Pickens Plan North East Florida

Add a Comment

Comment by Roy R on August 30, 2008 at 8:20pm

What are REPs?
Since 1991, Germany, Spain, Denmark, and over 40 other nations, states, and provinces, have pioneered legislation that have proven to promote the fastest, cheapest, and widest growth of renewable energy. In many of these countries these policies are called "Feed-In Tariffs" (FITs). Producers of renewable energy are paid a premium rate or "tariff" for each kilowatt of energy they "feed into" the grid. Here in North America FITs are being called, "Renewable Energy Payments" (REPs). The name has changed but the fundamental principles of these policies stay the same:
• Everyone who produces renewable energy is guaranteed that they can connect to the power grid and sell their energy to their utility company. There is no limit to the amount of renewable energy that can be sold to utility companies.
• Utility companies sign 15-20 year contracts with all their renewable energy producers. All contracts are transparent and open for inspection.
• The contracts include long-term agreed upon prices that the utility companies will pay for the energy they buy. The prices are set high enough to be an incentive to new producers and for existing producers to expand their production capacities. Prices vary according to the source of the energy (i.e, sun, wind, water, bio-mass, etc.) and the size of the energy-producing installation.
• The utility companies can recoup their increased costs of paying higher prices for renewable energy by spreading these costs among all their customers.
• An Independent Review Board is established by the government that periodically sets the prices and terms for new contracts.
How do REPs work?
Renewable Energy Payments are the mechanisms or instruments at the heart of specific state, provincial or national renewable energy policies. REPs are incentives for homeowners, farmers, businesses, etc., to become producers of renewable energy, or to increase their production of renewable energy. As such, they increase our overall production and use of renewable energy, and decrease our consumption and burning of fossil fuels.

Why REPs?
There are many reasons why Renewable Energy Payments (REPs), in Europe called Feed-in Tariffs (FITs), are the most successful renewable energy (RE) incentive in the world. Here are a just a few:

JOB CREATION Germany introduced this type of legislation in 1991 and it has made them the world’s leading producer of RE technology. FITs are credited with creating at least half of their quarter-of-a-million RE jobs. These jobs increased 40% between 2004 and 2006 alone. Most of these new jobs are in the former East Germany, an area being revitalized by their renewable energy economy. All levels of jobs are created including high-skilled positions in engineering, manufacturing, agriculture, and electronics.

SIMPLICITY One important reason REPs have been so successful is their simplicity. With REPs, when anyone generates power from a RE system that is passed through to their local grid, the utility company cuts them a check! RE businesses find this model especially appealing because it makes anyone with a viable RE site and a willingness to invest in their future an electricity entrepreneur. REP laws by their very nature are easy to support because they need little explaining and are relatively simple for utilities to implement and operate. This is true whether the RE producer is a residential homeowner with a small solar system or a huge commercial business with thousands of panels on their roof.

STABILITY & INVESTMENT SECURITY REP incentives also have massive appeal to investors and lenders. This is because the incentives are fixed for long time horizons, typically 20 years, which provides a guaranteed revenue stream that can be borrowed against easily. Unlike Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) which have annually fluctuating values through a trading mechanism, REP incentives never change and never require any administration or additional cost. As long as the RE system is generating electricity it continues to make the system owner a guaranteed return on their investment. With revenue stability of this caliber and a market that is not constrained in size, institutional investors can accurately model the financial risk and returns associated with investing in RE technologies and fund the industry where the best market opportunities exist in real time. In Germany, FIT policies have generated 3.3 billion Euros of investment in RE, with a return on the investment estimated to be 9.3 billion Euros.

STAY-AT-HOME REVENUE With REPS, the revenue from producing renewable energy will stay in the state or province where it is produced. This will create "local wealth" and stimulate the local economy.

FAIRNESS Critics in the US often complain that REPs are too socialistic by design because they “fix the price” instead of letting the market dictate their value. Yet this couldn’t be farther from the truth. In fact, REPs actually allow us to make a FAIRER comparison of the true costs for traditional energy sources such as nuclear, natural gas, coal, and oil. Rather than attempt to figure out how much environmental damage they each do respectively, the REP incentive simply allocates a fair “avoided cost” to RE technologies for the total environmental impact that would otherwise be borne by society by not using them. So in reality the REP is providing an incentive that brings parity to the incentives, tax breaks, and environmental damage done by traditional energy sources that are never reflected in their market prices.

