Tag Archives: Mo Dept Natural Resources

Republicans Take Heed-Science the GOP can’t wish away

Suggestions for the Republicans in Office:

  1. Get with the Program and push yourself away Monetary Feed Trough; supported by the Big Oil and Big Coal Campaign Donations, it is clouding your Judgment on Global Warming / Climate Change.
  • The Fog in your Head is being caused by the CO2 emissions from Fossil Fuels

See for Your Self and determine which Politician in your States Elected Officials- whose side of the Bread gets Buttered by the Big Oil and Big Coal Companies at: http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php?type=congress (Missouri’s Roy Blunt made the Top 5. (That’s sure something to be proud of-NOT!))

If you think the USA does not want Clean Energy for Homes and Business- Take note of the Nov 2, 2010 Election and the Clean Green Energy-http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_7_%282008%29

It obvious that the Republican Party is not interested in Creating Jobs-yet so many Americans are out of Work-WTF? Is not a portion of your Pay Check created by the Taxes levied against our Pay Checks? Maybe Americans should claim Exempt on their W4’s?

Food For Thought: What if the Political Leaders Pay Checks were determined by the Performance of their Actions or Lack of Actions in the Congress and Senate. I bet many would be singing a different tune.

Mark my Words: Lack of Bi-Partisanship will be a factor in the Next Election

Republicans supposedly support Business Growth- How much will a Business Grow if the Un-Employed can’t buy any products?

I encourage everyone to contact your Leaders in the House and Senate, use the following web link to find your Elected Officials Contact Information and Let them know your Thoughts. They are supposed to Listen to their Constituents.
http://tellmypolitician.com

Science the GOP can’t wish away

By Sherwood Boehlert
Friday, November 19, 2010

Watching the raft of newly elected GOP lawmakers converge on Washington, I couldn’t help thinking about an issue I hope our party will better address. I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party’s line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.

National Journal reported last month that 19 of the 20 serious GOP Senate challengers declared that the science of climate change is either inconclusive or flat-out wrong. Many newly elected Republican House members take that position. It is a stance that defies the findings of our country’s National Academy of Sciences, national scientific academies from around the world and 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists.

Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world’s top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of information or misinformation.

I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.

In a trio of reports released in May, the prestigious and nonpartisan National Academy concluded that “a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.” Our nation’s most authoritative and respected scientific body couldn’t make it any clearer or more conclusive.

When I was chairman of the House Committee on Science, top scientists from around the world came before our panel. They were experts that Republicans and Democrats alike looked to for scientific insight and understanding on a host of issues. They spoke in probabilities, ranges and concepts – always careful to characterize what was certain, what was suspected and what was speculative. Today, climate scientists – careful as ever in portraying what they know vs. what they suspect – report that the body of scientific evidence supporting the consensus on climate change and its cause is as comprehensive and exhaustive as anything produced by the scientific community.

While many in politics – and not just of my party – refuse to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change, leaders of some of our nation’s most prominent businesses have taken a different approach. They formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. This was no collection of mom-and-pop shops operated by “tree huggers” sympathetic to any environmental cause but, rather, a step by hard-nosed, profit-driven capitalists. General Electric, Alcoa, Duke Energy, DuPont, Dow Chemical, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler signed on. USCAP, persuaded by scientific facts, called on the president and Congress to act, saying “in our view, the climate change challenge will create more economic opportunities than risks for the U.S. economy.”

There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate change, not as an excuse to deny the problem’s existence. The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution. The record flooding, droughts and extreme weather in this country and others are consistent with patterns that scientists predicted for years. They are an ominous harbinger.

The new Congress should have a policy debate to address facts rather than a debate featuring unsubstantiated attacks on science. We shouldn’t stand by while the reputations of scientists are dragged through the mud in order to win a political argument. And no member of any party should look the other way when the basic operating parameters of scientific inquiry – the need to question, express doubt, replicate research and encourage curiosity – are exploited for the sake of political expediency. My fellow Republicans should understand that wholesale, ideologically based or special-interest-driven rejection of science is bad policy. And that in the long run, it’s also bad politics.

What is happening to the party of Ronald Reagan? He embraced scientific understanding of the environment and pollution and was proud of his role in helping to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. That was smart policy and smart politics. Most important, unlike many who profess to be his followers, Reagan didn’t deny the existence of global environmental problems but instead found ways to address them.

The National Academy reports concluded that “scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming.” Party affiliation does not change that fact.

The writer, a Republican, represented New York’s 24th District in Congress from 1983 to 2007. He is a special adviser to the Project on Climate Science.

Advertisements

Oil: The Clock Is Ticking

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Scott’s Contracting <scottscontracting> wrote:

  • ‘…131 years for replacement of gasoline and diesel, given the current pace of research and development; however, world’s oil could run dry almost a century before that …’

  • Math: 2010 + 131 = Year 2141 – 100 (century) = Year 2041


2041 – 2010 = 31 Years.

