Yes, this should be done, but they should also publish security concerns and total cost of installation as compared to private sector installations.
Claudio - 15 years ago
I don't think he should spend the tax payers money to promote his energy plan. Let him pay it out of his own pocket just like all of us would have to do if we were to install it in our own homes. He has allready spent enough of our money in the additional security vehicles that he rides around in.
Bill - 15 years ago
If the government does it the cost will be 10 time what it should be and the work will go to a contractor like "Blackwater" or one of the other giants. Not to the small business people trying to make a living. It will also be a special interest set aside.
I voted no to PV's on the whitehouse. Seems like any array would be almost purely symbollic -- and not particularly meaningful.
The sheer scale of the White House requires something much more robust, to be truly meaningful, in achieving true sustainability there.
With that, I agree 100% with those who have already commented on Geothermal as a means to generate heat. Additionally, PV powering a hydrogen fuel cell serving the WH campus would be a novel (and likely feasible approach).
There are several well known excellent resources, like the Rocky Mountain Institute, which could provide many energy savings / recovery improvement suggestions for the White House.
I do not live in the US, but I still wanted to vote, yes I think it would be a great idea. The White House should be an example. I also think there should be tax breaks (maybe there is for you guys) for anyone wanting to 'reduce the use' there are lots of products out there now. Solar is the way to go, for sure however there is other alternatives for those unable to afford solar, it;s all a step in the right direction.
Bill K - 15 years ago
The system could include other Washington buildings also, so we can start this plan of renewable energy in a big way. I believe Bush has solar on his farm in Texas yet he did not do it in the White House!
JC Morales - 15 years ago
The White House shall be an example of the conservation policies. However, not very many, if any at all, of tax payers inhabit it. Those improvements shall be paid by the president and all other residents' own pocket money !!!
None pays for my home improvements. The few tax breaks we get barely cover for the time and money I spent in trying to be politicaly and environmentaly correct.
Jim D - 15 years ago
No solar on the white house please.
But geothermal heat and hot water would be a good idea.
Sonny - 15 years ago
To get people to do what you promote, you must "walk" the "talk" and "practice" what you "preach".
MER - 15 years ago
WHY NOT, IT IS OUR MONEY HE IS SPENDING.
ed - 15 years ago
maybe he could reinstall the one Jimmy Carter added during his Presidency that Ronald Regan removed during his...
fred - 15 years ago
There are so many inexpensive ways to passively and efficiently save energy and water and photovoltaics is not one of them. Why not have the white house use some more creative methods that are cost efficient. 99% of the population cannot afford these cells so why should the taxpayers buy them for the white house. I have seen many expensive installations from past years that were in service for a short time and later abandoned due to efficiency and maintenance.
I definitely think he should make the switch to renewable energy at the White House. I don't think he should use tax payer dollars. It is time he and others in Washington put their money where their mouth is and feel the economy like many hardworking Americans. It is easier to say you need to be green when you are spending taxpayer money. It sends a whole different message when you are willing to spend the money out of your own pocket to more green, more sustainable.
Washington spends money so freely it makes you wonder if they have every been on a personal budget a day in their lives. Green government buildings. Replace government vehicles. Buy more expensive, renewable energy. Create debt that will be the concern of future presidents in future generations.
So, yes, I think upgrades should be made, but without taxpayer contributions. Find another way to show your commitment, Mr President.
Yes, this should be done, but they should also publish security concerns and total cost of installation as compared to private sector installations.
I don't think he should spend the tax payers money to promote his energy plan. Let him pay it out of his own pocket just like all of us would have to do if we were to install it in our own homes. He has allready spent enough of our money in the additional security vehicles that he rides around in.
If the government does it the cost will be 10 time what it should be and the work will go to a contractor like "Blackwater" or one of the other giants. Not to the small business people trying to make a living. It will also be a special interest set aside.
I voted no to PV's on the whitehouse. Seems like any array would be almost purely symbollic -- and not particularly meaningful.
The sheer scale of the White House requires something much more robust, to be truly meaningful, in achieving true sustainability there.
With that, I agree 100% with those who have already commented on Geothermal as a means to generate heat. Additionally, PV powering a hydrogen fuel cell serving the WH campus would be a novel (and likely feasible approach).
There are several well known excellent resources, like the Rocky Mountain Institute, which could provide many energy savings / recovery improvement suggestions for the White House.
I do not live in the US, but I still wanted to vote, yes I think it would be a great idea. The White House should be an example. I also think there should be tax breaks (maybe there is for you guys) for anyone wanting to 'reduce the use' there are lots of products out there now. Solar is the way to go, for sure however there is other alternatives for those unable to afford solar, it;s all a step in the right direction.
The system could include other Washington buildings also, so we can start this plan of renewable energy in a big way. I believe Bush has solar on his farm in Texas yet he did not do it in the White House!
The White House shall be an example of the conservation policies. However, not very many, if any at all, of tax payers inhabit it. Those improvements shall be paid by the president and all other residents' own pocket money !!!
None pays for my home improvements. The few tax breaks we get barely cover for the time and money I spent in trying to be politicaly and environmentaly correct.
No solar on the white house please.
But geothermal heat and hot water would be a good idea.
To get people to do what you promote, you must "walk" the "talk" and "practice" what you "preach".
WHY NOT, IT IS OUR MONEY HE IS SPENDING.
maybe he could reinstall the one Jimmy Carter added during his Presidency that Ronald Regan removed during his...
There are so many inexpensive ways to passively and efficiently save energy and water and photovoltaics is not one of them. Why not have the white house use some more creative methods that are cost efficient. 99% of the population cannot afford these cells so why should the taxpayers buy them for the white house. I have seen many expensive installations from past years that were in service for a short time and later abandoned due to efficiency and maintenance.
I definitely think he should make the switch to renewable energy at the White House. I don't think he should use tax payer dollars. It is time he and others in Washington put their money where their mouth is and feel the economy like many hardworking Americans. It is easier to say you need to be green when you are spending taxpayer money. It sends a whole different message when you are willing to spend the money out of your own pocket to more green, more sustainable.
Washington spends money so freely it makes you wonder if they have every been on a personal budget a day in their lives. Green government buildings. Replace government vehicles. Buy more expensive, renewable energy. Create debt that will be the concern of future presidents in future generations.
So, yes, I think upgrades should be made, but without taxpayer contributions. Find another way to show your commitment, Mr President.