Solar Power On the White House 405
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."
How does it get any light? (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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Haha, but you're out of date [google.com] -- looks quite sunny to me!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, but we need a superfund team to help clean up the pollution from the burning karma.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:How does it get any light? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:How does it get any light? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:How does it get any light? (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re:How does it get any light? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't poke me there!
solar hot water (Score:5, Informative)
Re:solar hot water (Score:5, Informative)
Re:solar hot water (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope the power companies don't retaliate [energymatters.com.au]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's photovoltaic power. Photovoltaic cells are rubbish, yes, the conversion efficiency simply isn't good enough yet.
Using panels to heat water is still a very good idea though.
Re: (Score:2)
During summer my hot water bills are pretty much zero. Since getting PV and solar hot water my power bill has been reduced by more than a third - and that was with a pregnant wife (which meant more air-con use). Luckily I got them with a grant from the Australian government and it was all pretty much free!
Re:solar hot water (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, pretty much every US state also requires its power companies to buy any consumer-generated power added to the grid.
Germany OTOH forces its power companies to buy solar-generated electricity at a high, above-market fixed rate. This and other massive subsidies to the solar power industry are calculated at anywhere from $60 billion euros to $180 billion euros - a HUGE amount, at least until you consider the $180 billion that's subsidizing Germany's decrepit domestic coal industry.
Why do Americans have problems with solar power? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Why do Americans have problems with solar power (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes there is a extremely good reason we could care less about solar and especially solar electrical power.
I could care more.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 (whe
Re:Why do Americans have problems with solar power (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Actually G W Bush installed solar (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [huffingtonpost.com]
Re:Actually G W Bush installed solar (Score:4, Interesting)
G W Bush's house in TX is also one of the most environmentally friendly houses on the planet. Al Gore, on the other hand, lives in a mansion here in Nashville that is 3 times the size of my house but with 10 times the energy usage. He also has another mansion in CA that's comparable in size.
Sometimes it's what you *do* rather than what you *say* that tells me everything I need to know about you...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in Nashville and I've seen his house. I can show it to you if you're in town. He bought solar panels *after* his energy usage was made public. While he has an office there, his main office is at Loew's Vanderbilt hotel on West End. I've seen him there in person while I was there on unrelated business. Codes don't allow him to staff an office at his Belle Meade mansion.
Furthermore, he had the money to build an efficient house rather than buy that one. One just a few blocks away sold recently for
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
They have mod points too:
(Score:1, Troll)
by Alioth (221270)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Because generalization isn't seen as an inherently bad thing outside the US, but a useful rough statistical tool? It's far more accurate than basing one's opinion on exceptional cases.
The GP informed us that most German homes are built with solar panels, and you know damn well that not even a tiny percentage of American homes are, nor will this be the case five years from now no matter what Obama or you do.
Or, to put it another way:
If you wer
Re:Why do Americans have problems with solar power (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
> as well as what government subsidies for solar installations are offered, it is possible ... So you're not actually spending money out of pocket... it pays for itself and then some.
No, it's money out of everyone else's pocket.
I'm not arguing your main point here; sometimes for the individual it does make economic sense, but only because everyone else is paying for it. If you could get the taxpayers to fund my mortgage, buying a much bigger house than I have would make economic sense too.
That said, som
Re: (Score:2)
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.
p>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?
The problem with this kind of statement is that it is an overall generalisation that can be applied to ANY industry, and will never have a set definite cutoff date. You can say the same thing about buying a computer... why buy now when you could buy a cheaper more efficient one in 3 years... and that statement holds just as true in 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010.
In 1995, you may as well just live without a 486 or Pentium computer until the more efficient Pentium II comes along in 1997, but wait, there's a more effi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 e
Re:Why do Americans have problems with solar power (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do Americans have problems with solar power (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why do Americans have problems with solar power (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why do Americans have problems with solar power (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Why do Americans have problems with solar power (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why do Americans have problems with solar power (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Healthcare. Firefighting. Police. Armies. (Score:4, Insightful)
The free market completely and utterly failed to provide those.
Re: (Score:2)
So...did you just come out of a coma, or were you not paying attention when "Free Market Jesus" almost destroyed the global economy in 2008?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, solar power is a liberal elite technology for oppressing the poor. Of course, as always, they *claim* it's just
Re: (Score:2)
That said, correlation definitely does not imply causation here. The price is high because the technology being new. As they find ways to make it more efficient and more easily mass produced, the benefits will get to the point where more middle class people can afford it.