  • Where do you see your energy coming from in the Future?
  • Leave comments below in comment section.
  • All comments that are Energy Related and in English will be published. Scotty

It seems the panic time for both green enthusiasts and peak oil pundits.

According to a new paper by two researchers at the University of California – Davis, it would take 131 years for replacement of gasoline and diesel, given the current pace of research and development; however, world’s oil could run dry almost a century before that.

The research was published on Nov. 8 at Environmental Science & Technology, which is based on the theory that market expectations are good predictors reflected in prices of publicly traded securities.

By incorporating market expectations into the model, the authors, Nataliya Malyshkina and Deb Niemeier, indicated that based on their calculation, the peak of oil production could occur between 2010 and 2030, before renewable replacement technologies become viable at around 2140.

The estimates not only delayed the alternative energy timeline, but also pushed up the peak oil deadline. The researchers suggest some previous estimates that pegged year 2040 as the time frame when alternatives would start to replace oil, could be “overly optimistic”.

Article continues: entire article: http://seekingalpha.com/article/236635-oil-the-clock-is-ticking

| by: Dian L. Chu November 14, 2010 |

Dian L. Chu picture

About this author:

Renewable Energy Rebates-Ameren UE-Federal Tax Incentive


Ameren UE Renewable Energy Rebate Program

Recently I was asked:

  • “Why does Ameren UE buy back the electricity created by Renewable Energy System on my House?”

When I directed the question to Ms L.Cosgrove[i] who handles the Local Ameren UE Renewable Energy Department.  She replied:

  • AmerenUE provides the MO Solar Rebate in response to Missourian’s passing Proposition C back in November, 2008[ii],[iii]”

In a nutshell it seems to me that Ameren UE will either have to build Renewable Energy Producing Systems or Purchase the Electricity that is made from Residents and Businesses to comply with the Law.
Which means that Ameren has a Stake in any Renewable Energy Sytem that produces Electricity and is Interconnected utilizing Net Metering to our / their Electircal Grid here in the St Louis Area.
Good News for all those who would like additional Monetary Incentives for Installing RE (Renewable Energy) Systems.
The Ameren Rebate and the Federal Tax Incentive can add up to as much as 2/3 of the cost of the RE System.
Click Here to Contact Scotty if any additional information is needed.

Posted by Scotty  Labels: , , , , , , , ,



[i] Lisa M. Cosgrove | Renewables Specialist  | 1901 Chouteau Avenue, MC 611 | St. Louis, MO 63103
314-554-2649 | fax 314-206-1387 | lcosgrove@ameren.com [ii] See http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2008petitions/2008-031.asp for more details.

[iii] 2008 Initiative Petitions
Approved for Circulation in Missouri

Amendment to Chapter 393 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, Relating to Renewable Energy, version 4, 2008-031

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Be it enacted by the people of the state of Missouri:Chapter 393, RSMo, is amended by repealing sections 393.1020, 393.1025, 393.1030, and 393.1035, and substituting therefor three new sections to be known as sections 393.1020, 393.1025 and 393.1030, to read as follows:393.1020. Sections 393.1025 to 393.1030 shall be known as the Renewable Energy Standard.393.1025. As used in sections 393.1020 to 393.1030, the following terms mean: 1. “Commission”, the public service commission; 2. “Department”, the department of natural resources; 3. “Electric utility”, any electrical corporation as defined by section 386.020; 4. “Renewable energy resources”, electric energy produced from wind, solar thermal sources, photovoltaic cells and panels, dedicated crops grown for energy production, cellulosic agricultural residues, plant residues, methane from landfills or from wastewater treatment, clean and untreated wood such as pallets, hydropower (not including pumped storage) that does not require a new diversion or impoundment of water and that has a nameplate rating of 10 megawatts or less, fuel cells using hydrogen produced by one of the above-named renewable energy sources, and other sources of energy not including nuclear that become available after the effective date of this section and are certified as renewable by rule by the department; and 5. “Renewable energy credit” or “REC”, a tradable certificate of proof that one megawatt-hour of electricity has been generated from renewable energy sources. 393.1030.1. The commission shall, in consultation with the department, prescribe by rule a portfolio requirement for all electric utilities to generate or purchase electricity generated from renewable energy resources. Such portfolio requirement shall provide that electricity from renewable energy resources shall constitute the following portions of each electric utility’s sales: (a) No less than two percent for calendar years 2011 through 2013; (b) No less than five percent for calendar years 2014 through 2017; (c) No less than ten percent for calendar years 2018 through 2020; and (d) No less than fifteen percent in each calendar year beginning in 2021.

