-- Scotts Contracting - StLouis Renewable Energy

Search This Blog

2.15.2011

Conservation Lobby Day in Missouri Capital



MVC logo


Join us at
CONSERVATION LOBBY DAY
Tuesday March 29, 2011

in Jefferson City

Dear Scotts Contracting,

Join others who care about Missouri's environment at Conservation Lobby Day on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 at the Capitol Building in Jefferson City.  We need many voices to help create sound environmental policy for Missouri. 

Lobby Day brings together concerned citizens from around the state to talk with legislators about environmental issues facing Missouri. You don't have to know a lot about the legislative process, or upcoming bills; you just have to care about protecting Missouri's environment.

This annual event convenes citizens who represent a diversity of conservation interests, from environmentalists, scientists, students and business owners to hunters, anglers and farmers. You will have the chance to meet with lawmakers who hold key positions on various legislative committees, as well as your own state senators and representatives.

MVC is once again co-sponsoring this Lobby Day with Missouri Coalition for the Environment and Missouri Sierra Club.

Register now and save!  Early registration is only $20 ($15 for students with valid ID).  Walk-in registration on March 29 is $25.  To register, visit our website at:

http://www.movotesconservation.org/2011lobbyday.aspx

Your participation will help us:

  • Advance Renewable Energy Policy
  • Protect our Water
  • Support our State Parks
  • Promote Sustainable Buildings

Hope to see you on March 29th!!

Missouri Votes Conservation (MVC) is the only conservation organization in Missouri that represents all sectors of the conservation community, including environmentalists, small business owners, hunters, anglers, scientists, farmers, and students.  It is also the only organization that focuses on the political arena to achieve sound conservation practices.

MVC is a non-partisan, statewide non-profit corporation affiliated with the League of Conservation Voters, a widely respected national organization that advocates for the environment through legislative channels.


thedatabank, inc.






--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com


Don't Let Polluters Gut America's Clean Air Programs



On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Environmental Defense Action Fund <takeaction@edf.org> wrote:

Having trouble using links or viewing images? View the web version.

Environmental Defense Fund: Clear the Air

Dear Scotts Contracting,

America's clean air standards have saved millions of lives, unleashed clean energy innovation, and produced $30 in economic benefits for every $1 invested in pollution limits.

You'd be crazy to mess with such a successful program, right? Well, we're not saying they're crazy, but…

…This week, pro-polluter ideologues in Congress are launching a new stealth attack to defund important clean air programs that protect Americans from dangerous air pollution.

These "polluter earmarks" would do nothing to reduce the deficit and will only serve to promote short-term polluter profits over the health and economic benefits for the rest of the country.

Please take action: Urge your member of Congress to oppose this polluter assault on clean air programs that save lives, encourage innovation, and grow our economy.

More Information

Of all the laws ever passed in American history, few have been more successful than the Clean Air Act. It has done more good more efficiently than even the people who wrote the law ever imagined.

The data speak for themselves. Among many other accomplishments, the Clean Air Act has:

  • Saved 160,000 lives in 2010 and has easily saved millions of lives over the last 40 years;
  • Provided $30 in total economic benefits for every $1 invested in pollution controls;
  • Decreased the level of airborne lead level 92% since 1980; and
  • Cut acid rain pollution by more than 63%.

And all of this has been achieved at a fraction of the cost that even the most optimistic clean air supporters thought possible when the law went into effect in 1970 and was reauthorized in 1990.

But, polluter allies in Congress are turning a blind eye to these overwhelmingly positive public health and economic benefits. They are threatening to hold the government hostage in order to pass their "polluter earmarks" that would defund our clean air programs.

This is not the way common sense government is supposed to be run. We can't let them get away with this outrageous and short-sighted assault on our clean air.

Please email your member of Congress and urge him or her to oppose this pro-polluter agenda.

Thanks for your action and support,
Environmental Defense Action Fund

P.S. There are many new and swing members of Congress on this issue. We need to make sure they know they can't side with polluters without paying a political price. So, please make sure to take action today.

