No, we can't.

Barack Obama: 'no' to solar panels on the White House roof

How about a headline about the actual story?

Some lobbyist with 30+ year old solar panels that even he admits are out-of-date tries to get the White House to install them anyway.

Meanwhile, the Obama's are actually considering alternative energy sources for the White House.

And then there's this:

A California company Sungevity had offered to equip the White House with the latest technology.

I.e., Sungevity graciously offered to equip itself with lots of free advertising.

And lastly, there is the science-free hyperbole:

I told them it would be nice to deliberate as fast as possible, since that is the rate at which the planet's climate is deteriorating."

> ...hoping to persuade Obama to re-install a set of solar panels originally put up by Jimmy Carter.

This is wrong. They were campaigning for new solar PV panels to be installed. The old solar water heater panel was just a symbolic mascot.

VenusianVan

you are both right.

From http://putsolaron.it/road-trip/:

To counter this situation, we’re carrying the panel back to the White House and asking President Obama to put it back on the roof, alongside a full array of new photovoltaic and hot-water panels

So they were asking for one of the old panels to be put up on he roof too.

Obama just lost it!

I can understand the reason they declined, but it's such a lame and gormless one. This administration has no cojones.

And one more shout out for Pres. Carter, who was all over renewable energy and many other progressive policies 34 years ago. He even tried to put the US onto the metric system!

it is plain hypocrisy on the part of obama and the people who are in his government.. i do agree if the panels are outdated, they shouldnt be installed. but if obama wishes or if he really cares about the environment he should make sure he uses renewable energy in the white house. by the way what is the energy usage of the white house per month. any idea?

wondering how the WH roof would look like

Very funny.....

By the way, even though there were a few photo ops of Michele planting a garden, The work was actually done by Park Service employees.

Another grand illusion by the administration.

Environmental politics as usual. The White House is one of our most precious national monuments. I wouldn't think that Barack would let these people bully him into defacing it.

Maybe BP could offer to contribute an oil burning furnace for the White House's energy needs.

Solar water heating panels work by absorbing sunlight and getting pretty damn hot.

Can none of you think of a good reason why you might not want a very large oddly shaped flagrant heat source displayed on the roof of the office and home of the chief executive?

1979.......time to get America off imported oil.

And 31 years later everybody is still pretending they're making progress. Maybe Obama knows that symbolic gestures, lip service and mere tokenism have been happening now for the past four decades and, noticing how these things have gained us nothing but extra smugness and improved self-esteem, he's resolved to stop all that and do something concrete about the problem. I am of course joking.

Dont dismissthose Carter panels becuase they're old

Here (Australia) the design hasnt changed in decades - ie the old CSIRO design still works well.

Bluthner:

Solar water heating panels work by absorbing sunlight and getting pretty damn hot.

Can none of you think of a good reason why you might not want a very large oddly shaped flagrant heat source displayed on the roof of the office and home of the chief executive?

Duh. They're water-cooled.

Why does the White House have to get their power from solar panels, which are still too expensive for the average American homeowner? All the major DC power companies offer affordable 100% wind power product. And doesn't the White House already have a white roof?

President Obama, What are you thinking? You could put thousands to work building solar panels and greatly bring down the cost. It would set a wonderful example to the rest of the country to get on the energy-saving bandwagon. Rethink your decision, please. A true supporter of yours who believes you made a mistake.

Beastless

you are missing my point entirely. think again.

Wow. Sounds like they are busier cringing in fear at their natural opponents than trying to inspire or lead their natural supporters. The predictable reaction is contempt by both, which is why they may lose the 2010 elections very badly.

Bluthner, your point is they're hot, my point is they're not. What have I missed?

I'm sure the pres has more pressing issues to deal with.

As it turns out the greatest threat to America was not OBL, Iraq or the Taliban after all, it was that the banks were hiding a far greater threat with AGW hardly even rating a mention. Since America threw wasted trillions at the war and at failed bailouts from the Recession that is now worse, the greatest threat turned out to be just obesity.

Who would have guessed it? All along Hidden in plain sight millions of fat people poised to take over America..

Now that the fat kids of America are the greatest threat to the nation’s future I doubt if a few solar panels on the WH roof is going to fix the problem. Unless they train fat kids to install solar panels on roofs which may solve both problems at the same time as long as the building codes can handle the extra weight.

Lincoln he aint.

