Nan,

 

The houses are from the 50s and 60s and are located in Bryan.  All 8 eight houses are on the same block and are rented to graduate students from the same department at Texas A&M.  Regarding energy production, I thought there might have been an opportunity to do something unique since they are all adjacent or across the street from each other.

 

None of the houses had any insulation.  Installing the insulation, caulking, and attic ventilation are routine improvements.  Windows are slowly getting changed as well.  Even with this, they are far from air-tight because they are just small, older houses which were neglected years ago.  Fortunately, there are large trees around most of the houses, and other have been planted.  A few houses had clotheslines, but they were never used.  

 

ethan  

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

From: Nan Hildreth

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com ; hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 3:52 AM

Subject: Re: [hreg] upgrading rental properties

Yes, but as an energy conscious landlady for my four 1950 houses, I identified many improvements that payback within a year or two, faster than solar.  Then I haven't done any of them:
Screens (solar or not)
Clothesline.
Ventilate attic
Caulk
Insulate
Window film or awnings on west and east facing windows.
Radiant barrier over insulation
Upgrade fridge
Replace dusk-to-dawn outside light with a motion detector light.

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

From: Bashir Syed

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:12 AM

Subject: Re: [hreg] upgrading rental properties

In China and Israel, it's mandatory that every building/home installs and integrated Solar Thermal Collector on top of which sit a PV Module. Sun's heat is trasfered blow to the Thermal collectors. I saw a solar thermal system for hot water under test bring temperature up between 45 to 48 degree Celsius (centigrade). The other advantage of integrating PV with thermal Collectors is that in the long run it increases the fficiency and life of the PV system in extremely hot places. 

PV systems are the quitest and have no moving parts, but generate electricity based on number of hours of Sunshine.   

 

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

From: Kevin L. Conlin

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:11 AM

Subject: RE: [hreg] upgrading rental properties

Hi Bashir,  Thank you for your post, I’m not sure I agree with your assessment.  You may not like the comment that solar is expensive, but I don’t think it is deceptive.  If not for tax credits, utility rebates and aggressive buy-back programs, photovoltaics would not be enjoying the world wide boom that is currently happening.  You are correct in stating that the payback for stand alone systems is much shorter, usually due to the high cost of utility line extensions.  For the industrial systems that we build the payback is usually immediate

Ethan asked for advice in the context of a landlord wanting to upgrade the energy efficiency of rental houses.  If you spent equal amounts of money on PV or efficiency upgrades such as a higher efficiency air conditioner, extra insulation, radiant barriers, solar screens, caulking, etc, such as Nan Hildreth pointed out, the payback would be much quicker on the efficiency upgrades than it would on the PV.  While I applaud people that invest in PV for their homes for the reasons that you mentioned, from the standpoint of the landlord it makes more sense to reduce the utility bills through conservation measures than it does to try and generate your own electricity, especially in older, leaky houses with little or no insulation.

You are correct in that we should all take personal responsibility for the negative impact out energy habits have on the environment and do the best we can to reduce those impacts, I think you would have to agree that if you can save twice as much energy through conservation that you can generate with PV, the positive impact of those steps will have a greater benefit to the planet.

I don’t want to sound negative about residential PV, I would love it if Center Point would initiate a rebate program like the City of Austin, it would have a very positive impact on the city. I applaud the people that have moved forward and installed PV in spite of the lack of incentives.  I just don’t think it is the best thing a landlord can due to upgrade energy wasting houses.

 

Enough for now, I’ve got to get back to work!

 

________________________

Kevin Conlin
Solarcraft, Inc.
13130 Stafford Road, Suite 125
Stafford, TX 77477-4536
(281)495-0438
fax (281)495-0440
kconlin@...
www.solarcraft.net

 

---

From: Bashir Syed [mailto:bsyed@...]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 3:18 PM
To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [hreg] upgrading rental properties

 

We keep on hearing repeatedly about "technology as expensive as solar." This is very deceptive "label for Solar Energy Technology." What is never explained to people is that everything costs to bring about a change. For example when one wants to upgrade an autmobile, today it costs more compared to ten years ago, but people buy it because of necessity.

The cost of energy supplied by utility companies is going to keep on increasing without any returns to the consumers including many hidden charges. But what's more satisfying than spending the money up front to install a PV Home System to supplement the ever increasing cost of energy, and doing one's duty to curb the airpollution, producing many millions of deaths from those poisons in the air we inhale. Even big corporations in Manhattan, New York are installing Solar Panels up on the roof and around Building Facade and feeding this energy back to the grid to cut dow n the effective bills. And in the long run, even  a Stand-Alone systems pays itself back from 5 to seven years, after which the consumer is totally independent (other than replacing the batteries and maintaining the system) the Sunshine is absolutely free. It's like buying a new car or by riding a public transport, which over the life of an automobile would eventualy cost more when one uses public transport plus the dependence.

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

From: Kevin L. Conlin

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 2:11 PM

Subject: RE: [hreg] upgrading rental properties

 

Ethan,  Because the renter is responsible for paying the utility bills, and
the landlord does not control how much energy the tenant uses, there is
little incentive for the owner to upgrade, especially with a technology as
expensive as solar. Rental properties are usually bought with cash flow in
mind, and an investment in solar will negatively affect this, so I think you
are going to have a tough sell.
While it's true that the house might be more appealing to a prospective
renter if it had solar, I just don't think the owner would invest that kind
of money for a relatively small benefit.

________________________
Kevin Conlin
Solarcraft, Inc.
13130 Stafford Road, Suite 125
Stafford, TX 77477-4536
(281)495-0438
fax (281)495-0440
kconlin@...
www.solarcraft.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Rohini Bosamia [mailto:rohinib@...]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:00 PM
To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [hreg] upgrading rental properties

Are there feasible opportunities to include renewable energy concepts into
rental properties?

I am updating several rental properties(single family homes on same street)
and would consider changes to the energy use/production of each home.  Many
of the homes are adjacent lots which may provide additional opportunities.
There does not seem to be much info on this topic.  Any rebates are also
limited because the homes are not my primary residence.

Any insights or experiences would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Ethan






Yahoo! Groups Links

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

From: Rohini Bosamia

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:22 AM

Subject: [hreg] thermal collectors

Are thermal collectors effective to heat water if most hot water is used in the morning period?  In my house, little hot water is used in the evening, none during the day, most in the morning.  Are these types of lifestyle patterns used when determining the appropriateness of a thermal collector?

 

ethan

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

From: Bashir Syed

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:12 AM

Subject: Re: [hreg] upgrading rental properties

In China and Israel, it's mandatory that every building/home installs and integrated Solar Thermal Collector on top of which sit a PV Module. Sun's heat is trasfered blow to the Thermal collectors. I saw a solar thermal system for hot water under test bring temperature up between 45 to 48 degree Celsius (centigrade). The other advantage of integrating PV with thermal Collectors is that in the long run it increases the fficiency and life of the PV system in extremely hot places. 

PV systems are the quitest and have no moving parts, but generate electricity based on number of hours of Sunshine.   

 

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

From: Bashir Syed

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:12 AM

Subject: Re: [hreg] upgrading rental properties

In China and Israel, it's mandatory that every building/home installs and integrated Solar Thermal Collector on top of which sit a PV Module. Sun's heat is trasfered blow to the Thermal collectors. I saw a solar thermal system for hot water under test bring temperature up between 45 to 48 degree Celsius (centigrade). The other advantage of integrating PV with thermal Collectors is that in the long run it increases the fficiency and life of the PV system in extremely hot places. 

PV systems are the quitest and have no moving parts, but generate electricity based on number of hours of Sunshine.   

 

On cash flow, my tenants utility bills are, in some months, 30% to
50% of rent.  To keep the tenants, installing some efficiency methods
make sense.

Yes, tenants waste energy, and as landlord I can explain how they can
skrimp.  BTW, it seems the federal tax credit for new windows,
insulating, etc, doesn't apply to rent houses.

At 07:56 AM 5/25/2006, Rohini Bosamia wrote:
>Acute awareness of cash flow is there, but was hoping there were more
>monetary/tax incentives to do something.  Making/saving money for me was not
>the goal, but if it could be cost-neutral or at least not too much(either
>with direct or tax incentives) to helps others save, it would be
>provocative.  Since all of the houses are adjacent to each other, "neighbor"
>issues are less.  Quiet, microturbines could work, but I have yet to find
>one which was quiet enough to locate outside a bedroom window.  Even a
>shared solar water heater sounds interesting.  Not sure how to address water
>quantities from different houses, but still interesting.
>
>ethan
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kevin L. Conlin" <kconlin@...>
>To: <hreg@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 2:11 PM
>Subject: RE: [hreg] upgrading rental properties
>
>
> > Ethan,  Because the renter is responsible for paying the utility bills,
>and
> > the landlord does not control how much energy the tenant uses, there is
> > little incentive for the owner to upgrade, especially with a technology as
> > expensive as solar. Rental properties are usually bought with cash flow in
> > mind, and an investment in solar will negatively affect this, so I think
>you
> > are going to have a tough sell.
> > While it's true that the house might be more appealing to a prospective
> > renter if it had solar, I just don't think the owner would invest that
>kind
> > of money for a relatively small benefit.
> >
> > ________________________
> > Kevin Conlin
> > Solarcraft, Inc.
> > 13130 Stafford Road, Suite 125
> > Stafford, TX 77477-4536
> > (281)495-0438
> > fax (281)495-0440
> > kconlin@...
> > www.solarcraft.net
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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

"Life is a daring adventure, or nothing. To keep our faces toward
change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is
strength undefeatable."
Helen Keller

Sorry about that - don't know what happened with the attachment.

