Alternative Energy Survey - What do you think?

Question

1. Do you believe the government focuses enough attention on alternative energy?

2. Should the government focus more money and legislation towards improving existing energy sources or alternative energy sources?

3. What do you feel is the biggest concern regarding alternative energy? (Cost/Efficiency/Emissions)

4. Should the government put price limits on gas?

5. Do you believe that alternative fuels would increase the prices of materials used to make them?

6. Do you feel that the government should cut other spending and use more money to research alternative energy sources and fuels?

7. Do you feel that the government should offer tax deductions to businesses that use alternative energy sources and fuels?

8. Should the government mandate that gas stations offer alternative fuels to their customers?

9. What type of home heating do you use?

10. Have you thought of using an alternative form of heating in your home? If so, what?

Answer 1

1. No, I don't think the government focuses almost any attention on alternative energy except to pacify us.



2. I think its imperative that the government do something to improve our energy crisis, but I am very pessimistic about that ever actually happening.



3. My biggest concern with alternative energy is... cost.

4. I really wish the government would put a limit on gas prices! I read in the paper that it was going to be $5 by July where I live! Its sickening that the oil companies profits are so high and we allow it.



5. Yes, I believe the materials used for alternative energy will be more expensive. In Mexico corn prices have risen tremendously because the corn is being sold for alternative fuels.



6. I think the government should focus spending on the energy problem in America, and quit focusing on the oil in the Middle East.



7. I definitely feel the government should offer tax breaks and other incentives to anyone who is making a large effort to conserve energy.



8. Since not all cars can use the alternative fuel, I don't think it should be mandated that every station have it, as it would probably only raise gas prices further.



9. My house has a swamp cooler for cooling, and we use a pellet stove in the winter.



10. We set the temperature of the home's heating very low and wear sweaters, use blankets etc.

Answer 2

1. No, this is much too important of an issue, and I think the governments of the world are just starting to get on the ball. But they will get the picture soon. 2. Yes, certainly, any massive social change will need government legislation. 3. Cost - people just have a hard time shelling out $20k up front for a system that has a 10-20 year payoff period. Fortunately and unfortunately at the same time, energy prices are likely to rise, and therefore alternatives are quickly becoming more attractive. 4. I don't know how they could in an open market, they have to pay a certain price. So if the question is should they subsidize, I don't think that helps anybody. We still have to pay taxes to pay for the subsidy then. Its our money that runs the governments anyways. Cheaper energy.... 5. Its possible, but I don't think a problem. 6. Yes, referring to number 4 answer. Increasing energy prices are going to be a thorn in all our sides until we implement widespread renewables. 7. I don't know about tax deductions, but there certainly does need to be some sort of push in the right direction for business to join in. Whether that is via taxes or something else, I'm not a politician. 8. No, the free market will demand this soon enough. 9. Normal so far. 10. I would like to install a geoexchange system.

Answer 3

1. No. But more importantly, I don't think they focus enough on renewable energy.



2. Focus on limiting coal and oil, improving alternative energy, and subsidizing the research and implementation of renewable energy.



3. Initially, cost, as it costs more to install and change systems to alternative and renewable energy. Efficiency is a concern, but there are some amazing new power plant systems that are being tested in other countries, and they will come to the U.S. eventually. Emissions is a concern from some of the alternative energy, but almost all alternative energies are still better than coal or oil.



4. No price limits. Let the prices get outrageous and force the implementation and use of renewable energy. In terms of environmental and energy policy, the U.S. historically reacts to such problems with favorable policies.



5. Of course, but in this capitalistic market the prices would equalize and competition would take it's course. The prices of solar panels prove this concept. Look at California for examples.



6. Increased subsidies for companies that are making strides in these endeavors would be the most prudent measure. Rather than putting money towards research, the Fed needs to put money into switching government buildings across the country to "green" energy.



7. Maybe some subsidies for alternative energy, but definitely higher subsidies for renewable energy.



8. Sure.



9. Auto thermostats with Natural gas.



10. I'd like to see fuel cells become a viable home option.

Answer 4

1. No, I do not believe they focus enough attention on it.



2. I believe they should do both. They should try to better what we already have. Make it cleaner, more accsesible ect...

