Memo to Fox News: If you are concerned about your credibility going in the dumper, maybe you should review items like this.
Fox News claimed that the future of solar power in the U.S. is “dim” because we have less sunlight than countries like Germany, the current world leader in solar generation. But Fox completely reversed the facts: the U.S. receives far more direct sunlight, but has been outperformed due to Germany’s superior solar policies.
On Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed that the U.S. solar “industry’s future looks dim.” The show brought on Fox Business reporter Shibani Joshi, who said that Germany’s solar industry is doing “great” because “they’ve got a lot more sun than we do,” before adding, “In California, it’s a great solution, but here on the East Coast it’s just not going to work.”
The U.S. is lagging behind Germany in solar power generation, but it doesn’t have anything to do with our solar potential. In fact, the Southwest has “among the best photovoltaic resources in the world,” according to a report by GTM Research. And even the East Coast states have greater solar potential than Germany, as illustrated by this map from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory:
Just for reference, Germany is at approximately the same latitude as Newfoundland.
Well, one of Warren Buffett’s companies is investing in solar. Mind you the link to the Warren Buffett article below is mostly just a set up to sell investors a 10 dollar report on First Solar (FSLR), but it’s a tad bit informative.
http://www.insidermonkey.com//blog/buffett-goes-green-and-so-should-you-sunpower-corporation-spwr-first-solar-inc-fslr-46023/
——————————————————————————————————-
And did I already post this?
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/first-solar-sells-solar-power-cheaper-than-coal/3050
Maybe I did a day or two ago? I can’t remember. Maybe I just posted on Facebook… Anyway, First Solar is selling energy cheaper than coal can:
“El Paso Electric Co. (NYSE: EE) has agreed to buy electricity produced at First Solar Inc.’s (NASDAQ: FSLR) Macho Springs project in New Mexico for 5.79 cents/kilowatt-hour.
The price is a good bit less than 12.8 cents/kilowatt-hour, which (per Bloomberg analyses) is the average cost for power from new coal plants.
The Macho Springs project has a power capacity of 50 MW and was developed by Element Power Solar. First Solar subsequently bought the project, which is due for completion next year and accounts for about 400 construction jobs while covering 18,000 households’ power needs.
It’s expected that First Solar will benefit from numerous federal and state incentives in the deal.”
Note the amusing qualifier: power to the grid. How much of the solar off individual rooftops, for example, would be excluded from this discussion.
And, as to “according to her research”, the Energy Information Administration’s number is that somewhat more than 0.2% of the electricity generation came from solar in 2012. (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/renew_co2.cfm) That is, of course, only twice the level that Fox’s excellent research states.
Germany is building dirty and dangerous lignite plants to replace their safe and clean nuclear plants. Anyone that thinks the German energy policy is a good idea is in a serious case of denial. The sick part is that they are advertising their new lignite plats as enablers for unreliable (aka. intermittent) wind and solar, thanks to their ability to ramp 50% of capacity within 15 minutes (that would be 50 to 100%, NOT 0 to 50%).
Germany is the perfect proof that anti-nukes are just as dangerous for the climate as climate deniers.
The situation in Germany is actually a little complex – though that’s not the same thing as an endorsement you understand.
Germany is building a new generation of fossil fuelled plant, that much is true. But it contains a mix of gas and coal, not just coal as some reports from the not entirely reliable ends of the press spectrum have insinuated (by somehow constantly forgetting to mention the gas tut tut.)
Loosely speaking their plan is to push hard on renewables, with fossil fuels making up the difference, especially in winter when Germany is cold and energy use is highest.
So while CO2 emissions will be relatively higher in winter, but the net effect will be less CO2 over the whole year.
Whether that’s better than renewables + nuclear is perhaps up for debate, but Germany is a big, advanced democratic economy with a legal commitment to ambitious cuts in CO2 emissions and they seem to have come to the conclusion that Nuclear isn’t going to be a big part of their mix.
Dear Einar Fredriksen, I agree with you that the ideologically-driven opposition to nuclear energy is as bad as ideologically-driven denial of climate science. However, I am afraid that this post (and/or this entire blog) may not be the best place to seek to have that particular argument.
The most relevant aspects of German and US Energy policies, which is what we should be discussing here, is: How does the amount of public money being invested in kick-starting renewable energy compare with that being wasted on tax breaks given to chase after unconventional fossil fuels?
This is bollocks ofcourse. The nukes were suddenly shutdown in 2011 only a few months after been given life extensions, every coal plant that comes online now or in the coming few years has already long been in the planning stage before the sudden shutdown. These new plant’s are simply built to replace older less efficient/flexible coal plants.
Wind and solar are actually more reliable then traditional plants as the availability factor is in the high-90% (when the sub is shining or the wind is blowing then the turbine or PV-installation will produce power more then 90% of the time which is higher then the availability factor of traditional power plants) but the power they generate is indeed more intermittent (but predictable).
I agree that shutting down the nukes prematurely is bad for climate, however there are more factors that play a role in such decisions. A higher then anticipated risk of contaminating a large portion of your country sure is one of them.
The talking heads guarding the inhabitants of Bullsh*t Mountain from rejoining the world of the sane only serve their own warped ideology. Fox News is a propaganda machine which dumbs down America by the day through disinformation and their slanted agendas. See their anchors spewing forth feces from their mouths in my visual homage to the network on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-fox-news-scylla-guardian-of-bullsht.html
One thing. Most of the money spent by govenment is payed to german small companies and private house owners. Circular economy
And that’s a good thing for a fledgling industry and in uncertain economic times.
These are policies the Sunny Southwest should adopt pronto.
Wow.
Just ..
… Wow.
It takes *how* little knowledge of world geography and *how* little thought to show that obviously ridiculous claim is ridiculous – and still they made it!?
Talk about showing contempt for the intelligence of your audience!
(Not to mention your own self respect.)
Off topic:
Investor and author of financial advice posted an idea about buying some derivative tied to gas prices if the price got low enough. He would then sell off part of his holding every year to pay for his gas in the real world as the price went up. He was willing to buy $35,000 in gas! He had the whole thing worked out where he would take out a line of credit to pay for the derivative gas, etc…
I posed the question to him in the comments section: If you’re willing to buy 35K in gas, wouldn’t it just be easier to buy a Leaf or Volt?
For my part, to hedge against the rise cost of gas, I bought a 350 dollar bike that folds up in the trunk of my car. I take it to the post office, grocery shopping, the video store, the bank, the park, etc… Works better than a 35K hedge against an uncertain market.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1171021-sick-of-high-gas-prices-hedging-strategies-for-your-everyday-costs