renewable energy news

Read and learn more about renewable energy news. For more, visit the Renewable Energy website EnergySourceRenewable.org

Q: What is the best online source for renewable energy news?
I am looking for an educational online website for reliable renewable energy news and industry information.. I’d appreciate it, thanks!

A: I have a good one for you, try http://www.renewable-energy-news.info/ for information along those lines. They seem to be getting into biofuel, tidal power, and other “emerging” green energy technologies.

Q: How can I figure out what type of renewable energy is best for my home?
There are all kinds of renewable enery technologies making news these days. Solar PV, Solar Hot Water, Wind, Geothermal. How can I determine which one is right for my home?

A: A combination is the short answer.

A wind turbine and solar cells for electricity.

Solar collector for direct water heating.

Q: Renewable Energy?
I saw a news thing of this and supposedly its better, and they were talking about water (heated).

Whats the advantages of solar water heating?

A: Solar water heating is very energy efficient. The well-designed systems only use a small circulating pump to bring the water to the roof for heating.

Q: Are there magazines that specialize in current news in the alternative energy industry – both biz & science?
I’m looking to subscribe to a publication that provides in depth coverage of the alt / green / renewable energy industry. Everything I’ve found so far has been either boring sound bites that aren’t very informative, or very technical journals. I’m looking for something in between. In-depth industry coverage, sort of like a Scientific American or New Yorker for just green energy. Any leads would be helpful, even if they’re not exactly what I’m looking for!

A: look into popular mechanics they have had some good articles on products and installations

Q: Are some renewable energy ideas just plain goofy?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/powerfulideasmileshighkitescouldgenerateelectricity

Powerful Ideas: Miles-High Kites Could Generate Electricity

So what happens if the wind stops blowing? Will the kites come crashing down? Why do they report goofy things like this? It makes them look silly?

A: Yes. I honestly believe if we captured all the hot air Obama spews, we could power at least 1,000,0000 homes for the next 20 years.

Q: If renewable energy is the keystone of Obama’s energy plan, why is Congress abandoning Obama’s clean energy?
goals?

WASHINGTON – Congress is all but abandoning President Barack Obama’s goal of producing fully one-quarter of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources — wind, solar and the like — by 2025, though a push for at least some increase is making headway.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090610/ap_on_go_co/us_renewable_energy

A: Congress realizes those wind/solar farms might end up in their backyard.

It’s time to put Nuclear back on the table — we have a plant up the street in San Onofre, CA and the technology has advanced immensely from the 3-mile/Chernobyl days.

http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/default.htm?goto=songs

The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) is jointly owned by Southern California Edison (SCE) (78.21%), San Diego Gas & Electric (20%), and the city of Riverside (1.79%). Today, SONGS generates approximately 2,200 megawatts of power, enough to serve 1.5 million average Southern California homes at a point in time.

How does it work? (Picture)

http://www.sce.com/NR/rdonlyres/A050B788-F86C-448A-9A66-8FABD9F302B4/0/NuclearEnergy_process.jpg

Q: Is this the most ingenious alternative energy source yet discovered?
Its poop! How amazing that this could be the wave of the future. A totally renewable energy source!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/oukoe_uk_usa_energy_excrement_odd

A: The total amount of available feces could provide about 10% of current fossil fuel usage. But we would have to devise ways to get plant nutrients out of the feces and back to the fields that grow the food that made those feces. The soil would quickly die and with it our ability to produce the food without this return to the land.

We can get most of the plant nutrients out by just washing the feces, and returning the water back to the soil. This is already done. So the next step is taking the solid residue for energy production.

This still leaves us a need to produce the other 90% of our energy usage., but 10% is better than nothing, as long as we preserve our ability to grow crops to feed ourselves.

Q: Renewable Energy Question?
Please share your thoughts in detail to help me?

cold fusion has been belittled, ridiculed and basically dismissed by the scientific community since 1989 when Fleischmann and Pons “jumped the gun” during a press conference. There is evidence that cold fusion is within reach of becoming a viable option as a renewable energy source, and that it would basically change the world economy. Check out the following article:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/may/30/evidence-favoring-cold-fusion-as-energy-source/

A: the scientific community is shy on this because of the history of what some said was fraud. Teams of scientists will work on this, but my bet is that there is not enough evidence for a reasonable person to accept that the affect (effect?) has been shown.

Q: Why do you think Republicans in Congress oppose renewable energy?
Over this past session, Congress had some 13 chances to support renewable energy, as bill after bill was put forward by Democrats. Republicans blocked them all.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/13/141033/320

Now 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats have formed the “Gang of 10″ to reach a compromise which includes both increased offshore drilling and support for renewable energy products.

