Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EDITORIAL: The solar swindle
The Washington Times ^ | September 27, 2011 | Editorial

Posted on 09/27/2011 5:55:01 PM PDT by jazusamo

Subsidies are the only thing green about the Solyndra scandal

The O Force has been running up America’s credit card by doling out cash to energy firms claiming to be green. Bosses at solar panel manufacturer Solyndra are busy taking the Fifth, and Obama administration officials are pleading ignorance over how an unsustainable enterprise was able to bag $535 million in taxpayer loot. In the coming days, Congress is likely to get to the bottom of exactly who knew what and when. There’s more to come with this scandal, but for now, one conclusion is clear already: You can’t outsmart the market.

At the outset of his presidency, Barack Obama thought he could do just that. His agenda was designed to drive up the cost of efficient, carbon-based energy to match the price of expensive power wearing the trendy “renewable” label. The rationale: When artificially inflated prices for oil, natural gas and coal begin to bleed consumers dry, they’ll have no choice but to turn to politically correct forms of energy like sunlight, wind and biofuels. The “greenhouse gas” menace would end, according to liberal belief, purported global warming would be remedied, and we finally would “get ourselves back to the Garden,” as the iconic Woodstock-era song urged.

The administration has spent nearly three years blocking access to America’s abundant carbon-based energy resources and throwing cash at “green” manufacturers...

~snip~

Solar power costs more than twice as much to produce as coal-powered electricity, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Given the precarious state of the global economy, the green conversion is nothing more than an expensive sham.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: corruption; fossilfuel; obama; renewableenergy; solar; solyndra; subsidies; wind

1 posted on 09/27/2011 5:55:12 PM PDT by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

Ping!


2 posted on 09/27/2011 5:57:09 PM PDT by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo; Defendingliberty; WL-law; Normandy; TenthAmendmentChampion; FrPR; enough_idiocy; ...
Thanx for the ping jazusamo !

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

3 posted on 09/27/2011 6:25:55 PM PDT by steelyourfaith (If it's "green" ... it's crap !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Not only that but you must realize that solar panels “wear
out”: they lose the ability to convert uv rays to electricity. this happens in about 12 years, and they have to be replaced.
4 posted on 09/27/2011 10:44:01 PM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upcountryhorseman

That isn’t quite accurate.

Many manufacturers offer warranties of 20 or more years.

What really happens is they slowly fade in performance.


5 posted on 09/28/2011 12:27:33 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DB
Current generations of solar cells consume more BTUs of fossil fuel energy to manufacture than they produce in BTU’s over their entire life span if they make it the full 20 years at full rated performance -which, of course, they don't.

By front loading the burning of fossil fuels they actually radically INCREASE the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere

6 posted on 09/28/2011 3:42:51 AM PDT by rdcbn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rdcbn

B.S.

http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/solarpan/pvpayback.htm

And that’s from 1997... Cell costs are far lower today than they were then while at the same time electricity isn’t cheaper.

If what you say were true the solar cell companies would be essentially selling the cells at a loss due to the energy consumed to manufacture them. And they would never pay for themselves - which they easily do in less than 10 years these days. You also neglect to mention that you lose substantial energy converting fossil fuel BTU’s into electrical BTU’s. And electricity is the goal.

And as far as CO2 goes, I could care a less about CO2 output one way or the other.


7 posted on 09/28/2011 4:27:12 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DB

I heard that the turbines made in India had blade problems and in others the gear drives would’nt hold up. In northern California, we go through Altamont Pass where there are a lot of wind turbines. I observe that many are not operating: I suspect because they are too costly to repair.


8 posted on 09/28/2011 8:17:40 AM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson