# "Renewable Energy is Homeland Security"?



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

While out patrolling today, I saw this bumper sticker on the back of a car, and it got me thinking....

Of course the argument goes that we will be more secure if we can reduce our dependence upon foreign products. However, it seems to me that this sort of a "chicken and the egg"- sort of argument; how can we take the luxury of diverting resources to study wind energy, solar farms, etcetera, when we are operating at a constant state of elevated security concerns? Reminds me of the development of human society coming out of the hunter/gatherer phase: no real advances can be made when merely staying alive is such a concern. 

What are your thoughts, and how can you relate this to your own prepping?


----------



## Davarm (Oct 22, 2011)

Well Turtle, I say "Dont do the study", fall back on what is proven and exploit those technologies to their fullest, they will pay for themselves and generate a profit in a fairly short time. 

Down here in Texas we are using quite a bit of wind generated power. Just down I-20 near Abaline they have a BIG Wind Farm and from the looks of the trucks driving down the interstate carrying blades, it is still growing. 

Small "Wind Chargers/Generators" are popping up on properties all around here and I will be adding mine to that list soon. 1/2 to 3/4 kw units(you install em) are running about $650.00 and can be mounted on 2 inch x 20 ft guyed sections of pipe.

This is my answer/openion, suspect you will get more fairly quickly.


----------



## HillbillyPrep (Mar 24, 2012)

Seems like it could take forever. To research there has to be researchers. Those researchers have to use oil to live and get to work. It's a transition that could take a hundred years or more. 
Most people can't afford to buy a set-up that can power most of their needs. 
Using hydrogen as an example, there are no filling stations. People can't convert their cars until stations are readily available. Nobody will build a station until there is a big juicy market for them. 
Then, if the government is involved, which it would be, the regulations would strangle anyone doing either. Even letting the free-market do it's thing would take generations.
Hundred years won't even do it.


----------



## oldvet (Jun 29, 2010)

Davarm said:


> Well Turtle, I say "Dont do the study", fall back on what is proven and exploit those technologies to their fullest, they will pay for themselves and generate a profit in a fairly short time.
> 
> Down here in Texas we are using quite a bit of wind generated power. Just down I-20 near Abaline they have a BIG Wind Farm and from the looks of the trucks driving down the interstate carrying blades, it is still growing.
> 
> ...


Yep, we have the knowledge and ability to generate power via solar, water and wind and between Canada and the U.S. we have enough oil, natural gas, and coal to last us hundreds of years and yet TPTB apparently will not allow us to use our own resources, because they are to deep into the pockets of the big oil companies, who in turn are in bed with OPEC.

Hell no we don't need any more studies done, we just need to be un-hobbled and turned loose so we can produce what we need "overhere" and tell OPEC to take a long walk off a short pier, and continue building the pipeline from Canada to the States.

It really gets my drawers in a bunch that we are so willing to get in bed with the ones that have vowed to kill us and the ones that call us the "great satan", and yet TPTB snub our Friends and Neighbors in Canada with whom we should be working shoulder to shoulder. Just my not so humble opinion. :gaah:


----------



## Von Helman (Oct 31, 2009)

renewable energy is something that will not happen on a large scale and even if it does we will still need trucks and transportation to get products back and forth. 

For me all I am concerned with is building a self sustaining off grid house that will also provide me with all the food and water and living resources I need in one confined place so regardless if the trucks are running or the dollar crashes i will still have food and water and be living like I have.


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

Von Helman said:


> renewable energy is something that will not happen on a large scale and even if it does we will still need trucks and transportation to get products back and forth.
> 
> For me all I am concerned with is building a self sustaining off grid house that will also provide me with all the food and water and living resources I need in one confined place so regardless if the trucks are running or the dollar crashes i will still have food and water and be living like I have.


 Thank you, Von Helman; you are the only one that tailored your response to put it in terms of your personal prepping plan. Everyone's responses were good, but what really made me think was the correlation to my personal plans.

