Fox News Claims Germany Has More Solar Power Than U.S. Because It's Sunnier There

If they are using photovoltaic panels made from silicon they they are wasting much more energy. Currently only heat generation types of solar energy can return more energy than used to create. The systems PS reported in use in Spain are worthy of any real investment. Taxpayer funded PV cells are another loss funded by idiots. It may be true that China can produce PV cells in terms that seem to make economic sense but in reality they too still consume more energy to create.

I am all for taxpayer funded programs to convert the sun's heat into electricity. I am for some limited funding for research into better more green solutions to PV cells.

This is stupid, this article has been all over the Internet on multiple sites, why must these supposed 'science' sites become nothing but parroting what someone says?? How about something real news worthy?

Germany installs more PV because they have a feed-in tariff that pays people double the rate of purchasing energy on the grid. It pays off in a couple of years. The utilities in the US would be the ones having to pay out the difference, unless some governor wants to forfeit his seat by signing a bill paying people to make their own energy. The utilities do not want to lose their load, and they sure don't want to pay people for leaving.

More sun is irrelevant. The relevant point is how you get paid when you produce more than you consume. Germany made a plan (good or bad is not important), the US doesn't have one. That is what makes a solar array on your roof an enticing or silly investment.

Well, more sun isn't irrelevant. That was a stretch. But equally important is how you get paid.

Actually wind is currently 40 cents/kwh -solar 90 when 5 to 7 times sized transmission requirements and gas backup are included. Replace the gas with the best projections of grid level storage add a buck a kwh to that. Primarily backed up with inefficient fossil plant run inefficiently its less ghg's less fossil fuel far less money skipping the wind and solar and just using efficient fossil plant.

The cost of wind and solar having already achieved its maximum economy of scale benefit will resume its slow annual cost increase once Chinese dumping ends.

90 cents for solar. How's that:

Lets take Vermont for example. Lotsa greenies there telling us the wonders of solar.

Google "openpv.nrel.gov/rankings"

So vermont $7.53 watt/peak or 7530 kw/peak installed average. Ok so using pV watts in Burlington the one watt peak gets 1.117kwh per annum. Financing at 7% home equity over 20 year life gives approx

53 cents a kwh

now lets add in for the array on every roof scam the low information greenie is wont to propose, 17 cents a kwh for gas backup, and 10 cents a kwh for 7 times sized transmission systems and we get

80 cents a kwh.

While the installed cost might be lower, commercial is similar but financing rates for the typical fly by night solar/wind operator are at least 15% so

90 cents a kwh.

Here's a 17 MW peak solar install in service Jan 2011 by expert engineers at Duke Energy using real solar panels made in the USA not the Walmart quality Chinese junk with the same service life as everything else you buy at Walmart.

Google "davidson_county_solar_farm_north_carolina"

$43 a watt average, 65 cents a kwh at Dukes discount rate. To that we need to add 17 cents a kwh for gas backup and 8 cents for transmission. 90 cents a kwh - Nice publicity.

According to the NREL the cost of commercial solar installs has not changed significantly since Jan 2011.

Now remember because of gas backup to solar no GHG's are saved. So we need replace the gas with green storage.

The DOE projects future research bring that cost to $120/khr resulting in a buck a kwh added to your power bill.

There is a cost to the silly obsession of the uninformed in these worthless forms of power and its paid in the blood of millions of innocents.

If all the money wasted on wind and solar in the last 10 years had been spent on nukes the world would now be coal free, 30 million air pollution deaths worldwide wouldn't have happened and the AGW precipice be moved back 20 years.

Jefro, is this the third time I have called you out for saying solar panels don't create more energy than it took to make them? YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!

ohh and here is a different link (for the second time) proving you wrong, and please provide any peer reviewed articles that are contradicting.

www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

What if a PV manufacturer bootstraps his operation, i.e., using electricity from PV to manufacture PV? There will be the initial cost of the PVs, but the next PVs would no longer carry with them any fossil fuel related cost. What is left would be the cost of materials. Cost of energy to create PVs would be virtually zero.

I'm quite disappointed. What ever you think of Fox News and the details of the argument presented in the article, anything that comes "via Media Matters" doesn't deserve inclusion in a publication with the word "Science" in its name. Media Matters ranks right up there with MoveOn.org as an extreme leftist source. If Popular Science doesn't realize this, it is both surprising and disturbing.