It was this past Monday, but there will be another one in June to show how
the plumbing and electrical rough-in works with the ICF.  And I'll let the
group know about it.

It's at 9245 Wickford Drive, for anyone who wants to drive by it.

Kathleen Carrier
www.evergreendesignstudio.com


-----Original Message-----
From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
blpasemann
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:56 PM
To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [hreg] date of open house.

Kathleen,
   when is your open house?  I don't see an attachment that I can open up.

thanx







Yahoo! Groups Links

Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel
Not too many of you liked the idea of a green tax to improve the fuel
efficiency of America's cars and encourage alternative energy research. So
it's with hesitation that I float this idea from Francis Slakey, in a recent
issue of New Scientist:

Members of Congress embarrassed themselves recently trying to soothe the
nation's energy anxiety. Their proposals ranged from an investigation into oil
companies allegedly fixing prices, to slipping $100 under every taxpayer's
pillow. The mantra of the moment appears to be: "There is no quick fix to
rising gasoline prices."

Well, there is a quick fix. In one decisive act, the government could save in
excess of 50 million gallons of gasoline a day ...


The rest of the article is only for subscribers, so I'll summarize. The
proposal is simple -- are you ready? -- reduce speed limits to 55 mph.

When you stop shouting at the computer, consider the benefits, according to
Slakey: a 25 percent drop in gasoline consumption, saving 1 billion barrels of
oil a year, more than this country currently imports from the Arab world.
There's more. Conservation means fewer tons of carbon dioxide pumped into the
atmosphere. There would also be fewer serious accidents.

And here's the big one. Even if Slakey's wrong, and gasoline consumption only
drops 10 or 15 percent, oil prices would almost certainly drop considerably.
Not back to $30 a barrel, but I think we could say goodbye to $3 gas for a
while.

I know, I know. Driving slow is a real pain in the butt. I like to zip around,
too. And who could forget the outcry a few years ago when cutting speed limits
was considered as a possible measure to reduce emissions in Houston to keep
the city's air quality within EPA limits? After all, this is America, dammit.

But quite frankly, I'd rather slow down then continue to pump up the economies
of other countries, or build ski slopes in Dubai. Cutting the speed limit back
to 55 mph would give scientists and engineers to come up with alternatives,
perhaps perfecting batteries or making ethanol workable.


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

A 55 speed limit would also encourage people to live closer to where they
work, saving additional gas.  Not a bad idea. . . .    Government "controls"
are always a touchy issue.  The individual has to be willing to sacrifice
for the good of the whole, and we are just not used to thinking that way
(anymore).


-----Original Message-----
From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
refuge@...
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:49 PM
To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel



Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel
Not too many of you liked the idea of a green tax to improve the fuel
efficiency of America's cars and encourage alternative energy research. So
it's with hesitation that I float this idea from Francis Slakey, in a recent

issue of New Scientist:

Members of Congress embarrassed themselves recently trying to soothe the
nation's energy anxiety. Their proposals ranged from an investigation into
oil
companies allegedly fixing prices, to slipping $100 under every taxpayer's
pillow. The mantra of the moment appears to be: "There is no quick fix to
rising gasoline prices."

Well, there is a quick fix. In one decisive act, the government could save
in
excess of 50 million gallons of gasoline a day ...


The rest of the article is only for subscribers, so I'll summarize. The
proposal is simple -- are you ready? -- reduce speed limits to 55 mph.

When you stop shouting at the computer, consider the benefits, according to
Slakey: a 25 percent drop in gasoline consumption, saving 1 billion barrels
of
oil a year, more than this country currently imports from the Arab world.
There's more. Conservation means fewer tons of carbon dioxide pumped into
the
atmosphere. There would also be fewer serious accidents.

And here's the big one. Even if Slakey's wrong, and gasoline consumption
only
drops 10 or 15 percent, oil prices would almost certainly drop considerably.

Not back to $30 a barrel, but I think we could say goodbye to $3 gas for a
while.

I know, I know. Driving slow is a real pain in the butt. I like to zip
around,
too. And who could forget the outcry a few years ago when cutting speed
limits
was considered as a possible measure to reduce emissions in Houston to keep
the city's air quality within EPA limits? After all, this is America,
dammit.

But quite frankly, I'd rather slow down then continue to pump up the
economies
of other countries, or build ski slopes in Dubai. Cutting the speed limit
back
to 55 mph would give scientists and engineers to come up with alternatives,
perhaps perfecting batteries or making ethanol workable.


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.





Yahoo! Groups Links

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

From: Kathleen Carrier

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:00 AM

Subject: RE: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

A 55 speed limit would also encourage people to live closer to where they
work, saving additional gas.  Not a bad idea. . . .    Government "controls"
are always a touchy issue.  The individual has to be willing to sacrifice
for the good of the whole, and we are just not used to thinking that way
(anymore). 


-----Original Message-----
From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
refuge@...
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:49 PM
To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel



Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel
Not too many of you liked the idea of a green tax to improve the fuel
efficiency of America's cars and encourage alternative energy research. So
it's with hesitation that I float this idea from Francis Slakey, in a recent

issue of New Scientist:

Members of Congress embarrassed themselves recently trying to soothe the
nation's energy anxiety. Their proposals ranged from an investigation into
oil
companies allegedly fixing prices, to slipping $100 under every taxpayer's
pillow. The mantra of the moment appears to be: "There is no quick fix to
rising gasoline prices."

Well, there is a quick fix. In one decisive act, the government could save
in
excess of 50 million gallons of gasoline a day ...


The rest of the article is only for subscribers, so I'll summarize. The
proposal is simple -- are you ready? -- reduce speed limits to 55 mph.

When you stop shouting at the computer, consider the benefits, according to
Slakey: a 25 percent drop in gasoline consumption, saving 1 billion barrels
of
oil a year, more than this country currently imports from the Arab world.
There's more. Conservation means fewer tons of carbon dioxide pumped into
the
atmosphere. There would also be fewer serious accidents.

And here's the big one. Even if Slakey's wrong, and gasoline consumption
only
drops 10 or 15 percent, oil prices would almost certainly drop considerably.

Not back to $30 a barrel, but I think we could say goodbye to $3 gas for a
while.

I know, I know. Driving slow is a real pain in the butt. I like to zip
around,
too. And who could forget the outcry a few years ago when cutting speed
limits
was considered as a possible measure to reduce emissions in Houston to keep
the city's air quality within EPA limits? After all, this is America,
dammit.

But quite frankly, I'd rather slow down then continue to pump up the
economies
of other countries, or build ski slopes in Dubai. Cutting the speed limit
back
to 55 mph would give scientists and engineers to come up with alternatives,
perhaps perfecting batteries or making ethanol workable.


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.





Yahoo! Groups Links

Lower gas prices will not curb carbon emissions or 55 mph
speeed limits. Higher prices are needed to control consumption but the american economy can't handle it. We need to find other carbon saving methods, such as the biggest culprit of Greenhouse gases-electricity. For every 900 K/w of electricity used, 1380 lbs of CO2 is released to atmosphere, we need 20 % electricity produced now. The largest emitter in the Houston Area is the city govt, they are the largest user of electricity and what have they done to promote green energy! 

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

From: Kathleen Carrier

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:00 AM

Subject: RE: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

A 55 speed limit would also encourage people to live closer to where they

work, saving additional gas.  Not a bad idea. . . .    Government "controls"

are always a touchy issue.  The individual has to be willing to sacrifice

for the good of the whole, and we are just not used to thinking that way

(anymore). 

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

From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of

refuge@...

Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:49 PM

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Not too many of you liked the idea of a green tax to improve the fuel

efficiency of America's cars and encourage alternative energy research. So

it's with hesitation that I float this idea from Francis Slakey, in a recent

issue of New Scientist:

Members of Congress embarrassed themselves recently trying to soothe the

nation's energy anxiety. Their proposals ranged from an investigation into

oil

companies allegedly fixing prices, to slipping $100 under every taxpayer's

pillow. The mantra of the moment appears to be: "There is no quick fix to

rising gasoline prices."

Well, there is a quick fix. In one decisive act, the government could save

in

excess of 50 million gallons of gasoline a day ...

The rest of the article is only for subscribers, so I'll summarize. The

proposal is simple -- are you ready? -- reduce speed limits to 55 mph.

When you stop shouting at the computer, consider the benefits, according to

Slakey: a 25 percent drop in gasoline consumption, saving 1 billion barrels

of

oil a year, more than this country currently imports from the Arab world.