EQUALITY REPs create a level playing field for all different sizes of renewable energy producers. It encourages individuals, small businesses and larger businesses to become RE producers and rewards them all. By ‘democratizing’ and spreading out energy production, REPs stimulate the green market economy and keeps a few large corporations from controlling the market and the profits. With REPs in place, everyone can profit from creating renewable energy.

REPs WILL SPEED UP OUR SHIFT FROM FOSSIL FUELS TO CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY. IN THIS WAY, REPs WILL ALSO:

PROTECT OUR HEALTH We will be putting less particulates into the air since we will be burning less oil, coal and natural gas. This will mean less suffering from asthma and other breathing disorders and reduced medical and health insurance costs.

REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING Burning fossil fuels releases 75% of the greenhouse gases that are heating the planet. It is estimated that by switching to renewable energy we can cut CO2 emissions in half by 2030. In 2006, with REPs in place, Germany alone saved 100 million tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere.

REDUCE CONFLICTS OVER ENERGY The world’s demand for energy is increasing faster than expected, while our supplies of oil, coal and natural gas are declining. As nations compete for energy, there may well be more conflicts, wars and violations of human rights. Increasing the production of renewable energy will help states and nations meet their own energy needs.

CREATE ECONOMIC SECURITY Renewable energy production will lesson a community’s or nation’s vulnerability to increasing fossil fuel prices and will increase self-reliant economic growth. Those who install renewable energy the soonest will save the most. The prices of fossil fuels and nuclear energy are expected to rise as their supply diminishes, and the costs of extraction, environmental protection and cleanup increase. The costs for renewable energy are expected to decline due to economy of scale and technological progress.

INCREASE HUMAN SECURITY The natural disasters triggered by climate chaos are responsible for 150,000 deaths each year, and cause millions of people to seek refuge elsewhere. There are currently more ‘environmental refugees’ than ‘political refugees’. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), recipients of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, predict 50 million environmental refugees by 2010, and 150 million by 2050. The hardships and financial costs for the refugees and those who provide aid will be staggering.

STABILIZE ENERGY COSTS Communities that use locally produced renewable energy have more stable energy costs. Once the systems are set up, their renewable fuels such as sun and wind are low cost or free. Overall, energy costs will be more predictable and controllable, creating economic stability.

CREATE FLEXIBILITY Green energy resources such as sun, wind, water, geothermal, and biomass can be combined depending on their availability. They can provide heating, cooling, electricity, and fuel for machinery, vehicles and other transportation. Renewable Technologies can be flexibly designed to fit the landscape, architecture, machines, and vehicles—increasing efficiency and autonomy.

Comment by Gary Munson on August 30, 2008 at 2:44am

Converting existing vehicles would be an exercise in futility. The switch to natural gas will be slow enough to allow normal attrition to remove enough gasoline vehicles from the road to accomplish our goal. Remember, we are only replacing a part of the fleet with CNG cars. Gasoline will be around for a long time.

Comment by Getulio Bastos on August 28, 2008 at 12:54pm

Gentlemen,

This is a letter I just sent to Congressman Ron Klein of West Palm Beach and Florida Senator Bill Nelson. I suggest that all of our members do something similar to provoke some reaction from our politicians.

Mr. Bill Nelson,

Florida is one of the worst hit states in the Real Estate crisis. Our tourism industry is being hit tremendously by the gasoline price hikes. And our state is one of the least served with alternative forms of energy. But we can do something about it and one of the things we can do is to facilitate the creation of an infrastructure to sell, install conversion kits in our cars and distribute natural gas within our region.

There are entrepreneurs interested in creating this infrastructure, but the major obstacle is EPA, which has no scientific reason to keep their antique regulations for the conversion of our cars to use natural gas in our roads. There are no technology barriers at all.