Liberal Playbook 101-103
1: You must agree that any non-left leaning organization must be stopped or marginalized (Fox News, Boy Scouts, neighborhood church, married people, etc.)
2: You must copy & paste the latest talking points from Media Matters, MSNBC, or DNC. (begin buzz network...... now.) Once it's out there, all water cooler educators can devour it like a free-range gluten-free spinach wrap.
3: Practice your eye rolling, scoffing, and gasp when someone defends or admits liking Fox News, boy scouts, church, or married people.
Right on cue , PopSci

Obviously Yoshi is ignorant. But PV in Germany is a joke. I have been there often, once for the whole month of July I did not see the sun once, or that is at least how it felt to me. Feed in tariffs for PVs are incredibly high, if they had to pay that price nobody could afford electricity.

What to expect from Fox. Instead of getting real experts on their show they ask people who know nothing about it, who have to stick to the fox/Republican agenda and who spend 2 minutes on Google to give viewers Fair&Balanced information. You can ask anyone on the street.

And opinions are not facts even though more and more of the "news" on Fox is pure opinion. Even Rupert Murdock acknowledge he uses the channel for his pro-republican agenda. It`s like your back in the stone age were facts are irrelevant and opinion is everything. Any healthy forward thinking person needs to be careful to watch this garbage.

A couple things. First, Shibani is a business reporter commenting on the state of solar energy in the U.S.and how the "market" is responding to it and the natural gas boom. Second, everything she says about the PV industry and its inability--at this point--to thrive without massive and wasted government subsidies is correct. Third, it's clear from her body language and a couple stumbling statements that she's nervous. Fourth, she's obviously speculating when responding to the question about Germany. Fifth, it seems, from her follow up comments, that she may be talking about the northeastern U.S. only when she's comparing how sunny Germany is.

Finally, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Ironically, Shibani's gaffe may be educating a bunch of people on the real state of solar power in the U.S. and elsewhere. Other than the gaffe, she's correct that solar isn't viable yet without huge government subsidies. Our government has wasted $1 billion on failed enterprises in the last few years, whereas natural gas is viable now and it's booming.

I have faith that solar PV science and manufacturing technology will continue to improve and within a few years it will be economical enough to be more widely adopted. Throwing taxpayer money at it isn't going to get us there any faster.

There are two 2 gigawatt solar farms being built
within 50 miles of my home in Lake Havasu City, AZ. We
receive on average less than 4" of precipitation a year. It takes clouds to make rain and we don't see many of those either.
Sethdayal, please provide a link (links) that back the numbers you have just quoted.

jefro is a Big Oil company owner afraid for this job future nothing more. Totally erroneous statements made in an attempt to distort facts. Mantiss is totally right your a fraud Jefro. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Seriously? This childish liberal attack belongs on PopSci how exactly? Cut and pasted from Media Matters? Emily Elert and Dan Nozowitz = useful idiots, not journalists...

germany gets about as much sun as alaska . or an eskimos ass crack lol !

MLJNR: We have over 300 days/year of full sun in the Tucson area, too. My "homemade" set up works like a top. Most of AZ is ripe for the Spanish Model heat design, as well. If it weren't for corruption, we would be an all electric world. Tucson is called "The Solar City." That is a blatant lie, but it sounds good.

IDIOCRACY AT WORK.
I feel so sad for FOX News viewers.

Really surprised that Popular Science would use Media Matters as a source for, well, anything.

For anyone interested in what the actual results of green everything has done for Germany, Spiegel has a running series. It isn't pretty:

www.spiegel.de/international/topic/german_energy_revolution/

If PopSci actually spent one article showing every misstated or incorrect statement in all the bigger media outlets (regardless of their political leanings), you could probably write an extra 20 articles a day.

Seems to me that maybe this author (or this site) feel that they can't keep up writing about science, so they omit that part and try sensationalism.

May I make a suggestion... Instead of writing a couple sentences of material critisizing a misstated or incorret statement, maybe (at the very least) take the time to write up a full length story giving far more scientific meat to the conversation. How about maybe an answer to the question that the reporter didn't answer, and that you allude to? (What was Germany doing correctly?," Carlson asked. "Are they just a smaller country, have they make it more feasible--")

Answer those questions and you might actually have a science article, even if you keep your political slant. But leave out the science and you only have a political slant. And I can go do many other sites for politics if I want. But I want science, and if I can't get it here, I just won't come here.

@nkfro

I did provide the links. Call a friend at home for help with the obvious arithmetic.

I am not swayed by a single paper. If you believe that you can create PV cells from PV cells then you should invest in it. The real cost to product end point to end point is much more than the return. I have spent time working with engineers in an attempt to manufacture PV cells. It is a loosing proposition. China dumps their products at a loss, their environmental and work place safety are non-existent. Their monetary practices, raw materials and other factors may seem to suggest one is really doing good for the earth with these products but they are not.

I do consider heat generation to be a very positive way to create energy. As I said before PS and many other places have shown real green power from the sun's heat.

I wish I did own big oil stock or an oil well. That would be nice. Even the big oil companies have tried their hand at PV's and lost money. They may have made some back in liberal phony tax or CO2 credits.

