Of all organizations in the fields of renewable-sustainable energy, environmental
preservation, conservation, and green new ways to limit global climatic
change, 15% are concentrating on bettering existing technologies, such
as cheaper PV solar cells, 55% are promoting existing technologies, 30%
are wasting time and money on concepts that will not work, and only 1%
are developing totally unique approaches to solve crucial problems.
PC Research is in that 1%, pioneering new approaches to solving major ecological
problems. Our solutions work, can be done expediently, without huge
expense, and benefit all people. Our complex decision process balances
all factors, to develop new approaches and unique solutions that have not
been thought of before. |
Conservation is "balance" -- environmental conservation is "balance"
but not at the expense of the environment or ecology. Without ecological
balance, there is no concern for other people, animals, plants or their
futures -- only selfish commercial, industrial, political, cultural,
or personal goals. If we want a sustainable future, man's impacts
must be balanced against Earth's ecological needs.
The oil dependency crisis western countries face today, and the global warming crisis, on which our future
survival may hinge, have both hit at the same time, because excessive oil consumption is the cause of
global climate warming -- eliminate the first, and the global problem will take care of itself.
If leaders pursue the "wrong" goals, or push expensive solutions
that people cannot afford, or if they promote selfish profiteering goals,
with detrimental long-term consequences for the world's global climatic
future, they will have robbed everyone of any hope to secure a sustainable
future. They will have failed all people and gained nothing -- by the time
the detrimental impacts of their "wrong" decisions are obvious,
even to those in denial, there won't be any time left for a second chance. |
|
 |
Therefore, it behooves everyone, right now, to take very seriously the
environmental decisions that we make, or fail to make by not acting with
concern for all. The decisions that leading politicians and lawmakers
make are especially prone to error, since so many of them today reject
the overwhelming proof that our planet is facing an overheated future of
no recovery. Voters are just as responsible as the people they elect.
PC Research realized years ago that, only by backing the solutions that
will work the quickest and most effectively to alleviate today's current
crises, can we face the future with a clear conscience -- "Hey, we
presented to you the right solutions that would work to solve problems in the least time for the least
cost. If you failed to recognize and support them as the best way
to success, that is your mistake, not ours -- we did the best we could -- if politicians and big
corporate CEO's are too egotistical to listen to our better solution, they
ruined everyone's future, not us."
|
"Right" vs. "Wrong" Solutions
From this philosophy, it is clear that the "right" solution is
the one that will succeed the quickest, for the least cost -- one that
everyone can support and is able to afford, one which benefits all parties,
including the entire ecosystem. Such solutions must override everything
else -- profit, greed, selfish interests, political or corporate egos --
none of that matters -- adopting the "right solution" is all that matters.
How do we decide? There is no easy answer -- it depends on the problem, the technologies available,
whether the leading experts in the field can develop a unique, "right" solution that will work,
the political climate where it needs to be applied, and of course, the support our non-profit organization receives.
If no one in key positions has the perception to see what we are proposing is the "best" solution,
they won't support it, and they lose in the end, not us -- the losers are the ones with no vision, not the innovators with
the "right" solution.
Before understanding what makes a "right" solution, let's look
at what constitutes a "wrong" or failed solution that won't work
-- and the complex interplay of factors that cause solutions to ecological
problems to be either "wrong" at the outset, or doomed by lack
of vision. Remember, "right" is what can be adopted the quickest
and cheapest by all people to solve the problem, "wrong" by definition,
is what inhibits adoption, procrastinates, doesn't solve the problem, makes
it worse, or misleads people to waste money and irreplaceable time. |
|
|
 |
|
Wrong Solution # 1 -- Desalination Plants are
Ecologic Disasters for the Coasts
Touted as a great ecological way to guarantee drinking water in dry arid
regions, without pollution, and can be run solely from "green"
power, desalination plants are pushed onto an unsuspecting public as a
great "solution", but the truth is, commercial interests are
lying about every aspect of these plants. They are an ecological
disaster, as these facts show --
1. They consume massive amounts of energy to process seawater --
for every $1Billion spent on each plant, they pump out 1.2 billion tons of CO2 each year into the atmosphere.
2. Desal plants in Australia claim they run off wind power, but this
is another fraud -- they draw huge amounts of grid power (using carbon
credits as the double-dealing card trick).