At least two percent of each portfolio requirement shall be derived from solar energy. The portfolio requirements shall apply to all power sold to Missouri consumers whether such power is self-generated or purchased from another source in or outside of this state. A utility may comply with the standard in whole or in part by purchasing RECs. Each kilowatt-hour of eligible energy generated in Missouri shall count as 1.25 kilowatt-hours for purposes of compliance. 2. The commission, in consultation with the department and within one year of the effective date of sections 393.1020 to 393.1030, shall select a program for tracking and verifying the trading of renewable energy credits. An unused credit may exist for up to three years from the date of its creation. A credit may be used only once to comply with this act and may not also be used to satisfy any similar non-federal requirement. An electric utility may not use a credit derived from a green pricing program. Certificates from net-metered sources shall initially be owned by the customer-generator.  The… continues on web site


Energy Explained

Oil-Natural_Gas-Solar-Geo Thermal-Wind-Electricity-Bio Mass-Nuclear-Gasoline-Heating_Oil-Diesel-Propane-Coal

US Energy Data Links for Energy and Energy Related Questions-All Areas of Energy Production and Uses are covered in this report by US Energy Department.

Energy Explained - Home

Attic Insulation and Attic Energy Solutions

I’ve put a little information to help assist in explaining ‘Adding Attic Insulation to an Existing Home’. I take a whole house approach to improve a Home’s Energy Reduction Needs. Attics and Attic insulation just being one area.
In the old days we just blew the insulation into the attic. Now, I suggest that any

  • Air Infiltration areas be resolved before adding insulation- Stop the Air (Hot or Cold) From Entering a Home.
  • This includes: proper attic ventilation, ceiling protrusions(Light Boxes / Ceiling Fan), access points, mechanical and electric points, Attic Knee Walls, Obtrusion’s, etc
  • Adding Radiant Barriers for Existing Buildings-in a nutshell this bounces the Exterior Temperature back outside.
  • Attached to the Underneath Side of Existing Rafters
  • Option 1:Double Reflective R-Values range from R-3.7 to R-17
  • Attic Add Insulation to meet Suggested Guidelines
  • When used in conjunction with a Radiant Barrier-Cost of Insulation is reduced and thickness / weight of insulation is reduced. This will help reduce stress by the weight directly over the ceiling material, generally sheet rock.
  • Radiant Barriers also act as Vapor Barrier

When we come over to perform an estimate. We will inspect for the above mentioned problem areas. Discuss the various solutions. Next, I’ll determine the Materials and Labor Needed to Complete and Fix the Areas Quoted in the Project. I’ll then submit a Project Proposal that will discuss project in detail.

Looking forward to meeting you and discussing the ways I can help with Lowering your Energy Bill- “Afford-ably”.
Build Green, Scotty

Attic Insulation -Energy Star Government Suggestion for St Louis Regional Area

-w/ no insulation Add Insulation to achieve=R38 to R60

-If existing 3-4 inches Add Insulation to achieve=R38

-Suggested needed Rvalue of Insulation on Attic Floor=R25 to R30

Referrence Materials:

Scott’s Contracting
scottscontracting
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty

Missouri Voters Approve a Renewable Energy

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently released new estimates of the United States’ wind energy potential, which tripled previous estimates of the size of the nation’s wind resources. The new study, which was carried out by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and AWS Truewind, finds that the contiguous 48 states have the potential to generate up to 37 million gigawatt hours annually. To put that in perspective, total U.S. electricity generation from all sources was roughly 4 million gigawatt hours in 2009. The estimates show the total energy yield that could be generated using current wind turbine technology on the nation’s windy lands. (The estimates show what is possible, not what will actually be developed.)

RELATED CONTENT

Renewable Energy Will Rise to the Challenge

A new study predicts we could have one quarter of our energy needs from renewable sources by 2025, …
Wind: Best Bet for Renewable Energy

Which renewable energy technology has the best potential to combat global warming and power our fut…

Missouri Voters Approve a Renewable Energy Requirement

Missouri creates a stronger market for renewable energy by passing a clean energy initiative….

Along with the state-by-state estimates of wind energy potential, NREL and AWS Truewind have developed wind resource maps for the United States and for the contiguous 48 states that show the predicted average wind speeds at an 80-meter height. The wind resource maps and estimates provide local, state, and national policymakers with accurate information about the nature of the wind resource in their areas and across the nation, helping them to make informed decisions about wind energy in their communities.

Why Has Wind Energy Potential Gone Up?

The new estimates reflect substantial advances in wind turbine technology that have occurred since the Department of Energy’s last national wind resource assessments were conducted in 1993. For example, previous wind resource maps showed predicted average wind speeds at a height of 50 meters, which was the height of most wind turbine towers at the time. The new maps show predicted average wind speeds at an 80-meter height, the height of today’s turbines. Because wind speed generally increases with height, turbines built on taller towers can capture more energy and generate more electricity. The new estimates also incorporate updated capacity factors, reflecting improvements in wind turbine design and performance.