Think of your property as a microcosm and look at some of the parallels to be drawn; not limited just in terms of sustainable energy sources, but also in terms of the balance to be struck in your own preparations. At what point does a prep go from being a matter of survival to a matter of security? How are you prioritizing between "wants" and "needs"? Or, more simply, what is more important to you: food or guns? Which do you feel that you need more of?

Just trying to encourage some "outside of the box" thinking.


----------



## NaeKid (Oct 17, 2008)

Turtle said:


> While out patrolling today, I saw this bumper sticker on the back of a car, and it got me thinking....
> 
> Of course the argument goes that we will be more secure if we can reduce our dependence upon foreign products. However, it seems to me that this sort of a "chicken and the egg"- sort of argument; how can we take the luxury of diverting resources to study wind energy, solar farms, etcetera, when we are operating at a constant state of elevated security concerns? Reminds me of the development of human society coming out of the hunter/gatherer phase: no real advances can be made when merely staying alive is such a concern.
> 
> What are your thoughts, and how can you relate this to your own prepping?


Turtle, I believe that the studies have been done, but, the problem is in the fact that there are so many regulations in place that will choke the life out of the products before they have a chance to get to the end user. Lets just say that _Company ABC_ has a great idea and they start building the product and start showcasing the product and they get rave reviews. As soon as they plan to sell their product, then they have to get UL / CSA approval that the product conforms with regulations. The product is in testing for 5 years and UL / CSA make _Company ABC_ change their products to fit regulations and all of a sudden, their product is no longer able to function, millions of dollars are wasted and _Company ABC_ folds.

A company out in China will build the same product, flood the market, make a ton of coin and then tell the UL / CSA that the product is safe, it gets rubber-stamped and sold all across NorthAmerica with the huge profits heading out of NorthAmerica ...



HillbillyPrep said:


> Seems like it could take forever. To research there has to be researchers. Those researchers have to use oil to live and get to work. It's a transition that could take a hundred years or more.
> Most people can't afford to buy a set-up that can power most of their needs.
> Using hydrogen as an example, there are no filling stations. People can't convert their cars until stations are readily available. Nobody will build a station until there is a big juicy market for them.
> Then, if the government is involved, which it would be, the regulations would strangle anyone doing either. Even letting the free-market do it's thing would take generations.
> Hundred years won't even do it.


I can drive over to a couple of filling stations and get my hydrogen - any industrial-gas company that supplies compressed gasses to welding shops. Praxair ( Direct hydrogen link ) supplies my shop with gasses and they would have no problems with supplying hydrogen to me personally to run my vehicle if I converted it to run on hydrogen.


----------



## bahramthered (Mar 10, 2012)

He who fails to plan plans to fail. 

This thread is pathetic. Cling to the old because it's working?

What about the change from whale oil to petroleum products? 
We shouldn't have invested in telephones because there wasn't a infrastructure for them?
Edison should have just gave up on the lightbulb because it required people to get light fixtures?
Apple should just toss out their next generation ideas because they're unproven?

And more than that renewable technology already has a huge market. Electricity just goes into the grid, great. New fuels will likely have to be a regional thing and scaled up, but they too will have a market if they're cost effective. If they're good for the country I'd have no problem with the Goverment encouraging them.

It basically comes down to these rules:
When you stop planning for the future, you don't have one.
In business if your not a step ahead, your one behind. 


A Farmer in spring is hungry. Should he be clever and eat his seed potatoes and starve this fall and winter?


----------



## Turtle (Dec 10, 2009)

bahramthered said:


> This thread is pathetic. Cling to the old because it's working?


Perhaps (and I am just throwing this out there) this thread would seem less pathetic if it were read before posting? Just a thought.

Allow me to rephrase my original concept:

What is more important to you, supplies or defense? At what point does one surpass the other in importance?


----------



## NaeKid (Oct 17, 2008)

Turtle said:


> Allow me to rephrase my original concept:
> 
> What is more important to you, supplies or defense? At what point does one surpass the other in importance?


If I was to answer, I would probably say that knowledge would be first, followed by supplies and then by defense.