It would save our taxpayers a lot of money in the near future while providing for a new source of employment for thousands of Floridians in a brand new industry. In training of new mechanics, installation of conversion kits, installation of natural gas filling stations, distribution of natural gas across the state and maintenance of it all.

There’s a Bill going through Congress now, entitled “THE DRIVE AMERICA ON NATURAL GAS ACT OF 2008” introduced by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

If you need to research more about it, please visit www.push.pickensplan.com. Please, click here if you want to see the reactions to my discussion Brazil is 100% oil independent. Why aren't we?.

While there you can also see several pictures and videos related to the usage of natural gas as a vehicle propulsion energy both in Brazil and the US.

As a citizen I urge you to support this Bill to pass and provide easier means for our people to expend less on their cars while creating a new industry for the state of Florida.

Your voter,

Getulio Bastos

Click here to send your message to Senator Bill Nelson
Click here to send your message to Congressman Ron Klein
...

Comment by Roy R on August 25, 2008 at 6:45am

Solar Monopolies in Florida! The REC Wrecking Ball – Coming to a State Near You


Florida’s electric utility system is a regulated monopoly. Now, with passage of the Florida Energy Bill this week, legislators in Tallahassee have set a course, that unless rectified, will most probably extend similar monopolies into the fastest growing energy markets – renewables and solar, and in doing so decimate the existing Florida solar industry in favor of larger Wall Street backed multinationals. It seems inconceivable that once policymakers and legislators fully comprehend the implications of the direction that they are heading in, that any true Floridian will actually support this – but stranger things have happened. Now is the time to speak out.

Buried in the Florida House and Senate Energy bill is language that would allow the state electricity Regulator, the Public Service Commission, to introduce policies known as renewable energy credits (or RECs) as a way to stimulate solar and other renewable energy electricity production. RECs are basically bought by utilities from renewable producers and certify that the utilities have acquired a unit of renewable energy, and as such can be used as a mechanism to force utilities to meet certain renewable targets. The problem is that there is growing evidence from other states that have introduced RECs, that these policies are radioactive. Maryland, introduced RECs earlier this year. Even before the policy was signed by the Governor, the largest utility announced it had signed a multi-year transaction to buy solar RECs from SunEdison, a major international solar company. That deal gave the 2 companies a 30% share of the market for 2008 and 60% for 2009 – a quasi monopoly. This crowds out the existing local solar industry since it leaves them with only 40% of the market to participate in. Job losses will follow.

New Jersey has an ill thought out solar RECs policy as well. Smaller residential solar companies are in decline and shedding people. Says Lyle Rawlings, CEO of a large NJ solar integrator “the market is in collapse right now, with projects being canceled and many of the solar businesses that grew under the rebate program now hanging on by their fingernails. The REC market literally is not working, except for a handful of companies who have been able to get long-term REC contracts - we know that the market concentration is very unhealthy, and we think it’s an improper way to deliver a solar incentive program”. Furthermore NJ will be missing its RPS target primarily because of these issues. So based on recent market evidence RECs are a wrecking ball for local renewable companies.

The problem stems from the fact that utilities retain the power to decide who they buy RECs from, and utilities quite naturally won’t want the hassle of buying small quantities of RECs bilaterally from household solar systems or small commercial providers – they would much prefer to deal with one or 2 large aggregators of the RECs doing the largest commercial renewable projects, so they arrange bilateral deals direct with them. Whats wrong with this?

Since the utilities prefer to buy in bulk they will pay more for these aggregated RECs – typically up to 80-90c in the $, whereas for residential or small commercial RECs the value is 50c or less (this is the figure the State of Maryland has proposed should they become the default residential aggregator). Consequently while the RECs incentive covers 70% or so of the build out cost of the larger commercial projects, thus providing a massive contribution to the companies least in need of it, they only provide 30% of the cost of the small systems that are the life blood to the local solar integrators. This leads to a curtain call for the local industry all done with rate payer and tax payer money that has effectively been laundered to the benefit of the larger commercial REC suppliers. And funnily enough who is supplying the policy language for the legislatures and PUCs? The answer is the very same solar companies that will benefit from them!