There's more. Conservation means fewer tons of carbon dioxide pumped into

the

atmosphere. There would also be fewer serious accidents.

And here's the big one. Even if Slakey's wrong, and gasoline consumption

only

drops 10 or 15 percent, oil prices would almost certainly drop considerably.

Not back to $30 a barrel, but I think we could say goodbye to $3 gas for a

while.

I know, I know. Driving slow is a real pain in the butt. I like to zip

around,

too. And who could forget the outcry a few years ago when cutting speed

limits

was considered as a possible measure to reduce emissions in Houston to keep

the city's air quality within EPA limits? After all, this is America,

dammit.

But quite frankly, I'd rather slow down then continue to pump up the

economies

of other countries, or build ski slopes in Dubai. Cutting the speed limit

back

to 55 mph would give scientists and engineers to come up with alternatives,

perhaps perfecting batteries or making ethanol workable.

--

This message has been scanned for viruses and

dangerous content by MailScanner, and is

believed to be clean.

Yahoo! Groups Links

SPONSORED LINKS

Renewable energy Renewable energy resources Renewable energy sources

Renewable energy system Renewable energy credit Renewable energy news

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

 Visit your group "hreg" on the web.

 

 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

  hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

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

From: Nan Hildreth

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com ; hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 1:41 PM

Subject: Re: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Mayor White put up a website which makes it easier to figure out if you can buy green electricity and if you have a choice in suppliers.  www.houstonconsumerchoice.com This and other things is moving Reliant to actually market their green electricity product. 

In his January inaugural speech White offered the vision of Houston as the "energy efficiency capital of the world" http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2006_4037033

White asks for your suggestions on http://www.ideasforhouston.com/

Houston Climate Protection Alliance is asking folks to pledge to buy renewable electricity and other things to protect the climate.   http://www.greenhoustonconnection.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=70&sid=e80a8836cd0a0c201814cda01c2a7321     Would you sign the pledge? 

On driving less.   A gas tax would inspire it.  And with rising economic cost of climate damages, the feds will need the revenue. 

But the trend for Houston to quit sprawling is well underway.    A Chronicle story a year ago showed that housing prices in the far suburbs are stagnant or declining while suburbs close to things are continuing to rise in value.   It only makes sense.  Each car costs about $500 a month according to American Automobile Assocation.  So if your family has a choice besides keeping a car for each adult, for example, carpooling, bicycling, or transit, then you can spend more on housing and still save money.

Nan



At 08:27 AM 5/29/2006, Edward Kramer wrote:

Lower gas prices will not curb carbon emissions or 55 mph
speeed limits. Higher prices are needed to control consumption but the american economy can't handle it. We need to find other carbon saving methods, such as the biggest culprit of Greenhouse gases-electricity. For every 900 K/w of electricity used, 1380 lbs of CO2 is released to atmosphere, we need 20 % electricity produced now. The largest emitter in the Houston Area is the city govt, they are the largest user of electricity and what have they done to promote green energy! 

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

From: Kathleen Carrier

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:00 AM

Subject: RE: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

A 55 speed limit would also encourage people to live closer to where they

work, saving additional gas.  Not a bad idea. . . .    Government "controls"

are always a touchy issue.  The individual has to be willing to sacrifice

for the good of the whole, and we are just not used to thinking that way

(anymore). 

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

From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of

refuge@...

Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:49 PM

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Not too many of you liked the idea of a green tax to improve the fuel

efficiency of America's cars and encourage alternative energy research. So

it's with hesitation that I float this idea from Francis Slakey, in a recent

issue of New Scientist:

Members of Congress embarrassed themselves recently trying to soothe the

nation's energy anxiety. Their proposals ranged from an investigation into

oil

companies allegedly fixing prices, to slipping $100 under every taxpayer's

pillow. The mantra of the moment appears to be: "There is no quick fix to

rising gasoline prices."

Well, there is a quick fix. In one decisive act, the government could save

in

excess of 50 million gallons of gasoline a day ...

The rest of the article is only for subscribers, so I'll summarize. The

proposal is simple -- are you ready? -- reduce speed limits to 55 mph.

When you stop shouting at the computer, consider the benefits, according to

Slakey: a 25 percent drop in gasoline consumption, saving 1 billion barrels

of

oil a year, more than this country currently imports from the Arab world.

There's more. Conservation means fewer tons of carbon dioxide pumped into

the

atmosphere. There would also be fewer serious accidents.

And here's the big one. Even if Slakey's wrong, and gasoline consumption

only

drops 10 or 15 percent, oil prices would almost certainly drop considerably.

Not back to $30 a barrel, but I think we could say goodbye to $3 gas for a

while.

I know, I know. Driving slow is a real pain in the butt. I like to zip

around,

too. And who could forget the outcry a few years ago when cutting speed

limits

was considered as a possible measure to reduce emissions in Houston to keep

the city's air quality within EPA limits? After all, this is America,

dammit.

But quite frankly, I'd rather slow down then continue to pump up the

economies

of other countries, or build ski slopes in Dubai. Cutting the speed limit

back

to 55 mph would give scientists and engineers to come up with alternatives,

perhaps perfecting batteries or making ethanol workable.

--

This message has been scanned for viruses and

dangerous content by MailScanner, and is

believed to be clean.

Yahoo! Groups Links

SPONSORED LINKS

Renewable energy Renewable energy resources Renewable energy sources

Renewable energy system Renewable energy credit Renewable energy news

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

 Visit your group "hreg" on the web.

 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

  hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

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

"Life is a daring adventure, or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable."
Helen Keller

Mayor White had one sentance to proclaim Houston as the energy efficient city in the world-wouldn't it be wonderful!
I did not see one word about a program to back the words. This is not a soloution, there is not any plan or program for the city to curb its use of global warrning generated electrcity. If you believe the newspaper that urban sprawl is undercontrol, maybe you should drive out 59 south and look at whats happening in Fort Bend. There used to 5000 plus acres of greenfields.

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

From: Nan Hildreth

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com ; hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 1:41 PM

Subject: Re: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Mayor White put up a website which makes it easier to figure out if you can buy green electricity and if you have a choice in suppliers.  www.houstonconsumerchoice.com This and other things is moving Reliant to actually market their green electricity product. 

In his January inaugural speech White offered the vision of Houston as the "energy efficiency capital of the world" http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2006_4037033

White asks for your suggestions on http://www.ideasforhouston.com/

Houston Climate Protection Alliance is asking folks to pledge to buy renewable electricity and other things to protect the climate.   http://www.greenhoustonconnection.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=70&sid=e80a8836cd0a0c201814cda01c2a7321    Would you sign the pledge? 

On driving less.   A gas tax would inspire it.  And with rising economic cost of climate damages, the feds will need the revenue. 

But the trend for Houston to quit sprawling is well underway.    A Chronicle story a year ago showed that housing prices in the far suburbs are stagnant or declining while suburbs close to things are continuing to rise in value.   It only makes sense.  Each car costs about $500 a month according to American Automobile Assocation.  So if your family has a choice besides keeping a car for each adult, for example, carpooling, bicycling, or transit, then you can spend more on housing and still save money.

Nan

At 08:27 AM 5/29/2006, Edward Kramer wrote:

Lower gas prices will not curb carbon emissions or 55 mph

speeed limits. Higher prices are needed to control consumption but the american economy can't handle it. We need to find other carbon saving methods, such as the biggest culprit of Greenhouse gases-electricity. For every 900 K/w of electricity used, 1380 lbs of CO2 is released to atmosphere, we need 20 % electricity produced now. The largest emitter in the Houston Area is the city govt, they are the largest user of electricity and what have they done to promote green energy! 

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

From: Kathleen Carrier

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:00 AM

Subject: RE: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

A 55 speed limit would also encourage people to live closer to where they

work, saving additional gas.  Not a bad idea. . . .    Government "controls"

are always a touchy issue.  The individual has to be willing to sacrifice

for the good of the whole, and we are just not used to thinking that way

(anymore). 

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

From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of

refuge@...

Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:49 PM

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Not too many of you liked the idea of a green tax to improve the fuel

efficiency of America's cars and encourage alternative energy research. So

it's with hesitation that I float this idea from Francis Slakey, in a recent

issue of New Scientist:

Members of Congress embarrassed themselves recently trying to soothe the

nation's energy anxiety. Their proposals ranged from an investigation into

oil

companies allegedly fixing prices, to slipping $100 under every taxpayer's

pillow. The mantra of the moment appears to be: "There is no quick fix to

rising gasoline prices."

Well, there is a quick fix. In one decisive act, the government could save

in

excess of 50 million gallons of gasoline a day ...

The rest of the article is only for subscribers, so I'll summarize. The

proposal is simple -- are you ready? -- reduce speed limits to 55 mph.

When you stop shouting at the computer, consider the benefits, according to

Slakey: a 25 percent drop in gasoline consumption, saving 1 billion barrels

of

oil a year, more than this country currently imports from the Arab world.

There's more. Conservation means fewer tons of carbon dioxide pumped into

the

atmosphere. There would also be fewer serious accidents.

And here's the big one. Even if Slakey's wrong, and gasoline consumption

only

drops 10 or 15 percent, oil prices would almost certainly drop considerably.

Not back to $30 a barrel, but I think we could say goodbye to $3 gas for a

while.

I know, I know. Driving slow is a real pain in the butt. I like to zip

around,

too. And who could forget the outcry a few years ago when cutting speed

limits

was considered as a possible measure to reduce emissions in Houston to keep

the city's air quality within EPA limits? After all, this is America,

dammit.

But quite frankly, I'd rather slow down then continue to pump up the

economies

of other countries, or build ski slopes in Dubai. Cutting the speed limit

back

to 55 mph would give scientists and engineers to come up with alternatives,

perhaps perfecting batteries or making ethanol workable.

--

This message has been scanned for viruses and

dangerous content by MailScanner, and is

believed to be clean.

Yahoo! Groups Links

SPONSORED LINKS

Renewable energy Renewable energy resources Renewable energy sources

Renewable energy system Renewable energy credit Renewable energy news

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

 Visit your group "hreg" on the web.

 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

  hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

Nan Hildreth, 713-842-6643 NanHildreth@...

3939 Luca St.  Houston, Tx 77021

"Life is a daring adventure, or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable."

Helen Keller

SPONSORED LINKS

Renewable energy Renewable energy resources Renewable energy sources

Renewable energy system Renewable energy credit Renewable energy news

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

 Visit your group "hreg" on the web.

 

 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

  hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

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

From: Nan Hildreth

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com ; hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 9:57 PM

Subject: Re: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Sounds like you really care about global warming.  Would you like to help me pass out climate protection leaflets tomorrow afternoon/evening at the Hurricane Preparedness Workshop at the George R. Brown?  For link to workshop webpage, www.HoustonClimateProtection.org

At 06:50 PM 5/29/2006, Edward Kramer wrote:

Mayor White had one sentance to proclaim Houston as the energy efficient city in the world-wouldn't it be wonderful!
I did not see one word about a program to back the words. This is not a soloution, there is not any plan or program for the city to curb its use of global warrning generated electrcity. If you believe the newspaper that urban sprawl is undercontrol, maybe you should drive out 59 south and look at whats happening in Fort Bend. There used to 5000 plus acres of greenfields.

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

From: Nan Hildreth

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com ; hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 1:41 PM

Subject: Re: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Mayor White put up a website which makes it easier to figure out if you can buy green electricity and if you have a choice in suppliers.  www.houstonconsumerchoice.com This and other things is moving Reliant to actually market their green electricity product. 

In his January inaugural speech White offered the vision of Houston as the "energy efficiency capital of the world" http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2006_4037033

White asks for your suggestions on http://www.ideasforhouston.com/

Houston Climate Protection Alliance is asking folks to pledge to buy renewable electricity and other things to protect the climate.   http://www.greenhoustonconnection.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=70&sid=e80a8836cd0a0c201814cda01c2a7321    Would you sign the pledge? 

On driving less.   A gas tax would inspire it.  And with rising economic cost of climate damages, the feds will need the revenue. 

But the trend for Houston to quit sprawling is well underway.    A Chronicle story a year ago showed that housing prices in the far suburbs are stagnant or declining while suburbs close to things are continuing to rise in value.   It only makes sense.  Each car costs about $500 a month according to American Automobile Assocation.  So if your family has a choice besides keeping a car for each adult, for example, carpooling, bicycling, or transit, then you can spend more on housing and still save money.

Nan

At 08:27 AM 5/29/2006, Edward Kramer wrote:

Lower gas prices will not curb carbon emissions or 55 mph

speeed limits. Higher prices are needed to control consumption but the american economy can't handle it. We need to find other carbon saving methods, such as the biggest culprit of Greenhouse gases-electricity. For every 900 K/w of electricity used, 1380 lbs of CO2 is released to atmosphere, we need 20 % electricity produced now. The largest emitter in the Houston Area is the city govt, they are the largest user of electricity and what have they done to promote green energy! 

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

From: Kathleen Carrier

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:00 AM

Subject: RE: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

A 55 speed limit would also encourage people to live closer to where they

work, saving additional gas.  Not a bad idea. . . .    Government "controls"

are always a touchy issue.  The individual has to be willing to sacrifice

for the good of the whole, and we are just not used to thinking that way

(anymore). 

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

From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of

refuge@...

Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:49 PM

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Not too many of you liked the idea of a green tax to improve the fuel

efficiency of America's cars and encourage alternative energy research. So

it's with hesitation that I float this idea from Francis Slakey, in a recent

issue of New Scientist:

Members of Congress embarrassed themselves recently trying to soothe the

nation's energy anxiety. Their proposals ranged from an investigation into

oil

companies allegedly fixing prices, to slipping $100 under every taxpayer's

pillow. The mantra of the moment appears to be: "There is no quick fix to

rising gasoline prices."

Well, there is a quick fix. In one decisive act, the government could save

in

excess of 50 million gallons of gasoline a day ...

The rest of the article is only for subscribers, so I'll summarize. The

proposal is simple -- are you ready? -- reduce speed limits to 55 mph.

When you stop shouting at the computer, consider the benefits, according to

Slakey: a 25 percent drop in gasoline consumption, saving 1 billion barrels

of

oil a year, more than this country currently imports from the Arab world.

There's more. Conservation means fewer tons of carbon dioxide pumped into

the

atmosphere. There would also be fewer serious accidents.

And here's the big one. Even if Slakey's wrong, and gasoline consumption

only

drops 10 or 15 percent, oil prices would almost certainly drop considerably.

Not back to $30 a barrel, but I think we could say goodbye to $3 gas for a

while.

I know, I know. Driving slow is a real pain in the butt. I like to zip

around,

too. And who could forget the outcry a few years ago when cutting speed

limits

was considered as a possible measure to reduce emissions in Houston to keep

the city's air quality within EPA limits? After all, this is America,

dammit.

But quite frankly, I'd rather slow down then continue to pump up the

economies

of other countries, or build ski slopes in Dubai. Cutting the speed limit

back

to 55 mph would give scientists and engineers to come up with alternatives,

perhaps perfecting batteries or making ethanol workable.

--

This message has been scanned for viruses and

dangerous content by MailScanner, and is

believed to be clean.

Yahoo! Groups Links

SPONSORED LINKS

Renewable energy Renewable energy resources Renewable energy sources

Renewable energy system Renewable energy credit Renewable energy news

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

 Visit your group "hreg" on the web.

 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

  hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

Nan Hildreth, 713-842-6643 NanHildreth@...

3939 Luca St.  Houston, Tx 77021

"Life is a daring adventure, or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable."

Helen Keller

SPONSORED LINKS

Renewable energy Renewable energy resources Renewable energy sources

Renewable energy system Renewable energy credit Renewable energy news

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

 Visit your group "hreg" on the web.

 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

  hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

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

"Life is a daring adventure, or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable."
Helen Keller

I care very deeply, when I see talk of the ice cap melting and polar bears going into extinction because loss of habitat due to mans greed, I think  to myself what a waste that people have this take attitude and not give back. We can live in balance in nature, but it takes investment and local govt incentives to motivate people to install solar systems in their houses. Solar energy is the purest form of electrcity production,. absoloutely no emissions. The city of austin has set aside 6.5 million dollars for a rebate plan for purchases of solar system to help the grid load and city become a steward of the environment. What has the city of Houston done to promote investment in our future?  

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

From: Nan Hildreth

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com ; hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 9:57 PM

Subject: Re: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Sounds like you really care about global warming.  Would you like to help me pass out climate protection leaflets tomorrow afternoon/evening at the Hurricane Preparedness Workshop at the George R. Brown?  For link to workshop webpage, www.HoustonClimateProtection.org

At 06:50 PM 5/29/2006, Edward Kramer wrote:

Mayor White had one sentance to proclaim Houston as the energy efficient city in the world-wouldn't it be wonderful!

I did not see one word about a program to back the words. This is not a soloution, there is not any plan or program for the city to curb its use of global warrning generated electrcity. If you believe the newspaper that urban sprawl is undercontrol, maybe you should drive out 59 south and look at whats happening in Fort Bend. There used to 5000 plus acres of greenfields.

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

From: Nan Hildreth

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com ; hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 1:41 PM

Subject: Re: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Mayor White put up a website which makes it easier to figure out if you can buy green electricity and if you have a choice in suppliers.  www.houstonconsumerchoice.com This and other things is moving Reliant to actually market their green electricity product. 

In his January inaugural speech White offered the vision of Houston as the "energy efficiency capital of the world" http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2006_4037033

White asks for your suggestions on http://www.ideasforhouston.com/

Houston Climate Protection Alliance is asking folks to pledge to buy renewable electricity and other things to protect the climate.   http://www.greenhoustonconnection.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=70&sid=e80a8836cd0a0c201814cda01c2a7321  Would you sign the pledge? 

On driving less.   A gas tax would inspire it.  And with rising economic cost of climate damages, the feds will need the revenue. 

