On Friday evening the U.S. House of Representatives passed the energy and climate change bill, which mandates the reduction of greenhouse gases and create green jobs.

The vote was 219-212; the bill needed 218 to pass. This vote sent Democrats into recess with a high-profile win. The vote was politically tough for some Democrats, 44 voted against the bill. Only eight Republicans voted for the bill.

The principal sponsors of the bill, Democratic Representatives Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts compromised with Democrats in rural states that rely on coal for energy, weakening the requirements of newer green energy technology.

The bill is still considered an environmental success and had the support of the majority of the public. An ABC/Washington Post survey this week showed that 56 percent of Americans supported action to reduce carbon emissions, even if it raised energy bills by $10 a month, which is an estimate of how much the passage of the bill will cost consumers.

National Journal created an interactive map to show readers how Representatives voted.

Shortly after the Fourth of July recess the Senate will take up the House version of the bill. It is unclear if the bill will pass in the Senate. The Democrats have 59 Senate seats and would need 60 votes to beat a Republican filibuster, but it is unlikely that all 59 Democrats will vote for the bill.

During President Barack Obama’s White House Press conference yesterday the focus was mostly on Iran and health care reform, but he also commented on the House climate energy bill.

The bill written by Democratic Representatives Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts is scheduled for a House floor debate and vote on Friday.

President Obama fully endorsed the bill called it “extraordinarily important.” He urged members of the House to pass the bill and said it would make the U.S. a global leader in clean energy technology.

The bill includes a cap-and-trade system for green house gas pollutants and funds new clean energy projects such as geothermal, solar and wind.

It is unclear if the vote is likely to pass since there is nearly no Republican support and some wavering from moderate Democrats from farm states.

For more a simple break down of what’s in the bill go to Grist and for the latest information about what is happening on Capitol Hill check out Politico.

Say you had $1,000 to invest in green home improvement — how would you spend it? 

Don't worry about where the money came from — if you must, say you earned it, or it came from the green home improvement leprechaun.

Would you buy new, energy-efficient windows? Or bamboo flooring for the living room? What about more insulation for the attic to help lower your heating and cooling bills? What about an on-demand water heater? Or perhaps an upgrade for the exterior of your house, such as a new paint job or fiber-cement siding? Speaking of paint, would you add new color to rooms with low- or no-VOC paint? Would you want new, energy-efficient appliances, such as a new refrigerator? In general, would you want to focus on energy-efficiency improvements to help you save money over time? Or aesthetic improvements you can feel good about?

Obviously $1,000 may not cover all expenses for some of these projects, especially at a large scale. But take a second to daydream: If you were handed a grand of green to make your home more green, what would you most want to do? Share your daydreams by posting a comment below.

Have you ever thought about building your own house? How about building it with straw bales?

There are a lot of benefits to using this natural building method. First, straw bales provide terrific insulation. They’re also an all-natural material, and it’s usually easy to find a source near you. Finally, building with straw bales can save you money because it doesn’t take a lot of training or special equipment. That means it’s possible to do most of the work yourself.

But that’s the catch: It’s a lot of work! So it’s inspiring to hear from people who have actually done it and built their own straw bale house.

If you're interested in straw bale and looking for inspiration, check out this great video from Carolyn Roberts showing how she built her own straw bale home. For more information on the house, you can also visit Roberts’ website and check out this Mother Earth News article, A House of Straw.

On Wednesday a Senate committee approved an energy bill that many environmentalists criticized. The bill would open large areas close to the shores of the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling and guaranteed a federal loan for an Alaska gas pipeline project.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 15-to-8 on the bill. Democrats on the committee pushed to require utilities to have 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar by 2021, but the bill had exemptions that would reduce that goal.

This standard is considerably weaker than the House energy and climate bill sponsored by Democratic Representatives Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, which is expected to be voted on in the House before the Congressional Fourth of July break.

The House bill is more progressive with more caps on greenhouse gas emissions and higher standards for renewable energy sources. The Senate bill is clearly a compromise between Democratic and Republican committee members. Republicans committee members fought for increased petroleum reserves, expanding drilling to within 45 miles of coastlines and increasing the number of nuclear energy facilities.

The Washington Post reported that a dozen environmental groups wrote a joint letter to the committee of opposition to the bill. The groups criticized the renewable energy standards of being too low and expressed concerns for wildlife off the west coast of Florida because the bill would allow more offshore oil and gas drilling.

The results of the House bill, which will likely be voted on first, could dramatically change the Senate bill that does not go as far with renewable energy or limiting greenhouse gases.

On Monday Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu announced the release of $80 million more of the $5 billion designated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for weatherization programs.

Four states’ proposals were approved for increased weatherization projects. Arizona received $22.8 million, Kansas got $22.5 million, Mississippi was approved for $19.7 million and Oregon was awarded $15.4 million.

