Saturday, November 10, 2007

Farm Bill update/Live Blog from CFRA covers debate

The Senate still has not made much progress in the Farm Bill debate. They had to do things like approve Mukasey as the attorney gen and talk about things like sheep vaccine and toys from China. But when they do get back to business, the Dorgan-Grassley ammendment should be one of the first things they discuss. It would put a $250,000 cap on the payments any one farmer can receive in a year. This would free roughly $1 billion for other purposes (like food stamps and conservation) and slow the consolidation of farms in the Midwest.

If you'd like entertaining, frequent updates about the Farm Bill debate, visit Blog for Rural America ( a couple of people are watching the Senate feed live and summarizing for us. It seems that in 2002, debate lasted 4 weeks, so hang on! This could take a while!


be1st2 said...

First, some math;

20 HP of CLEAN energy conversion machinery per household, (@ $.05 / KWH) = $1,500 per home of extra income, - each month - .

Multiply that by a community of 5,000, and that = $7,000,000 of restructured money flow - per month - for that community alone!

Not to mention how much carbon it removes from the planet.

Do us all a favor and promote the following....

Why CAN'T I sell CLEAN ENERGY to my neighbor (for $.05 / KWH)?

Simple concept isn't it? We all want cheaper (elect.) energy. We all would prefer to buy clean energy if it were available. And, most of us would prefer to buy from a local supplier (especially if the main grid goes down). Why is this concept so "radical" that no politician wants to touch it with a ten foot pole? Just
what is really going on here? Isn't the local utility just an ISP, that both you (the content supplier), and your neighbor (the content customer), pay to, for the right of connection?

If you can show (on an annual inspection) that the energy you generate (on a small farm say) is clean, (or actually -removes- carbon from the atmosphere), with today's technology for phase regulation, and line safety, then the only price regulation concerning the local utility should be the size of the transformer and wire coming into your source required to feed your electricity to the grid, and your connection fee be adjusted accordingly. Who cares how it is generated; ethanol fuel cell auto, LP fuel cell home kit, solar, wind,... pig spit (!), as long as it meets the standard for the carbon load to the utility. How many new business would this technology generate?

I should (as a consumer) be able to go to a web site and purchase -clean- energy futures for any rate that anyone (within a local area) wants to sell it to me for.

The arguments being presented by the utilities are a "tobacco up" mentality that has -never- shown a benefit to any of those involved. The currently existing equipment is similar to the phone system was being operated before the Internet; -mostly unused-. If a transformer is rated to drain 2 HP (constant) into a residence, then it can just as easily handle 2 HP being pumped into the grid without any effect to any equipment. Additionally, the 60 Hz phase would be strengthened, not corrupted because of the current
technology used to regulate this kind and range of power. There is -much- less power line loss with this type of local consumption. The power companies don't have to build or maintain any new generation locations or expensive high power lines, they only need maintain the local "NET".

Even though an argument can be made for the "ISP" perspective, this needs to be actually presented in a court case for the rights of free trade in this issue. Not only will the advertisement move clean free trade in energy in this country, it will be adopted by the rest of the planet (proved profitable). "Germany does it." At that point a lot of things change, potentially irreversibly ... as some potential examples:

With this kind if free trade in clean energy, we would be able to reliably establish a "energy homestead act"; A low interest loan (as potentially a social security buyout) to establish self supportive residences that will
generate more (clean) energy than they require, enough so that the loan is automatically paid back for
said energy sale, with possibly enough left over to provide for food and medical. This would be a $50,000 home (to start), paid in 15(?) years, not the "requiring a credit rating, for bank that charges you $300,000, -over thirty years-, for a place to live, that kills the planet"). What if we (in the US in particular) did that, with energy equipment (in a loan program with the excuse of "terra formation") "to "fix the planet"? What kind of response would that get for us, to prove we can improve our living conditions -so substantially-, by helping so many others on the planet, that no terrorist involvement can never find -effective- support, again?

A bit over the top I guess, but if you follow somewhat the direction I suggest here, at least you won't have to deal with the heat during the next grid brown out. ...without sending people to go die in "coal holes"...

more: Just "google" "be1st2"

CCYL said...

Hmmm...that was an impressive post yet pretty unrelated to the topic of the blog post. Sustainability and poverty are definitely related (Millennium Development Goal #7, for instance), but for the purposes of discussion that leap was hard to follow!

be1st2 said...

Basically, if a person can get a (reasonably) guaranteed price of $.05 / KWH for energy that they generate, then people can profit in finding ways to make the machinery to do so.

Once that is done, 20 HP energy generation (that results in $1,500 / month in return) will allow banks to be comfortable in lending the money for the solar-home / car-convertors that do this. With a car payment of $300, and a mortgage payment of $800 (possibly distributed automatically), that still leaves $300 for taxes, and insurance, and food. All this without being any burden on the State.The figures are ballpark, but I would expect the banks to adjust the levels to provide a better level of food / personal income for the kind of return this represents.

More than that; correct type of homes built / upgraded get more jobs, in the local area. Energy costs for manufacturing and transportation go down -and remain low-. Labor benefits improve for workers, because they don't need a job , absolutely, right away, and small business will have more money to move around.

Free home, security, transportation, food, and insurance,... and all a person has to do is sign a paper (and maybe get a vasectomy in the dangerously over populated parts of the world).