Grab our RSS Feed
Follow us on:
AND 
AND
It’s Official – Bush Signs Energy Bill Into Law
December 19th, 2007 | Posted in: Efficiency, Politics
Today President Bush signed the energy bill passed by the House and the Senate, mandating automakers to achieve a corporate average of 35 mpg for their vehicles by 2020, 40% higher than they are right now.
Rick Wagoner of GM said the standard “set a tough, national target that GM will strive to meet.”
The bill also includes a provision for 90 million per year in plug-in vehicle battery research.
Source (Detroit Free Press)
Posted by: Lyle
42 Responses to “It’s Official – Bush Signs Energy Bill Into Law”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- New York Times Report on the Chevy Volt Generator Mode Driving Experience
- CNBC Test Drive of the Chevy Volt in Charge Sustaining Mode
- Chevy Volt Will be Able to Hit 104 MPH
- Chevy Volt and Battery Program Update
- GM to Announce Initial Volt Markets at LA Auto Show
- Coalition of Industry Leaders Releases Roadmap to get 120 Million Electric Cars on US Roads by 2030
- Op-Ed: GM Reports a $1.2 Billion Loss, but Has the Cash To See Volt Well into Production and Beyond
- Three Chevy Volt Paint Color Finalists Announced
- What BMW Has Learned from the MINI E Program So Far: That They May Need to Build EREVs
- GM: EVs are Cool, but EREV’s are Really Cool
Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts
- Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]BigCityCat
- Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]omnimoeish
- First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]admin
- Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]Texas
- New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]srschrier
- New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]srschrier
- New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]srschrier
GM-Volt.com is not affiliated with General Motors Company
All contents copyright 2007-2009 GM-Volt.com, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact | Privacy Policy | About | Back to Top
December 19th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
What a joke. 12 years from now 40% increase. What about the here and now. What about a smaller increase every 3 years.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Is this the version that allows different standards for SUVs?
Maybe someone should print a ton of bumper stickers that say:
“MY GAS GUZZELING SUV SUPPORTS TERRORISTS”
and then get someone from Greenpeace to stick them on when people aren’t looking…
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Let’s see…China will surpass 35 in 2 years, Australia and Canada will be at, or nearly at 35 in 3 years, meanwhile Europe and Japan were over 35 more than 5 years ago. So planning to get to 35 in 12 years is a travesty. It is admittedly better than not planning to ever get there, baby steps are better than standing still. The Volt is the one really progressive thing we’ve seen in this direction coming from the US, thumbs up all around to GM for their vision and leadership in this area.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
David Brandow-
It’s not just mpg. All those different countries you mentioned have different safety and emissions rules than the US. Not to mention different consumer tastes and needs.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
The whole thing is one giant compromise slanted towards the car and oil companies.
-The car companies have 12 years to cough up a ten mpg increase.
-The oil companies insisted on, and got, the removal of tax provisions for renewable energy requirements, and the elimination of new incentives for plug-in hybrid vehicles. Oil companies were also spared higher taxes.
The fix is still in.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Guy Incognito tells the truth.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
I’m getting really tired of this anti-SUV nonsense.
Last time I checked, a Prius also burns gasoline, hence it also supports terrorism.
Does a Prius owner burn less fuel than an SUV owner? Maybe. It depends how many miles each owner chooses to drive. It seems common for Prius owners to brag about their 500 mile weekly commutes.
Somehow a Prius owner that burns 10 gallons/week is wonderful and green, but if I burn 5 gallons/week in my Trailblazer, I’m evil and supporting terrorism.
If you really want Greenpeace to deface one’s private property, it should be based on how much fuel they choose to consume, not based on what vehicle they choose to drive. If you think that’s a good idea, maybe you should also ask Greenpeace to vandalize all the gas stations that sell the evil fuel. After all, they are supporting terrorism too. Right?
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Actually, I think that the cars, SUVs and light trucks are all lumped together in this bill.
There was a very interesting article on this in the LA Times business section yesterday. They quoted a GM representative as saying that there would be intense concentration on high mileage, low cost, “microcars”, as their excellent mileage would allow production of more high profit SUVs and pickups while still complying with CAFE.
