The Spectacle Blog
So Long, Solar
Oh, the glory days of almost a month ago, when advocates promoted the promise of solar energy in the United States.
Oh, the glory days of almost a month ago, when advocates promoted the promise of solar energy in the United States. As one industry publication reported:
Of all the reasons that solar energy is capturing record levels of investment and spurring frenetic activity, its tremendous potential, laid out by Dan Cunningham of BP Solar (Frederick, MD), is the primary driver for the market. Participating in the Chemical Development & Marketing Assn.’s (CDMA) “Opportunities for Chemicals and Materials: Capitalizing on Wind and Solar” conference held last December at the University of Pennsylvania’s chemistry department, Cunningham addressed a crowd that included the biggest names in plastics supply—BASF, Bayer MaterialScience, Dow, and DuPont to name a few—all of which appreciate the extraordinary opportunity the burgeoning solar energy sector holds for plastics.
As impressive as the current boom is, Mike Eckhart, president of ACORE (American Council of Renewable Energy), forecasted an even brighter future for solar at the same CDMA event, particularly for the United States, which has only recently thrown the full weight of government subsidies and tax benefits behind the technology. “My prediction is in two years, solar will really take off,” Eckhart said. Admitting that the U.S. is the “laggard” in solar, Eckhart said he believes the country will catch up to the current market leader, Germany, which had 2000 MW of new solar capacity installed in 2009.
Fast-forward to a report in today’s Washington Post:
BP will close its solar-panel manufacturing plant in Frederick, the final step in moving its solar business out of the United States to facilities in China, India and other countries.
Just 3 1/2 years ago, in an announcement widely hailed by Maryland officials and promoters of “green jobs,” BP unveiled a $70 million plan to double output at the facility and erected a building to house the production lines.
But on Friday the company said it would lay off 320 workers and keep only a hundred people involved in research, sales and project development. BP said laid-off employees would receive full pay and benefits for three months, followed by severance packages and job-placement assistance. The company, unable to sell or lease the building, will tear it down.
“We remain absolutely committed to solar,” BP chief executive Tony Hayward said in an interview Friday. But he said BP was “moving to where we can manufacture cheaply.”
As usual, the charlatan promoters of unreliable, inefficient and costly energy projects once again show the success of their “green jobs” initiatives, driving employment to India and China.
View all comments (32) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by Paul Chesser
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/03/27/so-long-solar
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 3.27.10 @ 9:32AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : So Long, Solar [spectat links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bob| 3.27.10 @ 10:06AM
Chesser, are you so blinded by your hate for anything Obama that you can't objectively evaluate this action? The problem is not with solar, but with the U.S. being uncompetitive in manufacturing because we can't afford to compete with countries who pay people $5 per day. None of the analyses done by economists promoting green jobs includes significant manufacturing facilities. But you will notice that the high paid jobs, research and management, remain in the U.S. Cheaper products will promote the sales and installation of solar products in the U.S. -- and the jobs created in this segment must be located in the U.S. (You forgot about that, didn't you?).
Furthermore, the future of solar is in thin film products, not the current, and expensive, solar panels. It certainly won't be economical in the short term, but longer term the intellectual property rights will allow significant profits to be made -- thereby helping our economy and creating the sales, research, and installation jobs that must be located here.
That's not to say, from a macroeconomics viewpoint that solar should be at the top of the list -- it shouldn't -- but to so degrade it as a future option is simply dumb.
What you show here is why right wing extremists like you are hurting the Republican party -- you make irresponsible comments associating the as political, and not economic, problems. What would be more helpful for Republicans is to provide a comprehensive energy strategy beyond "Drill, Baby, Drill". That should include a strong nuclear strategy and a heavier emphasis on research rather than implementation.
So, Paul, it would be nice if Republicans actually grew up instead of throwing schoolyard slurs and be the adults in this political game. You should be more concerned with the future of this country than berating your competition.
Nick| 3.27.10 @ 10:20AM
Pay no attention to 3/5 Bob's comments, folks.
For those who don't know, he is known as 3/5 Bob, because until last June, he thought that blacks had 3/5 of a vote, under the original U.S. Constitution.
He also doesn't know the scientific fact of when human biological life begins because he is unsure of when "ensoulment" happens.
He also claimed he translated the Bible from the original Aramaic when he was a teenager.
He is a pseudo-intellectual and an anti-Christian bigot.
Don't waste your time arguing with him.
Bob| 3.27.10 @ 11:42AM
1/5 Nick....
Doesn't know the Constitution....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....compromise
Doesn't understand science....
Doesn't know anything about Biblical Aramaic....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Aramaic
Doesn't know enough to make any relevant comments.....
Talk about wasting time?????
Hmmm....
I welcome Nick's remarks -- it shows the utter stupidity of what is left of the once great Republican party (that is to anyone who has any intelligence). What I especially like is that it frames my arguments that Republicans have become the arm of white, Christian fundamentalists and is no longer the party of fiscal conservatism. I thank Nick for pointing this out.
Truth to Power| 3.27.10 @ 12:25PM
Continuing to blow money (40+ years of government subsidies) on a technology that is always right around the corner is hardly a sign of fiscal conservatism. Solar has always been a leftist fantasy and continues to be.
