Re: Senate Bill 50- Missouri Nuclear Agenda Just Say NO

Collection of Examples for Solar vs. Nuclear- Energy Production Debate and Proposed Bill

• Missourians, Don't let the TV Ads on Senate Bill 50 Fool You. Read the Information for yourself-I've supplied all the web links where I found the Info. 

• Solar is the Best Form of Renewable Energy- I don't consider Nuclear Energy a form of Renewable Energy since the Waste will be placed in the Ground- IE: It could pollute the Water our Bodies Must Have-We Consume Everyday
• I do not Support Nuclear Energy for Our State or any other State

Tell My Politician- Web Site that will direct you to your Elected Representatives-Republican or Democrat, Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician http://tellmypolitician.com/search?

_____________________
Solar and Nuclear Costs —
The Historic Crossover
Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf

___________

Easy to understand Solar Vs Nuclear Photos http://www.jeffreyventrella.com/Solar/solar.html

_____________

Which Is Cheaper? Nuclear vs. Solar http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/07/which-is-cheaper-nuclear-vs-solar/

By Bill Roth | July 20th, 2010

The study's premise is that traditional energy supplies including fossil and nuclear energy are experiencing what economists called "upward cost curves" or in other words, their costs keep going up and are not likely to ever go back down. However, the research claims of Blackburn/Cunningham are that renewable energy has achieved a "downward cost curve" over the last decade, namely that their prices have gone down and there is a strong likelihood that they will continue to fall in price.

____________

Report: Solar Energy Cheaper Than Nuclear Energy http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/08/01/solar-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy/

Tagged with: nuclear, photovoltaic, solar

Cost estimates for new nuclear plants have risen dramatically since the much-heralded "nuclear renaissance" began during the past decade, says Blackburn. "Projects first announced with costs in the $2 billion range per reactor have seen several revisions as detailed planning proceeds and numerous design and engineering problems have emerged. The latest price estimates are in the $10 billion range per reactor."

The costs for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems have fallen steadily while construction costs for new nuclear power plants have been rising over the past decade, which now makes electricity generated from new solar installations cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear power plants, according to a new report published by a retired Duke University professor.
_________________
http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/solar-information/nuclear-vs-solar-2/
These are the advantages, put simply, that I can see right now. There are proponents of one, the other, or both. I see a brighter future for solar for three reasons:
1. It is completely, even daily, renewable.
2. Solar is fast advancing. We are likely on the cusp of a technological windfall for solar power.
3. The risks for nuclear power are high and unlikely to get resolved soon. So far it seems that, in an attempt to stop polluting the sky, we would throw our toxins into the ground.
_______________________

According to Norman Baker, the environment spokesperson...  turning to nuclear power to tackle climate change is "like jumping from the frying pan to the fire". "Nuclear power may not contribute to carbon emissions, but it generates tonnes of radioactive wastes costing billions to store and will pose a risk to humans for thousands of years after disposal," he added.
Darren Johnson... said nuclear reactors had an operational life of between 30 and 40 years but created waste that lasted "thousands" of years. "It is barking mad to consider nuclear power as part of a sustainable energy policy," he opined.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/441990/nuclear_vs_solar_energy_which/
___________________

SB 50- Allows electric companies to recover costs from ratepayers associated with early site development for certain electrical generation facilities

SB 50 - Beginning October 1, 2011, any electric company seeking an Early Site Permit from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission must submit reports to the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) every 6 months. The reports must document the work completed and costs incurred up to that point toward the acquisition of the Early Site Permit as well as the projected amount of work and costs remaining. If the total cost of obtaining the Early Site Permit is expected to exceed $40 million, the company must also include an explanation in its reports as to why expenditures beyond that amount are prudent.Once the Early Site Permit is obtained, the electric company may recover the expenditures for the permit from its ratepayers through rates and charges over a period not to exceed 20 years. The company may begin the cost recovery on the effective date of tariffs approved by the PSC at the company's first general rate proceeding following the acquisition of the permit. Other electric companies that also incur expenses toward the Early Site Permit may similarly recover their costs through rates and charges.
If an electric company has recovered costs from its ratepayers for an Early Site Permit but the company's interest in the Early Site Permit is subsequently sold or transferred, the company must refund its ratepayers up to the amount that the company collected from the ratepayers for the permit.
ERIKA JAQUESSenate Bill 50 is sponsored by: Kehoe -http://www.senate.mo.gov/-Capitol Office:201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 429,Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 (573) 751-2076 FAX: (573) 751-2582 EMail Senator Kehoe
__________________________

