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 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?
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
Why did Reagan remove them?
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.
Because Republicans hate the planet!
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).
The energy saved by the installation will be more than made up for by the amount of energy expended in proclaiming how green the White House is.
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
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?
Why do Europeans have problems not generalizing about Americans?
I just signed a contract to get solar power installed, and the sales guy said business was booming. His phone didn't stop buzzing the entire time.
Also, our President is getting solar power, if you hadn't heard.
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.
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
http://www.unity.edu/News/solar1004.htm
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.
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.
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.
Depending on where you live (ie: depends on how much sun you get and the cost of electricity) as well as what government subsidies for solar installations are offered, it is possible to get a loan for solar equipment today and have the savings on your electric bill completely cover the cost of the loan with savings to spare. So you're not actually spending money out of pocket... it pays for itself and then some.
The downside to this approach is that in a few years, solar panels will be even cheaper and more efficient and the resulting loan payment will be even less and you'll be stuck saving less than you could have saved had you waited. In other words, do you want a net savings of $30/month starting today for 20 years, or wait 3 years and have a net savings of $50/month for 20 years?
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...
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.
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
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
Politics aside, this is a great symbolic gesture by the White House. Hopefully the publicity will make a few people think of installing a solar water heater and be kind to Mother earth. Understand that this technology might not be applicable for all parts of the world, but there is significant portion of the world where the solar water heater makes eminent sense. Currently I live in Bangalore, India. I have a solar water installed in my house with a 300 liters storage volume. It works for 95% of the year flawlessly supplying hot water for the whole family. On the rare days, when the water temp is not hot enough (it is never colder than ambient temperature), we have a valve in the bathrooms which will route the hot water thru a electric heater. According to my calculation we need to spend about 1000 rupees in electricity charges per month for going completely electrical water heating. The unit cost me about 50 K rupees to buy and install. So it makes good economic sense to me and hot water is always available. BTW it is estimated that we really need one hour of good sunshine (post noon, because the solar panels are facing SW direction) to heat up the water. These are really popular in India, wish it was adopted more than the extant situation. The city is planning on making this mandatory for all new houses. I was actually planning to install PV's to generate all the electricity needed for our family (BTW based on the past 15 months consumption data, we consume ~ 250 KWh per month). Spoke to a few poeple, did the math, PV's are still economically not feasible. If anyone has any solid data or leads let me know, I will certainly be interested in knowing more. Additional data: I have a UPS installed in the house (rated at 5 KVA, with four 12V 120AH batteries, which I believe can store approx 8 KWh of energy) which should be enough supply the house in the night times. So ideally with the right PV's (which can generate about 10 KWh per day with a few hours of sunshine) I can completely go off the grid and tap into the grid only on emergencies or when we have unusuall
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?
Why do Europeans have problems not generalizing about Americans?
Yes, I've often wondered myself why all Europeans have stereotyped views of Americans, damn their brie-eating, lederhosen wearing, cricket-playing hides!
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
"...— 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 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!
Jobs with a livable minimum wage, standardized work week, occupational health and safety rules.
The free market completely and utterly failed to provide those.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
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.
Reagan cut the budget or was it Congress? Last I read the power of the purse belongs to the Legislative branch.
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.
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.
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.
I was thinking they should install them near Chuck Schumer. Think of all the wasted energy from those camera lights that follow him everywhere that could be harnessed.....
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.
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.