Solar Fail

So, this article has my silky-soft boxers all knotted up and pinching.

Let's get something straight:  I'm a fan of solar power.  A big fan.  Solar power is the energy of the future.  It's going to work, and we are going to depend on it.  Unlike wind power, which is a mature technology, and based on mechanical generators that are heavy, expensive, noisy, and dangerous, solar power is great.  To start with, let's note that right now solar power has three problems:  generation, storage, and transmission.

More after the leap of faith...

How to Close Gitmo

A solution:  How to close Gitmo


Nod to Angry Alex

China as Solar Icon

Lots of  Yewessers have been saying we should pattern our solar industry after that of China.  Of course, we pretty much bought the farm on Solyndra, etc.  What is China doing differently?

The answer, it turns out, is NOTHING.  Their heavily subsidized companies are failing also, on an even larger scale.  The reason is not a difference in policy, but rather a similarity in physics:  Solar power is simply not a viable energy source at this point.  It takes $120 to generate $100 worth of electricity, and at some point the subsidies run out.  The story from the NYT.

The collapse of Suntech is a milestone in the precipitous decline of China’s green energy industry in the last four years. 

More than any other country, China had bet heavily on renewable energy as the answer to its related problems of severe air pollution and heavy dependence on energy imports from politically unstable countries in the Middle East and Africa. 

China is also exposed to global warming on its low-lying, densely populated coastline, which the Energy Department in Washington has estimated to have more people vulnerable to displacement from rising sea levels than anywhere else on earth. 

But China’s approach to renewable energy has proved ruinous, financially and in terms of trade relations with the United States and the European Union. State-owned banks have provided $18 billion in loans on easy terms to Chinese solar panel manufacturers, financing an increase of more than tenfold in production capacity from 2008 to 2012. This set off a 75 percent drop in panel prices during that period, which resulted in losses to Chinese companies of as much as $1 for every $3 in sales last year. 

Now, Max will likely comment and say something about how Germany's decision to end subsidies was somehow different.  It must be fun to live in your own world, Max, free from the restraints of logic and evidence!

Caption Contest!

A KPC caption contest.  Saw this at UNC-Charlotte, where I was visiting DoL Co-blogger Craig Depken.

The box has dirt in it.  And a bunch of text about how great plants are, and how this "Green Screen" will help save the environment.  I had to take a picture.  It captures pretty much everything I know about the "green" movement... Solyndra in a flower box!

click for an even more unwatered and pointless image

Update on Chinese Solar

If someone wants to subsidize an industry, why not let them?  They are giving you free stuff.

In the case of solar panels, not really USEFUL free stuff, but free stuff.  China having a little trouble.

Reminds me of one of the readings we had for the LF this past weekend in Utah (hey, Bishop!  We missed you! At the hot tub!):  Bastiat's "Petition of the Candlemakers." 

Enjoy.  One of Bastiat's best.

And major props to Bob Lawson and Amy Willis for putting on such a great conference.

Stupid Choices, Real Consequences

KPC pal Logan H sends this photo, and this commentary:

I thought you might get a laugh (or grimace?) out of the attached photograph.  I took it yesterday from the interstate between Fremont and San Jose, CA (where I'm working for Cisco Systems this summer).  The building, by the way, is one of the largest I've seen in an area where companies' campuses are about the size of Rhode Island.

Do click on the photo for an even more absurdly overstated image.

Oh, and btw:  The Solyndra screw-up was even more disastrous than had been previously reported.  There was never any chance of success, it was just a pyramid scheme, targeting the subsidies.

Reality Transcends Irony: Solar Failure is Sign of Maturity

Grand Game, Grand Game, whatcha gonna do?

Here is an article from the Seattle Times, on solar power.  It contains several nuggets of comedy gold.

But the best, IMHO, is the following claim:

" The report's authors said the demise of companies such as Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, Solar Millenium and Solon was a sign that the solar industry is maturing."

Look, we have been spending hundreds of billions of $ for 30+ years.  And there is no viable solar power industry.  Even the buggy whip industry had a some good years, before getting all "mature" and going bankrupt.

Nod to the Ward Boss, who knows things.

US Gov Does Not Read This Blog, Apparently

I thought we had covered this. Suppose you think: (a) saving environment through green energy is very important, so we need to use it as much as possible, and (b) solar power is an efficient and valuable technology.

Then why-O-why would you put tariffs on cheap solar panels?

Answer: This is not an environmental policy at all. It is an industrial policy (thinly) disguised as an environmental policy. We have decided that US corporations need to receive lots of extra dollars from consumers, and from taxpayers, so they will have enough cash to contribute to the Obama reelection campaign.

Now, I happen not to believe (a) works very well, and I know for a fact that (b) is false. But I am trying to accept the premises of the other side: EVEN IF you believe those two things, this policy makes no sense.

Nod to Anonyman

Truly Massive Solar Fail

Turns out solar power is not profitable, and in fact it's a big money loser.

