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

Skip to comments.

Newly Installed White House Solar Panels Will Generate Power For a Whopping Six Light Bulbs
IJReview ^ | Soopermexican

Posted on 05/11/2014 11:23:57 AM PDT by Nachum

In case you had any doubt about the efficacy of government, just consider the four year struggle to get solar panels on the White House, which has culminated in the breathless announcement that they will now generate the power to run all of six light bulbs.

Here’s the pivotal sentence of the announcement:

And while the energy produced by the White House panels may not be all too significant—they’ll generate an estimated 6.3 kilowatts worth of energy—the message it sends is.

Oh good another “symbolic” achievement by Obama – he’s getting great at those! Not so much at actual achievements, unfortunately:

If 6.3 kilowatts sounds like a lot of energy, it isn’t. The average home consumes 27 kilowatts of power each day. Far more than the 6.3 kilowatts that will be produced by the new solar panels adorning the White House. According to TradeWind Energy, “one 50-watt light bulb running for 20 hours will use one kilowatt-hour of electricity (50 watts x 20 hours = 1,000 watt-hours = 1 kWh).”

In other words, the White House installed enough solar panels to power six 50-watt bulbs for 20 hours each day. And if you’ve ever been inside the White House, or seen it from a distance, you’ll notice it’s lit up like a klieg light.

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


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bulbs; lightbulbs; panels; power; solar; whitehouse; whsolar
White House energy policy as designed by their advisor: Schmuckamus Maximus
1 posted on 05/11/2014 11:23:57 AM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


2 posted on 05/11/2014 11:24:26 AM PDT by Nachum (Obamacare: It's. The. Flaw.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

3 posted on 05/11/2014 11:27:01 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (I never thought anyone could make Jimmy Carter look good in compariso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Bad math due to bad phrasing from the WH. The panels are in kW hours. It produces that much per hour. With DC being about 5 to 6 hours of average light. Not that it radically changes things but the lights also don’t always run 24 hours.

A 6kwh system would provide enough power to take half the uasage of a small house. Still minimal for the WH


4 posted on 05/11/2014 11:29:50 AM PDT by Bogey78O (We had a good run. Coulda been great still.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Author writing crap that is utterly false and ignorant of physics and math and deserves no posting here.

I also think it is stupid that the WH installed panels for show but the author is not even a kindergarten-level engineer.

6.3 kilowatts directly connected would light approximately 6.3 kilowatts of bulb -- the filaments have to be appropriately selected for the input voltage. That's a lot of light and lots of bulbs.

In reality the energy is stored and 110v is output with some loss but not a huge amount.

5 posted on 05/11/2014 11:33:11 AM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
The average home consumes 27 kilowatts of power each day Wow, maybe in a very, very low usage month. I'm sure the average daily usage in the WH, family quarters only, dwarfs that amount.
6 posted on 05/11/2014 11:33:57 AM PDT by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

In my town, they installed solar panels to light a park. The cost of upkeep, and maintenance basically amounted to a cost of $1.00 per KWH. Even at today’s higher electricity costs (as compared to when the panels were first installed), our non solar electricity here costs .93 cents per KWH.


7 posted on 05/11/2014 11:33:59 AM PDT by sockmonkey (I've been pulling up ivy all morning. What kills ivy forever?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

That 6 kW is probably midday, summer, sunny - the total of the panels’ rated output. Usable output will be a fraction of that. And, I doubt that they have a battery bank and an inverter. The panels are probably just tied into the grid where there will be zero noticeable difference in the Hut’s monthly utility bill.

Sham.


8 posted on 05/11/2014 11:35:26 AM PDT by NewHampshireDuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

We’re obviously running out of electricity, yet they keep letting more and more immigrants in.


9 posted on 05/11/2014 11:35:46 AM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

6 light bulbs. Near 600 million for Solyndra. Hey! What a deal!!! $100m/bulb!


10 posted on 05/11/2014 11:35:54 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Typical of the Left. Symbolism over substance.


