 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Don't let your representative weaken light bulb efficiency standards
The standards, which were enacted with strong bipartisan support, require new bulbs to use 25 to 30 percent less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs beginning in 2012, and 65 percent less energy by 2020. Traditional bulbs are extremely inefficient -- wasting about 90 percent of the energy they consume as heat instead of light. The new standards do not ban incandescent bulbs, as critics falsely claim. In fact, all of America's lighting manufacturers already sell new energy-efficient incandescent bulbs that meet the standards that went into effect at the beginning of this year. These bulbs look and perform just like conventional incandescent bulbs, but they don't use the same old technology, which has changed very little over the past 125 years. What to do Send a message urging your representative to oppose any amendment that would prohibit the Department of Energy from enforcing light bulb efficiency standards. Additional information Learn more about new energy-efficient light bulbs here.  | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label Dept of Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dept of Energy. Show all posts
14 May 2012
Don't let your representative weaken light bulb efficiency standards from the NRDC 14MAI12
SOME people are so stupid, they would rather pay higher electric bills AND pollute more because they are voluntarily ignorant about an issue as simple as energy efficient light bulbs and actually see this as another example of the government interfering in their lives. I can just hear them, "Nope, I ain't gonna let the government make me save money and pollute less!" DUH! I hope you are smart enough to know better, and so will participate in the NRDC's campaign to maintain high efficiency standards for light bulbs, just click the link.....
04 May 2012
Ad says stimulus tax credits funded jobs in Finland from POLITIFACT 3MAI12
THE repiglicans and tea-baggers have done nothing to stimulate the
economy to get us out of this recession and so have nothing to offer the
electorate but lies and deception, like these lies from americans for
prosperity (the people who are sending jobs overseas) about stimulus
money being sent to Mexico, Finland and the prc. The real kicker about this story is that the loan in question is from a program signed into law by george w bush!!!! See my earlier post on the solar plant in Mexico Ad says stimulus tax credits funded a solar company building a Mexico plant from POLITIFACT 2MAI12
http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/ad-says-stimulus-tax-credits-funded.html The truth about these projects from PolitiFact.....
A TV ad from Americans for Prosperity claims that stimulus tax credits went overseas, including "half a billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland." That's not what happened.
http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/ad-says-stimulus-tax-credits-funded.html The truth about these projects from PolitiFact.....
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Says the stimulus bill sent tax credits overseas, such as "half a billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland."
Americans for Prosperity on Saturday, May 26th, 2012 in a TV adAd says stimulus tax credits funded jobs in Finland
Share this story:
A TV ad from Americans for Prosperity claims that stimulus tax credits went overseas, including "half a billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland." That's not what happened.
Americans for Prosperity released this
ad April 26, 2012, to air in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada,
New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia.
Is your tax money paying for jobs in Finland?
A TV ad running in eight states blames President Barack Obama for sending stimulus money overseas while Americans are out of work.
"Tell President Obama, American tax dollars should help American taxpayers," the narrator says. Instead, $2.3 billion in tax credits funded jobs in Mexico, Finland and China, the ad claims.
Americans for Prosperity, a group dedicated to "educating citizens about economic policy" that works closely with tea party activists and has been funded by the conservative Koch family, released the ad April 26, 2012.
Here’s the string of claims, starting with an image of the president signing a bill:
We rated one claim from the ad, about stimulus tax credits supposedly funding a plant in Mexico, a Pants on Fire falsehood. A second claim, on building traffic lights in China, we rated Mostly False. In this fact-check, we’re examining if those tax credits included "half a billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland."
(We've also checked many other exaggerations about the stimulus.)
The ad said its source for the Finland claim was an ABC News article, "Car Company Gets U.S. Loan, Builds Cars In Finland."
A loan for U.S. work
The first clue something’s wrong is in that ABC News headline. A car company got a "U.S. loan." That’s not the same thing as a tax credit. Taxpayers expect to get loan money back, with interest. (Though, they don’t always. See: Solyndra.)
Things get even more wrong from there.
That U.S. loan program? It's the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program through the Energy Department. And it's not funded by Obama’s stimulus bill — otherwise known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It is, in fact, a program signed into existence by President George W. Bush in 2007 and first funded by legislation Bush signed in 2008.
The program was designed to support development of advanced technology vehicles.
The Bush administration was in charge when the automaker filed its application. The Obama administration was in charge when the company’s loan was approved. The stimulus bill had nothing to do with it.
Now, the ad could have raised relevant criticism of the Energy Department’s loan programs. Watchdogs inside and outside government have argued since the Bush administration that the programs haven’t included safeguards sufficient to protect taxpayers. Instead, the ad says stimulus tax credits funded overseas jobs. That’s the claim we’re weighing here. And that’s just not the case.
Fisker Automotive, a U.S. automaker with global headquarters in Anaheim, Calif., got its $529 million federal loan to develop and produce two lines of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles — the Karma and the Nina.
The project was expected to create about 2,000 jobs in Wilmington, Del., where the Nina would be manufactured, according to the Energy Department.
Part of the loan — $169 million — paid for design, engineering and other work in the United States on the Fisker Karma. A larger part — $359 million — was slated to help buy and reconfigure a shuttered General Motors plant in Delaware to build the Nina.
Here’s where Finland enters the story: Before its Energy Department loans were approved, Fisker had decided it would manufacture the Karma at a plant in Finland. The company argued there simply wasn’t a U.S. plant available for the type of car they were building. But 65 percent of the parts for the Karma, based on cost, would come from U.S. suppliers.
"There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle," Henrik Fisker, the company's founder, told ABC News. "They don't exist here."
The loan for the design of the car "was only used for the U.S. operations" and could not be spent overseas, according to Fisker and the Energy Department.
Meanwhile, most of the loan has yet to be disbursed. Fisker says it stopped taking loan money from the Energy Department in May 2011, after drawing $190 million — most of it for Karma design and development. Its Nina project, now called the Atlantic, has been delayed.
The News Journal in Wilmington, Del., reported the payments to Fisker stopped after the company failed to meet Energy Department milestones set as conditions for the loan.
"Our loan documents require borrowers to meet certain milestones and other conditions prior to receiving loan proceeds," department spokesman Damien LaVera told PolitiFact. "As has been widely reported, Fisker has experienced some delays in its sales and production schedule -- which is common for start-ups.
"As Fisker works through those issues and incorporates lessons learned from the production of the Karma, the department is working with Fisker to review a revised business plan and determine the best path forward so the company can meet its benchmarks, produce cars and employ workers here in America."
That makes it an open question when the Delaware plant will produce Fisker autos. As of April, it only employed a small maintenance team. In the meantime, it's not getting loan money.
Our ruling
An ad from Americans for Prosperity starts with an image of Obama and says the stimulus bill sent tax credits overseas, such as "half a billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland."
The reality: Half a billion in loans from a Bush-era program were approved for Fisker Automotive. But they weren’t tax credits, weren’t part of the stimulus bill, and didn’t go to Finland. And so far, the company has only gotten $190 million in those loans, far less than the half a billion.
Instead, the U.S. company spent a third of the money on U.S. engineering of a new electric vehicle. It chose to manufacture the car in Finland, without U.S. help. Another two-thirds of the loan, which it may or may not get, will go toward retooling a shuttered GM plant in Delaware.
