. This killed the real estate market.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/fundsrate.htm

Anyone with adjustable rates were severely impacted. And millions got signature loans, leveraged phantom equity in their house and bought more real estate.

Thus I have to respectfully disagree with the statement that, “The recent banking crisis can be attributed to the failure of this system to allocate money to where is needed.” That would not be the role of banks.

Banks PRIMARY business is lending in the area of home and commercial real estate. The stock market provides capital to new and expanding business that banks do not want to take such risk.

Yes, a bailout would violate the principles of a free market.

However, the risk to the US banking system and hence the US economy are a far greater risk. We, as consumers cannot afford to allow massive banks failures. The result could be huge unemployment 30%+, soaring inflation/ interest rates (25-30%+), and a plunge in the US Dollar, further escalating inflation (everything will get expensive fast). This would make The Depression look like an e-Ticket at Disneyland.

Taking government control over the entire economy would be called Socialism. We would be looking at income taxes like most socialist countries who pay ~50% on income taxes with no deductions no matter how much you make. Socialists’ counties also pay 40-50% in sales tax. That is why people don’t drive luxury cars in mass in Europe, have big screen TV’s, as they do in the USA. Europe also pays double what we pay for gas. It’s the high EU socialistic taxes that everyone has to pay to live in socialists countries.

They also live what we would call apartments or very small housing in comparison. There are exceptions, but they are not common place like they are in the US.

Sure you get health care and education free, but it really isn’t free, because Europeans pay for those social programs via higher taxes. That is why we left Great Britain 232 years ago. Why would we go back to that program?

The USA spends more on education than any country in the world. We have more government sponsored universities, state schools, junior colleges, and K-12 than any anyone.

The USA spends about $ 1.25 Trillion (2007) on entitlement programs (welfare, social security, Medicare, and other related social programs). This amount will increase rapidly every year as more baby boomer retire and collect social security and need medicine.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7851/03-08-Long-Term%20Spending.pdf

The government should allow tax breaks and other incentives to get PRIVATE money into alternative energy.

The US should use and develop our own energy which we have and could develop, but no one wants a nuclear power plant in their home town.

As a result of that “Toxic Substances Control Act” (Clean Air Act), [15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq]. we have not had a single new oil refinery built in the USA (for our own domestic oil benefit) since 1976.

Toxic Substances Control Act

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html

“There hasn’t been a new refinery built in the U.S. since 1976, the result of extremely tight environmental restrictions, not-in-my-back-yard community opposition, and the high cost of new construction.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6019739/

The government’s role is not to create jobs. That thinking would be shared by socialists. The gov can lay the foundation and set up the rules for the private sector to create jobs.

Japan obviously went through a bit of restricting since WWI, but so did the rest of the world. Japan is the #2 economy after the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan

Japan has not recovered in 19 years from the housing bust of 1989. The Nikkei-225 Index (Japan’s major market index) is still down about 50% from their 1989 high.

“The (Nikkei-225) average peaked at 38,915.87 points on December 29, 1989.”

http://www.nni.nikkei.co.jp/FR/SERV/nikkei_indexes/nifaqs.html

Chart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikkei_225

“Bailout”
So is a bailout of US banks a solution? Yes, it is a solution. Is it the only solution, no.

Keep in mind that despite incorrect belief, the US tax payer is not just handing out a $700 billion check to banks.

We would be buying up real estate ASSETS with that money, but not all at once. Homeowners would pay the gov for their mortgage. After 25-30 years, hopefully real estate price would be higher then, verses now. Then the US gov could and would sell those properties at current market prices. Any gain would go to the Treasury (the tax payers).

If structured correctly, the amount of money the tax payer could make could pay for a lot in the future.

If housing grows at just 3% a year for the next 30 years (assume 30 year mortgage) on average, that $700 Billion would grow to $1.699 Trillion.

http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/compound_interest_calculator.htm

This does not include the interest earned by tax payers on the mortgages.