11 posted on 05/11/2014 11:36:52 AM PDT by Viking2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

the bulbs in the White Hut are dim, so they may be able to run a dozen or two


12 posted on 05/11/2014 11:37:06 AM PDT by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

What do you call someone who is smart enough to be conservative but too stupid to do basic math and physics?


13 posted on 05/11/2014 11:37:29 AM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

This article has zero credibility, because the author confuses energy with power — specifically, it mixes up kWh with kW.

The White House solar panels are rated to deliver 6.3 kW, whenever the sun is shining on them fully. Given the location, it’s likely that the panels will only average about 25% of rated output capacity. That would be somewhere around an average of 35 kWh/day.

While it’s likely that the solar panels make very little economic sense — this article completely fails to make that point; because of the confusion between kWh and kW. This sort of shoddy work does more harm than good. The solar lobby could use this article to mock every conservative that opposes massive subsidies for uneconomic “green” energy.


14 posted on 05/11/2014 11:41:35 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I remember when President Peanuts put solar cells on the white house. Didn’t generate enough juice to power those little electronic mouse chasers.


15 posted on 05/11/2014 11:44:06 AM PDT by Zuse (I am disrupted! I am offended! I am insulted! I am outraged!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WHBates
Wow, maybe in a very, very low usage month.

My house is about 900 sq feet of space/rooms that I use. I have gas heat, stove, and hot water heater. My electricity usage ending for 4/22 was 31.25 KW per day. I would think most people use more than 27 kw per day.

16 posted on 05/11/2014 11:44:19 AM PDT by sockmonkey (I've been pulling up ivy all morning. What kills ivy forever?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: steve86; Bogey78O; Nachum

I was composing my post #14, while you were posting your comments. I agree with you completely. This sort of sloppy, innumerate gibberish is decidedly not helpful. The sooner it’s put down the memory hole, the better.


17 posted on 05/11/2014 11:45:20 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

My 100 watt panels put out within 5% of that most of the year — say 8-9 months — when it is sunny and I’m at 46°N. At peak they can go over rating by 10% or so.


18 posted on 05/11/2014 11:45:21 AM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O

Totally. If the output of the panels is 6.3KW, that’s six spotlights.


19 posted on 05/11/2014 11:45:49 AM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
the bulbs in the White Hut are dim, so they may be able to run a dozen or two

Strange how whenever Biden enters the White Hut, the bulbs seem brighter.

20 posted on 05/11/2014 11:51:21 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (I'm a Christian, pro-life, pro-gun, Reaganite. The GOP hates me. Why should I vote for them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O; All
Bad math due to bad phrasing from the WH.

The wording in the OP is horrendous. This gives us a clue that the drop-outs in the WH don't know what they're talking about concerning PC global warming climate change and electric cars.

21 posted on 05/11/2014 11:51:47 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sockmonkey
our non solar electricity here costs .93 cents per KWH.

I don't get that. Here, In WA State where Google and all are putting in the big data centers next to Columbia River dams, the cost is about 6 cents.

The average price people in the U.S. pay for electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour.

22 posted on 05/11/2014 11:51:57 AM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

Of course, to get the output I reported in #18, the panel orientation has to track the sun — and even then it isn’t going to be for very many hours each day once you get much away from June in the northern hemisphere.


23 posted on 05/11/2014 11:57:05 AM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Maybe the WH can dedicate the output from the solar cells towards recharging their smartphones, to be able to keep issuing those important policy Tweets ...


24 posted on 05/11/2014 11:57:09 AM PDT by mikrofon (#Sol-dabillofgoods)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve86

But that’s not averaged over 365 24 hr days, counting cloudy days. I have a 1 kW bank of panels that’s just fine for running some critical electronics (internet hardware, a laptop and ham radio full time with just enough reserve for another couple of part-time usage radios.