The ad strings together disparate statements to tell a concocted story. The result is simply False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/03/americans-prosperity/ad-says-stimulus-tax-credits-funded-jobs-finland/
Subjects: Corporations, Energy, Environment, Message Machine 2012, Stimulus
Sources:
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP Wasteful Spending Ad," April 26, 2012
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP Ad Scrutinizes Wasteful Use of Taxpayer Dollars," April 26, 2012
PolitiFact, "Ad says stimulus tax credits funded a solar company building a Mexico plant," May 2, 2012
PolitiFact, "Ad says stimulus tax credits funded traffic lights in China," May 2, 2012
New Yorker, "Covert operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging war against Obama," Aug. 30. 2010
NPR, "Who's raising money for tea party movement?" Feb. 19, 2010
Los Angeles Times, "Koch brothers now at heart of GOP power," Feb. 6, 2011
Americans for Prosperity, "About Americans for Prosperity," accessed Nov. 11, 2011
Washington Times, "'Green' jobs no longer golden in stimulus," Sept. 9, 2010
ABC News, "Car Company Gets U.S. Loan, Builds Cars In Finland," Oct. 20, 2011
Inteview with Damien LaVera, spokesman for the Energy Department, May 2, 2012
Fisker Automotive, Fisker Automotive Fact Sheet, accessed May 2, 2012
Energy.gov, "Fisker, Tesla, and American Auto Innovation," Oct. 20, 2011
Fisker, "Press Releases: Fisker Statement re: Misleading News Reports," Oct. 21, 2011
Fisker Automotive, "Fact Sheet: Fisker Karma and Fisker Automotive," Feb. 16, 2012
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "Fisker Automotive," accessed May 2, 2012
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "About the ATVM Loan Program," accessed May 2, 2012
Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, "The Financing Force Behind America’s Clean Energy Economy," accessed May 2, 2012
Energy Department, "Department of Energy Announces Closing of $529 Million Loan to Fisker Automotive," April 23, 2010
Federal Register, "Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program," Nov. 12, 2008
Wilmington, Del., News Journal, "Can Fisker keep its promise?" Feb. 13, 2012, via Nexis
Wilmington, Del., News Journal, "Fisker catches flak on GOP campaign trail" April 19, 2012, via Nexis
Taxpayers for Common Sense, "DOE Loan Guarantees: Overview, Risks and More," Nov. 3, 2011
Government Accountability Office, "New Loan Guarantee Program Should Complete Activities Necessary for Effective and Accountable Program Management," July 2008
Government Accountability Office, "Further Actions Are Needed to Improve DOE’s Ability to Evaluate and Implement the Loan Guarantee Program," July 2010
Written by: Becky Bowers
Researched by: Becky Bowers
Edited by: Bill Adair
A TV ad running in eight states blames President Barack Obama for sending stimulus money overseas while Americans are out of work.
"Tell President Obama, American tax dollars should help American taxpayers," the narrator says. Instead, $2.3 billion in tax credits funded jobs in Mexico, Finland and China, the ad claims.
Americans for Prosperity, a group dedicated to "educating citizens about economic policy" that works closely with tea party activists and has been funded by the conservative Koch family, released the ad April 26, 2012.
Here’s the string of claims, starting with an image of the president signing a bill:
Washington promised to create American jobs. We passed their
stimulus. But that's not what happened. Fact: Billions of taxpayer
dollars spent on green energy went to jobs in foreign countries. The
Obama administration admitted the truth, that $2.3 billion of tax
credits went overseas, while millions of Americans can't find a job.
$1.2 billion to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico. Half a
billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in
Finland. And tens of millions of dollars to build traffic lights in
China.
We rated one claim from the ad, about stimulus tax credits supposedly funding a plant in Mexico, a Pants on Fire falsehood. A second claim, on building traffic lights in China, we rated Mostly False. In this fact-check, we’re examining if those tax credits included "half a billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland."
(We've also checked many other exaggerations about the stimulus.)
The ad said its source for the Finland claim was an ABC News article, "Car Company Gets U.S. Loan, Builds Cars In Finland."
A loan for U.S. work
The first clue something’s wrong is in that ABC News headline. A car company got a "U.S. loan." That’s not the same thing as a tax credit. Taxpayers expect to get loan money back, with interest. (Though, they don’t always. See: Solyndra.)
Things get even more wrong from there.
That U.S. loan program? It's the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program through the Energy Department. And it's not funded by Obama’s stimulus bill — otherwise known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It is, in fact, a program signed into existence by President George W. Bush in 2007 and first funded by legislation Bush signed in 2008.
The program was designed to support development of advanced technology vehicles.
The Bush administration was in charge when the automaker filed its application. The Obama administration was in charge when the company’s loan was approved. The stimulus bill had nothing to do with it.
Now, the ad could have raised relevant criticism of the Energy Department’s loan programs. Watchdogs inside and outside government have argued since the Bush administration that the programs haven’t included safeguards sufficient to protect taxpayers. Instead, the ad says stimulus tax credits funded overseas jobs. That’s the claim we’re weighing here. And that’s just not the case.
Fisker Automotive, a U.S. automaker with global headquarters in Anaheim, Calif., got its $529 million federal loan to develop and produce two lines of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles — the Karma and the Nina.
The project was expected to create about 2,000 jobs in Wilmington, Del., where the Nina would be manufactured, according to the Energy Department.
Part of the loan — $169 million — paid for design, engineering and other work in the United States on the Fisker Karma. A larger part — $359 million — was slated to help buy and reconfigure a shuttered General Motors plant in Delaware to build the Nina.
Here’s where Finland enters the story: Before its Energy Department loans were approved, Fisker had decided it would manufacture the Karma at a plant in Finland. The company argued there simply wasn’t a U.S. plant available for the type of car they were building. But 65 percent of the parts for the Karma, based on cost, would come from U.S. suppliers.
"There was no contract manufacturer in the U.S. that could actually produce our vehicle," Henrik Fisker, the company's founder, told ABC News. "They don't exist here."
The loan for the design of the car "was only used for the U.S. operations" and could not be spent overseas, according to Fisker and the Energy Department.
Meanwhile, most of the loan has yet to be disbursed. Fisker says it stopped taking loan money from the Energy Department in May 2011, after drawing $190 million — most of it for Karma design and development. Its Nina project, now called the Atlantic, has been delayed.
The News Journal in Wilmington, Del., reported the payments to Fisker stopped after the company failed to meet Energy Department milestones set as conditions for the loan.
"Our loan documents require borrowers to meet certain milestones and other conditions prior to receiving loan proceeds," department spokesman Damien LaVera told PolitiFact. "As has been widely reported, Fisker has experienced some delays in its sales and production schedule -- which is common for start-ups.
"As Fisker works through those issues and incorporates lessons learned from the production of the Karma, the department is working with Fisker to review a revised business plan and determine the best path forward so the company can meet its benchmarks, produce cars and employ workers here in America."
That makes it an open question when the Delaware plant will produce Fisker autos. As of April, it only employed a small maintenance team. In the meantime, it's not getting loan money.
Our ruling
An ad from Americans for Prosperity starts with an image of Obama and says the stimulus bill sent tax credits overseas, such as "half a billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in Finland."
The reality: Half a billion in loans from a Bush-era program were approved for Fisker Automotive. But they weren’t tax credits, weren’t part of the stimulus bill, and didn’t go to Finland. And so far, the company has only gotten $190 million in those loans, far less than the half a billion.
Instead, the U.S. company spent a third of the money on U.S. engineering of a new electric vehicle. It chose to manufacture the car in Finland, without U.S. help. Another two-thirds of the loan, which it may or may not get, will go toward retooling a shuttered GM plant in Delaware.
The ad strings together disparate statements to tell a concocted story. The result is simply False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/03/americans-prosperity/ad-says-stimulus-tax-credits-funded-jobs-finland/
About this statement:
Published: Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 at 11:11 a.m.Subjects: Corporations, Energy, Environment, Message Machine 2012, Stimulus
Sources:
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP Wasteful Spending Ad," April 26, 2012
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP Ad Scrutinizes Wasteful Use of Taxpayer Dollars," April 26, 2012
PolitiFact, "Ad says stimulus tax credits funded a solar company building a Mexico plant," May 2, 2012
PolitiFact, "Ad says stimulus tax credits funded traffic lights in China," May 2, 2012
New Yorker, "Covert operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging war against Obama," Aug. 30. 2010
NPR, "Who's raising money for tea party movement?" Feb. 19, 2010
Los Angeles Times, "Koch brothers now at heart of GOP power," Feb. 6, 2011
Americans for Prosperity, "About Americans for Prosperity," accessed Nov. 11, 2011
Washington Times, "'Green' jobs no longer golden in stimulus," Sept. 9, 2010
ABC News, "Car Company Gets U.S. Loan, Builds Cars In Finland," Oct. 20, 2011
Inteview with Damien LaVera, spokesman for the Energy Department, May 2, 2012
Fisker Automotive, Fisker Automotive Fact Sheet, accessed May 2, 2012
Energy.gov, "Fisker, Tesla, and American Auto Innovation," Oct. 20, 2011
Fisker, "Press Releases: Fisker Statement re: Misleading News Reports," Oct. 21, 2011
Fisker Automotive, "Fact Sheet: Fisker Karma and Fisker Automotive," Feb. 16, 2012
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "Fisker Automotive," accessed May 2, 2012
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "About the ATVM Loan Program," accessed May 2, 2012
Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, "The Financing Force Behind America’s Clean Energy Economy," accessed May 2, 2012
Energy Department, "Department of Energy Announces Closing of $529 Million Loan to Fisker Automotive," April 23, 2010
Federal Register, "Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program," Nov. 12, 2008
Wilmington, Del., News Journal, "Can Fisker keep its promise?" Feb. 13, 2012, via Nexis
Wilmington, Del., News Journal, "Fisker catches flak on GOP campaign trail" April 19, 2012, via Nexis
Taxpayers for Common Sense, "DOE Loan Guarantees: Overview, Risks and More," Nov. 3, 2011
Government Accountability Office, "New Loan Guarantee Program Should Complete Activities Necessary for Effective and Accountable Program Management," July 2008
Government Accountability Office, "Further Actions Are Needed to Improve DOE’s Ability to Evaluate and Implement the Loan Guarantee Program," July 2010
Written by: Becky Bowers
Researched by: Becky Bowers
Edited by: Bill Adair
Ad says stimulus tax credits funded a solar company building a Mexico plant from POLITIFACT 2MAI12
THE repiglicans and tea-baggers have done nothing to stimulate the economy to get us out of this recession and so have nothing to offer the electorate but lies and deception, like these lies from americans for prosperity (the people who are sending jobs overseas) about stimulus money being sent to Mexico, Finland and the prc. See my post on the Finland story Ad says stimulus tax credits funded jobs in Finland from POLITIFACT 3MAI12
http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/ad-says-stimulus-tax-credits-funded_04.html
The truth about these projects from PolitiFact.....