The only reason it was ever profitable was truly massive subsidies. Now, just cutbacks, not elimination, just cutbacks, on the subsidies will spell the end of the solar industry in Europe. It was in all the papers.

If an activity is profitable, it produces more in value than it uses up in costs. If an activity is NOT profitable, it uses up more in resources than it produces in value.

If the only reason an activity is profitable is artificial subsidies, financed by money taken from taxpayers at gunpoint, against their will, then the "positive profits" signal is fake, and the activity still uses up more resources than it produces in value.

Finally, any activity, no matter how wasteful, can be made "profitable" with large enough subsidies.

People could have bought solar panels on their own, voluntarily, if it made economic sense to do so. Why would being forced to buy solar panels makes sense? And, if the government takes away huge amounts of my income, and lets me have some of it back if I purchase an extremely wasteful technology, in what way is that a voluntary transaction?

The solar "industry" is composed largely of rent-seekers and brigands, combined with enough genuinely committed (though mistaken) true believers to give the whole noisome mess moral cover. The thing that's hard to understand is why anyone would believe that a technology that uses up more resources than it produces is "environmentally friendly."

Germany Gives Up on Solar...

I have several times mentioned how crazy it is for Germany, a country with very little sunshine, ever, to go solar. When I was first there, I was struck by how much they had wasted on solar panels. Astonishing.

It was never an attempt to save resources. It was a costly signal of how much the German left loves Gaia, the Earth Mother. On the BEST, sunniest day, Germany gets 0.3 percent of its power from solar energy. And it pays the highest costs for electricity in all of Europe, save for Denmark, which (I'm trying not to laugh) decided to "compete" by specializing in wind power.

But at some point even the German left has to admit that solar power is inefficient, expensive, impractical, and (this is my favorite part) actually quite dangerous to the environment because of the enormous amount of dangerous chemical waste that results from making, and later decommissioning, solar panels.

(A nice piece, with a lot more details, from Mary Theroux...)

Irony is Dead. Up is Down. Through the looking glass....

"Our" solar producers are mad because their subsidies (which are more than 100% of their total revenues!!!) are not as big as the Chinese subsidies.

Pot, I want you to meet Kettle. Hey! Which is which? You subsidized government activities all look the same.

Nod to Anonyman.

Solar Fail: Chicago

The problem with solar energy is that it is much more expensive than purchasing energy from power companies.

Much, much more expensive.

It is true that this difference can be reduced by subsidies. But people underestimate how much of a subsidy is required. With installation, batteries, and disposal of toxic waste (batteries are much more poisonous than the exhaust of power plants!), solar panels are almost never cost effective.

And so, we see, yet again, that grandiose claims run afoul of economic reality. "Green" energy is a huge net waste of resources. Far from making things better, solar panels and solar subsidies are increasing unemployment and causing enormous damage to the environment.

(nod to the Blonde)

Something Funny This Way Comes

Notice anything odd about this "restaurant review"? Check it out.

That's right.... they never mention food, service, those things.

Apparently they think that many people will make their dining choices based on how many wasteful public subsidies for inefficient alternative energy technologies the owners have sucked down.

"Oooooh, look, honey, solar panels on the roof! I can see them by the moonlight! Let's stop and have a romantic candlelight dinner, since there is no electricity."

"I don't know; what kind of food do they have?"

"Who cares? All that matters is that we are seen entering such a politically correct establishment. Make sure you leave the lights on from the car. No one will recognize me in those 1.5 watt LEDs."

(Nod to the Blonde)

You'll Wonder Where the Green Jobs Went, When You Learn What "Poison River" Meant!

How are those Green Jobs working out for ya, China?

If there is one consistent theme here at KPC, it is that we should be very, very happy to let the Chinese spend themselves into bankruptcy developing alternative energy technology which we will be able either to buy, or to use. Besides, we are doing a lot, more than we should be perhaps, already.

I wish no ill to the Chinese people. But one of the side effects of China's choice to develop "green" technology is that they are killing their environment.

(Nod to Anonyman, who is en fuego, producing lots of carbon)

Now It Gets Interesting

At what point do we admit that "green jobs" is just a straight up, out and out scam? A means to plunder the Treasury?

The FBI has already comet to that conclusion, it appears.

(Nod to Anonyman, who is always sunny)

China Monopolizes the Sun!

Suppose you had a pretty big yard, 2 acres. And your neighbor comes over one day and says, "I have a big lawn mower, a huge expensive one. I just like having a big mower, too big for my own purposes. It really costs a lot, but my dad left me an inheritance and I like the prestige of having the biggest mower in the state. How about if I mow your lawn for my marginal cost, plus a little bit? Say, $35?"

You figure that you would have to buy a mower, plus spend time mowing, plus upkeep. It would cost you at least $100 a week to do the same thing. So, you say, "Sure!"

