-- Scotts Contracting - StLouis Renewable Energy

Search This Blog

7.27.2010

Do-It-Yourself Energy Audit

Do-It-Yourself Energy Audit: Go On, Try These Improvements Yourself!

Whether you Do-It-Yourself or choose to hire outside assistance, Build Green and do your part in reducing the US Oil Dependency- while becoming an Energy Wise User of Electricity!

If you find outside Assistance is needed-Scotts Contracting if available to Help. Scotty will provide a Cost Effective solution to your Home or Business Energy Needs. Click Here to Email Scotty for a No-Cost Free Green Site Inspection
Home Energy Audit Do-It-Yourself
bullet

What is a Do-It-Yourself Home Energy Audit

As a homeowner you can easily perform your own home energy audit as there are many improvements that thousands and thousands of Americans have made in their homes to save energy. Below we have compiled a list of the critical areas in your home for you to inspect and take action on to fix in order to save energy. All of these suggestions require you to walk around your home and see how your home stacks up, then make the appropriate small home improvement.
bullet

D-I-Y Home Audit Checklist

HOME AREA
WHAT IS WASTING ENERGY?
HOW TO SAVE ENERGY?
1
Lighting
Incandescent or halogen Light bulbs; lights turned on all the time
Switch to Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs or LEDs; turn off lights in rooms that you're not using
2
Water Heater & Piping
Un-insulated
Upgrade or install insulation
3
Water Heater Thermostat Setting
Set to 125 °F
Set to 120 °F or lower
4
Electronics and small appliances
Left on when not using, plugged directly into outlets (but still using electric power even when turned off!)
Plug all electronics and appliances into power strips that you turn off when not in use (turning off power strip completely shuts off power use)
5
Heating & Cooling Equipment
Older than 10-12 years
Time to replace with energy efficient equipment; Install programmable thermostat; make sure air conditioner has proper amount of refrigerant
6
Forced Air Furnace
Dirty, old filter on the air intake
Replace or clean air intake filter once every 1-2 months during high use season
7
Electrical outlets, windows and window frames, baseboards, doors, attic hatch and wall/window mounted air conditioners
Air flowing in due to gaps or deteriorating of exterior caulking or weather stripping*
Apply new caulking, seal or weather stripping**
8
Exposed faucets, pipes, electric outlets and wiring
Cracks and holes in the mortar, foundation, and siding
Seal effectively with mortar or caulking to prevent any heat loss
9
Attic floor
Poorly insulated floor with gaps, thin insulation
Upgrade or install insulation including the attic hatch cover
10
Attic vents
Vent and interior air flow blocked by insulation
Clear vents of any insulation to help interior air circulation
11
All exterior corners of home; where siding and chimneys meet; and areas where the foundation and siding meet
Air flowing in due to cracks and holes in the mortar, foundation, and/or siding
Apply new mortar, sealer or siding to seal leak*
* To determine whether there is a gap for air to flow in any of these areas, consider the following: rattle your windows and doors to see if there is a proper seal; put your hand on seams or joints and see if there is any air flowing through them; and use the incense test: carefully (avoiding drapes and other flammables) move a lit stick along walls or potential openings and where smoke flutters, you have air sneaking in.
** When sealing your home, please be aware of backdrafting. Backdrafting is when various appliances and exhaust fans pull the combustion gases they emit back into the living space which can create an unhealthy situation in the home.
-- Scott's Contracting scottscontracting@gmail.com http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com

copper-indium-gallium-selenide (CIGS)

The Rise of CIGS – Finally?

Published: July 23, 2010
If the rise of the solar energy market is written as a fantasy novel, then the makers of copper-indium-gallium-selenide (CIGS) are members of a mythical clan from far far away that are reputed to be fierce warriors who are gathering forces to reshape the geopolitics of the realm. But so far, this big army hasn't materialized.

But it's marching closer to the battlefield. After years of research and development, along with unfulfilled promises, some makers of CIGS (or variations of the same ingredients) thin films seem to be finally getting ready. Solar Frontier, part of Showa Shell, is building a 900-MW factory in Japan, a manufacturing capacity that could turn the company into the most formidable CIGS competitor. The new factory, its third, would put the company's total annual production capacity at 980 MW. Solar Frontier expects to start rolling out panels this fall and reach mass production by next spring, says Greg Ashley, the new chief operating officer for Solar Frontier's American operations.