Say NO to SB 50- December 10th, 2010-Consumers Council of Missouri calls on customers of AmerenUE

to say NO to the newest legislative attempt to overturn Anti-CWIP law. http://moconsumers.org/2010/12/10/say-no-to-sb-50/#comment-8171
____________________________

Ameren Missouri; Combined License Application for Callaway Plant Unit 2; Exemption

Posted on: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:37:07 EST- http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/aee_uepcp_ameren-missouri-combined-license-application-for-callaway-plant-unit-2-exemption-1436866.html

Symbols: AEE, UEPCP

Jan 21, 2011 (FIND, Inc. via COMTEX) --
1.0 Background
Union Electric Company, doing business as Ameren UE, submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) a Combined License (COL) Application for a single unit of AREVA NP's U.S. EPR in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), subpart C of part 52, "Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants." This reactor is to be identified as Callaway Plant (Callaway), Unit 2, and located at the current Callaway County, Missouri site of the Callaway Power Plant. The Callaway, Unit 2, COL application is based upon and linked to the U.S. EPR reference COL (RCOL) application for UniStar's Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3 (CCNPP3). The NRC docketed the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application on December 12, 2008. In its letter to the NRC dated April 28, 2009, Ameren informed that it was suspending its efforts to build a nuclear power plant in Missouri. Subsequently, by letter dated June 23, 2009, Ameren requested the NRC to suspend all review activities relating to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application. The NRC informed Ameren by letter dated June 29, 2009, that it had suspended all review activities relating to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application. The NRC is currently performing a detailed review of the CCNPP3 RCOL application, as well as AREVA NP's application for design certification of the U.S. EPR.
2.0 Request/Action
The regulations specified in 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) require that an applicant for a combined license under 10 CFR part 52 shall, during the period from docketing of a COL application until the Commission makes a finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g) pertaining to facility operation, submit an annual update to the application's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), which is a part of the application.
On February 25, 2009, Ameren submitted Revision 1 to the COL application, including updates to the FSAR. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii), the next annual update would be due in December 2010. Union Electric Company, doing business as Ameren Missouri (Ameren) as of October 1, 2010, as noted in its letter to the NRC dated October 26, 2010, has requested a one-time exemption from the 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) requirements to submit the scheduled 2010 and 2011 COL application FSAR updates, and proposed for approval of a new submittal deadline of December 31, 2012, for the next FSAR update.
In summary, the requested exemption is a one-time schedule change from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next FSAR update at a later date, but still in advance of NRC's reinstating its review of the application and in any event, by December 31, 2012. The current FSAR update schedule could not be changed, absent the exemption. Ameren requested the exemption by letter dated October 26, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Number ML103090556).
3.0 Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the NRC may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, including Section 50.71(e)(3)(iii) when: (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) special circumstances are present. As relevant to the requested exemption, special circumstances exist if: (1) "Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); (2) "Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was
[Page Number 3928]
adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii)); or (3) "The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)).
The review of the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application FSAR has been suspended since June 29, 2009. Since the COL application FSAR is directly linked to the CCNPP3 RCOL application, many changes in the RCOL application require an associated change to the COL application FSAR and, because the NRC review of the COL application is suspended, the updates to the FSAR will not be reviewed by the NRC staff until the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application review is resumed. Thus, the optimum time to prepare a revision to the COL application FSAR is sometime prior to Ameren requesting the NRC to resume its review. To prepare and submit a COL application FSAR update when the review remains suspended and in the absence of any decision by Ameren to request the NRC to resume the review would require Ameren to spend significant time and effort and would be of no value, particularly due to the fact that the RCOL application and the U.S. EPR FSAR are still undergoing periodic revisions and updates. Furthermore, the adjudicatory proceedings related to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application were terminated by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) after agreements were made between Ameren, the NRC, and the petitioners for intervention, as documented in "AMERENUE (Callaway Plant Unit 2) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agreement and Terminating Contested Adjudicatory Proceeding) LBP-09-23 (August 28, 2009)" (ML092400189). Ameren commits to submit the next FSAR update prior to any request to the NRC to resume review of the COL application and, in any event, by December 31, 2012. Ameren would need to identify all committed changes to the RCOL application since the last revisions to the RCOL application and the U.S. EPR FSAR in order to prepare a COL application FSAR revision that accurately and completely reflects the committed changes to the RCOL application as well as the U.S. EPR FSAR.
