Dear_President_Barack_Obama by jizhen1947


          Patrick C. Post - President/CEO
  Innovative Environmental Energy Concepts, Inc.
      PO Box 143717 Coral Gables, FL 33114
                   (561) 568-1650

         CITIZEN OF
                         Two Quotes – Albert Einstein

“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change”

“If at first an idea is not absurd, there is little hope it will change the world”

                    Solar Powered Electric Bicycle Concept












Written by Patrick C. Post
 Citizen of Planet Earth
Patrick C. Post - President/CEO                                                     July 4, 2011
Innovative Environmental Energy Concepts, Inc.
PO Box 143717, Coral Cables, FL 33114
Cell 561-568-1650

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

We are requesting your assistance in promoting the development of renewable energy in Florida
and throughout the United States. One of our main goals is to create new homes and buildings
and retrofit existing structures that produce 100% more electricity than they consume, with the
majority of the surplus electricity used to power plug-in electric vehicles, scooters, and bicycles.
This revolutionary concept will allow structures to become power generation facilities instead of
energy consuming structures and this is the quickest way to make America energy independent
and reduce our fossil fuel consumption. The U.S. has the capability to reinvent itself and lead the
world in renewable energy development but we are applying little effort to make this happen.

Our group will start marketing solar powered plug-in electric vehicles and traditional looking
electric scooters and bicycles in the U.S. soon. These innovative forms of transportation are
intended to replace fossil fuel vehicles used for short distance commuting and for running basic
errands. The vehicles will have a range of 60 miles at 35 mph, scooters 30 miles at 30 mph, and
bicycles 25 miles at 15 mph. They all can be recharged from solar and wind power or from the
main grid. When the batteries run down, the bicycles can be pedaled to recharge the batteries.

Our ultra-quiet electric bicycle will have two levels of power assistance to help with the steepness
of the terrain and the conditioning level of the rider. If families or groups of people are riding
together with varying degrees of fitness, they will be able to ride as a group with greater comfort
and enjoyment by choosing one of the power levels if needed. The first level requires the rider to
simply move the pedals forward with minimal effort. The second level is located on the right side
handlebar and it is operated like a common motorcycle hand throttle, and no pedaling is needed.

We will also market our bikes to mall security services, police departments, and bicycle touring
companies. The bikes will have a top speed of 15 mph with little or no pedaling and the power
assist on the first level will stop if the rider stops pedaling. There is also an on/off switch to
quickly change the bike from a power assistance bicycle into a conventional bike without power.
The bicycle battery will be removable to prevent theft and for recharging at any home or office.

The bags above and below have solar panels built into each unit to recharge any type of battery
powered electronic equipment such as bicycle lights, cell phones, ipods, cameras, and laptop
computers, etc. We will begin marketing our solar bags in the U.S. in 2011 and they could be
used to help recharge the batteries on our bicycles. We are developing revolutionary concepts
that will assist in making our bikes self-perpetuating so it may not be necessary to plug them into
the grid for recharging. These concepts will also be applicable to any form of transportation and
we will incorporate them into our electric vehicles and scooters. The electric power generation
capabilities of our bicycles will also make it possible to recharge the batteries of any electronic
device to eliminate plugging them into the main power grid. Once we develop and patent our
concepts, we will license major manufacturers to produce them for global markets.

New thin film solar panels can be applied to almost anything including shirts, jackets, and hats.
We will market these products to promote the global awareness and benefits of solar power.

    Our First Office – 4311 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables, Florida 33146
                 (Please see (A) near center of map below to find location.)

Tesla Motors and Sharp Solar are both interested in our unique renewable energy concepts
including our plans to develop a 50 square block energy independent green zone in Coral Gables,
Florida that we will call ”The Merrick Park Green Energy Triangle”, (see map below). The triangle
runs from 40th Street (Top), 42nd Avenue (Left), and Highway US1 (Bottom/Right). It contains an
upscale mall called “Village of Merrick Park”, numerous high-end businesses and restaurants, and
many commercial and industrial buildings that are currently vacant due to a depressed economy.
This area is ideal for redevelopment to create the world’s first energy independent green zone.
To read more about our innovative project please see our website at and
click the link at the top left side of our Home Page that is entitled GREEN ENERGY ZONE.

A Miami Metro commuter train station (Douglas Road) is located in the triangle at 37th Avenue.
The next stop one mile to the south running along Highway US1 is (University Station) at the
University of Miami. The Miami Metro runs 10 miles north from Coral Gables to Miami where
there are numerous train stations throughout the city. We are also in the process of forming a
new non-profit renewable energy promotion group to help in developing and implementing our
revolutionary proposals. This group will be called New Earth Energy

We are making plans for a 10,000 mile national hybrid and all-electric vehicle promotional tour
using several renewable energy vehicles. This will include a revolutionary redesigned prototype
Ford Escape Hybrid SUV that will attain over 100 miles per gallon. Our unique tour will be called
“The Freedom from Fossil Fuels Road Tour” and it will begin in Coral Gables, Florida starting on
June 1, 2012. While driving our prototype SUV and other energy efficient vehicles throughout
America, we will stop along the tour and visit with governors, mayors, energy administrators, and
influential business leaders to promote our vehicles and the goals of our Global Energy Project.
The tour will last 120+ days and we will encourage the national press to follow our progress.

Another goal of our group is to promote the installation of at least one solar panel, one wind
generator, and one solar hot water heater for all 150 million homes and buildings in America to
produce and conserve energy 365 days a year. It will be necessary to add a battery system to
store the power that is not used immediately. This will provide a simple but effective emergency
backup system for every structure to provide hot water and operate lighting, fans, refrigeration,
and communication if power is lost from storms, grid overloads, and potential acts of terrorism.

It is not necessary to install more than one solar/wind generator for this energy producing
concept to be effective. It should be developed as quickly as possible for Florida's eight million
homes and buildings considering the historical nature of our hurricane-prone state. It would cost
only $2000 for each solar/wind/water/battery system to be installed or a total cost of $16 billion
for the entire State of Florida. This low cost will be achieved from the enormous purchasing
power and efficient installation of the equipment in 533,333 structures annually for 15 years
equaling 8 million. This statewide effort will reduce the typical $5000 price for randomly installed
units by 60% and it would provide employment for 10,000 installation technicians each year.

The collective energy generated and conserved by these systems will average $200-$400
annually or 10-20% of the electricity consumed by an average U.S. structure, which is $2000.
This includes homes, individual residential units in apartment and condominium buildings, and
smaller commercial buildings. The energy saved will pay for the systems in 5-10 years and the
total electricity produced and saved each year in Florida will be greater than the power generated
by two large nuclear plants, which annually average $750 million each or a total of $1.5 billion.

If these systems were installed nationwide in all of America’s 150 million homes and buildings
during the next 15 years, the total cost would be $300 billion or $20 billion a year spread out
over 15 years. Once all the systems were installed, they would collectively produce and save at
least $30 billion in energy annually or 10% of the total U.S. power consumption by all structures,
which is currently at $300 billion and climbing. This would also provide new stable employment
for 200,000 installation technicians and 200,000 U.S. manufacturing employees each year.

The cost to build one new nuclear plant is estimated at $12.5 billion if started today. The power
generated and saved from the solar/wind/water/battery systems will be greater to the electricity
produced from 40 nuclear plants which will cost $500+ billion to build and require 15-20 years
before they produce one watt of electricity. The 150 million solar/wind/water/battery systems
costing $300 billion will start producing and saving energy immediately after installing them and
each system could be installed by four technicians in one day. This is a savings of at least $200
billion when compared to building 40 new nuclear power plants throughout the United States.


Two of the newest solar products are curved solar tiles and flat solar shingles that are integrated
into the roof design to produce electricity for the structure. These types of solar power collectors
are as durable as traditional roof materials and they provide the esthetics and curb appeal that is
sometimes lacking with traditional flat solar panels. As these products become more common,
the cost to purchase and install them will progressively decline. Solar tiles, shingles, and panels
would also be ideal for creating solar powered carports at homes, apartments, and commercial
structures to recharge plug-in electric vehicles, and to provide power for homes and buildings.

Another innovative product now on the market is round thin film solar tubes created by Solyndra
that produce electricity from any angle including direct, defused, and reflected sunlight. They
weigh less than traditional flat panels and they are wind resistant, quick to install, easy to clean,
and extremely durable. This product is excellent for commercial and industrial flat roof buildings.

Revolutionary solar products will have extensive applications in the future including the creation
of interior and exterior molded solar vehicle panels that will produce electricity to recharge the
batteries of electric cars, trucks, and buses. Solar body panels also could be designed for trains,
ships, and airplanes. Solar paint is in the process of being developed and it could be applied to
numerous types of molded composite and metal products. The U.S. military is very interested in
the potential uses of solar paint because it could be utilized on anything that consumes energy
including ultra-quiet hybrid electric solar powered trucks, tanks, airplanes, and large warships.

A revolutionary solar product in development is durable, transparent, and tinted thin-film acrylic
solar sheeting that can be applied onto the windows of existing structures to produce electricity.
This has the potential in the future of transforming a glass covered home or building into a power
generation facility that could produce 10 times more electricity than the structure consumes.

The U.S. Federal Government has stated that low-level geothermal energy at 0-100 feet in depth
is one of the most efficient sources for heating and cooling homes and buildings. The natural
temperature of earth at 18 feet deep remains constant 365 days a year and it will not vary one
degree, no matter if it is 100 degrees Fahrenheit outdoors in summer or zero degrees in winter.
This clean, unlimited, and free renewable energy source can reduce the energy consumption and
the costs to heat and cool any structure by 50-90%. We will prove this is possible.

The temperature of the ground at 18 feet deep at the Equator averages 80 degrees Fahrenheit
and at the North and South 45th Parallels it averages 45 degrees. Near the North and South Poles
it is 10 degrees at 18 feet in depth at zero feet in elevation. Any variation in soil temperature will
be primarily caused by an increased elevation of the ground. This is because Planet Earth’s
ground temperature will consistently drop 3 degrees for every 1000 feet in increased elevation of
the land. An example of this can be seen when comparing San Francisco, California at sea level,
which has an average 60 degree ground temperature at 18 feet in depth and Denver, Colorado at
6000 feet in elevation, which has a 42 degree ground temperature (3x6=18 degrees difference).

It is also important to understand that the temperature of the ground on our planet will increase
1 degree Fahrenheit for every 100 feet of depth into the earth. At 1000 feet deep it is 10 degrees
warmer than at 18 feet and at 5000 feet deep it is 50 degrees warmer. These progressively
increasing ground temperatures can be demonstrated by going into any mine shaft on earth.

The water at the Equator averages 27 degrees Celsius or 80 degrees Fahrenheit and this relates
to the temperature of the ground. Our planet is measured in nautical miles and 60 nautical miles
equals 1 degree of the globe x 360 degrees = 21,600 nautical miles. One nautical mile is equal to
slightly over 1.15 miles x 60 nautical miles = 69 miles x 360 degrees = 24,859.82 miles.

