The Brew Barons

The Brew Barons: Masters of Advanced Fermentation, Driving the Redefinition of Biofuels: Pt 1
By Jim Lane, Biofuels Digest
March 14, 2011 Will the new fermentation technologies completely shatter preconceptions about biofuels and bio-based products and redefine the way in which we approaches the production of fuel, food, feed and fiber?

Miami, FL, USA -- The Regents of the University of Washington generally only admit under conditions of duress – waterboarding is typically employed – that I graduated from their institution. At issue? What they felt was an inappropriate level of focus on beer and other fermentation products as a subject of personal discovery disguised as undergraduate research.

They’ve been laughing in Seattle since I left, but unintentionally I may just have the last laugh. It may be the case that fermentation, in its modern incarnation, may indeed be the key to saving Western civilization from itself.

Is there enough energy, food, fiber and feed for all? Advances in industrial fermentation – a/k/a an incredulous “you’re making what? from what? using what? – will be the key to answering that question.

The stars of this drama are using everything from sorbitol to steel waste gases, grass clippings, pulp mill black liquor, sludge, cane trash, vinasse, leftover chili, and potato peels that never found a home.

They are using two basic strategies – fermenting liquids and, more unusually, fermenting gases too. Most are fermenting liquids; companies utilizing gas-phase fermentation, like Coskata, LanzaTech and IneosBio, are just now proceeding towards demonstration at scale.

Their microorganisms have become so focused and well trained that they are creating phosphate-free detergents, ethanol, organic acids, diesels, gasoline, base and novel chemicals, even synthetic anti-malarials. Just today, Codexis announced that it has developed a process to capture CO2 from coal-fired power flue stacks by fermenting the waste gases.

Intriguingly, researchers from Cornell this week reported, in “Bacterial Community Structures Are Unique and Resilient in Full-Scale Bioenergy Systems” (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Feb. 22, 2011), analysis of 400,000 gene sequences of the microbes in the sludge at nine Budweiser facilities that treat wastewater in bioreactors. Anheuser-Busch InBev recoups 20 percent of its heat energy use through the methane produced by these nicrobes, saving the company millions of dollars every year. The intrigue: the Cornell engineers are looking to prevent methane production by the microbes, and instead, to shape the bacterial communities to produce carboxylates, which are a precursor to the alkanes found in fuels.

“We are going to shape these communities so they start making what we want,” said Cornell’s Largus Angenent, associate professor of biological and environmental engineering.

Now that’s the, ahem, spirit. That’s the outlook that why these fermentation-meisters are responsible – along with the Kings of Catalysis – for shaking up the world in a very positive way.

The New Brew Barons
They are the new Brew Barons. In an earlier age, they might have been content to make White Lightning, or craft brews. Today their targets are jet fuel, renewable gasoline, renewable diesel, ethanol, a boatload of renewable chemicals, plus feed grains, food oils, pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, and more.

One thing is for sure. Based on the advances they are making, anyone who begins a sentence with “biofuels are…” isn’t up on the science. They are too turbulent to be characterized – too fast-moving to be catalogued or pigeon-holed. The nature, potential, and value of biofuels are changing nearly as rapidly as feedstocks in a fermenter.

Who are they? Let’s look at some of the best and the brightest.

Algenol
An interesting approach. Algenol are utilizing algae to make starches, which they then ferment into ethanol.

Algenol Biofuels and Dow Chemical are in the process of constructing a $50 million pilot algae biofuels plant in Freeport, Texas. The plant will be located with Dow’s existing chemicals complex, and will supply CO2 as well as land for the pilot algae facility. Dow said that it was interested in Algenol’s ability to use algae to produce ethanol, which could be used as a base for making ethylene, which is in turn a feedstock for many types of chemicals. The plant is designed to produce 100,000 gallons of ethanol per year at a target price of between $1.00 and $1.25 per gallon, according to CEO Paul Woods, who added that groundbreaking is expected to commence this year. Traditionally, chemical companies have been using natural gas as an ethylene feedstock.

Amyris
It was an unheralded IPO – a lot of people passed on it at $16, now the stock is riding at $32 less than six months later, and the company just received this week its first purchase order for Amyris renewable squalane. The order was generated through collaboration with Amyris’s partner, Soliance, a leading green ingredient provider to the cosmetic industry based in France.

Last week, Amyris announced that it had completed multiple runs of its fermentation process using its engineered yeast to produce renewable farnesene, in 100,000 and 200,000 liter capacity fermenters. These runs were completed through contract manufacturing operations in North America and Europe.

The results of these fermentation runs, including yields, were consistent with previous runs at smaller scale. Amyris expects to commence commercial production of Biofene in the second quarter of 2011 and ramp production through manufacturing arrangements with entities including Biomin and Tate & Lyle.

In addition, Amyris and Grupo São Martinho, a leading sugar and ethanol producer in Brazil, have commenced site preparation on their joint venture production facility at Usina São Martinho. All of these facilities will utilize fermentors with capacities ranging between 100,000 and 600,000 liters.

Amyris is building an integrated renewable products company by applying its industrial synthetic biology platform to provide alternatives to select petroleum-sourced products used in specialty chemical and transportation fuel markets worldwide. They genetically modify microorganisms, primarily yeast, and use them as living factories in established fermentation processes to convert plant-sourced sugars into potentially thousands of target molecules. Their first commercialization efforts have been focused on a molecule called farnesene, which forms the basis for a wide range of products varying from specialty chemical applications such as detergents, cosmetics, perfumes and industrial lubricants, to transportation fuels such as diesel.

They have developed genetic engineering and screening technologies that enable us to modify the way microorganisms, or microbes, process sugar. By controlling these metabolic pathways, they design microbes to serve as living factories, or biorefineries, to produce target molecules that we seek to commercialize. Their platform utilizes proprietary high-throughput processes to create and test as many as 1,000 yeast strains a day in order to select those yeast strains which are most efficient. They first developed and applied our technology to create microbial strains to produce artemisinic acid, a precursor of artemisinin, an anti-malarial therapeutic. This work was funded by a five year grant awarded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to the Institute for OneWorld Health. We have granted a royalty-free license to this technology to sanofi-aventis for the commercialization of artemisinin-based drugs.

Bluefire Renewables
BlueFire often gets overlooked because they are not using enzymes for the crucial hydrolysis step, and missing out on the attention that is generated by companies like Codexis, genencor and Novozymes for their enzyme customers. But fermenting their acid hydrolysis brother indeed they are, and operating a successful, proven technology for a number of years now.

Next step – they are awaiting loan guarantees – like Fulcrum, BP Biofuels, POET and a number of others – in order to proceeed with their Fulton,Mississippi-based cellulosic ethanol project. The facility will be engineered and built by Wanzek Construction, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of MasTec, Inc. (MTZ) , for a fixed price of $296 million which includes an approximately $100 million biomass power plant as part of the facility.

In recent months, BlueFire had also announced the securing of 15-year offtake and feedstock contracts with credit worthy partners, and has thereby became the first advanced biofuels company to secure all three legs of the requirements generally associated with DOE loan guarantees. BlueFire is working with both the USDA and DOE loan programs, and over the past three years has secured $88 million in DOE grants.

Last month, BlueFire Renewables announced that Lincoln Park Capital Fund will invest up to $10 million in the company. Upon signing the agreement, LPC invested $150,000 in BlueFire as an initial investment under the agreement at $.35 per share together with warrants to purchase an equivalent number of shares at an exercise price of $.55 per share. BlueFire intends to use the proceeds of this transaction for general corporate purposes and to aid in the closing of additional financing for the Fulton project.

Cobalt Technologies
Cobalt Technologies is commercializing cellulosic biobutanol, a versatile platform molecule for the renewable and profitable replacement of petrochemicals and petroleum. The Company’s technology efficiently converts diverse non-food feedstocks – initially, hemicellulose extracts from woody biomass and sugar cane bagasse – into biobutanol. Cobalt will offer complete systems for biomass power facilities and retrofitting pulp and paper plants with a cost-effective biorefinery module, taking advantage of benefits of co-location (feedstock supply, logistics, permits) while enhancing overall facility returns. Feedstock for the biorefinery will be low-value hemicellulose extracted from woody biomass (or bagasse) that otherwise would be burned for energy.

Biobutanol can be used as is in paints, coatings and other chemical products, a 1.2 billion gallon, $6 billion market. It can also be converted via known chemistry into a wide range of high value products, including 1-butene, isobutene and butyraledehyde derivatives, replacing petrochemicals and accessing a 67 billion gallon, $300 billion market, and full performance jet fuel and diesel. Biobutanol can also be blended with gasoline, diesel and ethanol to reduce emissions.

Engineered to achieve low costs through high productivity, energy efficiency and the use of low-cost feedstock, Cobalt is making biobutanol and its derivatives a cost effective substitute to petroleum-based materials.

Codexis
Codexis’ platform is based on proprietary directed evolution biocatalysis technology. Codexis manufactures industrial biocatalysts for use in creating faster, more efficient and environmentally-friendly manufacturing processes and industrial scale in the bioindustrials and pharmaceuticals markets.

At the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit this week in Washington, DC, Codexis will announce significant progress towards developing economical, commercial scale technology to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. The program is supported by an ARPA-E Recovery Act program grant.

The grant supports development of custom enzymes to decrease energy needed to capture CO2 from coal-fired power plants. Enzymes developed by Codexis under the grant have been shown to be functional and stable in relatively inexpensive and energy efficient solvents for 24 hours at temperatures up to 75?C. Use of these solvents with fully developed enzymes is expected to reduce the energy needed to capture CO2 within the plant by 30%.

These reductions are possible through development of customized carbonic anhydrase (CA) enzymes, or biocatalysts. CA is an enzyme which catalyzes the transfer of carbon dioxide in nature – for example, CA enables carbon dioxide to be released from blood into the lungs during respiration. However, the natural enzyme does not function at the high temperatures and harsh industrial conditions in coal-fired power plant flue gas. In research being presented this week, enzyme performance has been improved by about 100,000 times over natural forms of the CA enzyme.

