Jobless Recovery or Solar Power II

Much of what was to follow when I interrupted what became Part I will be omitted to make way for some discussion of fast moving developments, most of which are pertinent to the Copenhagen summit on climate change. Advertised intensely earlier, expectations for real success had to be lowered. Carol Browner, Pres. Obama's “energy czar” had told Congress more than a month ago that the conference could not achieve its aim in the face of US congressional resistance to cap and trade legislation. With the giant meeting, termed COP15, about to start, many confrontations emerged, the most serious of which seemed to be that between rich developed and poor developing countries.

The announcement of the troop surge to Afghanistan at this moment could have been interpreted as a ploy to ensure that the shaky summit will not get the main media coverage. It now looks more likely that the timing had to do with the ambitious Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech (mazal tov). Evidently related to COP15 was his trip to China, the other big fosssil burner; 20% of world total each; while the other 190 attending countries burn a total of 60%.

For the biggest negative impact, it became known that e-mails and other documents hacked from the University of East Anglia records indicate that global temperature data used for the UN's Inter-governmental Panel (IPCC) raising the alarm on Climate Change had been handled illegitimately, so as to affirm the conclusions on imminent calamitous global warming dangers; and that papers at odds with those conclusions had been suppressed.

Not all these problems which could harm prospects for a fruitful summit will be discussed here, but if enough of them were to lead to yet another year on a weak, toothless interim deal, honest failure would be preferable, to clear the deck for something real; effective action.

On the eve of the COP 15 opening, the German Der Spiegel had a report on strong pressures on the new “center-right” German coalition government to drastically cut the price paid to people for feeding solar (PV) electricity to the grid. After the feed-in law had made the country the foremost generator of direct solar power (at least by PV) and major job creator, Spain and others adopted a similar one, albeit at a less generous rate and more limited success. Barack Obama is informed on that and does not want continued German (or other) superior standing in a technology first used in the US. In spite of the substantial German lead, beating it should be easy. That does not mean that it cannot fail, if what got the US to its inferior status is to continue, without more honest information, bold thinking and, if need be, readiness to stand up to the status quo crowd.

Apart from some work on multi-stage solar desalination in the 1960s, my serious professional involvement with energy sources took place in the 1970s. That did not end my interest, but my access to the pertinent literature became very limited. Surreptitious steps had already been taken before to isolate us. At the time, the conseqences seemed minor, possibly even in the period since, but readers ought to be aware of it.

While it is surely advisable to learn from earlier successes of others, it would not be a good idea to imitate the German experience on direct solar energy too closely. I have great respect for Hermann Scheer, the head of Eurosolar and Bundestag (Parliament) member mainly responsible for the German success. His book (The Solar Manifesto) was the best I had found on the several (non-technological) aspects of solar power, by far. That opinion did not change after some conversations with him at a Eurosolar conference (on solar finaning) in Bonn in the 1990s that he had asked me to attend. But their success relative to the US is based less on their (real) achievements than on the miserable record of the US program; that looks designed by outfits of the polluting competition, especially the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC); which indeed it was and continued under its successors, first ERDA then the new Energy Department.

As long as the aim of these AEC generated outfits was (is?) to prevent utilization of the solar sources of power, it is easy to understand why the US lost in a utilization race, noted by Pres. Obama. They did not pioneer, so others could follow. On a wider scale, the suddenly large solar funding, when it became part of the nuclear power and bomb domain, may have intimidated others from starting a “race”. And there was worse; like abuses of the patenting process and worse than that.

In the 1970s I (along with at least one colleague) probably knew more on how to get low cost solar power than anyone else. It may still hold true today, so when Barack Obama started with his emphasis on clean energy, I thought I ought to make one more effort in spite of my age-related problems. The wait for real action has lasted longer than expected. Our project still looks better than any I see in the open literature, so I'm still at it, can't tell for how long.

The same week as his talk at MIT, Obama went to Florida to visit the largest photovoltaic (PV) Installation in the country. The largest is not the same as the best. Florida Light and Power (fpl) which owns the thing, uses the same flat plate PV as the Germans. In the best areas of the US (not necessarily Florida), it is easy to focus the sunlight, e.g. with inexpensive (Fresnel-like) lenses, to get much more power, say 10-20x, from the same amount of expensive PV strips. They were to be used preferably in decentralized installations of moderate size at/near the point of need. There should be little, if any, economies of scale beyond a minimal size to detract from the big power gain. Our main emphasis was on solar thermal power, using the concentrated sunlight to provide heat for power by conventional turbine generators.