Obama immediately praised the compromise. So far McCain has not endorsed it.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccain-holds-off-backing-gang-of-10-energy-plan-2008-08-10.html

Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.) said House Republicans would oppose the New Energy Reform Act in its current form and criticized the bill as too narrow an approach that will raise prices on consumers.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rep.-mccotter-condemns-gang-of-10s-energy-plan-2008-08-12.html

Coincidentally, Limbaugh and his dittoheads hate the compromise (what a shocker).

Why do you think Republicans in Congress continually oppose renewable energy projects?
So let me get this straight – revoking government subsidies to companies making some of the largest profits in the world is unfair punishment?
And how exactly is it a stretch of logic to say somebody opposes something when they vote against it 95% of the time?
jim z – you don’t seem to speak accurately for Americans’ views of Congress.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html
I think it’s ironic that so many are saying renewables should be able to make it without any help, and yet one of the Gang of 10 proposals is to reduce oil subsidies, which these same people oppose.

So the free market is the way to go, except for oil, which needs subsidies? Brilliant.

A: I think things will get easier if Democrats drop the windfall tax profits part of the legislation. I don’t see a reason to tax them more, but I also don’t see a reason they need subsidies. Both parties need to give a little.

Drilling is fine, if it is balanced by a logical energy policy. One thing that should be taken into consideration…when a commodity is plentiful, it is wasted. Well, oil has a way of looking plentiful one year or for 5 years, but not the next year or 5 years. It’s a roller coaster ride. We all know it is dropping now, but the decline in prices will be temporary. China and India will continue with exploding growth and the global oil supply overhead will continue to shrink, making it more expensive than it is now. There is little disagreement about that.

Democrats are trying to say, albeit politically, that if we concentrate on renewables with the current high price of carbon based energy, we will move to the alternatives faster and we’ll be better off for it.

In the end, we need a plan to get off the roller coaster and help the environment at the same time. It will be long term, but beneficial to us all.

Q: 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.

A: ” 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).

Q: Did Obama forget that he supported the bill that he blames the energy crisis on?
And McCain opposed it?

“President Bush, he had an energy policy. He turned to Dick Cheney and he said, ‘Cheney, go take care of this,’” Obama said. “Cheney met with renewable-energy folks once and oil and gas (executives) 40 times. McCain has taken a page out of the Cheney playbook.”

“However, Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080805/ap_on_el_pr/obama_23

Is Obama confused? Can someone explain this to me?

A: The 2005 energy bill was actually not the same thing. The Bush Administration originally pushed their pro-oil and gas energy bill in 2003. The bill then stahled in 2003 and 2004 because of substantial resistance in the Senate and then finally there was an agreement between the House and the Senate in 2005. The vote was an interesting mix of a small bipartisan group voting against it for various reasons and a strong bipartisan coalition voting for it.

Interesting is that some states that didn’t see their pet interests protected saw both senators vote against it, there were few split states.

McCain’s personal efforts seemed he was opposed to the energy tax breaks contained in the bill. These tax breaks, according to the Department of Energy, “offers consumers and businesses federal tax credits beginning in January 2006 for purchasing fuel-efficient hybrid-electric vehicles and energy-efficient appliances and products. “

Why was McCain against this?

Although the entire bill did some good and some bad (we were headed for this anyway and the bill tried to stop it as much as it could), the energy tax breaks seem like a great idea that should be expanded.

Anyway, to answer your question. The Yahoo Article got a lot of its facts wrong. McCain didn’t do much to stop the oil subsidies (and actually voted for the budget that included even more later that year). His actions on the floor included amendments to try and take out individual tax breaks for various services. The 2005 energy bill was a mix between the pure-Bush inspired big oil tax cuts and dems demands for investment in renewable energy. Cheney played a major role in the 2001-2003 energy bill but largely was absent from that point on. The reporter should do more research into the goings-on and shouldn’t use Obama’s glibness as an excuse to be glib himself.

Q: will renewable energy save British industry?
hooray for Belfast ship-builders Harland and Wolff, who were in big trouble a few years ago, they have revitalised their business by switching to marine energy projects;

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/article3549254.ece

do you know of any other sucess stories so far, and what should the different government departments be doing to encourage this?
at the moment they seem bent on hindering it, e.g.;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=544113&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

A: I think a lot of British firms will be too slow to act. Germany will, once again, emerge as the industry leader. Germany is very, very keen on renewable energy, with many homes already owning solar power. Without a domestic market, British business wont see much point in investing.

