Mary asks…
Does anyone have any online credited renewable energy course recommendations?
I am a stationary engineer by trade and want to add renewable energy coursework to my resume!
The Expert answers:
Go green and save money!
[url=http://gogreen-info.com]Green Renewable Energy[/url]
Lisa asks…
If McCain cares about the environment, why does he oppose renewable energy?
McCain consistently has voted consistently against government support of solar, wind, geothermal, bioenergy, ocean and any other clean energy, with the exception of being strongly for nuclear power.
McCain believes that clean energy like solar and wind are ineffective against climate change. McCain has many times expressed his sincere belief that only nuclear power can reduce greenhouse gases.
McCain refuses to support any carbon cap and trade legislation unless it contains massive nuclear subsidies – more than any other senators are willing to support.
On environmental legislation, McCain voted with James ‘Oil Man Global Warming is a Hoax’ Inhofe 42 out of 44 times, and with Barbara Boxer (most environmentally conscious senator) 1 out of 50 times.
http://www.matternetwork.com/2008/9/mccains-50-votes-against-clean.cfm
McCain has also missed 8 straight votes on extending the renewable energy tax credit, and would have voted against it had he attended.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/20/the-greenwasher-from-arizona-has-a-record-as-dirty-as-the-denier-from-oklahoma/
How can we believe that McCain is concerned about the environment as he claims:
“I have a long record of that support of alternate energy. I come from a state where we have sunshine 360 days a year…. I’ve always been for all of those and I have not missed any crucial vote.”
When his voting record is exactly the opposite of his claims? Do you buy into McCain’s claim that he cares about the environment? Why or why not?
The Expert answers:
I don’t buy into McCain’s claim at all, McCain has absolutely no solid history of supporting truly clean energy sources. I agree with all of the sources that you have selected pointing to the fact that John S. McCain does not really care about the environment except to get votes. It is clearly the trend for politicians to say that they care about the environment in order to win, if any politician runs on a policy that completely ignores the environment they will surely lose. McCain’s positions are for show and are only because this is an election year.
There is one thing that I disagree with that you said, it is that bio-energy is a clean energy source. Bio energy is only a clean energy source when it comes from our waste products, such as vegetable oil from restaurants or biological waste generated from food or other sources. If we go and take corn and turn that into fuel, we are reducing the amount of food available to the world as well was creating more pollutants such as fertilizer and pesticides in order to grow enough corn to feed our fuel needs as well as the world. If you make the calculation for the conversion of all of the corn we produce in the United States into ethanol, we would only be able to cover 1/5 of our needs for transportation, this does not even cover for our needs in electricity generation.
The calculation:
13000000000 bushels of corn produced every year
2.85gal ethanol per bushel
37050000000 gallons of ethanol a year
210435275000 motor gasoline used in the United states each year
37050000000/210435275000 = .17 -> 17% of transportation needs met
this is under the false assumption that ethanol is just as efficient or even more efficient than gasoline.
Charles asks…
Fossil fuel subsidies 12 times more than renewable energy subsidies – what’s wrong with this picture?
“Governments last year gave $43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the $557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-12-times-support-for-renewables-study-shows.html
So aside from the fact that fossil fuels are artificially cheap as we don’t pay for the externalities (global warming, ocean acidification, etc.), on top of that they also get 12 times more subsidies than renewable energy.
And yet conservatives oppose putting a price on carbon emissions. What’s wrong with this picture?
Carson, you are simply wrong.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6103RM20100201
The Expert answers:
Let’s clarify the topic and discuss what oil we’re talking about. With approximately one-fifth of the world’s proven oil reserves and some of the lowest production costs, Saudi Arabia is expected to remain the world’s largest net oil exporter in the near and long-term.
Even some portion of the cost of our military presence in the Gulf is typically included in the “oil subsidy” figures:
“Quantifying the national security costs associated with ensuring the safe and reliable delivery of foreign oil is difficult. The Congressional Research Service estimated in 1997 that those costs may be anywhere between $0.5-65 billion, or 1.5 cents to 30 cents per gallon for motor fuel from the Persian Gulf. Agreement about the extent of the military’s ‘oil mission’ is difficult because military and foreign policy expenditures are generally tasked with multiple missions and objectives, and oil security is simply one mission of many. Analysts disagree about how to divide those missions into budgetary terms.”
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/01/18/how-large-are-federal-oil-subsidies/
Due to the Bush family’s close ties with the Saudi royal family, for the past 2 decades much of the energy policy and foreign policy in the United States has been centered around doing favors for them, like inexplicably attacking their enemy Iraq, even though it was 15 Saudis who attacked America on 9/11.
Once the war broke out, Saudi Arabian citizens continued to attack us where we were closest and most convenient… In Iraq.
“Of 1,200 suspected suicide bombers arrested by Syrian authorities since the beginning of the war in 2003, 85 percent have been Saudis.” (2005)
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?53217-The-Devil-You-Think-You-Know
So why is the U.S. Doing all of this? You can be sure that out of those billions in oil subsidies allocated by our elected officials, a healthy flow of cash returns to line their pockets in the form of so-called “campaign contributions” which they are free to pocket and use as they please.
“I summon my blue-eyed slaves anytime it pleases me. I command the Americans to send me their bravest soldiers to die for me. Anytime I clap my hands a stupid genie called the American ambassador appears to do my bidding. When the Americans die in my service their bodies are frozen in metal boxes by the US Embassy and American airplanes carry them away, as if they never existed. Truly, America is my favorite slave.” King Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz, Jeddeh 1993
So how much does it cost to buy an oil-friendly, Saudi-friendly Congress?