Our motivation was not fear of climate change, which was barely audible at the time, nor anything new and alarming. We also did not do it for jobs, but there were plenty of other problems that could be tackled in addition to the effects of the first oil shock and embargo; and we were not the only ones busy with it. Later it turned out that additional things could get solved, including climate and job problems.

The way it came across at MIT, Obama wants to win the race by exporting things like solar panels or wind turbines. That must have been involved in the German successes. But what's wrong with the huge internal market that China gets exhorted to produce for. Satisfying US energy needs can provide non outsourceable assembly jobs for a very long time at an acceptable price, largely competitive already with polluting power. It is a very flexible design, but it can, and should, not be expected to apply everywhere. Nor should any other solar design.

Since this again has taken too long, and Cop 15 is approaching its end, the main thing that will not be left for a post to follow (where the advantages and drawbacks by comparison with other energy will be cited) is the superior job creation potential of our design (for details on which the September 16 posting is adequate). Simplified, some job creation beyond that from other direct solar designs derives from the greater amount of assembly work when the concentrating panels are assembled on site from simple components; but the main reason for more jobs is the much lower price of the installation, which should lead to natural proliferation, mostly by private capital.

Let me restate that I am continuing, as was the norm, to use the term solar energy for all the sources that provide energy ultimately derived from earth's continuing income from the sun, including i.a. wind, hydro, wave and biomass. Only the latter may have to be renewed by someone.

Jobless Recovery or Serious Solar Power (I)

The US economy was reported to have grown 3.5% in the last quarter, an indication that the recession may be over; if only it also grows in the next quarter (or two). At the same time, unemployment continues to be close to 10% (officially) and is probably getting worse. (It indeed rose to 10.2% since I began this post). If low unemployment were still regarded as an important positive feature of a healthy economy, it would mean that growth, as defined, may not be as good an indicator of prosperity as it is made out to be.


Barack Obama was elected (a year ago) after a campaign that promised bold action leading to change, real change you can believe in. Before the impressive growth announcement, it seemed to many early supporters that it really required faith to believe claims of progress in diverse areas, rather than informed judgement.


It is true that Bush-Cheney left him a country with a broken economy, which continued to deteriorate fast before he took office this February, as well as an odious international reputation. The new president maintained that if Recovery Act legislatipon to approve his stimulus spending were approved promptly, as it then was, the economy would take off, even though there may be some further decline first. The most consistent promise was that millions of new jobs would be created.


Topping his domestic agenda were health care reform and a serious commitment to clean energy; initially also education, especially in science and technology. At least with respect to job creation, that seemed confined to retrofitting windows with superior energy features, thus classifiable under energy. Hiring many more teachers, for smaller class size, could itself accomodate millioms of new jobs, though hardly any by the private sector; which is preferred. That could also apply to jobs resulting from the health care reform, if it comes with a public health insurance option. Yet most clean solar energy is intrinsically job intensive rather than requiring the huge initial capital and continuing fuel expenses of the current polluting energy industry. And the bulk of it is to come from the private sector.

Throughout this period, the President has said very little on his energy policy, while his exceptional eloquence and his personal charisma were utilized liberally on other parts of his agenda. It has also been difficult to find out what, if anything, has actually been done. Does that show a lack of real interest in, or rather inadequate understanding of, energy (or what?). The latter looks less serious and more likely to me. He admitted ignorance of details on what was involved in the financial breakdown last year, later showed that he learned fast, enough to comment confidently. Couldn't that be the case here? To different extents, we have all been dis-and-mis-informed. There may not be anything with so much powerfully administered disinformation as on US energy practices. Can he cut adequately through the resulting confusion? Let's hope he can.

--------------------------

Energy comments by both the President and other major officials have just been published, at least under the heading of climate change, evidently in anticipation of the December Copenhagen summit on that. Barack Obama spoke at MIT, and the New York Times had a transcript.To try to summarize briefly a long speech covering many energy technologies, not always consistently, I'll borrow from Helene Cooper and John M. Broder, the Times reporters who got paid for it (and a related article).

Obama wants legislators to help the push toward greater use of renewable energy. Since rising energy use imperils the planet, nations everywhere are racing to develop new ways to produce and use energy. The nation that wins the race will lead the global economy, and that has to be the US. “It's that simple. (Applause.)”.

