Bush vs. Gore in energy consumption

FACT CHECK: A Tale of Two HousesYou've probably already seen this, but I haven't, and found it amusing.

Thank you for pointing that out. That raises some questions now, doesn't it?And I commend Bush for getting geo-thermal, as I install those systems myself.Everything is relative, but the point is, that Bush is not the one making global warming videos.If Gore was really that concerned, he could easily have geothermal, combined with solar energy, and possible a wind tower. These things combined with tax breaks, and low cost governement loans, practically pay for themsleves.One must lead by setting an example, and Gore is not that guy. He is not a leader. Very few politicians are.That does not make his movie any less concerning to us.

Yea, I am not attacking him. It is what it is. There is irony in this story, that I found amusing.
The same thing happens with preaching.
I believe the bible says that the message is more important than the person telling it.

Of course I thought about, it seems you do not.You can put geothermal just about anywhere. And solar panels can go right on your roof. A wind tower you cannot, that is why I said possibly.I know because I install this stuff. That's odd, because most states are giving tax creadits, and low interest loans to put this stuff in. I have not run into a town that wouldn't let you stick some solar panels on your roof.I would like to see proof. Well gee, I don't know crash, I mean since you are looking to compare apples to apples, then if Gore is running is little business from his home, and Bush is running the country, and a national landmark, from the White house, then I just don't know.Oh BTW, here ya go:
Briefing Room - The White House

It is not worth repeating or even mentioning.Sure the article alludes to "how much it costs" to run Gores house, but no matter what, geothermal is way more efficient than heating your home with natural gas, up to 50% more efficient, and uses less resources, no matter the cost. Any intelligent person, up on the latest way to save energy should know that. So per square foot, there is less of an impact on the enviroment.ABE I wonder if Gore is even using high efficiency furnaces, and radiant floor heating.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

crash, I have some bad news for you. You need to sit down, and take a back seat, as I am an expert in the field of geothermal work, and I install them for a living.You really have no idea how it works, or were you can use it. If you would like, I can teach it to you, or point you towards the resources for you to understand it.Yes, Gore can have geothermal, for air conditioning, and heating, if his local codes allow him. Most states, and counties do. Yes, I did, but that doesn't mean he can't have a wind tower. They are more cost effective, and easy to set up than you think. They are also not that large. 2 states, and 4 counties, and dozens od towns. cudos to Gore.I wonder what furnaces and condensers he is using. Because that is not as much as a house, as it is an office, and I wouldn't compare any house to the white house.don't you think that is unreasonable?Why are you going out of your way to stick up for Gore? pfffft

Yes, it cost much to add radiant, but as I have stated, with the tax breaks, and low interest loans available from governemt, it pratically pays for itself.Building "green" houses cost us, the consumer, more money. That is the price we have to pay to reverse the effects of all that we have done. Gore knows this."Getting to the depth" only requires a few feet for horizontal loops. If you do not have th eland for horizontal loops, then you must go veritcal, which takes up little to no room. But the drilling and hole preparation is more expensive.Oh, and BTW, there is no "plant". It is just a compressor minus the condensor, just like the one outside your house, if you currently have central air installed. Er what?The benefits far outweigh that. Uh?
offsetting the carbon emissions?Not sure what you mean by that, but radiant is always the cheapest way to heat your house, once installed. By as much as 50%.Radiant can work, with all the types of energy currently available. The newest wind towers are small, and do not need much wind, they are also very affordable. If he owns more than an acre, he has tons of room for it. There is wind everywhere, in case you didn't notice, and while it may not be as effcient as a wind tower on top of a hill, it still is free energy. You cannot prove me wrong, because I am not saying anything.I was only amused, because Bush is always the one made out to not care about the enviroment. I think we can see now, from his Texas whitehouse, to the actual energy saving steps taken in the actual white house, that Bush does care somewhat about the enviroment.We already know that Gore cares.

I don't have an answer for that.
But the solar panels are back since 2002. (new ones)
The old ones were for sale. That's why we should never give up on good ideas.
This morning, I actually saw a special on global warming, and how to cut back on energy consumption on TBN. +gasp+

Does not matter if you are that energy conscience. You will also get your money back if you decide to sell.So what you are saying is that Gore is only concerned about the enviorment, and global warming if it suits him finacially. I don't care about what you think. I own a HVAC and plumbing company, and have been doing it for 24 years now. I am authorized in Wirsbo, and Embassy suites radiant heating.Like I said it pays for itself, you will not loose money installing it. It is very feasable. You do not have to tear up anything, you can lay it right over what you got, or go from underneath.But radiant floor is not the end all to saving on your energy bill. I happen to pride myself in finding ways to save people money.I just had a customer save over 50% on a house that did not have radiant(complete), and uses oil for heat, by doing some simple modifications that cost him less than $3000 total. That included his kitchen in radiant. Without the kitchen, he still would have saved 40% and spent less than $1000. You are joking right? You do realize how ridiculous you sound right now. I know you are smarter than that.If I have walked away from anything in this thread, it is to know that crash definately blurts things out, he has no idea what he is saying. Something he has accused me of several times.That was worth the price of admission. Of course I do, I just do not understand how you are applying it to this conversation.Cutting your energy costs, and upgrading your heating and AC equipment is offsetting your carbon emmisions. There you go again.You are going to have to justify yourself there.How does saving fuel over a period of 30+ or more, have anything to do with the small amount of emissions used to make the equipment?You could always not do anything, and then over the course of your life burn a 1000 times more emissions. Shit I shouldn't even buy a new car, my 68 big block camaro works just fine, after all, a new car plant makes emmisions int he manufacturing process doesn't it? Because I do not know the answer to that, but I did not hear on the media, I heard it from a friend.I am not sticking up for the validity of the article, but I am surprised that Bush does have such an eco-friendly home, and took the extra steps to make one.Listen, we are all faced with the problem of trying to save the planet. It will hit us all in the pocket. We can pay now, or we can pay later.Are you 100% sure that Gore has taken every step possible to make his home effcient? Or is he just slightly above average?
Shouldn't the guy who wants to be a leader of the free world, at least lead by example?Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

Got it.

I was not talking about expense. I am explaining to you that the emmisions caused from drilling do not superceed the savings in emmisions from the equipment being installed.Your going to tell me that a one time drilling, from a vehicle that has emmision control on it already, is worse than the 30+ years of emmision cutting you will benefit from?Besides, it doesn't matter what system you choose, each one is creating emmisions during the manufacturing process, so it is common sense to choose the better one.Give me a break, and I haven't called you any names, so why get defensive? I did look it up, but it just so happens that the web-site I refered too wasn't clear enough, and blended issues of cutting carbon, and offsetting carbon.Anyway, I don't even see offsetting carbon as a real answer. I would rather shoot for reducing my carbon footprint, anyday, and then offset the remainder. IT will always use less power, regardless of when he lives there. Relatively speaking.And where does it say that Bush bought it like that?
I think it only mentions that an architect designed it.And lastly, this is pretty funny, you say this: Right after you say this: So which one is it?

right click, and view source.

You, know, I did not learn about this in the media, as a matter of fact, when the movie came out, they asked Bush, will you be seeing the movie, his answer was "most likely not", and the way the media presented it, was like that Bush does not give a shit about the enviroment.And that is the way he is always portrayed.Gore is protrayed as the greenhouse hero, and I would say, this urban legend has been busted.It is silly to argue specifics. There is enough information there to see what is going on. I don't work for liberals just kidding, if he lived over here, I would.

I agree crash, I agree.