Green Jobs = Lost Jobs

[Sinatra]

Obama's 5 million "Green" jobs is an utter farce.

According to a study centered on the green-friendly policies of Spain, which Obama cited as an example of a Green economy, for every Green job created, 2.2 jobs were lost. And many of those newly created Green jobs were temporary - and those jobs required substantial tax payer subsidies to even exist amounting to billions of dollars - to say nothing of the increased prices for energy. The study made clear that this example is not based simply on Spain, but would apply to any similar attempts by an economy to shift to green-friendly job creation...

Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

 

[Chris]

We could have created millions of green jobs if we spent $700 billion dollars on energy research instead of wasting it in Iraq.

If we perfect carbon nanotubes we could produce solar cells with 80% efficiency. That would solve the energy crisis.

 

[KittenKoder]

Well duh ... and look where the money from "green" jobs goes, it's all to the corporations that fund enviro-scientists.

 

[KittenKoder]

We could have created millions of green jobs if we spent $700 billion dollars on energy research instead of wasting it in Iraq.

If we perfect carbon nanotubes we could produce solar cells with 80% efficiency. That would solve the energy crisis.

Yeah ... right.

 

[Sinatra]

We could have created millions of green jobs if we spent $700 billion dollars on energy research instead of wasting it in Iraq.

If we perfect carbon nanotubes we could produce solar cells with 80% efficiency. That would solve the energy crisis.

 

[Oddball]

If we perfect carbon nanotubes we could produce solar cells with 80% efficiency. That would solve the energy crisis.

And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them.

Solar technology has had several decades and zillions of dollars worth of R&D, and we're no closer to your solar powered Utopia today than any other time along the way.

 

[jreeves]

If we perfect carbon nanotubes we could produce solar cells with 80% efficiency. That would solve the energy crisis.

And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them.

Solar technology has had several decades and zillions of dollars worth of R&D, and we're no closer to your solar powered Utopia today than any other time along the way.

Come on just a few more billions of dollars and we will be there. That's if our country doesn't go bankrupt before we get a solar breakthrough.

 

[KittenKoder]

If we perfect carbon nanotubes we could produce solar cells with 80% efficiency. That would solve the energy crisis.

And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them.

Solar technology has had several decades and zillions of dollars worth of R&D, and we're no closer to your solar powered Utopia today than any other time along the way.

Come on just a few more billions of dollars and we will be there. That's if our country doesn't go bankrupt before we get a solar breakthrough.

Didn't they say just that a few billion ago?

 

[jreeves]

And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them.

Solar technology has had several decades and zillions of dollars worth of R&D, and we're no closer to your solar powered Utopia today than any other time along the way.

Come on just a few more billions of dollars and we will be there. That's if our country doesn't go bankrupt before we get a solar breakthrough.

Didn't they say just that a few billion ago?

Who's focused on details?

 

[mskafka]

Scott Rasmussen-an evangelical christian ( I am a christian, but I also believe in science), received millions of dollars from Getty oil in the 70's to get ESPN off the ground (a good thing). Has received thousands of dollars from the Republican National Committee, and from the George W. Bush 2004 election campaign.

I personally prefer to not rely on one source for all of my statistics. Robo calls or not, this man in my mind screams right-wing bias. Of course he is going to be anti-green. A big oil company made him a millionaire. I would probably do the same thing if I were in his position.

 

[jreeves]

Scott Rasmussen-an evangelical christian ( I am a christian, but I also believe in science), received millions of dollars from Getty oil in the 70's to get ESPN off the ground (a good thing). Has received thousands of dollars from the Republican National Committee, and from the George W. Bush 2004 election campaign.

I personally prefer to not rely on one source for all of my statistics. Robo calls or not, this man in my mind screams right-wing bias. Of course he is going to be anti-green. A big oil company made him a millionaire. I would probably do the same thing if I were in his position.

