Personally, I have been warning friends and family for years that the instability of a global economy, the imbalance of trade, and the spendthrift ways of congress would lead this nation to ruin.

Right now the world is gambling that things aren’t as bad as they look, and some miracle will right all the wrongs and get humanity back on track. At the same time there are those who believe this is all preordained, and we are nothing but pawns being readied for slaughter. What a wonderful world we live in.

We treat this like news. It’s on the radio and the front of papers, and of course Wall Street plummets. What a bunch of jerks. Never mind, there are plenty who will profit, and your broker will sadly say, well that’s the market and I explained the risk.

This is the hurdle we have to get over. Blame it on the government, the banks, or whomever you want to. It isn’t going to go away. This is business. This is the way the government uses its power, and be aware that too much protesting will not be tolerated, not even in our so-called free society.

How are we at risk? Run-away inflation is one concern. Markets will adjust to that of course, but few of us will come out unscathed. Remember, we are dependent. Electrical energy, fuel for cars, water districts, food distribution, and most everything else comes under the scrutiny of government. Even if you live on a farm you’ll find it hard to survive without these necessities.

Is there time to build umPODS? It’s hard to say. Give people their independence and none of this matters. Build superstructures that avoid risk and don’t require hazard insurance, that generate and store energy, supply food and water, and create sustainable environments, and all of a sudden it doesn’t really matter if money is worthless, or China will no longer finance our folly. There are ways to a better tomorrow.

While pundits of energy independence stress our need to drill, our government continues to subsidize bio fuel, wind, solar, and nuclear production to supplement the grid as the transitional solution to some unlikely miracle like nuclear fusion. While the biggest beneficiaries of government handouts are the oil and gas industries, it is important to remember that the nuclear industry would not exist at all without tax breaks, loan guarantees, limits on liability, and other subsidies like footing the bill to decommission reactors and deal with the disposal of radioactive waste, which will continue for tens of thousands of years. These costs add up to more than the value of the energy produced. If the nuclear industry had to depend upon profits and pay for insurance, no nuclear reactor would have ever been built, and nuclear energy is supposedly a key to our future.

Consumers beware, for the solutions have nothing to do with your independence. Sinking billions more into upgrading our aging grid system will only add to your monthly bill, which is destined to escalate. Adding more nuclear into the equation will not only add to your tax bill, but when disaster strikes like it did at the Fukushima Dali-chi power plant near Okuma, Japan, you will foot the majority of the bill, not the people that profited in the nuclear industry.

There is a better alternative. Make individuals energy independent by building autonomous structures with point of usage power production and kinetic storage systems, and power electric cars from surplus energy generated with solar. In time we can abandon the grid, trash the power companies, and quit using gas, oil and coal to generate energy, which is analogous to burning money. Once spent, all we have left from fossil fuels, bio fuels, and nuclear is the poisonous residue. Point of usage power production can potentially increase efficiencies so that solar can supply 100 percent of our needs. Adding solar into the grid is like filling the ocean with a garden hose, which is an unnecessary waste of energy.

While energy conservation could theoretically end our dependence on foreign oil, there is no hope of sustainability as long as we depend upon finite resources that will eventually be depleted. The only infinite energy source we have is the sun, which if free for the taking, although somewhat expensive to gather. Direct conversion of solar into electrical energy has great potential, but with efficiencies still under 50% and life spans under 30 years, the investment for at source systems is still a hard sell. Yet, even today such systems could be cheaper in the long haul if they were not supplemental to systems that are required by code.

If Al Gore had campaigned for at source energy production instead of carbon taxes, the movement to true energy independence would have been well on its way, and man made global warming would soon have become a non-issue. Perhaps his Pulitzer Prize would have then been truly deserved.

How do we get from energy dependence to energy independence? We invest in our own future by building unishell modular Permacast Optimal Detached Superstructures (umPODS), or similar autonomous sustainable systems. We help individuals invest in their own future instead of facing a lifetime of servitude supporting elaborate and inefficient systems like the grid that are doomed to a future of disasters and failures, and a day when remaining fossil fuels will be so costly to extract that we will have no choice but to find alternatives. Why wait and burden your children and grandchildren with this dilemma?

