*Below are discussions of the following topics relating to our proposals for a U.S. Energy Policy.  They include: 1. the issues; 2. the plan; 3. Kyoto Protocol; 4. home energy reduction strategies; 5. house sharing;  6. solar power; 7. wind power; 8. water power; 9. “no” to future nuclear power production; 10. disposal plan for current high-level nuclear waste; 11. transportation.

energy policy

 

            “I don’t want my children, or anyone’s children, inheriting a world of ozone holes, global warming or acid rain,” Schriner added. –The Webster (MS) Progress-Times.

             1. the issues:

            We have an absolute obligation to ensure the common good, not only for this generation, but for generations to come.  What’s more, this is an obligation we’re called to, not only for our country, but the world.

 Bluffton College Environmental Science Professor Bob Antibus told me World Resource Institute statistics show “high income countries (like the U.S.)” use 5,440 kilograms of oil per person per year; whereas “low income countries (like Etheopia)” use 479 kilograms of oil per person per year.

            So as a start just in this area (and there are many), ‘equitable distribution’ of world resources is tremendously un-balanced.

            Coupled with this, America wastes a tremendous amount of energy.  For instance, central heating warms many vacant rooms during the course of a day.  The same goes for air-conditioning.  Not to mention, air conditioning (as with excessive heating) is often unnecessary.  However, in America we have ‘conditioned’ ourselves to think it is.

            What’s more, many of the rooms we’re heating, or cooling, could be insulated much better, sometimes by a factor of as much as 10.

Likewise, we’re now ‘plugged in’ to practically everything, using phenomenal (and often unnecessary) amounts of energy for televisions, computers, kitchen appliances, washers and driers…

            And to produce these latter items, and so many more, we are using huge amounts of energy at the factory.  In fact, Bowling Green State University Professor Jon Opperman, who is a Mechanical Design instructor and works with the Alternative Vehicles Department there, told me there is often more energy used to actually produce a car at the factory -- than will be used to power it during it’s lifespan!

            Then there is this motor vehicle phenomenon itself.  That is, we Americans drive billions of unnecessary miles each year.  And what’s more, there’s the vital question about what we’re burning to power these vehicles.

            A majority of what we’re burning, for almost all our energy needs in America, are highly polluting fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas…).  This has led to quite environmentally toxic acid rain, devastating global warming patterns, almost wholesale rape (strip mining, as an example) of the land, carcinogen laced air…

            Enough is enough!

            2. the plan: 

At an energy conference I attended at Antioch College, Pat Murphy, author of New Solutions, said that for the planet, and us, to have a chance, we have to shift from being a “society of consumers;” to being a “society of conservers.”   I agree with both of them.

            What is needed is a ‘high-energy,’ mass grassroots movement of people who become tremendously enthusiastic about the: “Art of Conserving” – on all levels of American society.  And as this evolves, it will take on a synergistic life of its own.  That is, neighbors will inspire neighbors, church members will inspire church members… about this: “new way.”

            In tandem, we also need a dramatic shift to using way more clean, renewable energy sources (wind, solar, water, biomass…) – now!

            In its initial stages of this shift, it will take national leadership to point to effective conservation models that are already in place.  And it is the same leadership that will provide incentives (government tax breaks, grants, loans…) to private industry for more research and development of clean, renewable energy technology.  And some of the same types of incentives would be provided to consumers -- in commercial and residential settings -- choosing to use these alternative technologies.

            Likewise, there would be a series of incentives to energy consumers to increase things like home and business insulation factors.  And there would be tiered government incentives for various levels of conservation of energy itself.

            *We have traveled the country extensively looking for highly creative, and effective, conservation models to help inspire, and underpin, this monumental change we propose.  And we found them.

            3. Kyoto Protocol

            As president, I would push to sign the Kyoto Protocol as quickly as possible.  The Kyoto Protocol is a series of uniform standards developed in the U.N. to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions (from factories, motor vehicles…).  And many European countries, for instance, have already signed the Protocol.  (What’s more, the U.S. is the leader in the release of this global warming gas.)