One way government could fairly easily help the industry, would be by placing a giant order for micro renewables for all public buildings. This would create a market, cut energy needs and at the same time, bring the prices down by allowing mass production.

Q: How do you feel about the worldwide interest/development of nuclear energy….Approve/Disapprove/?
Nuclear Power Companies Booming Worldwide
British Energy pulled off an incredible feat last week of announcing a barnstorming 145% rise in profits. BE, which generates one-fifth of the UK’s electricity, is also expected to have a major role to play in the process of building the next generation of nuclear stations – assuming management can demonstrate that they are up to the task.

Nuclear energy companies are thriving, due to the clean, cheap and efficent manner in which Nuclear power can be generated. In other recent news, an upstart Alberta company, which includes oil patch heavy hitter Hank Swartout as an invester, has a deal with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to market the Candu nuclear reactor to firms in Calgary looking to operate oil sands projects.

The use of nuclear power is controversial because of the problem of storing radioactive waste for indefinite periods, the potential for possibly severe radioactive contamination by accident or sabotage, and the possibility that its use in some countries could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Proponents aver that these risks are small and can be further reduced by the technology in the new reactors. They further claim that the safety record is already good when compared to other fossil-fuel plants, that it releases much less radioactive waste than coal power, and that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source. Critics, including most major environmental groups believe nuclear power is an uneconomic, unsound and potentially dangerous energy source, especially compared to renewable energy, and dispute whether the costs and risks can be reduced through new technology. There is concern in some countries over North Korea and Iran operating research reactors and fuel enrichment plants, since those countries refuse adequate IAEA oversight and are believed to be trying to develop nuclear weapons.

A: Only problems are with waste management, accumulation of highly enriched nuclear materials that may be subject to theft or weapons production. It’s really difficult(if not impossible) to prevent covert weapons program. Countries will find ways to do it. IAEA inspectors have said several times its almost impossible to have surprise inspection in countries. Even with that countries will find ways to hide it. It’s like looking at someone with a gun and saying ‘don’t shoot anybody.’

And politics of who gets to have it and who shouldn’t have nuclear technology is freakin major headache right now because of all that.

Other than that its excellent way to make energy.

Q: Repubs, why is Obama’s idea to invest stimulus funds in renewable energy a bad thing?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090116/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy

Sounds like a better idea than giving the banks the money (like we did with the 1st half). All they did was hold onto the money and keep it within their OWN circle not into the economy.

Obama’s idea is inline with job creation and alternative energy sources.

So, Obama haters, why is this such a bad idea again?

Thoughts?

A: Don’t expect real, rational reasons, because these guys believe that anything, absolutely anything that Obama suggests must be attacked.
Next they’ll claim the Earth is flat, just because Obama says it’s round.

Q: What do Bush and the House Republicans have against Alternative Energy?
House shifts $16 billion toward renewable energy!
Republicans called it a “no-energy bill” because it lacks new drilling incentives, and they derided the new emphasis on renewables as “green pork.” The White House threatened to veto the bill on concerns that it could boost energy prices.

Didn’t Bush say that the USA is addicted to oil and needs to find alternate energy sources? Or was he just refering to ethanol?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070805/pl_nm/usa_energy_house_dc_3

A: Roughly three years ago in a televised State of the Union Address, Bush dropped a hint on what a portion of the Republican plan for alternative energy might be.

He mentioned pulling in the big oil companies to explore the development of hydrogen based fuels as a possible alternative to fossil fuels.

So, after the oil companies have spent decades with that giant money-sucking vacuum … sucking the dollars out of the pockets of the American consumer, you might think the power and influence of big oil is now diminishing … diminishing due to waning fossil fuels and the growing green movement.

What exactly is it that the Republicans love to say when justifying a rationale for supporting corporate interests while actively fighting American workers who are negatively impacted by those interests?

“Let the Free Market Decide”

In this scenario, the free market would have decided the days of big oil, had come and gone … the strangle hold of big oil on all of us had run it’s course and the corrupt, self-serving oil and gas industry was now dying.

But there’s the problem … the oil and gas industry is a prime Republican contributor. In addition, the ruling elite is heavily invested in oil and gas.

So … enter the Republicans with their little energy plan, big oil is potentially crowned “Lords of the Hydrogen” … so they can rape us all over again.

.

Related Posts

• renewable biomass
• renewable sustainable energy
• renewable green energy
• fuel renewable
• renewable energy power
• renewable generation
• renewable wind
• geothermal renewable
• renewable wind power