3. The Aus. desal plants (left) are in prime ecological areas, high-use
beaches, national heritage sites, and coasts where ecologic conservation,
not habitat destruction, is needed.
4. They pump millions of tons of excess salt (toxic with boron and
chemicals) back into the coastlines each year, which makes beaches, bays
and inlets toxic, destroying marine life.
5. Australia is planning desal plants at all the best beaches in
the country, contaminating all coastal aquatic habitats, and damaging marine
life, fishing, tourism, and commerce.
State agencies and industries with vested interests in the money these
plants generate put up websites explaining how they are doing everything
"environmentally friendly", yet none of them mention the catastrophic
impact these desal plants have on coastal marine life. Is it deliberate
deception, or total ignorance about the damage to coastal ecologies? Whether
ignorance or greed, this will not help cut global warming or preserve our beaches, coasts, oceans and their
wildlife, on which mankind relies for enjoyment, food, commerce and life.
|
| Wrong Solution # 2 -- California is about to destroy, not preserve, its
coastal ecology, crucial marine life, and habitats vital to the Pacific |
You can see here that
we devoted a whole chapter of this site to explaining the human and
whole-ecology benefits of preserving the ecosystems of the U.S. West Coast.
And now California is about to destroy those ecosystems that make
up an essential part of the ecologies of the Pacific Ocean, the west coast,
and wildlife along the coastline?
Desalination Plants for brackish groundwater and salty aquifers inland
are one thing -- they are low cost, consume only 1/10th the energy of coastal
seawater desal Plants, and do not pollute coastal ecosystems or destroy
marine life or habitats at all. That type of "low-sal desal"
plant makes clean drinking water from arid-land groundwater.
Desal plants along the coastline are the opposite -- they suck in seawater
and dump such a salty contaminated brine back into the ocean, that it kills
marine life throughout the coastal region. The California longshore
drift is south, so all extra salt, chemicals and contaminants from the
seawater desal plants that destroy marine life and habitats moves down
the coastline, progressively destroying open coastal, inlet, estuarine,
and bay ecologies everywhere from north of San Francisco, to south of the
Mexican border.
You can't work to preserve coastal ecologies for everyone's benefit at
the west coast, while some errant, ill-planned profit scheme to pollute
the entire coastline of California is working against everything you do
to preserve the coastal ecology -- it doesn't make sense, it is hypocritical.
So either desal plants (probably conceived in ignorance) must go,
or else give up your entire coastline to the ravages of industrial contamination.
It is that simple for California -- allow these Desal plants, and you're guaranteed
to destroy the entire coastal ecology of the east Pacific, whales and all
other marine life included. |
|
 |
| Wrong Equation # 3 -- Brilliant Solution for World Habitat Conservation
+ Bad Politics + No Vision = Futile
Situation |
 |
|
The Great Barrier Reef along the N.E. coast of Australia is the greatest
single, living coastal habitat on the planet, receiving World Heritage
status in 1981. By 1998, large swaths of the reef were found to be
dying -- coral bleaching from too much sediment influx off the land.
The extra sediment was also found to contain toxic chemicals from pesticides
and other man-made input. The causes were tracked back to sugar cane
farming, cattle ranching, and land clearing in the headwater regions of
the river systems of N.E. Queensland.
PC Research had an active division in Australia through the 1990s up to
recently, so we had our scientists collaborate on finding a solution that
would cut the sediment influx to the reef to less than 1/10th what it is
today, without impacting agricultural activities on the land. The solution
they came up with was absolutely brilliant -- it would have worked superbly.
We could not get anyone in the Federal or State governments to even review
it. They said, "We have experts working on the problem",
and since government grants were going to universities to "research
the problem", they didn't want anyone else coming up with a new working
solution that would compete for their funding. Federal and state
politicians were not the slightest bit interested in hearing of a better
solution or providing any funding for it.
Now, a decade later, those "researching the problem" still are
-- and have not come up with any viable solution to stop the reef kill
from sediment and chemical influx, without impacting agricultural activities
upstream. Our solution could have been deployed years ago, so now
there would be essentially no sediment influx into the reef today, no new
bleaching and no kill. The political entities will never know what
they missed out on -- no vision, no success. Last year, we quit all efforts
to help them -- it was a totally futile situation -- closed minded politicians
sealing a death blow to the world's greatest reef, solely by their own
ignorance. |
| Missed Chance # 4 -- Cut pollution by 30%, cut fuel use by 20%, with no
impact to drivers? Which city could pass that up? Sydney can
! |
Other scientists, engineers and experts in our Australia division came
up with an equally brilliant plan to cut the pollution and fuel consumption
of an entire city by 20-30%, with no real change to driving -- way too
good to pass up for any major city. But Sydney could !!