With knowledge, you can take care of supplies and take care of defense. Supplies and defense are about equal - both really are just supplies (food, water, people, knife, sword, fence, gun, ammo) that help to survive, but, without knowledge, how could you use those supplies to their maximum potential? :dunno:


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

Turtle said:


> What is more important to you, supplies or defense? At what point does one surpass the other in importance?


Brahman is a little, um, 'aggresive', but always good to have multiple viewpoints. Each topic we discuss triggers emotional responses first.

Theres a huge difference between 'nation4l s3curity' and home defense. I think the whole NS thing is a little overblown, and much of our own making, but thats a different story.
Personally I think supplies are more important because obviously you cant live without water, and _defense is pointless unless you have something to defend_, no? Just as obviously you have to have both, but supplies first.

There ARE ninjas hiding in the trees.


----------



## dirtgrrl (Jun 5, 2011)

I started out with a completely different train of thought, lost it, then started on another one.

There's a story in the Old Testament about the people of Israel building a city with a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other. It was slow going but they managed. 

I agree with Immolatus. You gotta have something to defend, and a reason to live. The people of Israel had common goals, and each other to support and be supported by. When the struggle to survive gets to be too much, who wants to live? 

I'm reminded of "The Road" where the wife said something like "they'll kill you and rape me and the boy and eat us all" and walked out into the cold. Death was preferable than the life they were living. I think the husband would have followed except he wanted his boy to have a life, and the boy knew no other life. That was his hope. To her, they were all already dead.

Maybe Turtle meant something a little more concrete, like "guns or butter" but doesn't matter what material possessions you have if you don't have hope.

Addressing the material aspect though, I'd rather have more food or the ability to produce it. Anything else seems pretty pointless unless you intend to live by taking it by force.


----------



## Davarm (Oct 22, 2011)

Their has to be a balance between "supplies" and "defense", it takes a wise man/woman to know load the scale.

That being said, my dad is wanting me to get a Wind Generator to test out and evaluate in our area, I want him to spring for it but I am going to go ahead and get one this summer if $$$ permit.

I dont want to sound like a "tree huger" but some type of renewable energy is going to have to be in our future whether TSHTF or not.

One of these will probably be the one I will purchase.

http://www.magnet4less.com/product_info.php?products_id=760

Around $700.00 for 600 watts, not a bad deal!


----------



## BillM (Dec 29, 2010)

Follow the money

George Soros, makes money transporting oil all over the world on his tanker fleet.

He is the major contributor to Obama and all the enviormental groups that lobby against any thing that has to do with the production of domestic oil or its delivery vis pipelines.

If the Keystone pipeline is not built , George's fleet will deliver the oil to China and he makes money.

Follow the MONEY!


----------



## gypsysue (Mar 27, 2010)

HillbillyPrep said:


> Most people can't afford to buy a set-up that can power most of their needs.


Herein lies one of the real problems. It's actually at least partly the other way around: Most people can't (won't) reduce their needs to what they could afford to set up as an alternative power system.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Turtle said:


> What is more important to you, supplies or defense? At what point does one surpass the other in importance?


Depends on your situation, but a balanced approach is probably best. Getting 10 guns and 10K rounds of ammo first probably is not the right step. But getting a few weeks of food while learning a few new skills and then adding a firearm and box of ammo is a good start. Add some more food. Maybe some equipment. Take a class. Plant a garden. Get another firearm with a different capability from the first one or some more ammo for the first one. Add some more food... etc.

I know it's a generic answer, but building up in multiple area's concurrently at a pace that you can handle will put you in a much better situation and able to actually understand, use and handle what you have.

To directly answer your question, food/water surpasses everything else in most situations. You don't eat and drink, you die making the rest of the supplies useless. But once you have some there is no reason not to expand into the other areas.


----------



## FatTire (Mar 20, 2012)

gypsysue said:


> Herein lies one of the real problems. It's actually at least partly the other way around: Most people can't (won't) reduce their needs to what they could afford to set up as an alternative power system.


