I had a green job

Written by Deborah Sloan, FoxNews.

cartoon-grants-solar-energyMitt Romney has recently taken fire not only from the Obama campaign but even from some left-leaning Republicans, for his rightful criticism of Obama’s destructive “green jobs” programs.  Not only is Mr. Romney right to criticize these programs -- and his position supported by many economic studies -- but in fact the situation is even worse than anything suggested by these criticisms. Green jobs are destroying the abilities and spirits of a whole generation of engineers. I should know. I was one of those engineers.

In 2008 I completed my Masters in Mechanical Engineering at Stanford and took a “Green Job” with a solar company. Excitingly, it seemed to match the green rhetoric--to have potential to create the incredible value of cleaner, cheaper energy.

Unfortunately, the more I learned about my job and industry, the more I realized they were fundamentally flawed.

Management said we would be competitive with oil and gas once we manufactured panels for $1.00/watt. But as a mechanical engineer, I learned most of solar’s cost is not panels themselves but “balance of system” (BOS) components like DC to AC converters, wiring, and structural mounting, adding about $3.00/watt for a best-case total of $4.00/watt. Coal and hydroelectric systems cost as low as $2.10/watt and $1.00/watt, respectively. Ifound no evidence that solar’s BOS costs would decrease meaningfully.

Nor did anyone have a solution to the problem that has plagued solar and wind energy since their inception: intermittency. Solar and wind energy come intermittently, with no means to store it for later use that wouldn’t add considerably to their already-high cost. Thus, the idea of a large scale solar and wind economy is farcical.

If the industry was fundamentally unproductive, so were my colleagues and I. We were wasting a tragic amount of time, talent--and other people's money--making a far inferior form of power when we could have been creating real advances in other, legitimate kinds of energy.

Just as disturbing was what these “jobs” did to people’s spirits. Every high-ranking person in solar or wind must eventually figure out, as I did, that he cannot compete in the market, that his competitive advantages are government subsidies and forced limitations on competitors.

Whatever technical advances we made didn’t solve the intractable problems, so our real victories came in forms such as the Cap and Trade Bill. I learned of the bill’s passage in the House of Representatives while driving home from a day spent on an interesting technical project. I knew my work was trivial in comparison. Our true means of revenue-generation was forcibly limiting carbon emissions, to force consumers into using energy sources like ours.

I had looked forward to beating the competition, but with superior products--and working even harder if we should lose, or if that failed, joining the competition in creating a more energy-rich world. When the goal is not out-producing but crippling of the competition, the goodwill of "May the best man win" becomes "What kills them can only make me stronger."

I wish I could say people work in Green energy because they sincerely believe in catastrophic global warming. But most also reject nuclear power, the only scalable form of CO2-free energy, hating it as a competitor while celebrating Fukushima for creating anti-nuclear sentiment. “Nuclear is dead!” proclaimed my boss at a staff meeting just days after the disaster. “This will be good for us!” he continued, in the wake of 20,000 deaths, not one caused by nuclear radiation.

He was right--we needed disasters to compete.

I remember researching catastrophic global warming claims extensively, then sharing evidence against such a threat with the director of engineering, a very intelligent man. I expected either a scientific counter-argument or excitement at the prospect that we do not face an unprecedented climate disaster and the unprecedented economic disaster of a carbon cap. Instead, he responded that our company would be better off if catastrophic global warming were imminent.He wanted it to be true, because it would help us. Our company could not survive on merit, so our interests were aligned with destruction.

This is the kind of polluted cultural environment some of our nation’s most talented engineers are developing in--because the government is creating every incentive to bring it about.

My relief came with financial hardship for my company and the following round of layoffs, as I was happily let go. I finally had time to find a real job, and now have a wonderful, rewarding one in a legitimate industry with a culture of productivity and achievement. It is a world of difference.