There are already strong indications in Florida that these same out of state large solar companies are lining up multi year contracts with Florida utilities in excess of 100MW that could sop up a majority of the RECs that would become available to the solar industry – leaving next to nothing for the local solar integrators to compete for.

As Ted Middleton, Managing Member of a Maryland solar company explained, “The ratepayer base thus foots the highest bill possible to fund Wal-Mart installations, and the little guys (houses) get a much lower cash benefit relative to each REC produced because they have little market leverage with remaining REC purchasers”

Florida legislators have just voted to approve renewable policies such as these – thankfully the energy bill both requires the PSC in Florida to fine tune these policies and then seek reaffirmation from the legislature in 2009. Maybe in the intervening months, the Governor’s office and Florida policy makers including the PSC should ask smaller NJ and Maryland solar companies as well as the Florida SEIA companies if they think these REC policies are working. They will likely hear a resounding NO!

“Unfortunately, the language that passed through the legislatures favors a REC based policy. Without any change, for the foreseeable future anyway, Florida could end up with renewable energy policy primarily designed for only one or two large companies, just like what has happened in Maryland and New Jersey,” comments Pete DeNapoli, FlaSEIA Director. “Sure, the state of Florida will meet the RPS goals, but the bottom line is that the Governor’s goal of creating a vibrant renewable energy industry with thousands of new, high paying jobs will not be realized,” Pete adds. “With Production Based Incentive or Feed-In Tariffs, you get it all.”

What legislators and policy makers instead need to do is look at the highly successful renewable policies that have been in place in Europe for years and resulted in both the rapid deployment of renewable electricity projects, a massive expansion in local jobs from it, all done with no taxpayer expense and minimal increases in electricity prices. Germany has 250,000 employed in renewables generating $30BN in sales. At the very least Florida policy makers and legislators should do what the utility solar association SEPA is doing, and undertake a trip to Germany to review first hand how Germany has a vibrant solar and renewable industry with ~ 4000MW of solar at the cost for ratepayers of “the price of a loaf of bread”. Both the Florida Solar Energy Industry Association (FlaSEIA), the Maryland, District of Columbia and Virginia SEIA, Environmental Defense Fund as well as several high profile manufacturers and solar integrators have publicly advocated introducing these feed in policies as the best public policy incentives for solar and renewables.

So for the sake of those desiring a vibrant renewables job market in Florida, I ask legislators and policymakers to reconsider these ill advised REC policies. Thanks to the efforts of the Governor, and his energy team, Florida has the opportunity to develop a clear energy policy that can get the state to 20% of electricity from renewable sources, create robust new industries employing thousands of people and improve the states energy security. However the state must be careful in what policy incentive mechanisms are introduced to get us there and avoid replicating ill conceived and dangerous policies that are already failing in other states. Other State SEIAs, such as in New York and Pennsylvania, need also to proactively participate in this growing debate and understand the full ramifications of what often is being foisted on them by other so called national industry mouthpieces with vested interests inconsistent with the local industry.

Comment by Roy R on August 25, 2008 at 6:40am

Solar Monopolies in Florida! The REC Wrecking Ball – Coming to a State Near You


Florida’s electric utility system is a regulated monopoly. Now, with passage of the Florida Energy Bill this week, legislators in Tallahassee have set a course, that unless rectified, will most probably extend similar monopolies into the fastest growing energy markets – renewables and solar, and in doing so decimate the existing Florida solar industry in favor of larger Wall Street backed multinationals. It seems inconceivable that once policymakers and legislators fully comprehend the implications of the direction that they are heading in, that any true Floridian will actually support this – but stranger things have happened. Now is the time to speak out.

Buried in the Florida House and Senate Energy bill is language that would allow the state electricity Regulator, the Public Service Commission, to introduce policies known as renewable energy credits (or RECs) as a way to stimulate solar and other renewable energy electricity production. RECs are basically bought by utilities from renewable producers and certify that the utilities have acquired a unit of renewable energy, and as such can be used as a mechanism to force utilities to meet certain renewable targets. The problem is that there is growing evidence from other states that have introduced RECs, that these policies are radioactive. Maryland, introduced RECs earlier this year. Even before the policy was signed by the Governor, the largest utility announced it had signed a multi-year transaction to buy solar RECs from SunEdison, a major international solar company. That deal gave the 2 companies a 30% share of the market for 2008 and 60% for 2009 – a quasi monopoly. This crowds out the existing local solar industry since it leaves them with only 40% of the market to participate in. Job losses will follow.