            And as president, I would go one better.

            In the pursuit of dramatically cutting down on greenhouse gases, I would push an initiative to establish criteria for: “Kyoto Protocol Home Zones.”  Tax breaks would be offered commensurate with how much a household cuts back on its energy use.  As a hypothetical:  If, say, a household cut back 15% in a year, they would get $1,000 in tax credits.  If they cut back 30%, they’d get $2,000 in tax credits, and so on.

            Financially, this would help in two respects.  The household would save money with the tax breaks, and it would save money on simply using less energy as well.

            4. home energy reduction strategies

            The following are some examples of strategies we’ve researched to cut back on energy consumption:

            At a stop in Nebraska City, Nebraska (pop. 6,500) we learned this town has undertaken a 10-year tree-planting program, where citizens intend to plant 10,000 trees throughout town.  Nebraska City’s Arbor Day Farm manager Chris Aden explained trees create oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and serve as wind breaks and shade around homes and businesses – which helps cut down considerably on artificial heating and cooling.

            In a seminar at Concord Grove Educational Center of Western Michigan, I learned America has a big problem with wasted energy from excessive lighting.  And a big issue is simply leaving lights on in rooms not being used.  (For every dollar spent on energy in a typical American home, 18 lbs of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere.)  I also learned that a compact fluorescent light lasts 13 times longer than a standard incandescent bulb – and uses one-fourth the energy.  What’s more, streetlights waste tremendous amounts of energy by shining sideways and up, as opposed to training the light straight down.

            At a series of energy conservation seminars in Huron, Ohio, I learned most homes could be much better insulated (more blown-in foam, much thicker fiberglass, better batting, radiant barriers…).  And besides outside wall insulation strategies, there is a variety of inside insulation strategies that can save significantly on energy.  As just one example, insulation sleeves around hot water heaters alone can save significant amounts of wasted energy each month.

            At Anathon Farm in Luck, Wisconsin, we learned about highly efficient (and natural) straw bale insulation in several new homes being constructed there.

            In Taos, New Mexico, we learned about “earth ships.”  Developer Mike Reynolds (who was featured in National Geographic for his architectural innovations) showed me a community of homes built into a side of a mountain here.  Each home’s back wall is, well, the mountain.  And the walls on either side are non-biodegradable, used tires stacked on top of each other.  Dirt is packed in the middle and around the outside of the tires, then regular building material is added to finish the interior and exterior facades – so you can’t even see the dirt.  The south sides of the homes are big windows for passive solar.

            Reynolds, who travels the country trying to promote variations of his “earth ship” model (using mountains, or no mountains), told me the “thermal-mass” of these homes is so thick -- little additional energy is needed to heat, or cool them.  What’s more, the people in this particular community in Taos have developed an ad hoc, “friendly competition” to be as environmentally sensitive as possible. They use solar powered-tools, collect rainwater, plant winter gardens inside, drive as little as possible…

            It is this kind of “energy consciousness synergy” our administration would try to inspire from neighborhood to neighborhood across the country.

            Also, the U.S. Department of Energy has created a rather detailed map of the U.S. that outlines climate zones and suggested, optimal R-value (resistance to heat flow) insulation factors needed in each zone.  (For instance, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming are in Zone 1; the Midwest states are in Zone 2; Hawaii and southern California are in Zone 6.)  Our administration would propose grants, loans and tax breaks to businesses and residences -- weighing the level of insulation being used, against the “suggested optimal insulation” for a particular climate zone.

            5. house sharing

            Another common sense energy conservation approach (and there would be even more tax breaks and other incentives for this) is that we’d try to inspire in a much more prolific way across the country: house sharing.  I told a reporter for the Delphos (OH) News Herald that when two families (or, say, a family and another individual) live in the same home, they share the same heated, or cooled, space.  (And this is a great way to start to reverse the environmental cancer of urban sprawl.)

