Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

A sound energy policy. - Page 8

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by N9WOS on April 8, 2005, 10:38 pm

Let me expand on that just a bit.

In terms of a government taxation on a company in energy terms.

The company earns the right to consume energy, or products containing
energy, by selling products, or services. They charge the customers "energy
credits" for the energy required to provide the product to them.
(ie) They earn money.

The government doesn't put any penalties on energy that the company uses to
self to stay alive.
(ie) operating cost.

The government puts penalties on (they want a part of) unused "energy
credits" that have been collected, and energy containing products that was
purchased with those "energy credits" that is not needed to keep the company
(ie) Free money, and products that won't be used by the company to stay

Depreciation is a scam the government pulled off on the industry, but that
is besides the point.
In this application, it can put in energy terms.

Go back to that $0,000 refrigeration unit I referred to earlier.
Remember that I stated that the life was 10 years, and the money wasted to
have one was $000 a year. One tenth of it's life is wasted a year. In 10
years, it's life is gone, and it's worth no energy. It's value has been
consumed, and it will carry no value to anyone.

The government, in their shallow wisdom, has put an arbitrary life span of 7
years on equipment. To them, when you buy a piece of equipment, then you
haven't actually spent the money on the business yet. You can still trade
the machine for it's original value in money. So the taxes for free, unused
money, will still apply. And as it's value is consumed by each passing year,
then they classify that energy value as being irrevocably lost into, used by
that company to operate. And money that is used to stay alive, is not taxed
in the same way, so they give money (energy credits) back because it is no
longer part of the energy that they can claim a right to.

Basically, it's just the government saying that they won't take away part of
the energy you earned a right to use, if you give that "energy credit" to
someone else to use to earn more energy credits. Because, in the end, the
other person that is now earning a lot of "energy credits" (money) from
using the "energy credits" that he got off you to by energy, so he will have
paid you back, and given the government far more in in "energy credits" than
the government lost when it said it wouldn't take your "energy rights"

Basically along the same lines as, you got to have energy to get energy, or
the right to use energy.

Basically they don't want to take a chunk out of your "money" that you use
to pay for energy credits that you borrowed. They think that if you can use
that extra energy to earn more energy, to pay back your "energy debt"
faster, then you will en up giving them more energy credits to put into
something else, in the long run. Like energy to build fighter jets. Or fuel
to power those jets.

In the end, money is just an energy credit.

Posted by N9WOS on April 9, 2005, 4:50 am

I will expand the subject.
(A big expansion!!!!!!!)

I will cover the way power flows through society.
I will cover how you are forming a parasitic power loop.
And I will cover how to slow the flow of power.

This is an energy economy
Money is just a token that holds an energy value.
And it has always been an energy economy.
Food is an energy source, and farmers create energy (food from sun light)

In an energy economy, you have the source, from which all things run.
The things that run off the energy source, sell back stuff made with that
energy, to keep the source running.
The stores sell stuff to people to live, and pay the energy source for
energy to run.
The people work to earn money from the factory, to pay the store, and pay
the energy source to keep the house warm.
Factories use products, and sell stuff to the energy source to keep the
energy source running, in tern buying energy to operate.

The energy source takes all that money coming in from each link in the chain
to buy stuff from the factory to keep producing energy.

If the energy source can produce twice as much energy with the equipment and
the price of the equipment stays the same,  then he will sell energy at half
the price.
You may say that won't work, because he can just keep charging the same
Yes he can.
But he will be buying stuff that isn't needed, which is what it will cost to
keep the energy source running (keep him happy), then that mean that he isn't
producing twice the energy with the same equipment. He is still producing as
much energy from the same amount of stuff that is required to keep him
He is still consuming as much of his own energy coming back to him in the
form of products, as he was before.

As long as the energy source can produce the same amount of energy that it
took to produce it, that loop will remain operational. And there will plenty
of energy to produce all the little intricate sub loops  that stretch out
from the source.

Like people working at a factory to produce Lego blocks, that they buy with
the money they earned working for the factory that produced Lego blocks. The
energy source can run without the factory building Lego blocks, but the
factory, and the person can not live without the energy source. That sub
loop is being feed by the primary energy loop. Where do you think people are
getting money to pay the power company?
It must come from people that work to keep the power company going.

People may say that the only energy cost in the generating equipment is the
energy it took at the foundry to produce it. But it takes the entire
community to support the foundry and the people that work there. The money
will work it's way out to the community, and into sub loops, until it
finally goes back through the primary loop, which is the power loop that
feeds the system.

The formula for the price of power is simple. If a machine that cost $
produces 10 watts of energy in it's life time. Then the electricity cost
$.1 a watt. If it takes 1 watt of energy to produce a machine, then 9 watts
of energy will be burnt up in the sub loops, until that final 1 watt of
energy is put back into a machine that will produce 10 more watts. All items
in the sub loops will have an equivalent energy cost of  1 watt for every
$.1.  If something cost  $.3 to buy, then it used 3 watts from the source.
link one used one watt of energy to mine the materials, link two paid link
one $.1 for those materials, and used one watt of energy to refine those
materials. Link three paid link two $.2 for the refined materials and used
one watt of energy to make it into a tool. Link four buys that tool for $.3
which cost 3 watts of energy. And he paid for that tool with money he got
working for the link that produced the power unit that supplies all the
energy to the system, the link that produced the power unit uses 1 watt of
energy to build the unit, and hires three people, that it pays $.3 each to
build the unit. Total energy cost to build the unit, $

It always cost as much energy to keep the energy source running as the
energy source produces.

