What is going on in the world?

The Middle East is going through the changes that no one expected. Really? We profess to believe in the powerful force we call self determination. If that’s the case why did we not see this coming. The fact is some people did see it coming, although when it would come was unpredictable.

We are faced now with great opportunities and grave peril at the same time. How we manage that peril, or if we even can manage it remains to be seen. On the other hand there are things we can, and for our survival as an economic power, must do. We need an energy policy that is strongly tilted toward sustainability. We once had a president that understood that. You remember that nutty little president Jimmy Carter? In 1977 he outlinened an energy plan to make us energy independent by now. At the same time Brazil drew up plans to be energy independent too. They are, we are not. Why? Because our congress, and every other president since, has been tucked snugly in bed with the oil companies. And to be in bed with the oil companies means to be in bed with every oil producing country in the world. A policy that has cost us dearly in fortunes, and more importantly, in lives.

The major wars that America has fought in the last 30 years had nothing to do with deep abiding principles. That’s what they told us, but isn’t true. Even the first Iraq war was over oil. The rescue of Kuwait was the excuse of the moment, but Saddam Hussein wouldn’t have coveted the oil of Kuwait if no one was buying it. Had we developed the science needed to preclude the use of oil we would be satisfying our own energy consumption and probably would be selling it to others. Saddam would have no desire to steal Kuwaits oil if he couldn’t sell it. The second Iraq war was a trumped up piece of crap that had in the end been nothing more than a war to insure that we keep getting our “drugs” which, of course, is oil.

In times of peace it costs the US government (that would be the US taxpayers) $50 billion to police the oil routes and keep the flow of moving for us, and the rest of the world. During wars it’s a lot more.

The turmoil of the Middle East we see today may not have ever occurred if we were not compliant and supporting “addicts”. Instead of being the beggaring addict we could have been the grown-ups. We could have used that $50 billion to help economically develop the region. Even if we failed in our efforts, how much better off would we be? First of all we would not be wringing our hands right now because the price of oil may rise to the point where it will strangle our economy. That is exactly what we are facing. Oil at $100 per barrel extracts $1 trillion per year from our economy. Since 90% of that money is never repatriated, it is like adding $1 trillion in taxes. How’s that for a brake on the economy. If we were able to produce alternate energy we would be spending that money here at home. Even if it did not save us a dime at least we would be giving it to companies and individuals that would spend most of that money right here. That means that you and I may get a piece of it. Money that goes into the abyss we call the Middle East is lost forever.

Al Jezeera Who Woulda Thunk It

Ever since Al Jezeera began television service in the Middle East it has been vilified and generally discredited by many in this country. It has been called a propaganda tool of the extremists in the Middle East. However it has been Al Jezeera that has been broadcasting most of the important information that has been coming out of the Mid-East

It’s not that our own media hasn’t been good on reporting; they just haven’t been there. The reporters and cameramen that work for Al Jezeera have demonstrated courage and determination in tracking down the stories have been coming out of Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, and now Libya. Our Knee-jerk reaction to Al Jezeera when it first started to report was that anything that was said was slanted to the radical elements in the region. Sometimes Al Jezeera reported events that were not favorable to America, but later on we learned that they printed the truth. The truth isn’t always pleasant, but it may be exactly what we must hear.

America has cut back on its news gathering assets dramatically. It is costly and does not bring in the revenues that an episode of “Survivor” may bring in, and so news programs were scrapped. The likes of Edward R. Morrow, Walther Cronkite and Daniel Schorr were giants in the field of broadcast journalism. These individuals operated with large budgets, but at that time the networks thought that reporting important news was worth the effort.

Today, I think that AlJezeera understands the importance of the news mission as well as our own pioneers in the field. The paucity of access Americans have to that news link is appalling. There are two cities in the US where you can access AlJezeera directly. They are Burlington Vermont and a small city in Iowa. We get to see excerpts from AlJezeera news footage every day, because it turns out that it has the widest credible reporting in the Middle East. I for one am thankful they exist.

Edison vs Tesla and Westinghouse

Ernest Fazio, LIMBA Chairman

Thomas Edison was fully engaged in his DC (direct current) system with power plants in Manhattan. All of the wealthy families of the day were tied into the Edison grid. Mr Edison had a remarkable inventor and innovator working for him. He was a tall handsome, brilliant man named Nicola Tesla. Tesla invented the alternating current system, and tried to convince Edison to change his system to AC. Edison was doing just fine with building out his DC system, but Tesla argued that DC had very high line losses and if you want to transmit electric power over long distances you would have to do it by using AC. The benefit of AC was that without any mechanical means the voltage could be raised to very high voltages and the line losses would not be as significant. Edison wanted no part of Tesla’s idea.