Very well said, that's the process I started a year or so ago. The key word, for me, is 'simplify'


----------



## RevWC (Mar 28, 2011)

Turtle said:


> Thank you, Von Helman; you are the only one that tailored your response to put it in terms of your personal prepping plan. Everyone's responses were good, but what really made me think was the correlation to my personal plans.
> 
> Think of your property as a microcosm and look at some of the parallels to be drawn; not limited just in terms of sustainable energy sources, but also in terms of the balance to be struck in your own preparations. At what point does a prep go from being a matter of survival to a matter of security? How are you prioritizing between "wants" and "needs"? Or, more simply, what is more important to you: food or guns? Which do you feel that you need more of?
> 
> Just trying to encourage some "outside of the box" thinking.


Globally, I think this is the answer for electric..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

In my world I have worked out the food and water for years but not the power...and not so sure I care..


----------



## HillbillyPrep (Mar 24, 2012)

gypsysue said:


> Herein lies one of the real problems. It's actually at least partly the other way around: Most people can't (won't) reduce their needs to what they could afford to set up as an alternative power system.


Everyone certainly can reduce their needs but say there is a family of six people and they live in an apartment in the city. That's six showers a day. That's also a huge amount of clothing that needs washed on a regular basis. There is no room for a solar rig big enough to acommodate even their basic needs.
I'm not talking down alternative power. I think it could be a great thing, just not in our lifetime. I'm slowly working it into our place but it has to come way down in price to make it the norm and even then there are millions of people that will not be able to reap the benefits. 
If an owner of a 100 unit apartment complex tried to convert their property to solar and wind power it would be a huge undertaking. Most people i know could not afford the rent.


----------



## HillbillyPrep (Mar 24, 2012)

NaeKid said:


> Turtle, I believe that the studies have been done, but, the problem is in the fact that there are so many regulations in place that will choke the life out of the products before they have a chance to get to the end user. Lets just say that _Company ABC_ has a great idea and they start building the product and start showcasing the product and they get rave reviews. As soon as they plan to sell their product, then they have to get UL / CSA approval that the product conforms with regulations. The product is in testing for 5 years and UL / CSA make _Company ABC_ change their products to fit regulations and all of a sudden, their product is no longer able to function, millions of dollars are wasted and _Company ABC_ folds.
> 
> A company out in China will build the same product, flood the market, make a ton of coin and then tell the UL / CSA that the product is safe, it gets rubber-stamped and sold all across NorthAmerica with the huge profits heading out of NorthAmerica ...
> 
> I can drive over to a couple of filling stations and get my hydrogen - any industrial-gas company that supplies compressed gasses to welding shops. Praxair ( Direct hydrogen link ) supplies my shop with gasses and they would have no problems with supplying hydrogen to me personally to run my vehicle if I converted it to run on hydrogen.


But it would be a hassle if everyone in Calgary has trucks that used hydrogen. The lines would rival the gas lines in the 70's. I'm only saying that the transition would be a long and rocky road.


----------



## Jezcruzen (Oct 21, 2008)

I once had a professor from Liberty University living up the road from me. He told me that he bought one of the first PCs that hit the market. It operated on the Doss system, had a whopping 4MBs memory, and cost over $5,000! $5K was a LOT if money at the time.

So, whats my point? No one will ever take alternative energy seriously until it is performs well enough, is dependable, and (more importantly) is AFFORDABLE for the average Joe or Jane. Currently "alternative energy" is not much more than words coming out of the mouth of a marxist president.

Current alternative energy is not yet technologically advanced to the point using it as a stand alone system will allow you to live the way you have become accustomed without supplementing it with fossil fuel generated power. Wind turbines and solar panels for the home are more along the line of a science project than dependable, uncomplicated energy. I've looked at solar power a multitude of times and have been put off by the cost and customer reviews that were less than encouraging. Only the free market can fix that... not some government!

Alternative energy will come along at its own pace, but those three criteria - performance, dependability, and cost - will have to be satisfied before it is accepted mainstream.

Alternative energy is only just a sail boat compared to the motor cruiser of fossil fuels. It will get the there (maybe), but you will constantly have to keep an eye on the rigging and make a lot of adjustments along the way.