In addition, I think it would be wise if the government REQUIRES all banks who participate in this “bailout” to GIVE the Treasury (the tax payers) rights or warrants and or Senior Preferred Stock (legal term is “Senior Liquidation Preference”) to own part of the bank’s stock. So if the bank makes money in the future, the Treasury (the tax payers) make a profit off their stock.

Senior Liquidation Preference
“A series of preferred stock has a “senior” liquidation preference when it is entitled to receive its liquidation preference before another series of preferred stock. “

http://www.fenwick.com/vctrends/VC_Terms.htm

Preferred Stock

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/preferredstock.asp

I think this is a fair risk exchange for the Treasury (the tax payers) to take on all the bad banking decisions. So now we have several ways for tax payers to make money on their investment.

1. Rights, warrants, and or Senior Preferred Stock of ownership in such banks we bail out. Preferred stocks often pay quarterly dividends. We make money while we wait for a return on our $700 Billion investment. We profit on the banks growth in their stock price, when banks earn money in the future. We lose nothing if they don’t.

Banks can pay the Treasury a PREMIUM now, for the right to buy back the stock, warrants, etc, issued to the US Gov at a profit say 50%. I figure as long as the bank doesn’t fail in the future, the stock should easily have grown by 50% over 30 years.

Wachovia is up 87% (interday trading, 09-30-08 ) one day after they were taken over by the FDIC and handed to Citigroup.

2. We make interest on existing mortgages we bought with that $700 Billion. Some will default, yes, but tax payers get the house to hold or sell it for cash.

3. Mortgages that are held to maturity, (25-30 years from now) tax payers get fair market value of home prices in the future. That alone should pay off the investment. But I still think we should penalize the banks for making bad decisions, and say if you want tax payers to take on this investment, we want part ownership with the opportunity to share in the profits of your good assets too.

This is exactly how the Citibank – Wachovia deal was structured with the FDIC.

Video

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=871751416

Summary:
“Citigroup has granted the FDIC $12 billion in preferred stock and warrants to compensate the FDIC for bearing this risk.”

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2008/09/29/daily11.html?ana=from_rss

So, how the proposed bailout is structured will answer this question. And how the markets react to it, will be the “final answer.”

It would be nice if we could get all the billions of unnecessary pork barrel spending OUT of any bailout bill. This is Congress taking advantage of taxpayers in order to save the banking system. This is not a time to fund billions in “pet projects” during an election year.

Congress and the media need to sell this idea to taxpayers in these more realistic financial terms and not just (incorrectly) paint it as a “tax payer bailout of Wall Street.”

Q: Why did Republicans vote against tax breaks and alternative energy?
Senators failed to reach 60 votes needed to end GOP blockage of a bill providing $55.5 billion over 10 years in business, education, personal, and energy tax breaks. A yes vote was to advance a bill (HR 6049), which includes allocating $18 billion to developing alternative fuels.
Raven Claw, you didn’t answer the question. The question is why Republicans, who want to lower taxes, failed to give tax breaks. And why are they opposed to helping with alternative energy today when people are complaining about high fuel costs?
“Punishing them to…forcing them to…”? What? By giving them money to do it? I don’t follow that logic at all.
Senate blocks debate of clean energy tax credits

http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/hr_6049

A: Simple, they put the interests of the oil companies and the car manufacturers above that of the general public. They have nothing to gain by passing the bill but have everything to gain by pampering to a few individual corporations.

Q: Environmentalist and Everyone Else Would This Compromise work for US Energy Independence???
For those that believe in Global Warming and those that don’t, would you be open to a compromise something like this…
We open up Alaska and offshore areas for oil exploration in the US
We also allow the oil companies to begin full scale oil shale production
-The US contains 1-2 Trillion barrels of oil in this form
-800 billion barrels currently economically feasible due to new technology
-Majority of it is on Federal lands so the US would get royalties from oil shale (lots of extra money for the government to spend on programs such as alternatives, schools etc)
Allow more coal liquification, which is the process of turning coal into oil
-We have tons of coal and could easily use some of that to produce oil
In turn…
We invest more in alternatives such as Wind, Solar and other forms
We also invest heavily in carbon sequestering technology (Takes the CO2 in the air or whatever is filtered and pumps it deep into the ground for storage, basically putting the CO2 from oil and coal that was burned back where it came from to lower level)
-This would also be implemented in coal powered plants  clean coal
We would increase the amount of conservation land
Would increase the required MPG per vehicle in the US quicker than the current rate
-Would increase conservation
More environmental cleanup projects would be funded heavily to reverse the effects of already damaged areas.