The requested one-time exemption to defer submittal of the next update to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application FSAR would provide only temporary relief from the regulations of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). Ameren has made good faith efforts to comply with 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) by submitting Revision 1 to the COL application dated February 25, 2009, prior to requesting the review suspension. Revision 1 incorporated information provided in prior supplements and standardized language with the RCOL application.
Authorized by Law:
The exemption is a one-time schedule exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). The exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next Callaway Unit 2 COL application FSAR update on or before December 31, 2012, in lieu of the required scheduled submittals in December 2010, and December 2011. As stated above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions. The NRC staff has determined that granting Ameren the requested one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) will provide only temporary relief from this regulation and will not result in a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the NRC's regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety:
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to provide for a timely and comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with a COL application in order to support an effective and efficient review by the NRC staff and issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. The requested exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to the schedule for submittal to the NRC of revisions to an application under 10 CFR part 52, for which a license has not been granted. In addition, since the review of the application has been suspended, any update to the application submitted by Ameren will not be reviewed by the NRC at this time.
Based on the nature of the requested exemption as described above, no new accident precursors are created by the exemption; thus, neither the probability nor the consequences of postulated accidents are increased. Therefore, there is no undue risk to public health and safety.
Consistent with Common Defense and Security:
The requested exemption would allow Ameren to submit the next FSAR update prior to requesting the NRC to resume the review and, in any event, on or before December 31, 2012. This schedule change has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption.
Special Circumstances:
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), are present whenever: (1) "Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii)); (2) "Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii)); or (3) "The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v)).
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) is to provide for a timely and comprehensive update of the FSAR associated with a COL application in order to support an effective and efficient review by the NRC staff and issuance of the NRC staff's safety evaluation report. As discussed above, the requested one-time exemption is solely administrative in nature, in that it pertains to a one-time schedule change for submittal of revisions to an application under 10 CFR Part 52, for which a license has not been granted. The requested one-time exemption will permit Ameren time to carefully review the most recent revisions of the CCNPP3 RCOL application as well as the U.S. EPR FSAR, and fully incorporate these revisions into a comprehensive update of the Callaway, Unit 2, FSAR associated with the COL application. This one-time exemption will support the NRC staff's effective and efficient review of the COL application when resumed, as well as issuance of the safety evaluation report, and therefore does not affect the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii). Under the circumstances that Ameren has suspended its pursuit of the COL, the NRC has suspended its review of the application, and the adjudicatory proceedings have been terminated by ASLB, application of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) would result in Ameren spending significant time and effort in incorporating changes made to the RCOL application into the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application, but not achieve the underlying purpose of that rule; granting a one-time exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) would provide only temporary relief; and Ameren has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation; therefore, the special circumstances required by 10 CFR
[Page Number 3929]
50.12(a)(2) for the granting of an exemption from 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) exist.
4.0 Conclusion
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the NRC hereby grants Ameren a one-time exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) pertaining to the Callaway, Unit 2, COL application to allow submittal of the next FSAR update prior to any request to the NRC to resume the review and, in any event, no later than December 31, 2012.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the NRC has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (76 FR 800).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of January 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph Colaccino,
Chief, EPR Projects Branch, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2011-1263 Filed 1-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Vol. 76, No. 014
[Docket No. 52-037; NRC-2008-0556]
Notices
For full details on Ameren Corp (AEE) AEE. Ameren Corp (AEE) has Short Term PowerRatings at TradingMarkets. Details on Ameren Corp (AEE) Short Term PowerRatings is available at This Link.
For full details on (UEPCP) UEPCP. (UEPCP) has Short Term PowerRatings at TradingMarkets. Details on (UEPCP) Short Term PowerRatings is available at This Link.
_________________________