I can't join in that applause. Has there really been a need to turn this into another peaceful war against others; who also are concerned about the future of the planet and their energy supply. What has been needed is determined defense of the public good and democratic norms from corruptive assault of lobbies for excessively profitable outfits. I know from rich personal experience some of what their networks in the federal civil service could accomplish in the 1970s. Can they now?

Especially with respect to direct solar power, a less captive US government could have been way ahead of others simply based on its superior resources; most probably still could be, if the extra-constitutional overreach of the status quo forces could be curtailed. Those need not be identical with the organizations President Obama now “chides” for opposing new legislation that includes “cap and trade” provisions to help finance clean energy at the expense of fossil energy, while limiting emissions now ; an apparent reference (the Times people believe) to the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

That the ultimate aim is supposed to be a transition to the clean “renewable” energy sources is affirmed by explicit references to it; like “debate as to how we transition from fossil fuels to renewable fuels” or ”legislation that will finally make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America”. That does not fit well with the details of the spending of $80 billions in the January stimulus bill: “developing new battery technologies for hybrid vehicles; modernizing the electric grid; making our homes and businesses more energy efficient; doubling our capacity to generate renewable electricity”. If it is not even 1% of total generation now, one might think (2x0=0) that that's no change at all. It really isn't "change I can believe in". Nor is it just this pitiful number that is worrisome.

If that was to be the (first term) achievement of “the largest investment in clean energy in history”, made just after assuming office, it was disappointing, but understandable for a brand new team in a rush to stem the fast economic breakdown inherited. Could the added stimulus from a new Senate bill he was advocating (by Senators Kerry and Boxer) be the answer? It is about “ making the best use of resources we have in abundance, everything from figuring out how to use the fossil fuels that inevitably we are going to be using for several decades,.... as cleanly and efficiently as possible; creating safe nuclear power; ...... sustainably grown biofuels and then” (i.e. not before or at the same time) “the energy that we can harness from wind and the waves and the sun”. If the solar energy sources, the most abundant by far, clean and safe without having to await new developments that may make practical sense (like “clean coal”), if they have to come last, then their earlier emphasis can't be taken seriously. I'm not ready for that conclusion.

Pending further discussion, let us note that one positive effect of climate change has been that the President and top aides finally began to at least talk about action on energy.

Qum (and Tehran) sequel. Israel:

The Jewish shops at the Tehran bazaar seemed to be doing well, as did the Armenian ones. I had no problem at the airport taking my Tehran to Tel Aviv flight, although there would have been a problem, if it had to land while flying over Iraq. I remember nothing from that flight that would be of interest in deciding whether an Israeli air force return from attacking targets in Iran would proceed smoothly; an attack that began to look likely when I began writing the first part, but that didn't look like a good idea anyway. By now, at the start of the sequel two weeks later, it looks like a remote possibility.

In Tel Aviv, I happened to arrive for the 70^th birthday of my uncle, the father of the three Yaari brothers in different Kibbutzim, all of whom had come to Tel Aviv for the celebration, so I managed to see all three cousins (with part of their families). We had grown up quite close together in Germany, so my sudden arrival without notice (no telephones in Israel then, unless urgent need for business) was welcome all around, especially for my uncle who by a conspiratorial “white” lie was made to believe that I had come specifically for his birthday. Without having been aware of it, I had bought him a carved ivory chess set in Hong Kong (he had originaly taught me as a child to play it); which made the “lie” more credible.

When I decided to try to stop for a day in (divided) Berlin on the way to Copenhagen (slightly to the West), my brother said he can see to it. The answer was that no, I was not to stop in Berlin, and as an Israeli citizen at the time I had to pay 15% of the price of the round-the-world trip, according to some alleged regulation. I told them I wouldn't object if they got the money from Dow Chemical which had bought / paid for the ticket. For all I know, it may just have been that clerk showing his “power”. Neither I nor Dow had to pay. But having had no problem with the Israeli passport in Iran and crossing Iraq, it was in Israel where it became a problem, so I had to waste part of both my two days there in government offices.

The first visit to Copenhagen also turned out to be my most eventful, far better than seems to be expected for the climate change conference scheduled there in December. On today's BBC World, there was speculation on whether Barack Obama will lend his prestige toward some sort of success by attending, while noting that his popularity has suddenly dropped quite a bit. Maybe Netanyahu's attendance should be given a higher priority, in recognition of his apparent higher prestige in the US.

