Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Earth Power

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Solar Power On the White House

Comments Filter:
  • solar hot water (Score:5, Informative)

    by bhcompy ( 1877290 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @02:24AM (#33821180)
    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
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 07, 2010 @02:31AM (#33821216)

    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    Haha, but you're out of date [google.com] -- looks quite sunny to me!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:solar hot water (Score:5, Informative)

    by santax ( 1541065 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @02:32AM (#33821224)
    Once I had a job making swimmingpool-installations. We also had the option of using solarpanels for warming the water. Worked great and the people that bought them had way lower operating costs of the pool. It's an investment at first but it's worth it. In Germany solarpower is huge btw. They have a law there that obligates the powercompanies to actually buy the leftover-green power from the citizens back to the network. Really a country-wide win-win.
  • Re:lol (Score:4, Informative)

    by The_mad_linguist ( 1019680 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @02:35AM (#33821242)

    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.

  • by sco08y ( 615665 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @02:40AM (#33821284)

    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.

  • by codepunk ( 167897 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @02:54AM (#33821382)

    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.

  • by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @02:55AM (#33821388)

    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:lol (Score:5, Informative)

    by fremsley471 ( 792813 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @02:59AM (#33821426)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 07, 2010 @03:14AM (#33821528)

    As long as we have plentiful coal resources which we do electricity is a relatively cheap commodity.

    ... it's only relatively cheap if you if you ignore the externalities. tally the true cost and it's not as lopsided.

    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.

  • by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @04:06AM (#33821784)
    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.
  • Re:solar hot water (Score:3, Informative)

    by clarkkent09 ( 1104833 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @04:25AM (#33821874)
    For your information, solar subsidies in Germany have been a failure http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/mar/11/solar-power-germany-feed-in-tariff [guardian.co.uk] $1 billion per month cost to the German taxpayer and still barely produces 1% of total electricity used in Germany while actually causing a net loss of jobs. 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. I'm all for renewable energy when and if it starts making economic sense, but not if it means blowing taxpayers money on something just because it sounds green.
  • Quietly my ass (Score:5, Informative)

    by mbone ( 558574 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @07:34AM (#33822724)

    "...— 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.

  • by Nexusone1984 ( 1813608 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @07:37AM (#33822738)
    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.
  • by mbone ( 558574 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @07:59AM (#33822844)

    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.

  • Re:lol (Score:5, Informative)

    by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @08:47AM (#33823226)

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

  • by llManDrakell ( 897726 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @08:57AM (#33823322)
    According to Fred Morse, who helped install the system - they were working just fine. In fact, half of the solar panels are still being used today:

    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 those solar panels.

    And regarding Bush: TFA that you link states that:

    Since September, a grid of 167 solar panels on the roof of a maintenance shed has been delivering electricity to the White House grounds. James Doherty, an architect for the National Park Service, decided to install the systems a few years ago.

    "A few years ago" from when they were installed in September 2002 would have been before Bush was even president. So how does he get credit for those solar panels, exactly?

  • by Skweetis ( 46377 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @09:32AM (#33823668) Homepage

    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.

  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) * on Thursday October 07, 2010 @10:09AM (#33824096) Journal

    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.

  • by Matt ( 78254 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @02:52PM (#33827986)

    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.

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Working...