TitanTiger 20,508 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 House #1: This 20 room residence ( not including 8 bathrooms) is heated by natural gas. Its pool (and pool house) and a separate guest house, are all heated by gas. In one month it consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400 per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South. House #2: Designed by an architecture professor at a leading university, this ranch-style house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms) and sits on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degree F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land around the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape. ---------------------------------------- HOUSE #1, near Nashville Tennessee, is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore. HOUSE #2, near Crawford Texas, is the home of the President of the United States, George W. Bush. An "inconvenient truth" if there ever was one. And yes, it checks out at Snopes. Similar to the differences in charitable giving in those who talk the biggest game about caring for the poor and those who actually put the sentiments into action, the irony is amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Funny his tax card shows a total of 20 rooms. It also shows his house was built in 1915. I guess he should tear it down and put a modern energy efficient home in its place. http://hobsvtxie01.nashville.org/RecordCard.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,046 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 But Titan, they mean well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,508 Posted May 20, 2008 Author Share Posted May 20, 2008 Funny his tax card shows a total of 20 rooms. It also shows his house was built in 1915. I guess he should tear it down and put a modern energy efficient home in its place. http://hobsvtxie01.nashville.org/RecordCard.asp I think the article said 20 rooms. And there are some options: 1. Sell it and move into something more appropriate to the needs of an empty nest couple preaching to others about conservation and environmentalism. 2. Install energy efficient features such as windmills, solar panels or whatever will work in that area of the country. Whatever will lessen its carbon footprint. 3. Shut the hell up preaching to others until you get your own house in order...literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,979 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 House #1: This 20 room residence ( not including 8 bathrooms) is heated by natural gas. Its pool (and pool house) and a separate guest house, are all heated by gas. In one month it consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400 per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South. House #2: Designed by an architecture professor at a leading university, this ranch-style house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms) and sits on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degree F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land around the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape. ---------------------------------------- HOUSE #1, near Nashville Tennessee, is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore. HOUSE #2, near Crawford Texas, is the home of the President of the United States, George W. Bush. An "inconvenient truth" if there ever was one. And yes, it checks out at Snopes. Similar to the differences in charitable giving in those who talk the biggest game about caring for the poor and those who actually put the sentiments into action, the irony is amazing. Snopes hasn't updated the story in over a year: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22248699/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,660 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 House #1: This 20 room residence ( not including 8 bathrooms) is heated by natural gas. Its pool (and pool house) and a separate guest house, are all heated by gas. In one month it consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400 per month. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South. House #2: Designed by an architecture professor at a leading university, this ranch-style house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms) and sits on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degree F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land around the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape. ---------------------------------------- HOUSE #1, near Nashville Tennessee, is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore. HOUSE #2, near Crawford Texas, is the home of the President of the United States, George W. Bush. An "inconvenient truth" if there ever was one. And yes, it checks out at Snopes. Similar to the differences in charitable giving in those who talk the biggest game about caring for the poor and those who actually put the sentiments into action, the irony is amazing. Snopes hasn't updated the story in over a year: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22248699/ So what! It obvious the enviro-king himself has issues with his own preachings. I'm more enviro-friendly than Mr. Gore is. Of course, I'm not rich like he is either. Oh.......that's another story for another day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 An Inconvenient Truth hasn't been updated by Gore in over 2 years So it looks like he had time to move or remodel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,508 Posted May 20, 2008 Author Share Posted May 20, 2008 Well kudos to him for finally doing that. Although I remember this being a criticism of him as far back as the 2000 election. I'm glad he finally did something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aumd03 2 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I'm interested to know what TigerAl has to say about this. Since he said today that being environmentally friendly was responsible, but having your thermostat at 67 and driving a SUV was greedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,046 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Snopes hasn't updated the story in over a year: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22248699/ The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400 per month. Gore's improvements cut the home's summer electrical consumption by 11 percent compared with a year ago, according to utility records,,,,, Way to go Al! You knocked your bill down to only $2,100 - 2,200 per month. But how much fuel is he using flying all over the world in his private jets? Damn, I wonder if he would buy my carbon off sets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,979 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Well kudos to him for finally doing that. Although I remember this being a criticism of him as far back as the 2000 election. I'm glad he finally did something about it. He bought this home in 2002. One can view this from a variety of perspectives. Those looking to get a shot in at Gore, as most people on this thread have done, will do that. I think it's important to note, however, that someone was going to buy this house and live in it. I doubt anyone else would have invested what Gore has to make it energy efficient. Thus, the net impact on the environment of Gore buying an existing home that was grossly energy inefficient and making it considerably more energy efficient may have been greater than building a new one that can be made