On Chevron’s forum on renewable energy, I voiced the same challenge I’ve posted below in this blog.
In response I was asked:
1. What would be in it for Chevron?
2. What do the middle to lower class folks have to look forward to?
3. Is there room in your world for seniors living on a fixed income?
4. What would be done with poor, indigent, illegal aliens or criminals trying to get a fresh start?
Please don't quote the philosophy of some from the 200+ IQ group that believe “every one else is expendable". We all have relatives that fit in one or more category besides RICH and FAMOUS; but the RICH and FAMOUS have access to all these options right now.
Please tell us about mundane subjects such as the police, firemen, hospitals, and the local military base, let alone day care, schools, postal service, senior citizen housing, et cetera.
Consider the local lockup, maybe even a state prison, supermarkets, and other 'local industries'.
Ignore all the above -- please explain 'fuel cell powered fighter aircraft'.
Your idea sounds great but it doesn't sound affordable. On the other hand, if it were not for dreamers like you we would still be starting fires with two rocks and dry leaves.
My response:
I am an automotive systems engineer with no relationship with Chevron other than as a filling-station customer. Keeping in mind that the community I envision would be bound by the same laws and social order of every other town in the U.S. (I'm not suggesting building an island nation), here are a few answers:
1. Within the proposed community, Chevron would invest in renewable energy infrastructure, including implementation, distribution, maintenance and expansion, allowing diversification of interests away from petroleum (of course they are already doing this, but focusing on a single model community would improve feedback and resource coordination). After initial investment, Chevron would maintain control of energy distribution and regulation, particularly in regard to the "fueling" network of ESS exchange stations.
2. Middle and lower class people in the community would find that per capita cost of energy and housing significantly decrease, with commensurate improvement in living standards. Even at the outset, not every family invited to live within the township would be supported by tech-sector jobs. As in any community, a broad range of employment would exist in construction, sanitation, recycling, food service, security and policing, and maintenance (to name a few). As the model expanded there would be little change to existing socio-economics except as they relate to energy and environmental impact. Additionally, even lower income families would be attracted to incentives such as improved employment and lower cost of living.
3. Those living on fixed incomes would benefit from lower housing and energy costs and greater freedom of movement via free public transportation (within city centers). Mass transit in outlying areas would be less costly than in current practice due to greater component reliability (electric drive vs. gasoline/diesel) and lower energy costs.
4. If inexpensive and abundant energy allows diversion of government funds to education (both for minors and adults) and reform programs, we all benefit. Keep in mind how much federal tax revenue is currently devoted to war and political maneuvering in efforts to control dwindling resources (particularly petroleum).
5. No one is expendable. Right now, inequitable energy-distribution creates social stress and disillusionment that devalue human life. Abundant renewable energy will decrease geopolitical hostility and free up resources for social programs that improve the "value" of each individual.
6. This solution isn't for everyone. If anything, it enables those who prefer to be off-grid by allowing economies of scale for PV technology, insulating materials, energy storage and regulation systems, energy-efficient appliances, and more. Trickle-down economics from the REG would be a good thing for individualists everywhere.
7. As for affordability, you ask a loaded question. Can we afford to do business as usual? No. Can we afford to invest in a new model that creates its own renewable energy and resources for further growth? It is possible already, even without further (inevitable) advances in technology. Building the first "prototype" community will cost billions in terms of energy generation facilities, storage substations, factories to build components unique to the REG, homes, streets, sanitation, and the many other support systems of any modern housing development. But billions are already spent on development of suburban communities, with little expectation of residual return on investment.
8. Regarding fuel-cell powered fighter planes, I’m not talking about national defense here, but a small community within the U.S. There's no need for fighter planes in such a community.
The age of civilization powered by fossil fuels has proven to be equivalent to "starting fires with two rocks and dried leaves". In the long run, investing in a new energy paradigm is the only thing we CAN afford to do. If existing petroleum companies don't diversify to maintain an interest in an era of renewable energy, they only stand to become an unpleasant memory.
