I have not heard this argument before.  Could you explain?


--- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, Bill or Dorothy Swann <dbswann4@...> wrote:
>
> The dollars in subsidies need to reflect pounds of carbon emitted. Annual
> 42,600,000,000,000 #'s for ancient stored solar energy.
>
>  Thanks,Bill S
> Ph 832-338-3080
> www.watt-tracker.com
> www.promotingevs.com
> www.hstech.biz
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Tyra Rankin <tyra@...>
> To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 12:26:13 PM
> Subject: RE: [hreg] Energy subsidies
>
>
> Kevin:
>
> Great statistics.  I assume that the $312 Billion is an annual figure spent on
> oil and gas subsidies worldwide.  I wonder what they mean by “consumption
> subsidies?”  That term makes me think the number for total subsidies for oil
and
> gas is much larger.  Few offer the full details on these figures.
>
>
> Tyra
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From:hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of kevin
> conlin
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:38 AM
> To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [hreg] Energy subsidies
>
>
>
> This came across my screen this morning....
>
> --Although fossil fuels are mature and renewables currently cost more,
> fossil fuels still gobble up the lion's share of subsidies. The fossil
> industry worldwide benefits from $312 billion in consumption subsidies.
> Renewables only get $57 billion. (Note: This sort of stat will make fossil
> advocates switch from arguing that 'subsidies are wrong' to 'larger
> subsidies to larger industries make sense.')
>
> Heliosolar Design, Inc.
> Kevin Conlin
> PH: 281-202-9629
> kevin@...
>

How can we reduce our impact on the environment and the
climate?  Will it be fun?  This amusing movie kicks off a week of
meetings on how to do that.   http://noimpactproject.org/experiment/houston/

A family reduced their environmental impact of their lifestyle to
nothing for a year.   They discovered that some of their new habits
were good for them as well as good for the climate.   For example,
buying their food at the farmer's market and cooking at
home.  Getting rid of the TV meant they talked to each other
more.  The wife was glad to break her expensive habit of buying
designer clothes.

Tuesday showing will be on April 12, 2011, 6:30 pm at Rice University
Media Center, 2030 University Blvd. Entrance #8 at 6:30
PM.  Following the film there will be a panel discussion by people
who participated in the first No Impact Week last October.  Park in
the Football Stadium parking lot off Greenbriar for $1.00 and walk to
the Media Center.  Walking is No Impact and healthy too.  And
remember, Rice Media is accessible by light rail and/or by Metro bus
73.  Get directions at http://www.ridemetro.org/

NoImpactHouston@...

Sponsored by US Green Building Council Emerging Professionals

Noimpactproject.org



Nan Hildreth, Houston 713-842-6643
3939 Luca St., Houston, 77021

"Only dead fish go with the flow."

Yes, and usually the subsidies we see and can calculate are just the direct
hand-out amounts and don't even consider externalized expenses such as military
dollars spent to protect the industries, especially in foreign countries.

I know that in the case of nuclear energy, which I am more familiar with than
some of the others, they have successfully externalized their waste storage and
security back onto the government via lawsuits and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
and have very little fiscal responsibility in case of accident here via the
Price-Anderson Act.  CNN Money did a great video about this aspect:

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/01/the-possible-cost-of-an-u-s-nuclear\
-disaster/

This reduces their overhead since they require virtually no liability coverage
and causes their operating cost to have yet another unfair advantage over more
standard business models and their necessary expenses.  I'm sure other, older
industry has taken advantage of similar resources.

I think that anytime you have newer and cleaner power industries having to
compete with old, mature industry, the old industry--outright subsidies or
not--have such financial advantage because they simply benefit from what one of
the earlier posters called something like the revolving door between industry
and government.  In each case, they have had decades to draft legislation to
protect their interests, lower their corporate expense at a price to the
tax-payer and milk more and more services out of the government at all levels.

I wish there was some data as to the REAL cost per unit of energy produced, with
all the externalized costs added back in.

--- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Ring" <public@...> wrote:
>
> I have not heard this argument before.  Could you explain?
>
>
> --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, Bill or Dorothy Swann <dbswann4@> wrote:
> >
> > The dollars in subsidies need to reflect pounds of carbon emitted. Annual
> > 42,600,000,000,000 #'s for ancient stored solar energy.
> >
> >  Thanks,Bill S
> > Ph 832-338-3080
> > www.watt-tracker.com
> > www.promotingevs.com
> > www.hstech.biz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Tyra Rankin <tyra@>
> > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 12:26:13 PM
> > Subject: RE: [hreg] Energy subsidies
> >
> >
> > Kevin:
> >
> > Great statistics.  I assume that the $312 Billion is an annual figure spent
on
> > oil and gas subsidies worldwide.  I wonder what they mean by “consumption
> > subsidies?”  That term makes me think the number for total subsidies for
oil and
> > gas is much larger.  Few offer the full details on these figures.
> >
> >
> > Tyra
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From:hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of kevin
> > conlin
> > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:38 AM
> > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [hreg] Energy subsidies
> >
> >
> >
> > This came across my screen this morning....
> >
> > --Although fossil fuels are mature and renewables currently cost more,
> > fossil fuels still gobble up the lion's share of subsidies. The fossil
> > industry worldwide benefits from $312 billion in consumption subsidies.
> > Renewables only get $57 billion. (Note: This sort of stat will make fossil
> > advocates switch from arguing that 'subsidies are wrong' to 'larger
> > subsidies to larger industries make sense.')
> >
> > Heliosolar Design, Inc.
> > Kevin Conlin
> > PH: 281-202-9629
> > kevin@
> >
>

Good topic.  I recently had a discussion about this with a friend of mine who
suggested that cutting all oil subsidies would cripple the economy as there
exists a "threshold" cost for which many people would be unable to sustain in a
day to day life.  This is true and don't suggest that the government cut all
subsidies as it would be disastrous to our economy.  However I believe that some
reduction of subsidies would increase the price of oil such that the demand for
smarter more fuel efficient cars would increase substantially, which I believe
addresses another key issue.  It seems to me that people rarely respond to the
threat of calamity (i.e. global warming or dwindling fuel supply), rather they
respond only when the "calamity" is tangibly felt, which clearly is not the
smart thing.

    Similar to people, many auto makers foolishly do what's popular for the quick
profit and are not being forward thinking in their mission.  Perhaps being
constrained more by the price of gas would force them to drastically alter their
portfolio.   In some ways this is a much less contentious approach as given the
current spending scare people are relatively happy not subsidizing anything more
than what's necessary, and the argument of preventing free markets and imposing
government mandates are no longer valid.

Thanks,
Rami S.


--- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Tyra Rankin" <tyra@...> wrote:
>
> This is an excellent comment!  Who posted this?
>
> Tyra
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of SusanD
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 10:18 AM
> To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [hreg] Re: Energy subsidies
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, and usually the subsidies we see and can calculate are just the direct
hand-out amounts and don't even consider externalized expenses such as military
dollars spent to protect the industries, especially in foreign countries.
>
> I know that in the case of nuclear energy, which I am more familiar with than
some of the others, they have successfully externalized their waste storage and
security back onto the government via lawsuits and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
and have very little fiscal responsibility in case of accident here via the
Price-Anderson Act. CNN Money did a great video about this aspect:
>
>
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/01/the-possible-cost-of-an-u-s-nuclear\
-disaster/
>
> This reduces their overhead since they require virtually no liability coverage
and causes their operating cost to have yet another unfair advantage over more
standard business models and their necessary expenses. I'm sure other, older
industry has taken advantage of similar resources.
>
> I think that anytime you have newer and cleaner power industries having to
compete with old, mature industry, the old industry--outright subsidies or
not--have such financial advantage because they simply benefit from what one of
the earlier posters called something like the revolving door between industry
and government. In each case, they have had decades to draft legislation to
protect their interests, lower their corporate expense at a price to the
tax-payer and milk more and more services out of the government at all levels.
>
> I wish there was some data as to the REAL cost per unit of energy produced,
with all the externalized costs added back in.
>
> --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hreg%40yahoogroups.com> , "Jay Ring"
<public@> wrote:
> >
> > I have not heard this argument before. Could you explain?
> >
> >
> > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hreg%40yahoogroups.com> , Bill or
Dorothy Swann <dbswann4@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The dollars in subsidies need to reflect pounds of carbon emitted. Annual
> > > 42,600,000,000,000 #'s for ancient stored solar energy.
> > >
> > > Thanks,Bill S
> > > Ph 832-338-3080
> > > www.watt-tracker.com
> > > www.promotingevs.com
> > > www.hstech.biz
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Tyra Rankin <tyra@>
> > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hreg%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 12:26:13 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [hreg] Energy subsidies
> > >
> > >
> > > Kevin:
> > >
> > > Great statistics. I assume that the $312 Billion is an annual figure spent
on
> > > oil and gas subsidies worldwide. I wonder what they mean by
�"consumption
> > > subsidies?” That term makes me think the number for total subsidies
for oil and
> > > gas is much larger. Few offer the full details on these figures.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tyra
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From:hreg@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hreg%40yahoogroups.com>  [mailto:
hreg@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hreg%40yahoogroups.com>  ] On Behalf Of kevin
> > > conlin
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:38 AM
> > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hreg%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: [hreg] Energy subsidies
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This came across my screen this morning....
> > >
> > > --Although fossil fuels are mature and renewables currently cost more,
> > > fossil fuels still gobble up the lion's share of subsidies. The fossil
> > > industry worldwide benefits from $312 billion in consumption subsidies.
> > > Renewables only get $57 billion. (Note: This sort of stat will make fossil
> > > advocates switch from arguing that 'subsidies are wrong' to 'larger
> > > subsidies to larger industries make sense.')
> > >
> > > Heliosolar Design, Inc.
> > > Kevin Conlin
> > > PH: 281-202-9629
> > > kevin@
> > >
> >
>

Tyra-

My name is Susan Dancer and I posted the comment about externalized expenses. 
Two of my websites are www.mccnia.homestead.com and www.texasblessings.com  You
can learn more about me there.

Let me give you all an example of externalized expenses and how they relate to
subsidies and the need/lack of need.

I live in Blessing, Texas about 8 or 9 miles from the STP nuclear plant.  My
husband is employed there as an engineer specialist.  A couple of years back,
STP security personnel got an anonymous phone call asking what their "no fly
zone" distance parameters were.  This put security on edge.  Later in the
morning, sure enough, a little Cessna plane came puttering into the protected
airspace.  STP officials notified the US military and an F16 fighter jet came
swooshing in from Corpus Christi to intercept the smaller plane.  Later in the
same day, a witness saw a man carrying a rifle case into the main office
building and notified security, which was pretty frazzled by that point I
assume.  All local law enforcement: sheriff's depts., cities' police forces were
dispatched to the nuclear plant and the plant went into total lockdown, no one
could come or go.

As it turns out, the small plane was a contractor hired to be sure the
transmission right-of-ways were clear and free of debris and not overgrown.  The
man with the rifle case had just purchased it---at the STP company store where
they SELL rifle cases!  It was hunting season...

My point is this: At what expense to the taxpayer comes this kind of security? 
What does it cost to scramble a fighter jet? What does it cost the taxpayer for
such equipment and training?  What expense did our community bear to send all
our local deputies to the plant to find that their "security crisis" was that
one of their own employees had simply purchased an item from their employee
store?

And, the  more important question to me, where are these expenses accounted for?
Where are they figured into the cost of nuclear power generation?  The answer,
of course, is they are not.