"You can't do this unless you are a GW player," Ashley said during an interview at Intersolar in San Francisco earlier this month. "Our No. 1 story is we have bankable product that is available when contractors need them."

Meanwhile in the Silicon Valley, MiaSole promises to delivers solar panels with 13 percent efficiency by the end of this year. Stion just raised $70 million to expand the annual capacity of its factory from 10 MW to 100 MW over the next year, and it has inked development and manufacturing deals with one of its investors, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. And last but not least, Solyndra is building a factory thanks to a $535 million federal loan. Last month, the company said it would borrow $175 million from existing investors in order to start manufacturing at its new factory in the fourth quarter of this year and increase the annual production to at least 300 MW by the end of 2011.

Sulfurcell, a German company that makes copper-indium-sulfide panels and is backed by Intel Capital, built a 75-MW factory last year in Berlin and set up a U.S. office this year. The company is working on a 3.8-kilowatt project at a school in Los Angeles, said Boris von Bormann, Sulfurcell's director of sales for North America.  Avancis, which makes copper-indium-selenide panels, recently broke ground on a 100-MW factory in Germany.

While the CIS/CIGS panel manufacturers are eager to announce their progress, the top players in the market are hardly moved by these announcements. Manufacturers of crystalline silicon panels with factory capacities of around 1 GW or more largely dominate the market. And plenty more have hundreds of MW at their disposal. The likely success of the CIS/CIGS thin films remains an unwritten chapter in the story about solar technologies.

"If they could produce technologies at a price that is competitive, then the next thing is to get the market right. I think most of them are not in the position to do that yet because they don't have the high volume production and the right costs," said Finlay Colville, a senior analyst at Solarbuzz. "When you look at 2010, you will start to see manufacturing capacities installed and the cost structure a little bit clearer."

What is clear is that developers of CIGS technologies need just one success story to win over project developers and investors. They need their own First Solar, which produced 1,011 MW of cadmium-telluride solar panels in 2009, more than any rivals worldwide. First Solar's success has helped other cadmium-telluride thin-film makers line up investments and project an aura of great potentials even though these other companies are startups that have similar production capacities as most of the CIGS companies.

Could Solar Frontier be that model CIGS company? The $1 billion investment to build the 900-MW plant is certainly a bold move in that direction, considering that the Japanese company currently only has a 20-MW and a 60-MW plant. By adding the third factory, Solar Frontier is poised to be the second largest thin-film manufacturer. Many thin-film startups have factories with less than 100 MW of annual capacities.

Manufacturing is very much a game of scale. Having a large production capacity and running the manufacturing equipment without major glitches are critical for reducing costs.

"I consider it a big transition when you get up to over 100 MW and be able to produce and sell that. Solar Frontier is probably going to be the one to do it first," said Robert Birkmire, director of the Institute for Energy Conversion at the University of Delaware.

How much a company actually produces can be quite different than its factory capacity, however. In 2009, CIGS companies worldwide collectively shipped about 43 MW of solar panels, which came mostly from Solar Frontier, Global Solar Energy and Honda, according to GTM Research.

To win over customers, CIGS players must sell their products at prices comparable to those that use crystalline silicon or cadmium-telluride. If they can't offer a lowest price, then they have to show that their solar panels could produce more energy over the lifetime of a project, typically 25 years or longer, in order to justify the higher prices.

There isn't a standard formula for calculating the cost of producing solar electricity over a project's lifetime, though the math typically includes the costs of equipment and labor for installation and maintenance and takes into account the gradual decline of power production as the solar panels age. Sometimes, project developers put a lot of focus on getting the cheapest solar panels available (measured in dollar per watt) instead of the cost of electricity production (measured in dollar per watt-hour).

"Often, it's important for a party to build at the lowest cost possible whereas another party would be interested in the higher energy yield at the end," von Bormann said. "There is often a disconnect between the two."

First Solar says its manufacturing cost was $0.81 per watt as of the first quarter of this year, when the average efficiency of its panels 11.1 percent. Crystalline Silicon solar panel makes have been able to produce their goods closer to that cost because long-term contract prices for silicon fell 50 percent from 2008 to 2009.