We profiled Codexis most recently in “Resistance is Futile: Codexis and the chase for low-cost cellulosic feedstocks“.

Coskata
Coskata was in the news most recently with the securing of a massive (though conditional, subject to closing) loan guarantee from the USDA that will power the company towrds its first commercial demonstration.

It’s an intriguing technology (that finds itself currently entangled in a lawsuit with INEOS), that employs a three step process: gasification, biofermentation, and separation. During gasification, the feedstock is thermally broken down to form synthesis gas (syngas). During the second step, fermentation, the syngas is sent to a proprietary bioreactor where patented microorganisms consume the gas and produce ethanol. The last step of the Coskata process uses conventional distillation and dehydration technology to separate the ethanol from the water, resulting in pure, fuel-grade ethanol.

Coskata’s feedstock flexible process can utilize virtually any carbonaceous feedstock, including energy crops such as: switchgrass and miscanthus; wood chips, forestry products, corn stover, bagasse and other typical agricultural wastes; municipal solid waste and industrial organic waste like petroleum coke. Our feedstock flexibility allows for enormous geographical and economic advantages over other fuel technologies.

Coskata’s hybrid process, combining gasification and biofermentation, leads to several competitive advantages in terms of efficiency, affordability, and flexibility.

Coskata’s highly efficient hybrid technology allows for one of the lowest costs of production in the industry. Our microorganisms are specific to ethanol production and our technology has the ability to extract the entire energy value of the feedstock. Finally, we are not dependent on expensive enzymes or chemicals and pre-treatment costs are significantly lower than any non-gasification based technology available today.

Second, Coskata’s ethanol conversion process is one of the most feedstock flexible technologies among advanced biofuel startups and is able to create a high quality fuel from virtually any carbon-containing material. This feedstock flexibility also leads to geographic flexibility, allowing the company to build facilities virtually anywhere around the world where feedstock is available.

Genencor
Known primarily in the biofuels neck of the woods as an enzyme supplier, Genencor picked up a 2010 Biofuels Digest Award for the development of its C5 BioIsopren platform for use in the production of branched chain hydrocarbons, C10 gasoline; C15 biodiesel and jet fuel blend stocks that they collectively refer to as BioIsoFuels.

Isoprene is an important commodity chemical used in a wide range of industrial applications ranging from the production of synthetic rubber for tires and coatings to use in adhesives and development of specialty elastomers. Current production of isoprene is derived entirely from petrochemical sources. There is an increasing global need for more isoprene and a simultaneous environmental imperative to reduce green house gases, both of which can be achieved by a high efficiency fermentation based process for polymer grade isoprene production. BioIsoprene™ will have broader commercial applications beyond the biochemical uses of isoprene in synthetic rubber, adhesives and specialty elastomers. As a C5 hydrocarbon, BioIsoprene™ has inherent fuel properties and represents a key biobased intermediate that can be converted to a drop-in transportation fuel additive using chemical catalysis to C10 and C15 biobased hydrocarbon fuels, thus addressing performance gasoline, jet fuel and biodiesel markets.

Genencor develops enzymes and enzymes systems that enable starch as well as a wide range of cellulosic biomass processing to deliver fermentable feedstocks for use in the production of biochemicals and biofuels. Feedstocks may include; corn, wheat, rye, barley, sorghum, triticale and rice. We develop biological systems capable of producing biobased chemicals from a wide assortment of feedstocks including refined sugars from starch and biomass-derived feedstocks.

Genomatica
Genomatica’s technology is used to make major intermediate and basic chemicals in a direct, one-step process. This one-step process means fewer processing steps, lower capital costs, greater efficiency, and reduced overall cost. We are able to go directly from renewable feedstocks to the product of interest, as demonstrated with our recent partnership with Waste Management. Genomatica’s technology offers sustainable chemicals at lower costs than petroleum-based alternatives. The unique integration of technologies cuts years and millions of dollars of R&D investment from developing bio-based processes for making low-cost chemicals. The organisms and complete manufacturing processes for Genomatica’s targeted products are developed with high productivity due to our platform.

Their platform has been proven through an astonishing 2.5 year timeline to pilot production for1,4-butanediol, or BDO; and through $20 million of industry and government collaborations. The platform allows them to cost-effectively perform high-throughput ‘in-silico’ (computer-based) design and testing of highly-optimized organisms, manufacturing processes and economics. This results in more efficient, focused lab work, much faster product development and time to commercial-scale manufacturing, lower-cost production, and de-risking of the process.

Gevo
Another celebrated IPO – Gevo just debuted at $15 not too long ago, but is already trading at a 30% premium, riding the NASDAQ currently at $19.71 after flirting briefly with $22.

Gevo has two proprietary technologies that combine to make it possible to retrofit existing ethanol plants to produce isobutanol, a four carbon alcohol which serves as a hydrocarbon platform molecule. We have developed a robust industrial scale yeast biocatalyst to produce isobutanol without typical byproducts operating at parameters equivalent to commercial ethanol producers. The second piece of technology is a separations unit that operates continuously and removes isobutanol during fermentation. This helps reduce distillation requirements, thereby reducing process energy consumption.

Gevo will produce isobutanol, a four carbon alcohol that can be dehydrated using well known technology to isobutylene, a C4 hydrocarbon. Isobutanol has 30% more energy content than ethanol and can be blended into gasoline without modifying automobile engines. Isobutanol is a low RVP blendstock and less soluble in water than ethanol. It can be transported in pipelines and be dispensed in existing retail pumps. Isobutanol is a biofuel that carries a RIN value of 1.3 and It can be an advanced biofuel from corn if it achieves a 50% GHG reduction.
Isobutanol also has a market as a chemical solvent. The opportunity for isobutylene spans many C4 markets in jet fuel, paraxylene, PET and other multi-billion dollar applications in fuels, synthetic rubber, chemicals and plastics.

Gevo has a number of off-take agreements and has announced non-binding letters of intent to supply Total for gasoline blendstock; United Airlines for biojet; Lanxess for butyl rubber; and, Toray industries for p-xylene.

INEOS Bio
INEOS Bio was most recently in the news with the groundbreaking at its 8 million gallon per year advanced bioenergy facility in Vero Beach, Florida. The facility will also produce up to 6 MW of renewable power from municipal solid waste and yard and wood residues, enough to power more than 4,000 residences. INEOS New Planet BioEnergy is a joint venture between INEOS Bio and New Planet Energy, which received a $50 million grant from the DOE last year towards construction of the INEOS New Planet demonstration plant.

The INEOS Bio process is a combined thermochemical and biochemical technology for ethanol and power production. It is comprised of four main steps: (1) feedstock gasification, (2) synthesis gas fermentation (3) ethanol recovery and (4) power generation. The process utilizes a patented fermentation process, where cleaned, cooled synthesis gas is converted selectively into ethanol by a naturally occurring anaerobic bacteria. The process has been under development for 18 years.

Last June, INEOS Bio received a $10.8 million in grants from the Department for Energy and Climate Change and the Regional Development Agency One North East towards the construction costs of its waste-to-ethanol BioEnergy Process Technology project at the INEOS Seal Sands site in the Tees Valley. The 7.9 Mgy (30 million liter) project will also produce 3 MW of renewable power and will be completed in 2012. The plant which will utilize 100,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste (which it will convert at a 25 percent yield) will create 40 permanent and 350 construction jobs, and will become the base of a larger commercial INEOS Bio plant that will open in 2015

GE to buy 25,000 electric cars by 2015

Fleet upgrade will include 12,000 cars made by General Motors Video
GE's electric deal

Paul Sancya / AP

GE plans to buy 25,000 electric vehicles by 2015 for its corporate fleet and to lease to customers, including 12,000 vehicles made by GM, such as the forthcoming Chevrolet Volt, shown above.
Reuters updated 1 hour 0 minutes ago 2010-11-11T16:46:28

BOSTON — General Electric Co plans to buy 25,000 electric vehicles by 2015 for its corporate fleet and to lease to customers, in a move it said could help speed acceptance of the technology.

The largest U.S. conglomerate initially will buy 12,000 vehicles made by General Motors Co, including the forthcoming Chevrolet Volt. It plans to buy other manufacturers' electric vehicles as they are introduced.

GE makes equipment for the electric grid that will charge these vehicles and owns a stake in battery maker A123 Systems . It estimated that it could generate $500 million in electric vehicle-related revenue over the next three years.

The cars will go both into GE's fleet of cars and trucks used by staff and be leased out by a unit of GE Capital that leases cars and other vehicles to businesses, for traveling sales representatives and repair crews, for instance.

"By electrifying our own fleet, we will accelerate the adoption curve, drive scale and move electric vehicles from anticipation to action," said GE Chief Executive Jeff Immelt.

The Volt is a plug-in hybrid car, which GM estimates will be able to run for up to 40 miles on battery power, but will also have a small gasoline engine to charge the battery over longer trips.

Nissan Motor Co also is rolling out a plug-in electric car this year, called the Leaf, which it estimates will be able to run for 100 miles on a charge.

These cars represent the next generation of vehicle electrification, following on gasoline-electric hybrids such as Toyota Motor Corp's Prius.

Businesses that use large fleets of vehicles have been embracing these technologies as a way to cut fuel costs, as well as lower their emissions of of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas associated with climate change.

United Parcel Service Inc and FedEx Corp, for instance, have both been phasing hybrids into their fleets of delivery trucks

For Those Near, the Miserable Hum of Clean Energy

By TOM ZELLER Jr.
Published: October 5, 2010

VINALHAVEN, Me. — Like nearly all of the residents on this island in Penobscot Bay, Art Lindgren and his wife, Cheryl, celebrated the arrival of three giant wind turbines late last year. That was before they were turned on.

Matt McInnis for The New York Times
Residents living less than a mile from the $15 million wind facility in Vinalhaven, Me., say the industrial whoosh-and-whoop of the 123-foot blades is making life unbearable.