That was demonstrated convincingly after he had let Obama know his rejection of the call for a stop to illegal construction for the West Bank squatters (“settlers”), so as to enable scheduling peace negotiations with a photo op at the Washington meeting with Palestinian Mahmud Abbas. In spite of the rejection, the latter had to let himself be photographed shaking “Bibi's” hand, with Obama behind them, in what is being compared to the Rabin-Arafat handshaking photo for the Oslo accord. Abbas may well be more committed to peace than Arafat, but certainly not Bibi than Rabin. But when he tried to shake murdered Rabin's widow Leah's hand at the funeral, she could, and did, refuse; since she viewed him as responsible for much of the hatred of her husband generated by enemies of peace negotiations. Poor Abbas has since seen a need for a public change of course. Maybe Obama sees a way of retrieving peace hopes, too.

I was in Qum (and Tehran)

There were other major news items last week, like the first summit meeting of the G-20, that included countries like India and Brazil, to confront climate change; and the first handshake of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas with Benjamin Netanyahu. But the most explosive revelation was the discovery of a second Iranian uranium enrichment plant being built outside Qum. Not many non-Iranians here know where or what that is. I knew, and had actually gone to, that holy Shiite city.

At the time, I was working for The Dow Chemical Company's James River (fibers) Division at Williamsburg, Virginia, and was sent to Japan for exchange of research information with the scientists at the labs of Asahi Chemical Company (with which Dow had started a joint company), mainly one at Numazu, with a clear view of Mount Fuji. Among the extra treats was being wined (sake) and dined (and entertained) at a Geisha House, hosted by the Asahi president.

When it was over, after 7 weeks, I decided to exchange my first class ticket back for a normal (“tourist”) ticket forward, for what is still my only trip around the world; having got a week's (+) vacation by phone. Dow even got some money back from the exchange. In principle, I could have gone way south to Australia, then way north to Siberia etc, as long as each new destination was west of the preceding. But I was moderate; stopping first in Hong Kong, then Bangkok, Delhi, Tehran, Tel Aviv and Copenhagen to Virginia.

The Asahi-Dow office in Tokyo had made all the travel arrangements, including a hotel reservation at the Tehran Hilton; which became famous when it turned out that Lt. Col. Ollie North and Reagan's National Security Advisor McFarlane had stayed there during their secret hostage mission. The Asahi-Dow people couldn't know that; nor did they know that my one day there would be on the holiest Shia holiday, commemorating the assassination of Ali, the Prophet's son in law and candidate for the succession. I was told that everything would be closed that day. But a Dutch businessman who spent much time there suggested that I go with him to nearby Qum; also that the Jewish and Armenian artisans in the big Bazaar stay open. So it was.

My main recollection of Qum is of our being on top of the mausoleum for the father of Reza Shah Pahlevi. It overlooked the courtyard of the main mosque almost directly below, and there was threatening shaking of fists from there in the direction of us tourists (most evidently Iranians). My Dutch buddy claimed there was srong anti-Israel feeling around, and I was still an Israeli citizen, but saw no reason to worry, having been admitted with my Israeli passport. I still don't adequately understand the complex Iranian history preceding the Islamic revolution emanating largely from the Qum Mullahs 1-2 decades after my visit in January 1961. It was not that long after the 1953 British inspired (BP, then still the Anglo Iranian Oil Co) CIA coup that overthrew the popular prime minister Mossadegh, an aristocrat and democrat, a kind of Warren Buffett for Middle Eastern circumstances. His support is supposed to have extended all the way from the Shia clergy to the Tudeh party, regarded as way left. So what I witnessed may still have been part of resentment over the restoration of the Pahlevis by the coup, even though turning (part of?) the clergy is alleged to have been an important achievement for Kermit Roosevelt, who was in charge of the coup.

(This will have to be continued later, possibly as a separate posting. It has already been interrupted unposted for close to a week.)

Clean Energy and Jobs Now?

Two firefighters were killed in the Los Angeles area conflagration, apparently under control now, that had been competing for media attention with the red hot Health Care “debate”. Some others, including residents, were badly injured.

The flames were unusually fierce and early this time, fed by brush desiccated by another year of drought. But record high temperatures and drought had become a regular weather feature, increasingly worldwide in scope. In Europe, even earlier this year, the Athens area in Greece had been hit hard; in August 1943, 50 people in Paris were reported to have succumbed in 4 days; other times, the heat and drought news comes from Uruguay, then Australia, Israel, and Africa of course. Even proverbially wet coastal British Columbia is no longer immune.