            In Winona, Minnesota, we learned about a “Homeshare” project, as an example.  Mary Farrell explained people in the community are linked with homeowners who have specific needs.  For instance, Ms. Farrell and another single woman took up residence in an elderly woman’s home here.  They spell each other in watching the woman, doing house and lawn chores, etc.  (What’s more, Ms. Farrell is a Catholic Worker and has talked the landlady into using another of the vacant rooms in the house as a: “Christ Room” for homeless people in need.)

            In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, we know two families who are house sharing.  They not only share the same air, they share a car, appliances, furniture…  (Our family has house shared several times as well, and we have had a: Christ Room.)  The sharing of space, again, cuts down on energy consumption residentially, and the sharing of home items also cuts down on energy needed at America’s plants to produce these products.  (For our take on the paradigm shift that we believe needs to happen with America’s economy in general, see our: Economy Philosophy position paper.)

            6. solar energy

          As president, I would push to increase, exponentially, research and development on generating renewable, non-polluting forms of energy.  For instance, there is an unending supply of solar energy.

            A National Geographic article (Aug., 2005) on energy explained that currently solar power accounts for only 1% of energy production worldwide.  However, that’s changing with countries going to much more proactive programs with solar.  For instance, a “Solar Park” near Leipzig, Germany has 33,500 solar panels, one of the planet’s largest arrays, the article explained.  (Also in Spain, a law now requires new building to include solar energy applications.)

            In Burlington, Vermont we interviewed Doug Wells.  He is a representative of Solar Works in nearby Montpelier. He said solar technology has advanced considerably of late. And a recent breakthrough has been a new type of solar home system that actually allows for sending excess energy (generated by solar) into the grid – and the homeowner is reimbursed.  “Your meter actually starts to spin backwards,” said Wells.

            In Manchester, Michigan, we interviewed Christina Snyder who teaches a Sustainability Class at Lawrence Technical School in Southfield, Michigan.  The class had recently won a statewide competition for designing the best “Zero Energy Home,” utilizing a variety of creative passive, and active, solar applications   They incorporated: a solar hot water system; windows positioned to receive maximum sunlight in the house; photo-voltaic solar cells for the roof.  And instead of a high-energy use clothes dryer, the students designed a small second floor nook, with windows on both sides, for maximum air flow and sunlight – for a “clothes drying room.”

            In Ripley, Ohio, I interviewed a woman who had a solar cell panel installed on her roof.  The initial outlay was approximately $4,000 and, over the years, the solar cells had paid for themselves, and more (not to mention kept the environment cleaner as well).

            Now, we are aware that people on the lower end of the socio-economic strata in America would have a hard time covering the initial expense of, say, solar cells.  So we propose two things to help with some of this initial outlay:  1) An “Alternative Energy Federal Fund” to draw on for people that meet low-income criteria.  2) Local “Alternative Energy Funds” in each community to draw from as well.

            *In Atwood, Kansas (pop. 1,500), we researched the “Second Century Fund.”  Some 20 years prior, two citizens kicked in $10,000 a piece to start a fund to cover various town benevolent causes (road projects, park improvements, extra money for school text books, a Boy Scout Troupe needing extra money for a field trip…).  During the 20 years, the fund (with people donating out of civic responsibility, including leaving money in their wills, etc.) had accumulated almost $1 million. And the year we were there it covered a multitude of town projects costing some $71,000 – which was just the current yearly interest from the fund.

            Note:  A similar, local voluntary “Environmental Conservation Fund” could be started in any community to cover, say, seed money for low-income people who want to install things like solar cells, or wind turbines…

             7. wind energy

            Wind, like sunshine, is virtually endless.  And our administration would support initiatives to harness as much wind energy as possible.  (Denmark wind turbines generate some 20% of that country’s energy needs.  And all over Europe, governments are building in generous incentives to switch to wind, solar…)

            The National Geographic article alluded to earlier, said America’s Great Plains states are the: “Saudi Arabia of wind.”

            In these Great Plains, on the outskirts of Mandan, North Dakota, we interviewed Mark Dagley.  He put up four, relatively small “Whisper 900” series wind turbines on his barn roof several years ago.    Dagley told me with wind at 28 mph, one of his turbines will generate 900 watts of electricity.  He said his energy consumption on the farm, including in his rather large farmhouse: was cut in half.