Beastless

solar panels are great, don't get me wrong. But other issues besides energy are in play here. If you were in charge of security in this day and age you would never allow them on that roof. Which is almost certainly why they were taken down in the first place.

Putting the newest and best panels on the White House would surely show their commitment to weaning the public off fossil fuels - it's a pity BigOil still has such a stifling grip on US energy policy. What about Britain, do government offices use renewable sources at all?

What they need is state of the art solar--printed or painted-on panels, a large solar hot-water system and a honking great wind-turbine painted in American colours.

Now that would be something to see.

Good on Bill McKibben for holding Obama the Fainthearted up to the mark.

Kitten69

What about Britain, do government offices use renewable sources at all?

They should do, there's plenty of wind power available in Whitehall.

Those evil Republicans are so anti-planet!

Just look what Bush and his greedy Big Oil friends did at the White House during his presidency:
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/solarwhitehouse.htm

It was 2003 when two solar thermal systems and a 9 kW photovoltaic (PV) solar electricity system were installed.

Bill McKibben actually mentions this in his Washingon Post op-ed about why Obama should do what he wants. He claims that Bush's solar power doesn't count because there was no fanfare.

Is it cynical to wonder if what that really means is that he's annoyed that Bush beat him to it?

I think Reagan had them taken down because he thought the alternative energy movement was a commie plot

Good for him. Otherwise every start up tech business and environmental activist group in the USA would be clamouring to have its products plastered all over the White House.

Perhaps he should instead install a zero-emission coal fired furnace in the White House?

At least Congress switched from their 99-year old coal burner to a natural gas system - but shouldn't it be easier to build a zero-emission gas-fired furnace than a zero-emission coal-fired furnace? Ask any leading coal-state Democrat, or just about any Republican - zero-emission fossil fuels is not a fraudulent scam, but rather the future of U.S. electricity production. That's also what they're using to justify the State Department support for tar sand pipelines into the U.S. from Canada - "carbon capture."

Such arguments assume that zero-emission carbon capture from fossil fuels is something other than a massive fraud perpetrated by government energy agencies, academic collaborators, and the tar sand and coal interests. However, there are some basic rules about technology development in the industrial chemistry area - unless you've got a working prototype, investors will assume you are scamming them.

No such working prototype exits, not with coal or any fossil fuel. This is remarkable - natural gas has the highest energy content and the lowest level of contaminants (assuming this is washed gas, not H2S-rich gas). That's what you'd want to start with for a zero-emission demo. The ratio of CO2 released per given unit of energy is about 6 (natural gas) to 10 (coal). This means you have less carbon to capture, and more energy to capture it with. That's where you begin - but no. They want to start with coal?

We can all agree on this: it should be much easier to make a zero-emission natural gas furnace than a zero-emission coal furnace.

So, first, let's build a benchtop lab-scale model - feed gas in to a mini-turbine, hook up a pipe to capture everything, strip out the CO2, condense it, and run off a pure stream of CO2 to a holding tank. As with all previous industrial chemical processes, it must first be built on a benchtop scale. Of course, this has already been done, has it not?

Wrong! Ten years later, billions of expenditures on mega-scale projects, and they've never even demonstrated this at the benchtop scale, while the press burbles along repeating one ridiculous assertion after another. There's an energy balance problem, you see - you end up sucking up all the energy produced by combustion in order to capture the carbon, leaving nothing to run the AC or the toaster oven. They do know this.

If not, let's see the zero-emission furnaces go into the White House. Energy Secretary Chu and other top DOE people claim that there are no practical barriers to this magical smokeless combustion system - so what's the holdup?

First of all, Obama's only commitment is to himself. For those of you that haven't figure that out, get a clue. All of his promises have fallen by the wayside. Also one cannot blame him. I checked into putting solar panels on my small house. It would cost between $60,000 and $80,000 and I would be dead 50 years before it paid for itself. Imagine the cost to the White House.

This has to be a milestone! Obumber finally made a decision that makes at least a small amount of sense!