Related
Times Topic: Wind Power

A blog about energy and the environment.

Go to Blog Readers' Comments
Read All Comments (345) »
“In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground,” Mr. Lindgren said. “Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.”

Now, the Lindgrens, along with a dozen or so neighbors living less than a mile from the $15 million wind facility here, say the industrial whoosh-and-whoop of the 123-foot blades is making life in this otherwise tranquil corner of the island unbearable.

They are among a small but growing number of families and homeowners across the country who say they have learned the hard way that wind power — a clean alternative to electricity from fossil fuels — is not without emissions of its own.

Lawsuits and complaints about turbine noise, vibrations and subsequent lost property value have cropped up in Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, among other states.

In one case in DeKalb County, Ill., at least 38 families have sued to have 100 turbines removed from a wind farm there. A judge rejected a motion to dismiss the case in June.

Like the Lindgrens, many of the people complaining the loudest are reluctant converts to the antiwind movement.

“The quality of life that we came here for was quiet,” Mrs. Lindgren said. “You don’t live in a place where you have to take an hour-and-15-minute ferry ride to live next to an industrial park. And that’s where we are right now.”

The wind industry has long been dogged by a vocal minority bearing all manner of complaints about turbines, from routine claims that they ruin the look of pastoral landscapes to more elaborate allegations that they have direct physiological impacts like rapid heart beat, nausea and blurred vision caused by the ultra-low-frequency sound and vibrations from the machines.

For the most extreme claims, there is little independent backing.

Last year, the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group, along with its Canadian counterpart, assembled a panel of doctors and acoustical professionals to examine the potential health impacts of wind turbine noise. In a paper published in December, the panel concluded that “there is no evidence that the audible or sub-audible sounds emitted by wind turbines have any direct adverse physiological effects.”

A separate study financed by the Energy Department concluded late last year that, in aggregate, property values were unaffected by nearby wind turbines.

Numerous studies also suggest that not everyone will be bothered by turbine noise, and that much depends on the context into which the noise is introduced. A previously quiet setting like Vinalhaven is more likely to produce irritated neighbors than, say, a mixed-use suburban setting where ambient noise is already the norm.

Of the 250 new wind farms that have come online in the United States over the last two years, about dozen or so have generated significant noise complaints, according to Jim Cummings, the founder of the Acoustic Ecology Institute, an online clearinghouse for information on sound-related environmental issues.

In the Vinalhaven case, an audio consultant hired by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection determined last month that the 4.5-megawatt facility was, at least on one evening in mid-July when Mr. Lindgren collected sound data, in excess of the state’s nighttime sound limits. The developer of the project, Fox Island Wind, has contested that finding, and negotiations with state regulators are continuing.

In the moonlit woods behind a neighbor’s property on a recent evening, Mr. Lindgren, a retired software engineer, clenched a small flashlight between his teeth and wrestled with a tangle of cables and audio recording equipment he uses to collect sound samples for filing complaints.

At times, the rustle of leaves was all that could be heard. But when the surface wind settled, a throbbing, vaguely jetlike sound cut through the nighttime air. “Right there,” Mr. Lindgren declared. “That would probably be out of compliance.”

Maine, along with many other states, puts a general limit on nighttime noise at 45 decibels — roughly equivalent to the sound of a humming refrigerator. A normal conversation is in the range of 50 to 60 decibels.

In almost all cases, it is not mechanical noise arising from the central gear box or nacelle of a turbine that residents react to, but rather the sound of the blades, which in modern turbines are mammoth appendages well over 100 feet long, as they slice through the air.

Turbine noise can be controlled by reducing the rotational speed of the blades. But the turbines on Vinalhaven already operate that way after 7 p.m., and George Baker, the chief executive of Fox Island Wind — a for-profit arm of the island’s electricity co-operative — said that turning the turbines down came at an economic cost.

“The more we do that, the higher goes the price of electricity on the island,” he said.

A common refrain among homeowners grappling with sound issues, however, is that they were not accurately informed about the noise ahead of time. “They told us we wouldn’t hear it, or that it would be masked by the sound of the wind blowing through the trees,” said Sally Wylie, a former schoolteacher down the road from the Lindgrens. “I feel duped.”

Similar conflicts are arising in Canada, Britain and other countries. An appeals court in Rennes, France, recently ordered an eight-turbine wind farm to shut down between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. so residents could get some sleep.

Richard R. James, an acoustic expert hired by residents of Vinalhaven to help them quantify the noise problem, said there was a simpler solution: do not put the turbines so close to where people live.

“It would seem to be time for the wind utility developers to rethink their plans for duplicating these errors and to focus on locating wind turbines in areas where there is a large buffer zone of about a mile and one-quarter between the turbines and people’s homes,” said Mr. James, the principal consultant with E-Coustic Solutions, based in Michigan.

Vinalhaven’s wind farm enjoys support among most residents, from ardent supporters of all clean energy to those who simply say the turbines have reduced their power bills. Deckhands running the ferry sport turbine pins on their hats, and bumper stickers seen on the island declare “Spin, Baby, Spin.”

“The majority of us like them,” said Jeannie Conway, who works at the island’s ferry office.

But that is cold comfort for Mrs. Lindgren and her neighbors, who say their corner of the island will never be the same.

“I remember the sound of silence so palpable, so merciless in its depths, that you could almost feel your heart stop in sympathy,” she said. “Now we are prisoners of sonic effluence. I grieve for the past.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: October 7, 2010

An article on Wednesday about the noise of wind turbines misstated the material of which turbine blades are made. They are typically made of fiberglass or plastic reinforced with carbon fiber, not steel.

Green lights for big solar projects on fed lands

One will install 28,360 collectors in Southern California desert Interactive
Solar power basics

Sandia National Laboratories

These "SunCatcher" systems are the backbone of one of two projects approved Tuesday. The solar dishes were developed by Sandia National Laboratories and Stirling Energy Systems for Tessera Solar.msnbc.com staff and news service reports msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 10/5/2010 3:19:06 PM ET

+-After five years of negotiations and battles, some of them environmental, two large solar power projects on Tuesday got the first-ever green lights to set up shop on federal lands.

More U.S. news Green lights for big solar projects on fed lands
After five years of negotiations and battles, some of them environmental, two large solar power projects on Tuesday got the first-ever green lights to set up shop on federal lands. Full story

.NYT: 'Whoosh' of wind turbines too loud for some
20 government workers with super-sized pay
Guilty verdict in horrific home invasion trial
'Bee' man shoots three in Midwest spree

.."These projects are milestones in our focused effort to rapidly and responsibly capture renewable energy resources on public lands," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement announcing the approvals in desert areas of Southern California.

One includes a square mile of solar panels near Victorville in inland Southern California, and the other covers about 10 square miles in the remote Imperial Valley, east of San Diego.

The announcement comes about five years after solar developers began asking the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for rights to develop hundreds of solar plants on federally owned desert land across the Southwest.

Expected to cost around $2 billion, the largest of the two projects will use 28,360 solar collectors known as SunCatchers to produce enough electricity to power more than 200,000 homes.

The approvals give the project sponsors access to almost 6,800 acres of public lands for 30 years.

Construction is expected to start on both by the end of the year, and Interior said the projects should generate almost 1,000 jobs.

"There are 11 million acres of public lands in the California Desert, and a large majority of those lands are managed for conservation purposes," Salazar said. "These projects, while a significant commitment of public land, actually represent less than one-hundredth of one percent of that total area. Given the many benefits, the extensive mitigation measures, and the fair market value economic return, approval of these projects is clearly in the public interest."

The two approvals are:

•The Imperial Valley Solar Project, by Tessera Solar of Arizona and based in Imperial County, Calif., is expected to produce up to 709 megawatts from 28,360 solar dishes, enough to power at least 200,000 homes.

•The Chevron Lucerne Valley Solar Project will use photovoltaic solar technology in San Bernardino County, Calif., and will produce up to 45 megawatts from 40,500 solar panels, enough to power at least 13,000 homes.

Interior said both are part of a "fast track" process that provides significant funding via the federal stimulus program if construction begins by the end of 2010.

Only on msnbc.com Pakistan roadblock: "Nobody will ... take fuel to NATO'
Graphene: The thin stuff that's a big fat deal
20 government workers with super-sized pay
Paying for your kid’s college? Don’t raid your 401(k)
Drug-resistant bladder bug raises growing concerns
A battery beats at the heart of these muscle cars

.."The Recovery Act’s payment for specified energy property in lieu of tax credit program makes Tessera and Chevron eligible for approximately $273 million and $31 million, respectively," Interior stated.

Environmentalists weigh in
Interior said California and federal agencies had "set up a joint compensation fund operated by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to ensure that impacts are mitigated."

Some environmentalists criticized the projects, especially the larger one, because of potential impact on habitats for bighorn sheep and a rare lizard.

"It's a classic example of a good project in the wrong place," Ileene Anderson, a biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity, earlier told the San Diego Union-Tribune. "We clearly need to get on renewable energy and get off of fossil fuels ... but we don't have to destroy species."

But the Natural Resources Defense Council and Defenders of Wildlife said they supported the projects because of advice they offered that had been incorporated into the projects.

"During the federal and state reviews Tessera Solar moved the project out of sensitive desert washes, scaling it back to 709-megawatts, to reduce important impacts," NRDC attorney Johanna Wald said in a statement Tuesday. "Tessera Solar then sat down with NRDC and our conservation partners and agreed to develop the project in two distinct stages and other measures, all of which went above and beyond the requirements imposed by state and federal regulators."

Tuesday's approvals came shortly after California regulators passed rules requiring utilities to derive a third of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, the most aggressive standards in the U.S.

The Bureau of Land Management opened federally owned lands in 2005 to solar development, but an examination of records and interviews of officials by The Associated Press showed the program operated a first-come, first-served leasing system that quickly overwhelmed its small staff and enabled companies, regardless of solar industry experience, to squat on land without any real plans to develop it.