            In Richardton, North Dakota, the Benedictine nuns at Sacred Heart Monastery put up two large wind turbines on their property in 1998.  This was the first commercial wind turbine project in North Dakota.  In an interview with Prioress Sr. Ruth Fox, I learned the nuns did it to be better “environmental stewards,” and to save money.  In the first year, the nuns saved approximately one-third, or $12,000 on their energy costs from using the wind turbines.  This last year, Sr. Fox said the monastery saved some 40% on energy costs with the wind power.

            Sr. Fox also pointed out that the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, a branch of the U.S. Department of Energy, shows North Dakota to have the best wind potential of any of the lower 48 states.

            Our administration would use this kind of data to determine which, say, 15 states in the U.S. had the best “wind potential.”  Then we would set up a program to inspire “Plant a Row of Wind Turbine Programs” in these states to generate large amounts of power for surrounding areas – and beyond.  That is, we’d offer incentives to farmers to undertake this in return for tax breaks and other incentives.  And, again, money could be drawn from the Environmental Conservation Funds (proposed earlier in this paper) for some of the initial costs of the turbines. (As we have traveled, we’ve seen several farms that have rows of large wind turbines amidst their crops.)

            At a stop in Bowling Green, Ohio, we learned about a wind turbine project here that involved a joint venture between the City of Bowling Green Public Utilities and the American Municipal Power Company.  Two large wind turbines were put on land just adjacent to the Wood County Landfill here.  (the yearly output from just these two turbines is estimated at 6,981.)  And since these two turbines went on-line in 2003, eight other Ohio municipalities have started to develop similar projects.

            At an “Alternative Energy Fair” in Custer, Wisconsin, John Hippensteel, owner of the Lake Michigan Wind & Sun Co., told me wind-generated energy is now growing by 25% worldwide every year.

            And another way we’d help support this growth even more in the U.S. is to point to the establishment of more wind turbine clusters, like the several hundred that are set up in a windy canyon pass just north of Palm Springs, California.  While on a campaign stop there, we learned that both individuals, and businesses, invest in small plots of land and individual wind turbines in the cluster.  In return, they receive revenues from the energy companies.  (Environmentally responsible investing.)

            Note:  The National Farm Bill for 2006 included a Section 9006 that provides grants and loans to farmers, ranchers and rural businesses to help them install renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency improvements, according to an article in the Lake City Graphic newspaper in Minnesota.  Some $23 million have been earmarked for this in 2006. They are administered by the USDA Rural Development Department.  [In effecting a shift to much more clean, renewable energy, we think this kind of program is a tremendously wise use of tax payer dollars – and we would propose way more money, for both rural and town applications.]

8. water power

            As with wind and sun, wave action is just as endless.  On a stop in Old Orchard Beach, Maine, we learned that a $4 million dollar pilot project is being proposed there turn ocean waves into electricity.  The areas Journal Tribune newspaper carried an AP report that said in the pilot phase of the project, the wave energy plant would power 500 homes.

            The newspaper reported that four tubular steel pieces would move with the motion of the waves.  And hydraulic pistons would create energy as the device pitches and yaws on the ocean surface.  (There is also talk of creating electricity from the region’s strong tidal currents.)

            And our administration would try to encourage as much research and development around this clean, renewable energy resource as well.

             Another way to utilize water is through geothermal applications.  In Ohio and Michigan, we researched geothermal methods of heating a home.

            In Florida, Ohio (pop.: “If you blink…”), Steve Batt told me his geothermal system consisted of a series of looped pipes that run below his flooring and into the ground outside his home.  Water is pumped through these.  In the winter, the groundwater is warmer than the outside air temperature, said Batt, and the heat is drawn from it to warm the house.  In the summer, it’s the reverse.

            In Houghton, on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, David Bach talked to us about geothermal as well.  Bach is a carpenter with a strong environmental bent and a regional coordinator of Habitat for Humanity.