The weatherization programs create new jobs through training and construction projects, but they also make building and homes more energy efficient. Most of the state proposals were for weatherization of homes for the elderly, handicapped and those below the poverty line. In total more than 22,300 homes will be weatherized with the $80 million in these four states.

Money for weatherization was given out in the first wave of stimulus money three months ago. This is the first time more southern states, such as Florida, Texas and Arizona, have received money for weatherization. Past government weatherization programs have been for cooler states such as Minnesota, Wisconsin and Massachusetts for heating insulation, but now more money is being given to warmer states to increase the efficiency of air-conditioning.

The New York Times reported that under the traditional past government formulas hot-climate states would have received 16 percent of the weatherization fund. This time hot-climate states received nearly twice as much with 31 percent of the government funds, leaving less for cold-climate states.

The federal Energy Information Administration said the United States spends twice as much on heating as on cooling, which means more energy is consumed heating homes than cooling them. This has caused some debate as to whether the goal of the program is really energy conservation or jobs creation in the neediest areas of the country. Either way, more money for weatherization means less energy consumption.

For people interested in low-cost, hands-on building, there are many natural building methods to explore.

To name a few: You might consider building a straw bale home, a log cabin, or a timber frame or cordwood house. You might also look at earth-building techniques, including adobe and earth bag construction.

We’d like to know what you think about these types of natural building and about any hands-on experiences you might have had. Have you ever attended a straw bale plastering party? A cordwood-building workshop? Are you interested in learning more about building with adobe?

Share your thoughts and experiences by posting a comment below.

Don't pay the ransom, I escaped! Wow, it's been a busy month for me, and I apologize for the lack of updates recently.

The last weekend in May was MAX's farewell public showing in its Escape from Berkeley trim, at a fun, wonderful event called the Maker Faire.

We were there to show the flag and drum up business for Escape from Berkeley II. I figured if the Escape folks were willing to give us five grand for winning the event last year, the least we could do is encourage others to join in the fun this year. So we pulled off the streamlined body bits and put back the stylish-but-slow fenders and lights and all, and drove down to San Mateo, Calif., for one last hurrah.

Now we're back, and we have to knuckle down on the streamlining. In order to reach 100 mpg, we’ll have to get MAX down to the drag coefficient of a typical modern sports car.

The drag coefficient (aka “coefficient of drag”, abbreviated Cd) is a comparison of the drag of an object versus a flat plate of the same frontal area. A Mazda Miata, for example, has a Cd of 0.38.

MAX gets better mileage than a Miata because (among other things) MAX is so small it doesn't have a lot of frontal area. But MAX’s Cd is about 0.7, which is pretty terrible. That’s about the same drag coefficient as a shoe box.

Obviously, we have to make a lot of improvements, and one feature we can improve is a curved windshield. Hey, if you were making a windshield for a shoe box, it would look a lot like MAX's windshield does now — a flat panel right across the front of the cockpit.

But unfortunately a curved windshield will blow our $10,000 budget, because there's nothing off the shelf that will fit MAX (the windshield is only 33 inches wide — more than a foot narrower than the Miata windshield, for example) and custom-curved windshields cost a bundle.

So how about a split windshield, with a steep rake and a deep V to emulate a curved windshield? It'll be pretty cheap, and it would add to MAX's old-timey personality. I think I like it ... though I wasn't willing to commit the glass cutter before I saw how it looked.

Cardboard is a nice medium for conceptualizing design features, but it has its limitations. It should come with a sticker that reads, Warning: Remove Cardboard Before Operating This Vehicle. Nowhere would that be more important than the windshield …

Photo by Jack McCornack

Browse previous MAX Updates.

Read the introductory MAX article, Here Comes the 100-mpg Car.

Visit the Kinetic Vehicles website for more technical details on MAX.

To conserve energy, you might want to know how much electricity you use and how it’s measured. Learning a few basic about electricity will help, whether you're  purchasing an energy-efficient appliance or trying to figure out your next electric utility bill.

To test your knowledge read: Watt do you Know? Take our Energy Quiz 

Wood gas, or wood gasification, is a decades-old renewable energy technology that converts chunks of firewood, wood chips or other cellulosic biomass to charcoal, volatile and combustible gases, and occasionally, combustible liquids.

The process, which is called pyrolysis, is accomplished by cooking the wood (under low oxygen conditions) in a wood-gas generator and collecting the vapors, which are then directed to the vehicle's (ideally a truck or SUV with room to carry the gas generator) carburetor to be burned instead of gasoline.

The principal “waste” product from this process is charcoal, which is now being studied as a valuable amendment for some soils. (To learn more, read Make Biochar — this Ancient Technique Will Improve Your Soil.)  