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

I've got 42 Sharp 230 watt solar panels on my roof and let me tell you that the technology works. My monthly electric bill has been averaging close to zero even with heavy air-conditioning use. My country( USA) is nuts for not pursuing this solution to the energy independence issue far more aggressively than we have been. Unfortunately, our President is a nit wit who has already squandered over a trillion dollars in taxpayer money on a failed stimulus plan. No one over here knows where the money went and most think his Chicago crime buddies stole it. I can't help thinking how a trillion dollars invested in solar technology would have not only helped solve our dependence on foreign oil, but would have created hundreds of thousands of decent jobs. Then again, we all know that Obama was the biggest recipient of BP campaign contributions thus making him less likely to support anything that might finally free the United States from foreign oil dependence.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

Let me add one more thought here while I am on a rant -- I think those environmentalists who are using the climate change argument to push alternate energy on a skeptical US public are really dumb. Why not tout the need to be free from foreign oil as the reason to go green? Few in the US at the moment believe in climate change, and certainly that movement has been discredited with the recent release of scandalous emails from scientists who keep telling us the planet is in danger. Why not tout solar and other alternate forms of energy as a way to finally free the US from Arab and other foreign oil? This is an argument that the US public not only understands but would, I think, support.

More do as I say not as I do. But what do you expect, Obama's idea of getting off foreign oil is for us to stop producing any oil our selves. This theory works about as well as borrowing copious amounts of money to help our economy get better. You just can not fix stupid.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

I wonder how are former greenczae Van Jones feels about this. And this is another reason this mans polls are sinking. America has been duped ! He even duped the tree huggers

They should also place a few hundred panels on the Washington Monument and a few on Obama's head.

The main point of Al Gore's book "Earth in the Balance" is that a disastrous climate change can be averted if we all help keep Obama emotionally balanced.

Good decision. They look unsightly and aren't cost effective. Al Gore is history.

It appears many of the commenters dod not read the story and missed best par. The "solar Panels" are not to generate electricity, but to heat water. A grand idea, but not economically practical....BUT the best part of the story is the spin in the WH press release. It is nothing more than an ego trip and patting themselves on the back. Oh, for the good old days...When Bill Clinton told another lie, at least some people would believe what he said.

Please remember that Jimmy Carter is the one who create the department of Energy with the sole purpose of getting the U.S. off of foreign oil. Now, 30 years later, the 2011 DOE budget is $28.4 billion, and we are not one step closer to being off of foreign oil. Thank you Jimmy Carter for creating another useless liberal bureaucratic boondoggle.

First of all... WHO is SURPRISED at this? You have a 2-FACED Obama... One that promises everything... then through his actions.... puts us into Trillion Dollars of DEBT. Where's the Jobs? NOT ! He's sickening.

When are all you morons going to understand that our president doesn't believe in any of the fake causes he pretends to support, or anything that comes out of his mouth for that matter....

Uhm...just wondering if people reading this article understand completely that this President doesn't actually believe anything he actually says. If you look at Al Gore and his home devoid of any energy saving devices (his Tennessee home had electric bills up to $2,900.00 monthly), or Barbra Streisand telling people to shut their air conditioner's and lights off while she lives the life of a Queen you must then understand that these people are making these pronouncements for the little people to follow, not for themselves. Did you really think that the American liberal elite wish to live like commoners? Really? Really? Really? Really?

Come on, wouldn't that have at least "created" or "saved" at least 10-20 more jobs?? Barry, what are you thinking? Come on Mr. Green Jobs! At least update the solar panels to make your eco-nuts happy and make the tax payers foot the bill!!! Hopefully the MORONS that voted for this joke have awakened...HOPE AND CHANGE were "just words"...next time connect the DOTS!

Doesn't anyone recognize a National Security conspiracy when they see one?

Here are some of the real reasons why solar panels will not be put on the Whitehouse roof:

1. Apergers syndrome sufferers will be able to hack into them and freeze the Presidential bath water - risking the safety of the Presidential rubber duck.
2. The First Lady isn't quite tall enough to install them from the car park.
3. The white house is powered by a little green man on a bicycle in Area 51, so they aren't needed anyway.
4. Exxon haven't perfected their oil fired solar panel in the lab yet.
5. Plan B is working well: Joe Biden is blowing enough hot air to heat everything but the oval office.
6. It's terribly difficult to get solar panels to play Hail to the Chief every time Mr. President turns on a light.
7. What to do with all the tea bags up there that will be displaced?
8. Photovoltaire cells would confuse Sarah Palin if she ever got in.
9. There's nowhere to put a blow out preventer.
10. There's no way to securely fix them to the roof: all the wingnuts in Washington are in use.

I suspect there are good security reasons for this. Solar panels could block the field of defensive fire from agents on the roof in the not-impossible event of a land-based attack.