The spot market price for silicon was close to $70 per kilogram a year ago, and it was around $55 per kilogram this month, said Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Efficiencies for crystalline silicon solar panels on the market range from low to high teens.

Major crystalline silicon panel makers were selling their products at around at around €1.2 [US $1.19] per watt during the first quarter of this year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The prices went up to €1.70 per watt at one point in the second quarter because developers were rushing to complete their projects in Germany before the German government reduced incentives starting this month, but the prices could drop again over the next 12 months.

Ashley declined to disclose Solar Frontier's manufacturing cost, but said it's not as low as First Solar's for now. Solar Frontier is currently producing panels with 11.5 percent average efficiency, and it expects to hit 14 percent by 2014, he said. The panels today are rated at 85 watts and measured 2 ft. by 4 ft. New panels with 90-watt and above are undergoing UL testing now. The 900-MW factory would roll out 3 ft. by 4 ft. panels, Ashley said.

The manufacturer is selling panels to distributors and project developers or contractors. It doesn't want to do its own project development, a role that manufactures such as First Solar, SunPower and Solon have taken on.

Talking Points
So where does that leave the startups with less manufacturing might? Some of them claim they already could be competitive against crystalline silicon panel makers in price — or will soon be. And then there are selling points that aren't directly connected to panels' pricing, such as claims that that CIGS panels don't degrade and lose their power output as quickly as crystalline silicon solar panels. Or the suitability of CIGS panels for building facades because they could be encased with flexible materials instead of glass (though CIGS panel makers have said for a while that the market needs better encapsulant materials before doing away with glass because moisture is a particularly deadly enemy to the CIGS compound). SoloPower, for example, recently announced its first line of flexible CIGS modules for rooftops.

Sulfurcell believes its production experience and new 75-MW factory will enable it to win orders from installers and distributors. The company first began shipping from pilot production in 2005 and has seen about 7 MW of its solar panels installed since, von Bormann said. It's shipping 65-watt panels at around 8 percent efficiency. Sulfurcell expects to boost the efficiency to at least 10 percent by 2011, he added. The goal is to get to 15 percent by 2015.

"There is a lot of hype of U.S. CIGS players but not many products are available," von Bormann said. We have been shipping modules since 2005. We've sold products. That's something to our advantages."

The company is experimenting with adding gallium and selenium to the cells in order to boost efficiencies. Getting the right mix of the key ingredients in the manufacturing process — to make sure they are evenly distributed so that the layer maintains the same thickness — is tough, especially when using several semiconductors. But moving from CIS to CIGS "is really not that big of a transition," Birkmire said.

The big transition, instead, is to become serious contenders in the market. And that competition has just begun.

To watch a video interview with Solar Frontier America's Greg Ashley, where he discusses the points made above and more, play the video below.

Ucilia Wang is a California-based freelance writer who covers renewable energy technologies and policies. She was the associate editor at Greentech Media.


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

7.26.2010

Solar-New-See Thru Solar Window Out Performs Previous



Test Results Show New Energy's See-Thru SolarWindow™ Cells Surpass Thin-Film and Solar in Artificial Light

Company's ultra-small solar cells for use in its transparent SolarWindow™ capable of generating electricity, outperform today's commercial solar and thin-film technologies by as much as 10-fold in generating electricity from artificial light.


Burtonsville, MD - June 24 2009 - New Energy Technologies, Inc. (Symbol: NENE), a next-generation alternative and renewable energy developer, today announced that new tests of the Company's ultra-small solar cells for use in its transparent SolarWindow™ have demonstrated substantially superior performance over current thin-film and solar photovoltaic technologies at generating electricity from artificial light - an important advantage over conventional solar technologies which are limited by their capacity to function well where exposure to direct sunlight is available. "One of the biggest issues with today's solar products is their dependency on direct sunlight, which our cells have demonstrated the potential capacity to overcome," explained Mr. Meetesh V. Patel, Esq., President and CEO of New Energy Technologies, Inc.

"We're now actively working to coat these cells onto transparent glass in order to fabricate our SolarWindows™, which generate electricity and have the potential to be installed virtually anywhere that either direct sunlight or artificial lighting such as fluorescent systems emit visible light. In contrast, today's building-integrated solar and photovoltaic products are limited to installation on south-facing surfaces, as is the case with currently-available solar materials tested in these newest experiments".

