SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : The Solyndra Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: chartseer who wrote (20)9/29/2011 2:57:39 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1400
 
So, How About Those White House Solar Panels?
................................................................................................................
6/21/2011 | Katie Pavlich
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/06/21/so,_how_about_those_white_house_solar_panels#

Mr Solarman

Obama admires solar panels during a trip to Florida.

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: chartseer who wrote (20)9/29/2011 5:16:22 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1400
 
Endangered Desert Tortoise Must Flee the Advance of Solar


solar.calfinder.com

Our first Solar Refugee? That’s what it looks like for tortoises residing on a 3,700-acre stretch of land in California’s Mojave Desert. The bulldozers are coming once again to stamp down the bare-earth footprint of mankind. But this time it’s not the trees they’re after, nor the oil; it’s the sunlight.

The Ivanpah Solar Energy Generating System will be located on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Technically the acreage in question is not protected as critical habitat for the tortoises, although it has been confirmed that some of the creatures do live there. Before construction (or destruction) on the land begins, California’s state reptiles will be moved to surrounding areas that are still protected. Sounds good…

But some environmentalists are arguing for some reparations for the tortoises. First there is the issue of translocating. A recent op-ed in the San Bernardino Sun implied a high risk of mortality in moving desert tortoise populations. Secondly, protected or not, you are removing nearly 4,000 acres of habitable land from the tortoises. Solar Partners, the subsidiary of BrightSource Energy that will construct the solar plant, is offering a 1:1 compensation. That is for every acre of habitat destroyed, they will acquire one acre of land as future habitat.

Again, it sounds pretty fair, but the issue gets more complex. The Ivanpah region is considered valuable habitat, or prime real estate, for the desert tortoise. So if the proposed replacement habitat does not meet equal standards of living, should not the ratio of compensation to eradication be higher? In his op-ed, Professor G. Sidney Silliman of Cal Poly Ponoma suggests a ratio of 5:1.

While the desert tortoise is endangered, and so gets the most attention, there is a wealth of other creatures and plant life that will be affected by erasing 3,700 acres of desert landscape. Proponents claim that precautions will be taken (i.e., moving the tortoises) and that there is plenty of land in the deserts of the Southwest. But with over hundreds of thousands of acres up for lease by solar companies in the area, these first few California power plants are just the start.

It would be easier to take the stance that Big Solar and the California leaders are claiming, that there’s no time for dilly-dallying, we need solar NOW, as if there weren’t oodles of available rooftops and urban spaces for solar power plants available that would have minimal impact on the environment and avoid a host of other issues; lack of available transmission infrastructure being just one.

When we first discovered oil, it too was considered an unending resource. We just ran out there and started drilling holes all over the place without much thought for longevity or the environment. We have now seen the repercussions of that mentality. Solar power may be a more definite renewable resource, but that is no reason to chase fortune without temperance. The environmental controversy behind proposed desert solar power plants does not start and stop with the desert tortoise either.

Posted on December 29th in Solar Politics by Dan.

Related Posts

7 Responses to “Endangered Desert Tortoise Must Flee the Advance of Solar” Total Solar Energy Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 1:45 pm We must do all we can to protect the natural habitat when building these large solar arrays. However, there is also a balance to achieve here. If we thought too much about things like this, we’d still be living in caves.

Jesse Hunter Says:
February 8th, 2009 at 11:30 pm TSE,
It’s kind of funny that you posed thinking too much onto the caveman…
However, those who have the talent and inclination should be employed to thoroughly think about energy, industrialization, population, biosphere issues.

I’m arguing on another blog against $50 billion in loan guarantees for new nukes.

Enriching Sacrifices

I agree that the first steps don’t require Mega Solar-
building weatherization; appliance/lighting upgrades, passive house design; ground-source heat pumps; roads-to-rail; biking; reducing meat intake to healthier levels or going veggie/ vegan; victory/community gardens, tele-commuting for those who can; localized solar PV & hot water on homes & businesses; large PV on commercial structures, parking lots; TRANSITION TOWNS; utility scale Wind, Solar, Geothermal also have their place;

I love the SW deserts and have camped for many a night in them. My hope is that after we build these two mega Solar projects the arguments of funding new nukes will be finished, and of funding oil wars. We shouldn’t say that if one loves the tortoise one favors spreading DU across Iraq to poison generations of living things forever, but we have done that for energy.

I support those who oppose mega solar projects in their area or even in principal only. But if they oppose it with more energy than they do an oil war, a new nuke, mountaintop removal, and yet still use power, drive, eat non-home growns, I’d be less convinced. And while one hundred, two hundred or more miles is not local power, it is far more local than Saudi Arabian oil, Nigerian LNG, or Australian uranium.

We are definitely in a tough spot. I hope we can aim to choose the most enriching sacrifices.

claudia sall Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 2:02 pm let’s remind folks to look at the blm map of the california desert: it’s ALL of southern california. desert residents are being asked to sacrifice their quality of life while the urban centers won’t put these arrays in their own yards. the only reason there is this huge propaganda directed at politicians and legislators to industrialize the desert is because of dollars: the blm land out here is almost free to use. if they built where the sun also shines in la, long beach, san diego etc, the land would have to be purchased. so is this about all the renewable energy zones in the california desert, or free land for corporations. i for one have had enough of enron-type corporate welfare.