Tell My Politician-

 http://tellmypolitician.com/search?

-Find Your Representatives-Republican or Democrat, and Let Your Voice BE HEARD! Active Participation is Suggested TellMyPolitician

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

Join us for the 3rd Annual Growing Green Awards!

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:42 PM, U.S. Green Building Council - Missouri Gateway Chapter <usgbc-stl@mobot.org> wrote:

You're invited to the 2011 Growing Green Awards!   The 3rd Annual Growing Green Awards are designed to celebrate and recognize  the individuals and organizations actively transforming the built environment  while sharing their knowledge of green building and sustainable practices.   Nominations were accepted in six categories: Corporate, Educator, Government, Innovator, Non-Profit and Residential. See the nominees here.   Wednesday, March 30, 2011, 6:00 PM NEO on Locust 2801 Locust Ave St. Louis, MO 63103   $90 on or before March 25 $100 after March 25 Includes hors d'oueveres, drinks and dinner   Join us by purchasing tickets at www.GrowingGreenAwards2011.eventbrite.com If purchasing tickets by cash or check,   please contact Rachel McCalla at 314-210-7764     Thanks to our Sponsors!         Sponsorship opportunities at the Oak, Sapling and Acorn level are still available.  For more information, see the USGBC-Missouri Gateway 2011 Sponsorship Package  or contact Emily Andrews at 314-577-0854.

US Green Building Council - St. Louis Regional Chapter | 3617 Grandel Square | St. Louis | MO | 63108

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

Re: Nominate a Star of Energy Efficiency -- Early Bird Deadline Approaching!

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Alliance to Save Energy <info@ase.org> wrote:

Make October 4th a Starry, Starry Night Honor those energy efficiency stars who shine brightest by submitting your Star of Energy Efficiency nomination today! Share appreciation for colleagues and organizations who have furthered the energy efficiency industry through dedication, ingenuity or leadership by nominating them for a Star of Energy Efficiency Award. Please be sure to review the nomination guidelines to ensure your submission is correctly formatted and as compelling as possible! Nominations submitted on or before February 11 qualify for an early bird discount – so act fast to recognize those deserving of recognition! After the early bird deadline, the nomination fee will increase from $50 to $100; the final deadline for nominations is March 23, 2011. This year's awards will be presented October 4, 2011 at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium in Washington, D.C., at the Alliance to Save Energy's 19th Annual Evening with the Stars of Energy Efficiency Awards Dinner. For more information on the Awards Dinner, including sponsorship, please visit ase.org/dinner. See complete lists of our 2010 and 2009 Winners. Alliance To Save Energy 1850 M Street NW  |  Suite 600  |  Washington, DC 20036 202-857-0666  |  info@ase.org

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

Re: [WindPower] New LBNL report profiles innovation in "community wind" project finance

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Anne Margolis <Anne@cleanegroup.org> wrote:

Please see the announcement below on the availability of a new LBNL report, "Community Wind: Once Again Pushing the Envelope of Project Finance," which may be useful to those of you working to finance community wind projects.

 

Thanks!