For solar to ever be the answer, it has to be something besides part of the problem. It has to offer homeowners and businesses energy independence. It will have to have kinetic energy storage systems that will last for centuries that don’t waste energy and pollute. Solar cannot be dependent on chemical batteries that are expensive, short lived, and difficult to recycle.

So where are the problems that prevent solar from being a viable solution? First solar must compete against 120/240-volt AC, which is a standard. If you have to convert DC to AC, that is part of the problem. It’s not only more expensive to have to convert, it’s a waste of energy. Many of the things we use, such as computers have to convert AC to DC, which is also a waste of energy. Converting DC to AC and back to DC makes no sense. Lights, refrigerators, stoves, ovens, washing machines, clothes dryers, dishwashers, TV’s, and especially cars can all run on DC power, which is more efficient if used at source. The only reason we have AC is so that power can be transmitted over long distances, which is also a waste of power.

By converting to at source DC generation, we could easily double efficiencies. Unless you do the research, few people realize that we waste more energy on a daily basis than we actually put to use. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories annual report for 2009, shows rejected energy at about 55 Quads or 68% of our energy production. By comparison, we waste about 2.7 times the energy we import from foreign oil.

Redundancy is the second hurdle for solar, since most homes and business are built with 120/240-volt AC systems. Most at source solar is supplemental, and thus any excess is directed back into the grid. This is much the same as building electric cars with gasoline engines. You have the problems of both technologies to deal with, and don’t totally take advantage of the efficiencies of DC power.

Bureaucracy is the third hurdle, and perhaps the hardest to fight because of the tremendous influence the oil and coal industries hold over congress. As long as we allow political kickbacks, the solar industry will face unwarranted regulations. Solar need not be held to the same safety standards as the grid, because at source generation of DC power is much safer. Solar should also be treated as a standalone system that does not require redundant supplementation from the grid. Building code will need to be updated.

Generating and storing your own solar power in umPODS will totally eliminate your dependence on the grid. You will have safer non-polluting energy that can potentially make you 100% energy independent. Once your system is paid for you will be able to live the rest of your life with free energy.

Building umPODS will allow communities to be built without utilities, thus eliminating mass infrastructure that is vulnerable to brownouts, blackouts, and rising fuel costs. Dangerous and polluting power plants will eventually be eliminated. The costs of developing land for communities will be substantially reduced once the full concept of umPODS is put into practice.

There are certainly hurdles to overcome using photovoltaics or other energy sources such as wind to charge kinetic energy storage systems. Lifespan, cost and efficiencies have to make the investment competitive. In reality it already could be competitive if we build communities without redundant systems. The biggest hurdle to overcome is to prove that sustainability is man’s only hope for the future.

People need their heads examined. The whole idea of mass infrastructure is to create dependency. It’s a business ploy. Build umPODS and make people energy independent and then there is no need of the grid or nuclear energy. Stop stringing high-tension power lines or high voltage transmission lines across the world. Generate and store energy at the point of usage.

Energy has become a vital component of modern life. No one is going to do without. No one should. The problem of letting power companies control energy production is that there is no alternative, thus no competition. With all power companies interconnected, the chances for failure are eminent.

Loss of power is seldom more than an inconvenience, but what may be an inconvenience to you may be a real hardship on others. A factory that is shut down can loose enough production to be put out of business, or at least end up in the red. When areas experience brownouts or blackouts, multiply the loss by all consumers and you start to get the big picture. It costs the world billions in not trillions of dollars every year, but is still considered just one of those things you have to contend with.

For the most part power companies do a good job, but that still doesn’t mean we should continue developing mass infrastructure. The idea doesn’t make sense. Generate and store energy at the point of usage, and even if disaster strikes, only the structure that is housing the system is affected. Everyone else goes on about their business.