            The geothermal system he uses to heat his home involves tubes running from his hot water heater and snaking below smooth, painted concrete flooring in the house.  The hot water circulates through the pipes (and back) heating the floor, which in turn heats the home.  Bach said with this system he averages a monthly winter heating bill, in the rather frigid Upper Peninsula, of: $17.

            Like with wind and solar initiatives, our administration would provide a series of creative incentives to help many undertake geothermal applications.

            Note:  At the end of the interview, David Bach said to me: “We need a (U.S. Energy Plan based on sustainability.” And we are confident the strategies we’ve proposed in this position paper for our Energy Plan will move the U.S. toward sustainability in a tremendous way.

            9. “no” to future nuclear power production

          Nuclear energy currently accounts of some 16% of worldwide energy production, and about 20% in the U.S.  As people got more and more ‘power hungry, or even power addicted,’ they looked for any expedient means to meet their need for immediate gratification – with in some cases, a real lack of well-considered thought about the long term ramifications to the environment, to people in harms way now, and to those in future generations.

            And nuclear energy, we believe, is one of those ill-considered energy solutions.

            We traveled to Luck, Wisconsin where we met with “Nukewatch” co-director Bonnie Urfer.  (Nukewatch is a non-profit nuclear industry watch dog agency.)  Ms. Urfer noted that in Feb. 2002, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham unveiled “Nuclear Power 2010 Plan,” a joint, cost shared effort to identify sites for new nuclear reactors.  She said the government and the nuclear industry claim nuclear power is: cheap, safe and clean.

            Ms. Urfer said that is a misrepresentation.

            First of all, Ms. Urfer said utility companies are in the business of making money, and are “not vested in people living simply (energy-wise).”  She also noted that nuclear energy is not “renewable.”  That is, estimates are that readily available uranium fuel won’t last much more than 50 years.

            Addressing the safety issue, Ms. Urfer pointed to the catastrophic Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant incident. 

            In April of 1986, a chain reaction at the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant in the former USSR (now the Ukraine) got out of control.  Explosions and a fireball blew off the reactors heavy steel and concrete lid – releasing clouds of deadly radioactive material into the atmosphere for more than 10 days.  These clouds spread out over northern Europe, contaminating air, crops, ground water…

            In a Texas speech several years ago, Dr. Vladimir Chernousenko, who is the former head of the Ukrainian Academy of Science and was the lead investigator of the Chernobyl Clean-Up, said the amount of radiation emitted from Chernobyl’s accident was immense.  He said it was comparable to the detonations of all nuclear tests, ever.

            While just 31 people died immediately after the Chernobyl accident, Dr. Chernousenko said millions of people were affected through breathing the air, ingesting radioactivity in their food, and so on.  (And what’s more, at an energy seminar at the University of Las Vegas, I learned it’s tremendously hard to pin point, and track, incidence of cancer, birth defects, and so on, that will occur in radiation fall out areas – for years to come.)

            Toward the end of the speech, Dr. Chernousenko said America’s Three Mile Island Nuclear incident in the mid-70s would have been the same – if the catastrophe hadn’t been averted last minute.

            According to a series of Washington Post articles, a huge hydrogen bubble started to form in a reactor at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania.  If there had been a reactor explosion like with Chernobyl, or a meltdown, the Post reported there would be a release of radioactive iodine that could dose people living down wind with as much as 150 rems of radiation in a single day.  According to one of the articles, a lethal dose is 400 rems; but the sick, the elderly, the young and unborn children could easily die from a dose of 150 rems.

            What’s more, the article went on to say that a dose that strong could begin to kill bone marrow so fast that death might follow in a matter of months.

            In February of 2002, a routine check-up at Ohio’s Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant revealed that corrosion had chewed a hole into the reactor head.  Only 3/16^th of an inch of steel prevented a potential catastrophic nuclear release, according to Nukewatch material.  The story immediately gained national attention.  (We were on a campaign stop in Port Clinton, Ohio – in the shadow of the Davis Besse plant – two years later on the day a new reactor head, with much fanfare, was trucked into the plant to replace the damaged one.)