EnergyRevolution Says:
August 20th, 2009 at 5:36 am How many men and maritime animals the Oilmadness costs their live, nobody asks that question?

Look at these pictures and remember them the next time you’re at the pump!

http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/_/images11/insanity/remains_of_us_soldier.jpe

http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/_/images11/us_invasion_2007/burnt_body.jpe

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8208735.stm

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aopISlYo9TyE

You worry about the desert tortoise and mojave ground squirrel which will have 95% of desert remaining after all the energy is supplied by solar thermal power plants in the south west …

Sorry but it is only a matter of time until the broad public understands thatconcentrated solar thermal power plants and a high voltage dc transmission grid are the gentlest and in the long run cheapes way to provide our sociey with clean energy !!!

The ridiculously high cost of nuclear power

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/07/15/the_ridiculously_high_cost_of_nuclear_power/index.html

To date, parabolic trough technology provides the best performance and lowest cost of all types of solar power plants.

Since the first 14 MW trough plant was installed in California in the early 1980s, generating costs have dropped from 45 cents/kWh (in 2005 dollars) to 9–12 cents/kWh (competitive with peak power). Costs are expected to drop to 4–7 cents/kWh by 2020.

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/american_energy_pg30_desertsolar.pdf

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aopISlYo9TyE

Change this planet and unleash the Solar Millennium!!!

When Green Goals collide « The moon in daylight Says:
March 5th, 2010 at 3:36 pm [...] wild hogs?! Next time someone wants to build one of these things I hope they find a snail darter, desert tortoise or spotted owl. William Tucker, in The Unbearable Lightness of Solar Power at The Corner, writes: [...]

randy Says:
August 27th, 2010 at 11:58 am I hear about all the flack about these animals that can be moved,What about cleaner air for these animals?And for our children,I just cant believe the ignorance of some people!I see the pollution in the sky of Las vegas,and other cities.If our air isnt cleaned up we wont have to worry about the tortises because we are going to all die of Asthma or cancer!

Southern California Desert: Solar Central | Green Energy Global - Daily Green Energy News Says:
July 24th, 2011 at 8:52 am [...] There also are environmental concerns with projects this big, including the existence of endangered species. In this case, the solar operators will have to relocate native desert tortoises. [...]




    To: chartseer who wrote (20)9/30/2011 2:04:42 PM
    From: joseffy  Respond to of 1400
     
    [Fall guy] Chu takes responsibility for a loan deal that put more taxpayer money at risk in Solyndra

    .........................................................................................................
    By Carol D. Leonnig and and Joe Stephens 9/29.2011,
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/chu-takes-responsibility-for-a-loan-deal-that-put-more-taxpayer-money-at-risk-in-solyndra/2011/09/29/gIQArdYQ8K_story.html?hpid=z1

    Energy Secretary Steven Chu acknowledged Thursday making the final decision to allow a struggling solar company to continue receiving taxpayer money after it had technically defaulted on a $535 million federal loan guaranteed by his agency.

    Chu spokesman Damien La­Vera said in a statement that the secretary approved the restructuring agreement for Solyndra because it gave the company “the best possible chance to succeed in a very competitive marketplace and put the company in a better position to repay the loan.”

    The collapse of California solar panel manufacturer Solyndra raises new questions about President Obama's push for alternative energy — and whether White House pressure played a role in a loan guarantee that has taxpayers on the hook for millions. (Sept. 16)

    Also Thursday, a law enforcement official confirmed that the criminal probe of Solyndra is focused on whether the company and its officers misrepresented the firm’s finances to the government in seeking the loan or engaged in accounting fraud. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe.

    On the political front, Chu’s admission came as some members of Congress were asking whether Chu went too far in trying to help the company before it went into bankruptcy, leaving taxpayers on the hook for the loan.

    Chu, a Nobel laureate and physicist who came to the administration from academia, arrived in Washington with a mandate to push billions of dollars in stimulus funds into clean-energy companies and projects. With keen White House interest, Chu rode herd over an $80 billion showcase initiative that was supposed to spur a new “green” industry and economic growth.

    Solyndra was the first company approved for a loan guarantee under the Obama administration; its application originated several years earlier during George W. Bush’s presidency. Early on, there were concerns about Solyndra’s finances, but the company was still endorsed by President Obama and received high-profile support from Chu. Both visited the firm at different press events. Chu flew to California to announce the loan approval at the groundbreaking for a $750 million factory that was built mostly with funds from the loan.

    In announcing the Solyndra deal in March 2009, Chu boasted of the “speed at which the department can operate,” according to an agency news release.

    “Secretary Chu initially set a target to have the first conditional commitments out by May .?.?. but today’s announcement significantly outpaces that aggressive timeline,” the release said.

    In April 2010, the company’s auditors raised doubts about whether the company could continue as a “going concern” because of cash-flow problems. The following month, Obama visited the company to praise it as an “engine of growth.”

    In late autumn of 2010, company executives confided to the Energy Department that they were running out of cash and could not make a required payment to a cash-reserve account. The company was supposed to begin making the first of $5 million payments to create a $30 million cash reserve on Dec. 1.

    Solyndra officially defaulted on its loan that day. Chu approved a softening of the loan requirements so that the company could continue receiving loan installments.

    “Ultimately, the choice was between imminent liquidation or giving the company and its workers a fighting chance to succeed,” LaVera said in the statement, first reported by Politico.