The world is vulnerable to disasters, war, and terrorist threats because we continue to put all our eggs in one basket. The more complex the systems we build, the more susceptible we are to loss. Energy isn’t the only system that is vulnerable, but is perhaps the one that needs fixed first.

Man depends upon mass infrastructure, but doesn’t need to. Mass infrastructure is more about making money than providing man with the means to survive and prosper. Mass infrastructure is all about making people dependent. The problem with mass infrastructure is that when disaster does strike, then lives are needlessly put in jeopardy.

Nuclear reactors are the biggest gamble we can take. Radiation is poison. Enough radiation can potentially ravage Earth. Although it is unlikely, even in a nuclear holocaust that all life on Earth will be completely destroyed, the long-term effect of radiation may prove to be more than our species can tolerate. Nuclear energy may prove to be man’s greatest folly.

Radiation isn’t always lethal, but the doses that can potentially leak from a reactor meltdown can lead to unimaginable suffering and birth deformities. Proponents of nuclear reactors should be held liable for the needless suffering that may result from such a disaster.

Building umPODS totally eliminates the need for energy to be supplied via the grid, thus eliminating the vulnerability of a system that is destined to failure, and a huge contributor to the world’s pollution. Generating and storing energy at the point of usage will prove to be far more efficient, and almost fail proof in disasters.

Statistics show that most people are killed in collapsing structures. In earthquake prone areas, structures are generally built stronger to resist lateral forces from seismic shock, but because all but the most sophisticated structures are anchored rigidly to the ground, they are subject to absorb all the energy from shock waves. Only by allowing structures to slip can they become earthquake proof. Even if structures are built substantially strong enough to not collapse, if they are anchored, then damage will occur within the structure.

Just as in unibody engineered frames for automobiles, unishell modules will be substantially stronger than conventional structures. However, it still makes no sense to subject structures to seismic shock when simple and affordable designs can protect umPODS from damage. Pit type slip-planes as shown in the diagram should be easy to construct and have many advantages over anchored foundations.

In costal areas where tsunamis often occur after earthquakes and cause flooding, watertight umPODS will be designed to float. Pit type construction will prevent structures from floating away unless flooding levels exceed buoyancy lift height (approximately 20-24 feet), which is unlikely in most cases. In costal areas prone to tsunamis and hurricanes, and other areas prone to flooding, extra precautions could be used such as building deeper pits or tethering. Other advantages of building umPODS to resist the forces of earthquakes will be the ability to resist damage from all types of storms. In general terms, umPODS will be able to survive without damage when conventionally built structures are totally demolished.

It is generally acknowledged that structures cannot be built strong enough to be considered earthquake proof. Even if structures don’t collapse in earthquakes, it is still very dangerous to be inside them due to interior furnishing and fixtures being shifted or turned over, plus shattering glass from windows. In quakes the general rule is to escape structures into the open for safety. The reverse will be true with umPODS, for they will be the safest place to be during any disaster.

Slip-planes will eliminate or diminish shock so that unishell superstructures will no longer require insurance, thus a lifetime of savings to the owner. Damage prevention to structures is of course only part of the problem. Conventional structures that may survive, typically loose power, water, and other services, thus rendering them useless except for shelter. Because utilities will be self-contained in umPODS, loss of service is not a consideration. Because umPODS are self-contained, produce and store all of the energy they need, filter and recirculate water, and have the capacity to produce food, autonomous sustainable communities should be quick to recover. Unishell modular superstructures will remain habitable environments even in devastating quakes and other disasters.

Also an important consideration is that there will be no need for power plants, nuclear plants the most vulnerable to catastrophic events. Japan is now facing a possible meltdown at the Fukushima Dalichi power plant at Okuma, about 250 kilometers north of Tokyo. Such an event could be more catastrophic than all other losses from the quake.

Fire is also a big threat from quakes due to broken gas lines. Without gas lines in autonomous sustainable communities, and because umPODS are 100% fireproof, loss of property and life due to fire should be totally eliminated.