But the trend for Houston to quit sprawling is well underway.    A Chronicle story a year ago showed that housing prices in the far suburbs are stagnant or declining while suburbs close to things are continuing to rise in value.   It only makes sense.  Each car costs about $500 a month according to American Automobile Assocation.  So if your family has a choice besides keeping a car for each adult, for example, carpooling, bicycling, or transit, then you can spend more on housing and still save money.

Nan

At 08:27 AM 5/29/2006, Edward Kramer wrote:

Lower gas prices will not curb carbon emissions or 55 mph

speeed limits. Higher prices are needed to control consumption but the american economy can't handle it. We need to find other carbon saving methods, such as the biggest culprit of Greenhouse gases-electricity. For every 900 K/w of electricity used, 1380 lbs of CO2 is released to atmosphere, we need 20 % electricity produced now. The largest emitter in the Houston Area is the city govt, they are the largest user of electricity and what have they done to promote green energy! 

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

From: Kathleen Carrier

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:00 AM

Subject: RE: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

A 55 speed limit would also encourage people to live closer to where they

work, saving additional gas.  Not a bad idea. . . .    Government "controls"

are always a touchy issue.  The individual has to be willing to sacrifice

for the good of the whole, and we are just not used to thinking that way

(anymore). 

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

From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of

refuge@...

Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:49 PM

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Not too many of you liked the idea of a green tax to improve the fuel

efficiency of America's cars and encourage alternative energy research. So

it's with hesitation that I float this idea from Francis Slakey, in a recent

issue of New Scientist:

Members of Congress embarrassed themselves recently trying to soothe the

nation's energy anxiety. Their proposals ranged from an investigation into

oil

companies allegedly fixing prices, to slipping $100 under every taxpayer's

pillow. The mantra of the moment appears to be: "There is no quick fix to

rising gasoline prices."

Well, there is a quick fix. In one decisive act, the government could save

in

excess of 50 million gallons of gasoline a day ...

The rest of the article is only for subscribers, so I'll summarize. The

proposal is simple -- are you ready? -- reduce speed limits to 55 mph.

When you stop shouting at the computer, consider the benefits, according to

Slakey: a 25 percent drop in gasoline consumption, saving 1 billion barrels

of

oil a year, more than this country currently imports from the Arab world.

There's more. Conservation means fewer tons of carbon dioxide pumped into

the

atmosphere. There would also be fewer serious accidents.

And here's the big one. Even if Slakey's wrong, and gasoline consumption

only

drops 10 or 15 percent, oil prices would almost certainly drop considerably.

Not back to $30 a barrel, but I think we could say goodbye to $3 gas for a

while.

I know, I know. Driving slow is a real pain in the butt. I like to zip

around,

too. And who could forget the outcry a few years ago when cutting speed

limits

was considered as a possible measure to reduce emissions in Houston to keep

the city's air quality within EPA limits? After all, this is America,

dammit.

But quite frankly, I'd rather slow down then continue to pump up the

economies

of other countries, or build ski slopes in Dubai. Cutting the speed limit

back

to 55 mph would give scientists and engineers to come up with alternatives,

perhaps perfecting batteries or making ethanol workable.

--

This message has been scanned for viruses and

dangerous content by MailScanner, and is

believed to be clean.

Yahoo! Groups Links

SPONSORED LINKS

Renewable energy Renewable energy resources Renewable energy sources

Renewable energy system Renewable energy credit Renewable energy news

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

 Visit your group "hreg" on the web.

 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

  hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

Nan Hildreth, 713-842-6643 NanHildreth@...

3939 Luca St.  Houston, Tx 77021

"Life is a daring adventure, or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable."

Helen Keller

SPONSORED LINKS

Renewable energy Renewable energy resources Renewable energy sources

Renewable energy system Renewable energy credit Renewable energy news

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

 Visit your group "hreg" on the web.

 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

  hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

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

From: Nan Hildreth

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com ; hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 8:22 AM

Subject: Re: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Mayors don't have much power.  So they try to follow the lead of their citizens.  Alas, in Houston, there are several powerful organizations that deny climate change while folks supporting climate protection are not well connected and organized.   Are you a Houston person or an Auston one? 

Also, what specific action suggestions do you have for Mayor White of Houston?

At 07:08 AM 5/30/2006, Edward Kramer wrote:

I care very deeply, when I see talk of the ice cap melting and polar bears going into extinction because loss of habitat due to mans greed, I think  to myself what a waste that people have this take attitude and not give back. We can live in balance in nature, but it takes investment and local govt incentives to motivate people to install solar systems in their houses. Solar energy is the purest form of electrcity production,. absoloutely no emissions. The city of austin has set aside 6.5 million dollars for a rebate plan for purchases of solar system to help the grid load and city become a steward of the environment. What has the city of Houston done to promote investment in our future?  

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

From: Nan Hildreth

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com ; hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 9:57 PM

Subject: Re: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Sounds like you really care about global warming.  Would you like to help me pass out climate protection leaflets tomorrow afternoon/evening at the Hurricane Preparedness Workshop at the George R. Brown?  For link to workshop webpage, www.HoustonClimateProtection.org

At 06:50 PM 5/29/2006, Edward Kramer wrote:

Mayor White had one sentance to proclaim Houston as the energy efficient city in the world-wouldn't it be wonderful!

I did not see one word about a program to back the words. This is not a soloution, there is not any plan or program for the city to curb its use of global warrning generated electrcity. If you believe the newspaper that urban sprawl is undercontrol, maybe you should drive out 59 south and look at whats happening in Fort Bend. There used to 5000 plus acres of greenfields.

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

From: Nan Hildreth

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com ; hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 1:41 PM

Subject: Re: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Mayor White put up a website which makes it easier to figure out if you can buy green electricity and if you have a choice in suppliers.  www.houstonconsumerchoice.com This and other things is moving Reliant to actually market their green electricity product. 

In his January inaugural speech White offered the vision of Houston as the "energy efficiency capital of the world" http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2006_4037033

White asks for your suggestions on http://www.ideasforhouston.com/

Houston Climate Protection Alliance is asking folks to pledge to buy renewable electricity and other things to protect the climate.   http://www.greenhoustonconnection.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=70&sid=e80a8836cd0a0c201814cda01c2a7321  Would you sign the pledge? 

On driving less.   A gas tax would inspire it.  And with rising economic cost of climate damages, the feds will need the revenue. 

But the trend for Houston to quit sprawling is well underway.    A Chronicle story a year ago showed that housing prices in the far suburbs are stagnant or declining while suburbs close to things are continuing to rise in value.   It only makes sense.  Each car costs about $500 a month according to American Automobile Assocation.  So if your family has a choice besides keeping a car for each adult, for example, carpooling, bicycling, or transit, then you can spend more on housing and still save money.

Nan

At 08:27 AM 5/29/2006, Edward Kramer wrote:

Lower gas prices will not curb carbon emissions or 55 mph

speeed limits. Higher prices are needed to control consumption but the american economy can't handle it. We need to find other carbon saving methods, such as the biggest culprit of Greenhouse gases-electricity. For every 900 K/w of electricity used, 1380 lbs of CO2 is released to atmosphere, we need 20 % electricity produced now. The largest emitter in the Houston Area is the city govt, they are the largest user of electricity and what have they done to promote green energy! 

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

From: Kathleen Carrier

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:00 AM

Subject: RE: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

A 55 speed limit would also encourage people to live closer to where they

work, saving additional gas.  Not a bad idea. . . .    Government "controls"

are always a touchy issue.  The individual has to be willing to sacrifice

for the good of the whole, and we are just not used to thinking that way

(anymore). 

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

From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of

refuge@...

Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:49 PM

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [hreg] Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Another idea you probably won't like to save fuel

Not too many of you liked the idea of a green tax to improve the fuel

efficiency of America's cars and encourage alternative energy research. So

it's with hesitation that I float this idea from Francis Slakey, in a recent

issue of New Scientist:

Members of Congress embarrassed themselves recently trying to soothe the

nation's energy anxiety. Their proposals ranged from an investigation into

oil

companies allegedly fixing prices, to slipping $100 under every taxpayer's

pillow. The mantra of the moment appears to be: "There is no quick fix to

rising gasoline prices."

Well, there is a quick fix. In one decisive act, the government could save

in

excess of 50 million gallons of gasoline a day ...

The rest of the article is only for subscribers, so I'll summarize. The

proposal is simple -- are you ready? -- reduce speed limits to 55 mph.

When you stop shouting at the computer, consider the benefits, according to

Slakey: a 25 percent drop in gasoline consumption, saving 1 billion barrels

of

oil a year, more than this country currently imports from the Arab world.

There's more. Conservation means fewer tons of carbon dioxide pumped into

the

atmosphere. There would also be fewer serious accidents.

And here's the big one. Even if Slakey's wrong, and gasoline consumption

only

drops 10 or 15 percent, oil prices would almost certainly drop considerably.

Not back to $30 a barrel, but I think we could say goodbye to $3 gas for a

while.