Another cost issue that is not raised is water use.  In addition to river water,
STP currently uses 1,200,000 gallons of water from the aquifer per day.  In
their environmental impact statement for proposed units 3 & 4, they acknowledge
that there will not be enough water available to meet municipal drinking water
needs by 2050, but their water rights supersede the muni's.  So they allege that
we can meet our drinking water needs through desalinization which is not only
very energy intensive to begin with but also very expensive.  So if we have to
take on additional expenses, as a society, to have water to drink due to such
high water demand from this production plant and those costs are hidden in water
treatment, they will never be captured an added back to the nuclear energy
production costs.

I'm not nearly as familiar with the petro chem industry, but I'm sure we have a
huge outflow of externalized costs to them as well, at least in our military
missions that specifically protect oil-rich areas and shipments of crude back
here for refinement.

If we weren't paying such huge amounts in federal income tax to cover the hidden
costs of these industries, we could afford to pay more per gallon of petro or
per KWH of electricity with no impact to our overall financial picture.  Its not
just that these industries have artificially low costs, its just that many of
their true costs are hidden.

Susan
--- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "subramaniamrami" <rami1284@...> wrote:
>
>    Good topic.  I recently had a discussion about this with a friend of mine
who suggested that cutting all oil subsidies would cripple the economy as there
exists a "threshold" cost for which many people would be unable to sustain in a
day to day life.  This is true and don't suggest that the government cut all
subsidies as it would be disastrous to our economy.  However I believe that some
reduction of subsidies would increase the price of oil such that the demand for
smarter more fuel efficient cars would increase substantially, which I believe
addresses another key issue.  It seems to me that people rarely respond to the
threat of calamity (i.e. global warming or dwindling fuel supply), rather they
respond only when the "calamity" is tangibly felt, which clearly is not the
smart thing.
>
>    Similar to people, many auto makers foolishly do what's popular for the
quick profit and are not being forward thinking in their mission.  Perhaps being
constrained more by the price of gas would force them to drastically alter their
portfolio.   In some ways this is a much less contentious approach as given the
current spending scare people are relatively happy not subsidizing anything more
than what's necessary, and the argument of preventing free markets and imposing
government mandates are no longer valid.
>
> Thanks,
> Rami S.
>
>
> --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Tyra Rankin" <tyra@> wrote:
> >
> > This is an excellent comment!  Who posted this?
> >
> > Tyra
> >
> >
> >
> >   _____
> >
> > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of SusanD
> > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 10:18 AM
> > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [hreg] Re: Energy subsidies
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, and usually the subsidies we see and can calculate are just the direct
hand-out amounts and don't even consider externalized expenses such as military
dollars spent to protect the industries, especially in foreign countries.
> >
> > I know that in the case of nuclear energy, which I am more familiar with
than some of the others, they have successfully externalized their waste storage
and security back onto the government via lawsuits and the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act and have very little fiscal responsibility in case of accident here via the
Price-Anderson Act. CNN Money did a great video about this aspect:
> >
> >
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/01/the-possible-cost-of-an-u-s-nuclear\
-disaster/
> >
> > This reduces their overhead since they require virtually no liability
coverage and causes their operating cost to have yet another unfair advantage
over more standard business models and their necessary expenses. I'm sure other,
older industry has taken advantage of similar resources.
> >
> > I think that anytime you have newer and cleaner power industries having to
compete with old, mature industry, the old industry--outright subsidies or
not--have such financial advantage because they simply benefit from what one of
the earlier posters called something like the revolving door between industry
and government. In each case, they have had decades to draft legislation to
protect their interests, lower their corporate expense at a price to the
tax-payer and milk more and more services out of the government at all levels.
> >
> > I wish there was some data as to the REAL cost per unit of energy produced,
with all the externalized costs added back in.
> >
> > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hreg%40yahoogroups.com> , "Jay Ring"
<public@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have not heard this argument before. Could you explain?
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hreg%40yahoogroups.com> , Bill or
Dorothy Swann <dbswann4@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The dollars in subsidies need to reflect pounds of carbon emitted.
Annual
> > > > 42,600,000,000,000 #'s for ancient stored solar energy.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,Bill S
> > > > Ph 832-338-3080
> > > > www.watt-tracker.com
> > > > www.promotingevs.com
> > > > www.hstech.biz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Tyra Rankin <tyra@>
> > > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hreg%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thu, April 7, 2011 12:26:13 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: [hreg] Energy subsidies
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kevin:
> > > >
> > > > Great statistics. I assume that the $312 Billion is an annual figure
spent on
> > > > oil and gas subsidies worldwide. I wonder what they mean by
�"consumption
> > > > subsidies?” That term makes me think the number for total
subsidies for oil and
> > > > gas is much larger. Few offer the full details on these figures.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tyra
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > > From:hreg@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hreg%40yahoogroups.com>  [mailto:
hreg@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hreg%40yahoogroups.com>  ] On Behalf Of kevin
> > > > conlin
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:38 AM
> > > > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hreg%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Subject: [hreg] Energy subsidies
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This came across my screen this morning....
> > > >
> > > > --Although fossil fuels are mature and renewables currently cost more,
> > > > fossil fuels still gobble up the lion's share of subsidies. The fossil
> > > > industry worldwide benefits from $312 billion in consumption subsidies.
> > > > Renewables only get $57 billion. (Note: This sort of stat will make
fossil
> > > > advocates switch from arguing that 'subsidies are wrong' to 'larger
> > > > subsidies to larger industries make sense.')
> > > >
> > > > Heliosolar Design, Inc.
> > > > Kevin Conlin
> > > > PH: 281-202-9629
> > > > kevin@
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I'm contemplating a legal action, let me explain

