To be a Capitalist and an Environmentalist at the Same Time?

[Windguy]

So far what we've seen is the non AGW crowd thinking it is a big conspiracy to force more money out of people and companies and to create a heavily socialist economy. From the AGW crowd, they are actually saying it is true and should be done. But no one is really thinking of the other benefits that could come from changing society.

I believe there is three things, if made free, will help create endless productivity within a nation. Those three things are free energy, free communication and free transport (fuel). Maybe an impossible task, but I believe not. I had an idea going back a year and a half now on how we can get to that ultimate goal rather quickly and save the planet at the same time.

Money is just a bunch of figures on a piece of paper. It's how you throw them around that you can get the best results for it. People do it with their credit cards all the time. Now the planets economy is in boom time, this would be perfect to implement now and it will help remove that bust scare that occurs when the economy peaks. Hopefully for a few more years where the bust will not negatively impact upon jobs no more.

Housing interest rates are the brake upon growth. It stops uncontrolled growth leading to a bust. The problem is the rates rise, the poor hurt the most. It's like chucking an anchor out with a fifty yard rope to stop a moving car. The rich then feed off the poor by buying their houses at discount prices and to curtail their fortune rising the interest rates have to soar to more gargantuan heights.

Our ultimate goal is to fill a countries power supply with 100% renewable energy, create no cost to nearly all people, receive free electricity, etc.. etc.. etc..

To start off with is a compulsory tax is added to each house sold to the value of 20%. So a house sold at $300,000 (average for Australia) would give $60,000 tax. So it actually sold at $360,000. That tax is used for a combination of solar, geothermal and wind energy where maintenance is kept to a minimum. The rest (maybe a 70/30 split) is invested in a fund and used for maintenance and upgrading when necessary.

Now that household will get free electricity (with a fair use policy based upon the tax handed over) and have a house loan based on the green reserve rate, not the normal reserve rate. The green reserve rate will be 2 percentage points lower than the normal reserve rate. So what you'll find is over a 25 year loan the repayments will be about the same before and after the change.

What is also beneficial is the tax is only once upon each house. So once the house is sold and the tax is collected that house is classed as a green house for the rest of it's life. That green house status gives free electricity and even if sold on later still has the new owners paying by the green reserve rate. So that means once houses have paid that tax, then they keep their value rather than dropping back to their old value. The tax is only once per house.

So in the end only banks will lose out, but that can happen through fluctuating reserve rates anyway. But they won't lose as they will gain extra business as they gain extra loans to fulfil the extra demand to go green. Governments can lower their taxes upon banks as banks increase their profits due to increased loans, for which will minimise losses to all parties.

Spare electricity is on sold to businesses (even though there could be a business version of this) as profit as most of the technology is paid upfront on the build and install and is fairly close to set and forget.

The main aim then would be to make enough electricity to help either produce hydrogen or charge vehicle batteries. Since both can easily utilise fluctuations in electricity, they don't need the base load as guarantee supply so can be highly effective in taking the excess "cream". Petrol stations become hydrostations and they make their hydrogen onsite from piped water and electricity therefore eliminating drilling, shipping, refining, transportation etc.. I would say hydrogen should be for free, but it can still be sold per litre, to pay for extra renewable, until there is enough to become free.

Water can be desalinated and electricity produced by mirrors aimed at a small inland lake (you would need a double reflection) filled with sea water under a glass tower where the water boils off, drives a turbine and comes out clean on the other side. Mirrors beats solar cells in efficiency.

This idea was thought about in far more indepth than this but it is just checks and balances trying to eliminate all forms of rorting. When I had the chance to say it to an MP, I had five minutes for which the excuse was that several parties, departments would have to be involved which would make a complicated mess. Besides they were never going to introduce another tax again (the GST nearly killed them). Well the IR laws they introduced will send them onto the streets this time anyway.

Obviously this isn't my total plan as I didn't cover all three but this will create discussion.

[Richard]

So the house would cost more but the buyer would pay the same? Surely someone somewhere must lose out though.

[Windguy]

Yes, but where? Even the losers will win (and that is not the fussy wussy feeling of doing good either).

It is borrowing from the future, but because of the borrowing the future becomes far richer so can easily cover it's debt.

Do you think this idea will have legs if refined better?

[spadlet]

It assumes that all homes are in locations with good renewable generation potential. This is not the case for every country in the world. If you include businesses as well (factories can require large ammounts of energy) then it would be limited by the available resources for renewables generation.

Is the mirror idea different to the potential for desalinating water through the electrolysis of sea water? The theory goes that sea water is electrlysed using electiricity from PV pannels, creating oxygen and hydrogen (and I guess maybe sea salt) as usefull products. The oxygen and hydrogen can then be used as portable fuels which will produce fresh water from a fuel cell. The water can then be collected and purified if neccessary. It's only a theory though at the moment,

[forfi]

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...adu_desal.html

http://www.uic.com.au/nip74.htm

Nuclear desalination


and how can I check to see if i am a capitalist? is there a blood test or hair sample way of doing this ?