Very few now would absolve climate change, global warming, of responsibility, even though other factors, such as El Niňo and long term natural climate variations, may play a part. Replacing the polluting with any of the clean solar energy sources, wind, direct sunlight, biomass et al, would tend to counter global warming. Moreover, there are ways to build solar installations which in addition would help toward adaptation to climate changes that will have taken place already. We had worked out such a design in our (government) research center in 1973-4.

It featured major advantages (beyond the adaptability) compared to the solar options the public was allowed to be informed of, mainly “flat plate” thermal collectors for domestic water and swimming pool heating, a little “passive” solar architecture and much hype about flat plate photovoltaic (PV) power. That was the least competitive technology, thus the most effective for providing the (formerly AEC) agency picked to fund energy research grants ( DOE precursor ERDA) with the evidently welcome research conclusion that “solar power is technically feasible , but far too expensive in practice”. We had our own research budget and could assert confidently that solar power could be close to cost effectiveness in many places almost immediately, and competitive with the polluting sources in the most favorable locations; which were abundant in our California lab's pertinent states (~west of the Mississippi).

There are quite a few analogies to our recent / current situation. The US superpower had also just been revealed as vulnerable by a price shock and boycott imposed by oil exporting countries, leading to long lines at gas stations that did have some for sale, where people began to talk about energy from the sun. Energy was indeed declared as being at the top of our agricultural research priorities, along with food production.

Such formal declarations did not mean that “powerful” vested interests which determine government practice really decided to let the national needs trump a more profitable status quo. As, e.g., in the current Health Care dispute, it means at most that some more of their excess profits have to be invested in corrupting key people and confusing the general public.

This is not the proper place to describe the wrongdoing needed to prevent a serious solar transition starting in the 1970s and sparing us much of our calamities since. It began with much of our approved research budget being withdrawn retroactively (unprecedented); allegedly not to prevent our work, the feasibility and legitimacy of which was never questioned. The energy priority remained in place. A paper we wrote on the design was not welcomed, but allowed to be presented almost “as is” at a Disneyland meeting of the polluting energy people. The published Proceedings are thus available, but almost only in their libraries. Anything wrong with the UCLA meeting of the Solar Energy Society just a month later? But the vile illegalities that followed my whistleblowing two years later, first to the Carter White House, overshadow these early assaults on just our professional rights / responsibilities and are more akin to outrages of these past few years.

From all I can now find out, our design (especially with some easy updating) still looks superior in most respects to published proposals, notably for sunny and semi-arid regions. It was never meant as exclusive model (as no solar model should be), although it can be flexible enough to include many others. Use of more than one technology for substantial decentralized installations has been a central feature, so as to minimize the need for expensive energy storage (our having included only wind and biologically stored solar energy in the diagram of a “sun village” was not meant to exclude less widely available ones; even limited fossil burning in the early, 1970s stages).

Focusing direct sunlight, so as to concentrate it at least about 10x before absorption by thermal or PV targets is central for the main power yield, at least in the preferred areas. The very thin focusing lenses we worked on, shown to be easily mass produced inexpensively (for 1-2 % of the sale price of comparable devices) can probably be complemented with relatively inexpensive mirror troughs (e.g. for use where the diffuse sunlight is not needed below) when they, like the lenses are deployed under transparent roofs.

Glass roofs shield components from wind loads, rain, uv degradation etc, at the expense of 8-10% of sunlight. It allows wide material choice and tracking the sun with only minor expense of the power gained (compared to weather exposed collector fields). The light harvesting system for thermal power thus can be inexpensive enough to let some of the light (especially in the red) pass through the spectrally selective absorber (that heats the fluid which carries the energy to turbine or non-electric use); since that from the (unfocused) diffuse light is likely to be inadequate for many of the crops to be grown below. The precious water for crop irrigation that can be collected from the transparent roof is utilized for the modern, more sparing, greenhouse requirements. Such crops are obviously less threatened by global warming. Pending more detailed future treatment here, also for concentrated PV, fairly detailed early summaries (chapter 3 and chapters 4-6) of the design will have to make do (The first link is a footnote to a 1977 memo to the Carter White House; the following ones are from an enclosure to a 1980 memo to the UN Human Rights Commission.)