            While the people living down wind from the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant were lucky the crisis was averted, people living downwind from the Hanford Nuclear Power Plant, in the middle part of the last century, apparently weren’t as lucky.  The Hanford Plant, located in southeastern Washington, had a significant number of controlled, and documented, radiation releases.

            According to a Seattle Times article, in early December of 1949, scientists conducted a secret experiment.  They poured caustic chemicals on a ton of radioactive uranium fresh from a nuclear reactor.  This spewed a plume of radiation that was carried downwind to, among other places, Walla Walla, Washington.

            Walla Walla’s Steve Stanton was five-years-old at the time.  He went on to become the father of three, a civil engineer, and in his mid-30s – contracted thyroid cancer.  The Times article said Mr. Stanton, and some 2,300 “Hanford Down Winders” with cancer, birth defects, respiratory illness, and other physical maladies that could possibly be tied to the radiation releases, were suing the companies that built and ran Hanford.

            On a stop in Walla Walla, I interviewed a woman who grew up here during some of the radiation releases.  Her career was cut short when she contracted a brain tumor, and a number of other debilitating physical problems. She, too, believes her physical problems were tied to the radiation releases from Hanford.

            10. disposal plan for current high-level nuclear waste

            Besides the ever-lurking potential for catastrophic Nuclear Power Plant accidents, the other issue of significant concern is the disposal of high-level nuclear waste from these plants, said Nukewatch’s Ms. Urfer.

            The current proposal is to bury 77,000 tons (and counting…) of high-level nuclear waste in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. 

We went to California where we interviewed Mohave Community College geology professor John Squibb.  The college is in the Yucca Mountain region, and Professor Squibb has followed Yucca Mountain developments closely.  He said geographic fault lines could develop near Yucca Mountain, triggering an earthquake, or volcanic reaction, sparking a ‘high level’ radioactive release that could put the region in tremendous peril.

Mike Farrel, a Hollywood director, actor (“Mash”) and anti-nuclear activist, wrote that:  “Yucca Mountain sits in an earthquake zone and above a fresh water aquafier.”  And he added that he believed the nuclear industry “…has no right to create a dangerous substance it can neither, safely contain, or control.” 

On the containment end, Professor Squibb noted that there’s a good possibility the containment vessels for the nuclear waste will breakdown long before the tens of thousands of years it will take for the nuclear reaction inside to stop.  I wrote a guest column for the Lima (OH) News explaining this.  Then I posed a scenario.  Say some 1,000 years from now, the containment vessels break down, or there’s an earthquake in the area, triggering a radioactive release that kills many.  Even though there would be no legal ramifications for our generation being energy addicted and extremely careless – would there be spiritual ramifications?

That is, would we be culpable for the “Thou Shalt Not Kill” thing?

Professor Squibb said he believes the safest way to dispose of the high-level nuclear waste is one proposed by former Atomic Energy Chairperson Dr. Dixie Lee Ray.  Professor Squibb said Dr. Ray explained to him that this proposal is to drill a hole in a “desert region” of the Pacific Ocean near North America.  The reinforced hole would extend quite deep to the “Moharavcic Zone of Discontinuity.”  Then the nuclear waste would be injected into this hole in such a way that the North American platelet (which is in slow, continual motion) would fold it over toward the core of the earth.  Professor Squibb added the core of the earth is radioactive, and this nuclear waste would dissolve into the original atoms.  (According to Squibb, this option would be much more expensive than the Yucca Mountain proposal.)

I told the Kingman (AZ) Miner newspaper that even though this proposal would be more expensive, I would be in favor of the disposal of the nuclear waste in the safest way possible.  And at the same time, I would stridently work to end this nuclear (power plants, weapons…) madness, while just as stridently trying to inspire energy conservation and a tremendous shift to clean, renewable resource energy production.