Real wealth and jobs are not produced by means of subsidies extracted by force from helpless victims by the Obama administration, but by rational free people acting under their own initiative.  The sooner the government stops forcing green jobs on us, the sooner the rest of America’s wasted green workforce can join me in getting real jobs.

Deborah Sloan is a mechanical engineer and a researcher at the Center for Industrial Progress

Source

Comments  

 
Steve Tabor
# Steve Tabor 08-27-2012 01:21
I first ran into the ideas expressed here about intermittency and high cost in 2009 after reading "The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won't Run The World", by Howard C Hayden. Hayden had to change the title of his book in the second edition because of all the criticism he got from the dreamers.

It's remarkable how intensely the dream of "abundant renewable energy free for the taking" persists, despite the faults with the technology expressed in this article. Hayden's book was published in 2000.

We are dealing with an entrenched power elite here. They have no incentive to start telling the truth. The lies have piled up for so long, how could they admit their error? All the principals in the fraud known as "Piltdown Man" were dead before that canard was finally put to rest in 1953 (after 41 years).
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Captnkirk
# Captnkirk 10-01-2012 06:28
If you install solar by yourself you can provide a complete independant system and completely disconnect from your electric company for about 4 grand. That's not bad. Certainly more justifiable then letting Haliburton destroy your water and charge you for life for Natural gas.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 10-01-2012 09:19
Scotty needs to beam you up Cap'n, as your oxygen supply appears low.

IF solar were a viable option, I would have switched years ago. I did my research and found the the local power company kicks solar's ass all day, everyday, and twice on Sunday.

Panels start to degrade from the day of installation, and become less efficient with each passing day. Panels require replacement before the can pay for themselves, it is a money losing proposition.

It really does not require any brain capacity to figure this out. Better products win out in the market place, given a level playing field. Solar is HEAVILY subsidized and yet still cannot compete. Noone is "killing" solar energy just as noone "killed" the electric car, they both are simply inferior designs and concepts, supported by inferior minds.

Hate on Haliburton all you like. Even though there is no connection to dirty water from fracking. Boycott their products. I mean we are only talking about virtually everything around you, including your PlayStation and meds. ;)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 10-02-2012 02:57
Most panels are guaranteed to retain 80%+ after 20 years -- or approximately 1% degradation per year. Depending on your location, 1 KW system will produce an average 3.2 to 4.9 kW of power per day over the course of a year. More in summer and sunny days of course and less on cloudy winter days.

Average that to 4kW/day this year and at 3.5kW per day in 20 years (3.7kW total average)and conservatively predict 20 cents per kW as an average cost of power over a 20-year time period = a savings of $270 per year per kW system or $5,400 over 20 years per kW on your roof.

Even at today's 14% efficiency, finance costs and low power prices, that effectively means that anyone in the USA will be achieving free power after 10 years. In five years, the expected improvements in efficiency and lower unit costs will mean that solar PV will be a 3-year ROI.

In 10-years, solar PV and wind power will be even cheaper than coal with much less downside.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 10-02-2012 04:21
Good to know you'll be climbing up on my roof to remove the snow from those panels, a fact you neglect in your little diatribe.

Lets add in the costs of batteries which you also neglect so there can be power at night, you know, that time of the day when there is no sun.

When you can look at this realistically we might listen. But as long as you just want to play cheerleader for an inefficient technology completely ignoring the negatives we can continue to put you on ignore.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 10-02-2012 05:25
What the silly solar salesman does not know, is that I have an energy efficient metal roof designed to accept panels, should they ever become viable. My brother at NASA has a coworker who told him 4 years ago, that the new generation to come was just around the corner, and would revolutionize the industry. Latest update from NASA? He was wrong, again.

Let's review.

No savings.

No increased efficiency.

Not green.

DOA again! :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 10-03-2012 04:01
Gator, Solar prices have dropped 100% in 5 years and are still dropping. And this is while panel efficiency is improving and while other types of power are rising in cost.

