Slashdot Mirror
Solar Power On the White House
CartaNova writes "The Obama administration has announced plans to install solar panels and a solar hot water heater on the White House. The Carter administration had previously installed a 32-panel solar system at the White House — which was quietly removed during Reagan's tenure in office. Solar hot water and Photovoltaic firms had been campaigning on this issue for some time."
I've had solar hot water at my family's home since the early 80s. Looks kind of weird, like giant lasagna pans on the roof, but I'll be damned if they don't work great and keep the gas bill down. Not sure how much it will help in Washington, but worth it in So Cal, especially with the govt kicking in a large tax credit
I've seen the White House on Google Maps and Google Earth and there seems to be some kind of thick cloud obscuring the area. Will they generate any electricity with these things or is it just another feel-good liberal gesture with no real world effect?
Haha, but you're out of date -- looks quite sunny to me!
Probably because that generation of solar panels sucked, efficiency-wise, and IIRC several models also lost a large percent of their functionality after a few years.
I've seen the White House on Google Maps and Google Earth and there seems to be some kind of thick cloud obscuring the area. Will they generate any electricity with these things or is it just another feel-good liberal gesture with no real world effect?
It's the East coast, so it's mild compared to southern heat, and not nearly as sunny as Cali, but there are definitely plenty of sunny days.
Yes there is a extremely good reason we could care less about solar and especially solar electrical power. My electric bill averages about 80 dollars a month, I live in the central part of
the country at that rate it would take about 30 years to reach break even, if I could generate all my electrical needs with a 30k investment. As long as we have plentiful coal resources which
we do electricity is a relatively cheap commodity.
Got Code?
He removed solar thermal panels, probably much less efficient than the evacuated tubes used today, when the roof was being repaired in 1986:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2DF113BF937A1575BC0A960948260
They were not reinstalled because of cost effectiveness issue. I also heard maintenance was a pain. They were donated to a university, IIRC.
Bush also had solar panels installed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/technology/how-it-works-from-a-white-house-roof-solar-power-proclaims-gains.html
Many places are spinning this story politically no doubt.
BTW, I think solar thermal and more insulation is a great, cost effective thing. PV, otoh, not so much yet.
http://www.unity.edu/News/solar1004.htm
Sure PV is only cost effective if you otherwise would have to run lines out to where you want to go, but solar-thermal hot water heating (and dare I saw wind generation) is already competitive, if not already the better long term investment.
couple it with an inground-thermal mass heat pump (when building a new house), and correct front window aspect, and the long term comparison is not even close.
but of course this is just the broken record replying to trolls.
Solar does pay for itself. Solar water heaters do. Photovoltaics do. As long as you aren't in Alaska or something (and even then, there's a lot of solar because there are more people living off the grid there than anywhere else), they pay for themselves without a problem. Have you been drinking the anti-solar kool-aid? It may not be a "good" investment. But it does pay back.
Learn to love Alaska
"...— which was quietly removed during Reagan's tenure in office"
I don't know what the OP is talking about. This was done very early on and was publicized widely, as a way of showing how the Reagan administration was forward looking and confident, as opposed to the defeatist Carter administration (or something like that - I could never really grasp Reagan's propaganda). What was done fairly quietly was the complete evisceration and cancelation of the Carter era alternative energy research program, which was just at the stage of showing promise. What was left unsaid was how pleased the oil companies were by all of this.
I notice the story you posted, removed the part about that Bush put in Solar power to heat the pool and a out side building. So not the only solar power at the White House.
Don't you feel stupid for posting that blindly partisan crap just a few seconds after this:
He removed solar thermal panels, probably much less efficient than the evacuated tubes used today, when the roof was being repaired in 1986:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2DF113BF937A1575BC0A960948260 [nytimes.com]
I call BS on that. Those panels were removed to make a point, and a partisan point at that - killing alternative energy was one of Reagan's campaign points in 1980. He mentioned it in his frakking debate with Carter. Reagan described the entire alternative energy R&D program as a waste of money, killed it deader than a doornail, and this was part of that campaign. And, by the way, they were only
"donated" to a college because an admin at the college campaigned to get them from whatever GSA warehouse they were stuck in.
Reagan cut the budget or was it Congress? Last I read the power of the purse belongs to the Legislative branch.
I live in the Northeast, and I have powered my house with a solar panel for almost ten years (there is no municipal electrical service where I live). A sunny day isn't required for the panels to work; they work better in full sunlight, but work quite well with cloud cover. Mine will even charge my batteries slowly on a clear night when the moon is full. They actually work better in the winter -- even though the days are shorter, reflected light from snow cover results in greater ambient light and by extension, better charging. Does it snow much in DC?
My solar panel is 18" x 48", IIRC, and I just have the one. It's an older model, and not as efficient as the new ones, but it meets all of my admittedly modest electrical needs and then some. This will work fine, assuming it's properly engineered.
Does it snow much in DC?
No. And when it does they shut the whole city down. I'm from Upstate NY -- we don't stop our normal routine for anything short of whiteout blizzard conditions. DC shuts down if they get more than a dusting. That's probably a good thing because none of the morons on the roadways south of the Mason-Dixon line have any clue how to drive in snow.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
yeah but it literally took more energy to *take them down* than it took to leave them there.
Not when they had to take them down anyways for roof repairs anyways.
I thought I could edit my previous comment after I found this article, but it seems I could only post another one.