A while ago I ran across statistics stating that Senator James Inhofe alone had accepted over $500,000 from the fossil fuel industry. Do you suppose that his vote on oil subsidies might possibly have a statistically significant alignment with those contributions? Hmm, I wonder…
Lets live in the real world for a moment, and not kid ourselves and dream that this is about right or wrong.
We either need to outlaw bribery and properly categorize it as treason and a hangable offense, or the renewable energy industry needs to ante up and pay off all of Congress in an amount competitive with the fossil fuel industry’s payoffs. Half a mil to every outstretched hand, requiring a budget of roughly $300 million, may be required before renewable energy can be seriously discussed at the bargaining table.
Of course our Saudi benefactors and other cumulative forces of Big Oil would respond and raise the stakes, and our civil servants will draw out the battle for years to milk the competition for all its worth before doing anything that might end their windfall cash flow. So the total budget required to see this issue through to the first healthy discussion will probably be over $5-10 billion, just in politician payoffs (not counting additional tens to hundreds of billions in pork barrel projects they’ll require as well on any related bills, to additionally reward their friends and donors).
Let’s face it, our current system of government is extremely corrupt, and the disconnect between politicians and the public good is only getting worse. You’ll have to change the system (start by outlawing bribery) before you’ll get any different results. What have you done to move that sort of change forward?
Political parties are simply a red herring to give us teams to root for; aside from their propaganda and marketing slogans, they’re identical. Neither party proposes to do anything about illegal immigration and the associated rampant identity and healthcare fraud which is bankrupting us. Neither party cares that 400,000 ADDITIONAL H1-B visas are issued for a term of 3 years, easily extended to 6, to legally put up to 2.4 million Americans out of work each year, simply because that foreign labor costs less.
The problem is rampant, systemic corruption, not one political party or the other. Solve the problem (campaign financing), then we can make some progress on the symptoms (including counterproductive resource allocation).
Robert asks…
First cap and trade and now blocking renewable energy – are Republicans becoming the UnGreen Party?
With gas prices now averaging a record $4.04 a gallon in the United States, the Senate voted on two bills Tuesday that would have revoked tax breaks for Big Oil and extended tax credits to renewable energy. Proponents of the two measures touted them as vital for consumer relief and transition to new energy sources, but both measures failed to muster the 60 votes needed to proceed.
The first vote, on the Consumer First Energy Act, fell short of cloture by a vote of 51-43. The second, on the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, failed by a vote of 50-44. Both votes fell largely along party lines.
Trade organizations that represent renewable–energy firms on the Hill say they’re already seeing a slowing of growth in the sector because companies are hesitant to start new projects without the assurance that these credits will be available.
http://gristmill.grist.org/tag/Muckraker/
With Senate Republicans now blocking renewable energy, are they becoming the UnGreens?
The Expert answers:
Yeah, they’re the anti-greens and always have been. Except for maybe Teddy Roosevelt.
Come November we are going to see a landslide of historic proportions.
Lets hope the Dems keep their heads and don’t blow a historic opportunity.
We subsidize everything under the sun, except for the stuff that matters. If we took subsidies away from oil, airlines, highways and agriculture and let the “free market” work, suddenly alternative energy and local economies would look very attractive.
Edit:
I wish they would have let some first graders in on the Bush-Cheney energy bill. They probably would have done a better job. Lord knows they wouldn’t let anyone else look at it.
Http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13980
Mandy asks…
Renewable energy federal tax credit and home ownership?
This is a rather complex issue I’m trying to work out. My goal is to take advantage of both the federal and state renewable energy incentives by purchasing a PV system for my parents home ~ (my legal inheritance), who live in PA where there is currently a generous state grant which stacks (fairly certain) with the Fed. tax credit. I currently work in NC where I’m renting an apartment.
I have no intention of touching real estate right now so buying my own place is out of the question.
This is the complication. To get the state grant, you must own a home in PA, so my solution is to have my folks deal with the solar installer and claim the grant. However, they do not make enough taxable income to benefit from the rather large 30% federal credit, so I would have to somehow take this credit on my own taxes, which would put the money back in my pocket in 1, maybe 2 fiscal years.
Problem is, the Federal credit requires you to be a homeowner (anywhere) in the United States to claim the residential tax credit. Would it be possible for my father to somehow add me to the house deed as a joint/family owner and enable me to claim the federal credit on my taxes? IRS form # 5695. I am very unfamiliar with how joint home ownership works, so I’d appreciate a knowledgeable answer.
In case it matters, my parents are both alive and legally married.
And anyone tax-savy enough to tell me 100% if joint-ownership would qualify me or not?
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/in_the_news/10475/pa_sunshine_solar_program/553019
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US37F&re=1&ee=1
This question will be a mute point after July 2010.
The Expert answers:
” means an expenditure for property which uses solar energy to generate electricity for use in a dwelling unit located in the United States and used as a residence by the taxpayer.”
You don’t own the house. While you expect to inherit it someday, it’s NOT yours.
Even if your father adds you to the title, it’s still not your principal residence, it’s theirs.
The obvious complication is that you want a tax credit you are not entitled to. Your parents don’t need the tax credit (it only reduces taxes, it doesn’t create a refundable credit).
Powered by Yahoo! Answers