Sydney, Australia's largest city, is extremely polluted from diesel trucks,
machinery and diesel cars pumping out huge volumes of toxic fumes, cancerous
carbon soot and NO2.
Australia's per-vehicle pollution is among the world's highest, exceeding that of the U.S.
Our Sydney group's plan would have cut toxic diesel pollution by 30%, and
fuel use by 20% across the city, without impacting drivers. We tried
to get two N.S.W. premiers, Bob Carr and Morris Iemma, to support it, but
both were too ignorant and closed-minded to listen -- "Our State environmental
division manages all pollution issues". No, they don't. They
are a joke, just writing policies and schedules of fines to control people
and limit their rights.
Are you starting to see a pattern in all these Australian boondoggles?
We did. Unlike the U.S., if the government doesn't fund it
in Australia, nothing gets done. Private industry and corporations
do not contribute to support independent non-profit research like companies
do in the U.S. No separate funding = no independent solutions = the
government controls everything. And because they have their own vested
interests, all other solutions, no matter how brilliant, regardless of
how much better they may be, they are all summarily ignored.
|
|
 
  |
Important Principles you have learned so far?
1. No matter how brilliant, original and successful a solution may
be to solve a significant conservation problem, if all you have is politicians
to present it to, who are too ignorant to understand even the problem,
let alone how ingenious is your solution -- it is just a hopeless situation.
2. Governments hire bureaucrats to fill their agencies to make rules
-- they are not original thinkers, they can't grasp ideas ahead of their
time, and they usually block independent solutions, perceiving them as
threats. They won't support independent organizations with better
solutions.
3. When a lot is at stake, such as many interests battling for limited funding over world heritage sites,
you are not only fighting closed-minded politicians, but also university hierarchies who want the funds, and
will do all they can to stop you getting support -- even deride brilliant ideas.
The United States is not just the leader in free enterprise, it is the
global center for independent "start-ups" with unique solutions
to solve the world's environmental problems. This is why we scrapped
all efforts to help Australia last year. It was simply a losing battle.
We feel sorry for the people, but there is little hope for support
of independent solutions outside the U.S. In Australia, as in China,
Japan, most of the East, and much of Europe, governments alone dictate
what happens in their countries. Those governments are the ones stopping
ecologic progress, by shutting out all new, original ideas and solutions
that could have solved environmental problems crucial to the futures of
those countries.
|
| The Right Choice for Renewable Energy ? |
What if the U.S. were to blow off $100 billion on solar PV electric panels
at the current high prices, only to later see a major price drop, and realize
we made the wrong choice? Solar PV electric panels need to drop below 30% of today's
prices before they become a leading alternative energy solution everyone
can afford. Volume deployment is the key to solving the energy crisis.
Unless almost everyone can afford to buy into it, it isn't the right solution.
Solar water heating is low cost with good payback, but it only helps with
a tiny fraction of the nation's energy bill. That is why we have
worked for years on developing a low-cost, direct solar-heating technology
that the majority of people and businesses can afford. The solar
building at right produces 1 megawatt of power and powers homes around it. Few people could afford it,
but everyone can afford our
unique solar heating room technology, because it is low cost, very fast payback, and increases property values
and living enjoyment. When deployed across a country, our unique
solar heating technology can make major cuts to the nation's energy bills
-- so it is the right technology for the present and for decades to come. |
|
 |
| |
The Right Choice for Sustainable Energy ? |
 |
|
Every resident of the U.K. is supposed to pay $1000 more per year to help
fund proliferation of massive turbines across the country? Why should
they pay more for green power? The goal is to make green power cheaper,
affordable to everyone -- not punish people because their government leaders
made wrong choices in the past ! What an ugly blight on the land these grotesque,
noisy monsters are! People are to pay a penalty to destroy their
beautiful English countryside? What a quick way to turn everyone
against green sustainable energy!
