Currently viewing the tag: "energy"
President Obama’s unveiling today of an array of ambitious and achievable energy efficiency savings incentives and targets for our nation’s commercial-building owners could not be better timed. This new administration program, announced in the president’s speech today at Penn State University will result in thousands of new jobs for construction workers hard hit by the Great Recession and housing market travails, $40 billion a year in energy savings for U.S. commercial-building owners, and substantially less greenhouse gases escaping into the atmosphere to warm our planet. Bracken Hendrick has the story in this CAP cross-post .
Here is the original post:
Rebuilding America: President Obama sets commercial building energy efficiency targets
The President was widely criticized last week for omitting certain words critical to explaining the State of the Union (see “ Obama calls for massive boost in low-carbon energy, but doesn’t mention carbon, climate or warming ” and Brulle: “By failing to even rhetorically address climate change, Obama is mortgaging our future and further delaying the necessary work to build a political consensus for real action” ). This weekend, his climate hawkish science adviser, John Holdren, was not so reticent . Today, in a Penn State speech on energy efficiency, Obama reemerged as a ‘climate eyas’, an unfledged young climate hawk, with these remarks: Right here at Penn State, a university whose motto is “Making Life Better,” you’ve answered the call. Today you’re preparing to lead the way on a hub that will make America home to the most energy-efficient buildings in the world . Now, that may not sound too sexy, “energy-efficient buildings.” But listen. Our homes and our businesses consume 40 percent of the energy we use. Think about that.
Read the original:
Obama’s ‘climate eyas’ moment today: “Carbon pollution” is contributing to “climate change”
One of the more interesting projects that caught my eye at last month’s World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi were a dozen or so fantastical design concepts called the Land Art Generator Initiative. The idea? A design contest to create whimsical, fantastically massive public art – that also generates electricity for the grid. My takeaway?
Visit link:
Land Art Generator Initiative Energizes Renewable Energy
Passive House is an increasingly popular low-energy standard. Passive Houses must be airtight (0.60 ACH at 50 Pascals) and low energy (4.75 kBTU/ft2/year max heating and cooling demand and 38 kBTU/ft2/year maximum primary demand) — requirements that slash energy demand by about 90%. Due to increasing popularity of Passive House, media mentions like this mini-series in The Tyee — are becoming more common. (1) Step in the Real Home of the Future: Passivhaus (2) In Snowy Whistler, a House with No Furnace (3) Low Energy Homes Mean Thousands of Jobs In this series, Monte Paulsen explains that the Saskatchewan Conservation House (circa 1977) was an inspiration for what eventually became Passivhaus. Unfortunately, the old house gained a garage and lost the solar thermal system. And the current owner, when asked, didn’t seem to know much about the home’s history. After the Conservation House was built, according to Paulsen, nothing much happened with energy-efficient construction techniques until recently. Meanwhile, general adoption of Passivhaus in Germany and Europe has led to the creation of tons of jobs. They’ve had something like a 15-year head start and the best windows come from overseas. So there’s a lot of history behind the rise of the Passivehaus/Passive House. Perhaps there’s a lot of history to be made, too. Credit: Amanda Nelson Photography & Design 2010 – this is the Breezeway House in SLC, the first Passive House in the state of Utah.
![0a3f0e76f2terior.jpg 100x66 The Rise of the Passive House [The Tyee]](http://yourgreenability.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/0a3f0e76f2terior.jpg-100x66.jpg "The Rise of the Passive House [The Tyee]")
Original post:
The Rise of the Passive House [The Tyee]
The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s 2009 report, “ Impact of Limitations on Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf ” analyzed the difference between full offshore drilling (Reference Case) and restriction to offshore drilling (OCS limited case). I n 2020, there is no impact on gasoline prices (right hand column). In 2030, US gasoline prices would be three cents a gallon lower. Woohoo! I have previously written about the trivial impact of opening the OCS further to drilling — T he oil companies already have access to some 34 billion barrels of offshore oil they have barely begun to develop (see “ The cruel offshore-drilling hoax “).
Here is the original post:
EIA: New offshore drilling will lower gasoline prices in 2030 a few pennies a gallon – But still, top Republicans exploit Egyptian uprising to shill…