I know, I know. Driving slow is a real pain in the butt. I like to zip

around,

too. And who could forget the outcry a few years ago when cutting speed

limits

was considered as a possible measure to reduce emissions in Houston to keep

the city's air quality within EPA limits? After all, this is America,

dammit.

But quite frankly, I'd rather slow down then continue to pump up the

economies

of other countries, or build ski slopes in Dubai. Cutting the speed limit

back

to 55 mph would give scientists and engineers to come up with alternatives,

perhaps perfecting batteries or making ethanol workable.

--

This message has been scanned for viruses and

dangerous content by MailScanner, and is

believed to be clean.

Yahoo! Groups Links

SPONSORED LINKS

Renewable energy Renewable energy resources Renewable energy sources

Renewable energy system Renewable energy credit Renewable energy news

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

 Visit your group "hreg" on the web.

 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

  hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

Nan Hildreth, 713-842-6643 NanHildreth@...

3939 Luca St.  Houston, Tx 77021

"Life is a daring adventure, or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable."

Helen Keller

SPONSORED LINKS

Renewable energy Renewable energy resources Renewable energy sources

Renewable energy system Renewable energy credit Renewable energy news

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

 Visit your group "hreg" on the web.

 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

  hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

Nan Hildreth, 713-842-6643 NanHildreth@...

3939 Luca St.  Houston, Tx 77021

"Life is a daring adventure, or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable."

Helen Keller

SPONSORED LINKS

Renewable energy Renewable energy resources Renewable energy sources

Renewable energy system Renewable energy credit Renewable energy news

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

 Visit your group "hreg" on the web.

 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

  hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

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

"Life is a daring adventure, or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable."
Helen Keller

State of the Union: The Advanced Energy Initiative

      Advanced Energy Initiative
      State of the Union 2006
     

In His State Of The Union Address, President Bush Outlined The Advanced Energy Initiative To Help Break America's Dependence On Foreign Sources Of Energy. The President has set a national goal of replacing more than 75% of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. With America on the verge of breakthroughs in advanced energy technologies, the best way to break the addiction to foreign oil is through new technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources. Tonight, the President announced the Advanced Energy Initiative, which provides for a 22% increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy (DOE). The Initiative will accelerate our breakthroughs in two vital areas; how we power our homes and businesses; and how we power our automobiles.

Changing The Way We Power Our Homes And Businesses

The Administration Will Work To Diversify Energy Sources For American Homes And Businesses. Accelerating research in clean coal technologies, clean and safe nuclear energy, and revolutionary solar and wind technologies will reduce overall demand for natural gas and lead to lower energy costs. The President's Advanced Energy Initiative proposes speeding up research in three promising areas:

• The President's Coal Research Initiative. Coal provides more than half of the Nation's electricity supply, and America has enough coal to last more than 200 years. As part of the National Energy Policy, the President committed $2 billion over 10 years to speed up research in the use of clean coal technologies to generate electricity while meeting environmental regulations at low cost. To tap the potential of America's enormous coal reserves, the President's 2007 Budget includes $281 million for development of clean coal technologies, nearly completing the President's commitment 4 years ahead of schedule.
  
  
  • The President's 2007 Budget Includes $54 Million For The FutureGen Initiative. The FutureGen initiative is a partnership between government and the private sector to develop innovative technologies for an emissions-free coal plant that captures the carbon dioxide it produces and stores it in deep geologic formations.
    
    
• The President's Solar America Initiative. The 2007 Budget will propose a new $148 million Solar America Initiative – an increase of $65 million over FY06 – to accelerate the development of semiconductor materials that convert sunlight directly to electricity. These solar photovoltaic "PV" cells can be used to deliver energy services to rural areas and can be incorporated directly into building materials, so that there can be future "zero energy" homes that produce more energy than they consume.
  
  
• Expanding Clean Energy from Wind. The 2007 Budget includes $44 million for wind energy research – a $5 million increase over FY06 levels. This will help improve the efficiency and lower the costs of new wind technologies for use in low-speed wind environments. Combined with ongoing efforts to expand access to Federal lands for wind energy development, this new funding will help dramatically increase the use of wind energy in the United States.

Changing The Way We Power Our Automobiles

• We Are On The Verge Of Dramatic Improvements In How We Power Our Automobiles, And The President's Initiative Will Bring Those Improvements To The Forefront. The United States must move beyond a petroleum-based economy and develop new ways to power automobiles. The President wants to accelerate the development of domestic, renewable alternatives to gasoline and diesel fuels. The Administration will accelerate research in cutting-edge methods of producing "cellulosic ethanol" with the goal of making the use of such ethanol practical and competitive within 6 years. The Administration will also step up the Nation's research in better batteries for use in hybrid and electric cars and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen.
  
  
• The Biorefinery Initiative. To achieve greater use of "homegrown" renewable fuels in the United States, advanced technologies need to be perfected to make fuel ethanol from cellulosic (plant fiber) biomass, which is now discarded as waste. The President's 2007 Budget will include $150 million – a $59 million increase over FY06 – to help develop bio-based transportation fuels from agricultural waste products, such as wood chips, stalks, or switch grass. Research scientists say that accelerating research into "cellulosic ethanol" can make it cost-competitive by 2012, offering the potential to displace up to 30% of the Nation's current fuel use.
  
  
• Developing More Efficient Vehicles. Current hybrids on the road run on a battery developed at the DOE. The President's plan would accelerate research in the next generation of battery technology for hybrid vehicles and "plug-in hybrids." Current hybrids can only use the gasoline engine to charge the on-board battery. A "plug-in" hybrid can run either on electricity or on gasoline and can be plugged into the wall at night to recharge its batteries. These vehicles will enable drivers to meet most of their urban commuting needs with virtually no gasoline use. Advanced battery technologies offer the potential to significantly reduce oil consumption in the near-term. The 2007 Budget includes $30 million – a $6.7 million increase over FY06 – to speed up the development of this battery technology and extend the range of these vehicles.
  
  
• The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush announced a $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to develop technology for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells, which would power cars, trucks, homes, and businesses with no pollution or greenhouse gases. Through private-sector partnerships, the Initiative and related FreedomCAR programs will make it practical and cost-effective for Americans to use clean, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2020. The President's 2007 Budget will provide $289 million – an increase of $53 million over FY06 – to accelerate the development of hydrogen fuel cells and affordable hydrogen-powered cars. Through the President's program, the cost of a hydrogen fuel cell has been cut by more than 50% in just four years.
  
  
• America Must Act Now To Reduce Dependence On Foreign Sources Of Energy. There are an estimated 250 million vehicles on America's highways, and Americans will purchase more than 17 million vehicles this year. It will take approximately 15 years to switch America's automobiles over to more fuel efficient technologies. The sooner breakthroughs are achieved, the better for America.

The President's Advanced Energy Initiative Will Build On The Progress Made Since 2001

Since 2001, The Administration Has Worked To Ensure Affordable, Reliable, Secure, And Clean Sources Of Energy. In 2001, the President put forward his National Energy Policy, which included over 100 recommendations to increase domestic energy supplies, encourage efficiency and conservation, invest in energy-related infrastructure, and develop alternative and renewable sources of energy. Over the past four years, the Administration has worked to implement these recommendations and improve the Nation's energy outlook.

Last Summer, The President Signed The First Comprehensive Energy Legislation In Over A Decade. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is strengthening America's electrical infrastructure, reducing the country's dependence on foreign sources of energy, increasing conservation, and expanding the use of clean renewable energy.

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

From: will thurmond

To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:45 PM

Subject: Re: [hreg] Is anybody interested

Ed,

Have you seen The Advanced Energy Initiative?  I'm not defending Dubya, even though his house in TX is uber-cool.  There is both support and criticism for the President of the USA promoting alternative energy and making it a part of a nation-wide legislative agenda.  I havent seen much debate on this, but I have seen people supporting these new initiatives. There are legions who criticize the AEI for cuts in other areas.  Most critics dismiss the Advanced Energy Initiative as nonsense.

What do you think? Is this Advanced Energy Initiative for real or just more smoke and mirrors to help the poll numbers in advance of November?  Could the Rocky Mountain Institute's "Oil: Winning The End Game" report, and its profound effect on our national security departments at the DOD and the NSA ( i.e. recommendations for energy security) have anything to do with this?  Thanks

Will

p.s (disclaimer and flame retardant) I don't think Dubya is the right guy for espousing our national alternative energy interests.  The national security angle is a good one to consider when evaluating his new Alt-Energy agenda.


Report from The Council on Foreign Relations - Linking to The Advanced Energy Initiative
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9769/advanced_energy_initiative.html

State of the Union: The Advanced Energy Initiative

      Advanced Energy Initiative
      State of the Union 2006
     

In His State Of The Union Address, President Bush Outlined The Advanced Energy Initiative To Help Break America's Dependence On Foreign Sources Of Energy. The President has set a national goal of replacing more than 75% of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. With America on the verge of breakthroughs in advanced energy technologies, the best way to break the addiction to foreign oil is through new technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources. Tonight, the President announced the Advanced Energy Initiative, which provides for a 22% increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy (DOE). The Initiative will accelerate our breakthroughs in two vital areas; how we power our homes and businesses; and how we power our automobiles.