Enacting all this at once would allow a quick drop in the price of gas/oil since even as the oil companies have said, the price of oil should be at about $60-70/barrel if not for speculators raising the price, so when more oil reserves are opened up it should drop at least somewhat on anticipation of greater future supply. That would lower the price of transportation fuel thus saving everyone money and keeping the costs of other goods such as food from continuing to rise… saving everyone money. In addition in 5-10 years the newly opened oil reserves will be up and operational and be providing the US with a much larger % of its own energy so it will have to rely on volatile places like the middle east much less. You figure we have spent $1.5 trillion on Iraq which is in part, how much you can argue some where else, but in part do to our need to protect the oil supply over there. Imagine if we can have enough of our own supply which we do to basically rely on ourselves and our neighbor Canada (our #1 supplier of oil). Forget goin to war over there and spend some of that money to make things better at home via education, alternative energy etc. You can do a lot by eliminating much of that cost of guarding the middle east oil.
So yes we would be doing some more environmental damage, but not a ton more plus we would be spending a bunch more to fix that and to repair the damage that has been done. We would also be bridging the gap from now to 15-20yrs from now when an alternative energy is ready to completely replace oil as our transportation energy source. We would have lower prices til then so would not be hurt in our wallets and overall I think it would be a solid compromise. What do you think?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121201723656327625.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=16608
US Oil Imports
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/images/EC_2_lg.gif
US Energy Consumption by Source
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/images/EC_3_lg.gif
US Energy Consumption Chart
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/images/EC_4_lg.gif
US Pollution per Dollar of GDP
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/images/EC_6_lg.gif
US Oil Shale Research Study Report
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf
im just interested in if the environmental people would give at all or are basically arms folded my way or im gonna sulk, which from the answers seems to be the case.

A: excellent question, & well presented.
there are no technical barriers to prevent us from supplying ALLof our energy needs from within our own borders.
the only barriers have been political & economic.
as others have mentioned we can make oil from coal & we have been making high test aviation gasoline from natural gas for 70 years now.
we also have huge reserves of oil shale & heavy oil that has to be extracted with steam or solvent.
as long as oil was under $60 per barrel it was easier to buy it from other countrys than to make the large long term investments necessary to develop these more expensive resources.
oil is now above $130 per barrel. it is sure to continue rising & we can expect our supply to be interupted by some events in the next 10 to 20 years & more wars to be fought over it.
as our economy & way of life are now totaly dependent on oil, I believe the obstructionists that have been blocking the development of these un utilized resources(including nuclear power) for the past 30 years will be ignored & pushed aside because of necessity.
even so we are going to have some tough times ahead for the next 10 years or so untill we can start getting meaningful production from the new sources.

Q: Isn’t the search for the cure for cancer a lot like the search for alternative energy?
I think Obama should watch the special tonight on the major networks concerning cancer. He might learn that throwing trillions and trillions of dollars and literally millions and millions of hours by the absolute top medical minds in the world doesn’t guarantee success. So why would he ASSume that an alternative energy source to allow us energy independence is a given? Why not have a backup plan and drill? Maybe doctors should simply quit treating cancer until a cure is found. Wouldn’t that speed things up? Isn’t that what Obama and the Democrats are basically saying? Screw you until we find that alternative energy source we need?

The only possible, logical, sensible reason I could fathom that he would have not to allow for a backup plan is that he thinks that if we start drilling we’ll lose our will to find alternatives. Can’t he legislate it? He’s going to legislate taxation, education, health care, etc, etc, but he can’t legislate energy policy?