Starting at the Equator, earth’s consistent ground temperature will drop by roughly .78 degrees
Fahrenheit for every 60 nautical miles (one latitude degree) closer to the North or South Poles.
The consistent temperature of earth near the North and South Poles at sea level at 18 feet deep
into the ground is 10 degrees Fahrenheit or 70 degrees colder than earth’s ground temperature
at the Equator. Since there are 90 latitude degrees between the Equator (0 Parallel) and either
one of the North or South Poles (90th Parallel), you can show the ground temperature difference
between the Equator and the Poles with the equation (90 x .78 = 70.2 degrees).

The picture below clearly illustrates earth’s varying crust thickness for our continents and oceans.
Planet Earth’s crust measures as little as five miles in thickness in the oceans of the world and as
great as 70 miles thick in the high mountain ranges. The thickness of earth’s crust at the Equator
averages 5-10 miles in depth because 80% of the Equator runs through ocean water and 20% of
this imaginary line dissects the continents of South America and Africa, and Indonesia’s islands.
The oceanic crust is made of basalt which is covered with a layer of sediment and the continental
crust is granite that was created from volcanic eruptions over hundreds of millions of years.

The picture above indicates the various elevations throughout earth’s continents and oceans.
Antarctica is consistently the highest and coldest continent on earth where the crust can exceed
50 miles in thickness. The varying thickness of earth’s crust insulates the top ground surface
rocks and soils from the three hot core layers which are the mantle, outer core, and inner core.

The thinner and softer basalt crust at the Equator is one of the reasons why earth’s Equator is
one of the warmest places on our planet. This thinning was partially caused by the fast rotation
of earth over billions of years, creating a bulge at the Equator from centrifugal force. Earth’s
circumference at the Equator is 24,901.55 miles or 41.73 miles larger than its circumference from
Pole to Pole which is 24,859.82 miles.

The thin crust at the Equator has become slightly stretched over time from earth rotating at over
1037.56 miles an hour equaling 24,901.55 miles traveled in 24 hours. Two additional reasons the
Equator is warm is because 80% of it is located at sea level where the temperature is always
warmer than at higher elevations and the Equator generally receives some of the most intense
and consistent sunshine on earth. The low elevation and large amounts of sunshine help to heat
the land and water but this is not the only reason for the warmer climate at the Equator.


To prove this point you just need to individually look at the South Pole and the North Pole during
their warmer summer seasons when they receive 24 hours of sunlight. The average temperature
at the geographical South Pole during its three summer months (Dec, Jan, Feb) is zero degrees
Fahrenheit. It is important to understand that the average elevation on Antarctica is 10,000 feet
because the continent’s land mass averages 6000 feet in elevation with an average of 4000 feet
of ice sitting on top of the land. Antarctica’s temperature during its three winter season months,
(Jun, Jul, Aug) averages -60 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees colder than its typical summer
temperature. The average annual temperature at the South Pole is -30 degrees Fahrenheit and it
is one of the driest and sunniest places on earth.

The average temperature at the geographical North Pole in its summer season (Jun, Jul, Aug) is
30 degrees Fahrenheit. It is critically important to understand that the average elevation at the
North Pole is just above sea level since the North Pole Ice Sheet averages only five feet thick in
summer and about ten feet thick in winter. The North Pole’s average winter season temperature
(Dec, Jan, Feb) is -30 degrees Fahrenheit or 60 degrees colder than its summer. The average
annual temperature at the North Pole is zero degrees Fahrenheit.

The 30 degree difference in average annual temperatures between the North Pole at sea level
and the South Pole at 10,000 feet is directly caused by Antarctica’s higher elevation. Remember
for every 1000 feet in increased elevation above sea level the ground temperatures will diminish
by an average of 3 degrees Fahrenheit (3x10=30 degrees). This 3 degree rule is consistent
anywhere on Planet Earth from the Equator to the Poles.


     North Pole Ice Melting 1975-2005                 North Pole Ice Expansion 1975-2005

The pictures above illustrate the average North Pole Ice Sheet shrinking from melting in summer
and the expansion of ice from freezing in winter in the years 1975-2005. Due to increased global
warming in the last ten years, the amount of melting has been more extensive during the last
decade than shown in the above left picture. The same is true for Antarctica (below left) which in
the last ten years has experienced more melting in summer than indicated as a 40 year average.

     South Pole Ice Melting 1975-2005                 South Pole Ice Expansion 1975-2005

Cultures throughout our planet’s history have used low-level geothermal energy to make homes
and buildings more comfortable to live and work inside. We will reintroduce this enormous and
critically important energy source to the world to significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption and
lower CO2 pollution. Animals and humans since the beginning of time have taken advantage of
earth’s temperature to thrive and survive. Humans need to rediscover this tremendous benefit.

Cavemen lived in caves because they provided excellent protection from rain, wind, and snow in
winter, and protection from hot sunshine in summer. They also lived inside caves in the earth
because they were usually 30-50 degrees warmer than the outdoor environment in winter and
30-50 degrees cooler in summer. This was a necessity for our planet’s early human inhabitants
for comfort and survival if they lived in difficult climates that varied widely between seasons.

It has been well documented on every continent on earth that the natural temperature of the
ground has been continually used for the last 10,000 years to help heat and cool structures. This
low-level geothermal energy effect can be easily demonstrated by walking into the basement of
any home or building (new or ancient) anywhere in the world. You will quickly notice that the air
temperature inside this space will be 30+ degrees warmer than the outdoor air temperature on a
cold winter day and it will be 30+ degrees cooler on a hot summer day.

The pictures above and below show several examples of innovative construction and engineering
projects that were built 250-2500 years ago that utilized the natural elements of Planet Earth to
create more comfortable and inhabitable environments for many cultures throughout the world.
The designers of the projects used low-level geothermal energy for natural heating and cooling,
wind towers for circulating air, and gravity to move water to large cities. They also used radiant
heating and cooling to raise or lower the temperature inside the rooms of homes and buildings.
This was accomplished by moving warm or cool air inside the walls, floors, and ceilings of the
structure as shown in the below left picture of an ancient Roman wall. The lower right picture
shows natural lighting and solar thermal heating. Some of these same principles can be applied
to the construction of new structures and the retrofitting of existing homes and buildings.

Many types of animals burrow inside the ground to help them survive cold winters and hot
summers. One of the best examples of animals effectively using the temperature of Planet Earth
(24/7) 365 days a year to create a comfortable environment can be shown in North American
Black-Tailed prairie dogs that can live in groups of 1000 to more than 10,000. The prairie dogs’
range extends from Canada to Mexico throughout the North American plains. They dig into the
ground over 25 feet deep to construct prairie dog towns with multiple entrances, passageways,
and rooms. The temperature at the bottom of these dwellings in America’s heartland can average
55 degrees Fahrenheit in both winter and summer because the temperature of the ground at 18
feet does not vary. In North Dakota the ground temperature averages 40 degrees, in Kansas 55
degrees, and in Texas it averages 70 degrees. A 70 degree ground temperature would provide
the best balance for heating and cooling homes and buildings from low-level geothermal energy.


Our group would like to ask the question why Florida Power and Light, a for-profit electric utility
company, has been tentatively approved to receive a Florida Public Service Commission gift of
$25 billion to construct two nuclear power reactors in South Florida. The money will primarily
come from U.S. taxpayers and FP&L’s 4.0 million utility customers in Florida by increasing their
electricity rates. FP&L will manage the project and fully own the two proposed nuclear power
reactors once they are completed. This comes out to a contribution of roughly $6000 from each
FP&L electricity customer and this money will be given directly to FP&L and their stockholders.

We oppose the construction of FP&L's two proposed nuclear reactors in Florida and other nuclear
power projects in development throughout the United States partly because they will be primarily
funded from increased electric utility rates. The reason America has turned to nuclear power at
this critical time is because it is something we know and understand. Cost effective renewable
energy on the other hand has infinitely more potential to quickly reduce U.S. and global fossil
fuel consumption when compared to nuclear power but it is in the early stages of development
and it is not fully understood by most government, business, or environmental leaders.

In 2009 the U.S. Government gave General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford Motor Company billions of
dollars to redevelop their companies. They were required to pay back the money or the American
people would own a portion of their companies. This same business model should be applied to
all future nuclear power plants ($12.5 billion per plant) that are constructed by for-profit utilities
using money from electric utility rate increases as well as contributions from federal, state, and
city governments. If the utilities want to own a percentage of a new nuclear plant, they should
contribute that percentage of funding to the project. If this is not cost effective for the utilities,
they should not build the plants. The American people should instead form electricity co-ops and
the electric utilities should be hired only as contractors and managers for our new nuclear plants.

Listed below are a multitude of reasons explaining why renewable
energy should be immediately developed globally and nuclear
power should not be expanded in the United States at this time.
1. One of the most important reasons for not expanding nuclear power in America is that there
are so many more effective and less costly choices available to provide electricity. Conservation
alone through new technology development and innovation could cut over 50% of our total U.S.
fossil fuel and electric power consumption and this effort would be equally effective globally.

2. The 2002 chart below was created by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and it
shows the production, consumption, and loss of energy in the U.S. from every energy sector. It
indicates the energy lost through inefficiency was 58% of the 97.0 Quadrillion BTUs consumed.
The following page shows an updated 2009 chart from Livermore Labs indicating a slight decline
in energy consumed to 94.6 Quadrillion BTUs but the overall inefficiency still remained at 58%.
The quickest and most cost effective way for America to become energy independent is to make
our main focus improving energy efficiency, not producing more inefficient energy!

3. Nuclear power is by far the most expensive, dangerous, time consuming, and inefficient way
to generate electricity when you factor in everything including decommissioning and nuclear
waste disposal requirements. When the true costs to produce nuclear power is compared to the
costs for conserving energy through new technology development and innovation, which is the
least expensive and most beneficial choice with the fastest results, there is no comparison at all.

4. The reason nuclear plants will take 15-20 years to construct is that the U.S. has not started a
new plant in 30 years. This is because there are few places suitable for building them and the
cost to build the plants is excessive. We also still do not have a safe place to store the nuclear
waste and this should be included in the true costs of nuclear power. This is seldom added to
cost estimates by the utilities when asking for funding to build the plants. The $500 billion cost to
build 40 nuclear plants is solely for the construction and does not include security, maintenance,
disposing of the nuclear waste, and decommissioning and dismantling of the plants in the future.

5. Nuclear plants require large amounts of water to operate them and our already limited water
supplies are becoming increasingly reduced worldwide from rapid population growth. Our planet's
population is expected to grow from 7.0 billion today to 9 billion within 40 years. The availability
of fresh water will become a critical problem for most countries in the world within 30 years.