25 posted on 05/11/2014 11:57:11 AM PDT by NewHampshireDuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: steve86

But that’s not averaged over 365 24 hr days, counting cloudy days. I have a 1 kW bank of panels that’s just fine for running some critical electronics (internet hardware, a laptop and ham radio full time with just enough reserve for another couple of part-time usage radios.


26 posted on 05/11/2014 11:57:27 AM PDT by NewHampshireDuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

The OP doesn’t work for the Black House; he is a ‘conservative’ commentator. The WH setup is probably fine engineering wise (for a wing of the White House or something), but the implementation was done for its symbolism not its energy.


27 posted on 05/11/2014 12:00:22 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Im so VERY PROUD..thst bulbhead is saving all that energy!!




28 posted on 05/11/2014 12:00:26 PM PDT by MeshugeMikey ( "Never, never, never give up". Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

Sounds about right. The panel must be fixed mount?


29 posted on 05/11/2014 12:01:48 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: steve86

Yup, 45 degree roof, aimed pretty much south. 44 degrees north.


30 posted on 05/11/2014 12:06:00 PM PDT by NewHampshireDuo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Symbolism over substance — the Obama way.
31 posted on 05/11/2014 12:10:02 PM PDT by MasterGunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve86; All
The OP doesn’t work for the Black House; he is a ‘conservative’ commentator.

Thanks for correction.

But it remains that one reason that conservatives are unnecessarily struggling to protect the Constitution is because so many "conservative" journalists evidently don't know the federal government's constitutionally limited powers any better than they understand basic physics.

32 posted on 05/11/2014 12:13:33 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NewHampshireDuo

It always surprises me that we are north of northern New England and parts of Canada. But the latitude lines do not lie.


33 posted on 05/11/2014 12:17:53 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: steve86
6.3 kilowatts directly connected would light approximately 6.3 kilowatts of bulb

That's #63 100 watt incandescent bulbs for those in Rio Linda.

34 posted on 05/11/2014 12:19:10 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

The site has an update (which matches what FR engineering types have posted):

“UPDATE: A commenter below noted…

“This article makes a number of fundamental errors in its analysis. First and foremost is the confusion between power (kilowatts or kW) and energy (kilowatt-hours or kWh).

“KW is the instantaneous power, or in this case the “rated” instantaneous power of the PV array, or the most it would put out under ideal conditions. Energy is that power over a period of time. For example, 6 kW over three hours equals 18 kWh of energy.. Since Washington gets an annual average of about 5.5 hours of equivalent full sunshine on a tilted array surface, the “energy” from the array would be the “power” times the equivalent sunshine hours. Kilowatts times hours equals kilowatt-hours. There are some other factors such as temperature effects and the efficiency of converting from DC to AC, so it is easiest to use one of the web-based calculators.

“Using the NREL “PVWatts” program (http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/) for calculating energy from a PV system, the 6.3 kWp White House system system would produce about 100,000 kWh per year, which works out to roughly 27 kWh per year, which works out to roughly the average household usage quoted in the article.


35 posted on 05/11/2014 12:24:16 PM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
100,000 kWh per year, which works out to roughly 27 kWh per year,

They should put their calculator down and quit digging....

/johnny

36 posted on 05/11/2014 12:35:51 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
and they will prolly pay for themselves in thirty or forty years...
37 posted on 05/11/2014 12:40:41 PM PDT by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -vvv- NO Pity for the LAZY - 86-44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
From the article:

"Given how little energy will be generated, it’s no surprise that the administration has declined to state just how much the taxpayer shelled out for it."

Transparency and all that. Nothing but effing crooks, the whole lot.

38 posted on 05/11/2014 1:01:45 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal the 16th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

When even the cook notices the errors...

Perhaps the author should have gone to culinary school.


39 posted on 05/11/2014 1:06:20 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: steve86
The average price people in the U.S. pay for electricity is about 12 cents per kilowatt-hour.