Just over three years ago now, I signed a 3 month contract with Stream Energy
for their "Clean and Green" plan for 9.9 cents. I could have save another
half-cent or so on a standard plan, but chose not to.  I found the plan on
PowerToChoose and signed up through a local agent.

When it was almost time for me to renew, I was contacted by a Stream agent, and
when she started quoting rates to try to sell me a new contract, she didn't
mention any all-renewable plans. When I questioned her about it, she assured me
that I had always been on a standard plan.

I pushed the issue made Stream produce the contract and, sure enough, I had
their "Clean and Green" plan for about two months before they "discovered a
clerical error" and switched me to a dirty energy plan without my knowledge or
consent.  I spoke with the highest ranking superviser I could get and told her
how completely opposed I was to dirty power and that my choice to buy a clean
plan, even at greater expense, was as much to make a statement and encourage
that market's growth as it was the need for power.  I told them that if they
would purchase an equivalent number of KWHs from their renewable sources as what
my use had been for my slammed contract time period in exchange for their usual
sources, I'd be willing to call it even.  They refused.

So...I filed a complaint with the PUC of Texas and they found that Stream had,
indeed, violated law and slammed my account and that I was free to leave my
contract (which was already over by then) without penalty.  They said they
"might take further action against Stream Energy" but that I would not be
included in the loop of whether or not that actually happened.  BUT...and here's
the kicker..Stream claims that the plan I signed up for (clean) SHOULD have cost
almost 13 cents/KWH and they content that they, therefore, saved me $4000 in
energy expense over the life of the contract and the PUC agrees and says I can
be help liable for the saved expense.  I could owe Stream $4 grand!

So, I'm thinking of taking Stream to small claims court for the entire amount of
the dirty energy they sold me, or as much of that amount as I can get back under
small claims court rules.  I contend that I would never have bought what they
sold me had I known what I was buying.  Never.  If the only option I had was to
support coal and nuclear, I'd have been more aggressive about taking my home and
business needs off the grip entirely.

Have any of you ever had an experience like this or had any experience at taking
on a retail provider over such an issue?  I'd love to hear any of your thoughts
and/or suggestions.

Susan Dancer

Correction, I signed a three YEAR contract, not three month.  Sorry.


--- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "SusanD" <texasblessings@...> wrote:
>
> I'm contemplating a legal action, let me explain
>
> Just over three years ago now, I signed a 3 month contract with Stream Energy
for their "Clean and Green" plan for 9.9 cents. I could have save another
half-cent or so on a standard plan, but chose not to.  I found the plan on
PowerToChoose and signed up through a local agent.
>
> When it was almost time for me to renew, I was contacted by a Stream agent,
and when she started quoting rates to try to sell me a new contract, she didn't
mention any all-renewable plans. When I questioned her about it, she assured me
that I had always been on a standard plan.
>
> I pushed the issue made Stream produce the contract and, sure enough, I had
their "Clean and Green" plan for about two months before they "discovered a
clerical error" and switched me to a dirty energy plan without my knowledge or
consent.  I spoke with the highest ranking superviser I could get and told her
how completely opposed I was to dirty power and that my choice to buy a clean
plan, even at greater expense, was as much to make a statement and encourage
that market's growth as it was the need for power.  I told them that if they
would purchase an equivalent number of KWHs from their renewable sources as what
my use had been for my slammed contract time period in exchange for their usual
sources, I'd be willing to call it even.  They refused.
>
> So...I filed a complaint with the PUC of Texas and they found that Stream had,
indeed, violated law and slammed my account and that I was free to leave my
contract (which was already over by then) without penalty.  They said they
"might take further action against Stream Energy" but that I would not be
included in the loop of whether or not that actually happened.  BUT...and here's
the kicker..Stream claims that the plan I signed up for (clean) SHOULD have cost
almost 13 cents/KWH and they content that they, therefore, saved me $4000 in
energy expense over the life of the contract and the PUC agrees and says I can
be help liable for the saved expense.  I could owe Stream $4 grand!
>
> So, I'm thinking of taking Stream to small claims court for the entire amount
of the dirty energy they sold me, or as much of that amount as I can get back
under small claims court rules.  I contend that I would never have bought what
they sold me had I known what I was buying.  Never.  If the only option I had
was to support coal and nuclear, I'd have been more aggressive about taking my
home and business needs off the grip entirely.
>
> Have any of you ever had an experience like this or had any experience at
taking on a retail provider over such an issue?  I'd love to hear any of your
thoughts and/or suggestions.
>
> Susan Dancer
>

From: Wayne ansley <Ansfamily@...>
Date: April 10, 2011 2:19:48 AM CDT
To: hreg@...
Subject: Project engineering for renewable grid tie system

Interested in finding someone to design a system for grid tie with room for future expansion and structure capable of handling hurricane.

Solar & wind combination without battery storgage.

Structures to be free standing on 5 acre lot next to home in Alvin,tx.

 

Ralph Parrott

Alternative Power Solutions

WWW.apowersolutions.com

(713) 595 6375 Off

(281) 455 9083 Cell

Begin forwarded message:

From: Wayne ansley <Ansfamily@...>
Date: April 10, 2011 2:19:48 AM CDT
To: hreg@...
Subject: Project engineering for renewable grid tie system

Interested in finding someone to design a system for grid tie with room for future expansion and structure capable of handling hurricane.

Solar & wind combination without battery storgage.

Structures to be free standing on 5 acre lot next to home in Alvin,tx.

Thoughts anyone.

-----Original Message-----
From: George Cilley [mailto:support@...]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:45 PM
To: hreg@...
Subject: Electric Auto Shop

Hello HREG,

My name is George Cilley and I work for a company in Sebastopol, CA called
Electric Auto Shop. EAS is an educational publishing company which has
written a curriculum for auto tech clases which takes students through the
process of converting a gas-powered vehicle into an electric-powered one.
Right now, as you may be aware, the Houston-Galveston area is eligible for a
large amount of federal dollars through the Department of Energy's Clean
Cities program. Accordingly, our curriculum is 75% funded in that area. This
means schools get the class material, including all the parts to convert a
car, for a fraction of the total cost.