Story: Wall St. firm behind slow solar pace on federal lands?
To expedite environmental review and bureaucratic red tape, Interior identified 14 of the most promising solar projects among the more than 180 current permit applications.

The newly approved permit for sites in California were the first in a series Salazar expected to issue before the end of the year. Final approval by 2011 qualifies projects for federal stimulus funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

"When I became secretary of the interior .... dozens of permit applications had languished," Salazar said. "There was no process for transforming ideas on paper to projects on the ground."

Currently, solar developers have proposed facilities that would produce more than 6,000 megawatts, enough to power 4 million homes for a day at peak usage. The projects are proposed for about 23 million acres of federally owned desert in the Southwest.

Land use and renewable energy experts said the BLM's initial mismanagement created a solar "land rush" that spurred lawsuits by environmental groups concerned about endangered species and rare plants.

Story: Here comes the sun: White House to go solar

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the state is on track to approve nine large solar plants by year's end.

"Our great partnership is helping to improve public health, grow our green economy, promote energy independence and strengthen our national security," the governor said in a statement.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

.Interactive: Solar power basics

Link | Share .Discuss: Green lights for big solar projects on fed lands
337 total comments
One will install 28,360 collectors in Southern California desert
“ Its about time. I'm fed up with environmentalists who keep urging us to use less fossil fuel, but then block every attempt to establish clean energy, whether its nuclear, hydroelectic (don't want to interfere with spawning fish -- and don't forget the Snail Darter fiasco of the 70's), wind (don't want to spoil the view off Martha's Vineyard, even though they're 10 miles out to sea), solar (why is there always an endangered species at every building site?).

They keep preaching "conservation", but with a population growing due to (mostly illegal) immigration, there's a limit to how much we can cut total energy usage in this country.

When it gets one right, the Obama administration should be congratulated. And, it got this one right.
”
Expand
Collapse Barry-NJ, with 25Reply “ If you really think it's environmentalists who are blocking attempts at moving away from fossil fuels, I have some BP stock to sell you.
”
Expand Collapse trolleater, with 11Reply “ Barry-NJ.......five years ago the Repubs were in control of the Congress and the Executive office. Sounds like they weren't saying no to alternative energy back then. Looks like it's the left wing environmentalists who typically support Democrats have been holding this up. Quit drinking the koolaid.

How is the obvious question not being asked......... If they are so wonderful, why did the panels Carter installed get removed?

Also, I swear I read an article not more that a few weeks ago that stated "No panels going on the White House". Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934816 ; http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/obama-says-no-to-solar-panels-on-white-house-roof/19632526?a_dgi=aolshare_twitter

Watching this Administration make decisions is like watching a tennis match.

Amateur hour in DC with these Socialist / Progressive parasites to society in charge!!!

Not much longer..........

8 votes#1.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:31 AM EDT.Mark-532951
Carter's panels were removed by Saint Reagan because Reagan didn't like them. There was absolutely nothing wrong with them.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carter-white-house-solar-panel-array

23 votes#1.2 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:04 PM EDT.V...
Stop-The-Statists

You sound as paranoid as a conspiracy theorist...

You seem rabid to spin anything done by the administration into a negative light... regardless of what it is... I think if the administration somehow found a cure for cancer, you would say it's really just a socialist mind control vaccine or something....

18 votes#1.3 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:21 PM EDT.DUDE-875416
Great, lets just cover the planet in solar cells. I like how the article ignored the obvious question that comes to mind. How much is this going to cost the American tax payer? How long will it take for the panels to pay for themselves? Should we be spending this money on things like this when unsustainable government spending hasn't been addressed yet?

Do you really think I'm going to put solar cells on my roof only because Obama did no matter what the cost?

5 votes#1.4 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:36 PM EDT.Karlmarx-1622182
DUDE,

Tell you what, when I send my taxes in, I'll include a note telling the IRS that my taxes can go toward those solar panels. That way, you can rest assured that your tax money will go toward something more important, like paper clips for the military or something.

11 votes#1.5 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:44 PM EDT.Holy_Cow
Mark-532951

Carter's panels were removed by Saint Reagan because Reagan didn't like them. There was absolutely nothing wrong with them.

They were Carter's

1 vote#1.6 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:32 PM EDT.Hawaii2
Solar Panels are not cost effective. Do your research. Expensive to make and install, but eventually there is no saving.

Bunk. Thinker: just read your comment. Yes, you are right!

2 votes#1.7 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:54 PM EDT.Ziti
Enough with the president-bashing. And over solar energy? Jeesh.

Mark #1.2's Scientific American reference cites one reason why the Carter-era panels were removed during the Reagan administration: cost. The contemporary article below supports that reason but with a tad more explanation:

White House Will Not Replace Solar Water-Heating System

AP

Published: August 24, 1986

WASHINGTON, Aug. 23— The Reagan Administration says it will not replace a solar water-heating system that was installed in the White House in the Carter Administration.

The panels of the system had been dismantled to fix the roof underneath. Dale A. Petroskey, a White House spokesman, said Friday, ''Putting them back up would be very unwise, based on cost.''

Joseph M. Slye, a spokesman for the General Services Administration, said a decision on replacement would be made after the roof repairs were done.

I would also suggest that the nascent state of solar energy technology and our relative ignorance of global warming in the mid-80's had something to do with the subsequent decision not to reinstall a new system until now. Thankfully, our knowledge about both topics has grown exponentially.

Something I've learned: The National Park Service oversees White Hour maintenance and repairs, while the GSA reviews the budget. The solar energy system installed on a White House maintenance building during the Bush II administration was in keeping with NPS long-term energy reduction goals for the residence. I should think the new solar panel system is too.

The lesson: Not everything in Washington is about who's president or which party is in power. Some things stand above all that. The White House itself is one of them.

4 votes#1.8 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 2:22 PM EDT.Bruce-308647
I also doubt if they make economic sense at this time. The cells are expensive to buy and install, and then you have to add storage devices (both for electric and hot water). You have to save a lot of energy to offset the cost, and then you also have to include maintenance cost and replacement cost. I heard somewhere that the "payback" for a hybrid car (extra cost offset by the savings in fuel) is something like 12-15 years, or longer than most people have their cars. And of course the batteries do need replacing at some point, which is expensive.

My point is, right now most of this stuff is just for show or solely to help the environment. Little of it makes actual economic sense.

#1.9 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 2:34 PM EDT.Handgunner
It's not Barry's house. It's the White House, and it belongs to Us, the People. Barry just happens to be the current tenant.

#1.10 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 2:56 PM EDT.Wheres Congress
So, where are the solar panels manufactured that the White House is purchasing? China? Or is the White House finally finding a way to create manufacturing jobs in the good old USA?

#1.11 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:08 PM EDT.J. Hill-1376776
Carter's Baaaaaaaaaack! or Barak. Whichever.

#1.12 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:27 PM EDT.Heartlight3
I suspect that considerable progress has been made in solar technology since the 70's when Carter's panels were used. It seems like all of you who are complaining about this just need something to whine about. This country has a lot more things to worry about than this president leading by example on alternative energy.

2 votes#1.13 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:38 PM EDT.Jon-1321288
Reagan not only removed the solar panels from the White House, which were a largely symbolic item, but he cancelled the Solar Power programs that Carter started. Those programs, if left in place, would have made the US the leader in Solar Technology, creating many good paying jobs and products that we could export to other nations.

The result of Reagan's actions allowed Germany to become the leader in Solar research and development and China to become the biggest producer of Solar panels, harming the US economy as we now try to catch up and have to import this.

The lesson is that backward thinking reactionaries aren't good for our country. Please, think this time and don't vote TP in November.

6 votes#1.14 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:41 PM EDT.RevengeFromMars
@Hawaii2, I have done my research. Solar panels can be cost effective, depending where you live. For example, if you live in, say, Hawaii, where electricity is 20 cents per kwh, twice what the rest of the US pays, and where there's plenty of sunlight, you'd easily break even in a few years. In places like California, Arizona, or Texas, it may take a few more years but you'd still break even well before the lifetime of the panels.

Also, not sure why your entire comment was in bold. I guess your comment is more important than mine?

6 votes#1.15 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:52 PM EDT.GK Thetruth
Ziti had a great comment above.

For everyone that is ignorant on the whole Solar energy debate. It is true that Solar Energy is currently the most expensive way to create electricity today. But at the current rate that the technology is improving, many predict that it will eventually be more efficient than burning coal, oil, or natural gas. Another benefit of Solar is that the cost to produce electricity is stable. Gas, oil, and coal costs will all increase or decrease based on current market prices Since we do not have infinite supply of the fossil fuels, I would expect prices to eventually increase. Nuclear is a very cheap, but we are hoping we will eventually find a satisfactory way to deal with the waste. Considering that most wars are over resources, and Energy is the most important resource of them all, wouldn't it make sense to spend a little bit of effort to perfect a way to extract energy directly from the Sun?

#1.16 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 4:36 PM EDT.Greek Prince
I wonder how much this cost me as a taxpayer? I wonder how many years before it breaks even? Never mind, it's the thought that counts not whether it is cost effective or not. Let's all go green and to hell with the cost. Throw the trash out in November.

#1.17 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 6:48 PM EDT.DB Akron
No Mark

They were removed because they did not work properly i.e. the savings failed to exceed the cost. The removal was recommended by the White House maintenance people.

#1.18 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 8:45 PM EDT.Weldon Gebhard-1638908
I have looked into Solar Panels for my house in Panama City, Fla. Great spot huh! I have a large south sloped roof perfect for installation.

However, the estimated pay back is 10 years and that is "estimate", and without maintenance. No one ever talks maintenance. Don't kid yourself, everthing needs maintenance. And, one needs back up power. One day maybe. They are making improvements.

#1.19 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 8:46 PM EDT.AtomicZeppelinMan
DUDE-875416: "How much is this going to cost the American tax payer?"

Handgunner: "It's not Barry's house. It's the White House, and it belongs to Us, the People."

Greek Prince: "I wonder how much this cost me as a taxpayer?"