I just went and looked at my bill. With the add ons (distribution, customer, etc) my residential electricity comes to .08628 per KWH. Without the add ons, my residential kwh cost would only be .06284 per kwh.

The 93 cents the City said it pays was from a newspaper article about ditching the solar panels at the park. I know commercial rates are higher here than residential, but that figure in the newspaper must have been wrong. It probably should have been .093 per kwh.

40 posted on 05/11/2014 1:16:57 PM PDT by sockmonkey (I've been pulling up ivy all morning. What kills ivy forever?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Didn’t we read that Obama heated the WH to 79 degrees and went around in shirt sleeves, comfortably warm? How would solar panels give him “green” cache?


41 posted on 05/11/2014 1:48:31 PM PDT by ransomnote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

They said it is going to save 30,000 cars a year’s worth of energy. I wonder why President Reagan took them off. Why should we have to pay for these twice. I mean even if Reagan didn’t like them, he could have just keep them and use electricity.


42 posted on 05/11/2014 1:50:24 PM PDT by napscoordinator (Governor Scott Walker 2016 for the future of the country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Yet another in an endless litany of pointless and stupid Obama gestures.

Can America survive for eight years without a president?


43 posted on 05/11/2014 2:58:56 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve86

The energy is stored....
Yep, it’s all those old car batteries in the sub basement.
Help the green revolution, send a car battery to the
White House...


44 posted on 05/11/2014 2:59:11 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

I vote we last for 100 years without a government. Let the states collaborate on a meeting center and have that body determine how to protect the states from outside invasion.

Oh wait.


45 posted on 05/11/2014 3:21:20 PM PDT by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/ ?s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress

How about this: government disband six out of every ten departments, and those departments that remain fire six out of every ten employees.

We’d still have too much government, but it’d be a start.


46 posted on 05/11/2014 3:30:41 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

And the tax dollars for them is?


47 posted on 05/11/2014 3:40:03 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

LED bulbs run around 5-20 watts. >6kW is a lot of LED bulbs. If you’re going thru the trouble of installing solar panels, and have basically an unlimited budget, use LEDs. And yes, we assume any discussion of “watts” in colloquial conversation really means “watts per hour”.

My EV has a 26kW/hr battery. The WH could charge it in a little over 4 hours using that solar setup (assuming maximum output).

The setup is not nothing, but it’s also not exactly impressive. Nice for augmenting domestic use, but paltry in light of government-scale use like the WH.

The real question is cost: if the complete installation, maintenance, depreciation, etc doesn’t add up to a lot cheaper than standard power, it’s at best a demonstration.


48 posted on 05/11/2014 4:00:08 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ("If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" - Obama, setting RoE with his opposition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

6.3 kWp x 5.5 hrs/day avg sunshine x 365.25 days/yr = only 12,647 kWh, which is nowhere near either of the two contradictory nonsense figures given in this article.

Moreover, that 5.5 hr/day figure is based on panels installed with an optimum tilt and orientation. The White House’s PV system is mounted nearly flat, which reduces the power output. My guess is that it’ll manage to produce about 10,000 kWh per year, which is about half what the White House initially claimed:
http://archive.today/Uli8T#selection-671.65-671.84

At current D.C. residential rates, that 10,000 kWh of electricity is worth a little less than $1000, per year.

The White House won’t say what it cost to install the system, which surely means the price was exorbitant.

An installation cost of $10/watt would come to $63,000, but the White House boasted that they used all American-made components, which certainly increased the cost, and everything the government does costs at least twice what anyone else would pay, so I’ll bet the system actually cost taxpayers at least $150,000 (probably more).

You might think that means it will pay for itself in 150 years, but that ignores maintenance & repair costs, and the fact that the system’s output will decline with age, and the fact that it’s unlikely to last more than about 30 years.

What’s more, this system will probably cost taxpayers more than $1000/year just to maintain and repair, which means that it will never even start to repay the cost of installing it.


49 posted on 05/29/2014 1:14:27 AM PDT by ncdave4life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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