6. Most U.S. citizens age 65 and over will likely never receive any benefit from the money they
will be required to contribute to the building of America's nuclear power plants, due to the fact
that the average person in the U.S. does not live beyond 80 years of age. It would be infinitely
better to invest our retired citizens’ money into their own homes and buildings to reduce the
structures’ energy consumption starting immediately, and the money seniors spend could be
repaid over 5-10 years from lower monthly utility bills, making this concept very cost effective.

7. Investing $500 billion on conserving energy and improving the efficiency of America's 150
million structures could save 2-4 times more electricity annually ($60-$120 billion) than 40
nuclear plants constructed at a cost of $500 billion will produce in power each year ($30 billion).
This simple comparison is critical when discussing improving America’s electricity infrastructure.
The most important question is what are the alternatives to nuclear power and what benefits can
they provide for the dollars that are contributed by U.S. taxpayers and electric utility customers.

8. Improving the energy efficiency of most individual homes and buildings would have a quick
completion time of 1-2 days to receive energy saving benefits, compared to a completion time of
15-20 years to construct nuclear power plants before they will generate one watt of electricity.
The owners of homes and buildings will also own the new equipment added to their properties,
increasing the value of their structures. When they sell the properties in the future, they will be
repaid for their investment in improving their structures’ energy efficiency. This is significantly
better than giving owners’ money to electric utilities and their stockholders to build additional
nuclear power plants. This gift of money is the only reason U.S. for-profit utilities want to build
more nuclear plants and they would never consider building them using their own money.

9. When you factor in all costs including maintenance, security, disposing of the nuclear waste,
and decommissioning and dismantling of the plants in the future, the true total cost to build and
operate 40 new nuclear plants is estimated at $1 trillion or $25 billion for each facility. It is
important to understand that these 40 nuclear power plants will only increase U.S. electricity
production by 8%. By the time all the plants are completed in 2030, which is the earliest and
most optimistic time to complete the construction, America's population will increase by 16%
(.875% annual growth) and our demand for energy will increase by approximately 16%. We
will never be able to keep up with our country's expanding energy needs by focusing on building
more nuclear plants. This needs to be the last choice we make, not the first!

10. A new large nuclear power plant can produce $750 million in electric power each year but
since the true cost is $25 billion to construct one plant today, it will take 33 years to break even.
Add an additional 15-20 years to build the nuclear plant and that equals roughly 50 years from
the time the construction begins to break even. The electric utilities of course are not concerned
about breaking even since they will be fully reimbursed for any costs they incur in designing,
constructing, and operating the nuclear power plants. This will primarily come from increased
electric utility rates and support from the U.S. Federal Government.

11. It is not that nuclear plants are not effective in producing electricity, they are. It is the power
they generate costs several times more to create it and these plants take many times longer to
provide the same benefits that would come from reducing U.S. energy consumption through new
technology development and innovation. This makes nuclear power the least beneficial choice.

12. America needs to focus on manufacturing revolutionary renewable energy products, systems,
and equipment and sell them globally to create millions of new U.S. jobs, instead of resurrecting
our dormant and counter-productive nuclear power plant construction capabilities. America could
also help every country in the world reduce their fossil fuel consumption by selling our renewable
energy products globally. Reduced global demand for crude oil, natural gas, and coal will cause
the price for fossil fuels to drop worldwide, saving U.S. consumers several $100 billion annually.

13. Nuclear power is not something that the U.S. wants to promote or sell globally so why are
we now turning to making it a major focus of our country. The answer is simple, big business
wants to make large profits from the nuclear equipment they sell without regard to the welfare of
our planet and our U.S. political leaders do not understand the alternatives to nuclear power.

14. The American people are being asked to pay for the construction of all U.S. nuclear plants
through federal support and increased utility rates. Then we are required to pay the for-profit
utilities for all the electricity that is generated. Our citizens will not own any part of the value of
the plants once they are completed. The utilities and their stockholders will own 100% of them.
This must not be allowed to happen! Our citizens deserve a more equitable share than zero!

15. A fair comparison would be if I told Florida Power & Light that I was going to build a large
solar farm and I wanted their company to pay all the costs for the land, equipment, labor, and
insurance. I would manage the entire project from start to finish and completely own everything
once all the work was completed. FP&L and their stockholders would own nothing. I would then
agree to sell FP&L all the electric power generated from my new solar farm at retail so I could
make enormous profits. If FP&L feels this business deal is grossly unfair, I would like to tell them
that it is basically the same business deal they are offering to the citizens of the State of Florida.

16. The U.S. is encouraging countries like Iran and North Korea to produce their electricity
through non-nuclear alternatives. We are doing this so our country and the rest of the world
will not be threatened with the global expansion of nuclear power and potential use of weapons
of mass destruction (WMD). America is not setting a good example by trying to expand our own
nuclear generation capabilities, while asking other countries not to develop their nuclear power.

17. The United States is spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually to continually
modernize, strengthen, and expand our military to help control the world and guide it towards
democracy. Most of this money could be used more effectively to achieve this goal by improving
the economic and manufacturing might of the U.S. through renewable energy development. This
would be an infinitely more productive and beneficial long-term choice for expanding America’s
power and influence throughout the world, and helping guide it towards democracy.

18. For-profit electric utilities have no interest in purchasing electricity generated from private
structures and they desperately want to keep everyone dependent on them for all their electric
power needs. These utilities only want to sell electricity and their main concern is creating profits
and keeping their stockholders happy. That is why they have made very little effort to promote
solar and wind power in America generated from private homes and commercial buildings.

19. The for-profit electric utilities know the enormous potential for generating electricity from
America’s 150 million structures but they are only interested in helping expand solar and wind
power in the U.S. by building large solar and wind farms that they will own. These farms are
primarily paid from increased electric utility rates and financial support from the U.S. Government
and city, county, and state governments. Creating solar and wind farms certainly helps utilities to
generate electricity through renewable energy, which is a great alternative to using fossil fuel,
but this also assists the utilities in maintaining complete control of the power supplies that every
U.S. citizen needs for survival. This control must change because it is undermining America’s
ultimate goal which is to eliminate all fossil fuel imports so we can become energy independent
and energy independence is the most critical part to protecting America’s national security!

20. If electric utilities build solar or wind farms in the future and they are fully reimbursed by
taxpayers and utility customers, our citizens should own the facilities, not the for-profit electric
utilities and their stockholders. Just because they have the knowledge and expertise to create
these electricity production farms, this does not mean the utilities should own them when our
citizens are the ones who ultimately pay all the costs to create and manage the facilities. We
should hire these utilities only as contractors and managers to build and operate the plants.

21. When cities, counties, states, and the U.S. Federal Government hire various contractors to
build bridges, tunnels or buildings for the good of the public, the contractors do not own them
once they are completed. We need to reconsider how we spend our citizens’ money when fully
reimbursing for-profit utilities and their stockholders for the construction of these expensive solar,
wind, and nuclear power generation projects. The American people usually end up paying all of
the costs to create these enormous projects and then the electric utilities charge for every watt
of power that is generated. I cannot think of a more unfair business deal for our U.S. citizens.

22. Our group opposes electric utilities constructing 200-300 foot tall wind energy towers along
America’s pristine coastlines and beautiful highways. While this does produce clean energy, the
high costs which are always passed on to consumers and the visual damages are unacceptable.
When you consider that America could easily cut 50% of our electricity consumption through the
conservation of energy from new technology development and innovation, we should not allow
wind power towers to damage our national scenic views. This is one more example of the utilities
who want to produce power for sale to consumers, with no regard to the damage that occurs.

23. There are so many ways to conserve energy but the electric utilities ignore every opportunity
because they have not figured out how to make money through conservation. We have created a
revolutionary plan so they can achieve this goal. It involves U.S. for-profit utilities generating
enormous revenues by designing, manufacturing, selling, installing, and maintaining renewable
energy equipment for every structure in the U.S. and then marketing this equipment worldwide.

24. It would be better to begin aggressively generating the majority of America’s solar and wind
power from the rooftops of our 30 million U.S. commercial buildings, instead of paying for-profit
electric utilities to build large solar and wind farms in isolated areas. This would reduce the costs
and power lost when sending electricity long distances to consumers. Most commercial structures
have flat roofs that can range from 1000 square feet to more than 100,000. This space is usually
90% unused and it would be ideal for installing equipment to create small solar and wind farms.

25. If you estimate that the average commercial roof area in the U.S. is 3333 square feet, this
would provide 100 billion square feet or 60x60 square miles in America to install solar and wind
power generating equipment, and solar thermal water heating systems. Electric consumers could
produce their own power and sell any surplus electricity to their neighbors or to their local utility.
We will need to change the regulations to allow private citizens to sell surplus power to anyone
wishing to purchase it. Most regulations prevent this and that only benefits the utilities. This
concept would be just one of many new effective ways to help the U.S. become more energy
independent, while also lowering the cost of electricity and strengthening our electric grids.

26. U.S. electric utilities should realize they could make big profits if they would begin focusing
on designing, selling, installing, and maintaining renewable energy equipment to make every
commercial building in America into a small solar and/or wind farm. Some of this equipment
could be used to generate electric power for condominiums, apartment buildings, and private
residences. The utilities could lease rooftops to build the farms or they could sell the solar and
wind powered equipment and thermal water heating systems to the building owners. U.S. for-
profit utilities could also sell these products worldwide to make huge profits and this would help
reduce worldwide fossil fuel consumption and lower CO2 pollution to control global warming.

27. The fastest and most cost effective choice we could make to reduce the air-conditioning
costs and energy consumption of flat-top or pitched commercial buildings globally is to apply a
(1/8”) white reflective rubberized coating on every roof surface. Most commercial roofs have a
black or gray coating on the roof surface and on a hot summer day (80-100 degrees Fahrenheit)
these roofs can exceed 180 degrees in temperature. Applying 2-3 coats of an attractive and
durable roll-on, brush or spray white rubberized coating that is similar to thick paint can lower an
average roof’s surface temperature to less than 120 degrees. This can reduce a typical building’s
air-conditioning costs and the energy consumption used for cooling by 10-20% annually.

28. Similar benefits can be attained by applying this white coating on the top of new or existing
(asphalt shingled, metal, or tile) pitched roof buildings, apartments, and homes. The rubber will
strongly adhere to any roof material. If a roof is deteriorating, applying the white rubber can add
20 years to the life of the roof by providing a continuous strong, waterproof, and wind resistant
barrier. This will eliminate the need to replace most worn roofs that are leaking, saving owners
time, effort, and thousands of dollars while also improving the energy efficiency of the structure.

29. We need to encourage the creation of new building codes that require flat-top commercial
roofs to be covered with a durable and energy efficient white rubberized coating instead of black
tar. White coatings cost less to purchase and apply, and they last longer than black tar roofs
because the rubber is always cooler and therefore it does not expand and contract or crack as
much as a black tar roof. Adding solar and wind powered equipment on top of the white roofs
will provide shade to further reduce the roofs’ temperature and lower the air-conditioning costs.
The rubber also acts like an insulator and helps prevent heat from penetrating into the roof!