I have said this before. If you think you can make PV cells at a profit go ahead.

@FOTOBUM - Conservative Playbook 101-103

1: If anyone points out the stupid crap spewed on Fox News, points out the homophobic bigotry of the Boy Scouts, clearly and logically points out that you neighborhood church is teaching nonsensical, delusional superstition, claims that "marriage" should be available to ALL responsible adults, call it "marginalizing".

2: Claim that any news outlet that doesn't regurgitate far right-wing, illogical, religious crap must be "Lame Stream Media" and can't be trusted.

3: Practice your eye rolling, scoffing, and gasp when someone doesn't defend or thinks Fox News is about as far from "Fair & Balanced" as anyone can be, points out the homophobic bigotry of the boy scouts, points out that religion is nonsensical delusional superstition, or that civil liberties should be extended to ALL citizens, not just self-righteous religious nutcases.

Right on cue, Right-Winger

KeithPinster-

It's amusing to read your completely irrelevant comments attacking religion, Boy Scouts, et al, in a thread about the solar power generating conditions existing in Germany versus the US.

As for the veracity of the statements made by the Fox News reporters, they might be true under certain conditions. The mean latitude of Germany is more northerly than much of the US. This means that it has less solar exposure during winter, but more solar exposure during summer. Plus, if you were to take into account the large land area of Alaska when calculating the mean latitude of the US, the comparison made by the Fox News reporters may not be far off.

Once you see the words "Fox news" you can stop reading. You know something will be inherently wrong.

She is only taking account of east coast. As if East Coast is the Entire U.S. She is well aware U.S has many areas in Mid West region where its heavy sunshine. Which is why one of the largest solar plants in the world is coming up in Arizona. Producing enough power to supply 70,000 homes.

There are also different types of solar technology for example Solar Thermal plants which absorb sunlight and direct the excess sunlight to a central tower filled with salt. This melts the salt during the day causing it to be in a molten state. At night, the heat of the salt turning back into solid form turns turbines which power the plant at night.

I am pretty sure she did properly did her research. Just she was required to spin the article to natural gas.
She completely avoided the issues with NG also. For example fracking uses up 7 million gallons of water per shale. 30% which is trapped forever in the ground. Anyway there is a great article about it on Popular mechanics.

When in the course of history you have nut cases like Jefro with no knowledge of a subject other than his own nutty intuitions it's appalls everyone.

Here are a little facts Mr Jefro for you to digest about how much LESS energy it takes to produce solar energy compared to say an idiot idea by past Presidents who also have no idea about the real world.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130117105901.htm

Digest that and then you'll see that solar is far far far far far more efficient at say converting biofuels to energy.

Get a life Jefro you know not what you speak.

well said *KeithPinster, I couldn't have made my point better.

Whats an obvious political ploy by Pop-Sci is you never see this about CNN and a reporter asking if an asteroid close encounter was caused by "Global warming"

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/10/cnn-anchor-asks-with-straight-face-is-this-asteroid-the-result-of-global-warming/

Pop-sci is no longer even remotely a respectable publication.

Now out of curiosity, will PopSci run a silly anti-CNN articles about their talkinghead asking Bill Nye if asteroids have a link to global warming?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2013/02/09/parody-or-does-she-believe-it-cnn-anchor-blames-asteroid-global-warming

Somehow I doubt it.

Spot on *Gman46 & *Kehvans.
Simply relabel your CNN links as FoxNews gaffes and they'll be viral by the end of the day.
We can also look forward to Emily or Dan slapping us in the face by copy & pasting them back here on PopSci as follow-up to their hard-hitting "science" articles.

PopSci shows its true colors. Fox News did not say this. A pundit who was on a Fox News show said it. It is like someone commenting on a PopSci story and then I say that PopSci said it. I have never commented on this site before but this stupid title for a stupid article has brought me out. Stay out of politics and stick to science

This woman wasn't a pundit, she works for fox news, her husband also works for an investment firm. Guess what they invest in? I'll give you a hint, it isn't solar.

here is her bio, which seems to be made right after her gaff

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibani_Joshi

Wow @mantiss,
You should be proud you did your part to advance the cause. Your research seems to have dug up alot of personal info on an obscure gal on TV who made a simple mistake.
“By judging others, you make yourself easy to judge.” ― Ashly Lorenzana
PS You misspelled gaffe :)

100w PV panel for $158 USD buy it now on ebay.

Panel operates 6 hr/day for 260 days each year for 30 years.

100w * 6 hr * 260 = 156,000 watt hours/year = 156 kilowatt hours per year.

30 years * 156 kWh = 4680 kWh total power generated during life of PV panel.

Assume electricity costs 10 cents per kilowatt hour.