These guys crack me up.

#1.20 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 9:09 PM EDT..Thinker-543390
Wonderful, I would guess a number of us have checked out solar and/or talked to a solar salesperson. Quickly finding out, even after rebates, that it would take about 150 years to break even. This move solidifies the mindset of Obama with Carter, aren't we proud.

8 votes#2 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 10:42 AM EDT.Valhalla Phil
If you did check and got that payback you were getting ripped off. Where I live, just a ferry ride from Vancouver, BC. My payback would be 16 years and that's because Washington states rebates are worthless.

Getting solar electricity is easy, so easy you can do it yourself. If you don't know how to wire an outlet or a switch, find someone in your neighborhood that does. Check this site for real pricing:

http://sunelec.com/

As soon as I finish building my house, that is where I'm going.

As for solar hot water, that payback is typically 3-5 years. I had it on my last house 20 years ago and it works great. Again, if you can find a neighbor that knows plumbing you can find a site, buy direct, and save a bundle. Here is another good web site:

http://solarhotwater.siliconsolar.com/

12 votes#2.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:12 AM EDT.Jon-1321288
And Phil doesn't even mention that you can hook up your Solar panels to the grid and get payback from the electric company during times when you generate more electricity than you use. And that is every sunny day.

3 votes#2.2 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:45 PM EDT..Act2
Better open the windows in the summer and wear coats in the winter! How about his home in chitcago? What about algore's large azz footprint of a house??? Better yet, put them on algore's jet!

6 votes#3 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 10:48 AM EDT.Valhalla Phil
I'm amazed they gave Bush credit for his work. What is largely swept under the rug by the leftist media is that Bush did a lot for alternative energy. In addition to what the story pointed out, he also removed the $3000 limit from the renewable energy tax credit. He spent more on alternative energy research than all previous presidents, a lot of which is paying off now.

His home was also designed from the ground up to be green, featuring solar hot water, solar electric, and geothermal heating. Compare that with Gore's house using 12 times the energy of the average home.

Here is the bottom line; Solar electric was absurd 30 years ago, ridiculous 20 years ago, and over the top 10 years ago. Even 5 years ago it was iffy. However, just like cell phones, computers, and TV's, technology marches on. At a dollar/watt retail, it is finally becoming ready for prime time. In less than half a dozen years they won't even need incentives.

I know as a conservative, when a leftist talks our automatic response is that the truth is usually 100% opposite and indeed, for solar that was the case. As an electrical engineer by trade, I can tell you that technology has finally caught up with their rhetoric.

Personally I see utilities, as just another unelected arm of the government with no competition. The only possible free market competition they have is home grown power. The only thing we need is a low cost solar conversion loan program so a homeowner could pay the same for a loan payment as they would to the electric utility. That and a nationwide challenge to have 100 million solar rooftops would transform our country and make it much more immune to possible terrorist attacks on our infrastructure.

Contrary to leftist propaganda, there is a lot of support for alternative energy in the conservative community. Conservative Texas gets 30% of it's power from renewables. How many blue states can boast that percentage?

2 votes#3.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:38 AM EDT.Suzy-2005071
Phil you are singin' my song. I have often said the green movement needs to focus on the individual level. Instead of massive wind farms that are inefficient for large scale power generation, especially when you consider the amount of land they take up, focus on individual homes. Same with solar. It's not practical (yet) to power a city with wind or solar, but you can power a single family home, if not in full at least in large part. Subsidize individuals through rebates, low interest loans, whatever it takes and you'll get a much more immediate and larger return on investment than subsidizing large scale municipal projects. Plus you increase demand which creates jobs in production, installation and maintenance. By taking individual households off the power grid you also free up capacity to adapt to other new technology like power stations for electric vehicles. Seems to me like we could reduce the government's capital investment for a greater return if we focus locally.

1 vote#3.2 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:44 PM EDT.AZChzhd
In light of the huge disaster in Hungary regarding the waste byproducts of manufacturing, do people understand the incredible garbage that comes from manufacturing solar panels?? Cant imagine how you can call yourself green for buying these when the damage done in manufacturing far exceeds the benefits to the environment lol Its almost a no win situation.

1 vote#3.3 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:45 PM EDT.zard1959
Vahalia Phil - It's true that Bush used many alternative energy stategies at his ranch. But his policies were often contradictory. After all, both he and Cheney's entire careers revolved around oil. Remember the secret energy meetings that were never disclosed? It turns out their 63 member energy advisory team had strong ties to oil, nuclear, and coal interests. I could go on, but it is pointless to expend our energies endlessly pointing fingers. So, can we just get over the partisan bickering and put-downs and get down to the real business of promoting alternative energy for the good of all? Stop name-calling and bashing. It serves no purpose. You obviously have useful knowledge to share. But for this country to go forward, we need to dialogue together and get over our differences. We as a country can do so much better and at least Obama administration is trying. For once, give credit where it is due. And let's work together as a nation, as people that are united instead of divided. Did you know that even China is way ahead of us in developing wind and solar? We can all do better, by working together, and visioning a much brighter future. Yes, we can!

5 votes#3.4 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:53 PM EDT..jw-438130
Not sure where you were getting quotes on systems. Mine ran 27k with 13k rebate. Also got a tax credit that reduced the overall out of pocket to about 8k. Got a tax exempt home improvement and only pay about $19.00 month average electricity bill (down from average of $300.00) - anticipate system to pay for itself in 4-5 years. Of course, I live in the sunbelt, that does make a difference.

11 votes#4 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 10:58 AM EDT.Act2
Payoff should include all the tax breaks. After all that is part of the total cost to you and the rest of the taxpayers. The federal govment has to subsidize solar energy and electric cars since they can't compete on their own.

2 votes#4.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:18 AM EDT.Capt Tripps
of course they can't compete, they are a relatively new and expensive technology (high efficiency, durable cells rated for single family homes)with little to no market share. The government subsidized all the current gas and electric power lines when they were built half a century ago. They subsidized plumbing when it moved indoors. This is the next step, and they are right where they should be, encouraging people to adopt so that it becomes common place and prices fall.

And you have a problem with that, why exactly?

9 votes#4.2 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:34 AM EDT.Act2
If it is such a savings, then people will purchase it. It can be installed in new homes and be part of the purchase price. You can't compare the infrastructure for gas and power line to solar panels. Last I heard, govment doesn't subsidize gas lines since the last plant construction I was involved in, we had to pay the full price to have a natural gas line ran to the plant to burn energy uselessly in an RTO, a useless environmental process! I don't believe cell phones needed govment intervention to get people to start buying them. In fact the govment makes more money off cell phones that the cell phone providers do. The original gas car didn't need govment to get involved, so why now to push an inferior product on people?

#4.3 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:50 AM EDT.Valhalla Phil
If technology continues to advance, neither electric cars nor solar power will need subsidies within have a dozen years. It is just the nature of technology. To reiterate, the one glaring omission to a solar plan is a low interest loan program to handle the up front costs. If that were available, you would see the avalanche effect and adoption would reach critical mass.

Anyone who reads my posts knows how conservative I am and I will tell you that the time is now to support solar and electric vehicles. You cannot stop the inevitable march of technology. What did a cell phone cost when they were first coming out? What about a PC? Color TV's in the fifties actually cost more than they do today, and that does not include inflation! It is the nature of the beast and solar and electric vehicles are no different.

Switching stances does not mean admitting you were wrong, it just means that the technology has finally caught up with they hype.

3 votes#4.4 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:52 AM EDT.Act2
All I have to say is if they are that good, they would sell themselves!

1 vote#4.5 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:00 PM EDT.clarke ong
Oh, I don't know....Coal SUCKS and it sells itself.

#4.6 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:59 PM EDT.crashmld
I can go over 400 miles with my gas guzzling car, pull into a gas station and fill up with the stuff then continue on for another 400 miles or so. Can you that with an electric car? If the electric cars and all these hybrids were so good then why are there not more on the road?

#4.7 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:45 PM EDT..jw-438130
Anything we can do to reduce dependence on ME oil, even subsidizing solar and electric, is better than continuing to borrow money from China to fight wars over oil.

5 votes#5 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:24 AM EDT.STexan
For the last time ... we do not use oil to generate electricity! Never have, never will. We need more nuclear power generation, and everyone will be satisfied.

Half of US taxpayers could not implement a solar or wind system if they wanted to, but you leftists have no problem with EVERYONE paying out of their pocket in the form of taxes, to pay a few contractors and homeowners for a technology that in the grand scheme of things will NEVER amount to more than just a few drops in the perverbial bucket in terms of realistic power needs. These numbers that get thrown around are all based "bull crap" estimations by a few industry major investors.

If solar and wind is SO GREAT, then why do you not want to rely on "electric bill savings" to pay for the startup costs? The same people with their hand out for these governement solar/wind tax credits, are the ones bitching about government subsidies, credits, and tax abatements going to farmers and large businesses. This world is being turned upside down, and most are clueless.

2 votes#5.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:37 AM EDT.Walt in AZ
@STexan:

Hawaii generates most of it's electricity by burning oil. Anyplace using diesel generators to generate electricity (very common) is burning oil to generate it. LOTS of oil gets burned to generate electricity.

Half (or more) or US taxpayers don't get their power from burning coal (I live in AZ and we burn natural gas to produce our electricity), yet our government spends tons of money subsidizing coal and this new "clean coal" idea. Why not subsidize solar as well?

And the numbers being "thrown around" are better than the "bullcrap" you put forth with no data or details, just a bunch of ranting about how the "leftists" want to take away all your hard earned money...

7 votes#5.2 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:53 AM EDT.Valhalla Phil
If you live in Texas, you should know that it gets 30% of it's electricity from renewables, putting blue states to shame.