Yep he is just biased right winger. Hey btw so is Clinton...
In Espana, Veritas: Pres. Clinton Concedes Spain’s Green Jobs Program ‘Has Cost Many Jobs’
Spain’s decade-long program to subsidize the creation and continued existence of so-called green jobs through a massive infusion of taxpayer resources “has cost many jobs,” former President Bill Clinton admitted to a Spanish audience at the European University of Madrid this week, according to the Spanish daily newspaper El Mundo (a translated version of the piece can be found below).

The statement mirrors closely the findings of a recent study authored by Professor Gabriel Calzada of Spain, a report that has attracted attention in the United States as the current president continues to cite Spain as a model to be followed in promoting a similar green jobs plan here at home.

 

[Old Rocks]

If we perfect carbon nanotubes we could produce solar cells with 80% efficiency. That would solve the energy crisis.

And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them.

Solar technology has had several decades and zillions of dollars worth of R&D, and we're no closer to your solar powered Utopia today than any other time along the way.

Completely wrong.

February 24, 2009, 4:30 pm
First Solar Claims $1-a-Watt ‘Industry Milestone’
By James Kanter


The maker of photovoltaic cells, based in Tempe, Ariz., said government subsidies of the sort provided in Germany are helping make the solar industry competitive. The solar photovoltaic industry has plenty of supporters, but wider uptake of the technology has long been hampered by cost.

High costs have not just prevented consumers and companies plastering more homes and offices with solar cells. They also have bolstered the claim that large quantities of fossil fuels and nuclear power will be necessary in the future in part because solar panels do not provide value for money.

On Tuesday, First Solar, a global photovoltaic panel maker based in Tempe, Ariz., said it had reached an “industry milestone” by reducing its production costs to less than $1 a watt.

In a statement — seen by Green Inc. on Tuesday — First Solar, which has produced modules for solar installations in several countries in Europe, said it had brought costs down to $1 from $3 over the past four years through economies of scale by increasing its production capacity by 50 times, and by passing on those savings to consumers.


First Solar’s chief executive, Mike Ahearn, tipped his hat to countries like Germany that have offered generous tariffs to producers of solar electricity.

“Without forward-looking government programs supporting solar electricity, we would not have been able to invest in the capacity expansion which gives us the scale to bring costs down,” Mr. Ahearn said in the statement.First Solar Claims $1-a-Watt ‘Industry Milestone’ - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[Old Rocks]

If we perfect carbon nanotubes we could produce solar cells with 80% efficiency. That would solve the energy crisis.

And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them.

Solar technology has had several decades and zillions of dollars worth of R&D, and we're no closer to your solar powered Utopia today than any other time along the way.

With rising energy costs and the growing concern over global warming motivating people to live a more green daily life, solar energy company Nanosolar has hit on a bargain basement price point … one Dollar ($1) a watt. Sort of. Nano solar is placing their energy efficient and cost effective solar panels on eBay with a starting bid price of .99. Bids have risen to over $10,000 with the auction going until December 27th.


Still, with the auction going on, the story is how Nansolar has been able to make solar energy collection so cheap. According to the company website, Nanosolar essentially “prints” the solar cells on their aluminum base, making it 100 times thinner, and 100 times faster to manufacture. That’s the company hype anyway. Still, with this proprietary manufacturing process in place, Nanosolar can not only offer affordable solar cells that are cheaper to operate than coal, but the efficiency will improve as the technology matures.

And with heavy hitting executives from IBM joining the team, it seems only a matter of time before Nanosolar takes the lead in solar energy collection. And with over $100 million in raised capitol and orders for the first 18 months of operation, Nanosolar seems well on its way.

Source: Solve Climate
At a Dollar a watt, energy supplier makes solar really affordable » Coolest Gadgets

 

[jreeves]

If we perfect carbon nanotubes we could produce solar cells with 80% efficiency. That would solve the energy crisis.

And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them.