30. I have personally witnessed the energy saving and quality of life benefits that can be
attained from covering a black tar roof with white rubber. In 1984 I purchased a 1950s home in
Portland, Oregon that was constructed in a Frank Lloyd Wright design. It had large windows for
natural light, wide roof eaves to provide shading for the windows and for the perimeter plants,
flat slab concrete floors with radiant heating and cooling, a flat black tar roof, and to provide
shade a large maple tree on the south side and various tall fir trees near the structure. The home
had no central air-conditioning. I recognized the home was designed to be energy efficient
except for the black tar roof which received direct sun in the late afternoon.

31. After a couple of years living in the home I purchased a liquid white rubber roof coating in
five gallon containers and rolled it on the roof to fill the many cracks that had developed because
the roof was 30 years old. This was in the middle of July when the weather was very hot and
dry. I noticed within a few days after the work was completed that the temperature inside the
home was approximately 10 degrees cooler with the white roof to reflect the sun’s rays. I also
noticed that the temperature of the white roof surface felt much cooler to the touch when
compared to the old black tar roof.

32. During the next year I went on top of the roof several times to check for maintenance issues
and to remove leaves that filled the rain gutters. I hosed off the roof each time to clear it of all
debris and I noticed shallow puddles of water would form due to slight variations in the roof
surface. Something that surprised me was that these puddles would always last 3-4 days in the
summertime when we had no rain and 80-90 degree weather.

33. During the first two years of owning the home, I performed similar roof cleaning work on the
black tar roof and the puddles of water would form but they would evaporate in 4-8 hours during
these same type of hot and dry weather conditions. This is conclusive proof that a white rubber
roof is significantly cooler than a black tar roof and therefore a white roof will obviously reduce
the costs and energy consumption to air-condition any home or building. This concept should be
promoted throughout the world to lower every consumer’s electric utility bill while also reducing
worldwide fossil fuel consumption, CO2 pollution, and global warming!

34. The nationwide installation of Smart Grid meters and upgrading our electric infrastructure is
one of the fastest and most cost effective ways to reduce U.S. power consumption, lower the
cost of electricity to consumers, and strengthen our grids. Smart Grid meters will make it possible
for utilities to monitor individual and collective power consumption on an hour by hour basis to
control the main grids and help prevent blackouts. These meters will also allow every consumer
to monitor and control their own power consumption at home and through the Internet from any
computer with Internet access. This will make it possible for people from remote locations to use
a personal security code to turn their lights on and off, raise or lower their air-conditioning and
heat, monitor security, and control any piece of electronic equipment in their homes or buildings.

35. There are 120 million residences and 30 million commercial buildings in America. If Smart
Grid digital two-way electric meters were installed in all of our 150 million structures at a cost of
$170 each, the total cost would be $25 billion. Smart Grid meters will eliminate meter readers
from having to check consumers’ monthly power consumption and these meters can reduce the
energy costs in structures by 5% from increased efficiency and from people shifting some of their
power usage to off peak hours when costs are lower. One-way meters are inefficient because
they must be checked on site to see how much power has been used, and if surplus electricity is
generated by the structure, the meters are not designed to allow power to be sent to utilities.
This makes it impossible for consumers to receive a payment for producing surplus electricity.
Two-way meters allow power to be sent to utilities so consumers can receive a credit or money.

36. Homes in the U.S. consume $150 billion annually in electricity or 37.5% of all power and
commercial structures consume a similar amount of electricity equaling a total of $300 billion.
Industry consumes the remaining 25% or $100 billion annually equaling a collective total of $400
billion. A 5% reduction from installing Smart Grid digital meters in every home and building in
America would create a savings of $15 billion each year. If we invested an additional $25 billion
in upgrading our national electric power infrastructure, we could save another (5%) or $15 billion
more in energy costs. This means we can pay for the cost of installing Smart Grid meters and
upgrading America’s electricity infrastructure ($50 billion) in less than two years from reducing
our national electricity costs for all homes and buildings by (10%) or $30 billion annually.

37. It is important to compare the numerous quick and cost effective choices that are available
today for conserving U.S. electricity, to the building of expensive long term 15-20 year nuclear
power projects to produce electricity. It would require at least 40 new nuclear power plants
costing a total of $500 billion to generate the same amount of electricity each year ($30 billion)
that would be saved from installing Smart Grid meters throughout the U.S. and upgrading our
electric infrastructure, which would have a total cost of $50 billion. When comparing improved
efficiency $50 billion to expanded nuclear power $500 billion, this is a (10 to 1) in cost savings.

38. If all incandescent and long tube fluorescent lights in the America were replaced with LED
(Light Emitting Diodes) and compact fluorescent lights (CFL), this would save more electricity
than the power generated annually from 40 new nuclear plants ($750 million x 40 = $30 billion).
This is 7.5% of the total U.S. annual power consumption which is $400 billion. LED lights are the
best lights for the global environment because they use the least amount of electricity and they
do not contain mercury, which is common in fluorescent lights. This mercury can reach streams,
lakes, rivers, and the oceans of the world, which is be absorbed by the fish and shellfish we eat.

39. We will promote the worldwide replacement of incandescent lights with LED and compact
fluorescent lights. LED lights are the most durable of all lights and they can last ten times longer
than incandescent. They may cost 10 times the price of incandescent but they also produce the
same amount of light at 1/10th the energy. The energy reduction is the most important factor.

40. Another major benefit is LED lights are cool to touch and they emit only (4 BTUs/hour) of
heat compared to (80 BTUs/hour) for incandescent. This is 5% of the heat that is normally
produced by incandescent lights, which can reduce the energy consumption in structures
enormously by lowering the cost to air-condition homes and buildings. Many retail businesses
would reduce their air-conditioning costs by at least 50% by switching from hot incandescent to
cool LED lights because it is common for many retailers to use 100-200 incandescent lights to
showcase their products. The immense heat produced by incandescent lights can be easily
demonstrated by turning off all of the lights in one of these businesses and you will notice the
temperature in the room will usually drop by 10-15 degrees Fahrenheit within 1-2 minutes.

41. If the U.S. replaced every outdated and inefficient electrical appliance, water heater, and
window mounted air-conditioner in our country during the next five years with Energy Star units,
we would save more electricity each year than 40 new nuclear plants will produce in electricity
annually ($750 million x 40 = $30 billion). Since 40 new nuclear power plants will cost $1 trillion
to construct and there are 310 million U.S. citizens, this equals $3225 for each person in America.

42. It would be better for owners to put their money into purchasing Energy Star units for their
homes and buildings instead of being forced to give their money though increased utility rates
and taxes to for-profit utilities and their stockholders to build nuclear plants. This will reduce an
owner’s monthly utility bill and add value to their structure. It will also improve their quality of life
while living or working at the structure. If the home or building is sold in the future, the owner
will be able to recapture most of their investment from purchasing the Energy Star equipment.

43. When you consider we have 150 million U.S. homes and buildings, spending $1 trillion equals
$6666 for each structure to replace outdated appliances, water heaters, and air-conditioners with
more energy efficient units. This could reduce a typical structure’s energy usage by 50% and
significantly lower electricity consumed by washers and dryers, refrigerators, stoves and ovens,
dishwashers, refrigerators, water heaters, and air-conditioning systems, etc.

44. The newest Energy Star front load washing machines use 50% less water and 50% less
detergent than traditional top load models to achieve the same results. These washers also spin
the clothes twice as fast as top load washers to remove 50% more water after the wash and
rinse cycle is completed. This naturally requires less time, energy, and cost to dry a load of
laundry. Since Energy Star front load washers use 50% less detergent, this also eliminates half
the soap pollutants that are normally released into the environment.

45. The two biggest consumers of electric power in the United States are air-conditioners and
hot water heaters. The replacement of this kind of equipment with more energy efficient models
throughout America would reduce our total electricity consumption in homes by 15%. This would
lower CO2 pollution produced by the U.S. because 67.5% or (2/3) of our electricity is generated
from burning fossil fuels, coal (48%), natural gas (18.5%), and oil (1%). Natural gas is also used
extensively in the U.S. in many outdated models of natural gas hot water heaters. They should
be gradually replaced with newer natural gas units that consume 50% less energy. The balance
of America’s electric power comes from nuclear (21.8%), hydro (7%), wind (1.7 %), bio (1.1%),
geothermal (.83%), and solar (.07%) equaling a total of 32.5% or roughly 1/3 of our electricity.


46. A new revolutionary energy concept is in the early stages of development that combines
solar panels with thermal hot water heating systems. The benefits are cooling of the panels by
enclosing water between an additional layer of glass attached on top of the solar panel. This
cooling makes the panels more energy efficient because they can loose 1% of their efficiency for
every degree of increased temperature above 105 degrees Fahrenheit. The sun will heat the
enclosed water to 100-140 degrees Fahrenheit, reducing the energy consumption and the costs
of a structure’s water heater. This will also make the solar panels produce more electric power.
We have proposed to Solyndra, Inc. that they apply this same innovative water cooling concept
to their solar tubes to lower their temperature. This will improve the efficiency of the tubes while
heating water for homes and buildings. Solyndra has indicated they will evaluate our proposal.

       Modifications of 24” Wide Efficiency Washer/Dryer Unit Created By Patrick Post

47. This washer/dryer was modified to pull hot air from the attic into the dryer to assist in drying
a standard load of laundry. The air temperature in most attics during warm weather can exceed
125 degrees Fahrenheit and this hot air can be utilized to help lower the energy consumption and
energy costs at any residence. During warm weather a clothes dryer will usually pull 75 degree
air-conditioned air from the interior of a home and heat it to 175+ degrees. We are starting with
attic air at 125 degrees which means we only need to raise the temperature of the air 50 degrees
instead of 100 degrees. This reduces the energy consumption and energy costs to dry a load of
laundry by roughly 50%. It also helps to cool the attic by pulling outdoor air into it through roof
vents, reducing the heat inside the attic, which helps to lower the home’s air-conditioning costs.

48. The heat produced by a clothes dryer is normally sent outdoors. We can modify any existing
structure to utilize this heat during the cool months of the year to help heat all the interior walls,
floors, and ceilings of a structure. This heat will quickly radiate through these surfaces. This can
be accomplished by slightly altering the design of a home, apartment building, or condominium.
The warm air created by any clothes dryer (that is normally discarded) can then be used to
reduce a structure’s heating costs and energy consumption. We are in the process of developing
numerous other revolutionary, common sense, and cost effective renewable energy concepts to
reduce worldwide energy consumption, including using free, unlimited, and environmentally
friendly low-level geothermal energy to help heat and cool homes and buildings globally.

49. Reducing U.S. energy consumption by focusing on improving the energy efficiency of all our
150 million structures will create at least 10 times more total jobs (1 million) in every small town
to large city in the U.S. than the expansion of nuclear power with less than 100,000 jobs created.