I used to be a big supporter of nuclear, and even toured a plant. After TMI, I changed my mind. As an electrical engineer specializing in high avalibility systems, I can tell you that there is no such thing as a fail proof system. There is always a possibility of failure. When a refinery fails, there is loss of life and a few days of pollution. If we have something worse than TMI there would still be loss of life but there could also be millions of people effected by residual radiation exposure as well as perhaps millions of acres rendered useless for millenia. Statistically, even if the chance is one in a billion, that one could just as likely be tomorrow as it could be decades from now. When solar is just on the cusp of viability, and will be cheaper than utility power before the next nuclear plant is built, nuclear need never be a dominant energy source.

Payback for solar is already competitive with utility power with incentives and technology will continue to advance to the point that incentives won't even be needed in a few years.

There is no reason why every home in the lower 48 and Hawaii couldn't be a net generator of electricity. Where I live in Northern Washington state, there is a large solar push here, despite the fact that the states incentive program is useless. Look up Clallam county, WA, then consider that we are one of the most solar power active counties in the state.

Also, Germany is heavily into solar power and the bulk of their country is actually the same distance north as Canada. If it works for northern Washington, if it works in Germany, it can work everywhere but Alaska. Even Vancouver, BC has solar installations.

4 votes#5.3 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:15 PM EDT.clarke ong
New technology for photovoltaics is here with the 3 dimensional solar cell which is about 15 times more efficient than the status quo. It will produce significantly in Northern zones because it is not dependent on angle of incidence to produce peak power.

Next generation thin film is looking real good too. There is even (down the road a bit) photovoltaic PAINT so the entire skin of a dwelling of car would produce power.

If you actually take the time to see what is happening in new technology and come at this from an open mind, you will be convinced.

3 votes#5.4 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:31 PM EDT.American Illuminati
S Texan, stop fighting our current.

http://futurist.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/19/solar_3.jpg
Solar will be viable with the power grid by the end of the decade. If you look over Google Maps real view in ANY suburb, what do you see?? Acres & Acres of roof tops...The entreprenuers taht grasp this are going to be the one's controling elections in the 2020's.

1 vote#5.5 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:41 PM EDT..Be4real...
This is excellent news, the more this gets done the more cost efficient it can be for the masses.

9 votes#6 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:24 AM EDT.stormerF
If it cost $30,000.00 during the late 70's to provide hot water to the west wing offices,Just how much would it cost today and who is paying for it. What happens when there is a snow storm and clouds for a week at a time. That's right I forgot Carter did say he liked taking cold showers.

#6.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:22 PM EDT..marcelj
The gov needs to lead in solar wind etc by example. The blm needs to allow solar on our land after all we own it as the american people.

2 votes#7 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:40 AM EDT.Valhalla Phil
Sorry but with so many vacant roof tops available, there is no need to pave the desert over with silicon. Moreover, if we own the power, we benefit, if the utilities own it, they get the benefit that we pay for.

If we own it, in a decade +/- our power is free. If the utility owns it, we pay forever.

I am a big supporter of solar power, but only if we own it.

4 votes#7.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:20 PM EDT.clarke ong
Makes much more sense to not have so many long distance transmission lines and to produce as much as possible at the need.

Thats pretty much a no-brainer. So, the next real fight will be with the Commercial producer themselves. They don't want you to sell power, they want you to buy it.

2 votes#7.2 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:34 PM EDT.Jon-1321288
As Phil has stated earlier, he's as conservative as it gets. I am about as progressive as anyone on this board. And I have to admit, I am in complete agreement with everything Phil says on this issue.

It makes perfect sense to generate your own electricity on your own roof. And there are laws on the books already that say the utilities will have to let you onto the grid, a pay you something for your excess energy.

#7.3 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:54 PM EDT..Walt in AZ
@Act2:

You realize the federal government still subsidizes petroleum exploration and production, right? As if that weren't profitable enough on it's own...

5 votes#8 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:42 AM EDT.Act2
The govment makes ten times more money off petroleum products than the manufacturers do. I believe the greedy govment gets plenty more out of oil than the oil companies do. I am sure more would be done without govment intervention. Just ask the oil workers in the gulf!

#8.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:56 AM EDT..jw-438130
Jeez! Someone has a real problem with good news. It is not a "leftist" issue - it is an American issue. Even the US Military is looking into alternative energy sources. Many military bases are installing solar energy conversion systems - for electricity and hot water. This is a no-brainer, got to reduce oil dependence (and coal fired electric plants). As far as the carbon footprint - some people just love their big ol' pickup trucks and SUVs. Can't commute to work in style without them.....

9 votes#9 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 11:48 AM EDT.Flyingstar
Well MY "big ol 3/4 ton dodge pick-up" runs on Bio diesel and polutes less than a Prius!

4 votes#9.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:07 PM EDT.jw-438130
Right! No way your Dodge truck produces less pollutants than a Prius. I drive a Prius and did my homework before buying it.

3 votes#9.2 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:13 PM EDT.Act2
My corvette gets 30mpg and doesn't need an extension cord!

1 vote#9.3 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:23 PM EDT.jw-438130
You must be a good driver. FYI, Priuses are self-contained, no electric cord. I get average of 47 MPG and in stealth mode (battery only 100 MPG).

2 votes#9.4 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:32 PM EDT.American Illuminati
Act2

Your Corvette is also the product of Extreme & Arrogant Consumerism. America is going to have to rethink how it does things if it wants to become the world leader in ANYTHING again. Except consuming energy, we have the WHOLE WORLD trumped on that card.
"Go US! We burn more non-renewable resources a day then ANY OTHER NATION! Woo Go America"

86% of Americans thinking a car is a neccessity is one of the 1st blocks to our Nation advancing as a whole

2 votes#9.5 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:44 PM EDT.clarke ong
Corvette?

Do you Flintknapp as well?

1 vote#9.6 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:01 PM EDT..shadowmax-2454334

good points act2 - if solar were economicly feasible, the big corps would be on it like stink on sh!t.


1 vote#10 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:37 PM EDT..shadowmax-2454334
good points act2 if solar were economicly feasible, the big corps would be on it like stink on sh!t

#11 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:45 PM EDT.clarke ong
They are. They are trying to slow or kill it.

Where have you been? LOL.

4 votes#11.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:00 PM EDT.stormerF
Who wants to invest in something that costs more to created,and maintain,than our current energy supplies? No One. Soon as the Government funds stop the green energy industry also stops,it is just not cost effective or profitable.

1 vote#11.2 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:17 PM EDT.acidrain
StormerF:

And how much does it cost to secure Oil supplies in the mideast? When are we going to stop subsidizing oil with our military?

Solar has gotten a lot more affordable, and it will only get better. Gas and oil are old tech that will not get much more efficient than they are now.

1 vote#11.3 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:47 PM EDT.clarke ong
Yeah sure stormer. Thats why it is the fastest growing sector of private economy next to healthcare.

Why don't you make a REAL attempt to find out what you're talking about instead of coming at it from a negative at the git-go?

At the PRESENT TIME, alternatives are CHEAPER than fossil fuels because you consistently fail to factor in the hidden costs.

The truth is that you don't want it to be better.

2 votes#11.4 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:50 PM EDT..Neil-798344
...just another publicity stunt...

1 vote#12 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 12:58 PM EDT.Windy Citizen
Not if it inspires others. In fact, I will be turning down my thermostat tonight before I go to bed in order to conserve fossil fuel. At 9 pm I will be holding a press conference on my front lawn and will discuss future energy-saving initiatives, including taking quicker showers and finally fixing the cracked window in the basement.

1 vote#12.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:23 PM EDT..Mark Thomas-371822
It's really remarkable that something as innocuous as solar panels but demonstrative of where the future lies is so quickly derided by the right.

Same thing for Obama's speech to school children to study hard; according to the right wing it was marxist propaganda.

Talk about people with nothing of substance to say.

4 votes#13 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:02 PM EDT.jw-438130
I'm guessing some of the comments come from professional nay-sayers to any idea or concept that advances our country. These folks simply do not want to participate in real discussions on issues facing our nation. Some may mean well, but I suspect they do not put a lot of thought into their responses.

4 votes#13.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:13 PM EDT.stormerF
What country gave up on going green after trying it only to find out when the government subsidies stopped,no private corporation would invest in it? Spain. No private industry wants to push green energy,because it costs too much,and we have cheaper sources of energy. No one wants to wait 50 years to get their money back with a little profit,it just will not work like that.

#13.2 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:14 PM EDT.Mark Thomas-371822
Stormer, untrue. Too many solar energy providers were built in Spain and many went bust. Many though are now profitable.

The whole issue with solar technology is the cost to manufacture panels. As the volume goes up, costs will come down, unlike oil whose price will only go up while reliability declines.

The other thing to keep in mind is that you don't pay the true cost of oil at the pump because that cost doesn't include environmental damge or the cost of maintaining our sources of supply in the ME, among other costs.

#13.3 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:24 PM EDT.stormerF
Its not the providers,I care about,it is the Government subsidies that are needed to keep them going so they can make a profit off the Tax Payers. When the subsidies stop the providers can not make a profit and give up on green energy,Because we have cheaper energy,oil.If you want green go Nuclear at least it will last 100's of years,we have over 100 Nuclear facilities here working now.

#13.4 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:38 PM EDT.Mark Thomas-371822
Stormer, nuclear energy is good in the near term but there is obviously a problem with what to do with waste that is a health and environmental hazard for several centuries (I think).

Say the government could reduce its military expenditures in the gulf by $200b a year because we no longer needed oil from that area. Wouldn't that go a long way toward justifying the development of solar energy? In other words, there are a lot of benefits that are not directly reflected in the cost/benefit analysis of renewable energy.

Likewise, there are many costs not directly included in the alternative of doing nothing.

It's a good thing you weren't overseeing the Apollo program, that could never be cost-justified (at least in 1960).

#13.5 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:48 PM EDT.acidrain
StormerF conveniently ignores the costs associated with securing oil in volatile nations. Oil is subsidized.

#13.6 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:49 PM EDT.Jon-1321288
Are we now saying the Nuclear Energy has never had subsidies? It wouldn't even exist but for huge government subsidies.