Solar technology has had several decades and zillions of dollars worth of R&D, and we're no closer to your solar powered Utopia today than any other time along the way.

With rising energy costs and the growing concern over global warming motivating people to live a more green daily life, solar energy company Nanosolar has hit on a bargain basement price point … one Dollar ($1) a watt. Sort of. Nano solar is placing their energy efficient and cost effective solar panels on eBay with a starting bid price of .99. Bids have risen to over $10,000 with the auction going until December 27th.


Still, with the auction going on, the story is how Nansolar has been able to make solar energy collection so cheap. According to the company website, Nanosolar essentially “prints” the solar cells on their aluminum base, making it 100 times thinner, and 100 times faster to manufacture. That’s the company hype anyway. Still, with this proprietary manufacturing process in place, Nanosolar can not only offer affordable solar cells that are cheaper to operate than coal, but the efficiency will improve as the technology matures.

And with heavy hitting executives from IBM joining the team, it seems only a matter of time before Nanosolar takes the lead in solar energy collection. And with over $100 million in raised capitol and orders for the first 18 months of operation, Nanosolar seems well on its way.

Source: Solve Climate
At a Dollar a watt, energy supplier makes solar really affordable » Coolest Gadgets

Solve Climate a completely unbiased source I am sure.

 

[Old Rocks]

A long-sought solar milestone was eclipsed on Tuesday, when Tempe, Ariz.–based First Solar Inc. announced that the manufacturing costs for its thin-film photovoltaic panels had dipped below $1 per watt for the first time. With comparable costs for standard silicon panels still hovering in the $3 range, it's tempting to conclude that First Solar's cadmium telluride (CdTe) technology has won the race. But if we're concerned about the big picture (scaling up solar until it's a cheap and ubiquitous antidote to global warming and foreign oil) a forthcoming study from the University of California–Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory suggests that neither material has what it takes compared to lesser-known alternatives such as—we're not kidding—fool's gold.

Even if the solar cell market were to grow at 56 percent a year for the next 10 years—slightly higher than the rapid growth of the past year—photovoltaics would still only account for about 2.5 percent of global electricity, LBNL researcher Cyrus Wadia says. "First Solar is great, as long as we're talking megawatts or gigawatts," he says. "But as soon as they have to start rolling out terawatts, that's where I believe they will reach some limitations."
Solar Panels Get Cheap, But Will the Trend Last? - Research says Silicon Solar Panels like First Solar Uses May Not Hold Up to Scale - Popular Mechanics

 

[jreeves]

If we perfect carbon nanotubes we could produce solar cells with 80% efficiency. That would solve the energy crisis.

And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them.

Solar technology has had several decades and zillions of dollars worth of R&D, and we're no closer to your solar powered Utopia today than any other time along the way.

Completely wrong.

February 24, 2009, 4:30 pm
First Solar Claims $1-a-Watt ‘Industry Milestone’
By James Kanter


The maker of photovoltaic cells, based in Tempe, Ariz., said government subsidies of the sort provided in Germany are helping make the solar industry competitive. The solar photovoltaic industry has plenty of supporters, but wider uptake of the technology has long been hampered by cost.

High costs have not just prevented consumers and companies plastering more homes and offices with solar cells. They also have bolstered the claim that large quantities of fossil fuels and nuclear power will be necessary in the future in part because solar panels do not provide value for money.

On Tuesday, First Solar, a global photovoltaic panel maker based in Tempe, Ariz., said it had reached an “industry milestone” by reducing its production costs to less than $1 a watt.

In a statement — seen by Green Inc. on Tuesday — First Solar, which has produced modules for solar installations in several countries in Europe, said it had brought costs down to $1 from $3 over the past four years through economies of scale by increasing its production capacity by 50 times, and by passing on those savings to consumers.


First Solar’s chief executive, Mike Ahearn, tipped his hat to countries like Germany that have offered generous tariffs to producers of solar electricity.