Can it be that there has been a method in their Volt madness all along? If the 40 mile electric range allows the Volt to put up some huge EPA cycle number, maybe they can sell 2 or 3 Tahoes for every Volt they sell.
I think that this is good for Volt enthusiasts, as it will help to keep the price under control. Whether it is good for the overall energy situation remains to be seen.
For sure, there will be plenty of gaming of these regulations. The Times mentioned the prospect of lots more E85 capable vehicles in cities where there is no E85. LA for starters.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
From Set America Free newsletter:
The past year made abundantly apparent that dependence on foreign oil not only affects our national security but is also a heavy drain on our economy. To maintain the American way of life we need to import 12 million barrels a day-every day-at $90 dollar per barrel. As a result, our economy is bleeding, our trade deficit is soaring and our currency is plummeting. Not to mention the transfer of wealth of historical proportions that is currently taking place from Western economies to those of OPEC’s producers–money used to fund the proliferation of radical Islam and support terrorist activity around the world.
Despite the risks associated with our oil dependence the U.S. Senate has passed legislation that would do little to address our strategic peril. “Unfortunately, the product seems [...] more of a grab-bag promoting favors for special interests and pet-rocks of senior lawmakers (many of which have nothing to do with reducing our consumption of petroleum imported from unfriendly places) than a program for quickly and cost-effectively ending the main source of that insecurity, namely our addiction to oil from dangerous places,” wrote Frank Gaffney. The widely applauded increase in fuel economy requirements may save us one million barrels per day by 2015 but this is a drop in the barrel considering the fact that during the same period of time our consumption due to natural growth will grow fivefold. Plug in hybrid cars that are also flex fuel can move us from the current 25mpg fleet to roughly 500 mpg of gasoline. Spending the next 15 years getting to a 35mpg fleet when we can get to 500mpg of gasoline is a waste of time America can not afford. Policies which scrape a few extra miles from each gallon or drill deeper in U.S. soil and sea are merely tactical and will keep us locked to the forever Saudi dominated petroleum standard.
The Set America Free Coalition is committed to putting the nation on an entirely different path to independence from foreign oil – energy victory through fuel choice. Only by shifting from a petroleum dominated transportation system to a fully diversified one in which alcohols and electricity play a far bigger role, only by injecting competition into the transportation sector and thus stripping oil of its strategic value, will we be able to render OPEC’s monopoly irrelevant.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
AES-
I completely agree, mpg is just one measuring stick. But clearly the US is way, way behind in that area, and that should be of concern. Differing measuring sticks also address different issues, as examples, emissions rules are most directly related to global warming, mpg rules are most directly related to peak oil.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
And on the same day, Congress eliminates America’s 10% share ($149M) of funding for the ITER fusion reactor in the 2008 budget.
Your Congress is schizophrenic, America
The world is going to need electricity to power electric vehicles in the future, and it can’t come from coal-fired power plants forever.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
[quote comment="20576"]Guy Incognito tells the truth.[/quote]
Thank you Daniel.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Anyone know how plug-ins like the Volt will work into the new standard? Will they count the Volt as
50 MPG (only serial hybrid mode)??
100 MPG (40 mile EV + 40 miles serial hybrid)??
300 MPG (40 mile EV + 8 miles serial hybrid)??
Any idea? I hate saying the Volt is 100 or 300 MPG, because it is REALLY misleading, but maybe GM will use it to comply with CAFE.
Any EPA experts out there? How would the EV-1 have impacted GM’s CAFE (assuming they actually sold more than 1,000 cars)?
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
If our elected officials want to pound their chests on the good job they are doing in this area, let them do it. Because in the real world, who cares?
At this point, I have to think about what I am going to do to reduce my dependence on oil.
And that choice to me for my transportation needs is clear – The Chevy Volt!!!
If solar panels on the roof or in the yard get to a price point where they make sense, I will do that as well.
I have already upgraded my heating and cooling equipment, insulated, and put in new windows and doors in the house. Lighting fixtures are being upgraded as well.