A TV ad from Americans for Prosperity
claims that stimulus tax credits went overseas, including "$1.2 billion
to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico." That's not what
happened.
The truth about these projects from PolitiFact.....
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Says the stimulus bill sent tax credits overseas, such as "$1.2 billion to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico."
Americans for Prosperity on Thursday, April 26th, 2012 in a TV adAd says stimulus tax credits funded a solar company building a Mexico plant
Share this story:
Americans for Prosperity released this
ad April 26, 2012, to air in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada,
New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia.
A TV ad from Americans for Prosperity
claims that stimulus tax credits went overseas, including "$1.2 billion
to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico." That's not what
happened.
A TV ad running in eight states blames President Barack Obama for sending stimulus money overseas while Americans are out of work.
"Tell President Obama, American tax dollars should help American taxpayers," the narrator says. Instead, $2.3 billion in tax credits funded jobs in Mexico, Finland and China, the ad claims.
We checked all three examples — and found the ad incorrectly describes them all.
(We've also checked many other exaggerations about the stimulus.)
Americans for Prosperity, a group dedicated to "educating citizens about economic policy" that works closely with tea party activists and has been funded by the conservative Koch family, released the ad April 26, 2012.
Here’s the string of claims, starting with an image of the president signing a bill:
For this fact-check, we’re focusing on whether "tax credits" that "went overseas" included "$1.2 billion to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico." (In other fact-checks, we found the Finland claim False, and the China claim Mostly False.)
The ad listed two sources for its Mexico claim, the Energy Department and PV Magazine. We tracked those down, then chatted with the companies involved.
Two programs, two projects
We’ll start with what’s true: An American solar company, SunPower, was approved for federal stimulus money. It also opened a solar panel plant in Mexico.
(Or, rather, it moved its Mexican manufacturing from Chihuahua to a building it’s leasing in Mexicali, said company spokeswoman Natalie Wymer.)
That’s where the claim’s relationship to the truth ends.
• The company didn’t get tax credits, but a $1.2 billion loan guarantee. What’s the difference? The Energy Department expects the loan to be paid back — with interest.
• That loan guarantee wasn’t for the Mexico plant — a separate project with its own funding — but to build the California Valley Solar Ranch in San Luis Obispo, Calif. Construction on the California project has already started, with the Energy Department projecting 350 construction jobs and 15 permanent ones. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state’s largest utility, will ultimately buy the power.
• Most of the solar panels for the California project will come from SunPower’s California manufacturing facility in Milpitas, though given the size of the project, they’ll also come from the company’s plants in Mexico and Asia, Wymer said.
• SunPower no longer owns the California Valley Solar Ranch project. The solar project — and the loan guarantee — belong to New Jersey company NRG Energy. That’s the company that will get the federal loan money, and be responsible for repaying taxpayers.
Our ruling
A TV ad from Americans for Prosperity says billions of tax dollars spent on green energy went to jobs in foreign countries. It claims that stimulus bill tax credits went overseas, such as "$1.2 billion to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico." The ad even cites sources for its claim.
But those same sources, plus a few phone calls, quickly bring down the ad’s house of cards. Sure, taxpayer money was originally approved for a California solar company that also happened to open a plant in Mexico. But that loan — not tax credits, as the ad claims — will go to a New Jersey company for a solar project in California, employing construction workers in the state, using mostly California-built solar panels, to create solar power that’ll be purchased by a California utility.
That’s a completely different story. The ad strings together alarming-sounding tidbits about actual stimulus projects to create the impression of something else entirely — in a way that’s ultimately ridiculous. And that earns our lowest rating, Pants on Fire.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/02/americans-prosperity/ad-says-stimulus-tax-credits-funded-solar-company-/
Subjects: Corporations, Energy, Environment, Government Efficiency, Message Machine 2012, Stimulus
Sources:
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP Wasteful Spending Ad," April 26, 2012
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP Ad Scrutinizes Wasteful Use of Taxpayer Dollars," April 26, 2012
PolitiFact, "Ad says stimulus tax credits funded jobs in Finland," May 3, 2012
PolitiFact, "Ad says stimulus tax credits funded traffic lights in China," May 2, 2012
New Yorker, "Covert operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging war against Obama," Aug. 30. 2010
NPR, "Who's raising money for tea party movement?" Feb. 19, 2010
Los Angeles Times, "Koch brothers now at heart of GOP power," Feb. 6, 2011
Americans for Prosperity, "About Americans for Prosperity," accessed Nov. 11, 2011
Washington Times, "'Green' jobs no longer golden in stimulus," Sept. 9, 2010
PV Magazine, "SunPower to open Mexican plant," Aug. 8, 2011
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "DOE Offers Conditional Commitment for $1.187 Billion Loan Guarantee, Support California Solar Generation," April 12, 2011
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "DOE Finalizes $1.2 Billion Loan Guarantee to Support California Solar Generation Project," Sept. 30, 2011
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "NRG Solar (California Valley Solar Ranch)," accessed May 1, 2012
California Valley Solar Ranch, accessed April 30, 2012
SunPower, "SunPower Announces New Solar Panel Manufacturing Facility," Aug. 5, 2011
Interview with Natalie Wymer, senior director, SunPower corporate communications, May 1, 2012
SunPower, "SunPower's and Flextronics' New Solar Manufacturing Plant Creates Jobs, Economic Benefits and Clean Affordable Energy," April 12, 2011
SunPower, "SunPower and Total Partner to Create a New Global Leader in the Solar Industry," April 28, 2011
SunPower, "NRG Energy, SunPower Invite Community Leaders to Ceremonial Groundbreaking for 250-Megawatt California Valley Solar Ranch," Nov. 10, 2011
SunPower, "SunPower Announces Agreement to Acquire Tenesol SA," Dec 23, 2011
NRG Energy, 10-K filing, Feb. 28, 2012
Written by: Becky Bowers
Researched by: Becky Bowers
Edited by: Bill Adair
"Tell President Obama, American tax dollars should help American taxpayers," the narrator says. Instead, $2.3 billion in tax credits funded jobs in Mexico, Finland and China, the ad claims.
We checked all three examples — and found the ad incorrectly describes them all.
(We've also checked many other exaggerations about the stimulus.)
Americans for Prosperity, a group dedicated to "educating citizens about economic policy" that works closely with tea party activists and has been funded by the conservative Koch family, released the ad April 26, 2012.
Here’s the string of claims, starting with an image of the president signing a bill:
Washington promised to create American jobs. We passed their
stimulus. But that's not what happened. Fact: Billions of taxpayer
dollars spent on green energy went to jobs in foreign countries. The
Obama administration admitted the truth, that $2.3 billion of tax
credits went overseas, while millions of Americans can't find a job.
$1.2 billion to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico. Half a
billion to an electric car company that created hundreds of jobs in
Finland. And tens of millions of dollars to build traffic lights in
China.
Sounds like a scandal and an outrage. Is that what happened?For this fact-check, we’re focusing on whether "tax credits" that "went overseas" included "$1.2 billion to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico." (In other fact-checks, we found the Finland claim False, and the China claim Mostly False.)
The ad listed two sources for its Mexico claim, the Energy Department and PV Magazine. We tracked those down, then chatted with the companies involved.
Two programs, two projects
We’ll start with what’s true: An American solar company, SunPower, was approved for federal stimulus money. It also opened a solar panel plant in Mexico.
(Or, rather, it moved its Mexican manufacturing from Chihuahua to a building it’s leasing in Mexicali, said company spokeswoman Natalie Wymer.)
That’s where the claim’s relationship to the truth ends.
• The company didn’t get tax credits, but a $1.2 billion loan guarantee. What’s the difference? The Energy Department expects the loan to be paid back — with interest.
• That loan guarantee wasn’t for the Mexico plant — a separate project with its own funding — but to build the California Valley Solar Ranch in San Luis Obispo, Calif. Construction on the California project has already started, with the Energy Department projecting 350 construction jobs and 15 permanent ones. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state’s largest utility, will ultimately buy the power.
• Most of the solar panels for the California project will come from SunPower’s California manufacturing facility in Milpitas, though given the size of the project, they’ll also come from the company’s plants in Mexico and Asia, Wymer said.
• SunPower no longer owns the California Valley Solar Ranch project. The solar project — and the loan guarantee — belong to New Jersey company NRG Energy. That’s the company that will get the federal loan money, and be responsible for repaying taxpayers.
Our ruling
A TV ad from Americans for Prosperity says billions of tax dollars spent on green energy went to jobs in foreign countries. It claims that stimulus bill tax credits went overseas, such as "$1.2 billion to a solar company that's building a plant in Mexico." The ad even cites sources for its claim.
But those same sources, plus a few phone calls, quickly bring down the ad’s house of cards. Sure, taxpayer money was originally approved for a California solar company that also happened to open a plant in Mexico. But that loan — not tax credits, as the ad claims — will go to a New Jersey company for a solar project in California, employing construction workers in the state, using mostly California-built solar panels, to create solar power that’ll be purchased by a California utility.
That’s a completely different story. The ad strings together alarming-sounding tidbits about actual stimulus projects to create the impression of something else entirely — in a way that’s ultimately ridiculous. And that earns our lowest rating, Pants on Fire.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/02/americans-prosperity/ad-says-stimulus-tax-credits-funded-solar-company-/
About this statement:
Published: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 11:31 a.m.Subjects: Corporations, Energy, Environment, Government Efficiency, Message Machine 2012, Stimulus
Sources:
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP Wasteful Spending Ad," April 26, 2012
Americans for Prosperity, "AFP Ad Scrutinizes Wasteful Use of Taxpayer Dollars," April 26, 2012
PolitiFact, "Ad says stimulus tax credits funded jobs in Finland," May 3, 2012
PolitiFact, "Ad says stimulus tax credits funded traffic lights in China," May 2, 2012
New Yorker, "Covert operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging war against Obama," Aug. 30. 2010
NPR, "Who's raising money for tea party movement?" Feb. 19, 2010
Los Angeles Times, "Koch brothers now at heart of GOP power," Feb. 6, 2011
Americans for Prosperity, "About Americans for Prosperity," accessed Nov. 11, 2011
Washington Times, "'Green' jobs no longer golden in stimulus," Sept. 9, 2010
PV Magazine, "SunPower to open Mexican plant," Aug. 8, 2011
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "DOE Offers Conditional Commitment for $1.187 Billion Loan Guarantee, Support California Solar Generation," April 12, 2011
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "DOE Finalizes $1.2 Billion Loan Guarantee to Support California Solar Generation Project," Sept. 30, 2011
Energy Department Loan Programs Office, "NRG Solar (California Valley Solar Ranch)," accessed May 1, 2012
California Valley Solar Ranch, accessed April 30, 2012
SunPower, "SunPower Announces New Solar Panel Manufacturing Facility," Aug. 5, 2011
Interview with Natalie Wymer, senior director, SunPower corporate communications, May 1, 2012
SunPower, "SunPower's and Flextronics' New Solar Manufacturing Plant Creates Jobs, Economic Benefits and Clean Affordable Energy," April 12, 2011
SunPower, "SunPower and Total Partner to Create a New Global Leader in the Solar Industry," April 28, 2011
SunPower, "NRG Energy, SunPower Invite Community Leaders to Ceremonial Groundbreaking for 250-Megawatt California Valley Solar Ranch," Nov. 10, 2011
SunPower, "SunPower Announces Agreement to Acquire Tenesol SA," Dec 23, 2011
NRG Energy, 10-K filing, Feb. 28, 2012
Written by: Becky Bowers
Researched by: Becky Bowers
Edited by: Bill Adair
28 January 2012
Navy wants commando ‘mothership’ in Middle East 27JAN12 & Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries September 2011 Import Highlights 29NOV11
AGAIN the American taxpayers are being asked to put our troops in harms way and to pay for protecting oil exports from the Persian Gulf, oil exports we are not dependent on, but the American oil cartel is dependent on for their corporate profits, and the economies of Europe, Southeast Asia, India, Japan and South Korea are dependent on. Let those who need this oil provide the forces necessary to keep it flowing. Big oil and the military-industrial complex in the U.S. dictate American foreign policy in the region, it is nothing on their corporate books for their greed and willingness to sacrifice American lives, spill American blood for oil.Let those who need this oil provide the forces necessary to keep it flowing. Let the oil producing nations of the Persian Gulf pay for it. Instead of continuing to waste American lives and tax dollars on this oil profit protection racket and subsidizing the military-industrial complex (because war is big business) we should eliminate corporate welfare subsidies for big oil and gas in the U.S., invest those hundreds of millions of dollars into the proven renewable energy technology available now and more into upgrading our energy grid to effectively distribute energy and into R&D into improving and developing more renewable energy and conservation programs. The propaganda of big oil, gas and the military-industrial complex deceiving the American people, their ownership of too many American politicians in D.C. and throughout the states and their insatiable greed keep us dependent on imported oil. In return we get a "mother ship" in the Persian Gulf, another platform for launching the caskets of American troops to their families in the U.S.
Here is the Washington Post article on the commando "mother ship" followed by the latest available from the Dept of Energy showing the top 15 oil exporters to the U.S.
The Pentagon is rushing to send a large floating base for commando teams to the Middle East as tensions rise with Iran, al-Qaeda in Yemen and Somali pirates, among other threats.
In response to requests from U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, the Navy is converting an aging warship it had planned to decommission into a makeshift staging base for the commandos. Unofficially dubbed a “mothership,” the floating base could accommodate smaller high-speed boats and helicopters commonly used by Navy SEALs, procurement documents show.
Special Operations forces are a key part of the Obama administration’s strategy to make the military leaner and more agile as the Pentagon confronts at least $487 billion in spending cuts over the next decade.
Lt. Cmdr. Mike Kafka, a spokesman for the Navy’s Fleet Forces Command, declined to elaborate on the floating base’s purpose or to say where, exactly, it will be deployed in the Middle East. Other Navy officials acknowledged that they were moving with unusual haste to complete the conversion and send the mothership to the region by early summer.
Navy documents indicate that it could be headed to the Persian Gulf, where Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial shipping route for much of the world’s oil supply. A market survey proposal from the Military Sealift Command, dated Dec. 22 and posted online, states that the floating base needed to be delivered to the Persian Gulf.
Other contract documents do not specify a location but say the mothership would be used to “support mine countermeasure” missions. Defense officials have said that if Iran did attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, it would rely on mines to obstruct the waterway.
With a large naval base in Bahrain, and one or two aircraft carrier groups usually assigned to the region, the Navy has a substantial presence in the Persian Gulf and surrounding waters. Adding the mothership would do relatively little to bolster U.S. maritime power overall, but it could play an instrumental role in secretive commando missions offshore.
The deployment of the floating base could also mark a return to maritime missions for SEAL teams, which for the past decade have spent most of their time on land in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Other details of the project became public Tuesday when the Military Sealift Command posted a bid request to retrofit the USS Ponce, an amphibious transport docking ship, on a rush-order basis.
Until December, the Navy had planned to retire the Ponce and decommission it in March after 41 years of service. Among other missions, it was deployed to the Mediterranean Sea last year in support of NATO’s air war over Libya.
Instead, the ship will be modified into what the military terms an Afloat Forward Staging Base. Kafka said it would be used to support mine-clearance ships, smaller patrol ships and aircraft.
The documents posted by the Military Sealift Command in December, however, specify that the mothership will be rebuilt so that it can also serve as a docking station for several small high-speed boats and helicopters commonly used by Navy SEAL teams.
Among the vessels listed are Mark 5 Zodiacs, inflatable boats that can carry up to 15 passengers and can roll up into bags, and seven-meter-long Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats, which can carry an entire SEAL squad.
SEAL teams also deploy from regular warships, but most vessels in the Navy’s fleet must patrol or move around on a regular basis. A mothership can stay in one spot for weeks or months, effectively serving as a floating base for commandos as they monitor coastal areas or prepare for amphibious operations.
