Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (616815)	6/21/2011 10:57:56 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1577188

Detroit Neighborhood: John Conyers House is an Eyesore breitbart.tv

To: bentway who wrote (616815)	6/21/2011 12:36:11 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1577188

So, How About Those White House Solar Panels? ..................................................... 6/21/2011 \| Katie Pavlich townhall.com Apparently, going green isn't as easy as President Obama and his Administration have talked it up to be. Remember when the President and his energy secretary promised to install solar panels on the White House roof? Another Obama Promise Broken. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced in October that after a nearly three-decade hiatus. the White House would once again have a solar water-heating system mounted on its roof, as well as photovoltaic cells. Chu said the panels would be up “by the end of this spring." Spring ended Monday, and the panels aren't there. "The Energy Department remains on the path to complete the White House solar demonstration project," Ramamoorthy Ramesh, director of the agency's SunShot Initiative and Solar Energy Technologies Program, said in a statement. The DOE's SunShot Initiative aims at shaving down the cost of solar power by 75 percent by the end of the decade. But 350.org founder and solar roof campaigner Bill McKibben didn't mince words over his disappointment in the DOE and Obama. "This was a no-brainer," he said in a statement Monday. "Republicans couldn't filibuster it, the oil companies weren't fighting it, and it still didn't get done when they said it would. "The DOE's SunShot Initiative aims at shaving down the cost of solar power by 75 percent by the end of the decade." Could it be that installing solar panels on the White House roof would have been too expensive and inefficient? And therefore it hasn't been done yet? Expensive: Yes Currently, it can cost 20 cents or more to produce a kilowatt-hour of electricity from a solar-power system, depending on where the system is located and the level of incentives offered. By contrast, generating electricity from coal or natural gas costs between 2 and 10 cents a kilowatt-hour, depending on the fuel and age of the power plant, while utility power in the U.S. averages about 8.9 cents, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Inefficient: Yes The problem with thin film is its efficiency. First Solar's panels, made from cadmium telluride, convert 10.5% of the sunlight they receive into electricity, while San Jose, Calif.-based Nanosolar Inc. makes thin-film panels from copper indium gallium selenide, or CIGS, that are 14% efficient. That's still below the 19% efficiency of silicon panels made by Sunpower Corp. of San Jose. In addition, CIGS makers have yet to figure out how to produce their more efficient thin-film panels on a large commercial scale at a competitive cost.

To: bentway who wrote (616815)	6/21/2011 12:36:41 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577188

More Bad News for the Chevy Volt National Legal & Policy Center ^ \| June 21, 2011 \| Mark Modica nlpc.org As General Motors gambles on ramping up production of the Chevy Volt, a couple of new reports point to headwinds for demand of electric hybrid vehicles, like the Volt. A new British study disputes the perception of eco-friendliness of electric vehicles. The study takes into consideration driving, manufacturing and disposal and undermines the case being made for a rapid introduction of electric vehicles as a means to address environmental concerns. According to a piece posted on theaustralian.com, "emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed." The bottom line seems to be that vehicles like the Chevy Volt are not as green as perceived to be. Another recent report published by the Reuters news agency reveals that the consulting group, Boston Consulting, lowered its estimate for electric vehicle market share. Coincidentally, the Boston Consulting Group was the firm hired by our government back in 2009 to advise on the GM and Chrysler bailouts. Bloomberg.com reported at the time that the consulting group was paid $7 million by the Treasury Dept. Boston Consulting Group now claims that electric vehicle market share may only be 5% or less by 2020. The report also points to the risks for car companies betting big on electric cars, like GM has done with the Volt. Regarding the risks, Xavier Mosquet, the global head of the group's autos practice states, "If I'm one among many, it's a nightmare. If you're the fourth or the fifth in the series, really you spend a lot of money and you don't get anything." The logic of this statement is hard to ignore given the fact that GM and taxpayers are losing money on the Chevy Volt gamble. The wisdom of producing money losing electric vehicles that seem to offer little benefits to the environment should be further questioned. Particularly when taxpayers are subsidizing cars like the Chevy Volt with a $7,500 tax credit. At a time when Democrats are calling for the wealthy to pay a higher share of taxes to address a growing budget deficit, why are buyers of cars that cost over $40,000 (seemingly with little or no benefit to the environment) receiving subsidies? The case is even worse for Tesla's electric car, which costs over $100,000 and also qualifies for the $7,500 tax credit. It is not the average working class American buying cars like this, why should they be the ones subsidizing the purchases? While debating the perceived benefits and value of the Chevy Volt may not be politically correct, it is nonetheless a debate worthy of having.