Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Bill O'Reilly on Solar: The Factor Goes Haywire

By Tom Rooney, SPG Solar
December 16, 2009 | 24 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Bookmark

Feed

Bill O'Reilly was talking climate change and his guest had just admitted that her plans to change the world would require a tax hike.

Bill was stoked: His guests on the O’Reilly Factor never say that.

But then she asked him what he was willing to do to save the planet. That is when it got a bit odd.

“Here’s what I’m willing to,” O’Reilly said. “I’d like to put solar panels on my house. And heat my house through the sun. I would like to do that for a reasonable amount of money. I don’t want to buy the oil every month. They can’t do it for a reasonable amount of money, number one.

“And its so complicated ... I can’t do it. ... So don’t tell me about my grandchildren. If they can figure out the solar panels, they can have them. But it’s all bunk. It’s all bull at this point for a guy like me. ...I want a clean planet. But I’d like the stuff to work.”

So there you have it: In the world according to cable news superstar Bill O, solar is too complicated and too expensive.

O’Reilly’s remarks came hours after the Irvine Unified School District selected my company, SPG Solar of Novato, California, to install one of the most ambitious solar school projects in the country. With solar panels on 21 of its schools, the district will save at least $17 million over the life of the 20 year project; and will produce about half of its energy.

This will be an immediate 10 percent reduction in the district’s energy bills.

And ready for the best part, Bill O?

All this comes at no cost to the district.

That is how inexpensive buying and installing panels has become. That is how powerful the tax incentives are.

If you want to talk carbon, fine: Rest assured, this panels will prevent lots and lots of carbon from entering the atmosphere. Everyone loves that. But make no mistake: This deal could not have been done unless it made financial sense. So solar is not expensive.

But in Bill O’s world, this new solar energy system must be incredibly complicated and require lots of people to turn it on and off and other strange things.

Well, that is not true either. Because for all intents and purposes, the user, whether its Bill O on Long Island, or Irvine School Board member Mike Parhan in Irvine, will never have to do a thing. Other than pay a fixed — and lower — energy bill every month.

You want complicated, Bill O? Go to one of our solar installations at the Far Niente winery in Napa Valley where we built a solar energy array on top of a pond of water. The panels actually float — the first system of its kind in the world. That was a little tricky to build, but just like the school, all they do to get energy is sit back and watch the sun shine.

You want complicated? How about building five acres of solar panels in one of the most desolate (and strangely beautiful) places on earth: The Furnace Creek Resort and Hotel in the middle of Death Valley.

Or how about Livermore, California, where we built the world’s largest solar energy system for a movie theater, while never letting the movie-goers even now we were there.

The owners do not operate these systems any more than they operate their oil or gas or electric lines. They just sit back and watch their energy bills go down.

It is even simpler than it sounds, so I’ll stop before I start bloviating. Because when it comes to solar, that is Bill O’s job.

Making a simple and powerful and inexpensive solar energy system is ours.

See the O'Reilly video here, about 3:23 into this six-minute clip.

Tom Rooney is President & CEO of SPG Solar Inc.

Solar Energy

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

24 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 24

lsfloro

December 16, 2009

I enjoyed your article Tom. As a long time proponent of solar energy I welcome the opinions of people who don't view it as I do. Debate can bring to light things that I don't see. Misinformation is something else entirely. When people have a large audience, it is their responsibility to give them accurate facts about subjects that affect their daily lives. The "no spin zone" has its own agenda and spin on subjects Mr. O'Reilly rails against. Someday people will get hip to what O'Reilly does and go to where they can get the real facts.

By the way I read the story about the Irvine USD solar project the other day and posted a link to it on my blog.

Comment
2 of 24

Anonymous

December 16, 2009

This is a less than rigorous refutation of the claim that solar is expensive. What subsidies did the school receive for this installation? What is the cost in cents per kWh of the electricity produced by such a system? If we had these details we could decide if this was a rational decision on the choice of electricity generation.

I note that Germany is still providing FITs for ~60 euro cents/kWh (~87 cents US/kWh) which would seem to suggest that solar PV is not as economical as the author of this article implies. O'Reilly was also referring to rooftop installation in a private home, whereas the example the author mentions is for rooftop installation on large structures--which tends to minimize installation costs, problems from partial shading, maintenance costs, the fraction of costs devoted to grid connection, etc.

The author may not be "bloviating" but he seems to be obfuscating about some of the true costs....
Steven

Comment
3 of 24

tkat17

December 16, 2009

Help me understand this quote in your article:
"All this comes at no cost to the district.

That is how inexpensive buying and installing panels has become. That is how powerful the tax incentives are."