Meanwhile Tesla collaborated with George Westinghouse on a proposal to build a hydro-electric power plant at Niagra Falls. The power could then be transmitted to NYC using high voltage alternating current produced by transformers. The power could reach New York City and was a serious threat to Edison’s system.

Edison had the economics of the time on his side. Oil was $1 per barrel. The cost of building a hydro-electric plant had a cost equivalent to $2/barrel, therefore it would not be competitive. Westinghouse had become wealthy on his invention of air brakes that was used on every train in the country, and was convinced that hydro-electric would be economical as the price of oil would rise and the costs associated with building the hydro plant would remain constant. They built it and they won.

We are in a similar situation today. It is still cheaper to burn fossil fuels to create electric power than producing it with wind or solar. How long will that be true? Well last week oil was $91/ barrel. Is it going up? Yes, but we don’t know how much. Predictions are $100/ barrel in 2011. Beyond that who knows.

The facts are, we have other reasons to build alternative energy systems. Reasons such as; clean air requirements, mitigation of global warming gasses, and diversification of supply. The people who are suggesting that the status quo is acceptable are those that are profiting by the systems we have. Are these the people we should be trusting? Have they ever lied to us before?

Maglev- Transportation in all Kinds of Weather

Ernest M. Fazio

As I was listening to the news the morning of the blizzard the big news was how the transportations systems were in disarray due to the weather.

We all know that air travel is dysfunctional even in the best of times, but given difficult challenges like blizzards, it is flat-line dead. Rail traffic on the other hand is too slow for regular intercity use, and during a blizzard they cannot operate either. So what is a better way to transport ourselves?

The modern 2^nd generation Maglev that has been developed on Long Island by Gordon Danby and James Powell can operate in almost any conceivable weather. (These are the same inventors that created the 1^st generation Maglev that is now operating in Japan) That may sound like too large a claim, but consider this. The 2^nd generation Maglev which is known as Maglev 2000 can run on an elevated beam with all the electrical components inside completely protected from the weather. The snow accumulation on the carrying beam would be small as the wind would blow most of it off. What little snow that may remain would not stop the train because snow and ice are magnetically transparent. The train itself has a high lift about 6 inches from the carry beam, therefore there will be no physical impediment to the trains forward motion.

The Maglev 2000 uses electronic switches, therefore, no frozen switches. Those flames you may see coming from the tracks on an icy day on the LIRR are propane heaters to keep the switches operating. Electronic switches are relatively cheap to build. By building into the system many switch alternatives we can by-pass stations easily to improve commuter schedules.

The Maglev is fast and extremely efficient, but it does not have to go fast to still be worthwhile. It is ideal for commuter trains because it uses the kinetic energy in the vehicle itself to brake. A conventional train has brakes similar to the brakes on a car. The steel and brake pad dust goes into the air we breath. The residue on the walls of the subways we ride in are caused by the braking action. In a conventional commuter train we throw away all of the energy we created in the vehicle every time we stop it With the Maglev, 90% of the kinetic energy is converted back to power in the guideway.

Another consideration is freight. The trucks that carry freight are just as vulnerable to bad weather as planes and conventional rail. The Maglev 2000 has enormous lift capacity. A specially designed Maglev car can carry two fully loaded 50 ton trucks and move in all kinds of weather at speeds of up to 300 MPH. The savings to the truckers would be substantial and the reliability of on-time shipping would be greatly enhanced. This would be a boon to the freight industry, while at the same time creating an entirely new manufacturing industry.

One of the original concerns about Maglev was that it would require an entirely new infrastructure and that would be too costly and disruptive to create. The inventors have devised a cost effective modification that will allow the Maglev to operate on conventional right-of-ways such as the Long Island Railroad. The modification would not prevent conventional trains from operating when the Maglev was not in service.

The question some of you may have is; What is the economic viability? The Maglev infrastructure cost is considerably less that the wheel and track so called high speed rail that is used in other countries, and it is inherently faster. The HSR being promoted by Germany and Japan as well as other designs cannot carry freight. Freight is important because it is the most profitable part of the transportation system. All of these systems being promoted from outside the country will have to be subsidized forever. Maglev can stand on its own economic merits.