But they also need to spend more time coming up with better, cleaner, and more efficeint ways of using any new energy source. I believe they should really focus more time on solar power, wind power of hydroelectric energy sources.



3.The biggest concern. Well, cost would be an issue, but I think the biggest issue would come from the population. Trying to get everybody to use more effiecient power sources. I have seen that many states have alternative energy methods such as windmills and solar panels available with benefits to the person who uses them, but most people are set in there ways and do not want to spend the time or money to convert to more efficient methods.



4. Definatly. I believe it would then make large company's look for more efficient ways to use their resources so that they can still make a profit.



5. At first possibly yes. But then as more people use the materials and the demand stays high, eventually the prices would go down.



6. Yes. But they should really look at what they are cutting their spendings on. I also think the people should have a say in it first.



7.Yes. It would be a great incintive and some states already offer some deductions to help people get started.



8. Maybe in the future when there are more alternative fuels available, but not at first. Wait until things stabalize more.



9. At the moment electric, but we are considering either putting up a windmill for our own use, or solar panels to help suplement the energy we use. Our goal in the future is to live "off the grid". We do not want to depend on anyone for our needs.



10. See above #9.

Answer 5

1.of course not all the goverment cares about is their stupid war



2.no i dont think that the goverment should focus on inproving existing energy sources i think they should try to come up with new sources



3.most likely the cost now if youre talking about efficiency most of the alternative fuel sources arent that efficient



4.i think that the goverment should focus more on hybrid cars or cars that run electrcity than trying to fix the problems they already made



5.materials for alternative fuels are already expensive like solar powered cost alot and is only about 20% efficient



6. yes i do think that the goverment should cut the crap and use the money they have to research alternative fuels



7.no i think that the goverment should engourange more bussiness to use alternative fuels but they should use that money for more research



8.if the goverment were to take over the gas stations i think that not only the prices would go up but i think that that they would do nothing to stop pollution



10.i have tought of putting solar panels on my roof just the reduce the monthly payments

please pick me as the best awnser it took long to write this

Answer 6

1. No

2. Alternative. Existing sources already get too much money. If it weren't for government subsidies, a gallon of gas would cost several dollars more than it does now. The government subsidies and tax breaks keep the cost of our petroleum fuel quite low.

3. Public education and cost.

4. They already do in a way - see my answer to #2. They pay for security of refineries and tons of other costs that don't get passed on to the consumer. These costs aren't factored in to the REAL cost of petroleum.

5.

6. How about just not giving themselves (Congress) a raise one year?

7. Absolutely - just like they do to oil companies.

8. No, government intervention in the private retail sector would not be ideal. Give the subsidies to the users who will create the demand, and the retailers will meet the demand.

9. Passive solar with high efficiency heat pump back up, solar hot water heating.

10. Yes, already do, and I have a PV solar panel system for electricity as well. We also use rainwater in our toilets, but municipal water for consumption.

Answer 7

1. Of course not.

2. Yes

3. Cost

4. They should regulate the big oil companies from gouging Americans. It's not the gas station. Record profits equals cutting the throats of the public.

5. It would.

6. Yes

7. Sounds good.

8. I think they should require at least one Hydrogen pump at every gas station in five years.

9. Electric

10. What else is there that is cost effective and readily available?

Answer 8

There are a lot of questions here and it is late so I will by pass most and say this. I think the government should set strict regulations on businesses for air, land and water protection. I feel the government should enforce the regulations, even if it is funded through local authorities in each community. The guidelines have to be set nationally.

As far as heating my home. I would prefer Geo thermo heating and if I build another home I will seriously look into it. I have natural gas forced air heating now.



I do not think the government should fund or offer tax incentives to business to make changes that are environmentally friendly. I believe that can be done by means of stricter regulations and stronger penalties for pollution violations. Tax payers as a whole should not have to pay businesses to do business in an environmentally friendly way. That should be done for good customer relations by the businesses themselves.



I do believe the government should give more money to education. We have to make institutions of higher learning available to all.