Provided by: Scott’s Contracting St Louis “Renewable Energy” Missouri  Email Scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com  for your Green Building Needs

Mo Dept Natural Resources,MISC Renewable Energy Info, Funding Information

Missouri
Missouri
Incentives/Policies for Renewables & Efficiency
Printable Version
Back
Energy Loan Program Last DSIRE Review: 04/14/2009
Incentive Type: State Loan Program
State: Missouri
Eligible Efficiency Technologies: Lighting, Air conditioners, Building Insulation, Windows, Custom/Others pending approval, Other Unspecified
Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies: Passive Solar Space Heat, Solar Water Heat, Solar Space Heat, Photovoltaics, Wind, Biomass
Applicable Sectors: Schools, Local Government, Institutional, Public Hospitals, Water Treatment Facilities
Amount: Varies
Maximum Amount: $1 million
Terms: Rates set 0.5% below 20-Bond Index interest rate (see website for details);
Terms of up to 15 years
Program Budget: $3.8 million (FY 2009 application cycle)
Expiration Date 10/15/2008 (FY 2009 application cycle, now expired)
Web Site: http://www.dnr.mo.gov/energy/financial/loan.htm
Authority 1: R.S. Mo. § 640.651 et seq.
Date Effective: 1989

Summary:
This loan program, administered by the Energy Center of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR), is available for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects for public and governmental buildings and structures. Loan amounts are based on projected energy savings, resulting in monetary savings that is used to repay the loan. Financing is available at a fixed interest rate below the market rate, and repayment schedules are determined on an individual project basis. Repayment schedules may not exceed 15 years. Loans under this program are determined on a competitive basis according to sector and payback period.

Up to $3.8 million in loan funding was available for the FY 2009 funding cycle (expired October 15, 2008) in amounts of up to $1 million. Sector allocations are listed below, with unused funds being made available to other other eligible sectors.

* Public Schools (K-12) – 50%
* City and County Governments – 25%
* Public Higher Education Institutions – 25%

Since the program’s inception in 1989, loans totaling over $80 million have been made to the applicable sectors, resulting in an estimated savings of $146 million. The Missouri DNR released the list of FY 2009 awardees in December 2008.

Contact:
Program Information
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Energy Center
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: (800) 361-4827
Fax: (573) 751-6860
E-Mail: energy@dnr.mo.gov
Web Site: http://www.dnr.mo.gov/energy/index.ht

Mo Dept Natural Resources,MISC Renewable Energy Info, Funding Information

Missouri
Missouri
Incentives/Policies for Renewables & Efficiency
Printable Version
Back
Energy Loan Program Last DSIRE Review: 04/14/2009
Incentive Type: State Loan Program
State: Missouri
Eligible Efficiency Technologies: Lighting, Air conditioners, Building Insulation, Windows, Custom/Others pending approval, Other Unspecified
Eligible Renewable/Other Technologies: Passive Solar Space Heat, Solar Water Heat, Solar Space Heat, Photovoltaics, Wind, Biomass
Applicable Sectors: Schools, Local Government, Institutional, Public Hospitals, Water Treatment Facilities
Amount: Varies
Maximum Amount: $1 million
Terms: Rates set 0.5% below 20-Bond Index interest rate (see website for details);
Terms of up to 15 years
Program Budget: $3.8 million (FY 2009 application cycle)
Expiration Date 10/15/2008 (FY 2009 application cycle, now expired)
Web Site: http://www.dnr.mo.gov/energy/financial/loan.htm
Authority 1: R.S. Mo. § 640.651 et seq.
Date Effective: 1989

Summary:
This loan program, administered by the Energy Center of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR), is available for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects for public and governmental buildings and structures. Loan amounts are based on projected energy savings, resulting in monetary savings that is used to repay the loan. Financing is available at a fixed interest rate below the market rate, and repayment schedules are determined on an individual project basis. Repayment schedules may not exceed 15 years. Loans under this program are determined on a competitive basis according to sector and payback period.

Up to $3.8 million in loan funding was available for the FY 2009 funding cycle (expired October 15, 2008) in amounts of up to $1 million. Sector allocations are listed below, with unused funds being made available to other other eligible sectors.

* Public Schools (K-12) – 50%
* City and County Governments – 25%
* Public Higher Education Institutions – 25%

Since the program’s inception in 1989, loans totaling over $80 million have been made to the applicable sectors, resulting in an estimated savings of $146 million. The Missouri DNR released the list of FY 2009 awardees in December 2008.

Contact:
Program Information
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Energy Center
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone: (800) 361-4827
Fax: (573) 751-6860
E-Mail: energy@dnr.mo.gov
Web Site: http://www.dnr.mo.gov/energy/index.ht