FAUX News Lying again (this time about solar energy)

[Windpower]

She and her co-host went on to ridicule Obama's "failed" solar subsidies, adding, "The United States simply hasn't figured out how to do solar cheaply and effectively. You look at the country of Germany, it's working out great for them." Near the end of the segment, it occurred to Carlson to ask her expert guest, Fox Business reporter Shibani Joshi, why it might be that Germany's solar-power sector is doing so much better. "What was Germany doing correct? Are they just a smaller country, and that made it more feasible?" Carlson asked.

Joshi's jaw-dropping response: "They're a smaller country, and they've got lots of sun. Right? They've got a lot more sun than we do." In case that wasn't clear enough for some viewers, Joshi went on: "The problem is it's a cloudy day and it's raining, you're not gonna have it." Sure, California might get sun now and then, Joshi conceded, "but here on the East Coast, it's just not going to work."


Except that Joshi is LYING

Germany has much less sun than the continental US -- the only state that has comparable low solar input is Alaska and a small part of the rainy Pacific North west

I'm sure FAUX will correct this false reporting.....

[embed=425,349]http://youtu.be/jJN0B2RIIMI[/embed]




From :

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/07/fox_news_expert_on_solar_energy_germany_gets_a_lot_more_sun_than_we_do_video.html

[rick91351]

How can you doubt Fox News?  My God man they are fair and balanced, they even say so themselves............

But then they also say they report you decide.   

I guess my question would be is solar  really working out great for Germany? 



 

[Windpower]

Yet despite those limitations, Germany has still managed to be the world leader in solar power. At the end of 2012, the country had installed about 30 gigawatts of solar capacity, providing between 3 percent and 10 percent of its electricity. The United States, by contrast, has somewhere around 6.4 gigawatts of solar capacity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/08/germany-has-five-times-as-much-solar-power-as-the-u-s-despite-alaska-levels-of-sun/

[Woodsrule]

I really don't care what Fox News, CBS, ABC or any other network reports on regarding solar. What I'd like to know is the the true cost of industrial solar. I've looked into solar for my home for the purposes of grid-tie, hot water and heating. However, the cost is still way too prohibitive for me to consider it. I love the idea of "free" electricity, but the payback period is more than 20 years. Knowing what it costs for a homeowner, I have to wonder what it costs taxpayers for these industrial farms. So Germany supplies "between 3 and ten percent" of its power (Seems to be a vague estimation) from soar - what does this cost? Anyone know?

[flyingvan]

If solar power is cost efficient, why does it need subsidies?

[rick91351]

If solar power is cost efficient, why does it need subsidies?

That is a good point.  Yet much of rural America was electrified via subsidies in the New Deal era and even latter.  Not saying this was good nor bad it just was......

I have wondered if it would be more efficient to set up subsidy programs for smaller systems either solar or wind or both.  Household systems that a portion of the saved electrical cost go back in to the program.  Not so much to be independent from the grid but supplement the grid usage say down to 20 to 30% in urban areas and 40 to 50% in farm and ranch where there is more electrical used for water pumping for livestock and machinery repair ie  compressors and welders.  Or 20 to 30% for the farm or ranch housing and write the shop and stock water out of the equation.

Now that I have stirred up that kettle I think I will attack the shambles of the Affordable Health Care Act.

  Rick           

[Windpower]

If nuclear and oil and gas are cost efficient why do they need almost 3 times the subsidies allocated for renewable energy.

[flyingvan]

Well, if you want to be fair and accurate, you'd weigh those subsidies against what industries paid.  Oil paid $35.7 Billion in corporate taxes alone in 2009 (the most recent year where figures are available)  How much did renewable energy companies pay in corporate taxes that year?  Isn't it myopic to simply compare dollars out and ignore dollars in?  Also---who really IS 'big oil'?  If you own a pension or mutual fund, then chances are you are.

31.2% owned by pension funds
21.1% owned by individual investors
20.6% owned by mutual funds
17.7% owned by IRA's
6.6%   owned by other forms of investment
2.8%  owned by oil executives
   
   I think everyone agrees protecting the environment is important.  I believe that a nation with a strong economy is in a much better position to protect the environment, innovate new technology, and set aside protected areas than a weak economy.  Go to Haiti.  Check out where Tijuana River flows into the U.S.  Look at how developing nations slash and burn old growth to get a year or two worth of crops out of the thin soil.  Right now, you simply cannot run a competetive economy without energy and by far the cheapest energy available is hydrocarbon based.  Importing it because we're too heavily regulated to drill our own is foolish.