In dramatic contrast to the permanent eco-damage that massive wind turbines represent,
our unique sustainable energy device
puts power in the hands of electric utility companies of the world, to
deploy our SEDs across their grids for far less cost than huge turbines. Our
S.E.D. has no environmental impacts and no infrastructure costs. Since
utility companies are burning dirty, polluting coal and petroleum to power
their plants, our technology gives them the power to stop this needless
burning of greenhouse-gas-producing fuels, and to power their grids with
non-polluting, totally green power from our innovative S.E.D. All
they need do is adopt it now and start cutting costs for everyone. So
which is the right solution? |
| The Right Choice for Global Warming, Environmental Conservation, and Preservation
of our Future ? |
Anyone who thinks we can breeze through our current global warming crisis
needs their head read.
Output from the sun today is at its lowest in 50 years --
yet our planet is
still heating up at an alarming, uncontrolled rate. The world needs an immediate solution to stop and
reverse global
warming. The leading culprit in global warming is the emissions put
out by transportation -- cars, trucks, SUVs, freight trucks. Your
vehicles and your daily needs pump out 70% of all noxious pollution and
greenhouse gases heating the planet.
It should be crystal clear what needs to be done -- cut down the crude oil we are burning by a huge amount --
a 30% cut is scarcely enough. The new hybrid-electric cars that GM, Chrysler and Ford are investing
$ billions into, are just not going to cut it.. They only get 40 miles on batteries (recharged
from polluting grid power!) and then run on normal fuel. So people are
supposed to pay $40,000 for a car just to get groceries? Oh sure,
that will really solve the oil-energy crisis!
Our analysis shows that 70% of the fuel consumed by
freight trucks, cars, trucks and SUVs is at freeway speeds, not 40 mile local commutes.
This is why we have been working for years on a totally new Self-Sustaining Vehicle that will substantially cut
fuel consumption across all types of vehicles, especially big ones.
Our SSV technology is totally different than anything the
major auto manufacturers have thought of, so they may scoff at it, because they didn't think of it first. But
it is essential for the future of all people that they adopt it quickly,
to cut the nation's and the world's crude oil consumption by at least 30%,
quickly.
Our technology can do that, when all vehicle makers see the benefits of
incorporating it into their vehicles. Thus, it is the right choice, because it can solve the U.S.'s biggest
problem quicker and cheaper than other choices. |
|
 |
| |
In this chapter, you've seen the complex factors, discriminating logic,
and difficult decisions our scientists and visionaries must weigh to find
totally new and original solutions -- almost all ahead of their time --
that will have any meaningful and lasting impact on the biggest problems
facing us all today. Discernment is the key. Only by being able to discern what can truly solve a
problem, not just mislead people or squander money on ideas that are wasted
effort -- only by testing ideas against tough criteria, can real solutions
be found.
If you realize now that PC Research is a leader in discerning solutions that can solve crucial ecologic and conservation problems we all face, and you would like to contribute to our organization's pioneering work -- but you have a different conservation or preservation goal in mind that
is not listed on this website -- by all means tell us what goal you want your contribution to go toward.
We will consider any worthwhile endeavor to help people, our environment,
and our futures. If a viable solution can be found, we can spearhead
it.
If you want to communicate new ideas to us, please use the email "inf"
at our website, "pcresearch". "Projects" is busy
full-time with active projects, and managing contributions. If you want
to contribute to a new unlisted project, send us an email to "projects"
at our website, telling us the amount of the contribution, and what specific
goal you would like to see it go toward. We will do our best to reach
that goal.
Right now, the best way to help the environment, and alleviate global warming,
and dependence on oil that is crippling our economy, is to get the word
out about our innovative and unique projects that have been years in development,
but must now come to completion, in this crucial time for our country and
planet. If you know anyone leading the major energy and electric
utility industries or vehicle manufacturing industries, tell them to review
our site and actively contribute to support our work -- even take a lead
role developing new technologies.
What we are seeking to complete are major projects that will benefit everyone in the country, even in some cases,
everyone in the world. We cannot complete these projects and get them to
the industries that need to institute them as soon as possible, without
substantial contributions to all major projects. Help us get the
word out to those in California who can benefit from two major projects
designed to help and protect them. Ask everyone you know, who regularly
donates, to consider donating to our valuable causes this year and next.
If you value ecological conservation and a better future for everyone,
ask them to DONATE GENEROUSLY NOW to PC Research.
|
|
|
New Breakthroughs in Sustainable and Renewable Energy;