The U.S. Special Operations Command has sought a transportable floating base for several years, saying that a mothership would expand the range of commando squads operating from small speedboats, particularly in remote coastal areas.
Defense officials said the Ponce will serve as a stopgap measure until the Navy can build a new Afloat Forward Staging Base from scratch. In budget documents released Thursday, the Pentagon said it would fund that project starting next year.
The floating base also could be suited to the coast of Somalia, a failed state that is home to an al-Qaeda affiliate and gangs of pirates. A mothership there would give SEALs or other commandos more flexibility in missions such as Wednesday’s rescue of a pair of American and Danish hostages who had been held for months by Somali pirates.
The term “mothership” is also commonly used to describe a vessel used by Somali pirates. After hijacking a large container or cargo vessel, pirate crews often turn it into a floating base to extend the range of their skiffs or speedboats far into the Indian Ocean, Gulf of Aden and Persian Gulf.
U.S. military officials declined to say what prompted them to give the Ponce a sudden new lease on life. But contract and bidding documents underscore the urgency of the project.
One no-bid contract for engineering work states that the military was waiving normal procurement rules because any delay presented a “national security risk.” Other contract bids are due Feb. 3. The Navy wants the conversion work to begin 10 days later on the Ponce, which is docked in Virginia Beach.
Here is the Washington Post article on the commando "mother ship" followed by the latest available from the Dept of Energy showing the top 15 oil exporters to the U.S.
The Pentagon is rushing to send a large floating base for commando teams to the Middle East as tensions rise with Iran, al-Qaeda in Yemen and Somali pirates, among other threats.
In response to requests from U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, the Navy is converting an aging warship it had planned to decommission into a makeshift staging base for the commandos. Unofficially dubbed a “mothership,” the floating base could accommodate smaller high-speed boats and helicopters commonly used by Navy SEALs, procurement documents show.
Special Operations forces are a key part of the Obama administration’s strategy to make the military leaner and more agile as the Pentagon confronts at least $487 billion in spending cuts over the next decade.
Lt. Cmdr. Mike Kafka, a spokesman for the Navy’s Fleet Forces Command, declined to elaborate on the floating base’s purpose or to say where, exactly, it will be deployed in the Middle East. Other Navy officials acknowledged that they were moving with unusual haste to complete the conversion and send the mothership to the region by early summer.
Navy documents indicate that it could be headed to the Persian Gulf, where Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial shipping route for much of the world’s oil supply. A market survey proposal from the Military Sealift Command, dated Dec. 22 and posted online, states that the floating base needed to be delivered to the Persian Gulf.
Other contract documents do not specify a location but say the mothership would be used to “support mine countermeasure” missions. Defense officials have said that if Iran did attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, it would rely on mines to obstruct the waterway.
With a large naval base in Bahrain, and one or two aircraft carrier groups usually assigned to the region, the Navy has a substantial presence in the Persian Gulf and surrounding waters. Adding the mothership would do relatively little to bolster U.S. maritime power overall, but it could play an instrumental role in secretive commando missions offshore.
The deployment of the floating base could also mark a return to maritime missions for SEAL teams, which for the past decade have spent most of their time on land in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Other details of the project became public Tuesday when the Military Sealift Command posted a bid request to retrofit the USS Ponce, an amphibious transport docking ship, on a rush-order basis.
Until December, the Navy had planned to retire the Ponce and decommission it in March after 41 years of service. Among other missions, it was deployed to the Mediterranean Sea last year in support of NATO’s air war over Libya.
Instead, the ship will be modified into what the military terms an Afloat Forward Staging Base. Kafka said it would be used to support mine-clearance ships, smaller patrol ships and aircraft.
The documents posted by the Military Sealift Command in December, however, specify that the mothership will be rebuilt so that it can also serve as a docking station for several small high-speed boats and helicopters commonly used by Navy SEAL teams.
Among the vessels listed are Mark 5 Zodiacs, inflatable boats that can carry up to 15 passengers and can roll up into bags, and seven-meter-long Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats, which can carry an entire SEAL squad.
SEAL teams also deploy from regular warships, but most vessels in the Navy’s fleet must patrol or move around on a regular basis. A mothership can stay in one spot for weeks or months, effectively serving as a floating base for commandos as they monitor coastal areas or prepare for amphibious operations.
The U.S. Special Operations Command has sought a transportable floating base for several years, saying that a mothership would expand the range of commando squads operating from small speedboats, particularly in remote coastal areas.
Defense officials said the Ponce will serve as a stopgap measure until the Navy can build a new Afloat Forward Staging Base from scratch. In budget documents released Thursday, the Pentagon said it would fund that project starting next year.
The floating base also could be suited to the coast of Somalia, a failed state that is home to an al-Qaeda affiliate and gangs of pirates. A mothership there would give SEALs or other commandos more flexibility in missions such as Wednesday’s rescue of a pair of American and Danish hostages who had been held for months by Somali pirates.
The term “mothership” is also commonly used to describe a vessel used by Somali pirates. After hijacking a large container or cargo vessel, pirate crews often turn it into a floating base to extend the range of their skiffs or speedboats far into the Indian Ocean, Gulf of Aden and Persian Gulf.
U.S. military officials declined to say what prompted them to give the Ponce a sudden new lease on life. But contract and bidding documents underscore the urgency of the project.
One no-bid contract for engineering work states that the military was waiving normal procurement rules because any delay presented a “national security risk.” Other contract bids are due Feb. 3. The Navy wants the conversion work to begin 10 days later on the Ponce, which is docked in Virginia Beach.
Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries |
|---|
September 2011 Import Highlights: Released November 29, 2011
ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in September 2011 has been released and it shows that three countries exported more than 1,000 thousand barrels per day to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 69 percent of United States crude oil imports in September while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 88 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top five sources of US crude oil imports for September were Canada (2,324 thousand barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1,465 thousand barrels per day), Mexico (1,099 thousand barrels per day), Venezuela (759 thousand barrels per day) and Nigeria (529 thousand barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Colombia (510 thousand barrels per day), Iraq (403 thousand barrels per day), Ecuador (299 thousand barrels per day), Angola (283 thousand barrels per day) and Russia (275 thousand barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 9,006 thousand barrels per day in September, which is a decrease of (16) thousand barrels per day from August 2011.
Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in September, exporting 2,829 thousand barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (2,637 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Saudi Arabia with 1,479 thousand barrels per day.
Monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in September 2011 has been released and it shows that three countries exported more than 1,000 thousand barrels per day to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 69 percent of United States crude oil imports in September while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 88 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top five sources of US crude oil imports for September were Canada (2,324 thousand barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1,465 thousand barrels per day), Mexico (1,099 thousand barrels per day), Venezuela (759 thousand barrels per day) and Nigeria (529 thousand barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Colombia (510 thousand barrels per day), Iraq (403 thousand barrels per day), Ecuador (299 thousand barrels per day), Angola (283 thousand barrels per day) and Russia (275 thousand barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 9,006 thousand barrels per day in September, which is a decrease of (16) thousand barrels per day from August 2011.
Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in September, exporting 2,829 thousand barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (2,637 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Saudi Arabia with 1,479 thousand barrels per day.
| Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries) (Thousand Barrels per Day) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Country | Sep-11 | Aug-11 | YTD 2011 | Sep-10 | YTD 2010 |
| CANADA | 2,324 | 2,240 | 2,157 | 1,937 | 1,971 |
| SAUDI ARABIA | 1,465 | 1,075 | 1,180 | 1,082 | 1,072 |
| MEXICO | 1,099 | 1,150 | 1,113 | 1,108 | 1,132 |
| VENEZUELA | 759 | 806 | 893 | 919 | 928 |
| NIGERIA | 529 | 854 | 826 | 1,107 | 1,018 |
| COLOMBIA | 510 | 365 | 364 | 308 | 328 |
| IRAQ | 403 | 637 | 473 | 422 | 464 |
| ECUADOR | 299 | 303 | 203 | 229 | 215 |
| ANGOLA | 283 | 311 | 323 | 404 | 413 |
| RUSSIA | 275 | 252 | 246 | 286 | 295 |
| BRAZIL | 163 | 213 | 225 | 177 | 270 |
| KUWAIT | 145 | 165 | 164 | 172 | 204 |
| ALGERIA | 139 | 140 | 204 | 366 | 337 |
| CHAD | 74 | 32 | 54 | 30 | 14 |
| OMAN | 72 | 52 | 39 | 0 | 0 |
| Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries) (Thousand Barrels per Day) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Country | Sep-11 | Aug-11 | YTD 2011 | Sep-10 | YTD 2010 |
| CANADA | 2,829 | 2,637 | 2,670 | 2,479 | 2,537 |
| SAUDI ARABIA | 1,479 | 1,075 | 1,187 | 1,093 | 1,086 |
| MEXICO | 1,192 | 1,185 | 1,218 | 1,254 | 1,260 |
| VENEZUELA | 806 | 906 | 979 | 1,008 | 1,007 |
| RUSSIA | 592 | 585 | 609 | 648 | 624 |
| NIGERIA | 580 | 892 | 876 | 1,174 | 1,053 |
| COLOMBIA | 529 | 395 | 395 | 363 | 360 |
| IRAQ | 404 | 637 | 473 | 422 | 464 |
| ECUADOR | 305 | 309 | 205 | 229 | 217 |
| ANGOLA | 304 | 331 | 335 | 417 | 422 |
| ALGERIA | 291 | 298 | 396 | 543 | 512 |
| VIRGIN ISLANDS | 189 | 185 | 189 | 302 | 261 |
| BRAZIL | 188 | 228 | 240 | 181 | 289 |
| ARUBA | 149 | 81 | 79 | 0 | 0 |
| KUWAIT | 145 | 165 | 165 | 172 | 206 |
Note: The data in the tables above exclude oil imports into the U.S. territories.