50. The development of ultra-efficient homes and buildings with battery storage systems will
be more effective in strengthening and flattening America's interconnecting grids, and helping
the U.S. become energy independent, than expanding nuclear power. Systems capable of storing
24 hours of power could be fully recharged during low cost off-peak hours (12am-6am) to cut
utility costs for consumers by over 50%. Peak energy usage (8am-10pm) is usually 2-3 times
greater per hour than during off-peak times. It also can cost utilities 5-10 times more per hour to
provide peak power to fulfill energy demands because expensive generating methods must be
used or the utilities must purchase high-priced electricity on the open market. The flattening of
our main power grids will help to lower the cost to generate peak power and the savings that are
attained can be passed on to U.S. electric utility consumers.

51. The red line in the chart above shows common highs and lows in America’s electric power
consumption for an average 24 hour day. The blue line indicates the release of potential stored
electricity to provide power as our demand for electricity increases and decreases. The green
straight line represents what a flattened U.S. electric grid would look like if we installed the
correct size and type of power storage systems throughout America in all our 150 million homes
and buildings, and at small substations that are located within one mile of utility consumers.

52. Consumers with systems capable of storing 48 hours of power could use 50% of the power
for their own daily needs and sell the other 50% back to the grid every day during peak times to
make a 100% or more profit. This would allow these consumers to eliminate all their power costs
by buying grid power on a daily basis at a low price and reselling it when prices are the highest.

53. Solar panels should be installed at all U.S. structures but it is equally important to install
systems for storing electricity. Most homes are unoccupied Monday-Friday between the hours of
10am-4pm when the majority of people are at work. This is also the time when the sun has the
greatest solar benefits. If homes are not using electricity during these hours, the power should
be stored for the future energy needs of the structure, including recharging the owners’ plug-in
electric vehicles, scooters, and bicycles. Any surplus power could be sold to the main grid or to a
neighbor who needs power. Sending electricity short distances to neighbors would reduce the
typical 50% energy losses that occur when electric power is sent long distances.

54. Storing Direct Current (DC) power in homes and buildings is one of the most critical parts to
helping reduce U.S. fossil fuel consumption so America can become energy independent. One of
the simplest forms of DC power can be quickly demonstrated by turning a flashlight on and off.
The first large scale DC electric power system was installed by Thomas Edison in New York State.
It started producing electricity on September 4, 1882 when Mr. Edison lighted one square mile of
Lower Manhattan in New York City.

                        Thomas Edison                    George Westinghouse

55. Alternating Current (AC) was developed and successfully promoted by George Westinghouse
starting in 1891. This is the electricity source that is used today in 99.9% of all structures
worldwide. AC is more efficient when sending power long distances but DC is more efficient at
less than one mile. There is little or no electricity lost when sending DC power less than one mile.
Beyond this distance DC begins to become increasingly inefficient.

56. What the world needs is a hybrid system that will provide a perfect balance of both DC and
AC electricity to create the greatest energy efficiency. This could be cost effectively accomplished
by building power storage substations less than two miles apart in populated areas. AC electricity
would be used to send power long distances to these substations and then the power would be
held for electric consumers to use as needed. All home and building owners would also have their
own battery storage systems on site and they would only use the substation DC electricity to
keep their batteries fully charged if their own solar and wind power systems were not providing
sufficient power for the needs of the structure.

57. The main reason we do not have this hybrid system today is because Thomas Edison and
George Westinghouse were bitter rivals and they did everything they could to discredit each
other’s power system. This was called “The War of Currents”. Westinghouse won in the end over
DC not because of the energy efficiency of AC electricity but because his system was practical for
sending electricity long distances. If these two inventors had worked together to create a simple
hybrid system that utilized the best of both AC and DC power, the storage of DC electricity in
homes and buildings would now be an integral part of the world’s electric grids. By also adding
DC power substations spaced two miles apart in every city and town in the U.S., electricity would
instantly become less expensive, infinitely more reliable, and more available to everyone globally.

58. This hybrid concept will reduce the 50% electricity losses that are common when only using
AC power to provide electricity. It will also make power safer for consumers because DC is low
voltage. AC is high voltage and it kills thousands of people annually from electrical fires and from
electrocution. DC electric power can be used in all the existing wiring systems available today in
any structure. The other important part to add to homes and buildings is low-level geothermal
energy systems to reduce 50-90% of the energy consumed for heating and cooling structures.
Using a balanced combination of AC and DC, and low-level geothermal energy will revolutionize
how energy is produced, distributed, and consumed globally. This will make it possible to create
100% surplus zero energy homes and buildings that can produce free environmentally friendly
electricity to recharge the batteries of plug-in hybrid solar powered cars, trucks, and buses. This
revolutionary concept will eventually lead to energy independence for most countries on earth.

59. The 2009 pie chart above shows China as the largest installer of thermal hot water heating
systems in the world with 80.3% of the global installations. The United States is only at .5% of
the global installations or 1 for every 160 in China. Australia has 7% of the U.S. population and
they are equal to America’s limited efforts. The diagram below and the picture below left show
combined hybrid solar thermal and low-level geothermal heating and cooling systems that can
cost effectively reduce the energy consumption in any home or building by over 50%. The U.S.
must begin aggressively manufacturing and installing these systems throughout America and
export them worldwide for the growing renewable energy market.

60. We could store the DC power at structures in solid “GEL” batteries that are commonly used
in modern high quality golf carts, electric forklifts, and newer off-grid residential power systems.
Large rechargeable DC GEL batteries are important because they are very cost effective and
efficient in providing power anytime it is needed and they can last over 20 years with little
maintenance. They also can be installed in protected areas such as a garage or basement, and
they can be made in America creating thousands of new U.S. jobs.

61. The most important first step is to start with relatively inexpensive battery storage systems.
The reason is solar panels can sometimes be difficult to install and they are often unattractive
when installed on the roof of homes, especially historic homes. Solar panels are also heavy, only
work when the sun is shining, can be damaged by storms causing higher insurance rates, and
they are expensive to buy at $550-$750 a panel. The good news is that twenty years from now
solar panels will cost half the price and produce several times more power as compared to today.

62. The development of American made renewable energy products, systems, and equipment
designed for the U.S. market would be exportable to every country in the world. This would
create millions of new high-tech manufacturing jobs in the United States for decades. The global
market for this type of equipment in the future would be 10 times larger than the U.S. market
because America’s population is less than 5% of the global population. Exporting the equipment
worldwide from the United States will also help reduce our enormous trade imbalance.

63. The picture above shows the annual solar power potential throughout America. A typical
home in Los Angeles needs 470 square feet of roof space to meet its minimum power needs
using a solar power system with a conservative 12% conversion efficiency. A home in Maine
needs 590 square feet of roof space to meet its basic needs and a home in Florida 550 square
feet. The State of Washington has one of the least sunny climates to benefit from solar power
and a home in Seattle would need 750-1000 square feet of roof space. As efficiencies improve,
less roof space will be needed. The picture below shows the UV index variations for earth.

64. The chart above shows that our planet’s total annual energy consumption is 15 Terawatts
(TW). One TW is equal to 1000 Gigawatts (GW) or 1 trillion watts. The potential for earth’s
electricity generation from solar power is estimated at 86,000 TW, wind 870 TW, geothermal 32
TW, and hydro 7.2 TW. The chart below indicates that 174 Petawatts (PW) of solar energy
reaches earth each year and 85 PW is reflected back into space, with 89 PW absorbed by the
planet. One PW is equal to 1000 Terawatts or 1 quadrillion watts.

65. The U.S. has a global competitive advantage in the manufacturing of high quality medical,
military, and space program systems and equipment, which are the best and most innovative in
the world. America could become the world's largest producer of revolutionary renewable energy
products, systems, and equipment by making this our main focus during the next 20 years. Our
goal must be to increase U.S. total manufacturing production and exports by 100% in this time.

66. We need to make renewable energy development a national priority for the U.S., like our
quest to be the first country to land on the moon in the 1960s, because it is critical to our
national security. We certainly have the ability. We just need the strong desire to achieve this
goal and an understanding that this is the best way to reinvigorate and redevelop America's
under-achieving manufacturing capabilities. This would put the U.S. back on top as the number
one producer of the world's finest quality equipment created in every manufacturing sector.

67. The first step to achieving this goal is that America needs to commit to becoming energy
independent within fifteen years. This is easily attainable when you consider we completely
reinvented the United States in less than four years from 1941-1945. We changed from a
severely damaged country after a difficult twelve year economic depression and the attack by
Japan at Pearl Harbor to become the most powerful and respected nation on earth.

68. Once America commits to becoming energy independent, every country in the world will
follow our lead so they can remain competitive. The expansion of renewable energy worldwide
and making every structure more energy efficient will reduce global CO2 pollution and control
global warming more effectively than expanding nuclear power. This will also create a healthier
and safer planet, and nuclear energy will soon become an outdated technology of the past.

69. American made renewable energy products, systems, and equipment, which can be used to
create revolutionary 100% surplus zero energy homes and buildings in the U.S., could also be
used to provide life saving electricity to one billion people on our planet, who survive day to day
without electricity for refrigeration, lighting, water purification, well pumps, and communication
via radios, televisions, and computers. Access to the Internet would also be an important aide to
improving education and economic development for people living in underdeveloped nations.


70. If the price of oil increased by a low estimate of only 6% each year, this could bankrupt
America within 30 years. The U.S. imports 70% of our crude oil and this amount will continually
increase by .05% annually if major changes are not made. Developing and implementing all of
the above mentioned renewable energy proposals could reduce U.S. crude oil imports and our
overall energy consumption by at least 2% each year. To view this important data, please see
our U.S. Energy Cost Projections 2011-2040, which is located at the end of this proposal.

71. If the United States reduced our total expenditures on all energy over the next 30 years by
2% each year, we will have spent $23 trillion on energy during this time. We are now spending
$1 trillion annually on energy but that could escalate to $5.5 trillion in 30 years at a 6% annual
compounded growth rate. This would equal $79 billion in total spending on energy during the
next 30 years. The difference between a 2% reduction and a 6% increase would be an additional
and unnecessary $55 trillion in U.S. energy costs. This could bankrupt America! Our country
will need to invest $5 trillion over the next 15 years to become independent from fossil fuel
imports. This investment will equal $333 billion annually but this will allow the U.S. to save $50
trillion on all forms of energy during the next 30 years. For every $1 we spend today developing
renewable energy and becoming energy independent, we will save $10 in future energy costs.

72. You will see in the chart above that U.S. power stations produce the most greenhouse gas
emissions of all the sectors at (21.3 %). This is primarily from burning large amounts of coal to
generate electric power. The next biggest producer of greenhouse gas emissions are industrial
processes (16.8%), followed by transportation fuels (14%). We can lower worldwide pollution by
aggressively developing 100% surplus zero energy homes and buildings globally, and utilizing the
surplus electricity to power hybrid and all-electric plug-in cars, trucks, and buses, and electric
scooters and bicycles. Any remaining electricity could be sold to neighbors needing power or
used for other purposes such as local street lighting or it could be sold to the grid.