The fractional one already admitted he didn't know what he was talking about with respect to his Aramaic claims yet he still puts the wiki site that illustrates that fact. Not too bright. Nick has it right here.
I have read his original comments on the 3/5 compromise and he didn't know what he writing about. Nick is right on this as well. All the fractional one did was repeat the stupid leftist take on the subject.
On science 3/5 has certainly been guilty of writing a bunch of mindless mumbo jumbo. Everything he writes has a wiki smell to it but slightly screwed up. I am betting we are dealing with a not to bright guy who thinks that a shallow web search and a sprinkling of buzz words will make him sound intelligent. It is not working.
Bob| 3.27.10 @ 12:32PM
Since "truth" knows so little about fiscal conservatism, it quite hilarious to hear from him. My Aramaic claims stand as that is what I was taught as a child by my rabbi. The 3/5th comment was certainly taken out of context, but that's what I expect from religious extremists.
Still, no one has provided any data that conflicts with what I've presented. "Truth (Lies)" and Nick simply want to utilize personal attacks since they have nothing to back them up. I doubt whether either of them graduated from high school. So, truth, do you still believe the earth is flat and the world was created in 6 days and is only 6,000 years old? How was your last ride on a dinosaur?
Nick| 3.27.10 @ 1:41PM
3/5 Bob is a Molech worshiping "progressive."
Nick| 3.27.10 @ 1:52PM
3/5 Bob,
Did you foget that TAS has a search engine?
Here are the relevant quotes, at length:
"Bob| 6.13.09 @ 11:30AM
Baker, you are right. The nature of human behavior hasn't changed. Let's bring back slavery and take the vote away from women. After all, women should be barefoot and pregnant, right? These things are, indeed, self-evident. I especially want to bring back the provision that gives blacks only 3/5ths of a vote. That will reduce the impact of minorities on Republican success."
Mr. Baker responded to your stupidity:
"Richard Baker| 6.13.09 @ 5:25PM
Bob:
If you don't know why 3/5 is in the Constitution. please don't embarrass yourself."
You countered with more ignorance and inanity, Bob:
"Bob| 6.13.09 @ 6:20PM
Richard -- so you think it was right to count slaves as 3/5th even if it was for apportionment purposes? How can you justify that under ANY circumstances? Do you have any morality?"
Here is the link to this thread:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....et-serious
You were not quoted out of context, you are a constitutional illiterate.
Truth to Power| 3.27.10 @ 2:51PM
Just like Bob to blame his rabbi for his mistake with regard to Aramaic being the original language of the Pentateuch. Its not. It was part of a story to make himself look smart. He was shown to be a fool. The original story had a ten year old (young 3/5) translating a religious book into English from a mysterious language. Bob got the language screwed up as he usually does if you check his details. Now we have a rabbi introduced into the story to explain Bob not knowing something pretty basic for a Pentateuch expert.
The 3/5 remark is one that I have heard a hundred times from dumb liberals which is what I think Bob is. I never gave it a religious context but was amazed that I learned this in high school and alleged Harvard grad Bob didn't. Bob constantly tells how smart he is and it is fun to stick a pin in that balloon.
These are personal attacks in the sense that Bob claims to be an authority and Nick and others (T to P included) have made it clear that he shouldn't be trusted by anyone. He is an Obama troll who can't be very bright. I like how a discussion of any topic allows the free thinking troll to go off on Christians. Why does Bob hate Christians?
Nick| 3.27.10 @ 2:54PM
Truth to Power,
Are you the one who gave 3/5 Bob his "3/5" moniker?
I keep trying to remember, so that I may give proper attribution.
Truth to Power| 3.27.10 @ 3:05PM
Yes but I wasn't following the conversation at the time when he made the original remark. As you showed it was Richard Baker who schooled him. I wanted to give him a title that would remind many of what a fool he is. Since that time he never disappoints to show that he is not that bright.
Nick| 3.27.10 @ 3:11PM
Truth to Power,
Well, as you have seen, I love it!
And, he will always be "3/5 Bob" to me.
Thanks for this great gift you have given all of us here at TAS!
Truth to Power| 3.27.10 @ 2:52PM
Make that 30+ years of subsidies. I don't want to look any worse than it is.
Chris| 3.27.10 @ 12:02PM
Bob, BP will eventually ship development to India where it is cheaper as well. Also, China, India, and S. Korea are notorious for stealing intellectual property. IP is not the foundation for an economy if you can't produce it yourself.
Bob| 3.27.10 @ 12:26PM
Chris, I doubt that BP will ship development to India because of tax breaks, patents, availability of researchers, creativity, and their political need for locating in the U.S. On the subject of IP, since most of the consumption of solar technology will be in the U.S. or countries with reciprocal IP agreements, IP will have a significant impact on corporate margins. Production has virtually nothing to do with IP.