Ernest Fazio is Chairman of Long Island Metro Business Action (LIMBA) and spokes person for Maglev 2000 see maglev website www.magneticglide.com

Ernie@limba.net

Republic Airport

The airport has considerable value to the general aviation that it serves. It is subsidized 80% by the federal government. If the well-off, if not to say rich, Long Islanders think this airport is so valuable, perhaps they should pay for it. Why do these privileged few need help from the rest of us?

We may want to stay away from that “class warfare” argument altogether because that goes nowhere. We should look at this valuable piece of real estate in terms of “the best and highest use’ concept. Are the taxpayers of the Town and County getting the same tax revenue as they would from say, a research park? Are they getting any tax revenues? Could multi-family housing be incorporated into the property? Could high-tech manufacturing be done here? Could all, or some of these things be done while preserving an emergency landing facility? If we did keep the runway available on an emergency only basis could we continue all or part of the federal subsidy?

These are some of the questions we should be asking. I have no objections to the property continuing as an airport, but if you want it, pony-up. Don’t lay it on the general public.

When you add up all of the costs to prop up Republic Airport maybe we should just consider closing it.

Ernie Fazio
LIMBA

War On Oil

I would like this country to declare war. Not the kind of war we are used to. The kind of war we need to engage in is much more difficult. It will be a war without blood and guts, but a war that will require real heroism.

The war we need to declare is the one against oil. This will be a war on oil, not the countries that produce it. How do we begin? First, use all of the present technology we presently have, and then go on from there.

Technology Development
The technology that will be generated by this concerted effort has value to the U.S. far beyond our own supply of electricity. We can sell this technology to the world creating an inflow of dollars that will bolster our economy. The technology we sell to others will further diminish the need for oil from other nations. As that happens the oil producing countries have to change their basic economies. At present most oil producing countries don’t share that wealth with their people. Nigerians are, for example, dismally poor. Depriving that country would have a very small economic impact on the people, but a large impact on those that are presently exploiting that resource.

Global Warming
As we develop carbon neutral solutions to energy we clean up the air as a by-product and slow down the progression of climate change. Some people will argue that burning fossil fuels or anything else does not cause global warming that human beings do. I disagree, but instead of having that argument, why not point out that cleaner air is just plain healthier. This healthy air that is available for us to breathe will reduce health costs.

Electric Power Conservation
Electric power is wasted in this country in ways that other countries find hard to believe. The litanies of possible improvements are enormous, but let’s start with conservation:

Light Emitting Diodes (LED) use about 3% of the power that is used by an incandescent lamp. Presently they are suitable for traffic lights, exit signs, and numerous other 24/7 applications. (Traffic lights have four 150 watt lamps on at all times, that is 600watts 24 hours per day 365 days a year. The total kilowatt hours per year are 5,256 @ 12cents/kwh which costs the municipality $630 per traffic signal. The annual cost of operating an LED traffic lamp is $19.

Buildings
The best building codes in the country have heat transfer guidelines that are woefully lower than what we’ve known to be possible for at least 40 years. We can double the requirements on homes and commercial establishments. We can do this with no new technology. The additional cost of a $300,000 home is about $10,000. The annual savings is about $1,000 estimating a 900 gallon savings at $2.50. Payback will be less than 5 years. If the cost oil increases the payback period will be shorter.

Motor vehicles
At the same time double the required gas mileage on trucks and personal cars. At the moment the only technology that can achieve this is the Hybrid engine design. The cost of driving a car 20,000 miles that gets 20 miles per gallon, using gas that costs $2.80 per gallon is $1,800. Presently the hybrid costs about $3,000 more. The payback is less than 3.5 years and maintenance costs are lower.

All Electric cars are on the horizon and we will see production of these vehicles this year.
The electric car will obviate the need for liquid fuel. It will also make power plants more economical as otherwise idle power plants produce during the night. The economic gain to power producers will stabilize or reduce electric rates.

Hydrogen powered cars using fuel cells will eventually be practical and the benefit here is also a no oil result. Equally important there are no emissions. The chemical process that drives the car has a waste product of pure water. In this case we need a cost that would make it acceptable. We’re not there yet!