I am a homeowner and investor who has considered solar while living in CA and geothermal heat pumps while living in PA. The homeowner or the business or the school district has to pay up front for the solar or geothermal installation on the order of $20,000 for a 2,000 sf home. So it is not at 'no cost', one is paying the next 5 years of energy up-front. Even with the 30% tax credit, which is a great step in the right direction, one must either pay cash up front or get a loan to pay for installation. I look at it as taking my energy bill and instead of paying it to the utility company, I pay the same amount to the bank/lender for 5 years. If you have a high paying job, and pay large amounts of taxes this works. If you are the average homeowner or taxpayer or soon to be retiree, it doesn't. I decided both times not to get solar or geothermal. When I must replace my current heating/cooling system I will probably go to geothermal, probably before the tax credits run out in 2016 and when I have the up-front cash to pay for it. I'd like to understand your 'no cost' solution better.
Thanks in advance.

Comment
4 of 24

brian-ballek-52819

December 17, 2009

I am currently in the process of installing solar panels on my roof. And while I am a big fan of solar power (and no fan of Bill O'Reilly's) I have to report that in a residential setting, neither buying nor installing solar (or having it installed) is as simple as it should be. You really do need a professional to help with issues like ideal system size, technology (thin-film or crystalline), avoiding partial shading, proper mounting components for your kind of roof, connecting it to the grid, etc. etc.

The financial aspect of the decision could be easier too. To really know if your roof-top PV-system is a better deal than "dirty" electricity, you have to compute how much power your system will produce over its 25-30 year lifetime (including the slight drop in performance each year), compare it to your expected costs for the same amount of power from your utility (most likely with a significant price *increase* every year). And then you have to decrease the value of your future utility expenses according to the "time value of money", since money spent now hurts more than the same amount of money spent later. Did I mention factoring in interest costs and tax effects? No, it isn't simple.

But there is good news: (1) a good solar installer can walk you through the financial calculations. If not, choose a different installer. (2) at the end of that complicated calculation, you still might find that solar power is significantly cheaper than traditional electricity over the long run. (3) if you want it *really* simple (well, about as simple as it can get) companies like SunRun will install, own, and maintain the solar panels on your roof. You pay an affordable upfront fee (in the neighborhood of $2000 for a system that would normally cost $25,000) and commit to buy the power produced at a pre-set price. That's simple enough even for Bill O.

Comment
5 of 24

fred-linn-151968

December 18, 2009

Anon. Steven-------"I note that Germany is still providing FITs for ~60 euro cents/kWh (~87 cents US/kWh) which would seem to suggest that solar PV is not as economical as the author of this article implies."-------

.60 euro per kWh only suggests that this is the amount that Germany decided is appropriate to encourage the use of solar power. It has nothing to do with cost.

-------" O'Reilly was also referring to rooftop installation in a private home, whereas the example the author mentions is for rooftop installation on large structures--which tends to minimize installation costs, problems from partial shading, maintenance costs, the fraction of costs devoted to grid connection, etc."-----------

Only Bill O'Rielly installs solar panels in shaded areas, professional installers do not.

and this from BO-----""And its so complicated ... I can't do it. ... So don't tell me about my grandchildren."----------

From the expert of experts-------who is going to analyze all the data from the top scientists in the world and declare global warming a hoax. He can't even figure out that something so simple as opening a blind to let the sunlight into a room to warm it up is a solar collector. Somehow, I have a feeling that BO, super millionaire, does not lay awake at night thinking-----"I don't want to buy the oil every month."-------. I suspect if we checked his stock portfolio, we'd probably find considerable holdings in petroleum. Naturally HE doesn't want to buy oil every month---he just wants everyone else to.

My apologies Steven----I'm not trying to pick on your comments too much----we look at the same thing and I get a different picture. Most of what you say is true I will agree---pitched roofs are more difficult to install vs. flat, maintainance and electrical connection increase cost, etc.
But keep in mind, PV is not the only solar power----thermal is also solar power.

Comment
6 of 24

glenn-andersen-47991

December 18, 2009

Bill O made his millions by being entertaining, not by being knowledgeable.

Comment
7 of 24

palmathomas

December 18, 2009

O'Reilly could have had an aide spend about 15 minutes calling a local installer to see how "difficult" and "expensive" it is (I'm being facitious) to have solar PV installed. But that would have taken journalistic research.

Check out the DVD Outfoxed http://www.outfoxed.org/ to get an idea regarding O'Reilly's and Fox News' definition and methods of journalism.