If all the sub loops take up to much power too provide the equipment to keep
the source running, then the source can't get enough money off of the energy
it sells to produce the power to keep the system running.
Thus, the cost of power will go up, and that will shed extraneous sub loops,
it will keep going up until the money from the power going out will buy the
equipment used to produce the electricity

All right, now what happen if you throw two energy sources into the mix.

Lets use one source to form a primary loop.
Lets use energy from one energy source to bread the new secondary energy
In this case, a link that produces the equipment to sell the power company
to make power, uses some of the money to buy equipment to make power for

The power company buys the solar panels for $00K. The other is you that got
the windmill from the extra $0K that the power company gave you for the
solar panels. If the power company is the only one to sell to the community,
then the energy that he sells to the community will reflect cost that he put
into the system. His apparent energy cost to produce the power to the
system, will be greater and it will cost the people that use off of him,
more. Because it is taking more of his own power to get his panels to
produce the power to sell the community. It will be the power that he
produced, that will produce the windmill. The power loop formed by the
windmill is parasitic to the primary productive power loop that feeds the
community. If you had only charged him $0K, then the community would only
be paying 80% of what they are now. That means that there is only 80% of the
power that can be used throughout the system as there could have been.
To the community, that mean more of the power that's generated, needs to go
back into the power source to keep it running. But to the person that got
the windmill for a little bit of labor installing some solar panels, then
energy used to acquire the windmill was cheep. That is because it wasn't his
energy that was used to make the system. It took $00K of energy to provide
power for the community. 20K was parasitic loop that doesn't support it's
self at first, 80K was to the primary loop that went to supporting the

The person that got the windmill, gets $0K worth, imposed a direct energy
load on the system. That windmill took 20K worth of power off of the power
company's system to make.

Now it's time for a parasitic loop to support it's self.
If the parasitic loop starts to sell power to the community, then he will be
able to buy another wind mill (made with his own power) to produce power
when that the first one quits. And then the loop is no longer a parasitic
loop. It is a self supporting loop, that no longer provide a hidden load on
the community. Anyone that buys equipment to produce power with money the
earned from the existing power supply (economy), is posing a direct load on
the power supply, that doesn't help the power supply. You may as well bought
a bunch of bricks for all they care. The turn around comes when the
parasitic source turns around and feeds to the community to self support it's

There is no difference between a brick and a windmill, before the windmill
produces power. Either way, it increased the total energy impact to the
primary loop, to produce the source to feed the loop.

Now lets look at your case.
What makes it most interesting in your case is the fact that neither of the
powers sources were being bought to produce power for the primary source.
Both loops are secondary parasitic loops. Actually, one loop is a parasitic
of a parasitic loop. Anyone that buys a piece of power generating equipment
is making a parasitic power loop. The money he got, trickled down from the
energy source.  He had $00k worth of energy. He spent that to get a power
source, but in the process of getting a power source, someone used the money
from his loop that was just starting, and made a third loop. To the primary
loop, it took 100K to start the secondary loop. To the secondary loop, it
took $0K to start the third loop. Power to create both loops came from the
primary loop.

The first parasitic loop took $00K worth of power.
The secondary parasitic loop took $0K worth of power.

Some people, like you, said that that would mean that the total impact for
the two systems would be $20k.
No, power doesn't flow like that. You each, represent a node in the network.
Power flows from one node to another. Power can only flow in series from him
to you. He is spending energy, you are receiving it. If there was a third
link that both of you was consuming off of, then you two would be in
parallel. But the link both you would be feeding off of, is producing $20K
But in this case, he feeds you $00k you feed the windmill maker $0K, and
the solar panel maker $0k.In a parallel circuit feeding from you. In the
end, it cost him $00k in energy to get the panels. The panels only cost
$0K, but getting the panels from you cost $00k. If he left you out of the
circuit, and got the panels directly from the node that you got them, then
it would of only cost him $0K and you would of never had $0K to buy a
windmill. A windmill that would of never been built. And $0K of energy that
would of never been used. Getting the panels from you, increased the energy
used to get the panels by $0K

And if you say, "Well.. He will just spend it on something else that cost
power to make"
You are correct.
Power will always find it's way through the loop, and come back to the
The question is how fast it travels through the loop.
The longer it takes for it to travel around the loop, the less energy is
consumed. The longer you hold onto the money (energy), before sending it on
down the line, the slower fuel (energy) will be consumed.

The way to reduce total power in the system, is to reduce the speed at which
it travels through each node in the circuit. If a device you own, takes less
money (energy) to operate, then you will end up getting a back log of money
(energy credits). You are forming a resistance to the power flow. You will
start to consume less money off of the circuitry upstream, and thus total
power flow (energy used by society) will be reduced. Anything that increases
the rate at which money is spent by any one node in the energy network of
society,  will never reduce the power consumed by society.

Does that make things clearer?

Posted by Paul Dube on April 7, 2005, 8:22 pm

Bravo! Well Done Sir N9WOS
I am very impressed by your knowledge and understanding of
our current energy situation (crisis).This article should be posted
 in newspapers throughout the country. You should think about
taking up politics and making things "right". Thank you for enlightening
the ignorant masses (me included) as to the "Big Picture" and looking at
things from outside "The Box"

 Thoroughly impressed............ Paul  ....................















Posted by N9WOS on April 7, 2005, 9:28 pm

Ahhhh... I don't know about that.
The idea of my horrible grammar, and spelling
posted across every newspaper, makes me cringe. :-0

Posted by MrE on January 30, 2006, 8:35 am

One word.. "Halliburton"  Must I say more?

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread