tax credits


Yah right. That is so laughable. Even after they announced that they were going to try to bring 5 nuclear plants on line there were no commercial backers and so the price went up before they even started. It has been all downhill since then.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/news-guide-building-nuclear-power-plants-16750327#.T_2tBZGkNyU

News Guide: Nuclear Industry Facing Cost Pressures

By The Associated Press
July 10, 2012 (AP)

Q: How many nuclear plants are under construction in the U.S.?

A: Three. Two nuclear reactors are being built at Plant Vogtle in eastern Georgia. Two more reactors are under construction at Plant Summer in central South Carolina. A fifth reactor mothballed in 1985 is being finished at Plant Watts Bar in Tennessee.

Q: How often are nuclear plants built?

A: The last nuclear plant built in the United States was the existing reactor finished at Watts Bar in 1996.

Q: How much does a nuclear plant cost?

A: Billions of dollars. Nuclear plants are among the most complicated and expensive infrastructure projects in the world. The plants require incredible amounts of design and engineering work and must be built to exacting safety standards. Federal inspectors can require that parts of the plant be ripped out and replaced if they don’t meet muster. The plants require huge amounts of metal, concrete, cables and wires. Building two Westinghouse Electric Co. AP1000 reactors at Plant Vogtle is supposed to cost roughly $14 billion, though the final expenses could be more.

:}

Go there and read the rest. More tomorrow.

:}

This Blog on frugality is pretty funny and maybe not for the Joe Sixpack crowd. Things like Retiring In Panama may miss them. But the post about living on food stamps was pretty informative and funny.

http://www.debtfreebythirty.net/2012/02/festival-of-frugality-superheroes-are.html

Festival of Frugality: Superheroes Are Frugal Too Edition

Hello and welcome to the 325th edition of the Festival of Frugality. The Festival of Frugality highlights personal finance posts that deal with how to pinch those pennies or save that dollar.

I am a sucker for a theme for my festivals or carnivals and while I was tempted to do a leap year facts edition it just wasn’t exciting enough for my blood. So superheroes it is. Because what’s more exciting than superheroes? It also occurred to me that superheroes are quite frugal and who hasn’t sometimes thought that superpowers are needed to stay on the path of frugality.

Editor’s Super Picks

Smart Family Finance has pretty convincing financial reasons to get rid of your junk. There are so may reasons to get rid of your “junk”. It’s nice to have one that will put cash in your wallet too.

Annabelle from Shopping Detox gives her city a frugal audit. This really has me thinking about my own town.

A. Blinkin from Funancials entertains us as usual with how do you judge value?

 

:}

Go there and read about Wolverine and Batman at least. More next week.

:}

Nuff said.

 

http://www.agr.state.il.us/isf/

CARNIVAL SPECIAL
NEW THIS YEAR- The Illinois State Fair will be offering Bargain Bracelets for all rides (excluding Giant Slide and SkyGlide). It will be conveniently available for purchase at the Carnival and Adventure Village when you arrive to enjoy the fair. This Bargain Bracelet will replace Children’s Miracle Network Wristbands.

Thursday, August 11 “Deuce Day” All rides $2.00
Experience unlimited rides with a Bargain Bracelet for $25.00!
Friday, August 12 12-6 PM
Monday, August 15 12-11 PM
Tuesday, August 16 12-11 PM
Wednesday, August 17 12-11 PM
Thursday, August 18 12-11 PM
Friday, August 19 12-6 PM
Sunday, August 21 NOON-10 PM

Grandstand reserved seats and track tickets on sale Saturday, April 30, 2011, 10:00 a.m. at ticketmaster.com and Ticketmaster Phone centers (800-745-3000, TTY-800-359-2525) and all Ticketmaster outlets. Grandstand ticket office will accept Mail Orders starting Monday, May 30, 2011. Grandstand box office will open for walk-up sales starting June 4, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. All adults and children 3 years of age and older MUST have a ticket for Concerts.MAIL ORDER WILL BE ACCEPTED – after May 30, 2011 at: The Illinois State Fair Ticket Office, P.O. Box 19427, Springfield, IL 62794-9427.

Order tickets via U.S. mail with our order form.

:}

More tomorrow maybe.

:}

At least that is what the folks at SunWize claim.

http://www.sunwize.com/aboutsw/sunwize-solar-energy-index.php

SunWize headquarters and East Coast distribution facility in Kingston, NY

What Can SunWize Do For You?