So, why am I contacting you? Well, we're trying to figure out how best to
get this program into Houston-Galveston area schools. We have contacted
virtually every school in the area and have received a lot of interest.
Despite this, there are few schools with the budget to purchase the program.



Do you have any thoughts/connections which might help us bring the
innovative program to your area?



Thank you for you help. I appriciate the work you all are doing.



George Cilley

Schools Coordinator

Electric Auto Shop

----- Original Message -----

From: ralph parrott

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 4:51 PM

Subject: [hreg] FW: Electric Auto Shop

 

Thoughts anyone.

-----Original Message-----
From: George Cilley [mailto:support@...]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:45 PM
To: hreg@...
Subject: Electric Auto Shop

Hello HREG,

My name is George Cilley and I work for a company in Sebastopol, CA called
Electric Auto Shop. EAS is an educational publishing company which has
written a curriculum for auto tech clases which takes students through the
process of converting a gas-powered vehicle into an electric-powered one.
Right now, as you may be aware, the Houston-Galveston area is eligible for a
large amount of federal dollars through the Department of Energy's Clean
Cities program. Accordingly, our curriculum is 75% funded in that area. This
means schools get the class material, including all the parts to convert a
car, for a fraction of the total cost.

So, why am I contacting you? Well, we're trying to figure out how best to
get this program into Houston-Galveston area schools. We have contacted
virtually every school in the area and have received a lot of interest.
Despite this, there are few schools with the budget to purchase the program.

Do you have any thoughts/connections which might help us bring the
innovative program to your area?

Thank you for you help. I appriciate the work you all are doing.

George Cilley

Schools Coordinator

Electric Auto Shop

 

Thoughts anyone.

-----Original Message-----
From: George Cilley [mailto:support@...]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:45 PM
To: hreg@...
Subject: Electric Auto Shop

Hello HREG,

My name is George Cilley and I work for a company in Sebastopol, CA called
Electric Auto Shop. EAS is an educational publishing company which has
written a curriculum for auto tech clases which takes students through the
process of converting a gas-powered vehicle into an electric-powered one.
Right now, as you may be aware, the Houston-Galveston area is eligible for a
large amount of federal dollars through the Department of Energy's Clean
Cities program. Accordingly, our curriculum is 75% funded in that area. This
means schools get the class material, including all the parts to convert a
car, for a fraction of the total cost.

So, why am I contacting you? Well, we're trying to figure out how best to
get this program into Houston-Galveston area schools. We have contacted
virtually every school in the area and have received a lot of interest.
Despite this, there are few schools with the budget to purchase the program.

Do you have any thoughts/connections which might help us bring the
innovative program to your area?

Thank you for you help. I appriciate the work you all are doing.

George Cilley

Schools Coordinator

Electric Auto Shop

 

Thoughts anyone.

-----Original Message-----
From: George Cilley [mailto:support@...]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:45 PM
To: hreg@...
Subject: Electric Auto Shop

Hello HREG,

My name is George Cilley and I work for a company in Sebastopol, CA called
Electric Auto Shop. EAS is an educational publishing company which has
written a curriculum for auto tech clases which takes students through the
process of converting a gas-powered vehicle into an electric-powered one.
Right now, as you may be aware, the Houston-Galveston area is eligible for a
large amount of federal dollars through the Department of Energy's Clean
Cities program. Accordingly, our curriculum is 75% funded in that area. This
means schools get the class material, including all the parts to convert a
car, for a fraction of the total cost.

So, why am I contacting you? Well, we're trying to figure out how best to
get this program into Houston-Galveston area schools. We have contacted
virtually every school in the area and have received a lot of interest.
Despite this, there are few schools with the budget to purchase the program.

Do you have any thoughts/connections which might help us bring the
innovative program to your area?

Thank you for you help. I appriciate the work you all are doing.

George Cilley

Schools Coordinator

Electric Auto Shop