     2007 All-Electric Plug-in 911 Porsche Designed by Paul Liddle with 125-150 Mile Range

73. The chart above indicates CO2 emissions for geothermal energy and three types of fossil
fuels. It is important to note that the geothermal reference here is for deep geothermal wells that
are drilled into the earth at 5000-10,000 feet to reach hot rock formations that are located near
earth’s surface. Water is then pumped into the wells to create steam to generate electric power.
This is no relation to low-level geothermal energy which is passive and does not produce CO2.

74. The price of crude oil is currently fluctuating between $75 and $100 a barrel and the U.S.
imports roughly $400 billion in fossil fuels each year when the price of oil is at $80 a barrel. A 6%
compounded annual increase over the next 30 years will raise the price of oil to $400 a barrel.
This means America would spend at least $2 trillion each year within 30 years on imported fossil
fuels or five times more than we are now spending to help fulfill our country’s energy needs. This
is a conservative estimate and the price of oil could easily increase by 12% each year as global
supplies decline and consumption of fossil fuel increases. The United States imports 70% of our
crude oil and in 30 years at our current rate of increase we will be importing 85%.

75. The United States consumes 22% of the world’s crude oil and this is our greatest weakness.
If the price of crude oil quickly increased to $145 a barrel as it did in 2008 and stayed at this
price, this would have enormous economic consequences for America that would be difficult to
overcome. We would then be spending almost $2 trillion a year on energy instead of $1 trillion.
This would severely limit our capabilities to redevelop the U.S. and it would undermine our
national security. When the price of crude oil rises, the price of natural gas and coal also rise.

76. The only thing that saved America during the energy crisis of 2008 was that the recession
which followed affected the entire world, not just the United States. If another energy crisis
happens again, we may not be so lucky next time. It is important to recognize that three of the
world’s fastest growing economies which are China, India, and Brazil are intensely focusing on
developing renewable energy as quickly as possible to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. They
are not using their economic resources and technical skills to create nuclear power plants. Most
industrialized nations in the world with nuclear energy programs are now progressively reducing
them, not expanding them. This is because nuclear power provides the least benefit at the
highest cost with the greatest potential for catastrophic destruction if problems occur. The recent
nuclear power plant destruction in Japan is an excellent example of what can go wrong when
natural disasters cause the total collapse of every safety measure that is put into place to protect
the public from nuclear radiation released into the environment from damaged nuclear plants.

77. Implementing our revolutionary renewable energy proposals in the U.S. and later worldwide
will help to lower the global consumption and the cost of fossil fuel, saving America hundreds of
billions of dollars annually. This will also reduce the money that oil producing nations will receive
for their oil such as Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, who are often unfriendly to the United States.
That means these countries will be significantly less able to expand their power and influence
politically, economically, and militarily throughout the world. The U.S. can then spend less money
on our military and more money on improving our country's education, healthcare, infrastructure,
and manufacturing capabilities as well as creating millions of new jobs for Americans.

78. In the early 1960s the United States committed the necessary financial resources and
technical knowledge to put a man on the moon in less than ten years and we succeeded. This is
the kind of total commitment we need today to make America free of fossil fuel imports and
energy independent. This effort will change the world forever and the United States will be
praised once again for our global leadership. The whole world is watching and waiting for the
U.S. to lead our fragile planet in a new direction, and they cannot understand our new found
ineptness, limited common sense, misplaced priorities, and lack of vision. I don’t understand this
either but I know it starts with our uninformed political, business, and environmental leaders.

79. The most important thing that America lacks today is a sense of urgency to solve our
undeniable critical energy problems. This is caused by limited knowledge and understanding of
the fundamental benefits of renewable energy. The United States has been so blessed with
tremendous natural resources and ambitious people throughout our history that it has been easy
for us to succeed as a country on every level for the last 250 years. That has now turned into
complacency and this is undermining America while numerous other ambitious and visionary
countries in the world are enjoying continuous economic growth of 5-10% each year.

80. An example can be shown when you look at NASA’s future plans to build space stations and
colonies on the moon and Mars that will require enormous long term financial and technical
commitments to achieve these monumental goals. They want to build sustainable housing on
distant planets for people to live and work when we have made little effort to create ultra energy
efficient housing here on our own planet. It seems logical that it would be best to put NASA in
charge of creating 100% surplus zero energy homes and buildings for Planet Earth, and then
utilize some of the knowledge that is attained to help in building colonies on other planets.

81. Free, clean, and unlimited low-level geothermal energy (0-100 feet) would be a good place
to start. This will allow us to begin reducing heating and cooling costs and energy consumption
by 50-90% in homes and buildings here on earth and on other planets in the future. If we also
provided NASA with the money they need to develop revolutionary solar powered materials,
products, systems, and equipment to generate electricity in both places, this would create a
perfect balance of energy production and reduction to provide comfortable living and working
environments on earth and on other planets when we decide this is a priority we should explore.

82. It is important to understand that solar power improvements will progressively increase each
year and in the future solar will be capable of generating 10 times more power at 1/10 the cost.
Solar power will eventually become the world’s most important energy source to replace earth’s
quickly declining oil reserves. Surplus electricity generated from solar power at homes and
buildings could then be used to power every form of transportation on Planet Earth and on other
planets when needed. This is critical since most of the oil in the world is used in transportation.

83. Low-level geothermal systems have the same potential as solar power for making major
improvements in the future. We are developing revolutionary concepts that will allow cost
effective low-level geothermal energy to become the ideal replacement for most heating and
cooling systems now in use throughout the world.

84. By moving air or water through durable 3” PVC piping placed in the ground at 2-20 feet
deep, and running this piping through the interior walls as well as the floors and ceilings of
homes and buildings, the temperature of rooms can be raised or lowered by “radiant” heating
and cooling. The electricity to power the fans and water pumps to move the air or water through
these pipes can be provided for free by solar and wind powered systems installed on the exterior
of the structure. Once the low-level geothermal systems are installed at homes and buildings,
there will be little or no cost to operate them, and maintenance will be minimal.

85. We are also in the process of developing a unique revolutionary heating and cooling system
that is primarily designed for homes and it will complement low-level geothermal systems to
reduce a structure’s energy consumption. This system has been tested and the initial results are
impressive. The system will become an industry standard when it is fully developed and we will
apply for patents relating to it in the future. We intend to license large international companies to
manufacture this system and we will receive royalties for each item sold.

86. America spends $400 billion annually on electricity and NASA’s annual budget is $19 billion.
We should increase NASA’s budget by $5 billion a year so they have all the necessary funds to
develop cost effective 100% surplus zero energy three bed/two bath homes suitable for the
average American family. This could save the United States $100 billion each year on electric
power in the future. The innovations they produce could be applied to larger buildings including
all commercial structures, schools, hospitals, factories, office buildings, airport terminals, and
military installations, etc., potentially saving the U.S. another $100 billion annually.

87. The engineers at NASA are the finest in the world in creating revolutionary high-tech
products, systems, and equipment. We should use NASA’s immense talents and resources to help
improve our planet and reduce America’s undeniable enormous future energy costs. If nothing is
done, this problem will severely limit our growth and prosperity in the coming decades. We need
to make major changes in U.S. energy policies starting immediately. Our future and the future of
the world depend on this critical effort.

88. The U.S. Department of Energy is responsible for helping to create more energy efficient
homes and buildings in the U.S. but they have had limited success in achieving any major results.
Our country needs a new energy efficiency requirement in construction that far exceeds current
building practices and codes. The national LEED Platinum energy efficiency standard for homes
and buildings is a beginning but in reality it should be the minimum requirement for constructing
all homes and buildings in the U.S., not the maximum that we should try to attempt to achieve.

89. NASA’s innovative skills and technical knowledge to develop the finest equipment in the
world should be utilized to the fullest by the United States to attain a significantly higher U.S.
energy efficiency building construction standard. We should use NASA to reinvent America by
creating 100% surplus zero energy homes and buildings, with the majority of surplus electricity
used to power numerous forms of transportation including plug-in electric cars, trucks, and
buses. Our structures would then essentially become power generating facilities and this would
cause the price of fossil fuel to decline, saving Americans billions of dollars annually.

90. A $50 billion investment given to NASA over ten years ($5 billion annually) would be the
catalyst we need to save America $50 trillion on energy during the next 30 years. This would be
an effective use of our U.S. taxpayer dollars since we could potentially receive $1000 in return for
every $1 we spend. This commitment would change how electricity is produced worldwide and
electric power would then become more available to everyone. Once again America would be
admired and praised for our vision and global leadership, just as we were after World War II.

91. Dealing with the extreme hot and cold daily and seasonal temperature variations on the
moon and Mars will be a difficult challenge for NASA engineers if they intend to create long term
space colonies. NASA should use the consistent low-level geothermal ground temperatures of the
moon and Mars to create more comfortable and energy efficient living environments on these
worlds. Since earth, the moon, and Mars were all formed similarly, NASA engineers should use
our planet as a testing ground to develop 100% surplus zero energy homes and buildings for
earth and then use the knowledge attained to create self-sustaining colonies for other worlds.

92. The diameter of Mars is 50% the size of earth and the diameter of our moon is 50% the size
of Mars. The chart below compares some basic characteristics between Planet Earth on the left
and Mars on the right. One of the differences between the two planets is that Mars has wider
temperature variations than earth. The temperature on Mars in summer near its Equator during
the warmest part of the day can reach 80 degrees Fahrenheit and then drop to zero degrees
during the night. This is due to the very thin atmosphere on Mars. The temperature on Mars at
its South Pole in winter can reach -200 degrees Fahrenheit and the ice is two miles in thickness.
The North Pole on Mars is warmer and the ice is thin, similar to Earth’s North Pole ice. Our moon
has wider temperature variations than Mars with highs of 200 degrees and lows of -250 degrees.

93. The U.S. national debt is over $14 trillion and getting larger every day. This is equal to
$125,000 for every taxpayer and $45,000 for every U.S. citizen. The easiest way to effectively
reduce this tremendous liability is by focusing first on making America energy independent. This
will create millions of new U.S. jobs and grow our economy, which will lower our national debt.

94. America’s annual importing of $400-$500 billion in oil and our continuous dependence on
fossil fuels is our most critical problem. If we do not address this issue immediately, we will be
dealing with a greater problem than our national debt. This problem will be at least $50 trillion in
wasted and unnecessary expenditures on energy during the next 30 years. The combination of
these two major problems will bankrupt America and severely undermine our national security!

