President Barack Obama signs the economic-stimulus bill in Denver today at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, as Vice President Joe Biden looks on. (The Denver Post | Craig F. Walker)
Saturday Night Live spoof of Obama and Biden
Is solar energy cost effective? That’s the question that struck me when I found a few articles relating to a showcase solar effort in Denver, Colorado. Here’s the source articles:
- Obama: We are remaking the American landscape, Denver Post, February 17,2009:
President Obama signed the The American Investment and Recovery Act in Denver and spoke at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. He and VP Biden toured the rooftop solar installation on top of the museum with Blake Jones, chief executive of Namaste Solar, the company who installed the system. Nice PR opportunity for obligating the country to massive amounts of debt and highlighted the role that alternative energy will play.
Obama and Biden walk with Blake Jones, chief executive of Namaste Solar, whose company installed 18 rows of solar panels on the roof of the museum. (Darin McGregor/Pool)
- HEG makes solar energy viable for nonprofits, Denver Business Journal, June 27, 2008:
Hybrid Energy Group LLC (HEG) provided the financing for the installation of these solar panels at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. Unlike Namaste Solar, who installed the solar panel system and seems to be a real company, HEG appears to be not much more than a shell. With a 5 page website which I could put together in a couple hours or less (at least an hour to get a domain name, pick a template, choose colors, etc.), they seem to me a company created solely to get in front of the huge wave of “green energy” funds that will be coming from our government (uh, I mean our taxes!).
Strikes me as kind of odd that the only project they have on their website as of this writing (April 23, 2009) is the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. It concerns me a bit that our tax dollars are funding projects funded by a company with no track record. I do think entreprenurial companies should certainly play a role in changing our energy landscape, it just seems odd that a player with a track record of ONE got this much attention from the Obama administration. A great PR coup, to say the least.
But here’s an interesting quote from Dave Noel, vice president of operations and chief technology officer for the museum:
“We looked at first installing it ourselves, and without any of the incentive programs, it was a 110-year payout,” he said. “The [museum's] board was supportive of the program, but said it had to make sense financially.”
Yikes! Solar panels only last 20-25 years, that is if they don’t become technologically obsolete before then. Please don’t tell me our tax dollars are funding “green energy solutions” that will only last 25 years at best and only make real financial sense on a timeframe of over 100 years.
- ELECTRIC BILLS NOT ON EXHIBIT AT DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE AND SCIENCE, Todd Sheppard of the Independence Institute, undated.
This is the only article I can find that asks the tough questions about the solar project at the Denver Museum of Science and Nature.
If you can find any other information on this project please let me know.
I will also be doing my own independent research on this topic, and one of my main concerns is the financial viability and true lifespan of renewable energy systems. We’ve heard from the greens that renewable energy is “free”, but this project shows that there is a real cost, and much of it apparently funded by tax payers.
It is understood that solar technology is not yet commercially viable on a large scale. This museum is a good example of exactly that.
However, this is precisely WHY the Obama administration has committed resources to its development.
Not to say that solar is (or isn’t) a good bet going forward. That’s above my pay grade. Just that it doesn’t make sense to dismiss a commercialization strategy based on the current upside-down economics.
http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/
Great point, and I certainly understand we need pilot projects to get things up and running. But a couple things concern me:
1. This was played up by the Obama adminstration (who I voted for). You’d think they could find a project that was actually doing a bit better.
2. The museum estimated a 110 year payback on a system that might last 25 years. If I told a client that the computer they were buying would reach break-even in 25 years but that it would be pretty much junk in 10 years, they’d throw me out of their office.
3. What about the intermittent nature of solar (and also wind)? We still need traditional power generation for the base load. So what does this “showcase” system really accomplish?
I share your concerns #2 and #3. I get the feeling that solar panels are much further from commercial viability than we’d like to believe. All in all, though, I do think it is the right course for the US to throw a bunch of hopefully well-thought-out darts at the alternative energy board. We will not be a petroleum-based world in 100 or 200 or 500 years, and I’d love for the US to commit itself to becoming the post-petroleum Saudi Arabia!
I am less concerned about #1, though. Not brilliant maybe, but, hey, politicians will be politicians *lol*.
Have a good one! Thanks for taking the time here.
http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/
I appreciate your comments as well. Having a real dialog and getting the facts so we can all make informed decisions is my primary goal.
While solar looks the most promising among the “renewables” including solar, wind, and biofuels, solar needs some help (cost effectiveness, storage when it isn’t sunny). But we need real breakthroughs in R&D if we’re ever going to wean ourselves off of oil (which I most certainly think we should do).
For some promising new technology in the pipeline, read about Daniel Nocera’s research here:
http://co2realist.com/2009/04/14/mits-daniel-nocera/
I’d love to see our taxes fund real research like this. Think of the application of solar, on a distributed level (on each home or buisness), each operating independently, rather than massive solar projects with the associated hugely envionmental impactful transmission lines and the loss of power through distribution. Not to mention that with large solar farms we’ll transition from one oligarchy to another (fossil fuel vs. renewables).
What we really need is more hardcore research and the funding to go with it.
Thanks for commenting, and I’ll wander over and take a look at your blog as well.