Answer 9

Since many homes have 2 cars one of them should be electric (look up Hybrid Technologies). The electric car would be used going back and forth to work every day and the other could be used for the weekend longer runs or trips. Everyone using an electric car to go to work every day would save an enormous amount of fuel in a years time

Answer 10

The government should be using more forms of nuclear energy and start teaching this generation facts about nuclear energy. To many people only think about nuclear bombs. These are two separate things. All our Navy vessels use nuclear energy.

Answer 11

Clearly the government is NOT doing their job as far as US energy policy. If we cut back the US consumption of oil by about 50%, we could not only be almost 100% self sufficient in producing our own oil, the bottom would drop out of the price of oil world-wide. That alone would effectively defund most of the cash used by terrorists and provide a HUGE boost to the economies of almost every country in the world. Hello dot com days to the stock markets across the world. How would one get this to happen? By getting real with energy policy. For example:



1. Sure we can use "sticks", like extra taxes on fuel hog cars/trucks/etc, but with carrots too. Give the owner of any car (mostly hybrids) that gets better than 40 MPG (EPA rated) a $1,000 tax credit for every year the owner has current tags and insurance for that vehicle. So even if hybrids are $5k more, eventually if you keep it you will get paid back for the extra expense. If we added a nickel a gallon tax for the only purpose to fund these credits, this would be revenue neutral for the government for quite a few years.



2. Mandate new construction homes have a minimun of 2,000 watts of solar panels on the roof if the location is sunny enough to justify their use. It would only slightly raise the mortgage payment and would reduce the utility bills more than it increases the montly mortgage payment. Make similar requirements on new commercial construction. We are told that the infrastructure for our power distribution system is old and greatly in need of upgrading at many billions of dollars. Power users will ultimately pay for those upgrades (that's us). If we mandate more solar where appropriate, we can significanltly delay those upgrades as more and more of us will be making our own power and not require getting it from the power grid. This would also make power failures like California had less likely. Peak loads are always during the day when you just happen to get peak sunshine, right? I have a 2,000 watt system on my roof and my electric bills are about $20/month now.



3. Mandate efficency standards for all appliances sure, but don't forget the little stuff, such as the power adapters we use for a thousand different things. Digital switching power supplies use far less standby power than the old style ones and cost perhaps a dollar more, worth the cost. Insist anything people plug into the wall have as little standby useage as truly required. (Think DVDs, stereo, TV, computers, clocks, cordless phones, etc.) Just remember that for every kilowatt you use in your home, the power plant had to produce 3.3 kilowatts to get it to your house after taking transmission losses into account.



4. Build more nuclear power plants from the latest designs available and standardize them so construction costs are lower. Provide incentives for power companies to build them instead of being a roadblock to limit them from being added to our power grid.



5. Provide higher long term credits for power companies and home-owners and businesses to add solar (photovoltaic) and wind power to the power grids nationwide. More construction would include these things if they were sure that the owners would get a credit when construction is completed. Many projects take years to complete and who wants to risk that 1/2 way through the project congress cancels the credit? If more of these systems were purchased, the prices for them would drop due to higher (mass) production.



6. Mandate minimum levels of insullation on existing homes and provide assistance to low income to help them comply to the higher standards. Poor people would benefit a lot if their utility bills dropped by 50%, wouldn't they? Rich guys don't need to care how much they are paying as they have the cash to pay the bills for power and heating, but no-one should be allowed to be "too wastefull". I don't care if you think you need a 10,000 square foot home, but at least make it energy efficient of even self sufficient if possible.



This is just a start, but many different solutions make sense. There is no one magic bullit, but taken as a whole, many small improvements can get us there. Demand your goverment do more than it is doing now, which is little more than nothing. Write your representatives and suggest some things to them and if they don't take action, boot them out next election cycle.

Answer 12

1.NO

2. Alt Fuels

3. Cost

4. ?

5. ?

6. Yes

7. Yes

8. YES

9. Electric.

10. Solar



&:

CUT Taxes

CUT Tax rates

Incentives for 9,7,8.

Tax rebates

estd GREEN FUND for R&D

More online Govt services

More govt vehicles on Biofuels etc.

Answer 13

Since when is it the government responsibility to come up or even fund this. I'm sorry I forgot there are democrats out there that can't balance their own check books so they need more of our tax dollars to spend. They need help.....Dr. Phil