Comment
8 of 24

larry-elliott-153676

December 18, 2009

Dignifying anything that comes out out of the mouth of any of the Joseph Gobbel's Clones on Faux Channel is like responding to someone who argues the world is flat or that gravity is just a plot to keep people down. Someone actually watches that stuff?? Or any TV for that matter.
Having said that I will agree with Bill. Solar is expensive. Very expensive. In the present reality it will always be more expensive than the fossil alternatives. That's like arguing over the cost of a parachute as the other passengers exit the burning plane and then gladly pull the rip cord. What's the point.

Comment
9 of 24

SolarFred

December 18, 2009

To those who say solar is expensive, I agree...depending on where you live. It depends on your state or utility subsidies, the amount of energy required for your home, and net metering policies. But if you look at the cost of energy as it rises, it's VERY affordable. New Jersey, NY, Colorado, Arizona are all very affordable. Many other states as well.

My recommendation to anyone who says it's not affordable is to get a free quote in your area for your home. Check solar hot water as well. The only thing you lose is time, and a good installer will be able to explain to you the return on investment and payback.

Since solar panels last 20 to 25 years and beyond, it really does pay for itself quickly, especially if your utility has a tiered rate system.

The problem is the upfront cost, but there are ways to take care of that. There are solar leases and solar PPAs, which have 0 to $3000 up front costs, depending on your system. Even better are Berkley First/PACE/Municipal financing programs which place a special tax assessment on your home. This latter program is only in a few areas, but the FEDs are making it possible to be in every state. (Google Solar PACE.)

I've simplified all of the above programs and examples of state subsidies on my blog and solar referral site, SolarPowerRocks.com. I don't care if you get a quote through us. Stick your fingers in the yellow pages, but just get a few quotes and discover for yourself if solar is expensive for you or not. You might be surprised, especially if you're living in a solar friendly state with decent subsidies and net metering.

Thanks.

Comment
10 of 24

fred-linn-151968

December 18, 2009

-------------" Solar is expensive. Very expensive. In the present reality it will always be more expensive than the fossil alternatives."------------

Larry----solar thermal is not expensive. Solar thermal is basically nothing more than an insulated box with a sheet of glass over the top. It collects heat. It is cheap and easy to store heat. And solar thermal can be used as an auxiliary system in tandem with your normal furnace or water heater quite easily. By running the cold water coming into a water heater through a solar thermal heater before it comes into the water heater, your water heater still works completely normally---it just comes on far less frequently and uses much less energy. Since the majority of people use natural gas to heat their water----you will use a LOT less natural gas.

If you have a bi-fuel engine vehicle, you can switch between petroleum and natural gas. The advantage to using natural gas is that it costs about 1/2 or less to drive your vehicle than it does with petroleum. If you take the natural gas that you did not use to heat your home and hot water---and use it to power your vehicle, you are driving your vehicle on free solar energy, at least part of the time depending on the size of your collectors and how much heat you use for your home and water. You'd save money because you could use a smaller furnace and water heater, you'd at least be using free solar energy part of the time(or maybe all of the time, depending on usage), you'd need no complicated and expensive electronics, batteries or any other high tech stuff. And you'd be able to drive your car on a fuel that costs about 1/2 of what petroleum does, and produces about 1/2 the CO2 to drive the same distance.

What is expensive, complicated or difficult about that?

If everyone does that, we'd have no problems with global warming---and we'd have no need for expensive subsidies-NG is already cheaper.

Comment
11 of 24

Pedantic

December 18, 2009

Tom:

You said that the Irvine School District upgrade to Solar was free and therefore it debunked O'Reilley's claim that Solar was expensive. Sir, if I call you right now, will you come to Brookfield Missouri and outfit my house with a relatively similar amount of solar paneling (for a private dwelling) for free? How about for five hundred dollars? How about for a thou?

I didn't think so. That rejoinder, at least, is debunked. Sir, we're not stupid out here. As much as I am in favor of alternative energy resources, please treat my understanding of these issues with at least a little respect.

Comment
12 of 24

Anonymous

December 18, 2009

In response to my comment #2 Fred writes in comment #5:
"-------" O'Reilly was also referring to rooftop installation in a private home, whereas the example the author mentions is for rooftop installation on large structures--which tends to minimize installation costs, problems from partial shading, maintenance costs, the fraction of costs devoted to grid connection, etc."-----------

Only Bill O'Rielly installs solar panels in shaded areas, professional installers do not."

Unfortunately, shade still occurs even in professional installations. An overhead powerline that gives 1% shade can cause an order of magnitude larger drop in production, there is intermittent partial shade from clouds (which certain systems may respond to better than others), debris obscuring small portions of the cells (which probably is a worse problem for smaller installations), etc.

