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
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
Reagan cut the budget or was it Congress? Last I read the power of the purse belongs to the Legislative branch.
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.