This process was used to fuel trucks in England during World War II. Because today’s society continues to be extremely dependent upon gasoline as our primary fuel for transportation, wood gas has received research attention from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). A report, prepared by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which works for the Department of Energy, provides detailed instructions for construction, installation and operation of a wood-gas generator. Download the report (NOTE: this is a 25 MB+ file and thus may not be feasible to download over a slow Internet connection) via the following link: Construction of a Simplified Wood Gas Generator for Fueling Internal Combustion Engines in a Petroleum Emergency.

The purpose of the report "is to develop detailed, illustrated instructions for the fabrication, installation, and operation of a biomass gasifier unit (that is, a "producer gas" generator, also called a "wood gas" generator) which is capable of providing emergency fuel for vehicles, such as tractors and trucks, in the event that normal petroleum sources were severely disrupted for an extended period of time. These instructions are prepared in the format of a manual for use by any mechanic who is reasonably proficient in metal fabrication or engine repair.

This report attempts to preserve the knowledge about wood gasification as put into practical use during World War II. Detailed, step-by-step fabrication procedures are presented for a simplified version of the World War II, Imbert wood gas generator. This simple, stratified, downdraft gasifier unit can be constructed for materials which would be widely available in the United States in a prolonged petroleum crisis. For example, the body of the unit consists of a galvanized metal garbage can atop a small metal drum; common plumbing fittings are used throughout; and a large, stainless steel mixing bowl is used for the grate. The entire compact unit was mounted onto the front of a farm tractor and successfully field tested, using wood chips as the only fuel. Photographic documentation of the actual assemble of the unit as well as its operation is included."

In the early 1980s, the MOTHER EARTH NEWS staff experimented with the wood gas concept to power a truck. They eventually produced a wood gasification system, fabricated from recycled water heaters, that was successful enough to warrant a wood gas generator plan to offer in the magazine.

More recently, Robert Beam of Williamsport, Pa., converted his 1988 Isuzu Trooper to run on firewood (see photo). The SUV is able to run 20 miles on 25 pounds of wood chips. You can read more about Beam’s truck and find a list of MOTHER EARTH NEWS articles on the subject in This Truck Runs on Wood Chips! And visit the Beaver Energy website to learn more about the Trooper.

Another resource for firsthand advice is the Wood Gas discussion group.

If you like to tinker with engines and want a more sustainable, self-reliant fuel for your truck, consider creating a wood-gas generator for your vehicle. If you do, please share your successes and failures with others by posting a comment below.

Photos: Robert "Chip" Beam show wood chips that power his wood-powered Isuzu Trooper; Beam drives his in the Green Grand Prix in Watkins Glen, N.Y.

Photos by David Duprey/AP Wide World

Vermont took a big step forward in promoting renewable energy last week by passing a feed-in tariff (FIT) policy. This type of renewable energy incentive guarantees that utility companies will pay owners of renewable energy systems a good price for the energy they produce. Vermont’s FIT policy is one of the first to be passed in the United States.

The law is part of Vermont’s Sustainably Priced Energy Enterprise Development Program, and closely resembles Ontario’s Green Energy Act.

Made popular by Germany, who began using them in the 1990s, feed-in tariffs work by setting prices that utility companies must pay for the energy they receive from private producers such as households and businesses. By doing this, they alleviate the financial burdens of installing renewable energy systems. For more information on feed-in tariffs, go here.

In Vermont’s case, the tariff rates are set not only to pay back the system costs, but to allow producers to generate a small profit. The tariff rates also vary by energy type, with more expensive energy systems bringing in more money. Here are some of the details of the law, as reported in this Paul Gipe article:

• Program cap of 50 mW
• Project size cap of 2.2 mW
• Contract time: 20 years
• Wind energy tariffs:
  • <15 kW: 20 cents/kWh
  • >15 kW: 14 cents/kWh
• Solar tariff: 30 cents/kWh
• Regulatory examination of tariffs by Sept. 15, 2009 and new rates set in January 2010
• Future tariffs based on cost of generation plus profit less applicable tax credits and other incentives

According to the Energy Information Administration, the average price of residential energy in Vermont is about 14.3 cents/kWh. For information on what other states are implementing feed-in tariffs, see this report (PDF).

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) recently announced that the U.S. market for small wind turbines (those with capacities of 100 kilowatts or less) grew 78 percent in 2008. Overall, this translates into 17.3 megawatts of new wind-energy capacity.

The AWEA says that residential wind turbines (1-10 kW) continue to lead the market in sales.

“Consumers are looking for affordable ways to improve their energy security and reduce their personal carbon footprint,” says the AWEA’s Ron Stimmel. “Small wind technology can be an answer to that search.”

A recent AWEA study found that despite a global recession, small wind manufacturers predict a 30-fold growth within the U.S. small wind market within as little as five years. The availability of federal tax credits for 30 percent of the cost of small wind turbine installation will likely play a big role in this increase.

For more information, check out this Mother Earth News blog about home wind-energy systems or the U.S. Department of Energy’s small wind-turbine consumer guide (PDF).