Re: (Score:2)
Putting solar panels on your roof isn't just good for the environment: It helps the poor too.
No payback (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No payback (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if we really wanted to make Washington DC green, and help solve the global warming problem, we'd find a way to capture energy from all the hot air that gets spewed out there.
Can that squirrel waterski?!?! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of things that are smart investments if you're building a home from scratch are not so great if you're talking about replacing a working system. Almost nobody will pay more for a house just because it has better efficiency that will save $1000/year on utility bills, so the payback horizon is often much longer than people intend to own the house for.
So, you're saying that Obama shouldn't have had these panels installed because he will have moved out before they have paid themselves back, and it doesn't increase the sales price of the White House? It makes a weird kind of sense, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, houses with solar panels and other things to improve efficiency do sell for more money.
Not enough to recoup 100% of the investment, so you'll need to save on utility bills for a few years first in order to pay for the entire investment....assuming you put no value on smug, nor value on having your own power supply if the grid is down.
Reagan did not remove PV panels AFAIK (Score:5, Informative)
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]
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 [nytimes.com]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Bush also had solar panels installed.......Many places are spinning this story politically no doubt.
All the political spin I've seen has been, "more evidence that Obama is like Carter." So are you saying Bush is like Carter too? Interesting......I suppose you could make a case.
Re:Reagan did not remove PV panels AFAIK (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I seen this issue multiple times today (/. not being the first at this story, by far) and it's used to paint a mostly "Republicans bad, Democrats good" picture.
I think Carter was a good man, advanced on some issues for his time, naive on foreign policy, that was handed a shit-fest when he came into the white house, did a lot of
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carter-white-house-solar-panel-array [scientificamerican.com]
Reagan also halved the Energy Department's conservation and alternative fuels budget, reduced research spending on photovoltaics by two-thirds, and removed energy tax credits for homeowners. I think Reagans track record on energy policies can basically sum up how he felt about
asterisk (Score:2)
with panels made in China. Uniquely American!
So, does this make it... (Score:2)
Take it away, Jim! [youtube.com]
Solar water heater makes good sense (Score:2, Interesting)
solar & wind power (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you're bad at math.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting argument. I especially like the "drying outdoors is forbidden" -- and wonder whether the dryer manufacturers had any hand in the creation of those laws.
Last night I watched an excellent movie that was referenced here a couple weeks ago, which I then ordered from their website: "What If Cannabis Cured Cancer?" I was completely blown away by this (hour-long) movie; it shows how two interlocking substances evolved in different directions, we have one of them in our bodies, and the other is found
Quietly my ass (Score:5, Informative)
"...— 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.
Bush put in Solar power on the White house grounds (Score:2, Informative)
Weather gets a vote (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why did Reagan remove them?
Re:lol (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:lol (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.unity.edu/News/solar1004.htm [unity.edu]
Re:lol (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:lol (Score:5, Informative)
Reagan cut the budget or was it Congress? Last I read the power of the purse belongs to the Legislative branch.
Yes and no (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because Republicans hate the planet!
Re: (Score:2)
The planet makes them money. Think of it as a giant chocolate cake. You wouldn't want to just leave it there and have it go to waste now would you?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm certain that you meant that as an insult, but it actually seems pretty good to me. We have a large ball of resources that we know won't last even if we don't use it. I'm all for keeping things clean pleasant where possible, but I think that we should use what we can get from it.
That's why I favor drilling on our own land rather than bringing oil in across the ocean which we've seen make a mess. We should be smart and work on alternatives for when the supply runs out, but I think it's foolish to just let
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 doubt
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
>>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'd trust Reagan more on cost-effectiveness than Obama, whose answer to every question is "YES".
That said, according to a solar website I read today (so take it with a grain of salt) PV panels have come down from $40,000/watt to $5/
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.....
Re: (Score:2)
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"?
It's about people being lazy and asking stupid questions. I've commented on this before [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
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"?
It's about people being lazy and asking stupid questions. I've commented on this before [slashdot.org].
That's why sites like stackoverflow are nice, since they reward good questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Which explains why Regan took them down: to work on his tan.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 [nytimes.com] anyways.
I thought I could edit my previous comment after I found this article, but it seems I could only post another one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:2012: President Palin removes solar panels (Score:4, Informative)
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] [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 [scientificamerican.com] because an admin at the college campaigned to get them from whatever GSA warehouse they were stuck in.