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 have both technologies on my roof and both are rather simple and reliable. In Germany most new homes do at least have solar hot water and it's a great feeling that you don't need any natural gas for about half of the year (it would be even greater if it would work for the whole year but then you'd need something like a 20.000 gallon reservoir for hot water which would make it somewhat less simple).
I thought it would fit with the American culture to be proud of modern technology and to be independent. So I can't understand why Americans seem to not like solar power very much?
Please just link Google directly instead of that annoying piece of shit website.
Also, what's with all the retards of the world insisting on "answering" questions by linking lmgtfy? Are you afraid to admit that you also don't know the answer to the question but still want to feel "superior"?
BTW, they were removed during the Reagan administration when they were making repairs to the roof since it wasn't considered cost-effective to replace the panels (although the truthfulness of that could of course be doubted since we're talking about the Reagan administration).
I could make a cynical remark in AC about some political bias this or that...but honestly I don't think it fits here.
With this economy, green technology today is not the extent of the "green-washing" we saw during the housing bubble in 2006. I believe in many ways that a good portion of what we dub "green technology" today is rather fiscally smart investments - good for our pocket and the environment. There should be no contest to what decision Obama may have pushed...hell this is like voting to reduce the volume on commercials: it is something which just about everyone agrees.
We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
Yeah, the amount of power used in any commercial or government building is astonishing when illustrated by the size of the solar array needed to generate it. A local (Tucson) solar panel factory installed a system big enough to power one shift of production - it dwarfed the factory building and parking lot.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
I don't think it's "Americans don't like solar power." Most Americans I know (liberals and conservatives) like solar power. It's cool technology, and getting free energy from the sun sounds like such a good deal.
If you hear about Americans objecting to solar power, it's probably objecting to the government subsidies for installing solar panels. Conservatives and Libertarians tend to support the idea that we should focus on making the technology cheaper, then people will install it on their own, rather than subsidizing it.
Qxe4
Yes there is a extremely good reason we could care less about solar and especially solar electrical power.
I could care more.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Conservatives and Libertarians tend to support the idea that we should focus on making the technology cheaper, then people will install it on their own, rather than subsidizing it.
I think conservatives and libertarians feel that we should do nothing, and that Free Market Jesus will come from the sky and solve all problems in one fell swoop...
I suspect it's mostly a reference to the summary, which used coloring words such as "quietly" in regard to Reagan while simultaneously omitting any mention of Bush.
The solar heating panels were installed on the roof of the West Wing, but removed during Ronald Reagans presidency in 1986, after the energy crisis and worries about dependence on foreign oil had subsided.
So, basically Regan thought the best way to encourage Americans to go nuts with gasoline again was to take the solar panels down? Huh? Why do it "quietly" then? I'm assuming he thought consumers were too dumb to realize that solar panels were not really an alternative to oil.
Shortsighted for multiple reasons. I mean, surely he didn't think dependence on foreign oil had been solved forever? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, this was Regan after all.
that's retarded, all of those resources already exist expressly for carrying new stories. if this story hadn't happened those time and resources would have been taken up with funny cat videos or something.
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
The only ones I've heard object for political reasons are the far-right. Not just the regular conservatives, but those towards the fringe - and they only oppose solar because it's a 'liberal thing,' and thus must be evil.
More like, individuals pursuing their own goals will do a better job of allocating resources than a pack of bureaucrats trying to manage the economy. Your characterization of the free market as some kind of miracle betrays your own ignorance.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I think liberals feel that we should do nothing, and that Government Jesus will come from the sky and solve all problems in one fell swoop. Free Market Jesus has a hell of a lot better track record than Government Jesus when it comes to solving problems, and without sacrificing liberty too.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Also, our President is getting solar power, if you hadn't heard.
Apparently the public often misses it when the President installs solar. G W Bush installed solar. From the fans of W at the Huffington Post:
"In 2003, solar photovoltaic panels were installed at the White House. Two smaller solar thermal systems were also installed to heat water: one for landscape maintenance personnel, the other for the presidential pool and spa. The Bush Administration itself never really announced the project."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/27/white-house-solar-panels_n_160575.html
And just think! in 2012, the next prez. will tear them down (claiming some BS about how americans don't "need to sacrifice" or some crap)
The bright side of this is that someone will get a good deal on used solar panels that have hardly been used.
Maybe President Palin will put them up on ebay!