Can someone explain to me why we are poopin' in our panties about China doing essentially the same thing with solar power technology? And why U.S. government officials are claiming that the answer is that WE, the US, HAVE TO BUY A REALLY BIG MOWER, TOO? For some reason, gigantic world-wide over-capacity, subsidized by tax dollars, is the answer for Obamanoids like this guy:

“There is no question that renewable energy companies in the United States feel pressure from China,” said David B. Sandalow, the assistant secretary for policy and international affairs at the United States Energy Department. “Many of them say it is cheap capital, not cheap labor, that gives Chinese companies the main competitive advantage.”

Is China behaving badly? Yep. And if I were a Chinese taxpayer, I'd be pissed. But why is the US upset? There is no way that the resulting price of solar technology and equipment is going to be more expensive for us. UNLESS, of course, we try to enter the race and buy a really big lawn mower, too.

The "worry" is that China will achieve world dominance and then raise prices. Idiots used to make the same argument about Wal-Mart: once they drive out the competition, they will raise prices. Two problems with that argument. 1. It's not true, empirically. It just never happens. 2. The only possible truth to the argument is with respect to the "correct" price, which in the mind of the subsidizers is the price in the US if we spent billions in subsidies. Friends, subsidies are a COST, not a benefit.

Let the Chinese mow our solar lawn, if they want to. (Angus has tried to make this point before, as have I. Angus may have said it best here. And we'll probably get chances to say it again.)

(Nod to Anonyman, who drives a stinkin' hybrid)

(UPDATE: Meant to say... title of post comes from our guy Alex)

Solar Fail

A little story, in pictures. First, triumphalism of our gov't: thousands of jobs.


The "deal" came under scrutiny, because it appeared that our gubmint had given truly huge amounts of public money without going through the usual procedures.

Most recently, the company went bankruptski. Total collapse.

The delicious part is this: Solyndra is whining that the Chinese subsidize THEIR solar industry. Solyndra was a pure scam, only a front for taking tax dollars. All of their revenues and investment money were public subsidy. And then they have the gall to say that the reason this oinker of a company could not compete is that they needed to be subsidized even more. Some background.

Their "idea"? I promised pictures. Here it was. It didn't work, even with huge public subsidies.

(Nod to J-Don, who knows things)

"Outlandishly Subsidized" Is Not the Same as Cheap

There is an old claim that cookie crumbs have no calories. Furthermore, dessert bites a woman takes off her date's/husband's plate are not fattening. That's why so often women say, "I don't want any dessert," and then will eat more than half of yours. (Plus, I *pity* the fool man who doesn't order dessert. Your woman does not want to be the sort of woman who orders dessert, so you have to do it. Just STFU and order...)

Okay, that's funny and all. But the Germans think of solar power the same way. They have these enormous, utterly irrational subsidies for solar everything, and houses all over that dark, cloudy country have hugely expensive solar panels. (Interesting, and surprisingly harsh, story in Spiegel).

But they say "it's cheap!" because the cost is subsidized by a fictional entity called, "The State." It doesn't actually exist, and the cost is being picked up taxpayers, which of course are the very people touching themselves and squealing with joy at how "cheap" the subsidized solar panels are.

Germans: if you want dessert, just order it. Don't pick off taxpayers' plates.

(nod to the Blonde)

Grand Game: Jeannie Needs A Solar

Excellent Grand Game topic, from Anonyman.

Toronto schools go solar! They suck down solar subsidies for new roofs.

There's a bunch of dumb stuff here, but the one that made me gasp was their stating all the electricity generation in terms of "capacity." Friends, the "capacity" of solar power is calculated under the assumption that the sun is directly over head 24 hours per day, there are no clouds, and the sun does not move.

This is TORONTO.

The sun moves everywhere. But for 5 months of the year in Toronto the sun is nearly invisible, or at such a low angle that it will generate next to nothing.

And there are two other problems:
Even in Toronto, the sun moves.
Even in Toronto, even in the summer, they have the phenomenon known as "night." It's between evening and dawn (sun moving thing, again), both of which are bad for solar power. But not as bad as "night."

The actual performance of the solar roof? Likely to be 7% of the "capacity" numbers. We are talking about generating power at a cost of 20 cents / kwh, or more, and even then most of the time there won't be any power. If you include the cost of the panels when they are not generating power (Night. Winter. Clouds. That sort of thing.), the cost is probably nearly 50 cents per kwh. (Canada generates power at about 10 cents per kwh, on average, btw, from coal and nuclear plants).

I find it amazing that these schmoes in far northern countries where IS NO FREAKING SUN are the ones who think that anything they do to worship Gaia the Earth Mother is better than having actual schools.

Anyway, your turn. And, enjoy. (I have to go back this, because it is fantastic. First two paragraphs amazing. The reason sunny countries don't use solar is NOT that oil is too cheap. It's that...solar is too expensive! The only reason idiots in Germany and Canada do it is the artificial subsidies, and the belief that no cost is too high if it involves worship of Gaia.)

Grand Game: Solar Power Edition

So many choice passages here. I'll just let you folks have at it. What's your favorite fatuous statement, or silly fact?

The article

(Nod to Anonyman, who liked the "fact" one solar panel could produce enough electricity, in a year, to light four 60 watt bulbs for six weeks. WTF?)