Bookmark and Share

Environmental Defense Action Fund
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20009
1-800-684-3322

4 Stars from Charity Navigator




--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com


2.13.2011

Solar Panel Manufacturing Environmental Costs and Benefits

Article Highlights:
  1. An average 5 kW solar electric installation ... will produce an equivalent of 10 to 12 barrels of oil each year... save about 10,000 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions...similar to planting 20 mature trees annually or driving your car 7,000 miles less a year.
  2. From the first day a PV installation is turned on, it will create clean, green electricity.
  3. negative news you hear about solar is generated from incumbent energy producers- (Big Oil and Big Coal) 
  4. They want us to believe that our current energy infrastructure is the only logical answer when it is clearly not.
  5. PV polycrystalline module will produce enough clean power in about four years to offset the energy required to manufacture it 
  6. After a module is manufactured and installed, it will be a zero emissions energy source for the rest of its life
  7.  30 year life expectancy, almost 90% of the energy generated from the solar panel will be pollution free.

_______________________________

The Environmental Cost of Solar Panel Manufacturing (Original Article WebLink Click Here)

Fossil Fuels Get 12x More Subsidies than Renewable EnergyMany people wonder if the manufacturing processes for photovoltaic solar modules and other PV equipment are harmful to the environment or particularly carbon intensive.  There has also been a lot of negative press that photovoltaic solar panels can be toxic to the environment.  Do the benefits of the energy generated from solar panels outweigh the harmful effects of the manufacturing process?

According to NREL (the National Renewable Energy Laboratory), the truth is a PV polycrystalline module will produce enough clean power in about four years to offset the energy required to manufacture it.  You unfortunately have to consume a little energy to save a lot more.  After a module is manufactured and installed, it will be a zero emissions energy source for the rest of its life.  Over a 30 year life expectancy, almost 90% of the energy generated from the solar panel will be pollution free. 

The major manufacturing input of PV modules is silicon, one of the most abundant elements on earth.  It is easily gathered from the top of the earth's crust and is available all over the world, eliminating the need to transport heavy raw materials. Purifying and crystallizing silicon is the most energy intensive process of manufacturing PV panels.  Energy is also expelled when cutting silicon wafers, processing wafers into cells, and assembling cells into panels.  The industry is moving towards recycling PV modules which will save energy in the reuse of silicon cells and metals.

In regards to the toxicity of solar panels, experts have been discussing the use of chemicals in the manufacturing process.  As a result, the EPA has cited certain panels as toxic and has imposed regulations on employee safety when handling chemicals and the disposal of toxic materials.  This has, in turn, made PV manufacturers more aware of risks and they have implemented standards to make the production safer.

A lot of the negative news you hear about solar is generated from incumbent energy producersThey want us to believe that our current energy infrastructure is the only logical answer when it is clearly not.  From the first day a PV installation is turned on, it will create clean, green electricity.  And, whatever the system generates will reduce its owner's need to purchase "dirty" electricity.  An average 5 kW solar electric installation in Massachusetts or Connecticut will produce an equivalent of 10 to 12 barrels of oil each year.  This would save about 10,000 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions, which would be similar to planting 20 mature trees annually or driving your car 7,000 miles less a year.

Brightstar Solar enables our customers to make their own sustainable solar power safely, dependably, and with an attractive return on investment.  Please contact us if you're interested in a free solar evaluation of your home or business in Massachusetts or Connecticut.



--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com


Example of Green Job Boost and Clean Energy FIT

Article Highlights: 


  1. FiTs are not a tax but rather a redistribution of utility funds to provide a fair return to small energy producers
  2. By avoiding the cost of new transmission, power plants and hefty built in profit margins for utilities, it can save ratepayers plenty, despite its name
  3. Smaller Projects require NO Transmission Lines while delivering a 5% Ratepayer Savings
  4. Effective Policy for Cost-Effective Renewable Energy
  5. The Clean Local Energy/Feed-in Tariff (FiT) policy is designed to do just that by insuring a fair financial return to investors in local, decentralized rooftop PV, wind and other renewable energy.