95. One of the issues we need to resolve in America is creating a consensus on global warming.
This argument is more political positioning than actual science and it is preventing the U.S. from
implementing energy policies so we can become energy independent. Neither side has been able
to make a compelling argument as to what the true facts are that relate to the science because
they don’t really understand the science. The truth is global warming has been happening for
15,000 years since the end of the last Ice Age when New York City was covered with over one
mile of ice. Earth has experienced four distinct Ice Ages in the last 400,000 years. Cold periods
have averaged 65,000 years and warm periods averaged 35,000 years. Since earth has been
progressively warming the last 15,000 years, we should expect 20,000 more years of heat.

96. The picture above shows that 15,000 years ago thick polar ice was covering large parts of
North America, Northern Europe, Russia, and areas surrounding the Himalayan Mountains in
Asia. Our planet has been continuously heating since this time. The lowest temperatures during
the last four Ice Ages have averaged (22 degrees Fahrenheit / 12 degrees Celsius) colder than
they are today. The chart below created from numerous Antarctic ice core tests taken over
several decades indicates that increases in earth’s CO2 levels (red) have a direct relationship with
increased global temperatures (blue). The North Pole Ice Sheet 15,000 years ago extended
beyond the 45th Parallel in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere to cover areas where large
cities are now located including Seattle, Chicago, New York, London, Berlin, and Moscow.

97. One of the most obvious and undisputable examples of global warming is that the size of
mountain glaciers throughout the planet have been noticeably shrinking for the last 50 years. The
heating of the atmosphere by only one degree Fahrenheit can have major effects to earth’s
fragile environment. Shrinking glaciers is the best indication that Planet Earth is warming.

98. The overall agreement by most scientists is that the CO2 currently in earth’s atmosphere will
cause earth to heat up by at least one degree Fahrenheit within the next 100 years. The addition
of more CO2 released into the environment during the next 100 years could easily escalate the
warming process by an additional 2-3 degrees. This increase in earth’s temperature will have
irreversible consequences such as the complete melting of the thin North Pole Ice Sheet each
summer. This ice has helped cool earth for thousands of years by reflecting sunlight back into
space. If it disappears each summer, the potentially catastrophic results are unpredictable.

99. The chart above indicates current worldwide energy use is now at 500 quadrillion BTUs and
our planet’s projected consumption will escalate to 775 quadrillion BTUs within 40 years if major
changes are not made in the way we produce and consume energy. This will quickly increase
global warming through the creation of more CO2 on our planet. The chart below shows a rapid
increase in CO2 in the atmosphere during in the last 160 years from 1840 to 2000.

100. The chart above shows various global warming projections from credible scientific groups
who are evaluating the data and they all indicate increased temperatures within the next 100
years for Planet Earth in the range of 2.25 to 4.75 degrees Celsius or 4.0 to 8.5 degrees
Fahrenheit. The chart below demonstrates the direct relationship during the last 450,000 years
between increased CO2 levels in earth’s atmosphere and rising worldwide temperatures.

101. Some scientists say that Antarctica with 90% of the world’s ice will melt significantly if the
temperature of the planet rises 3 degrees Fahrenheit. They predict rising ocean levels and global
coastal flooding. This is unlikely since the average elevation on Antarctica is 6000 feet with 4000
feet of ice on top of the land. Because of this combined high elevation (10,000 feet), the average
temperature on Antarctica in summer is zero degrees Fahrenheit and -60 degrees in winter.

102. These extremely cold temperatures are far below the 32 degree melting temperature of ice.
This is why for millions of years the ice on Antarctica has been continually building up on top of
this 2500 mile wide continent. Antarctica at 5.1 million square miles is by far the consistently
highest continent on earth as you can see from the picture below. The medium brown color
covering Antarctica indicates an overall land mass elevation of approximately 6000 feet and the
dark brown color indicates elevations over 12,000 feet in the Andes and Himalayan Mountains.

103. A more critical problem that we need to be concerned with is what would happen if earth’s
temperature increased by 3 degrees and the North Pole melted every summer. It is certain that
100% of the ice would melt (excluding Greenland) because 50% of the ice at the North Pole
already melts every summer and it refreezes each winter. The average temperature in summer at
the North Pole is 30 degrees Fahrenheit and -30 degrees in winter. Greenland averages 5000 feet
in elevation and its ice does not melt enough in summer to cause a rise in ocean levels because
the ice is sitting on top of the land and the ice is 15 degrees colder at 5000 feet than at sea level.


104. The temperature at the South Pole averages 30 degrees colder than the North Pole because
of the 6000 foot average land mass elevation of Antarctica with an additional 4000 feet of ice
sitting on top of the land, equaling a total of 10,000 feet in elevation. The temperature of the
ground at 6000 feet in elevation at the South Pole is -8 degrees or 18 degrees cooler than at sea
level (10 degrees). It is important to remember that 1000 feet in increased land elevation equals
a 3 degree Fahrenheit lower ground temperature (6x3=18 degrees lower). The additional 6000
feet in thickness in earth’s crust at Antarctica acts like an insulator to help cool the temperature
of this continent and insulate its ice from earth’s hot core. When you add the 4000 feet of ice on
top of the land, this equals 10,000 feet (10x3=30 degrees lower or -20 degrees Fahrenheit). The
high elevation of Antarctica is one of the reasons why its ice thickness has been progressively
increasing for millions of years even though it is one of the driest and sunniest places on earth.

105. The North Pole in contrast is a large ocean at 5.4 million square miles with a few islands.
The Arctic Ocean is bigger than Australia (3.0 million square miles) and the water averages 7,500
feet deep. By comparison the United States and China are both just over 3.7 million square miles.
The North Pole Ice Cap is only 10 feet thick in winter. It shrinks by at least 50% in volume every
summer to less than 5 feet in thickness and it floats on top of the Arctic Ocean like an ice cube in
a glass of water. Only 10% of the ice is above the surface of the water and 90% is submerged.

106. If all the ice at the North Pole melted quickly (excluding Greenland 840,000 square miles),
this would not increase ocean levels one inch because the ice is already displacing 4.5 to 9 feet
of Arctic Ocean water depending on the time of the year, summer or winter. Since water expands
10% when it freezes, this causes 10% of the North Pole Ice Cap to be exposed above the surface
of the water. The remaining 90% of its mass is below the surface displacing ocean water. If the
ice melts, the total volume of ice will shrink by 10% so the oceans will not rise at all. The proof is
that 50% of the North Pole typically melts every summer and higher ocean levels have never
been documented anywhere on the planet from this annual event.

                                PHOTOGRAPH OF GREENLAND

107. Greenland is 1600 miles long and 600 miles wide. It is a little known fact that the center of
this island is 1000 feet below sea level. A 1000 mile long and 200 mile wide basin was created
over millions of years from the weight of 6000 feet of ice compressing the land. The depth of ice
equals 5000 feet in elevation above sea level, where temperatures at this elevation average -30
degrees Fahrenheit in winter and 30 degrees in summer. These temperatures are very similar to
the average annual temperatures near the North Pole at sea level and they are cold enough to
prevent Greenland’s ice from melting enough in summer to raise Planet Earth’s ocean levels.

108. The 70th Parallel is 1380 miles or 20 parallel degrees from the North Pole and it dissects
the middle of Greenland. Since every latitude degree equals 60 nautical miles and one nautical
mile equals 1.15 miles, this equals 20x60=1200 nautical miles x 1.15=1380 miles. If the ground
temperature at 18 feet deep on an island near the North Pole averages 10 degrees Fahrenheit
and earth’s ground temperature increases .78 degrees in temperature for every latitude degree
or 60 nautical miles closer to the Equator, that means the ground temperature at sea level at 18
feet deep at the 70th Parallel anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere is 25.6 degrees Fahrenheit
or 15.6 degrees warmer than at the North Pole (20x.78=15.6 degrees). The temperature of the
ground at the 70th Parallel in the Southern Hemisphere will also be 25.6 degrees and these
consistent cold ground temperatures are like natural freezers to prevent the ice from melting.

109. The main concern for our planet is what would happen to the global ocean currents and
worldwide weather patterns if the North Pole ice cap melted completely every summer. No one
knows for sure or could possibly predict the potential events that might occur positive or negative
from a North Pole without ice. It must be assumed that an iceless North Pole with 24 hours of
sunlight in summer will cause the Arctic Ocean to become warmer by an additional 5-10 degrees
Fahrenheit because the sun’s rays would be continuously absorbed by the water and not
reflected back into space.

110. Whales, fish, birds, and most marine mammals (except polar bears) would welcome this
increased temperature because it would provide a new ocean to travel throughout and it would
cause the exposure of numerous islands located within the Arctic Ocean for new habitats that are
normally covered with ice twelve months of the year. The global shipping industry would surely
welcome the ability to travel through the Arctic Ocean in summer, saving them time and fuel
when delivering products. The fishing industry would also have an additional ocean to catch
many types of fish for our world’s ever growing population.

111. The problem is that the North Pole without ice may also have negative weather altering
consequences that could shift global weather patterns and alter ocean currents. The North Pole
ice has always reflected the sun’s rays back into space to help cool the planet and without this
reflection earth’s water and air temperatures will increase. Another major issue to consider is the
Arctic Ocean flows under the thin North Pole Ice Cap and this contributes to the melting process.
As our planet’s temperatures continue to rise each decade, ocean temperatures will also rise.
Increasingly warmer ocean water each summer is one of the main reasons why approximately
50% of the North Pole ice now melts six months of the year from May through October.

112. In contrast to this, Antarctica is a high mountainous continent and the ocean water only
has contact with the ice at the shoreline. Most of the ice that makes up the ice shelf areas on the
perimeter of Antarctica is floating on top of the water and 90% of it is submerged. If the ice
breaks off from the continent and melts, ocean levels will not increase because the ice is already
displacing 90% of its mass in ocean water and the mass of the ice will shrink 10% when it melts.

113. A recent high-level science program presented on national television implied if all of the
large ice shelves surrounding Antarctica continued to melt as they have in the last decade, this
could promote a chain reaction of events causing significant melting in Western Antarctica and
ocean levels would rise and flood coastal cities globally. This is inaccurate information because
the ice on the perimeter of Antarctica is displacing ocean water equivalent to 90% of its overall
mass and the glacial ice on the land will take several thousand years to progressively slide into
the ocean. This kind of misleading information is one of the reasons why the debate on global
warming continues without an agreement on the causes and solutions to this critical problem.
This is preventing the world from moving ahead in implementing practical, common sense, and
cost effective energy policies to help every nation on earth become more energy independent.


                                TOPOGRAPHY OF ANTARCTICA

114. Western Antarctica is a series of islands with ice floating on the ocean to fill in the gaps
between the main continent and the smaller islands. If all of this floating ice melted, ocean levels
would not increase because most of the ice is already displacing ocean water equivalent to 90%
of its mass. The majority of the ice in Western Antarctica is sitting on top of land where the
ground temperature is 10 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level 24/7 365 days a year. At higher
elevations it is colder by 3 degrees for every 1000 feet in increased elevation.