That is what I call energy security.

However, renewable energy only makes sense for people with common sense -- its sad, but predictable that you wouldn't "get it".
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 10-03-2012 05:54
Quoting Drewski:
Gator, Solar prices have dropped 100% in 5 years and are still dropping. And this is while panel efficiency is improving and while other types of power are rising in cost.

That is what I call energy security.


That's what I call one of your dumbest posts ever! :D

Quote:
Solar prices have dropped 100%
So they're free now! :D

Got math? :D :D :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 10-03-2012 21:43
From a cost $4+ per watt to less than $1.50 per watt over 5 years. A 60% drop (sorry I didn't check before I posted before) and expected to be under $1 per watt by the end of 2014 and less than 50cents per watt in 10 years. Multiply that by about 4 and you will get the average daily production. Multiply that number by 365 days and then again by 25 years (end of guarantee) and you begin to see why fossil fuel power companies are worried.

Couple that with the rising commercial viability of geothermal, fuel cells, solar thermal, tidal, wave and wind power options. Plus electric vehicle batteries and a smart grid to make it all work and you have the perfect storm for fossil fuel power companies.

If you have any stock in any of them, now is the time to sell.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 10-03-2012 22:49
Really not very bright are you? That same stock you mention in "fossil fuel power companies" will still be worth more in 10 years than your Solyndra, Unisolar, etc. stocks.

Oh, that's right, those companies went bankrupt, their stock is worthless today...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 10-04-2012 04:15
Numbnuts, all of the solar companies are going out of business! :D :D :D

Unplug your home and go solar stupid! The salesmen and PT Barnum are calling! :D :D :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 10-03-2012 04:06
Robert,
Geothermal pipes will warm both your water tank and your flooring, wind will be turning the turbines at night and your smart thermometer and the smart grid will make it all run efficiently.

That should help keep some that nasty, polluting side effect into our atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 10-03-2012 22:45
drewski you are a moron, what the hell does what you just posted have to do with what I said to you? Not a damn thing. You have just added to the cost of things in your new diatribe.

Focus dumbass, I know it is hard for you but try, explain how anything you have said addresses the cost issues raised by the engineer in the article which you have been ignoring in you little cheerleading rants.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 10-02-2012 05:20
I see Cool Whip is still reading sales brochures, and thinks they are peer reviewed science.

Solar panels take enormous amounts of energy to produce, roughly equivalent to eleven years of usage. So, you would have to get over a decade of usage before you catch up to a conventional power plant, but by then you will be looking at replacement within a decade (if not already). They also require rare earth minerals and produce toxic tailings. Solyndra left quite a mess of heavy metals and other toxic waste, without selling a single unit.

Only a moron would tout this as success.

And only a moron would think that the only problem with solar is in our heads.

Then there is the degradation issue, which cannot be addressed in a lab (go figure)...

Finally, data from the LEEETISO,
CH-Testing Centre for Photovoltaic Modules
leee.dct.supsi.ch/PV/Results/Tested_modules.htm, reports power degradation rates on c-Si modules ranging from 0.7%-9.8% in the first year of exposure and 0.7%-4.9% in the second year of exposure.


Gee Wally, that's up to about a 15% reduction in just two years!

Add hail storms, frost action, bird crap, dust, oxidation, wind damage, etc... and you have a money pit.

I could spends alot of time on the toxicity of producing solar panels, but let's just stick to the inefficiency for this post.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Drewski
# Drewski 10-03-2012 04:11
Gator, There are dozens of panel manufacturers who guarantee 90% power production after 10 years and 80% after 25 years.

That is less than 1% a year and that perfectly jibes with decades of observation.

Talk to me when you know what you are talking about.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 10-03-2012 05:58
Talk to me when you have passed a basic math course, and stopped listening to salesmen whose businesses will be out of business in 6 months! :D :D :D

Hey Cool Whip! I have a bridge I would like to sell you with a genuine bona fide one million year guarantee! :D :D :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 10-03-2012 14:41
Fine, you brought it up, you do the legwork.