Certainly there is the potential for damage and death in severe quakes no matter what precautions we take because people are out and about by foot or in transportation. Until bridges, overpasses, and other structures prone to damage or collapse are also built on slip-planes, loss of life will be unavoidable. It should also be noted that future communities built with umPODS will not typically have structures over three stories in height unless they can be designed to meet the more stringent criteria.

It is important to accept that devastation can bring death. If future communities build and plan for natural disasters, then whatever loss they incur should be acceptable. Investing resources in prevention should be far wiser than purchasing promissory insurance to rebuild or pay for loss of life.

With most mass infrastructure out of the equation except for roads, the potential for costly rebuilding should be diminished to acceptable levels. In future autonomous communities, even roads may be built as modular components. If modular road sections are substantially strong, even if they are moved or tipped, resetting modules should be a minor task compared to rebuilding conventional paved roads.

Because the frequency of deadly quakes is low, and often quakes occur is low populated areas, most structures built today continue to be highly susceptible to damage. We must consider as cities continue to grow, the potential for catastrophe also escalates. It is hard to predict how much devastation it will take to convince people that it makes sense to build earthquake proof structures. Eventually building code may adopt such measures, and then mandatory requirements may stifle the building industry from looking for more viable solutions.

In Silent Wave, I first explored the concept of Wavecraft (vehicles that levitate). Although I see this as the ultimate solution, the technology may never be invented. Wishful thinking isn’t going to get us there.

The fact is, people love the freedom to go at will. Too often, walking or saddling up the horse won’t do for most people, thus the need for other modes of transportation. Considering the cost of owning an automobile and the impact on the ecosystem, wouldn’t it be nice to have some alternatives. One alternative that can have a huge impact is to have less need to commute.

If you are like me, you live in a subdivision. Most people do, and because of this trend, reinventing subdivisions in future autonomous communities to include all you require on a daily basis could significantly reduce our need for transportation. But the fact remains that personal transportation is not viewed as a luxury, but as a necessity. If we don’t reverse some trends, one-day personal transportation may become far too expensive for the masses.

The question is, where are we headed? With the current meltdown of world economies, it is clear that at least in the United States that General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler Corporation have been extremely short sighted. With all three manufactures struggling in a world market, it is a sure indicator that management has not only made poor choices under the threats of the UAW in dealing with labor and their commitments to benefits and pensions, but that they have also been myopic in their assessment of what will sell, and these are the guys with their golden parachutes and private jets that flew to Washington with their hands out.

The fact of the matter is that the average Joe doesn’t need a pickup truck that’s two car lengths long that gets 10 miles per gallon, and has the pulling capacity to move a freight train. The average soccer mom doesn’t need an SUV bus to transport the entire team. All you have to do is watch the roads and drive down the interstates, and vehicle after vehicle you see meets these descriptions, and most have a single occupant.

Once again, we can thank part of this trend to Congress, who in their unending wisdom have given huge tax rebates to the people who drive such monstrosities. And what do you hear from the owners of such monstrosities as justification? Safety????? Isn’t it nice to know that people are willing to drive tanks so that they can kill the other guy in case they are involved in an accident? Where’s the logic? First, the likelihood of being killed in an accident is quite remote, so that hardly seems like justification.

As in all things we do, there are pluses and minuses to weigh in reaching any conclusion, and one thing that is abundantly clear is that the laws of physics cannot be disputed, and that pushing large amounts of mass down the road is going to be more costly in terms of energy. I think Detroit knows that.

Be assured that car manufactures use fear tactics, as does the government, to convince us all that we should all be mindful of safety. And thus, since driving is so dangerous, it only makes sense to buy into the idea that big and massive is the solution. Additionally, big and massive costs more, so that means car companies can charge more and sell fewer units. I still remember when manufactures were trying to keep basic models under $2000.