Anne

 

From: cesamembers-bounces@cleanenergystates.org On Behalf Of Mark Bolinger
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:44 AM
To: cesamembers@cleanenergystates.org
Subject: [CESAmembers] new LBNL report profiles innovation in "community wind" project finance

 

Dear colleague-

        The "community wind" sector in the United States – loosely defined here as consisting of relatively small utility-scale wind power projects that sell power on the wholesale market and that are developed and owned primarily by local investors – has historically served as a "test bed" or "proving grounds" not only for up-and-coming wind turbine manufacturers trying to break into the broader U.S. wind market, but also for wind project financing structures.  For example, a variation of one of the most common financing arrangements in the U.S. wind market today – the "partnership flip" structure – was first developed by community wind projects in Minnesota more than a decade ago before being adapted by the broader wind market.

More recently, a handful of community wind projects built over the past year have been financed via new and creative structures that push the envelope of wind project finance in the U.S.  These include:

 

1)  a 4.5 MW project in Maine that combines low-cost government debt with local tax equity,

2)  a 25.3 MW project in Minnesota using a sale/leaseback structure,

3)  a 10.5 MW project in South Dakota financed by an intrastate offering of both debt and equity,

4)  a 6 MW project in Washington state that taps into New Markets Tax Credits using an "inverted" or "pass-through" lease structure, and

5)  a 9 MW project in Oregon that combines a variety of state and federal incentives and loans with unconventional equity from high-net-worth individuals.

 

In most cases, these are first-of-their-kind structures that could serve as useful examples for other projects – both community and commercial wind alike.

 

I am pleased to announce the release of a new Berkeley Lab report that describes each of these innovative new financing structures in some detail, using a case-study approach.  The purpose of this report is two-fold:  (1) to disseminate useful information on these new financial structures, most of which are widely replicable; and (2) to highlight the recent policy changes – many of them temporary unless extended – that have facilitated this innovation. 

 

The report begins by briefly summarizing how most community wind projects in the U.S. have been financed historically (i.e., prior to this latest wave of innovation).  It then describes the recent federal policy changes, including several implemented as a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, that have enabled a new wave of financial innovation to occur.  Brief case studies of each of the five projects mentioned above follow, describing how each project was financed and noting the financial significance of each.  Finally, the report concludes by distilling a number of general observations or pertinent lessons learned from the experiences of these five projects.

 

The full 28-page report, titled "Community Wind: Once Again Pushing the Envelope of Project Finance," can be downloaded at no charge from http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMP/re-pubs.html

 

A PowerPoint slide summary of the report can also be downloaded from the same web site.

I hope you find this report to be useful, and apologize in advance for cross-postings.

 

Best,

-Mark

Mark Bolinger

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

603-795-4937

MABolinger@lbl.gov

http://eetd.lbl.gov/EA/EMP/re-pubs.html

Green Blog Posting Provided by:
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com

You Can Save 500 Million Barrels of Oil with One Click

Dear Scotts Contracting, Please add your comments in support of new fuel economy and pollution standards for trucks and buses. With just one click of your mouse, you can help save 500 million barrels of oil, cut 250 million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution, and produce $41 billion in net economic benefits. Please take action today: Support EPA's first-ever climate pollution and fuel economy standards for freight trucks and buses. The deadline for comments is Monday, January 31st, so make sure your voice is heard. Background Last October, the EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a joint proposal to adopt America's first-ever climate pollution and fuel economy standards for freight trucks and buses. These vehicles – from the largest pickups to 18-wheelers – use more than 100 million gallons of oil per day. They are also responsible for about 20% of the climate pollution from America's transportation sector. The new standards, which will apply to trucks and buses manufactured in model years 2014 to 2018, will help strengthen our economy, increase our national security and reduce dangerous air pollution. By 2030, the volume of projected daily oil savings from the proposed standards would be large enough to offset America's oil imports from Iraq. This proposal follows two previous actions by EPA and DOT to improve fuel efficiency and climate pollution standards for passenger cars and trucks. The first announcement was in April, when the Obama administration adopted the first-ever national greenhouse gas emission standards for model year 2012-2016 cars and light trucks. The second announcement came in October with the announcement of a blueprint for new standards for model years 2017 to 2025. These new standards will cut pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But they will also create jobs by increasing demand for the innovative technologies that make trucks and buses more efficient, including hybrid electric engines. The U.S. virtually owns the global market on these technologies in the medium- and heavy-vehicle categories. Please support these new standards by submitting your comments to the EPA. The public comment period ends January 31st, so add yours now. Thank you for your activism and support, Environmental Defense Fund P.S. We know the EPA takes these public comments very seriously and will adjust their policies depending on the feedback they receive. So, please make sure to submit your comments today. Environmental Defense Fund 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20009 1-800-684-3322