From manufactured specialty modules to prepackaged units to site installed systems to an extensive component inventory, SunWize meets your power needs using photovoltaic (PV) technology. Our solar electric systems supply reliable power where and when you need it. We design our products and systems for maximum efficiency and minimum on-site construction time and operation costs.

Products

Our pre-assembled systems are complete, fully integrated power supplies designed to meet the requirements of your project. All systems are easy to order, factory assembled, and simple to install and commission. We design custom systems and products to satisfy specific load and environmental requirements. SunWize, the premier solar electric distributor in the USA, also supplies a large selection of solar modules and balance of system components to its network of solar dealers and installers.

Solar Energy Design Services

For over 25 years, PV has been used extensively as a distributed power source for industrial equipment located “off the grid”. PV systems are powering a variety of loads, such as microwave and fiber optic repeaters, instrumentation, RTU/SCADA, cathodic protection, rural telephony and traffic safety. Since many of these projects include a variety of requirements and special considerations, we offer the following project services:
– Site Analysis – Specification Preparation
– Personnel Training – Turnkey Installation
– Installation Supervision – O&M Manual Preparation
– System Commissioning – O&M/Service Contract

West Coast Solar Distribution FacilitySunWize West Coast distribution facility in Rancho Cucamonga, CA.

SunWize Offers Reliable Solar Energy Solutions for Electric Power

SunWize Technologies, Inc. is backed by the reputation and financial stability of its parent company , one of the world’s oldest and largest trading companies with 864 subsidiaries in over 91 countries. Read the .

SunWize Facilities

Our engineering and manufacturing activities are housed in a 30,000 square foot (2,787 sq. M.) facility in Kingston, New York (photo at left) that also serves as our corporate headquarters, main distribution facility and the center of operations for the Industrial Power Group. The building is designed for the indoor outfitting of large telecommunication shelters and walk-in enclosures, independent of weather conditions.

Our Kingston facility also contains a comprehensive research and development laboratory facilitates new product development offering our customers more solutions to remote power problems. The Custom Solar Module lab was specifically designed for our proprietary manufacturing process.

In 2008, SunWize moved the Distributed Power Group headquarters to San Jose, California where it currently conducts it’s Product Distribution, Residential Systems and Commercial Systems operations. The Residential Power Systems Division, headquartered in San Jose, currently focuses on providing design, engineering, and installation services for residential and small commercial customers in California and Oregon and operates five regional offices. The Commercial Power Systems Division provides similar services to large commercial, government and industrial customers nationwide, with projects over 50kW.

In December 2007, SunWize acquired the former GenSelf Corporation – the largest solar electric installer with offices in the Coachella Valley and is currently headquartered in Tustin, California. The Residential Power Systems Division has also recently expanded its operations into Oregon. The first branch is located in Philomath near Corvallis, and serves the Interstate 5 corridor between Eugene and Portland and throughout the Willamette Valley.

For the convenience of our customers, we also maintain a 71,000 square foot (6,596 sq. M.) distribution warehouse in Rancho Cucamonga, California (photo left), providing same day shipping on the West Coast. We retain nineteen sales offices in the United States, and offices in Canada to support our solar customers in North America, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa. We offer our customers in Latin America a Spanish language catalog, and dedicated field office.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Since Evan got me started on transportation I figure we might as well stick with it for awhile. This from Mother Earth News. The obvious suspects are the Leaf, the Volt and the Prius. You will have to go read the article for their reveiws but here is the lead in.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/2011-best-green-cars-zm0z11zroc.aspx

Best Green Cars, 2011

The hybrid car that changed the world • The electric cars that will change the world • $1,000s in rebates and incentives • 40 mpg for the long haul • All-electric daily driving • 38 mpg with smiles • $2.75 to recharge • No range anxiety • 35 mpg with zip

June/July 2011

By John Rockhold

Back in 2000, Toyota released the Prius, a gasoline-electric hybrid, in the United States. That year, the average price of gas was just $1.49, yet here was a quirky little car that touted 40-plus mpg. A 2004 redesign gave the Prius even better mpg and its iconic shape, and it became so popular Toyota couldn’t keep up with demand. Today, the Prius is the most successful hybrid by far and has basically come to define “green car.” It’s no surprise, then, that the Prius is back among the annual MOTHER EARTH NEWS Best Green Cars.

Have you ever wondered what the heck “Prius” actually means? It’s a Latin word meaning “to go before.” Toyota chose it to signify that the car and its hybrid technology would be a precursor of the energy-efficient cars of the future?—?which has certainly proved true, given the numerous hybrids released by Toyota and others. However, it’s the two all-electric cars on our 2011 list that herald the next revolution in green transportation.