If each of us does what we can to reduce our energy requirements, we will fix many of these problems ourselves……….
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
#11 Geoff Olynyk Says:
“Your Congress is schizophrenic, America”
I disagree. They are a bunch a useless idiots with Bush being the chief idiot of them all.
I never liked CAFE to start with and this one is pathetic.
I believe that all vehicles should become E-REV machines and battery range to at least
quadruple by 2020. Maybe that would be a challenge worth shooting for. 35mpg is no sweat and still keeps attached at the hip with the terrorists. Truly a useless bunch of idiots in Washington.
———-
#7 PaulR.
I have never owned on SUV but I agree with you. I think that if SUV owners could buy an alternative fueled vehicle that worked, looked, and acted like an SUV, the people would buy it. But where can an SUV owner buy a vehicle like that today? I don’t believe they can. At least not one that is practical.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
#15 Rashiid said:
“I disagree. They are a bunch a useless idiots with Bush being the chief idiot of them all.
I never liked CAFE to start with and this one is pathetic…Truly a useless bunch of idiots in Washington.”
I normally look forward to your comments on this forum. But, not this time.
You never liked CAFE and many of us will agree with you. But, you can’t put that one on Bush. It became law long before Bush ever thought of becoming President or Governor of Texas for that matter.
The new CAFE law was passed by a Democrat controlled congress. Bush didn’t ask for the legislation to the best of my knowledge. He simply signed it into law.
So, if you’re inclined to bash people, let’s be fair and inclusive instead of political and selective.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Estero #16. I stand corrected. I know of the CAFE from the 1970’s. I was referring to this one. I realize that the Democratic controlled congress passed this bill, but it required the Republican President to make it law. That makes both sides of the isle guilty.
CAFE is the wrong way to go. Money for extensive research in getting us completely off of transportation and heating oil is something that should have been passed instead.
And for the record, I enjoy your comments as well. When it comes to electronics and engineering, I am the most ignorant one here. I learn from you and everyone else. Thank you for that.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Another thing that no one has mentioned yet that came into law with this bill…
A six (6) fold (!!!!!) increase in ethanol production/use by 2020
(Corn based) Ethanol is already an expensive boondoggle that keeps big oil/gas happy because it takes at least almost as much (some claim even more) energy to plant/grow/fertilize/harvest/ferment/distill/transport as it stores.
We are already seeing increased food prices due to ethanol as corn based animal feed prices shoot up. Imagine what happens as farmers displace other food crops so they can grow more corn for that 6x as much ethanol!
There were also another big batch of last minute vaguely stated earmarks added to this bill
While part of the problem that happened with this bill is that while the Dems may have the majority in both legislative branches, especially in the Senate the majority is as slim as it can be, so compromise was still needed with the Republicans. However a fair share of blame still goes to the Dems as there are powerful senior Dems from Michigan and also from corn country (it also doesn’t help that all the presidential candidates are trying to win Iowa voters in the caucuses hence the ethanol part).
We really need national term limits for congress like we have for the Presidency, but an constitutional amendment would have to pass congress 1st so will never happen. It won’t work on a State by State level either as that would be like unilateral disarmament.
In any case, as more and more oil producers reach peak production, and worldwide demand continues to increase, and thus oil prices reach for the sky ($90-100/barrel oil, you haven’t seen nothing yet), that’s going to move things along faster than this bill.
(Quote)
December 19th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Bush just signed this bill to gain more public supporters, but really, he’s more interested in pleasing Big Oil then the mass public.
If he was REALLY serious about getting us off of foreign oil, the time frame for 35 mpg’s would be far less. And the amount the government is funding into plug-in research would be doubled.
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 2:13 am
jim l 14. has it right. what are We personally doing to reduce Our oil fix?
if you’re waiting for the government, forget it, it’s up to us.
anyone paying attention to tim and ohm and their updates on nano solar? this stuff is changing the world. are you on nano solars email list to find out what they are doing?
we Will be fueling volts with this (nano solar) stuff, almost for free!