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

Open Invitation-Solar Webinar

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Solar Nation <chris@solar-nation.org> wrote:

Dear Scotty:   Our friends at Vote Solar have launched a weekly series of webinars on timely and important solar issues*, which they're calling Get Some Sun. *e.g.:     * The future of the PV market     * California's new 1,000-MW wholesale distributed generation program     * What tools the National Renewable Energy Lab. is developing to help all kinds of solar endeavors     * Sacramento Municipal Utilities District's multi-faceted new solar offerings     * Variability in solar electric production for the grid:  Is it really a problem?     * Reducing system costs for PV installations The webinars, scheduled for 10am (PST) every Wednesday, are free, and you can register for any or all of them at the Vote Solar site here: Why not sign up and Get Some Sun - every week!

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

Obamas Clean Energy Future- We do big things

On 1/26/11, Barack Obama <info@barackobama.com> wrote:
> Friend --
>
> Tonight I addressed the American people on the future we face together.
>
> Though at times it may seem uncertain, it is a future that is ours to
> decide, ours to define, and ours to win.
>
> I know we will.
>
> Because, after the worst recession in decades, we see an economy growing
> again.
>
> Because, after two years of job losses, we've added private-sector jobs for
> 12 straight months -- more than 1 million in all.
>
> Because, time after time, when our resolve has been tested, we, as a nation,
> have always prevailed.
>
> Overcoming the challenges we face today requires a new vision for tomorrow.
> We will move forward together, or not at all -- for the challenges we face
> are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.
>
> Yet the story of America is this: We do big things.
>
> Just as the progress of the past two years would not have been possible
> without your hard work, we will not realize the agenda I described tonight
> without you.
>
> So as we continue this great mission together, and we set out the plans for
> how far we can go, I need to know that you are ready to work side by side
> with me once more.
>
> Will you stand with me as we strive to win the future?
>
> http://my.barackobama.com/WintheFuture5
>
> The last two years have been marked by unprecedented reforms and historic
> progress.
>
> But there is much more work to do.
>
> Moving forward, America's economic growth at home is inextricably connected
> to our competitiveness in the global community. The more products American
> companies can export, the more jobs we can create at home.
>
> This vision for the future starts with innovation, tapping into the
> creativity and imagination of our people to create the jobs and industries
> of the future. Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in
> tomorrow's. It's why I challenged Congress to join me in setting a new goal:
> By 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean energy
> sources.
>
> It means leading the world in educating our kids, giving each of our
> children the best opportunity to succeed and preparing them for the jobs of
> tomorrow.
>
> We must build a 21st century infrastructure for our country, putting
> millions of Americans to work rebuilding roads and bridges and expanding
> high-speed Internet and high-speed rail.
>
> We must reform government, making it leaner, smarter, and more transparent.
>
> And we must take responsibility for our shared debt, reining in our
> long-term deficit so we can afford the investments we need to move our
> country forward.
>
> That is the vision I laid out tonight. That is how we win the future.
>
> It is going to take a lot of work -- but I have no doubt we are up to the
> task.
>
> Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a
> satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The
> science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist.
>
> But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass
> the Soviets. We unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries
> and millions of new jobs.
>
> This is our generation's Sputnik moment.
>
> Please stand together with me:
>
> http://my.barackobama.com/WintheFuture5
>
> It is because of each of you, who define the will of a people, that the
> state of our union is strong in the face of tough challenges. You are the
> reason our future is still bright in the face of deep uncertainty.
>
> And you are the reason I believe that future is ours to win.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Barack
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Paid for by Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National
> Committee -- 430 South Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003. This
> communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

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