13 June 2011
TELL THE DEPT OF ENERGY YOUR VIEWS ON FRACKING 13JUN11
IF you are concerned about the damage fracking is doing to our water supplies here is your chance to let the Dept of Energy's Natural Gas Subcommittee know how you feel. Click the link to go the department's comment page for this subcommittee to submit your comments and views. The link is provided by DFA Democracy For America but it goes directly to the Dept of Energy, NOT to DFA (for those of you who may not agree with or support DFA's politics), so no worries there....
Have you heard of the Department of Energy's Natural Gas Subcommittee?
It's a public entity established for the sole purpose of providing advice to the Secretary of Energy on how to improve the safety and environmental performance of fracking.
The Natural Gas Subcommittee could be an important ally in our fight to protect America's drinking water from the disastrous effects of fracking -- if we can get them on our side!
The first step to improving the safety of fracking is to make the oil companies fully disclose the hundreds of toxic chemicals they are using.
Send a comment to the Natural Gas Subcommittee, urging them to support full disclosure.
Nearly 100,000 DFA members like you have joined our campaign to pass the FRAC Act in Congress, a bill that would finally hold the oil companies accountable for their reckless behavior by forcing them to disclose what they are doing.
Getting the Secretary of Energy on board for chemical disclosure would provide tremendous momentum for the FRAC Act.
Tell the Dept. of Energy: safety begins with disclosure!
Working together, we can protect our communities from the disastrous effects of corporate greed.
Let's win.
- Gregg
Gregg Ross, Political Campaign Manager
Democracy for America
Have you heard of the Department of Energy's Natural Gas Subcommittee?
It's a public entity established for the sole purpose of providing advice to the Secretary of Energy on how to improve the safety and environmental performance of fracking.
The Natural Gas Subcommittee could be an important ally in our fight to protect America's drinking water from the disastrous effects of fracking -- if we can get them on our side!
The first step to improving the safety of fracking is to make the oil companies fully disclose the hundreds of toxic chemicals they are using.
Send a comment to the Natural Gas Subcommittee, urging them to support full disclosure.
Nearly 100,000 DFA members like you have joined our campaign to pass the FRAC Act in Congress, a bill that would finally hold the oil companies accountable for their reckless behavior by forcing them to disclose what they are doing.
Getting the Secretary of Energy on board for chemical disclosure would provide tremendous momentum for the FRAC Act.
Tell the Dept. of Energy: safety begins with disclosure!
Working together, we can protect our communities from the disastrous effects of corporate greed.
Let's win.
- Gregg
Gregg Ross, Political Campaign Manager
Democracy for America
30 October 2010
'Cash For Caulkers' Seals Savings For Homeowners 23OKT10
John Poole/NPR A worker with Home Energy Loss Professionals, a Maryland company, retrofits the attic of a home.
So now comes "cash for caulkers." Call it "energy reform lite" — part of a string of more modest measures designed to reduce our hunger for energy without a top-down overhaul of energy use in the country.
Known officially as Homestar, cash for caulkers would put up to $6 billion of federal money into the hands of homeowners and contractors who make homes more energy-efficient. That's if Congress decides to pass it.
We do a better job servicing our car than our house.
"So what we have here is a blower door," explains Glenn Dickey as he secures a canvas flap over the front door entrance to a comfortable house in the Washington, D.C., suburbs. There's a big fan built into the flap, connected to a power socket. "And what we are going to do is turn the fan on, draw the air through the house, and this will give us an opportunity to find the leaks."
Dickey trains retrofit workers to get certified by the Building Performance Institute. Today he's on the hunt for an insidious enemy — air leaks. When he turns on the fan, it sucks air out of the house and lowers the interior air pressure — not enough to suffocate us, he promises, but enough so that hot air from the outside will leak into the cooler house through any cracks or holes.
Dickey's partner here is Rush Fleshman, a Wellhome expert. Fleshman wanders through the house using an infrared camera to find those streams of air. They will lead back to cracks and holes in walls and windows. He finds plenty.
Courtesy of Glenn Dickey In the wintertime, cold air can enter homes from pull-down attic stairs (left) and fireplaces with glass doors (right). The dark colors in these infrared images show poorly insulated surfaces where cooler air is entering the home.
The screen on the hand-held camera shows a pinkish blob slithering down the wall. It's coming from the attic. Any air that's a few degrees warmer or colder than the indoor air will show up on the infrared camera, even behind walls.
In this case, the insulation could have pulled away from the inside of the wall, or there might be an opening somewhere between the first floor and the attic.
Tough Love For Homeowners
Meanwhile, around the kitchen table, Wellhome auditor Michael Hogan throws a barrage of questions at the homeowners, Jay and Dorothy Murdoch. Jay is pretty savvy about construction — a copy of Family Handyman lies on the table — and Dorothy is an architect. But they're in for a grilling.
"Does your house have any cold or hot areas?" Hogan asks. Rapid fire, he runs down a hefty list. "Are there any drafty areas in your home? Do you ever close off any rooms to prevent from heating them? Do you have any moisture problems anywhere in the home? Do you have any musty smells in your home?"
Sometimes the questions hit a sore spot. "When was the last time you had your furnace cleaned or serviced?" Hogan asks.
"Ooooh," sighs Dorothy Murdoch. Her husband grimaces.
"It hasn't been serviced since it was installed," he confesses — three years ago. "We do a better job servicing our car than our house."
"Yeah, we're bad," Dorothy admits.
This is more than just "tough love" for homeowners — it's the Gold Star treatment. That's a top-of-the-line energy efficiency overhaul that evolved after some states started rebate programs for residential energy retrofits.
Homeowner Jay Murdoch is actually in this business — he works for Wellhome. He volunteered for this workover after he reached the limit of his own handyman skills.
Some fixes only require a change of behavior. The house has five computers, for example, and sometimes they're all drawing electricity at once. Hogan also spots some things that aren't so obvious.
"A cell phone charger," he says. "You know, people usually leave them plugged into the wall. That has a draw on it."
An Airy Puzzle
Dickey heads up a staircase into the attic. In a well-insulated home, attics are supposed to be sealed off from the rest of the house. Dickey pulls back the insulation on an interior wall and finds a long open seam that leads down into the house — a conduit for attic air to dribble back down.
A two-by-four should be enough to seal that off — no big deal. But downstairs, Hogan and the infrared camera have found something mysterious.
"Right at the moment, I'm stumped," admits Hogan. "We've got this air circulating down around the paneling in the little den space here, and the air is cool, which would indicate that it's not coming from the attic." Maybe it's coming up from the crawl space under the house. Or maybe somewhere else. It will take some sleuthing to diagnose it, and that's what Hogan likes — connecting parts of the house like a puzzle.
That's not how most people in the construction business think, says Larry Zarker. He runs the Building Performance Institute, which trains and certifies retrofit workers like Hogan. "You can't get comfort, you can't get energy efficiency, without treating the house as a system" of interconnected parts, he says. "You can do piecemeal projects, but you can't get there" just one room or appliance at a time.
After a couple of hours of home "therapy," the homeowners are contemplating several thousand dollars' worth of work.