And the cost of a Solar generating plant is right now about the same as a new Nuclear generating plant. The cost of the Solar plants will continue to fall, and the cost of the Nuclear plant does not take into account the billions of dollars required to store the waste.

Stormer also states that Spain is abandonning solar. Here is the first two paragraphs from the Wikipedia entry on Spain's solar program. I doubt that Stormer is correct:

"Spain is one of the most advanced countries in the development of solar energy, since it is one of the countries of Europe with more hours of sunshine. The Spanish government is committed to achieving a target of 12 percent of primary energy from renewable energy by 2010 with an installed solar generating capacity of 3000 megawatts (MW).[1] Spain is the fourth largest manufacturer in the world of solar power technology and exports 80 percent of this output to Germany. Spain added a record 2 GW of solar power in 2008. Total Solar power in Spain was 3 GW by end of 2009. Solar energy has covered 2.8% of the electricity demand in 2009.

Through a ministerial ruling in March 2004, the Spanish government removed economic barriers to the connection of renewable energy technologies to the electricity grid. The Royal Decree 436/2004 equalises conditions for large-scale solar thermal and photovoltaic plants and guarantees feed-in tariffs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Spain
#13.7 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 4:06 PM EDT.Mark Thomas-371822
Jon, stormer is correct in that many of the solar operations started in Spain went bust.

Many though restructured and are now profitbale.

#13.8 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 4:30 PM EDT..stormerF
I wonder how much hot water you could make with a gas water heater for $30,000.00 ,when Carter install these worthless panels? What happens when the sun don't shine? Carter did say he liked taking cold showers.

1 vote#14 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:10 PM EDT.jw-438130
Yet another dumb comment. Solar is renewable - gas is not.

1 vote#14.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:15 PM EDT.stormerF
Solar renewable,now you are talking dumb,if it is such a good idea why are the people who build really big buildings not using solar enegry? Since they only heater water for the west wing offices,I'll bet at $30,000.00 they could have heater water for 40 years or more using a gas water heater. Why kind of repairs and replacement do solar panels require? How much hot water do you use in an office dumbo?

#14.2 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:32 PM EDT.clarke ong
They are stormer.

You just don't want it to be.

2 votes#14.3 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 1:52 PM EDT..Captain of low taxes
If the goverment really wants to do somthing , why not mandate that all new homes must provide 25% of their own power....

and up that percentage every five years by 5%.

#15 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 2:18 PM EDT..hampster
President Jimmy Carter went solar, but that idiot Regan had all the solar panels dismantled and sold for scrap! Regans stand was America does not have to worry about energy!

#16 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 2:23 PM EDT.crashmld
I hate to burst your bubble but none were sold for scrap. Read this article to understand where they went and at least look things up before you spout off nonsense. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carter-white-house-solar-panel-array

#16.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:52 PM EDT..Chuck H-316019
First I wonder what changed the WH's mind? A few months back, he was against solar panels.

2nd. I wonder what this is going to cost us in TAXPAYER dollars $$$$$$? What is it going to save the Taxpayer and how long is it going to take the TAXPAYER to re-coop the money spent on the panels and maintance?

Just like Ted Kennedy, put up windmills, but not in my back yard.

1 vote#17 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 2:25 PM EDT..MikeNSanAntonio
Do you notice how MSNBC doesn't say what the price per kilowatt hour is? It's not an oversight cause they left it out of the article about Obama praising solar plant in the California desert. For over thirty years the Greenies have been saying that the price of solar panels will drop due to a technological break through. Well, it hasn't happened yet. And isn't likely to. Solar is three times more expensive than coal or nuclear. The solar energy fanatics have bamboozelled Congress into subsidizing their overpriced equipment. So, for you people bragging that you bought solar because of all the subsidies and rebates, shame on you. You just transferred the cost to your grandchildren because the Feds are printing money to give you the subsidy. If you're so committed to solar, you should have paid the full price by yourself. Then you would be entitled to be holier than thou. But, since you didn't, you're just another pig feeding at the Federal hog trough.

#18 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 2:31 PM EDT.clarke ong
Really?

What is the cost of a permanent Military presence in Saudi Arabia complete with a whole fleet to protect the shipping lanes?

What is the cost of environmental degradation and remediation from fossil fuel extraction and use?

What are the medical costs associated with fossil fuels?

What are the Geo-political costs associated with the same?

3 votes#18.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 2:39 PM EDT..Beckwolf
Yeah, I installed solar panels on my family's home a little more than a decade ago. With the reduction in my electricity bill this created, the panels will be paid for by the savings in 113.63 years. Nothing I would call worth it, especially considering how wear and tear is actually reducing their effectiveness, meaning we're looking at decades longer than that not counting maintenance or replacement that will be needed long before the original 113.63 years is up. Then combine that with the fact that here in northern California our years have been getting colder and the period with sufficient sun is lasting far fewer weeks these last few years, the panels are becoming even less efficient. It's similar to buying a Civic Hybrid versus a regular Civic. When I bought my Civic, I compared the cost increase for a hybrid to the improved mileage to see how many miles I would have to drive to pay for the extra cost if gas prices never rose...no car would last that long.

#19 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 2:34 PM EDT..smit-o-rama
Whatever! Progressives can watch as they are removed in 2013...

#20 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 2:37 PM EDT..DarkRising
This is a great way to lead by example.

2 votes#21 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 2:40 PM EDT.American Illuminati
Cheers

1 vote#21.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 2:46 PM EDT.smit-o-rama
Example of what? Worshiping a dreadfully inefficient alternative power method that can never replace conventional ones?

Not to worry though! Cap & Trade will never pass because Obama is going to lose the Congress in a BIG way.

Global warming is nothing more then a pro-global socialist backed wealth redistribution scheme.

#21.2 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 2:49 PM EDT.clarke ong
No, WALMART is a conservative backed redistribution scheme.

Inefficient is allowing 5,0000 American troops to die for oil, along with the actual physical cost of same.

Inefficient is when your main power source pollutes your physical environment to the point where sulphuric acid rains from the sky.

3 votes#21.3 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 2:57 PM EDT.smit-o-rama
Who cares about WalMart Clarke? I've never shopped there nor do I ever intend to.

PS- Conservatives didn't back WalMart's financial rise, it was Democrats in the 1990's who saw to that. Do you feel like recalling who sat on WalMart's Board of Directors?

Does the name Hillary Clinton ring a bell?

While you are on the subject of polluting the environment, feel free to look up the amount of toxic byproducts that are produced to manufacture solar panels.

#21.4 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:00 PM EDT.acidrain
Horribly inefficient? Solar cells are usually 15-20% efficient, and some of the research types are 40%+ efficient. Gas engines are about 18-20% efficient, and dirty. And you have to ship it, making it even dirtier.

You have it backwards. Even if you don't get more power out of solar cells, they are still more efficient due to their other benefits.

Based on what evidence do you say it will never replace "conventional" power methods? Because you don't want it to?

Keep your paranoid delusions about socialist redistribution schemes to yourself.

1 vote#21.5 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:01 PM EDT.American Illuminati
Smit-o, paranoid much??

Even if Global Warming is a "scheme". Why is that a bad thing?? Too put pressure on business's as a whole to rethink how they do business so that it is perpetually sustainable?? That only seems like a long term smart business decision too have your grand kids owning stakes in a family business that planned ahead for 2011,2015 & 2025. Cap & Trade in it's current execution would put undue pressure on polluter's in the short term. Which is why the GOP needs to sit down at the table & properly lobby for their Coporate interests (GOP Corporate Campaign funding is out pacing Democrats SEVEN to 1). It needs to take a reality of what we have & a proper prediction to what we want. The idealistic Democrats & the StatusQuo Republicans both are needed at that negotiation table.

Secondly. By the end of the decade Solar's price will be competitive. Seems to me that if you look at any Google Map of suburbs, all you see is acre's & acres of rooftop's. Some smart entreprenuers are goign to capitalize on that.
http://futurist.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/19/solar_3.jpg

2 votes#21.6 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:01 PM EDT.smit-o-rama
Acres & acres of rooftops with panels subsidized by the government. How about these people pay for their setups with their own cash instead of the taxpayers?


#21.7 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:05 PM EDT.acidrain
Smit: Because it saves the tax payer money to not have to fight for oil in the mideast.

1 vote#21.8 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:08 PM EDT.clarke ong
How about you buy your own roads and schools.

1 vote#21.9 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:10 PM EDT.smit-o-rama
Roads and schools are shared costs for things that everyone can use while subsidized solar panels on rooftops are not.

I'm not saying solar panels are a bad thing if one wants to install them, I'm just pointing out that they are not cost effective and taxpayers should not be subsidizing them. You want a rooftop full of them? Great! Now go shell out 25-50K of your own money.

Next?

#21.10 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:18 PM EDT.Mark Thomas-371822
smit, there are obvious external economies to solar power, among them reducing the destruction of the environment and lower costs to maintain our lines of supply (re: ME wars).

In addition, as volume increase, costs come down and efficiency increase. What the government is doing is subsidizing solar energy (far less than it subsidizes carbon energy supplies) so that it can become a viable, general purpose source of energy where it is appropriate.

1 vote#21.11 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:23 PM EDT.smit-o-rama
Wrong Mark,

Solar technologies cannot produce a decent ROI because they are inefficient in comparison to other sources of power. This reason alone is why the US government subsidizes the entire industry and is also the reason you don't see major energy companies developing a crash effort towards it. IBM has some interesting stuff going on in the solar field, but it is not a realistic, cost effective solution that can be filtered down to everyday people.

If you want to develop alternative energy sources to get off of hydrocarbon based sources that is fine and I'm all for it. However, you need to look that the long term picture and start putting your R&D into realistic solutions.

The USA currently uses approx 3.6TW of electricity, the demand curve rises to 5.2TW by 2040 and 8.0TW+ by 2060. You have no chance in hell of generating this amount of power via solar & wind. Would you like to discuss what China & Japan's future energy demand curves are projected at while we are on the subject?