Yes, practical and accessible electric cars from major automakers are finally here. Neither electric car is perfect, but the Prius wasn’t either back in 2000. Of the many features that make the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf compelling, their driving range and cost to own are what may make them most appealing. The Leaf has a range of about 100 miles, depending on driving conditions. The Volt has a shorter all-electric range, but uses a gas engine to power its two electric motors when needed for a total range of about 375 miles.

Sick of paying about $50 to fill the tank of your gas car? How does $2 to $3 sound? Given the national average cost of electricity (11 cents per kilowatt-hour), that’s about what you would pay to “fill up” an electric car by recharging it overnight. And if you’re curious about the environmental costs of gasoline versus fossil fuel electricity, read Why Electric Cars Are Cleaner. In short, while there is regional variability, electric cars are cleaner than gas cars. That said, the ultimate solution is to recharge with renewable energy.

The three other vehicles that make up our 2011 Best Green Cars are revolutionary in their own right: The Ford Fiesta has the best blend of affordability and efficiency; the Honda CR-Z proves that hybrids can be fun to drive; and the Jetta TDI is the best example of clean diesel’s efficiency and workhorse longevity.

Whether you own one of these six cars now, later or never, you’ll benefit from them. They’re making mobility greener, reducing our dependence on oil, and instigating more innovation in the auto industry. In this new era of green car competition, we’re all winners.

Best Green Cars: Keys to the Data and the Experts

Base Price: the manufacturer’s suggested retail price + destination fee

EPA Gas Mileage: official fuel economy estimates (your mileage may vary)

Annual Fuel Cost: assumes $3.75/gallon regular gasoline; $3.95/gallon premium gasoline; $3.97/gallon diesel; $0.11 per kilowatt-hour of electricity; 15,000 miles driven annually at 55% city, 45% highway

Air Pollution Score: from the EPA; zero = most tailpipe emissions, 10 = least

Greenhouse Gas Score: from the EPA; zero = most greenhouse gas emissions, 10 = least

ACEEE Green Score: from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy; the higher the score, the better; best 2011 score is 54; see www.GreenerCars.org

Brad Berman: founder and editor, www.HybridCars.com and www.PluginCars.com

Terry Penney: program manager for advanced vehicle technologies at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Ron Cogan: editor and publisher, Green Car Journal

Todd Kaho: executive editor, Green Car Journal and editor of www.FrugalDriver.com

Chelsea Sexton: founder, Lightning Rod Foundation; electric car advocate

James Kliesch: research director for the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists

Jim Motavalli: author of High Voltage: The Fast Track to Plug in the Auto Industry

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

The Finns found this out real quick when they started their new Nuke 5 years ago costs estimates were 4 billion $$$. Right now they are at 7 billion $$$ and the meter is still turning. Even with 8 billion $$$ of backing for the two new reactors at the Vogle site Georgia Power could get no money in the private sector so they are “self financing”. Anybody want to buy a cheap power company someday? But this was the wind blowing through the trees in 2003 (and you should see the 2009 update for a good laugh) when we had a President that couldn’t even pronounce the word nuclear right.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

Introduction

An interdisciplinary MIT faculty group decided to study the future of nuclear power because of a belief that this technology is an important option for the United States and the world to meet future energy needs without emitting carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants. Other options include increased efficiency, renewables, and carbon sequestration, and all may be needed for a successful greenhouse gas management strategy. This study, addressed to government, industry, and academic leaders, discusses the interrelated technical, economic, environmental, and political challenges facing a significant increase in global nuclear power utilization over the next half century and what might be done to overcome those challenges.

This study was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and by MIT’s Office of the Provost and Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.

News Release

MIT RELEASES INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY ON “THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY”

Professors John Deutch and Ernest Moniz Chaired Effort to Identify Barriers and Solutions for Nuclear Option in Reducing Greenhouse Gases

July 29, 2003

Washington, D.C. — A distinguished team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard released today what co-chair Dr. John Deutch calls “the most comprehensive, interdisciplinary study ever conducted on the future of nuclear energy.”

The report maintains that “The nuclear option should be retained precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power.”

“Fossil fuel-based electricity is projected to account for more than 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020,” said Deutch. “In the U.S. 90% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation come from coal-fired generation, even though this accounts for only 52% of the electricity produced. Taking nuclear power off the table as a viable alternative will prevent the global community from achieving long-term gains in the control of carbon dioxide emissions.”