The term "Big Oil" is a straw man used by the left to demonize an industry. One of the strategies of marxism is to separate out a convenient target, personalize it, and work to turn people against it. Why? Ummmm, could it be that one goal of the Left is to lower your standard of living? To make you less comfortable, afraid, pissed off? Maybe all those feeling would make you more accepting of some "new" system promising to fix it all?

I read an interesting report recently that actually listed where "Big Oil" placed in over two hundred businesses and industries with regard to profits. The petroleum industry placed near the bottom! Wal-Mart made larger profits! Oil profits are only about 6/7%.... about average or even less so. So where's all this gouging we keep hearing about? There isn't any. State and federal taxes are much more on a gallon of gasoline than is any oil company profits. The Left doesn't want you to know that.


----------



## Ezmerelda (Oct 17, 2010)

Jezcruzen said:


> State and federal taxes are much more on a gallon of gasoline than is any oil company profits. The Left doesn't want you to know that.


Finally! Even though this line of conversation wasn't intended by the original post, I still have to :congrat: applaud this comment. If you don't believe it, read the sticker next time you're at the pump - many post the amount of taxes and fees taken by the several levels of government. The oil companies' profits depend solely on volume.

The government keeps raising the taxes and fees on oil companies, and makes decisions that hurt the oil industry, thus causing fuel costs to rise. Then, people begin curtailing their fuel consumption, thereby hurting the oil companies even more. The government then blames the high fuel costs on "big oil."

If you want to make a villain out of an entire industry, just put "big" in front of it. The general public will immediately form a negative opinion even if no facts are presented upholding that assumption. Unless, of course, you're talking about "big government." For some reason, the conditioning fails on that one. :dunno:


----------



## Von Helman (Oct 31, 2009)

This has been a good thread and very informative. 

I think it all goes back to individuals each making the best change that they can individually make. if we each take control and do our small part over time we will notice the change we have contributed to. 

I read a story recently about home builders who are now offering safe rooms as an option. Before builders were trying to compete on price with other homes in the neighborhood so they didn't add these costly extras. However these "Added Options" are now very popular and are being offered by the builders and ordered by the new homeowners. These options add additional cost and value to homes. A safe room will add a minimum of $5,000.00 to the cost of a new home but people are getting them because they can roll that price into the cost of the house and have it financed. Then its a "look" what we have.. kind of thing.. 

I think the same will soon hold true to some of these other technologies such as wind and solar. These energy alternatives are also becoming "options" added to new homes and selling points. Some homes are also adding cisterns and other features so I see a change coming in that regard. We will also see these options added to new apartment and condo developments. 

It's the older homes and the low income people that will not benefit from these new options for a while but you have to start somewhere. 

In regards to what is more important, food or defense, well that goes back to the old saying, what organ is more important the heart or the brain? They are both equally important and without one the other is no good. So there has to be a balance in your foods / prep and your defense.


----------



## NaeKid (Oct 17, 2008)

Ezmerelda said:


> Finally! Even though this line of conversation wasn't intended by the original post, I still have to :congrat: applaud this comment. If you don't believe it, read the sticker next time you're at the pump - many post the amount of taxes and fees taken by the several levels of government. The oil companies' profits depend solely on volume.
> 
> The government keeps raising the taxes and fees on oil companies, and makes decisions that hurt the oil industry, thus causing fuel costs to rise. Then, people begin curtailing their fuel consumption, thereby hurting the oil companies even more. The government then blames the high fuel costs on "big oil."
> 
> If you want to make a villain out of an entire industry, just put "big" in front of it. The general public will immediately form a negative opinion even if no facts are presented upholding that assumption. Unless, of course, you're talking about "big government." For some reason, the conditioning fails on that one. :dunno:


I heard that some states (Oregon maybe) was toying with the idea that they will tax vehicles based on the miles traveled each year on top of the tax paid at the pumps for fuel. You go in to renew your plates, they look at the milage on the vehicle, calculate the milage from the year previous count and charge accordingly before you can leave the parking lot.

Little "SmartCars" sip so little fuel that the government noticed a significant drop in the tax base.

I also heard a story that they would tax bicycles for the miles that the person peddle'd in the year .... :gaah:

Yes, this is getting borderline conspiracy ...


----------

