[bratticus]

I selected "no"; mostly because I'm completely unimpressed by overt symbolism; and I'm pretty sure that the panels would be removed and discarded long before they could reach a positive return.

The original White House solar panels were re-deployed.

White House Solar Panels: What Ever Happened To Carter's Solar Thermal Water Heater? (link)

... In 1979, Jimmy Carter, in a forward-looking move, installed solar panels in the roof of the White House. This symbolic installation was taken down in 1986 during the Reagan presidency. In 1991, Unity College, an environmentally centered college in Maine acquired the panels and later installed them on their cafeteria. ...

[Pretorian]

Pretorian: Most solar panels installed today are grid-tied i.e. no batteries. Once installed they sit quietly doing their job and will probably still be doing so 40+ years from now. I don't understand your statement about pollution. How can burning coal when you don't have to be better?

First of all these 40+ years are nothing but wishfull thinking right now. Second, it is irrelevant how long this thing will work. And I will even leave out different toxins that are associated with the whole thing. When you paid $19700 ( along with the Fed and Maine) you hired people, you bought product. People who produce raw materials got paid, people who make things out of it got paid, people who assemble it get paid, people who peddle it to you got paid, people who install it got paid, different governments, drivers ets also got paid. What do you think they will do with the money? They will spend it. They will buy coffee, chocolate, extra housing, dinners, cloth, air tickets, hotel rooms in Mexico, prostitutes from Guatemala, tickets for some concerts, TVs, bread, furniture from the last hardwoods of South-East Asia, fertilizers and pesticides for their lawns, they will send some monies to starving advocates of the starving children in Africa, and so on and so forth. Some might even consider having kids . Prices will change slightly too, forcing others to pay more and encouraging further exploitation of nature.That all will require a lot of deforestation, pollution of all sorts and whatnot. How is all that not comparable to burning 172 tonnes of coal that you hope to prevent (assuming 100% of electricity in your state comes from coal) over the course of 40 years??? With solar panels you open pandora box with only 1 signature.

Furthermore, you mentioned that its a good investment for you. Godspeed, but what are you going to do with the savings? Something tells me it will have something to do with sex, drugs and rock-n-roll. Or at the very least with food, toys and travel. No matter what you will do with the money it will be causing pollution, even if you you'll be doing nothing at all, as you'll be sponsoring value of other people's money through inflation. It is virtually impossible or at the very least very hard to spend or even to have money without causing pollution.

[aflurry]

Pretorian, that last analysis was really weird to me.

OK, the people who installed the panels got paid for their time. But, if they weren't spending their time installing solar panels, they'd be getting paid for doing something else. So it's a wash.

They may be spending their pay on chocolate, cigarettes & whores. Or they may turn around and spend it on their own set of solar panels, just like the original person did. Especially after hearing about what a good investment it is from the buyer.

Likewise, the person who bought the original panels may just as likely take the good investment proceeds and further insulate their house or send it to an organization that promotes the education of women in underdeveloped countries, a policy which has been shown to significantly reduce birthrate.

None of the elements of your Pandora's box are the result of solar panels specifically, but of economic activity in general.

The only difference is that in once case you get a single working solar panel and in the other case you don't

Perhaps you are working off a generalized application of Jeavon's paradox where any alleviation resource demand from increased efficiency will lead to price reduction and then greater demand. But this is an exceedingly liberal application of Jeavon's original observation. Something that is very typical of this site.

Application of money in the correct way can reduce chaos, which reduces the frequency that long term benefit must be sacrificed for short term. It can be applied to education, which is inversely correlated with fertility, especially education of women. It can be applied to conservation efforts, which, contrary to most people's understanding on this board, is not subject to Jeavon's paradox, though it may be subject to many other difficulties.

[Pretorian]

Pretorian, that last analysis was really weird to me.

OK, the people who installed the panels got paid for their time. But, if they weren't spending their time installing solar panels, they'd be getting paid for doing something else. So it's a wash.

no, illogical wash is what you said. If they werent installing solar panels, they would be eating raw cock with no salt, or making somebody else eating it by outcompeting other people in other industries.

They may be spending their pay on chocolate, cigarettes & whores. Or they may turn around and spend it on their own set of solar panels, just like the original person did. Especially after hearing about what a good investment it is from the buyer.

and it will have absolutely same effect, great point.

Likewise, the person who bought the original panels may just as likely take the good investment proceeds and further insulate their house

and it will have absolutely same effect, great point

or send it to an organization that promotes the education of women in underdeveloped countries, a policy which has been shown to significantly reduce birthrate.

unless you talk about fertility education, i really see little point in that , but yes there are ways to spend money with a future pollution reduction, paying for abortions, sterilizations, instigating tribal and religious riots and warfare, ets.

None of the elements of your Pandora's box are the result of solar panels specifically, but of economic activity in general.

exactly so.

The only difference is that in once case you get a single working solar panel and in the other case you don't

i was talking about general pollution level, not about private belongings.

Perhaps you are working off a generalized application of Jeavon's paradox where any alleviation resource demand from increased efficiency will lead to price reduction and then greater demand. But this is an exceedingly liberal application of Jeavon's original observation. Something that is very typical of this site.
Application of money in the correct way can reduce chaos, which reduces the frequency that long term benefit must be sacrificed for short term. It can be applied to education, which is inversely correlated with fertility, especially education of women. It can be applied to conservation efforts, which, contrary to most people's understanding on this board, is not subject to Jeavon's paradox, though it may be subject to many other difficulties.

no i am just trying to apply a common sense here. You cannot benefit yourself in $ equivalent and reduce pollution simultaneously, unless you taking away these $ equivalents, or in another words ability to pollute , from other people.


PS Imagine that every household in the world got emission-free electricity for free, and businesses got it for 1/10th of what they pay now. Will it solve all problems? No, it will be the end of the world as we know it. I doubt it will take 100 years to saw off the last oak.

[AgentR]

Good to know about the Carter panels at least getting installed somewhere else... whether the move and install used more energy than the panels have produced is another question, but not really relevant.

The rest of the arguments here though, don't seem to be about the uniqueness of an installation on the White House; but rather, a general "is solar good for the environment" and "is solar cost effective."

The 2nd seems easy enough now; that *IF* the location is suitable for installation, the economics are solidly moving in favor of grid tied solar.

The first is more complicated... Green minded folks would assert that if gain 100kwh's of energy from solar; that energy was acquired and replaced an existing 100kwh's from coal, etc; and the economic savings is experienced in the form of "powering down" of the individual by that much, ie, he chose to earn x-odd dollars less because he needed less for power.

Thats not what happens. Joe gets his panels, saves his money, but then uses that money to CONSUME MORE ENERGY; whether in the form of direct consumption, or more likely, another drive to the movies, a vacation to the beach, a power saw, whatever.

This point will only get stronger going forward, as CO2 emitting energy sources get more expensive, and panels get cheaper; the break even will become more, and more obvious.

In the end, not only is Joe going to consume that 100kwhs from his panels; he will consume the 100khws from co2 sources AS WELL.

[Frank]

Well Pretorian, it looks like you've got it all figured out, so I know that I won't waste any more of your time by trying to provide another viewpoint on any other topics. Good luck trying to have everyone live your version of their life.

[Pretorian]

Well Pretorian, it looks like you've got it all figured out, so I know that I won't waste any more of your time by trying to provide another viewpoint on any other topics. Good luck trying to have everyone live your version of their life.

sorry about ruining your "feel-good about yourself " part of your purchase buddy. I hope you didnt spend much money on that part. I do wish for you to have enough sunlight to almost break even with it.