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 2:52 am
Ohm Excited: Thanks for introducing me to the Set America Free people… They are natural allies in my jihad against oil.
death to oil
http://www.oiljihad.org
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 4:00 am
If you buy this car then buy Solar Panels for your roof, or the electric company may burn oil to sell you electric
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 4:55 am
Every time I hear that the price of oil is heading over $100 a barrel I rejoice in the idea of becoming my own energy producer: install solar shingles on my roof and sell energy to the grid when it’s most expensive and charge my Volt at night when energy is the cheapest.
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 8:17 am
#7 PaulR:
I don’t think the complaints are about how much fuel you use to go about your life. The complaints are about how much fuel you waste as you go about your life.
That is where you and the Prius driver are different.
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 8:42 am
[quote comment="20682"]Every time I hear that the price of oil is heading over $100 a barrel I rejoice in the idea of becoming my own energy producer: install solar shingles on my roof and sell energy to the grid when it’s most expensive and charge my Volt at night when energy is the cheapest.[/quote]
Well put, David –I plan to do the same!!!
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 10:43 am
#13 Andy,
As discussed in the entry above, the mpg rating methods for PHEVs and EREVs are not yet written in stone but the folks at Argonne are generally the gov’s go-to guys and their proposal is to calculate based on the average use of the average fleet. Using their figures I calculated that they’d be giving the Volt a 125 mpg rating, but their figures seemed to be underestimating how much would be all electric to me. I am sure GM will lobby hard for more generous estimations.
Hey, that ANYTHING was done during this administration is notable!
And what was done is moderately helpful to EVs of all stripes.
1. Fleet credits can be traded and are averaged for the whole fleet. Yes, GM will be willing to sell Volts at a loss since they need those credits to keep selling their more profitable guzzlers and can sell any excess to other manufacturers who will need them. BEV makers can sell credits to the big boys and thereby become more affordable.
2. Close to a billion dollars were allocated to electrification of the transportation grid over the next five years. Sure a pittance compared to what is given to fuel cell research, but still.
3. While explicit tax credits for PHEVs and EREVs were stripped out in the final draft, there was left in a directive to develop them by 2010. Both Obama (since Springtime) and HRC (of late) have argued for substantial and lasting tax credits for these vehicles. Odds are the next administration will make it so.
4. The “Advanced fuels” section CAPPED the amount that could be from corn-derived ethanol and promoted cellulosic sources (ethanol may be a boondoggle but cellulosic methanol is already cost-effective and can be used in FFVs) and they kept coal to liquid fuels out.
5. Mandates re renewables were kept out, but nationwide mandates are usually a clumsy approach anyway. Cap and trade will be coming and that will accomplish the goal more effectively. Plus many states already have their own mandates in place.
So not perfect but not too bad either, as a start.
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
OhmExcited, #9:
NO S..T!
Jim I, #14:
I agree with your conclusion. I have said before that I think that the market will drive the CAFE higher than any law in the next few years, as people get sick of paying higher and higher prices for fuel.
Jeff M, #18:
As to your last paragraph, I could not agree more. See above.
Great work guys – you are the point of the spear. If anyone at GM reads this stuff, I hope that they get the message.
Yesterday somebody said: “Guy Icognito tell the truth”, or words to that effect. I say:
“GM-volt bloggers tell the truth”
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Interesting that GM was against this MPG increase. If it’s going to have the advantage in plug-in technology, why would it not support legislation that would put the other automakers at a greater disadvantage?
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Sorry about the typos Guy. It’s either too many band-aids on my fingers, or my brain just won’t kick into gear this morning.
Happiest of Holidys to all!
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
#22 (Cheap)… the electric producers aren’t going to burn more oil… the US only gets 2% of it’s electricity from burning oil, thanks to the 70’s oil crisis. Oil prices are going up faster than any other fuel prices so the power companies aren’t going to convert or build more oil burning plants.
#28 (wow)… GM, like all the others (including Toyota), still want the lowest CAFE standards as possible… remember those are fleet averages. That means selling high mpg vehicles like the Volt and the Prius let’s them build/sell more of the bigger lower mpg vehicles on which the profit margins are higher.