[flyingvan]

   Here's a pretty good article about the myths of renewable energy.  If the facts here don't match your side, it's much more helpful to counter the facts as presented than it is to attack the source (Liberals hate Fox News because it doesn't paint the liberal picture.  Instead of point counterpoint, though, they just ry to discredit Fox news)  Why is the source that supports your belief credible and unbiased, but the opposing view is 'Faux News'?  I guess what I'm saying is, it refreshing when people stick to data and leave the Ad Hominem attacks out. 
   This article makes a good case for why renewable energy is nowhere near as cost effective as hydrocarbons and will always require heavy subsidies.  Maybe someday we'll develop a truly viable clean energy source---but havinga thiving economy is a great base to accomplish this. 

Here's just a little cut from the article, the comparative cost per kilowatt hour of electricity by source--
Solar---20 to 40 cents
Wind---12 cents
coal----7.8 cents.

   So wind power is nore than 50% more expensive than coal, and solar can be well over 300%.  It's gonna be hard to compete when we hamstring ourselves with stuff like the Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" bill.

https://nationalcenter.org/NPA582.html

[Woodsrule]

Flyingvan, thanks so much for the reasoned reply and for the illustration of who "big oil" is. Every so often an unlucky entity gets entitled "big" and then the attack is on. Big oil, big tobacco, big this, big that.. Each time, some other entity has an ax to grind and there is no reason to it. I especially liked your point of the cost of solar. It is much the same as what I have found; I really like the idea of being independent of "big oil" or "big coal" or "big nuclear", but for now I gotta stick with them as they are the most reliable and cheapest producer of the electricity I am hooked on. After all, it's what allows me to post here!

[flyingvan]

   Thanks!  Now, I also know the attraction to solar and wind, too---there's an area on the other side of the mountain from me that's 'off grid' and the cost to run power to there would be quite a bit more than independent systems.  My friends there lose some convenience---they have to run a generator sometimes, and maintain controllers, replace batteries, etc.  There's also debate about how much efficiency solar panels lose over time, and when they have to be replaced.  I'd prefer to be independent from the power companies too someday but can't afford it yet.
    There's another problem I have with stimulus 'invested' in green energy companies.  Say Obama takes 2 billion of our dollars and invests in a company making solar panels.  Meanwhile, a guy in a garage invents some technology far superior and economically feasable
than solar.  In free market dynamics, that new technology will quickly get adopted---but Obama has to choose between sticking with his investment or losing the 2 billion dollars. 
    If someone comes along and invents a new energy source that is more cost effective than oil, I think you'll see lots of real dollars, mutual funds, and so on investing in it--no government investment is needed.

[NM_Shooter]

Solar power is simply not a viable way to make electricity.  Yet. 

The panels cost too much, they are dirty to make, and the electronics required to get them to useable AC power is cost prohibitive.  Solar is great for remote areas.  Putting them into an area that is served by the grid is a scam, designed to put cash into the pockets of political contributors (much like this incandescent bulb replacement nonsense).

Wind power is not much better.  Look at all the thousands and thousands of abandoned windmills. 

Solar is great for heating water and air.  Making Electricity?  Not so much. 

I am not surprised that Fox has its share of morons as reporters.  However, I suspect that they are simply morons, and not malicious (as opposed to MSNBC).

[flyingvan]

 

Co worker: And where do you get your news?  Fox?

Me: Well, Fox, and Wall Street Journal, then I search stuff that's interesting for factual data

Co worker: Fox news lies about everything.

Me:  I see.  Like what?

Co worker: Everything.  Ask anyone.  Especially when it comes to the government.
 
Me:  Where do you get YOUR news?

Co worker: (Standing straighter so she could look down her nose) I get mine from KPBS and NPR!

Me: So you get an honest assessment and report about our government from the news outlet funded by that government?

Co worker: Did you hear that on Fox?

[flyingvan]

    I really think the time and energy spent on 'green' energy programs are wasteful.  The real benefit is not in higher energy production---until you change the periodic table you're just never going to get there.  The real benefits lie in reducing energy consumption, and we're doing a pretty good job of advancing in that regard---Wattage required for lighting keeps getting reduced more and more.  Refridgerators are more and more efficient.  People who long understood the efficiency of smaller cars are starting to realize the efficiency of smaller houses.  Insulation, heating, cooling, even fireplaces are greatly improved.   
    Imagine if all the stimulus money had been spent in developing domestic hydrocarbon mining, refining and distribution, with some set aside for improving emissions.  We'd have a profound effect on world gas prices.  We'd have an impact on unemployment (Geez look at North Dakota!) and be competetive again. 