11. transportation

The exhaust from fuels (“dirty fuels”) we burn in our motor vehicles, for the most part, add carcinogens to the air and spew a tremendous amount of global warming gases as well.  This spells mounting environmental disaster, and absolutely terrible environmental stewardship.

Our administration would propose a series of  things to significantly reverse this..

At a seminar on Peak Oil at Antioch College, in Yellow Springs, Ohio recently, I learned we stand on the precipice of “peak oil” production worldwide, and as we move into the declining end of oil production, gas prices will continue to rise.  I told a reporter at the Cortez Journal in Cortez, Colorado that mounting gas prices is a “good thing” for America.  That is, it will force some Americans to cut back on driving (which, again, is a tremendous pollutant). And it will force us to look to much more alternative transportation – and alternative fuels.

In Durango, Colorado, we learned about a new biodiesel fuel made of soybean and canola oil, which can be mixed in with gasoline and doesn’t require engine modification to use.  In the nearby San Juan Basin of Colorado,  a Biodiesel Cooperative was starting up to produce alternative fuels for the area.

While traveling through Nebraska, we learned this state now has 11 operating ethanol plants, and plans for a dozen more.

Our administration would promote more federal incentives, and urge more local and state incentives as well, to further spark this trend.  And we would provide incentives for growing, perhaps, the best biomass fuel around: switch grass.

According to the National Geographic article on energy (sited earlier), switch grass is a plant native to North America’s prairies.  It grows faster and needs less fertilizer than corn.  And it grows on land unfit for other crops.  It is also a source for animal food and further reduces the pressure on farmland.  The article noted that the National Bioenergy Center’s Thomas Faust, a technology manager, said:   “…if you increase auto efficiency to the level of hybrid, and go with a switch grass crop mix – you could meet two-thirds of the U.S. transportation fuel demand with no additional land.”

Our administration would also push for more incentives for research and development of hybrid technology.

For instance, we went to Bolwing Green, Ohio to meet with Bowling Green State University’s Jon Opperman.  He is involved with BGSU’s Alternative Vehicle Department.  Helped by a NASA grant, this department has developed a “hybrid bus” that has been put into use as a shuttle bus around campus.  The friction from the braking action on this full size bus is transferred to an “ultra-capacitor.” Then this energy is regenerated into power for starting the bus up again after each stop.  This process currently saves 30% in fuel, said the professor.  The lightweight ultra-capacitor replaces the heavy batteries often used to store electricity, and with some work, could be adapted for hybrid cars.

Our administration would also push for more incentives, and public education programs, to inspire much more use of mass transit, whether buses, light rail, etc.  And we would consider incentive programs for research and development on totally electric or solar powered vehicles, and so on.

In addition, we would push for a move to make towns more alternative vehicle friendly -- and walking and bicycling friendly as well -- with Dan Burden’s “Walkable Community Model.”  Burden, who Time Magazine called one of the top environmentalists in America, travels the country showing towns how to significantly slow speed limits, increase walking and bicycle corridors, locate senior living facilities above downtown mercantile sections, and much more.  On a stop in High Springs, Burden told me a number of towns now have adopted his model, and he’s optimistic as the fuel crisis mounts and we also realize the tremendously negative environmental impact of our current transportation habits (pollution, urban sprawl…), that more towns will get on board with his model.

And to connect these towns, besides our country’s current National Highway System, our administration would line up behind Santa Cruz, California’s Martin Krieg.  On a stop in Santa Cruz, we interviewed Krieg, who is the founder of a movement to get a “National Bike Tail System.”  Several years earlier, Krieg had almost been killed (was actually dead on arrival at the hospital) after a motor vehicle accident. He believes more bicycling and walking would certainly save on energy and pollution; and it would also save on the quite significant numbers of maiming, and deaths (one every 13 minutes in America) from motor vehicle accidents.

What’s more, we believe the more walking and bicycling Americans do, the healthier they will be.  A common sense component to our Health Care policy as well.

 

“Schriner said he uses his bicycle to get around Cleveland about 95% of the time,”  -- Valley Courier newspaper, Alamosa, Colorado