In a series of new experiments, researchers repeatedly tested New Energy's ultra-small solar cells on a 1"x1" substrate against today's popular solar materials for their capacity to produce electricity under varying artificial light conditions, mimicking the levels of light exposure in homes and commercial offices. In every case, New Energy's solar cells, the smallest reported organic solar cells of their kind in the world, exponentially outperformed all of the conventional materials tested.

Under normal office lighting conditions, without the benefit of outside natural light from windows, New Energy's ultra-small solar cells produced:

  • Almost 2-fold greater output power density than monocrystalline silicon, an established commercial solar cell material; 
  • More than 8-fold greater output power density than copper-indium-selenide, known for its high optical absorption coefficients and versatile optical and electrical characteristics; and
  • More than 10-fold greater output power density than flexible thin-film amorphous-silicon, a popular 'second-generation' solar thin-film material.
New Energy's solar cells generate electricity not only from the visible radiation found in sunlight but also by using the visible light found in artificial illumination, such as the fluorescent lighting typically installed in offices and commercial buildings. While the majority of today's solar cells can only be installed where direct sunlight is available, New Energy's cells could be installed close to any source of visible light.


Solar Cell Coating Applied To Commercial Glass
Researchers Apply Coating to Commercial Glass, Demonstrating Transparency of New Energy's SolarWindow™ Capable of Generating Electricity, Currently Under Development.

Source: New Energy Technologies, Inc.
New Energy's SolarWindow™ technology makes use of an organic solar array, which has the same desirable electrical properties as silicon, yet has a considerably better capacity to 'optically absorb' photons from light to generate electricity and achieves transparency through the innovative use of conducting polymers. Each solar array is composed of a series of twenty ultra-small solar cells measuring less than ¼ the size of a grain of rice each. The organic solar cells are fabricated using environmentally-friendly hydrogen-carbon based materials, and successfully produce electricity, as demonstrated in a peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Renewable and sustainable Energy of the American Institute of Physics.

(Click here to view the study: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2998825)

The superior optical absorption properties of New Energy's ultra-small solar cells enables development of an ultra-thin film (only 1/1000th the thickness of a human hair, or 1/10th of a micrometer) that can be utilized to produce a transparent solar window. In photovoltaic applications such as see-thru windows, where transparency is a primary concern, today's thin film solar cells simply cannot be utilized to produce a transparent solar window for application in homes, offices, and commercial buildings.

About New Energy Technologies, Inc.


New Energy Technologies, Inc., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a developer of next generation alternative and renewable energy technologies. Among the Company's technologies under development are:

  • MotionPower™ roadway systems for generating electricity by capturing the kinetic energy produced by moving vehicles. An estimated 250 million registered vehicles drive more than 6 billion miles on America's roadways, every day; and
  • SolarWindow™ technologies which enable transparent glass windows to generate electricity by coating their glass surfaces with the world's smallest known solar cells. These solar coatings are less than 1/10th the thickness of 'thin' films and make use of the world's smallest functional solar cells, shown to successfully produce electricity in a recently published peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy of the American Institute of Physics.
For additional information, please call Ms. Briana L. Erickson toll-free at 1-800-213-0689 or visit: www.newenergytechnologiesinc.com.

To receive future press releases via email, please visit:
http://www.newenergytechnologiesinc.com/alert.html

To view the full HTML text of this release, please visit:                                                                                                
http://www.newenergytechnologiesinc.com/NENE20090624.html