What the US should be doing is a initiative similar to the space program, however this time it is all about fusion research. This country is inexcusably the furthest behind in this field and should be in emergency mode leading the rest of the world.

#21.12 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:33 PM EDT.jw-438130
You've got to be kidding - no educated person could spout such nonsense.

1 vote#21.13 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:39 PM EDT.American Illuminati
Smit-O
The USA currently uses approx 3.6TW of electricity, the demand curve rises to 5.2TW by 2040 and 8.0TW+ by 2060. You have no chance in hell of generating this amount of power via solar & wind.

What your logic fails to comprehend is that 1) Our current energy backed Oil-Coal-Natural Gas system is heavily subsidized. 2) Your demand curve exists on current demands of the average American Citizen AND current inefficient uses within the infrastructure. Within this stat you are failing to comprehend the exponential growth of any & every tech industry. Not only is the cost curve of Solar going to be effective against standard energy means by the end of this decade. But the efficiency of every industry is increasing every day. Gas cars go farther, diesel cars still farther, hybrids still farther & next year I'm sure they'll still yet go farther. Pure electric cars can be completely viable in Urban living, & wouldn't it be nice to take a deep breath in LA?? But good Public Education that promotes "Little to No" carbon footprint could effectively get people rethining how they travel & use energy. If everyone completely neutralized their carbon footprint with offsets like solar panels to control their home energy demands & public transporation for travel & more efficient personal vehicles that would have an impacts as an Energy Consumer per Capita as a whole. But also good policy could promote Urban parking structures or parking meters with extension cords & Debit Card swipers. Then Electric Cars in Urban life would be EVEN MORE viable. Why do we have to use the most Energy? Don't Leader's lead by example. What if we were the most productive while being the lowest Energy Demand per Capita??

2 votes#21.14 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:58 PM EDT..WheresCongress
So, where are the solar panels manufactured that the White House is purchasing? China? Or is the White House finally finding a way to create manufacturing jobs in the good old USA?

#22 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:06 PM EDT.smit-o-rama
Because US manufacturers could never be competitive when figuring in the costs of Indium and labor unions.

#22.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:10 PM EDT..Joe Speranzi
I read somewhere where the panels were purchased from an Oakland-based firm, Sungevity.

1 vote#23 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:36 PM EDT..mark shipp
It will take the military to start installing solar energy devises before the nuts (i.e. the right wing) feel that it is 'American' to do so.

Whoops, they are. See Stars and Stripes. Guess our military has gone socialist. http://www.stripes.com/news/military-proposes-wind-and-solar-energy-for-outpost-in-eastern-iraq-1.90844

http://www.newser.com/story/comments/102194/us-military-ditching-fuel-for-solar-energy.html


5 votes#24 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 3:49 PM EDT..Joe66
Looks to me like they trying to buy votes with solar panels..good luck democrats im voting Republican in November.

#25 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 4:56 PM EDT.acidrain
Republican, or Tea Party idiot? Because there don't seem to be too many republicans left. Only nut jobs.

#25.1 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 5:06 PM EDT.Joe66
Republican

#25.2 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 5:15 PM EDT.American Illuminati
Why are you voting Republican?

#25.3 - Tue Oct 5, 2010 9:56 PM EDT

2 Brothers Await Broad Use of Medical E-Records

By STEVE LOHR
Published: October 3, 2010

There is no silver bullet for reforming America’s health care system, but medical experts have long agreed that digital patient records and electronic prescribing can help improve care and curb costs.

Using the Nimble service, a doctor can connect via iPad to a patient’s medical records.

Gabriela Hasbun

Dr. Tom Doerr, left, and John Doerr, the venture capitalist.

It seems straightforward. Just combine technology skills with investment money, and then develop innovative products. But to date, the push for a digital revolution in doctors’ offices has brought mostly frustration for the many companies big and small that are trying to conquer the field.

Just ask the Doerr brothers — John Doerr, the well-known venture capitalist who was an early backer of Google and Amazon, and Dr. Tom Doerr, a physician and software designer.

Dr. Doerr founded a software company in 1999, beginning with an electronic prescribing product and later adding electronic health records. His brother is the largest investor. After more than a decade, the venture has fewer than 500 doctors using its software.

The experience, Mr. Doerr said, has been “a long, slow march.” And Dr. Doerr conceded, “It’s been a lot harder getting to a business that is self-sustaining than I had imagined.”

But the Obama administration’s economic stimulus package contained an ambitious program to encourage the market for electronic health records, with billions in incentive payments to buy and use digital patient records — and eventually penalties for the failure to do so.

The Doerrs’ software company is only one of many hoping to cash in on the national mandate for digital medical records. The companies range from giants like General Electric to specialists like Athenahealth that cater to small physician practices.

They, like the Doerrs, are betting that the law will help create a turning point for the economics of digital health records, opening the door to rapid adoption by doctors and a thriving business at last.

The brothers are also betting that Internet technology and Apple’s iPad can make electronic records far easier to use and less expensive. Last week, they introduced a new product, Nimble, to allow doctors to manage patient information by connecting their iPads to data centers managed by the Doerrs’ software company, ClearPractice.

The Doerrs’ aging start-up is unusual in that it has evolved to extend its reach in health care beyond technology. The lessons it has learned along the way are a microcosm of the challenge of applying technology to health care.

To attack the problem of wayward financial incentives, the Doerrs bought a Medicare Advantage health maintenance organization, Essence Healthcare, in 2007, and shifted it toward paying doctors for helping make patients healthier. It now covers 50,000 people in six states.

They also built up a medical analytics software company, which tracks procedures and patient results for payers, enabling them to manage outcomes instead of just costs. The software also mines data to help hospitals and doctors make more informed decisions about treatments.

Their target market is doctors in small practices, with 10 physicians or less — where digital records are used least. More than 70 percent of the nation’s doctors are in such small practices.

The Doerrs’ three companies are part of the Essence Group, based in suburban St. Louis, not far from where brothers grew up. Dr. Doerr, 53, is co-founder and head of clinical strategy of Essence, and Mr. Doerr, 59, is the largest shareholder.

Though a small private company, Essence has attracted the attention of some experts. Intrigued, Dr. Denis A. Cortese, former chief executive of Mayo Clinic and a professor at Arizona State University, joined the Essence board two months ago. It is trying to bring to small physician practices, he said, the kind of health care championed at Mayo.

“These guys may or may not be successful, but they’ve got the right ideas,” Dr. Cortese said.

The goal, Dr. Doerr explained, is to deliver the better care and lower costs achieved by some large health care groups without being one. Essence, he said, is trying to combine technology tools, cooperative relationships between doctors and insurers, and financial incentives to create the “virtual equivalent” of an integrated system.

The goal also, of course, is to make money. Essence, though, does not have the look of a big winner anytime soon. It has 330 employees and yearly revenue of about $450 million. But the vast majority of the revenue comes from the Medicare insurer, which is like a regulated utility with modest profits.

If the Doerrs’ venture is going to become a money-spinner someday, it will come from software, a business that can grow rapidly and profitably, if successful. For its new offering, ClearPractice worked closely with Apple to develop the Nimble, a service tailored for the iPad.

Using Nimble, doctors do not need other computers in their offices, since most of the software and patient information resides on remote computers in data centers managed by ClearPractice. A doctor’s iPad connects to the patient data and software wirelessly, over the Internet, as if in a computer “cloud,” as this fast-growing model of computing is known.

Doctors pay a subscription fee of up to $499 a month if they choose all the ClearPractice offerings — electronic prescribing, electronic health records and billing software.

“With the right software that is cloud-based, the iPad is going to be transformational in health care,” Mr. Doerr said.

2 Brothers Await Broad Use of Medical E-Records
Published: October 3, 2010

The right technology, medical experts say, can potentially overcome two major hurdles to the adoption of electronic health records by doctors: cost and complexity. Those obstacles are most pronounced in the market of doctors in small practices that the Doerrs are pursuing.

Related
Times Topic: iPad

About one in five doctors now uses digital health records. But the percentage is far lower in small practices, while in larger, integrated health groups — Kaiser Permanente, Mayo Clinic and others — all use digital records.

The larger groups are big enough to afford the investment in electronic records, training and technical support. But they also use the electronic patient data as a tool to better manage patients with chronic conditions like diabetes and heart diseases, so they are healthier and less apt to require costly hospital care.

The groups use that performance-improvement data to market themselves to insurers and employers, and many are insurers themselves. So they have considerable economic incentive to use electronic records.

Yet such larger groups provide less than 15 percent of health care in America. For the rest, the dominant economic model is fee for service. The incentive is for more of everything — more visits, more tests, more pills, more surgeries. The sicker the patient, the more lucrative.

For Mr. Doerr, his private health care venture has been an education. “Our health care system,” he said, “is an absolutely dysfunctional circle where none of the participants — patients, payers or providers — are linked together in any kind of rational economic system.”

Until recently, doctors in small practices had no incentive to invest in electronic health records. They would bear the costs, but savings would go to insurers.

But with the federal stimulus package, the economic barrier will be lowered. The government plans to spend $19 billion in incentive payments — up to $44,000 per doctor, and gave practices five years to adopt electronic records before penalties begin.

As an investment, Essence is a world apart from the classic Silicon Valley venture-capital mentality of finding the Next Big Thing. Mr. Doerr, who joined Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers three decades ago, has done that as successfully as anyone.

“Health care is a complex system, where the improvements and effects are felt over time,” said Esther Dyson, an analyst, investor and friend of Mr. Doerr’s. “So in that sense, this is very different from conventional venture capital investments. It’s not going to take off quickly.”

Still, at the headquarters in Maryland Heights, Mo., Mr. Doerr’s team is thinking big. The chief executive of the Essence Group is Frank Ingari, who has known Mr. Doerr for 20 years, and headed a computer networking company that Kleiner had backed and helped take public.

Mr. Ingari, who is working Silicon Valley-style 80-hour weeks, speaks of health care technology as a “tremendous opportunity” both as a business and as a benefit to society. “This is a missionary endeavor,” he said