But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.

The study examines a growth scenario where the present deployment of 360 GWe of nuclear capacity worldwide is expanded to 1000 GWe in mid-century, keeping nuclear’s share of the electricity market about constant. Deployment in the U.S. would expand from about 100 GWe today to 300 GWe in mid-century. This scenario is not a prediction, but rather a study case in which nuclear power would make a significant contribution to reducing CO2 emissions.

“There is no question that the up-front costs associated with making nuclear power competitive, are higher than those associated with fossil fuels,” said Dr. Moniz. “But as our study shows, there are many ways to mitigate these costs and, over time, the societal and environmental price of carbon emissions could dramatically improve the competitiveness of nuclear power”

The study offers a number of recommendations for making the nuclear energy option viable, including:

  • Placing increased emphasis on the once-through fuel cycle as best meeting the criteria of low costs and proliferation resistance;
  • Offering a limited production tax-credit to ‘first movers’ – private sector investors who successfully build new nuclear plants. This tax credit is extendable to other carbon-free electricity technologies and is not paid unless the plant operates;
  • Having government more fully develop the capabilities to analyze life-cycle health and safety impacts of fuel cycle facilities;
  • Advancing a U.S. Department of Energy balanced long-term waste management R&D program.
  • Urging DOE to establish a Nuclear System Modeling project that would collect the engineering data and perform the analysis necessary to evaluate alternative reactor concepts and fuel cycles using the criteria of cost, safety, waste, and proliferation resistance. Expensive development projects should be delayed pending the outcome of this multi-year effort.
  • Giving countries that forego proliferation- risky enrichment and reprocessing activities a preferred position to receive nuclear fuel and waste management services from nations that operate the entire fuel cycle.

The authors of the study emphasized that nuclear power is not the only non-carbon option and stated that they believe it should be pursued as a long term option along with other options such as the use of renewable energy sources, increased efficiency, and carbon sequestration..

The members of the study team are: John Deutch (co-chair), Ernest Moniz (co-chair), S. Ansolabehere, Michael Driscoll, Paul Gray, John Holdren (Harvard), Paul Joskow, Richard Lester, and Neil Todreas.

Members of the Advisory Committee included: former U.S. Congressman Phil Sharp (chair), former White House Chiefs of Staff John Podesta and John Sununu, John Ahearne, Tom Cochran, Linn Draper, Ted Greenwood, John MacWilliams, Jessica Mathews, Zack Pate, and Mason Willrich.

This study was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and by MIT’s Office of the Provost and Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.

CONTACTS: David Dreyer / Eric London
PHONE: 202-986-0033

Related Links

MIT ENERGY INITIATIVE (MITei)

DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING (NSE)

CENTER FOR ADVANCED NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS (CANES)

CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY RESEARCH (CEEPR)

:}

Really amazing stuff. More tomorrow.

:}

All these new builds include some form of solar planning. Either in orientation, or window protection, or solar electric generation, the sun is never far from these planners minds.

http://www.hgtvpro.com/hpro/green_building/article/0,3142,HPRO_27916_6024083,00.html

Five Models of Energy Efficiency: A Guide to Beautiful, Energy-Efficient Homes

Five US builders are being honored for their exceptional achievements in high performance building at the second annual BASF Builders Challenge Awards.

Led by the U.S Department of Energy (DOE), the Builders Challenge is working with homebuilders across America to build a new generation of high-performance homes, working toward the ultimate goal of providing cost-effective, net-zero energy homes by 2030 for all Americans.

To qualify for the Builders Challenge, homes must meet at least a 70 on the EnergySmart Home Scale (E-Scale) — which means they must use at least 30 percent less energy than a typical new home built to code.

2010 BUILDERS CHALLENGE AWARDEES
Colorado Builder’s Net-Zero-Energy House Costs Just 7% to 8% More

Ecofutures Building Inc. developed four certified Builders Challenge homes (two with minus-three HERS ratings). These net-zero-energy measures represented only 7% to 8% of the total building cost.

See how they did it so cost-effectively >>

Treating the Home as a Whole System

By treating houses as a complete system, David Weekley Homes qualified 280 homes for the Builders Challenge with HERS scores averaging 67. The homes ranged from 1,500 to 5,500 square feet.

Get better results by treating the house as a whole system >>

College Students’ Habitat for Humanity Home

Yavapai College students built a Habitat for Humanity house that achieved the remarkably low HERS score of minus-three. Their 1,207-square-foot home cost only $92 per sq. ft. cost to build.