Rail Transportation
Maglev
Developing Maglev will mean that no oil will be needed for this means of transportation.
CSX runs advertisements that tell us they can transport a ton of freight almost 500 miles on a gallon of diesel fuel. That’s excellent, but it’s still oil. The Maglev can do a lot better than that using of clean electric energy generation. The Maglev being a frictionless mode of rail is extremely efficient. Using Maglev we can move freight at high speed. Perishables that we move by truck can be transported longer distances without spoilage when we reduce a 4-½ day journey to one day. For intercity passengers, Maglev will reduce airline traffic. Airplanes are one of the most obnoxious polluters, and what is worse is that they pollute at high altitudes where they do the most damage to the earth’s protective envelope. Here the benefits are many. We reduce significantly our need for oils, streamline intercity travel, clean up the air, and make the nation more efficient for conducting commerce.

Geothermal
Heating and cooling can be accomplished by extensive use of ground source heat exchangers. These systems use only a small fraction of the power required by electric resistive heating and no on premise burning of fuel.

In Summary
If we as a nation resolve to utilize these measures we put ourselves in a very good negotiating position when we deal with the rest of the world. Instead of rolling out billions of dollars worth of military equipment to secure our share of the world’s oil we merely tap our own resources. With all these measures in place America will have enough oil from domestic sources.
We have given these dictators around the world a cudgel with which they periodically beat us. By embarking on aggressive energy programs we merely take back the weapon we gave them

An America without a need for foreign oil dramatically changes our foreign policy. The technology allows us to deal with difficult regimes without fear of being cut off from our supply. I believe it was George W. Bush who used the term “addiction to oil”. It was a very apt term. Drug addicts behave in irrational ways to secure what they need. Robbery and burglary committed by the addict to provide funds for the addiction is comparable to the U.S. going to war to secure a stable supply of oil.

Whenever large vision efforts are undertaken there are many unforeseen fortuitous gains. When we went to the moon we needed a better computer. The on-board board computers that were on the first Apollo mission were less sophisticated than your pocket calculator, but the quest for better devices was set in motion giving the marvelous computers we now take for granted.

When we embark on the road to new discoveries we never know where we will wind up. Just ask Christopher Columbus. He was looking for India, and look what he found. Discovery is exciting but we will never meet the challenges that are there if we don’t change some fundamental elements. Our education systems range from very poor to extremely good, but even in the best schools we may be missing the boat. The schools in some Long Island districts have great teachers and students that are truly achieving, but if you drill down and see what they are learning they may not be learning what they need in a world that wants to make things. Turning out the brilliant minds that can dream up new financial instruments that can get them rich, may not be the skills that make the country rich. We have to ask our educators how many scientists, engineers and chemists are we producing. The answer is embarrassing.

Ah, the Mosque!

The mosque that has been proposed for a location in downtown Manhattan has been causing quite a storm. Here is the controversy as I see it:

Not every opponent who has addressed this issue is a bonehead. Some have deep feelings for the awful events of that day. I think we should respect their feelings. We who support that group of Americans that want to build that facility must explain in a rational way why it should be built.

That building site was on the market for redevelopment for eight years. There were no takers. This group wants to make that derelict real estate into something beautiful and useful to the whole community, in the same way that the 92nd Street Y serves that community. The local neighbors in New York City know these people and a large majority support the building of the complex. Even people who have lost family members when those criminals did their dreadful work support the developers.

I heard a report that 67% of Americans oppose this project, but 67% of all Americans do not live in New York, and their voices are not as important as those who do live there. In any case, that majority, or any majority opinion, does not trump the US Constitution. We profess to live under a guiding law, always, not just when it is convenient to our way of thinking.

As I said when I began, not all opponents are bigots and haters, but some are. We have to resist the ranting of the lunatic fringe, while recognizing that some opponents are not part of that group of haters. George Bush must be given credit for making the distinction between Muslims and terrorists when he was president. My guess is that he would have said something similar to what President Obama said.

Some say why create the tumult of this argument? Why not do what Governor Patterson suggested and do a land swap for another location? Here's why not. When you are in retreat from the forces of bigotry, there is no compromise. As people back you into a corner and you agree to another solution, they are never satisfied. There is no place that you can go that would be satisfactory to those that oppose you. All around the country there are objections to the building of mosques. They are nowhere near "ground zero", so it’s hard for me to buy the argument that retreat would be a good thing. If I were that leader I'd be damned if I'd retreat. Loving this country means supporting the laws that govern us. We can, of course, change the Constitution, but I don't think any of us of sound mind want to live in a country that condones the harassment of any religion or group. We tell people of the world “We’re better than that”. Now let’s live up to our boast.

Ernie Fazio