Legal Notice Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
No statement herein should be considered an offer or a solicitation of an offer for the purchase or sale of any securities. This release contains forward-looking statements that are based upon current expectations or beliefs, as well as a number of assumptions about future events. Although New Energy Technologies, Inc. (the "Company" or "New Energy Technologies") believes that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements and the assumptions upon which they are based are reasonable, it can give no assurance that such expectations and assumptions will prove to have been correct. Forward-looking statements, which involve assumptions and describe our future plans, strategies, and expectations, are generally identifiable by use of the words "may," "will," "should," "could," "expect," "anticipate," "estimate," "believe," "intend," or "project" or the negative of these words or other variations on these words or comparable terminology. The reader is cautioned not to put undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, as these statements are subject to numerous factors and uncertainties, including but not limited to adverse economic conditions, intense competition, lack of meaningful research results, entry of new competitors and products, adverse federal, state and local government regulation, inadequate capital, unexpected costs and operating deficits, increases in general and administrative costs, termination of contracts or agreements, technological obsolescence of the Company's products, technical problems with the Company's research and products, price increases for supplies and components, litigation and administrative proceedings involving the Company, the possible acquisition of new businesses or technologies that result in operating losses or that do not perform as anticipated, unanticipated losses, the possible fluctuation and volatility of the Company's operating results, financial condition and stock price, losses incurred in litigating and settling cases, dilution in the Company's ownership of its business, adverse publicity and news coverage, inability to carry out research, development and commercialization plans, loss or retirement of key executives and research scientists, changes in interest rates, inflationary factors, and other specific risks. There can be no assurance that further research and development will validate and support the results of our preliminary research and studies. Further, there can be no assurance that the necessary regulatory approvals will be obtained or that New Energy Technologies, Inc. will be able to develop commercially viable products on the basis of its technologies. In addition, other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially are discussed in the Company's most recent Form 10-QSB and Form 10-KSB filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These reports and filings may be inspected and copied at the Public Reference Room maintained by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. You can obtain information about operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission at 1-800-SEC-0330. The U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission also maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission at
http://www.sec.gov. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly release the results of any revisions to these forward looking statements that may be made to reflect the events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.



Part 8: 1st Floor Weatherization

Part 9: See the Difference a Little White Paint Makes

Part 10: Interior Framing-Plumbing-Laundry Room

Part 11: Kitchen Framing Tip #36-Benton Rehab Project

Part 12: Water Main Repair- Benton Rehab

Part 13: Benton Rehab Project Drywall Installation and Tip: Number 1172

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

7.25.2010

Missouri Renewable Energy and Efficiency-Grants and Incentives

Missouri Residential Incentives

Financial Incentives for Renewable Energy-Energy Efficiency-PACE Funding-Solar-Wind-Geo Thermal-Grants-Loans-Tax Incentives-Tax Breaks-Rules-Regulations-Local Options-Utility Loan Program-Appliances-Rebate-Net Metering-Photovaltaic


PACE Financing
Personal Deduction
State Rebate Program
Utility Loan Program
Utility Rebate Program
Rules, Regulations & Policies

Net Metering
AmerenUE - Photovoltaic Rebate Program

Last DSIRE Review: 01/08/2010
Program Overview:
State: Missouri
Incentive Type: Utility Rebate Program
Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies: Photovoltaics
Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Nonprofit, Schools, Local Government, State Government, Fed. Government, Agricultural, Institutional
Amount:$2.00/W DC
Maximum Incentive:$50,000
Eligible System Size:Maximum capacity of 100 kW (the limit for net metering in Missouri)
Equipment Requirements:Equipment must be new; modules and inverters must have a minimum warranty of 10 years; lockable external disconnect switch required
Installation Requirements:System must be grid tied, net metered, and permanently installed on the customer's property
Ownership of Renewable Energy Credits:Customer-generator
Web Site: http://www.ameren.com/sites/aue/source/Renewable/Pages/ADC_Ameren...
Summary:
AmerenUE offers rebates to its customers for the installation of net metered photovoltaic (PV) systems on their properties. The rebate is set at $2.00 per DC watt with a maximum rebate of $50,000. Although the program guidelines and application do not list a firm maximum system capacity, the requirement that the system be net metered implicitly limits system size to 100 kilowatts (kW), the maximum size allowed under Missouri's net metering rules. Only systems that become operational after the opening date of the program (January 1, 2010) are eligible for incentives. In order to qualify for incentives, a customer must have an electric account in good standing with the utility. Eligible systems must use new equipment; be permanently installed on the customer's property; and have module and inverter manufacturer's warranties of at least 10 years. Installations must comply with all applicable federal, state and local codes and standards, including the state of Missouri's Interconnection Standards. Rebate recipients must certify that the system will remain in operation on their property for its useful life (deemed to be a minimum of 10 years). Notably, the customer retains ownership of all solar renewable energy certificates (SRECs) generated by the system. This program arises from 2008 Proposition C, a ballot initiative that established a state renewable portfolio standard in Missouri and required the state's investor-owned utilities to offer solar rebates of at least $2.00 per watt beginning in 2010. Please see the program web site and look under the heading of "Missouri's Proposition C" for further details and program applications.