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
#18, Jeff M
You should do some research into how ethanol is made and how it will be made in the future before you post.
You write as if the production of ethanol consumes all the corn, yet in reality the same amount of livestock feed is produced when ethanol is made compared to when ethanol is not made. The fact is ethanol from corn is value added; the energy going into growing and harvesting and transporting it would have been spent anyway on the livestock feed which is still produced and is higher in quality than regular livestock feed. The increased cost of food comes from the increased cost of oil.
I think what is going on is ethanol was not a threat to the oil companies before, but now that cellulosic ethanol plants are being built it is a threat so the oil companies are starting a slander campaign against ethanol.
(Quote)
December 20th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
In Europe and Asia, the government gets out in front of the people. In America, the people get out in front of the government. It has to do with the way our society favors individualism over collectivism. It isn’t written into our Constitution that we should have a minimally regulated market capitalist economy, but it is woven into our cultural DNA. It can change, but not very quickly. It’s a generational thing.
Movement on the efficiency, independence, and cleanliness of our energy consumption will come from consumer pressure and corporate leadership. Our government won’t take risks to get our votes (that’s what wedge issues are for), but our corporations will take risks to get our dollars–and increasingly euros, yuan, and rupees.
The American private sector has also come to the realization that 75% of our economy is driven by an American consumer whose purchasing power is on the decline. They have to become more competitive in the export market. That means respecting the government regulations and consumer preferences in the social democracies of Europe and, most importantly, the centrally-managed double-digit growth economy of China.
American corporations have learned that doing business in China is like doing business with Wal-Mart. They bust your balls over every minute aspect of your business in order to drive the hardest bargain for their citizens. Our big-time CEOs aren’t used to this kind of subordinating treatment, but they’re beginning to come away with a sense of admiration for the Chinese government. They’re shrewd and hyper-analytical, and they run their country like a massive enterprise.
We need to get to know our fellow superpower. The 20th century was all about America, and the 21st will be all about China. But if we keep our eye on the ball, we can restructure our economy around exports, keep Americans employed, and maintain our high standard of living. It’s going to require a massive change in the way we manage education and fund health care in America.
I’m a progressive. But there are transformational forces in the global economy that are dramatically reducing the impact of American politics on multinational corporations, and these forces cannot be stopped. Corporations are essentially citizens of the world. Our politics should focus much more on what matters to American citizens, especially reversing the trend of economic inequality that is killing the American Dream and tearing at the social fabric.
I advocate cap-and-trade as a long-overdue solution to a massive externality of the free market. The market may not impose any sort of finite supply on carbon emissions, but nature does, and we have to make sure that the market takes that into account. That’s where politics plays an important role, and the auction revenues will dramatically increase the government’s ability to fund long-term investments in sustainable infrastructure.
But ultimately, fuel economy is an issue that consumers understand very well from an economic standpoint and increasingly well from a moral standpoint. I find it incredibly hard to believe that demand won’t take care of fuel economy without CAFE standards. I think that demand will outpace these regulations anyway.
Effective advocacy on efficiency and carbon footprint is all about using word-of-mouth to get people excited about new technologies and thinking about the kind of world we want to leave for our children and grandchildren. It’s very grassroots, but it’s also not nearly as political as some people seem to think.
In the end, we the people want to do the right thing, and the private sector is going to follow the money. It’s going to happen, with or without political leadership.
(Quote)
December 21st, 2007 at 1:02 am
#31 (law)… I’ve done plenty of research… if you have conflicting info please point us to it as I’m always open to it.
But in regards to cellulosic ethanol, right now that’s as much a pipe dream as a hydrogen economy. There’s plenty of small break throughs, but it’s years or longer away right now. And nothing is still free… cellulosic ethanol production is going to displace something.
Ethanol also still releases carbon dioxide when burned. The idea is that in theory it could be “carbon neutral” in that it only releases as much carbon dioxide back into the environment as the plants the ethanol was produced from absorbed from the environment. But given as already mentioned that current (and for the foreseable future) corn based ethanol production requires the use of fossil fuels at every stage (fuel to power the farm equipment to til the soil, plant the corn, to make the fertilizer, to pump the water to irrigate [not to mention using up a dwinding supply of fresh water], to harvest, to heat both at the fermentation and distilation stages, and then to transport by tanker trucks since ethanol can’t be pumped via the pipelines).
