Letters 10-24-2016

It’s Obama’s 1984 Several editions ago I concluded a short letter to the editor with an ominous rhetorical flourish: “Welcome to George Orwell’s 1984 and the grand opening of the Federal Department of Truth!” At the time I am sure most of the readers laughed off my comments as right-wing hyperbole. Shame on you for doubting me...

Gun Bans Don’t Work It is said that mass violence only happens in the USA. A lone gunman in a rubber boat, drifted ashore at a popular resort in Tunisia and randomly shot and killed 38 mostly British and Irish tourists. Tunisian gun laws, which are among the most restrictive in the world, didn’t stop this mass slaughter. And in January 2015, two armed men killed 11 and wounded 11 others in an attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. French gun laws didn’t stop these assassins...

Scripps’ Good Deed No good deed shall go unpunished! When Dan Scripps was the 101st District State Representative, he introduced legislation to prevent corporations from contaminating (e.g. fracking) or depleting (e.g. Nestle) Michigan’s water table for corporate profit. There are no property lines in the water table, and many of us depend on private wells for abundant, safe, clean water. In the subsequent election, Dan’s opponents ran a negative campaign almost solely on the misrepresentation that Dan’s good deed was a government takeover of your private water well...

Political Definitions As the time to vote draws near it’s a good time to check into what you stand for. According to Dictionary.com the meanings for liberal and conservative are as follows:

Liberal: Favorable to progress or reform as in political or religious affairs.

Conservative: Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditions and limit change...

Voting Takes A Month? Hurricane Matthew hit the Florida coast Oct. 6, over three weeks before Election Day. Bob Ross (Oct. 17th issue) posits that perhaps evacuation orders from Governor Scott may have had political motivations to diminish turnout and seems to praise Hillary Clinton’s call for Gov. Scott to extend Florida’s voter registration deadline due to evacuations...

Clinton Foundation Facts Does the Clinton Foundation really spend a mere 10 percent (per Mike Pence) or 20 percent (per Reince Priebus) of its money on charity? Not true. Charity Watch gives it an A rating (the same as it gives the NRA Foundation) and says it spends 88 percent on charitable causes, and 12 percent on overhead. Here is the source of the misunderstanding: The Foundation does give only a small percentage of its money to charitable organizations, but it spends far more money directly running a number of programs...

America Needs Change Trump supports our constitution, will appoint judges that will keep our freedoms safe. He supports the partial-birth ban; Hillary voted against it. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, critical issues are at stake. Trump will increase national security, monitor refugee admissions, endorse our vital military forces while fighting ISIS. Vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence will be an intelligent asset for the country. Hillary wants open borders, increased government regulation, and more demilitarization at a time when we need strong military defenses...

My Process For No I will be voting “no” on Prop 3 because I am supportive of the process that is in place to review and approve developments. I was on the Traverse City Planning Commission in the 1990s and gained an appreciation for all of the work that goes into a review. The staff reviews the project and makes a recommendation. The developer then makes a presentation, and fellow commissioners and the public can ask questions and make comments. By the end of the process, I knew how to vote for a project, up or down. This process then repeats itself at the City Commission...

Regarding Your Postcard If you received a “Vote No” postcard from StandUp TC, don’t believe their lies. Prop 3 is not illegal. It won’t cost city taxpayers thousands of dollars in legal bills or special elections. Prop 3 is about protecting our downtown -- not Munson, NMC or the Commons -- from a future of ugly skyscrapers that will diminish the very character of our downtown...

Vote Yes It has been suggested that a recall or re-election of current city staff and Traverse City Commission would work better than Prop 3. I disagree. A recall campaign is the most divisive, costly type of election possible. Prop 3, when passed, will allow all city residents an opportunity to vote on any proposed development over 60 feet tall at no cost to the taxpayer...

Yes Vote Explained A “yes” vote on Prop 3 will give Traverse City the right to vote on developments over 60 feet high. It doesn’t require votes on every future building, as incorrectly stated by a previous letter writer. If referendums are held during general elections, taxpayers pay nothing...

Beware Trump When the country you love have have served for 33 years is threatened, you have an obligation and a duty to speak out. Now is the time for all Americans to speak out against a possible Donald Trump presidency. During the past year Trump has been exposed as a pathological liar, a demagogue and a person who is totally unfit to assume the presidency of our already great country...

Picture Worth 1,000 Words Nobody disagrees with the need for affordable housing or that a certain level of density is dollar smart for TC. The issue is the proposed solution. If you haven’t already seen the architect’s rendition for the site, please Google “Pine Street Development Traverse City”...