-- For your next Green Building Project-let Scotty supply a Free Green Site Evaluation that will outline the areas for saving Energy + Money in your Home or Business. Scott's Contracting scottscontracting@gmail.com http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com

7.24.2010

Oil and Gas Political Contributions

Scotty-Not all the Tables Copied to Page See Links at bottom of Page for Complete Tables

Oil & Gas: Money to Congress

Total contributions: $13,872,160

RankOrganizationAmount Dems RepubsSource Indivs PACs Soft $
1Koch Industries $724,30014%86%
2Exxon Mobil $548,21413%87%
3Chevron Corp $516,89118%82%
4Valero Energy $467,00017%83%
5Marathon Oil $378,19023%76%
6Occidental Petroleum $314,05020%80%
7Williams Companies $311,50026%74%
8American Gas Assn $250,50043%56%
9Devon Energy $230,97012%87%
10Chesapeake Energy $228,48057%43%
11Anadarko Petroleum $227,15021%79%
12ConocoPhillips $201,94729%71%
13Mewbourne Oil Co $180,5005%95%
14Pilot Corp $164,1405%95%
15Plains Exploration & Production $154,70023%76%
16Bass Brothers Enterprises $145,21540%60%
17Enterprise Products Partners $145,15019%81%
18Independent Petroleum Assn of America $144,50025%75%
19Red Apple Group $140,10061%38%
20Society of Indep Gasoline Marketers $133,50063%37%

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs, soft money donors, and individuals giving $200 or more. (Only those groups giving $5,000 or more are listed here. Soft money applies only to cycles 1992-2002.) In many cases, the organizations themselves did not donate; rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates. All donations took place during the 2009-2010 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Sunday, June 13, 2010.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.

Top 20 Members

CandidateAmount
McCain, John (R-AZ)$2,677,524
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R-TX)$2,137,225
Gramm, Phil (R-TX)$1,682,814
Cornyn, John (R-TX)$1,652,150
Barton, Joe (R-TX)$1,458,530
Inhofe, James M (R-OK)$1,231,523
Pearce, Steve (R-NM)$998,178
Young, Don (R-AK)$981,263
Obama, Barack (D)$973,551
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)$862,561
Nickles, Don (R-OK)$841,388
Vitter, David (R-LA)$791,335
Dole, Bob (R)$781,705
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA)$758,744
Domenici, Pete V (R-NM)$747,897
DeLay, Tom (R-TX)$690,140
Conaway, Mike (R-TX)$652,718
Sessions, Pete (R-TX)$645,864
Tiahrt, Todd (R-KS)$628,073
Santorum, Rick (R-PA)$614,17
Party Split:
Dems: Repubs: Others: Dems: $3,421,498 $3,421,498 Repubs: $7,053,733 $7,053,733 Other: $16,250 $16,250
All Candidates: Total to All Candidates: $10,491,481 $10,491,481

Incumbents Only:

Total to Members: $7,951,271 $7,951,271
House # of Members Average Contribution Total Contributions
Democrats 186 $9,443 $1,756,453
Republicans 164 $20,691 $3,393,312
Independents 0 $0 $0
TOTAL 350 $14,714 $5,149,765
The US House of Representatives has 435 members and 5 non-voting delegates. Totals may exceed 440 due to mid-term replacements.
Senate # of Members Average Contribution Total Contributions
Democrats 48 $26,939 $1,293,054
Republicans 34 $44,249 $1,504,452
Independents 2 $625 $1,250
TOTAL 84 $33,319 $2,798,756
The US Senate has 100 members. Totals may exceed 100 due to mid-term replacements.

The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more. All donations took place during the 2009-2010 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Sunday, June 13, 2010.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.