Learn how the students got it done >>

Homebuilder Adds Net Zero Energy Upgrade Package

Artistic Homes of Albuquerque offers a net-zero-energy upgrade option on all their homes. They’ve completed and sold 11 true net-zero-energy homes ranging from 1,305 to 2,905 square feet and costing between $160,000 and $300,000.

Find out about the upgrade option >>

Builder Promises Zero Energy Bill for Five Years

Tim O’Brien, a fanatic about eliminating air infiltration, actually got $400 back from the utility the first month after construction was finished. He guarantees a zero energy cost for the first 5 years on his home.

See what makes this builder so confident >>

:}

More next week.

:}

But will they do any good? I am not sure if I agree with this analysis but it is pretty detailed. Please go see the rest here:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_17767977?nclick_check=1

Will buying an electric car make an environmental difference?

Sure, you might get a carpool sticker and a tax break. But if you buy an electric car, will it make much environmental difference?

Experts say that depends on three factors: What were you driving before? How is your electricity generated? And how many other electric cars are going to be sold?

In many cases, people who trade gasoline-powered cars for electric ones won’t be dramatically lessening the smog they emit. But when it comes to global warming, even when emissions from generating the electricity are taken into account, electric vehicles have a much smaller carbon footprint than gas-powered vehicles because they are much more efficient. However, it will take a decade or more until enough electric vehicles are on the road to make a significant impact.

“If you have a person who is driving a nice, newer car, having them switch to an electric car, there isn’t going to be much benefit in reducing smog,” said Tom Cahill, a professor emeritus of physics at UC Davis. “But there could be a whole lot of gain in climate change.”

Because all-electric vehicles like the Nissan Leaf burn no fossil fuels, and plug-in hybrids like the Chevy Volt burn only small amounts of gasoline, tailpipe emissions from electric cars are basically zero. In smoggy cities like Los Angeles, driving one on summer days may actually clean the air because the tailpipe emissions contain less pollution than the air.

Yet most people currently buying electric cars weren’t driving old, smog-belching vehicles. They are often affluent motorists who drove newer-model gasoline cars. And because California has for 50 years had the toughest tailpipe standards in the nation, a 2010 gasoline-burning car puts out only 2 percent or less of the pollution spewed by a 1980s model.

Along with the national-security benefits of reducing America’s use of foreign oil, the main societal benefit of electric cars might be their dramatically smaller global warming footprint.

A 2008 study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, which include emissions from both manufacturing and operating a vehicle, are 32 percent less from plug-in hybrids than from gasoline-powered cars.

That finding was based on America’s electricity mix: 45 percent of U.S. electricity is generated from coal, 23 percent from natural gas, 20 percent from nuclear, and 12 percent from dams, solar, wind and other sources.

The global warming footprint of electric cars varies by region. Some states get nearly all their electricity from coal, the most polluting fuel. But only 15 percent of California’s electricity comes from coal, nearly all imported from other states, with 46 percent from natural gas, 15 percent from nuclear power, and 24 percent from dams, solar, wind and other sources.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

I typed in “best way to avert a nuclear disaster” thinking that I might get a joke or something other then Japan’s smoking nukes. I was wrong but this guy is pretty insightful.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article26916.html

Nuclear Power Industry Praying Japan Will Avert a Nuclear Disaster

Stock-Markets / Nuclear Power Mar 14, 2011 – 10:59 AM

By: Martin_D_Weiss

Explosions and meltdowns at nuclear reactors in Japan this past weekend will forever change the world of energy.

Authorities have already scheduled widespread power outages starting today — and they could continue the planned outages for weeks or even months.

Nuclear power plant explosion in Fukushima, Japan, on Saturday, following that nation's strongest earthquake in history.
Nuclear power plant explosion in Fukushima, Japan, on Saturday, following that nation’s strongest earthquake in history.

But that’s just a metaphor for the sustained global energy shortages that are likely, as the safety and long-term viability of nuclear power comes under more intense scrutiny than at any time in history.

How do we know that’s the likely outcome?

Because prior nuclear disasters, such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, had a major long-term impact on nuclear plant construction.

Moreover, those two disasters were ultimately written off to antiquated facilities or poor safety precautions. In contrast, the Japanese nuclear industry prides itself on safety, and the plants struck by the earthquake had far better staff training and equipment, including multiple back-up systems, all of which failed.

Some nuclear experts will counter that newer and safer technologies now exist or can be developed. But given the history of similar promises in the past, those are bound to fall on deaf ears.