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by spadlet

It assumes that all homes are in locations with good renewable generation potential. This is not the case for every country in the world. If you include businesses as well (factories can require large ammounts of energy) then it would be limited by the available resources for renewables generation.

Is the mirror idea different to the potential for desalinating water through the electrolysis of sea water? The theory goes that sea water is electrlysed using electiricity from PV pannels, creating oxygen and hydrogen (and I guess maybe sea salt) as usefull products. The oxygen and hydrogen can then be used as portable fuels which will produce fresh water from a fuel cell. The water can then be collected and purified if neccessary. It's only a theory though at the moment,

No I don't, yes solar panels can be put on the roof of the house, but the renewables can be built anywhere, within reason for that country. It just means that green houses electricity are made for free for that house. By creating a massive demand for renewables you can see the potential new technologies emerge where electricity can be made from nearly any place on the planet. To a "full uptake" could take twenty years or more so it would force companies to aggressively invent to win the next contract from the government when they wish to install more renewables.

A university in Australia was working on what you were saying about solar panels. They are supposebly cheaper solar panels than normal silicon cell. The guy announced all of Australia could be on 100% renewables rather cheaply through his technology. He just has to get a full water pipe network of sea water flowing over everyones houses to create the hydrogen. (this is assuming everyones houses had his solar panels on our roof tops). I'm still guessing wind and the standard electrolysis would be cheaper for producing hydrogen at the moment, but you can see self sufficient houses needing only sea water flowing to them to produce their own supply of storagable (is that a real word?) energy and drinking water. They can just salt the next door neighbours rose bushes because they tend to sticky beak too much for their liking. Forfi would be in on that one! I am going to chase up an avatar, and it is going to be a can of flyspray.

[forfi]

Originally Posted by Windguy

Forfi would be in on that one! I am going to chase up an avatar, and it is going to be a can of flyspray.

A where can I sign up?
B Noooooooo thats my re-incarnated aunty mary and it will make your monitor all gooey
C I still don't know if I 'm a capitalist or not.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by Windguy

No I don't, yes solar panels can be put on the roof of the house, but the renewables can be built anywhere, within reason for that country. It just means that green houses electricity are made for free for that house.

So it will only apply to houses that have decent renewable energy generation potential? I ask because there are people in England that have had to be refused a wind turbine from suppliers because they really don't have any wind at the bottom of their valley so they will not get much electricity generated. Also in the bottom of valleys they may suffer from over shaddowing by the hills, reducing their solar resource. I'm not convinced that it would work for all homes in the UK. I could just be a bit cynical.

If it's only going to be applicable to some houses it sounds like an extension of the current UK planning regulations that require a certain percentage of the energy needs of new build developments (that are over a certain size) to come from renewable sources, unless it can be proven that there is not an adequate resource for renewable generation. So you would be extending it to cover all houses sold and for generation to be the maximum available at the site, rather than a fixed percentage. Am I wrong?

It does sound like an interesting idea though and it would be great if it worked.

[R33]

The first post on here that is actually though provoking - I doff my cap

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by spadlet

So it will only apply to houses that have decent renewable energy generation potential? I ask because there are people in England that have had to be refused a wind turbine from suppliers because they really don't have any wind at the bottom of their valley so they will not get much electricity generated. Also in the bottom of valleys they may suffer from over shaddowing by the hills, reducing their solar resource. I'm not convinced that it would work for all homes in the UK. I could just be a bit cynical.

If it's only going to be applicable to some houses it sounds like an extension of the current UK planning regulations that require a certain percentage of the energy needs of new build developments (that are over a certain size) to come from renewable sources, unless it can be proven that there is not an adequate resource for renewable generation. So you would be extending it to cover all houses sold and for generation to be the maximum available at the site, rather than a fixed percentage. Am I wrong?

It does sound like an interesting idea though and it would be great if it worked.

A house sold is taxed $60,000. That money is split up so you can maximise the power output whilst gaining a guarentee base loading output. That mean a windmill built in the north of England is powering a house south of England. And so on.

A 1 million dollar windmill at 2Mw would only need 25 houses worth at $40000, to help power 750+ houses. There is another $500,000 to be invested and the interest to pay for all of it's maintenance.

Now windmills are one of the cheapest renewables and need to be balanced by more reliable solar and geothermal sources. So there will be another 725 houses worth of investment money to spread to all forms of renewables. Every house is connected to the grid so it doesn't matter where in your country the electricity is produced for you. The main onus is on the governments and planners to ensure the maximum producable amount of electricity with a decent base loading. So if you live in a valley with no wind or decent sunshine then you won't be able to see what your green house tax has gone to, except you receive free electricity.