even more "green". These kind of retrofits take considerable time on historic buildings. I would imagine considerable time was put into finding the most efficient designs. In fact, that renovations were well underway when this story "broke." Pretty typical right wing story, really. Distorts the truth through concealing facts and tries to paint one guy as better on the environment, despite the negative impact of his official decision-making and policies. Why talk policy when you can make a personal attack instead? (This isn't aimed at you, Titan, but rather those who floated the "story" in the first place.) The Green Building Council's certification program has four levels, with platinum being the highest followed by gold. Gore's home was one of 14 to earn gold status and the only Tennessee home to earn any certification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 In other news... 31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate. "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." Entire Article Here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,979 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 In other news... 31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate. "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." Entire Article Here Tell John McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I'm interested to know what TigerAl has to say about this. Since he said today that being environmentally friendly was responsible, but having your thermostat at 67 and driving a SUV was greedy. Actually, this is what was said: Since you are so up on Marxism and the proletariat, here is a quote by Obama."We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. - Barack Obama link Wouldn't that be a perfect example of "global" class warfare? Wouldn't that make latter day Marxist everywhere smile? I don't understand, if we can afford it, why shouldn't it "happen"? I think Obama's statement is a perfect example of responsibility while yours is a perfect example of greed. It occurs to me that it takes energy to create energy. Most of the energy sources that we use are derived from a finite source. There is only so much oil on this planet. As far as I know, new oil deposits aren't being formed daily, monthly or yearly. Now, it's doubtful that it will run out in your or my lifetime, but, I'd like to think that my two boys will grow up and have kids and then they'll have kids and so on. At some point, somebody will habitate this planet when the last drop of oil is pumped out and there is no more. So, if we know this, and we drive SUV's we might not need because we can afford it, and we set our thermostats to 67 degrees because we can afford it, and we leave all the lights on 24/7 because we can afford it, and we eat large pizzas everyday because we can afford it, and we actively campaign against any kind of meaningful alternatives, and our standard answer to ending oil-dependence is always ANWR, and we ridicule those who do seek to reduce oil consumption. To use it just because we can afford it. How is that not greed? Maybe greed isn't the best word. Selfishness? Gluttony? Irresponsibility? Avarice? Apathy? Tigermike said it was "choice" and, he's right. It is a choice. It also occurs to me that power is the ability to do something. Wisdom, however, is the ability to do something but choosing not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I saw an interview recently where Barbra Walters asked Gore about this very thing (this was the same interview where Gore said anyone who doesn't think GLobal warming is caused by humans is equal to those who thing the moon landing was filmed in Arizona)... anyway...he said it was ok for him to have a house like that because he installed 4 solar panels (which equates to enough power to run a couple of lamps)...and he buys carbon credits now. Carbon credits the way to have "convictions" without having to actually abide by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,979 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I saw an interview recently where Barbra Walters asked Gore about this very thing (this was the same interview where Gore said anyone who doesn't think GLobal warming is caused by humans is equal to those who thing the moon landing was filmed in Arizona)... anyway...he said it was ok for him to have a house like that because he installed 4 solar panels (which equates to enough power to run a couple of lamps)...and he buys carbon credits now. Carbon credits the way to have "convictions" without having to actually abide by them. Boy, you really heard what you wanted, didn't you? Read the article I linked to. Educate yourself. "A couple of lamps.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 For the record, in light of what Al was saying above, I believe we need to find alternatives. I believe we need to take better care of the planet for our kids and grandkids and so on. As an outdoorsman of sorts, I want to make sure there are forests to enjoy for multiple generations to come. I get hacked off when I see new subdivisions built on land that has been completely clear cut. I try to recycle. I can't stand to see people throw batteries away, or clothes hangers, or the bagillion water bottles Americans go through a day. I'm in no way a tree hugger, but I do care. I just don't like the doomsdayers trying to scare or shame everyone into buying into carbon credits and carbon taxes and the like with phony data, lies and mirrors. Asking honestly, why can't we set a time table and drill ANWR until we come up with better alternatives here in America? Create a competition with the energy companies to come up with a better way with a true incentive. I don't know... give the first company to come up with a real solution all the government contracts until someone comes up with something better. I realize that there are special interests all around and there would be arguments over who had the better plan but at least the ball is rolling in the right direction. Why don't we open more refineries to give the American people some relief until we come up with better solutions? Why don't we really look at coal liquification? We have enough coal that we could produce all (and I do mean ALL) the oil we need until we find a better alternative that doesn't stink up the environment. Coal liquification is cleaner than the current stuff. Why not use what we have here to get us off of foreign oil until we get better technologies? Why not take a serious look at nuclear energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aumd03 2 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I'm interested to know what TigerAl has to say about this. Since he said today that being environmentally friendly was responsible, but having your thermostat at 67 and driving a SUV was greedy. Actually, this is what was said: Since you are so up on Marxism and the proletariat, here is a quote by Obama."We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. - Barack Obama link Wouldn't that be a perfect example of "global" class warfare? Wouldn't that make latter day Marxist everywhere smile? I don't understand, if we can afford it, why shouldn't it "happen"? I think Obama's statement is a perfect example of responsibility while yours is a perfect example of greed. It occurs to me that it takes energy to create energy. Most of the energy sources that we use are derived from a finite source. There is only so much oil on this planet. As far as I know, new oil deposits aren't being formed daily, monthly or yearly. Now, it's