I don't think of it as a miracle, but it appears that some conservatives and libertarians do. Note that I don't make the claim that socialism (or bureaucratism for that matter) is any better. I just don't think that the whole "free market solves all" method is going to work in every case.
It makes individual sense to do a lot of things that are detrimental to human society, or even local society as a whole. In some cases, it is better to regulate the cost of a particular resource to reflect the actual societal cost of its extraction or use. That's something the "free" market is horrible at.
Neither "Jesus" seems to have much of a track record individually - it's only when the two work together, complimenting their skills and covering up their weaknesses that things happen. Both extreme socialists (ie communists) and conservatives don't seem to get this.
Can you be more specific? What are the weaknesses of the free market where the government should step in? I think pretty standard libertarian beliefs involve government acting only as an umpire, providing laws, police, military, legislature, courts, that sort of thing. Essentially it all boils down to protecting individual liberty by removing the use of physical force from the society. I must be one of those extreme conservatives you speak off because I can't think of too many other valid uses for the government. Can you give me some examples?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
"Why do Europeans have problems not generalizing about Americans?"
*lol* I don't really have to go and explain what's funny here, right?
Yours, A European.
It's probably because there seems to be a hard core of very *loud* Americans who yell (figuratively, online) at the top of their voices about how any renewable power is no good. They also yell loudly about how $INSERT_EFFICIENT_TECHNOLOGY is no good, too. It's almost as if they think being energy inefficient is something to be proud of.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
What are the weaknesses of the free market where the government should step in?
Sub-prime mortgages? Derivatives-build-from-derivatives ad nauseum? Rings any bell?
Healthcare. Firefighting. Police. Armies. Roads. Power. Water. Un-Pollution. Safety (melanin in your babyfood?).
Plenty more.
The most effective solar and wind power device is drying clothing outside. It not only saves electricity, but actually cooling down an environment.
The problem is that it may look unaesthetic, unless a nice looking dryer is invented. Meanwhile drying clothing in the air is forbidden in many districts and even entire cities.
The effectiveness of drying is 100%. No energy is being lost. And the volume is enormous, - billions of people wash and dry clothing everyday.
Production of dryers does not involve any toxic material and is not expensive. But if clothing is dried in electrical driers then a lot, a lot of electrical energy is being used.
I would argue that the problem of global warming would be solved, if drying outdoors would be not forbidden, but promoted. Of course, after an invention of a aesthetic outdoor drier.
Reagan didn't just take the solar panels off the white house, that's symbolic. Reagan also slashed the budget of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory by 90%. This facility currently holds, and regularly held in the past decade or so, the records for the highest efficiency photovoltaics and other types of devices. So if you ask me why solar panels sucked in the past, it was because there was not very much research in solar power going on for the entire decade of the 80s.
I'm guessing Reagan rationalized these actions as reducing the federal budget. The only problem with that logic is that the guy ran up a bigger deficit in defense projects than Carter (or just about any other president besides Bush, Jr.). But that's typical, when conservative politicians speak about reducing the deficit, that is usually code for cutting programs that they just don't like and has nothing to do with the actual deficit.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Well, one example is the free market will never properly price externalities, such as pollution. Pollution is free - just let it spew out the smokestack, or dump it in the river. This caused widespread problems.
So the government added a price to pollution.
Now. That's how we bailed out the private lenders.
Fannie and Freddie were legally unable to do subprime mortgages until 2006. What made the mortgage "subprime" was that Fannie and Freddie wouldn't do them.
Mortgage originators were so "willy-nilly" with their money because they knew they would only hold the mortgage for a couple months. They'd get paid, some schmuck who bought a CDO would lose. The schmuck bought the CDO because the originator paid someplace like Moodys to claim shit was gold.
I'm only playing devil's advocate here, and I disagree with your "troll" mod; clearly someone doesn't understand the question (or is embarrassed about their own answer).
That said, there are reasons to do things other than economic. People value different things, and for some going solar isn't about the money; it's about making a statement, raising awareness, being the first or hippest on the block, reducing their carbon emissions, or any of a host of other reasons. I'd be one of those people too, if the economics were considerably more in my favor, but I have a family to support so I can't think of just my reasons.
Before you design for reuse, make sure to design it for use.
Just an easy excuse to avoid it becoming an issue while keeping their corporate masters happy.
If you think statements from the Reagan admin were honest you've a lot to learn.