New Jersey has an ill thought out solar RECs policy as well. Smaller residential solar companies are in decline and shedding people. Says Lyle Rawlings, CEO of a large NJ solar integrator “the market is in collapse right now, with projects being canceled and many of the solar businesses that grew under the rebate program now hanging on by their fingernails. The REC market literally is not working, except for a handful of companies who have been able to get long-term REC contracts - we know that the market concentration is very unhealthy, and we think it’s an improper way to deliver a solar incentive program”. Furthermore NJ will be missing its RPS target primarily because of these issues. So based on recent market evidence RECs are a wrecking ball for local renewable companies.

The problem stems from the fact that utilities retain the power to decide who they buy RECs from, and utilities quite naturally won’t want the hassle of buying small quantities of RECs bilaterally from household solar systems or small commercial providers – they would much prefer to deal with one or 2 large aggregators of the RECs doing the largest commercial renewable projects, so they arrange bilateral deals direct with them. Whats wrong with this?

Since the utilities prefer to buy in bulk they will pay more for these aggregated RECs – typically up to 80-90c in the $, whereas for residential or small commercial RECs the value is 50c or less (this is the figure the State of Maryland has proposed should they become the default residential aggregator). Consequently while the RECs incentive covers 70% or so of the build out cost of the larger commercial projects, thus providing a massive contribution to the companies least in need of it, they only provide 30% of the cost of the small systems that are the life blood to the local solar integrators. This leads to a curtain call for the local industry all done with rate payer and tax payer money that has effectively been laundered to the benefit of the larger commercial REC suppliers. And funnily enough who is supplying the policy language for the legislatures and PUCs? The answer is the very same solar companies that will benefit from them!

There are already strong indications in Florida that these same out of state large solar companies are lining up multi year contracts with Florida utilities in excess of 100MW that could sop up a majority of the RECs that would become available to the solar industry – leaving next to nothing for the local solar integrators to compete for.

As Ted Middleton, Managing Member of a Maryland solar company explained, “The ratepayer base thus foots the highest bill possible to fund Wal-Mart installations, and the little guys (houses) get a much lower cash benefit relative to each REC produced because they have little market leverage with remaining REC purchasers”

Florida legislators have just voted to approve renewable policies such as these – thankfully the energy bill both requires the PSC in Florida to fine tune these policies and then seek reaffirmation from the legislature in 2009. Maybe in the intervening months, the Governor’s office and Florida policy makers including the PSC should ask smaller NJ and Maryland solar companies as well as the Florida SEIA companies if they think these REC policies are working. They will likely hear a resounding NO!

“Unfortunately, the language that passed through the legislatures favors a REC based policy. Without any change, for the foreseeable future anyway, Florida could end up with renewable energy policy primarily designed for only one or two large companies, just like what has happened in Maryland and New Jersey,” comments Pete DeNapoli, FlaSEIA Director. “Sure, the state of Florida will meet the RPS goals, but the bottom line is that the Governor’s goal of creating a vibrant renewable energy industry with thousands of new, high paying jobs will not be realized,” Pete adds. “With Production Based Incentive or Feed-In Tariffs, you get it all.”

What legislators and policy makers instead need to do is look at the highly successful renewable policies that have been in place in Europe for years and resulted in both the rapid deployment of renewable electricity projects, a massive expansion in local jobs from it, all done with no taxpayer expense and minimal increases in electricity prices. Germany has 250,000 employed in renewables generating $30BN in sales. At the very least Florida policy makers and legislators should do what the utility solar association SEPA is doing, and undertake a trip to Germany to review first hand how Germany has a vibrant solar and renewable industry with ~ 4000MW of solar at the cost for ratepayers of “the price of a loaf of bread”. Both the Florida Solar Energy Industry Association (FlaSEIA), the Maryland, District of Columbia and Virginia SEIA, Environmental Defense Fund as well as several high profile manufacturers and solar integrators have publicly advocated introducing these feed in policies as the best public policy incentives for solar and renewables.