115. The consistent cold land temperature on Antarctica helps to keep the ice frozen and the
land prevents the ice from having contact with the warmer ocean water. Some of the ice on the
perimeter of Antarctica and its islands is 2000-4000 feet thick. It could progressively slide into the
ocean but since this glacial ice only moves a few yards a decade, it will take thousands of years
to have any effect on raising ocean levels to cause worldwide flooding of coastal populations.

116. The majority Antarctic’s perimeter ice that expands in winter (shown in the photo below)
will melt every summer when Antarctica has 24 hours of sunlight. A similar process occurs at the
North Pole when its summertime temperatures increase by an average of 60 degrees with 24
hours of sunlight, as compared to its winter season when there is little or no sunlight at all.


117. Our planet’s temperatures have obviously been increasing naturally for thousands of years.
We must assume we are also accelerating the heating process by burning larger amounts of
fossil fuels each year. This continually releases massive amounts of CO2 and other pollutants into
the environment. One example is mercury in the world’s oceans and in the fish we eat has risen
by 250% in the last 250 years, mostly from burning coal. We have an obligation to our planet
and future generations to reduce our carbon and pollution footprint. We have to ask ourselves, if
we don’t take care of Planet Earth, where else are we and our descendants going to live!

118. The world’s main effort should be focused on aggressively reducing every type of global
pollution in general and lowering worldwide fossil fuel consumption through renewable energy
technology development and innovation. This is the quickest and most effective way to control
global warming, reduce air and water pollution, and protect our planet for future generations.

119. One of our biggest problems facing the world today is also one of the underlying causes of
pollution and global warming. It is our planet’s ever increasing population growth. In 1960 there
were 3.0 billion people on earth, in 2000 6.0 billion people, and by 2050 it is estimated we will
grow to 9.0 billion. The world’s population in January 2011 reached 6.9 billion and we will exceed
7.0 billion before 2012. There is little we can do to limit population growth. The only reasonable
choice to reverse the progressive deterioration of the environment and protect our planet from
certain environmental disaster is to commit to tenacious and monumental global efforts to reduce
all forms of pollution and by improving the efficiency of everything on earth that uses energy.

120. There will be a major population shift between China and India during the next 40 years.
China at 3.1 million square miles currently has the world’s largest population with 1.33 billion
people and they are expected to grow by only 10% during the next 40 years to 1.46 billion in
2050 (.25% annual growth). India at 1.27 million square miles (40% the size of China) has the
world’s second largest population with 1.17 billion people and they are expected to grow 50%
during the next 40 years to 1.80 billion in 2050 (1.25% annual growth). India’s population will
become larger than China within 20 years and they will add more people during this time than
the total current U.S. population. America at 3.1 million square miles has the world’s third largest
population with 310 million people and we are expected to grow 35% during the next 40 years
to 420 million people in 2050 (.875% annual growth). Most of the countries in Africa will have
the largest growth rates, increasing their populations by 100% by 2050 (2.5% annual growth).

121. Many countries throughout our planet such as China, India, and Brazil have rapidly growing
economies and their citizens now have the financial means to purchase more products including
fossil fuel burning cars that produce CO2. There are currently one billion vehicles on earth and
their numbers are increasing at 3% each year. It is estimated that within 33 years there will be
two billion vehicles on Planet Earth. The longer we wait to solve our global energy and pollution
problems, the more difficult, expensive, and damaging to the environment it is going to become.

                              GLOBAL POLLUTION

122. Since the United States has the world’s largest economy and we are the biggest consumer
of fossil fuels as well as one of our planet’s biggest polluters, we have an obligation to lead the
world in solving our mutual energy and pollution problems. This important global effort would
also benefit America in numerous ways including job creation, economic growth, lowering our
trade deficit, energy independence, reducing pollution and global warming, and the prestige of
demonstrating to the world our desire and capabilities to create a better planet for everyone.

                    GLOBAL MERCURY POLLUTION

123. The reason that Asia produces 53% of the world’s mercury pollution is because their group
contains 4.1 billion people, which equals 60% of the world’s population of 6.9 billion. This means
their contribution of mercury released into the environment is lower than the worldwide average.

You can read some of our many letters of support that we have received from throughout the
United States by clicking on the “LETTERS” link at the top right side of the Home Page on our
website at We will send the enclosed information to all 50 U.S. governors,
100 big city mayors, numerous influential U.S. senators and congressmen in Washington, DC,
The U.S. Department of Energy, NASA, electric utility executives, major corporations, and
environmental organizations, etc.

Thank you for your consideration in supporting our revolutionary renewable energy proposals
and we would appreciate your comments and evaluation of the enclosed material.


Patrick Post

      1-30 YEARS 2011-2040
             Written by Patrick Post

  Page 1 - Annual 2% U.S. Energy Cost Reduction

  Page 2 - Annual 6% Crude Oil Price Increase

  Page 3 - Annual 6% Fossil Fuel Import Increase

  Page 4 - Annual 6% Total U.S. Energy Growth

  Page 5 - Summary U.S. Energy Cost Projections


  YEAR - $TRILLIONS                YEAR - $TRILLIONS
   1. 2011 - $1.000                 16. 2026 - $.7385

    2.   2012 - $.9800               17. 2027 - $.7237

    3.   2013 - $.9604               18. 2028 - $.7093

    4.   2014 - $.9411               19. 2029 - $.6951

    5.   2015 - $.9223               20. 2030 - $.6812

    6.   2016 - $.9039               21. 2031 - $.6675

    7.   2017 - $.8858               22. 2032 - $.6542

    8.   2018 - $.8681               23. 2033 - $.6411

    9.   2019 - $.8507               24. 2034 - $.6283

   10.   2020 - $.8337               25. 2035 - $.6157

   11.   2021 - $.8170               26. 2036 - $.6034

   12.   2022 - $.8007               27. 2037 - $.5913

   13.   2023 - $.7847               28. 2038 - $.5795

   14.   2024 - $.7690               29. 2039 - $.5679

   15.   2025 - $.7536               30. 2040 - $.5566

TOTAL $13.07 TRILLION            TOTAL $9.65 TRILLION
         (Years 1-15)                    (Years 16-30)
                                 TOTAL $22.72 TRILLION
                                         (Years 1-30)


 YEAR - $ BARREL                   YEAR - $ BARREL

 1. 2011 - $75.00                 16. 2026 - $179.74

 2. 2012 - $79.50                 17. 2027 - $190.52

 3. 2013 - $84.27                 18. 2028 - $201.95

 4. 2014 - $89.32                 19. 2029 - $214.07

 5. 2015 - $94.68                 20. 2030 - $226.91

 6. 2016 - $100.36                21. 2031 - $240.53

 7. 2017 - $106.38                22. 2032 - $254.96

 8. 2018 - $112.77                23. 2033 - $270.26

 9. 2019 - $119.53                24. 2034 - $286.48

10. 2020 - $126.71                25. 2035 - $303.65

11. 2021 - $134.31                26. 2036 - $321.89

12. 2022 - $142.37                27. 2037 - $341.20

13. 2023 - $150.91                28. 2038 - $361.67

14. 2024 - $159.96                29. 2039 - $383.37

15. 2025 - $169.56                30. 2040 - $406.37


  YEAR - $TRILLIONS                  YEAR - $TRILLIONS
   1. 2011 - $.400                    16. 2026 - $.957

    2.    2012 - $.424                 17. 2027 - $1.01

    3.    2013 - $.449                 18. 2028 - $1.07

    4.    2014 - $.476                 19. 2029 - $1.14

    5.    2015 - $.504                 20. 2030 - $1.21

    6.    2016 - $.535                 21. 2031 - $1.28

    7.    2017 - $.567                 22. 2032 - $1.35

    8.    2018 - $.601                 23. 2033 - $1.44

    9.    2019 - $.637                 24. 2034 - $1.52

   10.    2020 - $.675                 25. 2035 - $1.61

   11.    2021 - $.715                 26. 2036 - $1.71

   12.    2022 - $.758                 27. 2037 - $1.82

   13.    2023 - $.804                 28. 2038 - $1.92

   14.    2024 - $.852                 29. 2039 - $2.04

   15.    2025 - $.903                 30. 2040 - $2.16

TOTAL $9.30 TRILLION               TOTAL $22.23 TRILLION
         (Years 1-15)                     (Years 16-30)
                                   TOTAL $31.53 TRILLION
                                          (Years 1-30)


  YEAR - $TRILLIONS                 YEAR - $TRILLIONS
   1. 2011 - $1.00                    16. 2026 - $2.39

    2.   2012 - $1.06                 17. 2027 - $2.54

    3.   2013 - $1.12                 18. 2028 - $2.69

    4.   2014 - $1.19                 19. 2029 - $2.85

    5.   2015 - $1.26                 20. 2030 - $3.02

    6.   2016 - $1.33                 21. 2031 - $3.20

    7.   2017 - $1.41                 22. 2032 - $3.39

    8.   2018 - $1.50                 23. 2033 - $3.60

    9.   2019 - $1.59                 24. 2034 - $3.81

   10.   2020 - $1.68                 25. 2035 - $4.04

   11.   2021 - $1.79                 26. 2036 - $4.29

   12.   2022 - $1.89                 27. 2037 - $4.54

   13.   2023 - $2.01                 28. 2038 - $4.82

   14.   2024 - $2.13                 29. 2039 - $5.10

   15.   2025 - $2.26                 30. 2040 - $5.41

TOTAL $23.22 TRILLION             TOTAL $55.69 TRILLION
         (Years 1-15)                    (Years 16-30)
                                  TOTAL $78.91 TRILLION
                                         (Years 1-30)



   TOTAL $13.07 TRILLION                      TOTAL $9.65 TRILLION
             (Years 1-15)                             (Years 16-30)
                                              TOTAL $22.72 TRILLION
                                                    (Years 1-30)

    U.S. ENERGY PROJECTIONS 1-30 YEARS 2011-2040

    TOTAL $9.30 TRILLION                      TOTAL $22.23 TRILLION
              (Years 1-15)                           (Years 16-30)
                                              TOTAL $31.53 TRILLION
                                                     (Years 1-30)

    U.S. ENERGY PROJECTIONS 1-30 YEARS 2011-2040

    TOTAL $23.22 TRILLION                     TOTAL $55.69 TRILLION
              (Years 1-15)                          (Years 16-30)
                                              TOTAL $78.91 TRILLION
                                                    (Years 1-30)


  $23.22 TRILLION (+6%)                          $78.91 TRILLION (+6%)
  $13.07 TRILLION (-2%)                          $22.72 TRILLION (-2%)

  $10.15 TRILLION SAVINGS                     $56.19 TRILLION SAVINGS
   Requires Spending $5 Trillion on            -5.00 Infrastructure Costs
   Infrastructure During Yrs. (1-15)          $51.19 TOTAL SAVINGS


To top