[Windpower]

Getting back to the original post....

To be clear, Germany's economy is doing very well, in fact much better than the US

Yet they have far fewer natural resouces (oil, gas, coal) than the US and much less solar input due to weather and climate.

Germany has made huge investments in solar energy. In fact Germany has developed, on a per capita basis, 20 times more solar-electric energy than the US.

Yet the American public is being lied to by news sources.

The message from this FAUX news report is clear --

"Just keep using your coal and gas generated electricity --- there is no viable alternative (don't even think about the success of Germany, it won't work here) just keep writing those checks to the heavily subsidised energy companies. There is just no other way,  trust us we are fair and balanced FAUX noos "

It is funny tragic that a few people here seem to stupidly parrot this same propaganda. 

Clearly there is another way out and Germany is leading the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany





 

[MushCreek]

Solar looks like a better alternative in Germany because fossil fuels are much costlier there. When oil gets expensive enough here, people will start flocking to alternate energy and electric cars. Many of the advanced energy saving building techniques I looked at simply don't make economic sense. I either won't live long enough, or the materials and equipment won't last long enough to pay off. As it is, my ICF home won't pay off for me in terms of energy savings alone, but I had other reasons to go that route. I'm not saying fossil fuels are 'right', or that solar is 'wrong'; it just doesn't pay in this time and place.

[Woodsrule]

Well, if Germany has spent on capita "20 times" more than we have and they only have "between 3 and 10 percent" of their electricity realized from solar, than I guess we dum Mericans are either especially prescient or are maybe soothsayers? I always cringe when anyone characterizes the watchers of Fox News, NPR or any other news outlet as "stupidly parroting" what they read, see or hear. These blanket assertions only lead to the death of debate. There has been lots of good information set forth here (Van, Shooter, Rick and others) that may actually help. From Windpower's moniker I would expect hard data, not blanket statements of prejudice. I've looked into the possibility of solar and windpower, but simply can't afford it, so does this make me a solar denier?

[Windpower]

Plenty of facts in Wiki article

I said that Germany has 20 times more solar electric capacity per capita -- not sure about the costs

because power companies have to buy back power from private solar installations --- I think I read the payback in Germany was on the order of 5 years (yes their power is about 2 times our rate )

and it is not in the form of a tax credit so they don't have to pony up the total cost up front

the point is that the buisiness analyst in FOX news lied

it was not a mistake it was a lie

are you comfortable that a news outlet with a genuine FCC license lies and spews propaganda with impunity

I am picking on FOX here but most broadcast 'news' is heavily influenced by  " somebody"

I drive alot 35 to 40 thousand miles per year

I listen to different radio stations

it is incredible how nearly identical news stories are --- it could be NPR, ABC CBS NBC etc etc -- they are all reading from the same script, they use the same phrasing and words

       
must be a coincidence

[rick91351]

My intent of my Fair and Balanced and We Report You Decide was not to really jab Fox News any more than the liberal news.  It is all spun, slanted and doctored.  Fox is a standard for us right wingers.  We love it and Drudge.  Me I have to have Drudge and my coffee in the morning.  Yet some of us - hopefully most of us also know they twist and pull and manipulate.  If you are a real news junky you have to be willing to open your eyes to the whole arena.  None is Fair and Balanced - I will agree with their 'we report you decide'.  And here true they reported and you all decided it was BS.  Sort of like PBS and their more dignified approach and crafting the mellow conversation with a person they deem worthy of interview.  You could almost call them buds as they craft their interviews.

However back to solar power: 

I must wonder how much farm land and usable areas Germany has taken out of service to do such.  If so were people willing to sell land for such or was it 'Oh by the way were taking your land of course for a 'fair price'......'

Where is China in this race for solarfaction of the electrical grid?

Do these large farms work the same as a few panels like MD, Jarhead, Glenn and others use?   

We are now traveling in the desert southwest and I have talked to several in the RV Parks that are working construction on huge solar farms down here in Az, Ca, and Nv areas.  Last such place was an RV Park in Blythe, Ca.  A group of  solar workers were staying there.  Great place for solar down here.  It can be located away from ranch and farm ground and public view.  I will hardly call it waste ground as it has been said.  However there is not a lot you are going to do with it either.  It can't be farmed or grazed.  Basically it can not even grow enough vegetation to have a decent wild fire.  But in talking to this crew they are talking cooling towers and a panels and on and on with part going on line this year.  But another next year and all in all there is several years work there.  Now I wish I would have asked them more questions because it was not sounding like I assumed it was like and I hate to pry too much though I doubted they would have minded.  Great bunch to be set up by.     