Perhaps you’re thinking that I think safety is a bad thing? Of course not. I advocate safety in building umPODS, and I certainly don’t want to drive a deathtrap. But propelling huge amounts of mass down a road at 80 miles per hour isn’t the answer to safety. For argument sake, I believe that if all vehicles were approximately the same size and weight, then highways would be safer to navigate. One of the major problems today is the diverse use of highways, with a mix of cross country freighters that sometimes pull up to three trailers, to motorcyclists that feel they are entitled to take advantage of their small size and dart in and out of traffic. It’s amazing that their aren’t more fatalities than there are.

Safety aside, and the current trend of automobiles in the forefront, we have to ask just what were they thinking. This whole idea that technology can’t make electric cars viable is utter and indisputable hogwash. The reason electric cars aren’t displacing gas and diesel models, is because oil companies won’t allow it. If you haven’t watched “Who Killed the Electric Car”, do so, and I’m not saying that you should buy into every statement made in the movie. The fact is, there are drawbacks in battery technology, but had General Motors pursued the manufacture of the EV1, by now many of those problems would have been solved, and General Motors may have been looked at as the savior of the American automobile. And isn’t it amazing how they just happened to make the EV1 with considerably less appealing sheet metal. You don’t suppose they did that for a reason?

So now General Motors answer is the Volt, a car that doesn’t look all that promising, that goes a whopping 40 miles without a recharge, and costs enough more than its gasoline counterpart that it doesn’t make economic sense to make the purchase.

Although gas electrics make some sense as a stepping block, the fact is that that combo has the drawbacks of both technologies. You still have to go in for an oil change, and when the batteries do wear out you will probably opt for a new car rather than shell out the bucks for an outdated product that has depreciated to a value that it hardly makes sense to maintain.

There are of course other reasons the automotive industry hasn’t wanted to build electric cars. As a car owner, you no doubt have noticed the cost of maintenance and parts. The fact is, most gas-powered cars are prone to have some problems pop up in the first 100,000 miles, and probably major problems in the next 100,000 miles. Automobile manufacturers make money selling parts. The fact is, electric cars have fewer parts and more reliable parts, and so except for battery life, will be far less expensive to drive in both the cost of fuel and maintenance.

In the umPODS concept, homes will be built to produce an excess amount of energy, which can be used to power electric cars. Although you will have the initial cost of electric production and storage to amortize, there will come a day you could conceivably be driving your electric car for free. Of course, the likelihood for this prediction to be true in the next 100 years will depend upon advancements in technologies that haven’t even been explored today. So, is it worth the pursuit?

When I first read about the coming of the digital age, there were predictions that cameras wouldn’t surpass the quality of film for 50 years. The fact of the matter is it took less than 30. Had the idea been embraced in the beginning, it probably would have taken less than 20. Perhaps with a little more prodding from consumers, electric cars will do for the automobile industry what digital has done in photography.

I have a very good friend who once told me that his conviction to Jesus Christ was insurance for his soul. I can’t believe that God, if he exists at all, would judge a soul by its convictions. If I were God, I would judge men by their actions, not their beliefs or what they profess, and so the God I choose to believe in, indeed has to be all knowing and quite infallible. To say with certainty that such a God exists or doesn’t exist is ludicrous.

In my search for truth, which I believe should be every man’s endeavor, I examine the world and what man has accomplished. In all that we do we should be cognizant of the future. It is apparent we are not. If we are to be judged, we will certainly be judged for our lack of perceptiveness.

If you believe in the Bible and also believe that God orchestrated the writing of the Bible, then God must be a moron. God cannot be who he is supposed to be and have things so fundamentally wrong. If God wanted to send a message to prove his existence, then he certainly wouldn’t have orchestrated the Bible to start “In the beginning . . .”, for this insinuates that before this happening there was nothing.

If you believe that space is infinite, which must be a truth of pure logic, then you also have to believe that time is eternal. Eternity runs both directions, and God would know this. Beginnings are only births, as endings are only deaths. They are points in time and nothing more. Earth certainly began, and it will certainly die, and life on it may certainly perish at the hands of man, but time has always been here.