Changing The Way We Power Our Homes And Businesses

The Administration Will Work To Diversify Energy Sources For American Homes And Businesses. Accelerating research in clean coal technologies, clean and safe nuclear energy, and revolutionary solar and wind technologies will reduce overall demand for natural gas and lead to lower energy costs. The President's Advanced Energy Initiative proposes speeding up research in three promising areas:

• The President's Coal Research Initiative. Coal provides more than half of the Nation's electricity supply, and America has enough coal to last more than 200 years. As part of the National Energy Policy, the President committed $2 billion over 10 years to speed up research in the use of clean coal technologies to generate electricity while meeting environmental regulations at low cost. To tap the potential of America's enormous coal reserves, the President's 2007 Budget includes $281 million for development of clean coal technologies, nearly completing the President's commitment 4 years ahead of schedule.
  
  
  • The President's 2007 Budget Includes $54 Million For The FutureGen Initiative. The FutureGen initiative is a partnership between government and the private sector to develop innovative technologies for an emissions-free coal plant that captures the carbon dioxide it produces and stores it in deep geologic formations.
    
    
• The President's Solar America Initiative. The 2007 Budget will propose a new $148 million Solar America Initiative – an increase of $65 million over FY06 – to accelerate the development of semiconductor materials that convert sunlight directly to electricity. These solar photovoltaic "PV" cells can be used to deliver energy services to rural areas and can be incorporated directly into building materials, so that there can be future "zero energy" homes that produce more energy than they consume.
  
  
• Expanding Clean Energy from Wind. The 2007 Budget includes $44 million for wind energy research – a $5 million increase over FY06 levels. This will help improve the efficiency and lower the costs of new wind technologies for use in low-speed wind environments. Combined with ongoing efforts to expand access to Federal lands for wind energy development, this new funding will help dramatically increase the use of wind energy in the United States.

Changing The Way We Power Our Automobiles

• We Are On The Verge Of Dramatic Improvements In How We Power Our Automobiles, And The President's Initiative Will Bring Those Improvements To The Forefront. The United States must move beyond a petroleum-based economy and develop new ways to power automobiles. The President wants to accelerate the development of domestic, renewable alternatives to gasoline and diesel fuels. The Administration will accelerate research in cutting-edge methods of producing "cellulosic ethanol" with the goal of making the use of such ethanol practical and competitive within 6 years. The Administration will also step up the Nation's research in better batteries for use in hybrid and electric cars and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen.
  
  
• The Biorefinery Initiative. To achieve greater use of "homegrown" renewable fuels in the United States, advanced technologies need to be perfected to make fuel ethanol from cellulosic (plant fiber) biomass, which is now discarded as waste. The President's 2007 Budget will include $150 million – a $59 million increase over FY06 – to help develop bio-based transportation fuels from agricultural waste products, such as wood chips, stalks, or switch grass. Research scientists say that accelerating research into "cellulosic ethanol" can make it cost-competitive by 2012, offering the potential to displace up to 30% of the Nation's current fuel use.
  
  
• Developing More Efficient Vehicles. Current hybrids on the road run on a battery developed at the DOE. The President's plan would accelerate research in the next generation of battery technology for hybrid vehicles and "plug-in hybrids." Current hybrids can only use the gasoline engine to charge the on-board battery. A "plug-in" hybrid can run either on electricity or on gasoline and can be plugged into the wall at night to recharge its batteries. These vehicles will enable drivers to meet most of their urban commuting needs with virtually no gasoline use. Advanced battery technologies offer the potential to significantly reduce oil consumption in the near-term. The 2007 Budget includes $30 million – a $6.7 million increase over FY06 – to speed up the development of this battery technology and extend the range of these vehicles.
  
  
• The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush announced a $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to develop technology for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells, which would power cars, trucks, homes, and businesses with no pollution or greenhouse gases. Through private-sector partnerships, the Initiative and related FreedomCAR programs will make it practical and cost-effective for Americans to use clean, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2020. The President's 2007 Budget will provide $289 million – an increase of $53 million over FY06 – to accelerate the development of hydrogen fuel cells and affordable hydrogen-powered cars. Through the President's program, the cost of a hydrogen fuel cell has been cut by more than 50% in just four years.
  
  
• America Must Act Now To Reduce Dependence On Foreign Sources Of Energy. There are an estimated 250 million vehicles on America's highways, and Americans will purchase more than 17 million vehicles this year. It will take approximately 15 years to switch America's automobiles over to more fuel efficient technologies. The sooner breakthroughs are achieved, the better for America.

The President's Advanced Energy Initiative Will Build On The Progress Made Since 2001

Since 2001, The Administration Has Worked To Ensure Affordable, Reliable, Secure, And Clean Sources Of Energy. In 2001, the President put forward his National Energy Policy, which included over 100 recommendations to increase domestic energy supplies, encourage efficiency and conservation, invest in energy-related infrastructure, and develop alternative and renewable sources of energy. Over the past four years, the Administration has worked to implement these recommendations and improve the Nation's energy outlook.

Last Summer, The President Signed The First Comprehensive Energy Legislation In Over A Decade. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is strengthening America's electrical infrastructure, reducing the country's dependence on foreign sources of energy, increasing conservation, and expanding the use of clean renewable energy.

On 5/30/06, Edward Kramer <onekindr@...> wrote:

 

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

From: Edward Kramer

To: Edward Kramer

Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:24 PM

Subject: Emailing: index

 

Site Directory SUBSCRIBE Online Form Renewals Gift Sub. Change Address Customer Service Account Status DONATE Online Giving Sustainers Circle Planned Giving TAKE ACTION Current Action Active Alerts Alert Archive MAGAZINE Subscribe Contents Study Guide Your Views Advertise Archives Search SOJOMAIL Subscribe Unsubscribe This Week's Archives NEWS Sojo in the News Commentary Press Releases Media Advisories Alt. Media Press Room GET CONNECTED Meet-ups Donate Internships Volunteer Directory Forums RESOURCES Catalog SojoBlend Discussion Guides Sermon Prep ABOUT US Mission History Staff Scrapbook Visit Us Internships Job Openings Privacy Policy FAQ Press Room Contact Us

July-August 2001

Subscribe Contents Current Issue Previous Issue Next Issue Back Issues Search Forums Your Views Staff Writers Guidelines Newsstands Advertise advertisement

The Texas Two-Step George W. and Laura Bush's new Crawford, Texas home boasts a stunning array of eco-friendly features—perhaps not what you'd expect from one of the least environmentally friendly administrations sinceÂ…um, creation. by Rose Marie Berger email this article printer-friendly version The Bush ranch house in Crawford, Texas, balances beauty with state-of-the-art energy efficiency. Designed by Austin environmental architect David Heymann, and built by members of a religious community from nearby Elm Mott, George W. and Laura Bush's dream home is built of a BTU-efficient, honey-toned native limestone quarried from the nearby Edwards Limestone Formation. The passive-solar house is positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls. Underground water, which remains a constant 55 degrees year-round, is piped through a heat exchange system that keeps the interior warm in winter and cool in summer. A graywater reclamation system treats and reuses waste water. Rain gutters feed a cistern hooked to a sprinkler system for watering the fruit orchard and grass. Clearly, Bush goes home from the White House to a green house. Yet the Bush administration's 63-member energy advisory team has 62 members with ties to oil, nuclear, or coal interests. His national energy policy places nuclear power, increased oil and natural gas drilling, and "clean coal" as its cornerstone. The Bush budget takes a definitive step away from developing renewable energy resources. According to the Pew Research Center, 54 percent of Americans distrust Bush's "muscular energy" environmental agenda. In May, 22 religious leaders were arrested at the Department of Energy protesting Bush's plan to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Bush ranch is the kind of place we'd all like to live. Too bad his environmental policies are moving the rest of the country in exactly the opposite direction. CLEAN WATER. Bush has put on hold Clinton regulations that would have lowered arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 ppb. The Bush budget eliminates the National Water Quality Assessment program and drastically cuts funds for hydrology research. CARBON DIOXIDE. On the campaign trail, Bush vowed to establish mandatory reductions on carbon and sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury emissions from power plants, thus reducing smog, acid rain, and global warming. After taking office, he reneged on this promise. AIR QUALITY. The Bush budget cuts $20 million from the National Ambient Air Quality Standards project, $3 million from programs to reduce air toxics and acid rain, and $3.3 million from clean air research projects. GLOBAL WARMING. The Bush administration has rejected the Kyoto environmental agreements, which would have 38 industrialized countries cut greenhouse gas emissions. (The United States produces 25 percent of the destructive gases.) SOLAR POWER. Bush's budget cut the Department of Energy's solar research funding by 54 percent. ENERGY POLICY. The Bush administration's energy policy rejects conservation as a national value and guts renewable energy programs, and instead promotes more production of nuclear power, oil, natural gas, and coal. FUEL EFFICIENCY. Bush has effectively frozen the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards by sending them to a National Academy of Sciences panel for review—nine of the 13 panel members have publicly criticized the standards. email this article printer-friendly version   Read other articles by: Berger, Rose Marie Subscribe to Sojourners today at a special introductory price and save $10 off the basic rate! Click here for details. WE WANT TO HEAR from you! Click here to share your views. Or write to "Letters," Sojourners, 3333 14th St. NW, Suite 200, Washington DC 20010; fax (202) 328-8757. Please include your name, address, and daytime phone number. Letters may be edited for space and clarity. Subscribe today with a special introductory offer $10 off the basic rate   Read other articles by: Berger, Rose Marie

