[RE-wrenches] California solar intiatives

[SOLARPRO at aol.com]

10 is a tough one... good business for Pickens.  But I think he has  made the 
connection on Wind v N Gas v Gasoline.  Natural Gas is A real  solution for 
moving us away from imports (especially from global  hot spots). Changing over 
the fuel system is not very difficult or costly  and it would certainly be 
much cleaner burning than using gasoline.   But, we do not have enough NG to 
consider this as even an interim option, hence  his push for wind to open up 
supplies of natural gas.  I do  not see why the push for solar water heating would 
not also be  part of his effort - I guess he cannot figure out a way to make 
that work  for him. 
If every single NG water heater in the US went 50% solar, how much extra NG  
would this country have?
 
Patrick Redgate
AMECO Solar
 
 
 
In a message dated 10/5/2008 2:24:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
nickvida at eesolar.com writes:
 
On prop  10,

yes you may feel whatever way you would like about Pickens. Seeing  how
much windy land he owns in texas and that he owns clean energy natural  gas
stations makes it a bit insipid that he is trying to use the government  to
increase his infrastructure. But as a tradesman, if you dont think  natural
gas is a important way to run your fleet of heavy vehicles now and  in the
future, then i dont understand that. You can run CNG right now, in  fact I
do and have for years. It is effective and lower emissions (isnt  that part
of what your business is? environmentalism?) I have seen one work  van that
runs on batteries in europe that has a low range and a long charge  time.
The reality of our business and all the other tradesman is driving up  to
200 miles a day and driving around often. You can do what you are  doing
now, (buying gas until the battery van comes out never joel?), run  a
neighborhood business, or use natural gas. And if you do already, then  you
welcome an increase in the infrastructure and can only hope they will  use
garbage and cow poop to reach increasing demand instead of imports. And  of
course, when the sales fleet and customers are all going around in  EVs,
you are right Joel, this state will have officially pulled its head  out of
its natural pocket.




> Hello  Jay,
>
> CalSEIA (and I) am opposed to Prop 7 because, among other  things, it would
> exclude renewable projects that are 30MW or less from  counting toward the
> State's Renewable Portfolio Standard. If Prop 7  becomes law, it will
> adversely impact the developing markets for  distributed solar technologies
> that are located close to load centers  and reduce market opportunities for
> many solar companies throughout  California. Ensuring that <30MW systems
> can
> be counted  toward RPS goals is very important to expanding the use of
>  solar
> in California. The Prop 7 people seem well-intentioned and  probably got
> their >30 MW language from the distinction between  small and large hydro
> (large hydro is bad ecology). I am not a "small  is beautiful" hardliner
> because some big problems require big  solutions. I think that the world
> needs both small and large scale PV.  We need Jay's PV and PG&E's 800 MW PV
> too.
>
> Prop 10  is another story. The Los Angeles Times editorialized against Prop
> 10  on September 19, saying, "Spending bond money on something as
>  intangible
> as privately owned vehicles is a terrible idea unless there  is a clear
> public benefit." The Santa Monica Mirror said,  "Self-serving Prop. 10
> sounds
> good, should lose." See
>  http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_10_(2008)  T.
> Boone Pickens will definitely benefit from his Prop 10. I think he  is
> smart
> enough to figure out a market-driven way to sell and  fuel more natural gas
> vehicles. I also think that one of Prop 10's  supporters, the California
> Air
> Resources Board, failed in  their duty to the public when the caved to the
> automobile and fossil  fuel industries and killed the electric vehicle
> mandate. Take fossil  fuels out of Prop 10 and I might be in favor of it,
> but
> I am  against burdening the next generation with another $10 billion debt
>  for
> a transitional technology like slightly cleaner vehicles. Let's  make the
> great leap forward and end our addiction to fossil fuels  asap.
>
> Joel Davidson
>
> ----- Original Message  -----
> From: "jay peltz" <jay at asis.com>
> To: "RE-wrenches"  <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
> Sent: Sunday, October 05,  2008 12:00 PM
> Subject: [RE-wrenches] California solar  intiatives
>
>
>> Hi All in  California.
>>
>> What seems to be the best way to go on the  two intiatives #7 and #10.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>  jay
>>
>> peltz power
>>  





**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination.  
Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out!      
(http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20081005/260f75c3/attachment-0003.html>