Big Oil and Gas Political Contributions

Election Cycle

2010*

14

$13,872,160

$8,131,890

$5,740,270

2008*

16

$35,690,662

$25,594,958

$10,095,704

2006*

14

$20,372,756

$12,089,647

$8,283,109

2004*

16

$26,077,264

$18,963,016

$7,114,248

2002

13

$25,037,766

$8,514,319

$6,450,281

2000

10

$34,323,192

$11,353,899

$6,928,043

1998

8

$21,622,444

$6,342,453

$6,767,892

1996

7

$26,015,197

$9,621,114

$6,539,583

1994

7

$17,729,113

$6,712,122

$6,492,029

1992

7

$20,581,722

$8,834,872

$6,462,523

1990

8

$10,911,614

$4,829,390

$6,082,224

Total

10

$252,233,890

$120,987,680

$76,955,906

Soft Money Contributions

Donations to Democrats

Donations to Republicans

N/A

$3,952,205

$9,900,476

N/A

$8,137,815

$27,534,717

N/A

$3,629,686

$16,653,466

N/A

$5,063,900

$20,989,499

$10,073,166

$5,028,030

$19,999,841

$16,041,250

$7,054,356

$26,759,817

$8,512,099

$5,040,155

$16,501,692

$9,854,500

$5,960,180

$19,628,720

$4,524,962

$6,652,777

$11,054,891

$5,284,327

$6,907,222

$13,491,397

N/A

$4,161,315

$6,749,999

$54,290,304

$61,587,641

$189,264,515

% to Dems

% to Repubs

28%

71%

23%

77%

18%

82%

19%

80%

20%

80%

21%

78%

23%

76%

23%

75%

38%

62%

34%

66%

38%

62%

24%

75%

Tables Provided by: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?cycle=2010&ind=e01

†These numbers show how the industry ranks in total campaign giving as compared to more than 80 other industries. Rankings are shown only for industries (such as the Automotive industry) -- not for widely encompassing "sectors" (such as Transportation) or more detailed "categories" (like car dealers).

*These figures do not include donations of "Levin" funds to state and local party committees. Levin funds were created by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions of $200 or more from PACs and individuals to federal candidates and from PAC, soft money and individual donors to political parties, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. While election cycles are shown in charts as 1996, 1998, 2000 etc. they actually represent two-year periods. For example, the 2002 election cycle runs from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2002.

Data for the current election cycle were released by the Federal Election Commission on Sunday, June 13, 2010.

NOTE: Soft money contributions to the national parties were not publicly disclosed until the 1991-92 election cycle, and were banned by the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act following the 2002 elections.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.

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

Big Oil-?Political Ties?Corruption?Money-Trail

Oil & Gas: Background

This industry, which includes multinational and independent oil and gas producers and refiners, natural gas pipeline companies, gasoline service stations and fuel oil dealers, has long enjoyed a history of strong influence in Washington. Individuals and political action committees affiliated with oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle, 75 percent of which has gone to Republicans.

Though former oilmen George W. Bush and Dick Cheney occupied the White House for eight years, the oil and gas industry could not win support for repealing bans on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. However, Congress voted in 2008 to lift a ban on offshore drilling. These companies are also wary of cap-and-trade climate change legislation, such as the measure Democratic President Barack Obama supports. Yet Obama still received $884,000 from the oil and gas industry during the 2008 campaign, more than any other lawmaker except his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Obama appeared poised to usher in more offshore drilling expansion in 2010 -- until the explosion of a BP-operated oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that resulted in millions of gallons of fossil fuels to leak into the coastal waters of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. The environmental toll has been significant, and industries such as tourism and fishing have suffered. Politically, the Obama administration has delayed plans to expand offshore drilling in many areas, and Congress is mulling whether to pass legislation aimed at avoiding another disaster of similar scope.

In contrast to former President Bush's largely pro-industry stance on energy and environmental issues, the Democratic-controlled White House and Congress will probably grant these companies fewer favors. Bush consistently rolled back Clinton-era restrictions on commercial uses of federal lands—including nature preserves, national forests and national monuments. To the oil and gas industry's delight, he got one step closer in March 2005 when Senate Republicans passed a budget resolution containing a filibuster-proof provision to allow for drilling in ANWR.

Oil and gas companies are always among the industries to spend the most on lobbying, pouring $132.2 million into these efforts in 2008 alone.

-- Aaron Kiersh and Dave Levinthal

Updated June 2010

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.



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

Connect with Scotts Contracting

FB FB Twitter LinkedIn Blog Blog Blog Blog Pinterest

Featured Post

1 Hack To Eliminate Your A/C Power Bill This Summer!