Site Directory SUBSCRIBE Online Form Renewals Gift Sub. Change Address Customer Service Account Status DONATE Online Giving Sustainers Circle Planned Giving TAKE ACTION Current Action Active Alerts Alert Archive MAGAZINE Subscribe Contents Study Guide Your Views Advertise Archives Search SOJOMAIL Subscribe Unsubscribe This Week's Archives NEWS Sojo in the News Commentary Press Releases Media Advisories Alt. Media Press Room GET CONNECTED Meet-ups Donate Internships Volunteer Directory Forums RESOURCES Catalog SojoBlend Discussion Guides Sermon Prep ABOUT US Mission History Staff Scrapbook Visit Us Internships Job Openings Privacy Policy FAQ Press Room Contact Us HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | PRIVACY STATEMENT  MAGAZINE | SOJOMAIL | GET CONNECTED | NEWS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US   Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010   Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@...   Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2006

 

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

From: chasmauch@...

To: houstonpeakoil@... ; hreg@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:35 PM

Subject: [hreg] Trailer for "Who Killed the Electric Car?" - movie coming soon

 

Trailer for new movie:

 

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

Hello folks,

Until two months ago I was employed
in the geothermal energy group at a
DOE national lab.  I had to leave that
job because Mister President decided
to zero out the DOE budget for the
entire DOE geothermal energy program.

Point of fact, not only has Bush the
desire to zero out DOE's geothermal
energy budget...he has pushed (and won,
in several instances) to:
1. extinguish the DOE hydropower program;
2. severely cut DOE funding for research
    into advanced use of fossil fuels
    (i.e. better use of these fuels);
3. cut funding for DOE's wind power program;
4. slashed by 2/3 the DOE budget for renewable
    energy and energy efficiency programs;
5. cut funding for the climate change science
    program.

These six significant budget cuts are a
minor fraction of the full scope of damage
that this administration has inflicted on
DOE programs over the past few years.

The only programs to benefit..."nucular",
solar, and hydrogen fuel cells.

Hence, in my humble opinion the 2007 State
of the Union address and any "initiative"
from the administration are purely lip
service.

Regards to all,
Steve Karner

At 05:16 PM 5/31/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>     It would be nice to have an electric car option in Houston, beyond the
> hybrids, the pure electric cars were pretty good and more economical than
>gas.

try this one.
  http://www.evoftexas.com/conversions/1980-vw-rabbit/index.html

looks nice to me.  If I didnt laready have one I would concider this one.

   John Miggins
>& Wind Power
>"renewable solutions to  everyday needs"
>www.harvest-energy.com
>Phone/Fax  918-743-2299
>Cell: 918-521-6223
>    ----- Original Message -----    From:    chasmauch@...    To:
>houstonpeakoil@...    ; hreg@yahoogroups.com    Sent:
>Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:35    PM   Subject: [hreg] Trailer for "Who
>Killed    the Electric Car?" - movie coming soon
>        Trailer for new movie:
>http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
>
>        SPONSORED LINKS
>  Renewable energy                                       Renewable energy
>resources                                       Renewable energy sources
>                                                                 Renewable
>energy system                                       Renewable energy credit
>                                      Renewable energy news
>
>         YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>     Visit your group "hreg" on the web.
>     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>

 

Trailer for new movie:

 

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

Or has the point been lost on some people? I have
heard nonesense in my time, but somebody please tell
me these people are not sniffing paint?


Lawsuit seeks to stop wind farm

BLOOMINGTON -- A Bloomington attorney compared a $500
million wind farm set for construction in eastern
McLean County to a psychedelic disco party that will
have nearby residents vomiting in their back yards.

In a lawsuit filed last week, attorney Jack Vieley
accuses the McLean County Board and Horizon Wind
Energy of ignoring or downplaying the potential
dangers of the facility, including high voltage,
cancer risk and noise and shadow pollution, among
other complaints.

He’s representing Lawrence and Rene Taylor, an
Ellsworth family living near the future Twin Groves
Wind Farm. Vieley is seeking an administrative review
of the project to delay or potentially prohibit
construction.

Vieley also seeks to force Horizon to pay fair market
value for his clients’ home, claiming the Taylors’
quality of life and property value have been
diminished.

Horizon chief development officer Michael Skelly noted
the numerous safety and noise assessment studies on
this project.

They can be viewed online at www.horizonwind.com.

"There are some extensive studies that have been done
on the impacts of this project. It’s fairly clear that
we’re not hiding anything from anybody," Skelly said.

"Sometimes people have issues and it’s a subjective
thing," Skelly said. "We work with a lot of
(residents) to alleviate these concerns with
landscaping. The landscaping is typically focused
around people’s yards so the wind farm is less
noticeable."

Assistant State’s Attorney Brian Hug said the county
provided ample notice and time for residents to
express concerns before the county approved the
project. The County Board also read an adequate amount
of research on the safety aspects of the project, he
said.

Vieley said moving shadows from up to 267 turbines
will have a hypnotizing effect and likely make nearby
residents nauseous.

"It has a psychedelic effect. I’ve been to disco
parties where there are flashing lights or strobe
lights and people have had to go outside to vomit. I
think that’s what will happen here. You’ll have people
vomiting in their back yards," said Vieley, who said
he expects more Ellsworth residents to join the case.

"If a tornado came through here, you could have mass
destruction or mass death if one of these things came
cycling through town," he added. "I’m telling you, if
some kid gets cut by one of these blades or someone is
injured, you’ll say, ‘Old Jack wasn’t so crazy.'"

Construction should begin within the next month,
Skelly said, and the farm should be partially
operational this fall. The farm is expected to provide
energy to around 120,000 homes.

http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2...1019768302.txt

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

> Or has the point been lost on some people? I have
> heard nonesense in my time, but somebody please tell
> me these people are not sniffing paint?
>
>
> Lawsuit seeks to stop wind farm
>
> BLOOMINGTON -- A Bloomington attorney compared a $500
> million wind farm set for construction in eastern
> McLean County to a psychedelic disco party that will
> have nearby residents vomiting in their back yards.
>
> In a lawsuit filed last week, attorney Jack Vieley
> accuses the McLean County Board and Horizon Wind
> Energy of ignoring or downplaying the potential
> dangers of the facility, including high voltage,
> cancer risk and noise and shadow pollution, among
> other complaints.
>
> He’s representing Lawrence and Rene Taylor, an
> Ellsworth family living near the future Twin Groves
> Wind Farm. Vieley is seeking an administrative review
> of the project to delay or potentially prohibit
> construction.
>
> Vieley also seeks to force Horizon to pay fair market
> value for his clients’ home, claiming the Taylors’
> quality of life and property value have been
> diminished.
>
> Horizon chief development officer Michael Skelly noted
> the numerous safety and noise assessment studies on
> this project.
>
> They can be viewed online at www.horizonwind.com.
>
> "There are some extensive studies that have been done
> on the impacts of this project. It’s fairly clear that
> we’re not hiding anything from anybody," Skelly said.
>
> "Sometimes people have issues and it’s a subjective
> thing," Skelly said. "We work with a lot of
> (residents) to alleviate these concerns with
> landscaping. The landscaping is typically focused
> around people’s yards so the wind farm is less
> noticeable."
>
> Assistant State’s Attorney Brian Hug said the county
> provided ample notice and time for residents to
> express concerns before the county approved the
> project. The County Board also read an adequate amount
> of research on the safety aspects of the project, he
> said.
>
> Vieley said moving shadows from up to 267 turbines
> will have a hypnotizing effect and likely make nearby
> residents nauseous.
>
> "It has a psychedelic effect. I’ve been to disco
> parties where there are flashing lights or strobe
> lights and people have had to go outside to vomit. I
> think that’s what will happen here. You’ll have people
> vomiting in their back yards," said Vieley, who said
> he expects more Ellsworth residents to join the case.
>
> "If a tornado came through here, you could have mass
> destruction or mass death if one of these things came
> cycling through town," he added. "I’m telling you, if
> some kid gets cut by one of these blades or someone is
> injured, you’ll say, ‘Old Jack wasn’t so crazy.'"
>
> Construction should begin within the next month,
> Skelly said, and the farm should be partially
> operational this fall. The farm is expected to provide
> energy to around 120,000 homes.
>
> http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2...1019768302.txt
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sorry, "OLD Jack" is just crazy.
Charles L. Seaman, Hou., Tx