                 

[rick91351]

Hello Windpower you have never caught CNN or PBS - (BS is in their name.) in a lie?  By the way I like PBS but it is not all honest and pure but they report on some interesting features, items, issues and ideas that make the news nowhere else.

News has always been slanted and spun.  Really what the power of the press was.  Not always fair and honest often far from it.  Way, way more than the simple Who, What, When, Where, Why and How of Journalism 101. 

[flyingvan]

    I especially enjoy the assumption that there's a cause and effect between Germany's economy and their investment in solar.  Germany had a (much criticized) national pride campaign, the exact opposite of the self hating class warfare our current administration keeps fostering.  Germans, for the first time since WWII, took pride in themselves and their national identity as hard working innovators, while we lose ourselves as a nation to open borders, redistribution of the benefits of success, no national language, and a government that plays of itself with partisan politics while the role of the citizen is increasingly marginalized.
    Germany has more solar because their economy is thriving.  We kill out economy and borrow money to invest in money drains like solar instead of infrastructure that would make us competetive with Germany. 

[MountainDon]

I especially enjoy the assumption that there's a cause and effect between Germany's economy and their investment in solar. 

Good point!  We could also likely find many other things that we correlate to the economy in Germany and prove those as well.

[archimedes]

Is it a surprise that Fox news gives short shrift to solar energy when the number two stockholder in News Corp. (the owner of Fox News) is a member of the Saudi royal family?  Fox News gives the same "balanced" coverage to global warming for the same reason.

P.S.  And why do people keep saying that the German economy is doing better than the US economy when that is simply not true.

[UK4X4]

"Germany has more solar because their economy is thriving"

not exactly correct they are having huge issues along the same lines as the UK with the New EU eastern russian all comming over to stay and milk the system.

You'll find that the germans are quite far down the green road.

I lived there back 20 years ago- and was surprised about many things they did at the time.

The supermarket had re-cycling desks behind the tills- the packing you removed in the store- never even getting the rubbish home

Beer was delivered to the house by the local brewery in bottles which got used time and time again

They had 4 dustbins in the houses to again divide and re-cycle just about everything- even one was for food waste only and went straight to the local pig farmers.

Green building - insulation etc etc lots of good ideas come from germany

Sun forget it ! always grey and dismal when i visited !

Lots of solar- yep probably electricity costs in europe are way higher than the US

Small economical diesel cars yep 10000's of them fuel 4-5 times higher than the US

The results and take up of technology differ through financial restraints and needs.

everyone in my family in the UK has a diesel car that does arround 60MPG

This is a financial nessesity rather than them being hippies and looking for a  tax write off

[flyingvan]

Thanks for perfectly demonstrating my point, Archimedes-----you're attacking Fox news instead of whether or not solar energy is fiscally viable.  My claim is, solar and wind energy are, in most cases, too expensive.  I've provided data and sources; can you counter those?  Can you make a case for why renewable energy, from a financial standpoint, is a good sustainable investment?  We're certainly all entitled to our own opinions; we're not entitled to our own facts.
I completely agree that Germany's economy really isn't doing better than ours---it really depends on what metrics you use.  They are on an upswing, and have lower unemployment figures.  Only reason I used Germany was Windpower, the original poster here, claimed "To be clear, Germany's economy is doing very well, in fact much better than the US".
    Arguing that one way or the other would take a whole 'nuther thread and really isn't relevant to (what I think) is the meat of the issue here--whether or not solar energy investments make sense.  I find attacking news sources (Faux news?  Really?) pointless.  They all report some facts, leave some out.  Mainstream media is certainly much easier on Obama than they were on Bush---would they ever have stood for the drone program under Bush?  Where's all the outcry about Afghanistan?  Where's Obama's equivalent to Helen Thomas?  Why no reporting about Obama's time with the socialist 'New Party'?  If Melendez were a Republican, he'd be all over the main stream media. 
    What I've found most, (not all), liberals do though is, when facts don't support their argument they attack the source instead.  Makes it really hard to have a productive debate.   It's so much easier to attack Fox News or Wall Street Journal than to defend global warming as temperatures fall, Obamanomics as workforce participation plummets and foodstamp recipients skyrocket, and the national debt triples.