“Without forward-looking government programs supporting solar electricity, we would not have been able to invest in the capacity expansion which gives us the scale to bring costs down,” Mr. Ahearn said in the statement.First Solar Claims $1-a-Watt ‘Industry Milestone’ - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com

Hmm...
How much does electricity cost? What is a kilowatt-hour? (kWh)
The average cost of residential electricity was 11¢/kWh (DOE) in the U.S. in December 2008. The average household used 936 kWh/mo. in 2007 (DOE) and would pay about $100 for it based on the March 2009 average rate. DOE also has historical rates.

 

[Old Rocks]

And if worms had machine guns, birds wouldn't fuck with them.

Solar technology has had several decades and zillions of dollars worth of R&D, and we're no closer to your solar powered Utopia today than any other time along the way.

Completely wrong.

February 24, 2009, 4:30 pm
First Solar Claims $1-a-Watt ‘Industry Milestone’
By James Kanter


The maker of photovoltaic cells, based in Tempe, Ariz., said government subsidies of the sort provided in Germany are helping make the solar industry competitive. The solar photovoltaic industry has plenty of supporters, but wider uptake of the technology has long been hampered by cost.

High costs have not just prevented consumers and companies plastering more homes and offices with solar cells. They also have bolstered the claim that large quantities of fossil fuels and nuclear power will be necessary in the future in part because solar panels do not provide value for money.

On Tuesday, First Solar, a global photovoltaic panel maker based in Tempe, Ariz., said it had reached an “industry milestone” by reducing its production costs to less than $1 a watt.

In a statement — seen by Green Inc. on Tuesday — First Solar, which has produced modules for solar installations in several countries in Europe, said it had brought costs down to $1 from $3 over the past four years through economies of scale by increasing its production capacity by 50 times, and by passing on those savings to consumers.


First Solar’s chief executive, Mike Ahearn, tipped his hat to countries like Germany that have offered generous tariffs to producers of solar electricity.

“Without forward-looking government programs supporting solar electricity, we would not have been able to invest in the capacity expansion which gives us the scale to bring costs down,” Mr. Ahearn said in the statement.First Solar Claims $1-a-Watt ‘Industry Milestone’ - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com

Hmm...
How much does electricity cost? What is a kilowatt-hour? (kWh)
The average cost of residential electricity was 11¢/kWh (DOE) in the U.S. in December 2008. The average household used 936 kWh/mo. in 2007 (DOE) and would pay about $100 for it based on the March 2009 average rate. DOE also has historical rates.

God, you are either a silly ass, or totally ignorant. The referance to dollar a watt is to the installation cost of the generator. A coal plant costs over $2 a watt to build. And then you have to buy the coal. And they never factor in the cost of the people that develop asthma from the smokestack emmissions.

At a dollar a watt, a 5 kw roof generating facility would cost $5000 for the solar panels, about $2000 for the grid parrallel invertor, and, if you are not a handyman, another $3000 for installation. 10 grand is a lot, but that would more than power the average household, and if one had an electric vehicle, you would be powering your home and vehicle, and that would mean a payback period of under five years, with a minimum lifespan of 20 years on the system.

 

[Oddball]

If you're such a genius, why aren't you in the industry??

C'mon....Bring it.

 

[KittenKoder]

If you're such a genius, why aren't you in the industry??

C'mon....Bring it.

He either owns stock or is hired by them already.

 

[mskafka]

Well, there are usually 2 sides to every story. And I've been given one side...the conservative side, again. Professor Gabriel Calzada of course is a global climate change skeptic. It's exactly what I expected to find, when I clicked on the link given to me.

Again, I prefer to look at a subject or story from more than one angle. And yes, there have been criticisms of Calzada's research. And just because Bill Clinton makes a statement, that does not mean that every liberal is going to bow down and take it as gospel. He isn't our Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity.

This liberal has to go to bed, as I have to be up at 400 AM. Yes, liberals work too.