The public will now ask …

Is there a fundamental incompatibility between the potential dangers of nuclear energy and the unpredictable wrath of Mother Nature?

That question defies any quick answer and could take years to resolve. Until then, further growth in nuclear power production could be drastically reduced, with potentially far-reaching consequences:

  • Chronic global energy shortages, especially in countries that were counting on new nuclear energy for a large portion of their electric power.
  • Massive, long-term upward pressure on crude oil prices as producers, consumers, and investors upwardly revise their forecasts of fossil fuel demand.
  • Vast sums of investor money diverted from nuclear power plant construction to other alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, and bio-fuels.

:}

Still battling viruses. So hopefully more tomorrow.

:}

OK I can only take this for another day and I am done. These guys really do not know what they are talking about. They make up numbers that have no basis in this universe, and the reality is they only survive because they take huge amounts of industry money.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Newt_Gingrich_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Newt Gingrich on Energy & Oil

Former Republican Representative (GA-6) and Speaker of the House

Kyoto treaty is bad for the environment and bad for America

Kyoto is a bad treaty. It is bad for the environment and it is bad for America. It sets standards that will require massive investments by the US but virtually no investments by other countries. The Senate was right when it voted unanimously against the treaty. We should insist on revisiting the entire Kyoto process and resolutely reject efforts to force us into an anti-American, environmentally failed treaty.

The US should support substantial research into climate science, managing the response to climate change, & in developing new non-carbon energy systems. It is astounding to watch people blithely propose trillions of dollars in spending on a topic on which we have failed to spend modest amounts to better understand.

It is astounding to have people focus myopically on carbon as the sole source of climate change. The world’s climate has changed in the past with sudden speed and dramatic impact. Global warming may happen. On the other hand it is possible Europe will experience another ice age.

Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org Dec 1, 2006

Focus on incentives for conservation & renewable resources

A sound American energy policy would focus on four areas: basic research to create a new energy system that has few environmental side effects, incentives for conservation, more renewable resources, and environmentally sound development of fossil fuels. The Bush administration has approached energy environmentalism the right way, including using public-private partnerships that balance economic costs and environmental gain.

Hydrogen has the potential to provide energy that has no environmental downside. Conservation is the second great opportunity in energy. A tax credit to subsidize energy efficient cars (including a tax credit for turning in old and heavily polluting cars) is another idea we should support. Renewable resources are gradually evolving to meet their potential: from wind generator farms to solar power to biomass conversion. Continued tax credits and other advantages for renewable resources are a must.

Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org Dec 1, 2006

Stop scare tactics about drilling in Alaska

It is time for an honest debate about drilling and producing in places like Alaska, our national forests, and off the coast of scenic areas. The Left uses scare tactics from a different era to block environmentally sound production of raw materials. Three standards should break through this deadlock.

  1. Scientists of impeccable background should help set the standards for sustaining the environment in sensitive areas, and any company entering the areas should be bonded to meet those standards.
  2. The public should be informed about new methods of production that can meet the environmental standards, and any development should be only with those new methods.
  3. A percentage of the revenues from resources generated in environmentally sensitive areas should be dedicated to environmental activities including biodiversity sustainment, land acquisition, and environmental cleanups in places where there are no private resources that can be used to clean up past problems.

Source: Gingrich Communications website, www.newt.org Dec 1, 2006

Gas tax sounds OK in DC, but not outside Beltway

When the Bush Administration tried to convince me that a gasoline tax increase would be okay and would barely be noticed, I tested the theory with two phone calls. First I called my mother-in-law in Leetonia, Ohio, and then I called my older daughter in Greensboro, North Carolina. My mother-in-law is retired, at the time, aged 75. She has a lot of friends who live on limited incomes, and driving happens to be one of their pleasures. She was personally against the idea of a gas tax increase, and she thought the idea would go down very badly with her friends. Then I called my daughter Kathy. She runs a small business, and her husband is the tennis coach at the university. Her reaction was, to put it mildly, scathing. “What planet do they live on?” she asked. She thought such a tax increase was the very antithesis of why people had elected the Republicans. After those two conversations, any doubts I may have had simply vanished, and I opposed the tax increase. Source: Lessons Learned the Hard Way, by Newt Gingrich, p. 29-30 Jul 2, 1998

  • Click here for definitions & background information on Energy & Oil.
  • Click here for policy papers on Energy & Oil.
  • :}

    God what slime. More tomorrow.

    :}

    Next Page »