Related NPR Stories
Weathering The Times: Stimulus Boosts Green Jobs
The government hopes to save energy, create jobs — and slow global warming. A Green Makeover For Historic Boston Home Aug. 10, 2009
Subsidies For Energy Retrofits
The Murdochs are willing to pay for an overhaul because it will lower their bills. But if Homestar happens, the federal government could subsidize the work with as much as $8,000 for a single home. It would also subsidize a less rigorous and less expensive overhaul called Silver Star.
Some states, like New York, already pay homeowners for retrofits. So did President Obama's stimulus plan last year. But Jeff Genzer of the National Association of State Energy Officials says the stimulus money was mostly for low-income families. Homestar is for all homeowners.
"And it's really targeted to getting the money in the hands of underemployed building contractors," Genzer says. Indeed, Homestar advocates claim that the $6 billion could create 160,000 new jobs in the flagging building sector.
Genzer adds that small-scale-efficiency programs are cheaper than building new nuclear plants or big wind farms. And homes are a fat target for savings — buildings use 40 percent of the country's energy. But caulk and insulation aren't very sexy either.
"Is it easier for a politician to cut a ribbon in front of a nuclear power plant than it is in front of a house that's been weatherized?" he asks. "Well, maybe."
Nonetheless, the House of Representatives has passed a Homestar bill, and it's now being considered in the Senate.
15 October 2010
You Asked, Chu Answered, Department of Energy Secretary Chu answers questions from the public on home energy efficiency 14OKT10
Ed. Note: Cross-posted from the Department of Energy's blog. To learn more about events happening as part of National Energy Awareness Month, check out our calendar.
Last week Secretary Chu invited you to submit your questions on home energy efficiency and the response was tremendous. We sifted through your questions and recently discussed many of them with the Secretary.
Here are the resources that the Secretary referenced during the discussion: (video at the end of this post)
While the Secretary covered a lot of ground during the course of our discussion there were some thoughtful questions that we didn’t have a chance to ask, so we decided to ask the experts at Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to weigh in. You can check out their responses below.
Mayank A.
QUESTION: Do solar panels function differently in winter or summer assuming the same amount of sunlight is available?
ANSWER: Solar panels depend upon sunlight to generate power. In summer, solar radiation is more intense than in winter, so electrical output is generally greater. In winter, both solar intensity and the number of hours of sunlight are decreased, which can mean lower electrical output. If, however, the amount of solar radiation (meaning number of hours of sunlight AND intensity of that sunlight on the solar panels) were exactly the same, the solar panels would function about the same.
David F.
QUESTION: What is best way to get a discount on Solar and Wind equipment?
ANSWER: One of the biggest challenges for renewable energy equipment is the upfront cost. Major power developers face the same challenge that families do -- how to finance that upfront cost. Because, after all, with renewable energy, the fuel is free. Once you buy the equipment, there's no incremental cost to purchase fuel since sunlight and wind are free. Of course, you have to maintain the equipment, but you aren't buying coal or natural gas on a daily basis to generate electricity.
A good way to get a "discount" on renewable energy equipment is to look for financial incentives. For homeowners, the federal government will provide a 30% tax credit for newly installed solar and wind energy equipment (geothermal heat pumps and fuel cells get a credit too) through 2016. Click here for more information. There may also be incentives offered by your state, check here for more information.
L Darryl D.
QUESTION: I'm currently ordering dual pane polyolefin interior storm windows. I was wondering if there's an acceptable durable low-emissivity film to boost those units' performance to an R-3 air space or so in addition to tightening up the single pane existing window. ... additionally, is there a climate zone where the ROI for geothermal (ground loop) heat domestic HVAC heat pump is too slow to compete with say an SEER 16 air to air heat pump and perhaps a DOE map of the point where the payback is neutral for either choice.
ANSWER: There are really two questions here, so let's split this up. Your windows question: Adding a low-e film to a dual pane window has the potential to increase energy performance, but it is somewhat dependent on your climate zone. An interior, thin film, double pane storm window as you suggested is a good solution, however over a long period of time the visibility can diminish. Another potential solution is a storm window with low e glass that also has comparable energy performance but will be more durable. Since these options can become complex, and are highly dependent on your climate and energy prices, it's probably best to contact a window professional for a specific solution for you.
On geothermal heat pumps: When deciding whether to install a geothermal heat pump (GSHP), calling an accredited professional is essential. They can help you understand if the local climate and geology are suitable, whether you have enough space and which ground loop option makes the most sense (e.g. horizontal, vertical, surface water). Currently the only reliable way to determine the return on investment of a GSHP versus 16 SEER air source heat pump (ASHP ) for your application is to request quotes from qualified contractors for each. Accredited GSHP installers can be located on the International Ground Source Heat Pump Association web site. Application of this technology is highly variable between specific sites. The Oregon Institute of Technology Geo-Heat Center cites costs of ASHP verses GHP (both in their optimal zone where GSHP is 50 to 100% more efficient than ASHP). Total installed cost (10.5 kW – 3 tons) for a 2000 ft² home with duct work and controls, ASHP and Gas with AC ~ US$ 4 to 5,000 ($1300– 1,700/ton); Surface Water GHP ~ US$ 7,000 ($2,450/ton); Ground-coupled (horizontal) GHP ~ US$ 8 to 9,000 ($2,700 – 3,000/ton). For additional information, click here. A major reason these vary so much—and they vary non-linearly—is due to differences in air, soil and water temperature.
In general, the efficiency of an ASHP drops dramatically when the air temperature drops below freezing. They stop working entirely and must be supplemented with electric heating during prolonged periods of cold. The USDA plant hardiness map is actually a good way to see in detail the lowest temperatures that can be expected each year in the United States. These temperatures are referred to as "average annual minimum temperatures" and are based on the lowest temperatures recorded for each of the years 1974 to 1986. To find out more, click here. DOE is, however, funding research on ASHPs that will perform better in cold conditions.
Conversely, GSHPs experience efficiency declines (not as dramatic) when the ground temperature heats up. The GSHP efficiency also depends on the ground ‘s conductivity which is related to its geology and soil moisture content at 100 feet. To find out more, click here. DOE also is funding research on hybrid heating and cooling systems that are better adapted to efficient operation in warmer climates.
Several GSHP manufacturers have calculators on their web sites that assist with system comparisons. Links to all the members of the International Ground Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA), including manufacturers, can be found here.
Robert Wu (via e-mail)
QUESTION: In China, on-demand water heaters are widely used, and no one uses water tanks to keep hot water around all the time.
When we remodeled our home in California three years ago, I wanted to install on-demand water heater to save gas, but the architect said that it is not widely used in the US and not available in our market. Wouldn't it save energy to not keep hot water ON all the time? It will certainly save on having to install a big water heater tank. Or is it an issue of changing consumer behavior? I hope the market has changed since my renovation and that on-demand water heaters are available now.
ANSWER: Water heating accounts for 12-15% of energy use in U.S. households, so better efficiency for water heaters will have a significant benefit for American families. The good news is that water heating technology is getting more efficient. ENERGY STAR(r) water heaters are now available in a variety of forms, including high-efficiency gas storage water heaters (these are the most traditional format), gas condensing water heaters, solar hot water heaters, heat pump water heaters, and on-demand water heaters. Each of these types of water heaters has its own advantages, but all of them save you money over the non-Energy Star models. Consumers that replace a water heater today have many more choices in technologies (and savings) than they did just a few years ago. Add in Federal tax credits available until December 31, 2010 and there's even more savings. There may also be rebates available in your state.
Andrei P.
QUESTION: Is there some resource you recommend for helping homeowners evaluate whether particular improvements make sense for their homes? I imagine it's not trivial to replace the skill of a professional with easy rules of thumb, but I'd find something like that useful. Getting a professional to come over and make customized recommendations requires quite some effort.
ANSWER: The best approach is to use a professional - a professional home energy assessment can help you identify areas of energy loss and set a plan to start saving. You'll get a prioritized report to help you identify which improvements to make first. Some utilities and local governments offer free home energy assessments. Click here for more on what to expect from a home energy assessment.
But there are some things you can do yourself: You can perform a do-it-yourself energy assessment as well. The results are not as precise, but it may help you identify some easy savings opportunities. Click here for more on that visit.
If you have an older home, the odds are pretty good that you need more insulation. Insulating (or adding insulation to) an attic or crawl space can make a significant difference both in your family's comfort and your energy bills. Click here for more information.
Because energy efficiency is closely linked to regional climate conditions, it's hard to provide a guideline that works nationwide. A few things to think about:
*check your attic insulation, if you have four inches or less of insulation, you'd likely save by adding more *replace the light bulbs you use most often with ENERGY STAR Compact Fluorescent Lights. *airseal and caulk - check around windows and doors, if you can feel air movement, you need to airseal. Be sure to check around basement rim joists (where the floor above connects to the walls), that's often a place with no insulation at all.