However, the main point of my post is that O'Rielly is a non-specialist who was speaking before a general audience (and is more of a talk show host than a journalist) but Rooney is a solar specialist writing for a specialized audience claiming to refute earlier remarks. Thus, Rooney really should be able to (and should be expected to) provide more detail than he has if he wishes to be believed....
Steven

Comment
13 of 24

Anonymous

December 18, 2009

Regarding the comments of the poster of comment #11, etc.:

I interpreted the author's remarks as a claim that the schools had financed the projects and that the electricity savings exceeded the monthly loan repayment rather than that the solar panels were totally free. With various subsidies and CA's very high electricity rates it is possible that this is true even if solar installations in general are not sound investments for home installations. I note that according to this recent article:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/12/rebound-u-s-photovoltaic-market-growth-through-2010
most solar PV installations are on non-residential properties (where economies of scale are probably helpful) and that of the ~25% of the market that is residential, a fair fraction of this is going to off-grid installations, where the cost of the initial grid connection tilts the balance away toward solar. The fact that only about 15% of the market seems (at least as to the resolution one can read the figures in the cited article) to be going to the on-grid residential market suggests that O'Rielly's remarks are not entirely off base. If there is hard evidence to suggest otherwise, I am all ears....
Steven

Comment
14 of 24

fred-linn-151968

December 18, 2009

Steven------I was refering to Bill O'Reilly's penchant to present himself as an expert commentator when in fact he is nothing but a muckrucking rable rouser------and he manufactures the much he rucks. His only interest in solar energy or anything else is strutting, grandiose pontification about issues he little or no knowledge of in order to incite emotional responses and increase ratings for his show.

my post #5------"
My apologies Steven----I'm not trying to pick on your comments too much----we look at the same thing and I get a different picture. Most of what you say is true I will agree---pitched roofs are more difficult to install vs. flat, maintainance and electrical connection increase cost, etc.
But keep in mind, PV is not the only solar power----thermal is also solar power."-------------

Mr. Rooney is selling PV, I'm pointing out that we do not need the expense and temperamental problems of PV solar power in order to make efficient use of solar energy. We do not need electricity at all in order to use solar power.

I agree with you about the sensitivity of PV to shading and alignment---solar thermal however is not nearly so sensitive however. Solar thermal panels can easily be installed on walls and be effective too.

Comment
15 of 24

fred-linn-151968

December 18, 2009

from Pedantic-----------"Sir, if I call you right now, will you come to Brookfield Missouri........."-------------

Hey you ole flop eared mule! I grew up in Macon.............I'm a flop eared mule too.

------"Sir, we're not stupid out here."-------

Hang around awhile-----I get called that a lot. I don't pay any attention. These people have never even heard of Billy's Mule. And they've never tried to match wits with a stubborn mule. Anyone who has, knows there is no such thing as a stupid mule.

When dealing with a mule, it is best to keep a close watch on both ends.

Comment
16 of 24

Anonymous

December 19, 2009

There is nothing worse than someone who is really bloviating. Your article admits that solar would not be economical without tax credits, i.e. "That is how inexpensive buying and installing panels has become. That is how powerful the tax incentives are." The simple fact is that taxpayers are paying for the so-called "inexpensive" solar power. When solar can go it alone without massive taxpayer support, then you can bloviate. In the mean time, at least be honest.

Comment
17 of 24

Buck

December 19, 2009

I see two things here.
1. Solar people are offended by Mr. O and don't like Fox.

2. Solar people admit it costs a lot and it takes Tax subsidizing to make it work.

Muses;

That means I have to pay for your Systems!
What happens when I need a new roof.
I really don't like not getting paid cash for what I sell to the Power Company.
To get a Net Metering System in California your only option is to accept an eighty percent of use output so the Power Company is not forced into a " Why don't I have to pay the customer" situation. Hummmmmm!

Comment
18 of 24

fred-linn-151968

December 19, 2009

Anon.-------------"The simple fact is that taxpayers are paying for the so-called "inexpensive" solar power."-----------

Customers are also paying utlities for for tax credits and write offs, for cleaning up air, water and mine damage to the environment, emminent domain actions to take away private ownership rights and give them to mining companies, removal of minerals from public lands at less than true market value by mining leases on public lands, pay for roads to the leases, pays for miners who have contracted black lung----their entire medical care the rest of their life, etc. etc. etc.
In a way Anon., I agree with you that subsidies to Solar PV are not a good thing. However, I think I far prefer a government subsidy to clean solar PV than all the hidden subsidies, political corruption and influence, and environmental damage from coal and oil.