doubtful that it will run out in your or my lifetime, but, I'd like to think that my two boys will grow up and have kids and then they'll have kids and so on. At some point, somebody will habitate this planet when the last drop of oil is pumped out and there is no more. So, if we know this, and we drive SUV's we might not need because we can afford it, and we set our thermostats to 67 degrees because we can afford it, and we leave all the lights on 24/7 because we can afford it, and we eat large pizzas everyday because we can afford it, and we actively campaign against any kind of meaningful alternatives, and our standard answer to ending oil-dependence is always ANWR, and we ridicule those who do seek to reduce oil consumption. To use it just because we can afford it. How is that not greed? Maybe greed isn't the best word. Selfishness? Gluttony? Irresponsibility? Avarice? Apathy? Tigermike said it was "choice" and, he's right. It is a choice. It also occurs to me that power is the ability to do something. Wisdom, however, is the ability to do something but choosing not to. I just wanted someone to notice that a former leader of the left exhibited the same "irresponsibility" that Obama was criticizing. My how things change in 4 years. As for my opinion, yes, I think it is irresponsible to waste energy. But I also agree is a choice. Its not greed. It capitolism. When energy becomes costly enough that it hits people in the pocket book, things will change as they are now. High gas prices are a great thing for us, and for our middle east foreign relations because it will force the US to find new forms of energy. Hopefully we would be able to cut off financing and padding the pocket of people who embrace radical religions and hatred for the United States and the west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,508 Posted May 21, 2008 Author Share Posted May 21, 2008 I saw an interview recently where Barbra Walters asked Gore about this very thing (this was the same interview where Gore said anyone who doesn't think GLobal warming is caused by humans is equal to those who thing the moon landing was filmed in Arizona)... anyway...he said it was ok for him to have a house like that because he installed 4 solar panels (which equates to enough power to run a couple of lamps)...and he buys carbon credits now. Carbon credits the way to have "convictions" without having to actually abide by them. Boy, you really heard what you wanted, didn't you? Read the article I linked to. Educate yourself. "A couple of lamps.." For all the stuff he did, 11% isn't exactly a stunning drop in his electric/gas bills. The collecting rainwater for use in irrigation is a good thing though. I still don't understand why a older couple with no kids at home needs to have a 20+ room house. It seems like it would set a better example to live more appropriate to one's actual needs and encourage others to do the same instead of perpetuating the Bigger Is Better myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I saw an interview recently where Barbra Walters asked Gore about this very thing (this was the same interview where Gore said anyone who doesn't think GLobal warming is caused by humans is equal to those who thing the moon landing was filmed in Arizona)... anyway...he said it was ok for him to have a house like that because he installed 4 solar panels (which equates to enough power to run a couple of lamps)...and he buys carbon credits now. Carbon credits the way to have "convictions" without having to actually abide by them. Boy, you really heard what you wanted, didn't you? Read the article I linked to. Educate yourself. "A couple of lamps.." For all the stuff he did, 11% isn't exactly a stunning drop in his electric/gas bills. The collecting rainwater for use in irrigation is a good thing though. I still don't understand why a older couple with no kids at home needs to have a 20+ room house. It seems like it would set a better example to live more appropriate to one's actual needs and encourage others to do the same instead of perpetuating the Bigger Is Better myth. Maybe you missed the part where it says that he and Tipper both have their offices in the house. I've never been there, but, when I read "offices" I don't think a small room where they'd share a computer to do online banking. I'm guessing they both have staff who work there as well. Given all that, 20,000 SF for two offices and a home isn't that much is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,508 Posted June 21, 2008 Author Share Posted June 21, 2008 I still say he's a hypocrite: Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a MonthGore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient†home renovations NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,†said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.†In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month. In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household. After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green†overhaul. Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration. In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria. “Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,†Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.†The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service. http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,979 Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 The energy I use in a year can probably power 20 homes in the month of November. What a BS measure. I still say he's a hypocrite: Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a MonthGore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient†home renovations NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,†said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.†In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month. In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household. After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green†overhaul. Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration. In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria. “Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,†Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.†The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service. http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Stay on the subject or go somewhere else. --TitanTiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,508 Posted June 21, 2008 Author Share Posted June 21, 2008 The energy I use in a year can probably power 20 homes in the month of November. What a BS measure. I think you missed the key part of the article over the poorly written headline: Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green†overhaul.Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration. He was lauded for all the "green" improvements to the home, but now uses more energy than he did before the improvements and he uses about 35-40% more energy in one month than most people use all year. That's a pretty straight-up measure and not a good one for someone preaching conservation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,979 Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 The energy I use in a year can probably power 20 homes in the month of November. What a BS measure. I think you missed the key part of the article over the poorly written headline: I think you missed the fact that the poorly written headline was written that way for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.