So for the sake of those desiring a vibrant renewables job market in Florida, I ask legislators and policymakers to reconsider these ill advised REC policies. Thanks to the efforts of the Governor, and his energy team, Florida has the opportunity to develop a clear energy policy that can get the state to 20% of electricity from renewable sources, create robust new industries employing thousands of people and improve the states energy security. However the state must be careful in what policy incentive mechanisms are introduced to get us there and avoid replicating ill conceived and dangerous policies that are already failing in other states. Other State SEIAs, such as in New York and Pennsylvania, need also to proactively participate in this growing debate and understand the full ramifications of what often is being foisted on them by other so called national industry mouthpieces with vested interests inconsistent with the local industry.

Comment by Bob Clark on August 17, 2008 at 5:56pm

Here in Jasper, Florida (pop. 1780) we allow golf carts to be driven on all city streets. Most are electric and there are many. From grocery shopping to going to the post office they are used daily. Personally I prefer an electric scooter, smaller and easier to manage then a 4 wheel cart. I estimate that each trip I make means a gallon of gas that I do not use. That may not seem like much but its over 30 gallons a month. If more small towns and neighborhoods allowed this, even just on low speed roads, think of the fuel that wouldn't be used.

Comment by Gary Munson on August 13, 2008 at 2:05am

the two technologies that will trump all others if they come to fruition....

Both Nanosolar and EEstor have been developing applications of nanotechnology. I've been very interested in this concept although it's something that isn't accessible except by highly advanced engineering techniques...requiring huge amounts of money and research. Nanosolar claims to have perfected a means of 'printing' solar panel surfaces on flexible mylar sheeting allowing them to spew the panels out like newsprint...the nanotech part is the 'ink'. They claim to have finally gotten to the point of continuous yield of a material about 1/2 as efficient as current panels but at 1/5 the price per delivered KWH. Current tech silicon panels cost about $5 a KWH, Nanosolar claims $1. This makes generating your own power much cheaper than buying it from the power company even if you have to finance the equipment. The only downside being the need for 2X the panels due to lower efficiency. Another item helping the march of solar PV is that the companies that mfg the grid tie inverters have begun to increase the warranty length of their units to 10 years. Inverter failure has been a thorn in the side of 'early adopter' PV folks.
EEstor claims to be coming close to fruition with a 'super capacitor'. The advantage of a capacitor over a battery is it's ability to charge and discharge very quickly and have a much longer lifespan. Until now the disadvantage has been very limited capacity (power density). EEstor's device is their 'Electric energy storage unit (EESU)' Their claim is a suitcase size device that weighs 350 lbs and will power a sedan-size vehicle 250 miles at 80 MPH then recharge in 5 minutes. In order to be able to charge this fast, one would need a second EESU at home that could charge during the day since your home power supply would not be capable of delivering the very high current in a 5 minute burst. The home unit would charge as fast as your house power could supply it....probably 4-5 hrs then you'd hook it to your vehicle and transfer the charge in 5 minutes. Goolge EEstor for lots of second hand info...they are very secretive and have no public website.
The real trick here, if both technologies arrive, would be to team your solar panels with the EESU for 'free' 24 hour power that you could also tap for your vehicle. This will be a world-changing event if this occurs. That, along with already proven techniques for conservation will be the world's salvation and transform it overnight. Oil people will find themselves in the same position the whale oil people found themselves in when petroleum wells were discovered.
I'm mostly concerned about Estor being able to bring their device out. Lockheed Martin is apparently a big investor and I can see them managing to stop the research somehow on 'national security' grounds and using patent laws to stop anyone else from trying the technique. We'll have to wait and see. A lot of info has leaked...hopefully too much to stop it..

Comment by Bill Hinegardner on August 7, 2008 at 5:50am

Hi,

Just to let everyone know what has been happening with the medium-speed vehicle efforts. I have heard from two state representative’s offices that have expressed an interest in sponsoring this bill.