Thom| 3.28.10 @ 4:52PM
Bob said, "The problem is not with solar, but with the U.S. being uncompetitive in manufacturing because we can't afford to compete with countries who pay people $5 per day"
This is the same man that said we can't compete in the world because of our Health Care cost and needed to cut it in half. The typical UAW Health Care plan cost about $6.00 an hour and their wages are another $28.00 on top of that. By the time you roll up all the benefits and salary they are over $70.00 an hour. Seems to me, since Spain has invested heavily in Wind (both the manufacturer of and installed infrastructure), suffered a net job loss with something that produces energy most of the time if properly placed and given what the average manufacturing job pays in this country, cutting our pay scales in half won’t even be a good start against $5.00 a day wages so the rational for cutting our Health Care cost in half seems a bit lame by comparison if the goal here is to compete with people making $5.00 a day (which is more myth than reality in practice).
Thom| 3.28.10 @ 5:03PM
On top of this, Solar only produces energy when the sun shines, there is enough direct bearing to overcome the loss when the sun in low on the horizon and is even more land intensive than wind. As far as intellectual property income, you got to be kidding Bob. In Asia where clones will go up before the first installation here. Those same $5.00 a day laborers have shown a consistent habit of not being able to afford our intellectual property fee so just who do you expect to pay for all this?
Jeff Perren | 3.27.10 @ 11:04AM
Unfortunately, whatever the fate of cap and trade legislation, the Federal attempt to control energy even further is alive and kicking.
Obama is already meeting with legislators on the issue. I wrote on March 15th:
Unswayed by... well, by anything really, Obama is pressing forward on the next phase of enslaving the country. Even before the ink has been applied to the so-called health care reform bill, the Administration is gearing up for environmental legislation that will make that debacle look like the Bill of Rights.
Not dead, just plotting quietly.
Pete| 3.27.10 @ 12:31PM
I am really enjoying the solar ads on my sports radio station these days. They begin by saying how affordable it now is for everyone, and go on to wishfully say how wonderful it would be if we got 1/3 of people in the state to convert. They say there are no up front costs (brutal subsidies, no doubt), start "saving" right away. But then, right at the end, kind of like fine print, you hear "20yr commitment required." What a joke.
Marc Jeric| 3.27.10 @ 2:10PM
All of these discussions about solar power are beyond the point. Seems I am the only one here who actually designed solar power heating systems and power plants; cost-wise these are only for the very rich, and I mean VERY RICH. The cost of solar power, when it is available which is only a third of time, is at best 25 cents/kw-hr; coal and nuclear - 8 cents/kwhr. The solar water- heating panels need daily maintenance to remove dust and take about 12 years to recover the energy spent in manufacturing them (steel, copper, glass, carbon black, etc.); they also need a pump with an electric motor to move the hot water around. Solar panels concentrate solar rays which burn the overflying birds to a crisp, also kill everything in their shade on and in the ground. It is all an eco-nazi pipe dream. As for my professional recommendation for heating San Francisco: better and cheaper to rely on mass masturbation.
Nick| 3.27.10 @ 2:36PM
Mr. Jeric,
My dad designed and installed a solar hot water system, in the late 70's, for a customer who wanted to be completely off the grid. In case Carter totally crashed the system.
The whole system, which included ripping out radiators, new heatpump, ductwork, air-handler, solar coils, boiler, and piping; cost over $25,ooo! Back in 1978!
The customer was going to get a windmill, too, but he got divorced and had to sell the house!
The guy who bought the house, couldn't find anybody who could figure out how to work on the system, so he RIPPED IT OUT!
My dad learned the hard way that people don't want to pay for "green" energy.
Pingback| 3.27.10 @ 2:55PM
So Long, Solar – Spectator.org | Wind and Solar Reviews links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 3.27.10 @ 3:34PM
Nick, Truth to Power and Chris: Best posts of the day!! I love it when Boring Bob is attacked here, if for no other reason than he's completely boring. As in, you're a bore, you bore me, now please go away. Bob's the number one reason why they invented the scroll function, so when you see his name, you can just scroll on by, and read Nick's post just below it (and it's always there). Bob, you suck, and everybody here knows it, and to make it that much worse, you're just friggin' boring!! Go buy yourself a sense of humor, and stop boring us to death. Leave leading the American People to death, to the Democrats, it appears to be their job anyway. Now Bob? Please leave my a boring response to this post, I'm sick, and I need to get back in bed and get some more sleep!! I'm relying on you, Always Boring Bob!!
Nick| 3.27.10 @ 6:23PM
Thanks for the compliment, LLL!
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 3.27.10 @ 9:02PM
Anytime Nick!! Never let up on 3/5th Boboring!! He's a joke, although I'm sure, it's not intentional!!
Larry| 3.28.10 @ 4:21AM
What Bob is saying here was, and is, one of the many reasons why solar is not and will not be a viable energy alternative. You forget, Bob, about all of the other problems of solar and why it is NOT anything more than a supplemental (as distinct from base) power source in the future. Way too much land is required, it is not a fully reliable source until such time as one of our genius scientists or engineers finds a way to store massive (and I mean massive) amounts of electricity - and we won't be able to generate massive amounts of electricity without a HUGE amount of land coverage, many times more acreage than your average power plant, gas, coal or nuclear. So stop saying Chesser is "blinded by hate." It's that mythical notion of "fairness" you've got going again.