I don’t know what he’s thinking. My family is paying FAR too much for gas. Sure it’s cheaper than other places, but it’s far more expensive than many others too. Is that a reason? It’s cheaper than other places? I sincerely hope not.

I hope Obama watches the cancer special tonight and a light goes off and he stops pandering to environmentalists based on falsehoods and exagerations.

We need to treat the disease till we find a cure, not just let the patients suffer.

What are your thoughts?
Um, some of you don’t seem to understand. I am all for alternative energy, I just don’t think that Americans should be forced to suffer in the meantime. We’re not playing with you vacations plans here, we’re a country. While people use excuses like “there’s already enough oil” and “if we drill it will just go to China”, what difference does that make? So we should be paying Venezuela, Iran, Russia for THEIR oil? Does that make any sense? And while it would be nice if we had electric cars that could go 100mph, get 1000 mpg, and recharge in 10 minutes, it hasn’t happened yet. I think more people need to get in touch with the real world and not some Utopian dreamland.
hatian, if you bothered checking, Pickens supports drilling. If you’ve seen his commercial, with him speaking, in person, he says we should drill to help IN THE MEANTIME, you know, a backup plan. Right from the horse’s mouth. Oh, and alternative energy isn’t Obama’s plan, it’s both parties, the only difference is drilling, oh, and the fact that Republicans want to use nuclear energy, you know, clean energy.
aux, so we don’t really care about the poor and middle class, we care about the environment? If we drill we’re dooming ourselves to not finding alternative energy sources? I didn’t realize that McCain and Obama were so neutered to the point that they must follow history.
wow aux, I clicked on your link and now my laptop feels violated, lol. Couldn’t you find a more partisan website? I can’t believe people read garbage like that. Shocking…

A: The problem is that you are using logic. If you use logic then what the democrats say they want to do will not make sense. You’re not supposed to use logic, you’re supposed to use your feelings. Now that you are using your feelings, doesn’t it feel good to get rid of evil oil now, the planet has tears running down it’s face because we are so bad and we pollute with the oil. Just imagine how good you will feel to be part of the movement that gets rid of oil. Even if we fail, we can still feel good about trying so hard.

Q: Some on here say McCain=$ for war, Obama=$ for welfare, are these really our only options?
I mean really, how about education, alternative energy sources, ect. Welfare and war BOTH suck!!

A: I agree… though on the plus side, war can always bring new technology that can help out other areas. Just look at what war has done to our knowledge of Science, Math and Medicine in terms of education, and it also brought us nuclear energy for alternative sources of energy. What does welfare bring us? Absolutely nothing… personally, I would rather spend money of war with the chance we can create fusion energy or something else with military R&D funding, than to put money into welfare and pay for the lazy Americans who just don’t want ot get a job.

Q: If the federal government can help us get an education, can it help us get solar panels?
We believe that all Americans should be able to receive an education, so the federal government provides low interest loans to students. Now Americans are in need of alternative sources of energy to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So why doesn’t everyone just get solar panels? The price!! A solar system for a home can cost about $30,000!! The gov gives tax credits for such systems, but how does that help the average joe? So my question is: Would it be feasible for the federal or state government to provide low interest loans for families to purchase solar systems for their homes? If you think that this is feasible, then at which level ( fed or state) should this service be provided?

A: That is a very expensive way to produce electricity.

A $30,000 solar panel system installed on your home will have an annual production of electricity of about 4,000 kilowatt hours.

If you finance that with a loan at 6% interest (a very cheap interest rate) your annual interest cost is $1,800. That is 45 cents per kilowatt hour, which is very expensive for electricity.

You would be very unhappy with your local utility company if they charged you 45 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity.

If instead that money were spent on wind turbines, the cost of production of electricity is 4 cents per kilowatt hour using wind turbines. That is less than one tenth of the cost using solar photovoltaics.

I think that it makes much more sense for the government to fund electricity production by wind turbines because it is so much more cost effective.

Q: Done with the Iraq War. $1 billion a month available . How would you allocate this money? ?
Health insurance, education, infrastructure or developing alternative energy, not oil or clean coal.