Space is indeed infinite, and no doubt there are other big bangs out there, logically an infinite amount prior to our own big bang, with more going on than we can ever imagine. God isn’t out there waving his magic wand. If God exists at all, he must be the energy of life. There is no other purpose of God. He is not the creator; he is the essence. If we indeed have souls, then those souls are connected to life, nothing else, and thus we must be cognizant of life. We must be the stewards of life. We must believe that we are a part of God as all living things are, or aren’t, whichever the case may be.

It doesn’t really matter how we got here, or why, or what happens when we die. What matters is how we live. We have the power to recognize the truth, and with logic perpetuate our species and all living things so that God, if he exists, can survive in the essence of life.

It’s not just markets, failing economies, or upkeep that makes a home less than a desirable investment. If you analyze the true cost of owning a home and factor in inflation, it may prove to be one of your worst investments.

There could be an alternative in the near future. Building umPODS will change the idea of owning a home because you will be purchasing sustainability, not a money pit. How is that possible?

A conventional home requires utilities, maintenance, and a lifetime of insurance. These costs are mostly unavoidable, and will probably escalate over the life of your home. These costs do not build assets, so it’s like burning money. Even if your home is worth more when you sell it, if you calculate the cost of inflation, improvements (sweat equity), and maintenance, in all likelihood you’ll be losing money.

The case for owning a home isn’t all negative. If you don’t own a home you are probably renting, and unless you’re getting one hell of a deal so you can invest money elsewhere, then owing a home has some advantages over renting since our dear government allows us to deduct interest.

The wealth builder: Why not invest in umPODS where all of your money will create a true asset? Let’s assume you build a unishell modular Permacast Optimal Detached Superstructure (umPODS). Such structures will be autonomous from utilities. You will own your own energy production and storage system, water collection and filtration system, plus your semi-biospheric environment will utilize plants to grow food and help oxygenate your living quarters.

Unishell superstructures will be designed to last for thousands of years. Unishells will be extremely low maintenance, and without plumbing or hidden wiring, will be simple to upgrade. Plumbing fixtures will be self-contained and independent. Modular walls and components will make it possible to modify floor plans as simply as rearranging furniture.

Unishell superstructures will be designed to withstand earthquakes, float in floods, and survive firestorms, tornados, and hurricanes. They will be so safe that there will be no need to throw money away on hazard insurance.

Although umPODS value will still be subject to markets and inflation, their real worth will be in their ability to keep you alive, safe, and comfortable in conditions where conventional homes may be destroyed or become virtually worthless.

The umPODS concept of producing modular designs is to eliminate the need to custom design, which is typical of much of construction today. Floor plans, roof plans, foundations, and the integration of components become a factor and hence an added expense in the construction of all types of structures. The flexibility of modular interior walls in umPODS construction, which can be configured into near limitless layouts, will make these structures adaptable to many needs and easy to customize.
Although there will be advantages to creating modules such as the hexagonal design pictured in this article, the umPODS concept need not be constrained to such geometric layouts. However, such geometric shapes can have many advantages in the modular approach to affordable construction.

Threatening Technologies: Whenever technological advancements threaten existing businesses, it is inevitable that there will be pressure applied to slow or kill the concept. The electric car is a case in point. Saving the planet, or making individuals more independent are of little concern if a better idea threatens the commerce of existing corporations. Those in power have no problem in exerting their will to stay on top. It is not beyond powerful corporations to buyout or destroy their competitors.
Building umPODS will not only threaten existing businesses, it will diminish the role of government in commerce. Such independence will lessen the need for capitol and material goods, which will in turn lessen the need for income and the potential for government to collect tax revenues. It is a concept that puts more power in the hands of individuals. It is therefore important to build a grassroots following that can recognize the advantage and advance the cause. Knowing that infallible logic can produce a sustainable existence is the first step in attaining the goal. Defining the goal with infallible logic is the first step in building umPODS.