Some people on here say, the government should not "pick winners" in the energy sector. Well, it seems to me, that if we don't "pick winners", we are stuck with the losers.

from Buck--------"1. Solar people are offended by Mr. O and don't like Fox."----------

Quite true. My main objection is that I don't want to see my brothers and sisters in the US military placed in harms way, as a result of his war mongering to support oil dependence and coporate profits. I'm REALLY offended by that. And I'm not even in a business of selling Solar PV power----I support solar thermal power as a way of getting us off of oil dependence and bringing our military people home where they belong.

Solar thermal is a orphan, there are no subsidies for it. So it doesn't get any support. But it can displace natural gas which can be used in vehicles, at less cost than oil. That is what I'd like to see happen.

Comment
19 of 24

fred-linn-151968

December 19, 2009

Billy's Mule

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncqlf6RoW8U

Comment
20 of 24

r-t-55471

December 19, 2009

This is a not very interesting discussion, mostly about cost. Without specific numbers, I do feel everyone claiming tax credits is using my money to lower their electric bill. Feed In Tarrifs are worse in that everyone pays for dubious benefits. But there's more.

"If you want to talk carbon, fine: Rest assured, this panels will prevent lots and lots of carbon from entering the atmosphere."

Do the panels, considering manufacturing impact, really offset the CO2 impact?

Comment
21 of 24

fred-linn-151968

December 20, 2009

----------"Do the panels, considering manufacturing impact, really offset the CO2 impact?"--------------

Considering that solar panels will be producing electricity a minimum of 20 to 25 years, I'd say that manufacturing impact is so low it is close to nil.

Solar thermal is even more so, it requires very little input to collect thermal energy. Passive solar design incorporates solar design right into the building---there is no "manufacturing impact", it is part of the building construction.

Comment
22 of 24

Anonymous

December 22, 2009

If you live on Long Island, LIPA provides rebates towards the purchase of a solar system. As of January 1, 2010, LIPA will rebate customers $27,500 towards the purchase of a 10k system which produces 12,750 kwh a year. The tax incentives are:NYS caps at $5,000 and the Fed is 30% of the net cost of the system...so what's so complicated about the rebates and incentives?There is no maintenance required with solar panels...there is more maintenance to having to take your car to the car wash. The return on investment in most cases is somewhere between 5 to 7 years. It should be noted since 2001 to January 2009, electric rates increased over 37% and as of January 2010, there will be another 1% increase totalling 38% increase. I have an all electric applianced home with central air and my year to date spend is $500. My last month bill was $15.09....no problem paying my electric bills!!
As for schools getting solar which does not cost the tax payer a dime! Energy Performance Contractors provide this service by conducting an overall assessment of a school i.e. oil burners, windows, door, etc. The EPC makes recommendations highlighting the saving to the district as to how making changes can save the district $$. My school district saved $150,000 this year. This savings pays for the EPC recommendations, therefore, there is NO OUT OF POCKET to the taxpayer!!!!

Comment
23 of 24

fred-linn-151968

December 22, 2009

--------" This savings pays for the EPC recommendations, therefore, there is NO OUT OF POCKET to the taxpayer!!!!"--------------

I would say that being able to add perhaps 2-3 teachers to the staff while keeping the budget exactly the same in spite of rising energy costs year after year after the initial installation is something the taxpayers who support the school should be quite happy about.

I get a little tired of the tea baggers tax protesters. They don't show much far sight it seems to me a lot of the time. I support lower taxes, but I don't think the way to do that is to be Penny wise but Pound foolish as Ben Franklin would have said.

Comment
24 of 24

tim-gard-25916

February 5, 2010

I had a good friend of mine (not literally) that spent alot of time and energy serving mankind. When some local group needed help or money, he was there. He was dependable. He donated greatly. He even volunteered to help search for a women who ended up missing in his town. What a guy! Then it was discovered he had viciously murdered several young women, including the one he was helping 'find'. Did that mean all the good work he had done had no value? No. Does that mean we should ignore his inability to shun evil? Hardly. But, Bill did not commit a ruthless murder. Unless one can murder truth by ignoring wether facts are relevant. But the truth is Tom that your function as a solar installer depends on governmental financial support. In my opinion this support is a damn good idea. But Bill seems to think not. However I can see he is not well educated on the reasoning for persuit of this science. I listen to him as a source of information, but not to make decisions for me. Hes a news man, not an educator afterall. And sometimes hes a dolt! But, do we really have the right to use peoples tax money for research without giving them the opportunity to reject it? Is that what Bill was trying to say? Taxes were originally meant to run our governments, not do scientific research. I'm afraid I am on the dolts side on this one. And that hurts me.

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!