A: There won’t be any “available” money, it’s all borrowed or printed. which just increases out national debt and interest payments. When we get out of Iraq, we’ll just have to borrow less than we do now.

Q: Could someone give me ideas on writing an arguement essay?
I have to write a research argument on one of the following topics.
*Alternative Energy
*The health care industry
*Education Funding
*Employment
*The environment
-I have no idea what to write about, help please, what would be the easiest to write about?

A: An argumentative essay requires you to take a stand and defend a position. So, ask yourself if you care about any of the topics. Do you have an opinion or and idea? Whatever you care about will be the easiest to write convincingly about. Are you worried about the resources your school lacks or the price of gas and global warming? It is always easier to do what interests you (and you will do a better job).

Q: Will the US continue to spend $600 billion dollars on our “peace time” defense budget into the future?
The 2008 Defense Budget is $600 billion more than 50% of the discretionary budget and more than federal spending on all other areas including alternative energy, children’s health care, education, the environment, homeland security, etc. This $600 billion does not include any funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also more than Russia, China, the Axis of evil and other potential threats combined.

A: If you’re going to force a a debate in this section you better bring facts with you.

I’m out’a here!

Q: Should the gvmt nationalize oil and coal industries to protect us from Global Warming?
Should the Federal Gvmt take over the oil and coal industries to better manage them with the focus on ending the threat of Global Warming?

If the gvmt did take over these industries, then the excess windfall profits could be used to fund alternative energy sources like solar and ethanol, mass transit, education and health care.

Wouldn’t this be a better use of natural resources than to let Exxon-Mobil rape and pillage the planet of our natural resources for their greedy and excessive profits?

Don’t you agree?

A: I love your sarcasm! The point is that the Government doesn’t do a great job running anything they do. And the private sector does do a better job with anything they touch. True there has been a learning curve when it comes to best practices where the environment is concerned, but I see the private sector stepping in on dealing with issues waaaay before the government even made up there minds on what to do.

Q: What are 2 strengths and 2 weaknesses that our country is doing well domestically and internationally?
I am writing a paper for my government class and think

weaknesses
-Education
-Unemployment
(the economy will mix into this, don’t worry)

strengths
-Alternative Energy Resources?
-Sad that its so difficult to think of strengths…

A: I think you have a great start. I just completed a study of international economics in an MBA program.

We studied that a US strength is it’s innovation, which is reflected in the US educational system. International students come to the US to learn American business. In contrast, other leading countries from England to Japan and the up and coming BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) economies are focused on repetition, memorization, and replication. If you are interested in medicine, you will note that most new drugs are developed in the US. You could look at other entrepreneurial characteristics like number of inventions/patents.

A response from Thomas Friedman (author of The World is Flat) or Harvard Business school professor Michael Porter (competitive advantages) would put your paper over the TOP!

Good luck!

Q: Is “tax and spend” better or worse than “borrow and spend”?
Both Obama and McCain have promised to cut “wasteful” spending – Obama with his scalpel, and McCain with his hatchet. But let’s face it, whether it’s on education, alternative energy, healthcare, or war, both are looking to spend new money.

I think that Obama has been a bit too vague about the specifics for what programs he’s looking to cut. At the same time, McCain’s spending freeze approach is a bit irresponsible and misleading (I doubt he’d stop funding troops, thus not technically a spending freeze).

I personally believe that it’s crazy to cut ANYONE’S taxes while fighting a prolonged war, let along TWO wars.

What’s your opinion?
*along = alone

A: They’re pretty much equal, since the taxpayer is paying for both regardless.

Q: How does warfare divert money from domestic social spending?
on things like elementary school education, college grants and loans, roads highways and bridges spending, border security, Food And Drug administration, research grants for alternative energy, etc….

If you are against spending money on americans here at home, isn’t it logical that you would prefer to spend money on warfare, and even give it away to other people in other countries than spend a dime of it here at home?

A: Do you always ask a question, and then give an answer to it?
Why not just ask and listen/read?

Related Posts