Hell, just having the 1st lady grow an organic garden caused some industry pressure. They'll be in there pushing again with the next 1st lady - they don't hire scum to do that stuff for nothing.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The White House submits a preliminary budget proposal, the House and Senate formulate legislation, the two separate versions get reconciled, and then the president signs (or doesn't). Reagan always claimed that the ballooning deficits on his watch were due to Congress, but most of his proposals were unbalanced to begin with and he always signed, claiming he had no choice. Clinton proved Reagan's claims of powerlessness to be hollow in 1995, vetoing the Republican-controlled Congress' proposed budget and thereby shutting down the government for almost a week until Newt Gingrich caved.
So Congress has sole power to pass the legislation but the White House can play a very significant role if they have the will to do so. It always has seemed ironic to me that Reagan and Reaganites claim the mantle of deficit reduction while the facts are that the ration of Debt / GDP (i.e., what we owe relative to our aggregate income) dropped pretty much continuously from WWII to Reagan and then skyrocketed under all subsequent administrations except Clinton's. Republicans try to claim credit for the Clinton years, ignoring the fact that Clinton stared them down.
Serious idea: Turn the Washington Monument into a solar thermal collector. The reflecting pool is replaced with a mirror array, the heat exchanger (focus point of the mirrors) goes on top of the monument (it could even look similar...replace the top with an identically-shaped heat exchanger, they could paint it dark gray or maybe even black, but when lit up it would be so bright it would look as white as the rest of the monument). Washington would be proud (his monument directly contributing to US prosperity and security, not like those other deadbeat monuments) and anti-environmentalists will absolutely lose their shit at the news. Win-win!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'd trust Reagan more on cost-effectiveness than Obama, whose answer to every question is "YES".
That's not quite true. Obama's answer on civil liberties has been "NO!" every single time. FISA, warrantless GPS tracking, an internet kill switch, RKBA, the 1st amendment, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I always knew I'd disagree with Obama on domestic policy but I actually had hopes for him on civil liberties. Won't make that mistake again.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I am curious, not trying to bust your chops or anything but how can you justify the cost on something that will never pay a return? I cannot see it ever being a good investment at todays prices at least.
We used to do that all the time. It was called "pure research". It did pay a return, of course, and often a spectacular one. However, since it's not the kind of thing that can be projected into next quarter's profit statements, there's not as much call for it as there used to be.
And speaking of 3-month myopia, there's the problem we have with thinking that the price at the cash register is the only price. If everyone had waited for LCD TV prices to be cheap, they wouldn't be. Someone had to "prime the pump", so to speak. It takes money to make money.
Sub-prime mortgages? Derivatives-build-from-derivatives ad nauseum?
Neither of which would have been as big of an issue if Government hadn't kept interest rates low and money artificially cheap.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Reagan likely took down the panel because it was crappy 1970s technology. You know, the kind that could barely power an LCD calculator when held directly under a 60W lamp. It is highly unlikely that the primitive 1970s amorphous silicon technology-- about 1% efficient-- provided any meaningful amount of power. It's possible they used another technology, but even the best produced at the time was perhaps 6% efficient. Jimmy Carter's sweater was far more sensible. If that's not enough for you, please note that Reagan commended the Coast Guard for converting their buoys to solar power.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Same with Denmark, the "world leader in wind power" (thanks to subsidies by Danish taxpayers) with the highest electricity costs in Europe to show for it
The extreme wing of the environmentalist movement WANTS your electricity to cost more. They know that people will never voluntarily accept a reduced standard of living so they seek to impose it through the backdoor by raising energy costs.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
or without the BS spin from the anti-environmentalists:
Environmentalists want the FULL COSTS of fossil fuel use to be included when comparing the prices. What is the cost of releasing all the CO2 into the air? You tax the polluting stuff versus rebating the non-polluting stuff to encourage adoption until the actual costs of the pollution can be incorporated.
This does mean that renewable energy is never going to cost as cheap as current fossil fuel prices. That much is agreed. What the anti-environment won't tell you is that fossil fuel costs are only going up as supplies and pollutions effects are realized into higher costs.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Hate to break it to you, but when you're the only one who sees the irony or meta-irony or whatever other pretentious BS you want to call it, it's more likely to be you who has no idea how to write for other people. Get over yourself.
Yep. We seem to be a lot better at finding the balance than they were. It's not really surprising, since they were driven by an ideology, whereas more or less we are driven by moderation and practicality. I can't think of any time, in any place, where a purified ideology was successful in stable governance. You should think about that.