I heard from Representative Gibbons (district 105 in Broward County) and Representative Coley (district 7 in the Panhandle). They have not made a commitment yet, but at least we have some interest from some legislators.

Representative Coley’s legislative aid did tell me that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is meeting this Friday to discuss this issue. I guess that emailing most of the state representatives and senators, the Governor, along with every environmental group and senior organization I could find and email address must have had some effect.

I want to encourage everyone to keep up the effort to keep this initiative on the front burner and to contact your legislators and other that think will support this bill.

Bill
http://push.pickensplan.com/group/mediumspeedvehicles

Comment by Bill Hinegardner on July 27, 2008 at 4:54am

Sorry I missed your reply. Currenty low-speed vehicles are alreay on the books. Yes some of those are based on modifed golf carts. But have to have the added safety features of head and tail lights, signal lights and seat belts. Some comments have been made about safety. My thought is are these vehicles any less safe than motorcycles. To get an idea of what the medium-speed vheicle could be like check out the Zenn at:
http://www.zenncars.com/
Their current low-speed electric comes with conditioning, power windows, power locks, remote keyless entry, wipers, defrost, heater, and sunroof. I am not advertising for them. I am just illustrating that.

Some manufactures (www.zapworld.com/?) just decided to skip the whole issue and had their electric vheicle listed as a three wheel motorcycle. That avoids all the safety issues of being a car. It's the same route that France took with thir micro-cars. Rather than change their tough auto safety standards they just classed the micro-car as a qurdocycle. Delete Comment

Comment by Gary Munson on July 23, 2008 at 1:55am

We all need to realize the best thing we can all do to help the energy situation is to take individual action. Rather than waiting around for the government to do something we can each cut our electric usage dramatically. Here are several sites worth visiting that aren't selling anything but tell it like it is. Plenty of simple and painless techniques to cut your power bill.

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/

http://www.builditsolar.com/index.htm

The current situation has people grasping at all sorts of non-cost effective solutions that sound great on paper but don't hold up to scrutiny in the real world. Solar electricity is one of those as would be wind power in cent. Florida. Solar PV just costs too much at the present. Hopefully ongoing research will change that in the future but it's not ready for prime time yet. Plenty of outright scams getting too much press also. The 'run your car on water' crowd is one I can think of (apparently many people didn't pay attention in high school physics). A good site explaining the physics that negates that scheme is here along with other interesting info about some of those behind the current revival.

http://www.alternative-energy-resources.net/browns-gas-the-reality....

Another scam that's been revived is the 'phase controller' that supposedly saves electricity by making motors run more efficiently. Home show demonstrations with an electric motor show it's electricity usage dropping dramatically when the motor is plugged into the device rather than straight into the incoming power. These devices actually do work in the applications they are designed for...this has the unfortunate effect of helping the scammers (or to give them the benefit of the doubt, uneducated-in-electricity folk) sell these things. An industrial application that produces savings would be a big table saw in a woodworking shop that runs constantly. When it's not cutting wood, the motor is under no load and at that moment, a phase controller will save energy. The goal of electrical engineers is to make sure anything with a motor runs that motor at rated capacity at all times...that's the point a motor is most efficient. Their striving for this is what has made ACs and refrigerators much more efficient lately. The point here is motors in your home all run at rated load all the time. There is no 'off load' time like with the big table saw. A 'phase controller' saves nothing in this situation.

In hot climates a proven strategy that works well is a heat recovery unit attached to your AC unit. It provides free hot water and also increases the efficiency of the AC a couple of SEER points. Adding one of these to an older AC unit that still runs well is a good way to cut $30-$50 off your monthly power bill during AC season (which here in cent Fl can be about 9 months). Here is a manufacturer's site for one on these.

http://www.trevormartin.com/about.asp

Please use due diligence when deciding on ways to save energy. The internet is a great source of info and you can easily see both points of view on any energy saving strategy. Just simple conservation by time-tested means is still the best way to approach our dilemma. If we all cut our power bill in half, we'd all have much more money in our pocket and our nation would be much more secure.

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last