Also for what it’s worth, I just received by EVWorld.com basic (delayed a month) insider edition that has a nice little table showing the number of miles per acre of various renewable energy sources, see http://tinyurl.com/2fr3xu for the full article (scroll about 1/2 down to the “Biofuels versus Solar” header), but I’ll try to cut/paste it below.
Energy Source Miles Driven/Acre Per Year
Solar Photovoltaics 2,250,000
Solar Concentrating 2,000,000
Wind 180,000
Biodiesel (Algae) 370,000
Biodiesel (Palm Oil) 31,000
Biodiesel (Canola/Rape) 6,100
Biodiesel (Soybean) 2,400
Ethanol (Switchgrass) 32,500
Ethanol (Corn) 18,000
In any case, I would hope that since this is the GM Volt site, this is all mute, as most folks here on this site will be using very little liquid fuels (gasoline, ethanol, or diesel) as we’ll be driving EV’s like the Volt starting in 2010/2011.
(Quote)
December 21st, 2007 at 2:44 am
jeff m. 33. if ethanol is so bad, and isn’t really a viable energy source, then how is it that brazil has totally ramped up production, and they have greatly cut their oil imports?
but, as you say, e-flex is better, especially when combined with nano solar “free” fuel…
(Quote)
December 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Jeff M #33,
Great info. I’ve been looking for something like this. We all knew corn sucks, but it’s nice to see how some others stack up as well. It would have been nice to see how sugar cane stacked up, since this is what Brazil is using. Hemp has also been touted as a perfect energy crop.
We all know that electricity is the best thing for normal driving, but with E-REV vehicles, the question is: What is the best liquid fuel for a range extender? From the chart, it looks like Biodiesel from Algae is the most promising. Do you have any more info on this?
Also note that the chart doesn’t include the costs of production. For example, Solar Photovoltaics are not only costly in terms of dollars, but also in terms of energy required to produce them. Accounts vary, but all agree that Solar Photovoltaics require years to break even on energy.
(Quote)
December 21st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
By the way, for those interested in Solar Cells, here is a good article explaining current supply problems:
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20071219PD214.html
(Quote)
December 21st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
jeff m. 33, dave g. 35&36. something is confusing, if wood cellulose is “Years Away”, then why are these guys building a plant in georgia Now?
http://ethanol producer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3557
(Quote)
December 21st, 2007 at 5:00 pm
digitimes, seems far behind the times, all they talk about is silicone.
i don’t know what nano solar uses, some kind of polymer? but it ain’t silicone, and it’s cheap as h*ell, i mean really, really cheap.
nano solar “paints” this stuff on, and uses newspaper type printing presses to do it…
go to website; nanosolar.com/articles.htm
and also website; popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/index.html
ohm, will you please reprint those stats on nano solar you posted a few days back?
(Quote)
December 21st, 2007 at 5:05 pm
you will need to copy and paste all of my above links, including the cellulose producer article (clicking on it gets you to the wrong page).
(Quote)
December 21st, 2007 at 5:32 pm
the 37 link is bad, copy and paste;
ethanolproducer.comarticle.jsp?article_id=3557
or; ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3557
(Quote)
December 21st, 2007 at 5:54 pm
james #38,
Yes, I’ve heard of nanosolar, but haven’t found a supplier that sells them. Do you have a link to somewhere I can buy nanosolar panels for my house?
I would really love a home rooftop solar system that would pay for itself in 5-10 years. Everything I’ve looked at so far is 10-15 years to break even (rebates included).
(Quote)
December 21st, 2007 at 8:38 pm
dave g. 41, yep, i know, nano is only doing commercial types now, but, looking forward to them branching out into retail in mid 2008?
also, try googling “like nano solar” or something like that and check out the other companies that are producing similar stuff.
(Quote)