Living Wage, Not Tall Buildings Our community deserves better than the StandUp TC “vote no” arguments. They are not truthful. Their yard signs say: “More Housing. Less Red Tape. Vote like you want your kids to live here.” The truth: More housing, but for whom? At what price..

Home · Articles · News · Features · New options for solar power
. . . .

New options for solar power

Harley L. Sachs - July 20th, 2009
New Options for
Solar Power
We need cheaper and more
diverse solutions

Harley L. Sachs 7/20/09
Solar panels can be as small as the tiny one on your light-charged pocket
calculator; but there are new developments that promise to provide more
significant supplies of electricity. What’s new are more efficient
collectors and alternatives to the silicon wafers we’re seen before. We’ve
come a long way from the 1954 photovoltaic (PV) cell developed by Bell
Some years ago, an Israeli professor at Michigan Technological University
was ready to give up on solar energy. His view was that the amount of
energy that fell on a given acre of land was insufficient to generate
enough electricity. He felt that solar power converters needed to cover
the earth with solar collectors, leaving no room for other development. It
looked like one needed places like the Negev Desert to provide enough
space and sunlight for the placement of acres and acres of solar
Instead of direct conversion to electricity, an alternative is to focus
the heat from the sunlight and use it to power electric generators. In the
Nevada desert several installations were built that focused the sun’s rays
on a boiler, heated it to 400 degrees Centigrade and ran steam turbines.
Unfortunately, the Nevada generators use only 20 percent of the sun’s
energy and could not compete with coal.

An alternative that takes up less land surface than what the Israeli
engineer visualized is a tower surrounded by focusing mirrors. The heated
fluid in the tower in a high pressure boiler is used to power a Stirling
engine. The Stirling engine, first patented in 1816, is efficient. The
next step is to collect enough solar energy during the day to keep
electricity generating when the sun is down. A solar collector that
focuses the light to boil water -- which then turns a steam turbine --
doesn’t hold the heat long enough. Something that doesn’t cool as quickly
is needed.
A solution of salts, like a mix of sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate,
can be heated to 600 degrees Centigrade. That stored heat can last long
enough to create steam for a turbine even after the sun is down.
The panel that converts light directly to electricity is not dead. To keep
production costs down, something more efficient than a flat panel had to
be invented.
A California company called Soliant Energy has created a solar collector
which needs less expensive photovoltaic material than most converters.
Instead of a flat panel, the company uses open, half-pipe cylinders with
plastic lenses that focus the sunlight on a central PV strip. Always
turned toward the sun, the half-pipes’ lenses maintain maximum exposure
during the day. Of course, they don’t generate power at night.
But can solar generated electricity compete? The average cost of
generation using conventional methods is 10 cents per kilowatt while solar
has been twice that. A new California company claims they can generate
energy for 3 cents a kilowatt; if true, that might solve the efficiency

Unfortunately, what may work in the laboratory on a small scale may not
translate to large scale manufacturing. Fifty percent efficiency can be
achieved in an experiment, but if it’s too expensive it may be like
running your diesel engine on Chanel #5 - possible, but not practical.
The manufacture of some PV panels involves toxic chemicals and waste
that’s expensive to dispose of. If we factor in the cost of cleaning up
the pollution a product generates, can we afford it?
In the past those costs have been simply passed on to the next generation,
like the toxic cleanup needed in the copper country of the Upper Peninsula
to undo the damage done when the mines and smelters were active. They’re
gone, but the waste remains. Like the wilderness tourist who takes only
pictures and leaves only footprints, whatever means we devise to satisfy
our energy demands must leave no mess behind and not destroy the
One possibility for solar power generation is a new form of plastic that
conducts electricity. Though not as efficient as the PV panels we’re
familiar with, when it comes down to cost of manufacture versus final cost
per kilowatt, this may be the one that works.

A solution may be a really cheap form of solar panel. If it’s cheap
enough, even only a six percent efficiency can make it viable. Imagine if
the siding on your house could generate all your power needs! For
instance, if your house had siding that generated electricity, even if the
efficiency were low, the volume might be enough.
The choice seems to be between a great many solar chargers working at a
low efficiency versus a few much more expensive devices that work at 50
percent efficiency. Ultimately, none of the non-polluting alternative
means of generating electricity -- be they windmills, hydroelectric dams,
generators working off ocean swells, or solar power -- will be enough to
satisfy our gluttony for energy, but in combination they will.
Imagine that little solar charger on your calculator expanded big enough
to power your refrigerator and charge the batteries of your electric car;
in the 1970s we got special tax breaks for insulating our homes, etc.
Maybe it’s time to revive that method to encourage solar power

Visit the web site www.hu.mtu.edu/~hlsachs where you can listen to two
stories, read a third, read reviews, and find links to the publishers of
my books.

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5