Also, check out the calculators available here.
John Schueler is a New Media Specialist with the Office of Public Affairs
Last week Secretary Chu invited you to submit your questions on home energy efficiency and the response was tremendous. We sifted through your questions and recently discussed many of them with the Secretary.
Here are the resources that the Secretary referenced during the discussion: (video at the end of this post)
While the Secretary covered a lot of ground during the course of our discussion there were some thoughtful questions that we didn’t have a chance to ask, so we decided to ask the experts at Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to weigh in. You can check out their responses below.
Mayank A.
QUESTION: Do solar panels function differently in winter or summer assuming the same amount of sunlight is available?
ANSWER: Solar panels depend upon sunlight to generate power. In summer, solar radiation is more intense than in winter, so electrical output is generally greater. In winter, both solar intensity and the number of hours of sunlight are decreased, which can mean lower electrical output. If, however, the amount of solar radiation (meaning number of hours of sunlight AND intensity of that sunlight on the solar panels) were exactly the same, the solar panels would function about the same.
David F.
QUESTION: What is best way to get a discount on Solar and Wind equipment?
ANSWER: One of the biggest challenges for renewable energy equipment is the upfront cost. Major power developers face the same challenge that families do -- how to finance that upfront cost. Because, after all, with renewable energy, the fuel is free. Once you buy the equipment, there's no incremental cost to purchase fuel since sunlight and wind are free. Of course, you have to maintain the equipment, but you aren't buying coal or natural gas on a daily basis to generate electricity.
A good way to get a "discount" on renewable energy equipment is to look for financial incentives. For homeowners, the federal government will provide a 30% tax credit for newly installed solar and wind energy equipment (geothermal heat pumps and fuel cells get a credit too) through 2016. Click here for more information. There may also be incentives offered by your state, check here for more information.
L Darryl D.
QUESTION: I'm currently ordering dual pane polyolefin interior storm windows. I was wondering if there's an acceptable durable low-emissivity film to boost those units' performance to an R-3 air space or so in addition to tightening up the single pane existing window. ... additionally, is there a climate zone where the ROI for geothermal (ground loop) heat domestic HVAC heat pump is too slow to compete with say an SEER 16 air to air heat pump and perhaps a DOE map of the point where the payback is neutral for either choice.
ANSWER: There are really two questions here, so let's split this up. Your windows question: Adding a low-e film to a dual pane window has the potential to increase energy performance, but it is somewhat dependent on your climate zone. An interior, thin film, double pane storm window as you suggested is a good solution, however over a long period of time the visibility can diminish. Another potential solution is a storm window with low e glass that also has comparable energy performance but will be more durable. Since these options can become complex, and are highly dependent on your climate and energy prices, it's probably best to contact a window professional for a specific solution for you.
On geothermal heat pumps: When deciding whether to install a geothermal heat pump (GSHP), calling an accredited professional is essential. They can help you understand if the local climate and geology are suitable, whether you have enough space and which ground loop option makes the most sense (e.g. horizontal, vertical, surface water). Currently the only reliable way to determine the return on investment of a GSHP versus 16 SEER air source heat pump (ASHP ) for your application is to request quotes from qualified contractors for each. Accredited GSHP installers can be located on the International Ground Source Heat Pump Association web site. Application of this technology is highly variable between specific sites. The Oregon Institute of Technology Geo-Heat Center cites costs of ASHP verses GHP (both in their optimal zone where GSHP is 50 to 100% more efficient than ASHP). Total installed cost (10.5 kW – 3 tons) for a 2000 ft² home with duct work and controls, ASHP and Gas with AC ~ US$ 4 to 5,000 ($1300– 1,700/ton); Surface Water GHP ~ US$ 7,000 ($2,450/ton); Ground-coupled (horizontal) GHP ~ US$ 8 to 9,000 ($2,700 – 3,000/ton). For additional information, click here. A major reason these vary so much—and they vary non-linearly—is due to differences in air, soil and water temperature.
In general, the efficiency of an ASHP drops dramatically when the air temperature drops below freezing. They stop working entirely and must be supplemented with electric heating during prolonged periods of cold. The USDA plant hardiness map is actually a good way to see in detail the lowest temperatures that can be expected each year in the United States. These temperatures are referred to as "average annual minimum temperatures" and are based on the lowest temperatures recorded for each of the years 1974 to 1986. To find out more, click here. DOE is, however, funding research on ASHPs that will perform better in cold conditions.
Conversely, GSHPs experience efficiency declines (not as dramatic) when the ground temperature heats up. The GSHP efficiency also depends on the ground ‘s conductivity which is related to its geology and soil moisture content at 100 feet. To find out more, click here. DOE also is funding research on hybrid heating and cooling systems that are better adapted to efficient operation in warmer climates.
Several GSHP manufacturers have calculators on their web sites that assist with system comparisons. Links to all the members of the International Ground Source Heat Pump Association (IGSHPA), including manufacturers, can be found here.
Robert Wu (via e-mail)
QUESTION: In China, on-demand water heaters are widely used, and no one uses water tanks to keep hot water around all the time.
When we remodeled our home in California three years ago, I wanted to install on-demand water heater to save gas, but the architect said that it is not widely used in the US and not available in our market. Wouldn't it save energy to not keep hot water ON all the time? It will certainly save on having to install a big water heater tank. Or is it an issue of changing consumer behavior? I hope the market has changed since my renovation and that on-demand water heaters are available now.
ANSWER: Water heating accounts for 12-15% of energy use in U.S. households, so better efficiency for water heaters will have a significant benefit for American families. The good news is that water heating technology is getting more efficient. ENERGY STAR(r) water heaters are now available in a variety of forms, including high-efficiency gas storage water heaters (these are the most traditional format), gas condensing water heaters, solar hot water heaters, heat pump water heaters, and on-demand water heaters. Each of these types of water heaters has its own advantages, but all of them save you money over the non-Energy Star models. Consumers that replace a water heater today have many more choices in technologies (and savings) than they did just a few years ago. Add in Federal tax credits available until December 31, 2010 and there's even more savings. There may also be rebates available in your state.
Andrei P.
QUESTION: Is there some resource you recommend for helping homeowners evaluate whether particular improvements make sense for their homes? I imagine it's not trivial to replace the skill of a professional with easy rules of thumb, but I'd find something like that useful. Getting a professional to come over and make customized recommendations requires quite some effort.
ANSWER: The best approach is to use a professional - a professional home energy assessment can help you identify areas of energy loss and set a plan to start saving. You'll get a prioritized report to help you identify which improvements to make first. Some utilities and local governments offer free home energy assessments. Click here for more on what to expect from a home energy assessment.
But there are some things you can do yourself: You can perform a do-it-yourself energy assessment as well. The results are not as precise, but it may help you identify some easy savings opportunities. Click here for more on that visit.
If you have an older home, the odds are pretty good that you need more insulation. Insulating (or adding insulation to) an attic or crawl space can make a significant difference both in your family's comfort and your energy bills. Click here for more information.
Because energy efficiency is closely linked to regional climate conditions, it's hard to provide a guideline that works nationwide. A few things to think about:
*check your attic insulation, if you have four inches or less of insulation, you'd likely save by adding more *replace the light bulbs you use most often with ENERGY STAR Compact Fluorescent Lights. *airseal and caulk - check around windows and doors, if you can feel air movement, you need to airseal. Be sure to check around basement rim joists (where the floor above connects to the walls), that's often a place with no insulation at all.
Also, check out the calculators available here.
John Schueler is a New Media Specialist with the Office of Public Affairs
27 August 2010
200,000 WEATHERIZED THROUGH THE RECOVERY ACT 26AUG10
MORE proof the Recovery Act annd stimulus spending is helping the nation and the economy inspite of the republican votes against this legislation.
Ed. Note: Cross posted from the Energy Blog
Today Vice President Biden announced that 200,000 homes have been weatherized under the Recovery Act. Cathy Zoi, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy shares her thoughts:
We're still talking about weatherization on Facebook and Twitter. Ask questions, share your thoughts and we’ll follow-up with tips and answers from our experts in the coming days.
Andy Oare is a New Media Specialist at the Department of Energy
Ed. Note: Cross posted from the Energy Blog
Today Vice President Biden announced that 200,000 homes have been weatherized under the Recovery Act. Cathy Zoi, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy shares her thoughts:
We're still talking about weatherization on Facebook and Twitter. Ask questions, share your thoughts and we’ll follow-up with tips and answers from our experts in the coming days.
Andy Oare is a New Media Specialist at the Department of Energy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)