List them, with links to the actual guarantee so we can read the fine print and all the various clauses. Not their home page, not some sales brochure, the actual guarantee complete with all the clauses.

And I want at least a dozen links since you claim the plural indicating more than 12.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Tez
# Tez 10-03-2012 15:35
While Drewski struggles to back up his claims, to help him focus,here is a short list of US Solar firms who ran off with taxpayers money, leaving behind worthless guarantees. :cry:

The Amonix Solar: – manufacturing plant in North Las Vegas, subsidized by more than $20 million in federal tax credits and grants given by Obama Administration, has closed its 214,000 square foot facility a year after it opened.

Solar Trust of America: - Filed Bankruptcy in Oakland, CA, April 3, 2012 – On April 2, 2012

Bright Source: - Bright Source warned Obama’s Energy Department officials in March 2011 that delays in approving a $1.6 billion U.S. loan guarantee would embarrass the White House and force the solar-energy company to close. Lost Billions of dollars but Getting More Money To Keep Trying. Can you say, “This isnt working?”

Solyndra: - Obama gave Solyndra $500,000,000 in taxpayer money and Solyndra shut its doors and laid off 1100 workers in August 2011 After Billions in Losses due to failure to make a solar product that works!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Tez
# Tez 10-03-2012 15:37
LSP Energy: FAIL! - LSPEnergy LP filed bankruptcy protection and a sale of its assets in Feb 2012

SunPower: FAIL! - SunPower stopped producing solar cells last year at near bankruptcy restructured only with help of, get this, oil giant TOTAL who owns 60% stake. Irony! Still struggling…

Beacon Power: FAIL! – Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy Oct 2011 just a year after Obama approved $43 million loan Government loan guarantee

Ecotality: FAIL! - ECOtality, a San Francisco green-tech company that never earned any money on the verge of bankruptcy after receiving roughly $115 million in two loan guarantees from Obama
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Tez
# Tez 10-03-2012 15:38
A123 Solar: FAIL! -A123 received $279 million from taxpayers thanks to President Obama’sDepartment of Energy loan guarantees and after Solyndra bankruptcy is getting another $500M from Obama and it has lost $400M

UniSolar: FAIL! - Uni-Solar filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy in June 20 this year laid off hundreds got more Obama money still failing but still in business

Azure Dynamics: FAIL! - Azure Dynamics files for bankruptcy in June wasting millions in Obama “Stimulus” and tax credits. Azure Dynamics LLC filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada and the US. Azure laid off 120 of its 160 employees in Oak Park; Boston; Vancouver, British Columbia; and the UK.

Evergreen Solar: FAIL! - Evergreen Solar received $527 Million in Taxpayer money from Obama filed bankruptcy


Ener1: FAIL! received more than $100 million in government funding from the Obama administration filed for bankruptcy January 2012

Energy Conversion Devices: FAIL! – On February 14, 2012 Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. and its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy

Abound Solar: FAIL! - Abound Solar received a $400 million loan guarantee from Barack Obama announced in June, 2012 that it would file for bankruptcy
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 10-04-2012 00:48
Thanks for your research Tez ;-) Geez America must have a great deal of money to throw away!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 10-04-2012 04:17
Hey anne! No, we just have a bunch of morons like Cool Whip. How else could Obama have ever been elected? :D :D :D
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 10-05-2012 01:09
Hi Gator, hope you are well and nice to hear from you. When I get home it takes me a while to get used to turning my tap on and having hot clean water, flicking a switch and instant light, I gaze at my fridge and cooker in awe, the streetlights and the transport. Believe me Drewski would not like to go back to living in third world conditions, it really isn't sleeping under the stars with a full belly in the wilderness of nature.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.


Security code
Refresh