0.10 dollars/kWh * 4680 kWh = $468.

How could anyone sell a 100w solar panel for $158 dollars if it cost over $468
in energy alone to make it as jefro claims?

I'm afraid jefro is either uninformed, misinformed, extremely anti-solar,
has a hidden agenda, can't think properly or all of the above.

www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html

This link takes you to ca.gov showing Solar Projects Approved - 4242.5 MW.

In a few short years California State alone will dwarf all European countries
combined solar power output.

(1) Germany has massive solar because they pay for it. Paying for it with tax money just spreads the extra cost in higher taxes to everyone - so the person who looses the most is the one with the least solar (paying for other's cost) while the one who wins is the one with the most solar (pushing cost only others).

Thus, it is a system of drowning swimmers struggling to climb up on each other.

(2) The US has more sun; we also have more people. The people do not live where the sun is. Even Arizona solar is more expensive than gas AND it gets worse the farther than energy must be transmitted.

(3) If a panal is cheapers because the energy used to create it is cheap, dirty Chinese coal, it looks good on this side of the ocean, but it looses its ecological value.

well said KeithPinster, except I would have gone with a different approach in regard to the BSOA and the chuch thing. Not I agree with that part.

FotoBum - You are the embodiment of the other end of the spectrum, KeithPinster had you pegged. Also, I wouldn't comment on people's spelling when yourself had many errors.

Lastly, I think the article is trying to shine some light (pun intended) on a statement made on FOX that was not corrected on air. The statement to Bill Nye was corrected for the viewers. Yes, PopSci should do better to include all "gaffes" if they are going to contiune with this type reporting (Please don't PopSci). I personally would have made the article's focus on the differences between the two countries' abilities and not on the slip up of a usually incorrect and biased news anchor.

And a CNN anchor thought asteroids were caused by global warming. I'd say the claim by the CNN anchor is a bit more egregious.

-The idea that photovoltaic surfaces require more energy to manufacture than they produce is nonsense. With no moving parts, they function for decades without maintenance.

-Fossil fuels are very heavily subsidized by the governments that depend on them. How can solar compete without counter-subsidies?

-The greater the population density, the more viable solar becomes, because thin-film PV can be added to virtually any rigid surface (roofs, windows, vehicle bodies, etc.).

-PV-generated electricity can be converted to hydrogen on-site for storage and fuel with nothing but a simple electrolysis cell and purified water. Hydrogen can then be stored or transported safely at very low pressure as a metal hydride--compare that with oil and gas infrastructure.

-If PV was being manufactured on the scale of mobile phones, solar energy would already be so cheap that fossil fuel could not possibly compete--hence the billions spent in ridiculous propaganda.

You guys make me laugh. The US taxpayer already took a $800 million hit on two PV cell makers false claims.

You will never see any product on the market today that will last 30 years. The efficiency in 10 years will be almost half the so called rated output. I'd like to meet the person who claims their panel will last 30 years. Most installations fail in 5 from one reason or another or even weather related.

To add to this you can't easily use the DC output. Inverters and batteries will be needed. This so called $158 panel needs $1000 more in maintenance and parts for the next 15 years. This also has to figure into the total "green" value of the product.

You guys really need to do your investment plans better. No one with millions to invest would take a chance on PV cells until they return 35 % or more and have a full real lifetime of 30 years.

I have said this before, China is dumping their products. They have no OSHA, EPA and support their trade with unfair tactics. They do have very cheap hydroelectric that they use.

For now, a PV cell is just a battery. It is not a green product.

MLJNR The statement about Arizona solar being more expensive than gas must be related to commercial production, if it is true. My system will pay for itself in < 2years. I built it all, but I'm somewhat of a craftsman. You also failed to include solar thermal models. The one that I am familiar with is the Spanish model. I won't be making one of those for home use anytime soon, but they are highly effective. My PV's may not be green, but they are a money saver. I still think that some form of nuclear power generation is viable, especially with all of our "newly created anti-terrorist forces" to protect them, and us. Just a thought.

Upon seeing the headline of this article my very first thought was "evacuate Germany due to impending Ice Age!"

jefro,

Sunpower has warranties upto 25 years with very minimal output degradation.

Also, the value of solar depends on where it is implemented. There are some types of installations where solar is currently a better option as compared to any other source while other places where solar will never be able to compete.

Power generation is not as simple as you think and there are many more factors that go in determining a source's viability.

like any other technology it will take time for solar to be able to compete in cost but if you look at the past 10 years, cost has come down drastically. as mentioned in one of the comments, fossil fuels are heavily subsidized.

P.S. solar thermal has a very low conversion efficiency

my buddy's mother-in-law makes $72/hr on the computer. She has been without a job for ten months but last month her paycheck was $21863 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site
jump30.ℂom