Environmental advantages, beyond the intrinsic virtue of clean energy without anthropogenic radioactivity or CO2, include the non exclusive land use for energy harvesting collectors and the reduced need for transmission of reasonably decentralized energy harvested at / near consumption site. It also makes possible utilization of what has to be “waste heat” in highly centralized installations in a remote desert, and which amounts to most of the energy collected. That contributed further toward making this the most energy conserving and the cheapest sunpower. It is far easier to get financing for a reasonably sized plant. It is highly job, rather than fuel or capital, intensive. With enough lens mass production in place (no problem), it can proliferate very fast, obviating the need for any new dirty competition at least in the more favorable locations. Those also include much of the underdeveloped countries that need it most, especially right now; if we aspire to a more peaceful, just, world.

The situation now looks surprisingly similar to that in the 1970s, at least at first glance. The clean solar sources are still deemed desirable, but they are almost always referred to as “renewable” energy, a major semantic achiement for the dirty competition. The term makes sense when crops have to be grown for burning as biofuel. But the sun keeps radiating, the winds keep blowing, ocean waves churning, and rivers for hydropower just keep rolling along; without requiring renewal by us.

It was not President Obama who ended SERI, the Solar Energy Research Institute, and replaced it with NREL, where the N stands for National, the "patriotic" adjective conferred on the AEC (to DOE) labs designed for “peaceful” and bomb making nuclear work. It was a predecessor who got rid of the “solar” in the SERI founded by Jimmy Carter in the 70s. The concentration first on some health care reform need not mean that Barack Obama is less pro solar than Carter. My guess is that he is unaware of the possibility of something more than a “twofer” of some energy and jobs; like a “multifer” of much more energy and jobs, at less expense, very fast, with added “xtras”, not all of which have been discussed here.

When Jay Leno, in one of his last NBC night shows, asked him why nobody was being prosecuted for the rip-offs associated with the Wall Street bailout, Obama said that (most of) that didn't have to be Illegal. But those thought responsible for the LA fires are sought for murder. That makes some sense, and no less would prosecution for the deliberate, powerful prevention of methods which could have prevented the starvation of many millions since, for oil wars, 0ne of which featured the biggest fire on record (set in disputed oil fields) and many casualties burned alive when their vehicles were hit (also Amertcans). Even if confined to what happened in our /my case, the illegalities would have richly deserved criminal prosecution; which I'd rather avoid. It should not be off the table, if they now use their corruptive clout to scuttle “energy reform” more powerfully than the health reform opponents' lobbies used theirs.

Clean energy, as job creator, appeared to be second to none on Obama's agenda initially, and solar proponents expected much. Lacking, however, was a most important feature present at Jimmy Carter's 1977 call for the moral equivalent of war for energy; namely a grassroots movement organizing for Sun Day (Wednesday May 3, 1978). That may not be enough, given the reach of those opposed, also into “movement”-like NGOs, but it may well be essential. It is hard to believe that a “Renewability Day” could generate the sort of genuine grassroots enthusiasm prevailing in the Sun Day movement.

Steven Chu is a far more impressive Secretary of the Energy Department than Carter's, but that may not be enough to bring about the changes needed there. He is probably bound to also represent at least his “Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory”, the beneficiary of two Applied Semantics face lifts since I came to know it as the Lawrence Radiation Lab. What has been approved up to now doesn't look ideal; nor bad, given that any solar project is more likely to be beneficial than harmful. I haven't abandoned hope of better to follow soon. I was in my 40s when this work was started and I expected to be involved for a few months before returning to my normal, more scientific, research; in which I had gained significant international recognition, but insignificant in societal importance next to the solar development. I am now in my mid 80s, so have to keep up hope for Barack Obama and team, since I can't expect a better president in the time I may have left.

(After posting other things, also kept in suspense for many months, there should be more on this. There should then be a link to it here.)

A beautiful summer day at English Bay

This is my second panorama. It is made up of about a dozen pictures stitched together with a program called Autostitch™ autostitch.net made by Matthew Brown a UBC Computer Science student.

Juan

From sunsets

Incan Messenger

There should be a more detailed description forthcoming about this wooden sculpture showing a messenger with a message from the Inca, the divine head of the Incan empire. It could inform also the new leader of the United States, of the Free World, about the existence of a mighty, clean, ubiquitous,unending source of energy that will never have to be replaced.

From Solarity

Can We Really?

It depends.

"We can now declare Barack Obama the winner" according to CNN's Wolf Blitzer at almost exactly 8pm West Coast time, as polls in California were closing. We cannot claim that my vote was decisive, (not yet). YES WE CAN congratulate the United States for having taken a giant step in recovery from one of its two paramount historical "sins".

Senator John McCain is conceding immediately, now. I'll sign off to listen.