_________________________________

The green job boost Colorado needs February 11th, 2011 1:59 pm MT

"Smaller projects that can get us there fast with no transmission lines and deliver 5% ratepayer savings. This is the most effective policy in the world for getting cost-effective renewable energy online. It's simple, fair and effective."
                                                           Ted Ko, Associate Executive Director, CLEAN Coalition

Should small renewable energy producers get the same deal as big corporate energy producers?  The Clean Local Energy/Feed-in Tariff (FiT) policy is designed to do just that by insuring a fair financial return to investors in local, decentralized rooftop PV, wind and other renewable energy.

New bill introduced

A new bill introduced by Senator Schwartz and Representatives Vigil and Massey (HB 11-1228) to the Colorado Assembly would promote economic development through the use of distributed renewable energy generation. The bill directs the office of economic development to commission a study of the potential benefits of adopting incentives, such as a CLEAN/FiT style policy, to "increase the amount of distributed generation included in utilities' portfolios for the purpose of job creation and economic development".

The bill requires the study to look at the potential for job creation by region, type of renewable energy source, attraction of new businesses and new capital, expansion of revenue streams for farmers, ranchers, and retirees, and creation of additional tax revenue for the state.  The study will be conducted by an independent entity and funded through gifts, grants, and private donations.

The policy tool has spurred a virtual explosion in renewable energy installations in Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and now Canada.  Germany installed a record 8 Gigawatts in solar power in 2010 alone.

Adoption of a FiT has been much slower in the US, due to strong resistance from investor-owned utilities, including Xcel Energy.

At a 2009 renewable energy conference in Minneapolis, Xcel Energy representatives told the audience, "the honest truth is we earn our returns by building plants and putting them into rate base and making profits on them". A feed-in tariff "takes away that opportunity of utilities to earn on their investments".

Name change

Another reason FiTs have not gone over so well in the US is the name. The term "Feed-in tariff" has led some to misunderstand the policy.  FiTs are not a tax but rather a redistribution of utility funds to provide a fair return to small energy producers.  By avoiding the cost of new transmission, power plants and hefty built in profit margins for utilities, it can save ratepayers plenty, despite its name

Local renewable energy advocates in the US are grappling with a new name for FiTs, because of the vulnerability of the term "tariff" to attack from anti-tax activists and others who either don't understand, or outright oppose parity for small energy producers.

According to FiT expert John Farrell, with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, those who oppose FiTs, "will say this is going to be very expensive.  They'll say you're going to pay 10 times more for electricity", thus feeding misconceptions of costly taxation.

The alternative term, "Clean Local Energy Accessible Now" (CLEAN), has been adopted by some policy proponents in an attempt to avoid these pitfalls and describe the policy more accurately.

Overly studied

The study called for won't be the first study on CLEAN/FiT incentives.  In fact, FiTs have been studied extensively in the US. Some would say almost to death.

Earlier this year the Los Angeles Business Council released a study on how to design an effective FiT based on its application throughout Europe and in a growing number of US communities to accelerate renewable energy development and Co2 reductions.

Unbeknown to many, our own Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Staff prepared a report on FiTS in 2009 that concluded:

"A FiT can be used to accomplish the legal and policy goals of an RPS and can be the driving mechanism enabling utilities to meet their renewable requirements".

The report also concludes that an effective FiT could create jobs, benefit rural areas through community-based renewable energy development, and avoid the need for costly new transmission.

Not to be outdone, the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) in Golden, Colorado also has a lot to say about FiTs.  See: NREL Analysts Dig FiTs

Despite utility opposition, the policy is catching on in a growing number of municipalities and states in the US.

No matter what name it uses, if Colorado gets it right, it could finally have the policy incentive it needs to ignite a real renewable energy revolution that includes all renewable energy producers, large and small and fulfills the green job promise we've all been waiting for.


Article By Cecelia Smith

Ceal Smith is a consultant, writer and resiliency activist who lives in the San Luis Valley. She has a MSci in Ecology and has worked throughout...Read more



Aug 20, 2010
Simpleton Example: if 5 of the 10 Houses on my Block utilize RE Producing Systems. This can lower the need of Electricity Generated by the Electric Company by 1/2 for my Block. With no Transmission Lines Needed

Scott's Contracting

scottscontracting@gmail.com



Connect with Scotts Contracting

FB FB Twitter LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest

Featured Post

Perfect Aircrete, Kitchen Ingredients.