The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Saturday, May 25, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Why Do You Support Solar on the White House?

Stephen Lacey, Podcast Producer
June 09, 2010  |  38 Comments

If someone offered you a free solar system worth US $107,000 for your house, would you take it? A group of companies and advocacy organizations are reaching out to the Obama administration, hoping he'll accept the offer for a free solar PV system for the White House to prove the U.S. is serious about developing renewables.

The cadre of solar players, lead by the solar-services provider Sungevity, has developed a citizen action campaign to get the Obama Administration's attention. Called “Globama,” the petition site features a range of social networking tools to spread the message about the importance of putting solar back on the White House.

By now, the story of how solar was put on and taken off the White House is famous in renewable energy circles. In 1979, as a way of proving America's commitment to developing new sources of energy, President Jimmy Carter installed a large solar hot water system on roof of the White House. But in 1986 after a leak was discovered, Ronald Reagan took the panels off rather than fix it.

The story about solar on the White House is often used to symbolize the early rise and fall of the renewable energy industry in this country. But renewables are back — and many people in the industry are urging Obama to once again make a bold statement about the country's push into a new energy era.

Today, there is a solar thermal system and a PV system on a maintenance shed on the White House grounds. But there is nothing on the roof servicing the actual building.

Given the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the effort to put solar on the white house may gain more traction as anger over the environmental damage grows. And while solar doesn't directly replace oil, it is a symbolic gesture of America's push for clean energy nonetheless.

So what do you think about the effort? Do you think Obama should take the solar panels? And if you think he should, what's your best reason for putting solar back on the White House? Please share your comments below.

We walked around the recent ASES National Solar Conference in Arizona and asked some industry folks what they thought. Check out the video below to hear what they had to say.

38 Comments

Register To Comment
Ron Harris
Ron Harris
June 30, 2010
In my opinion, the better question is "Why would you not support solar at the White House?", whether is is on the rooftop or on the grounds. Special interest groups,"be damned", they are what keeps the world moving. Simply support the ones that appeal to you, as an individual.
Ron Harris
Ron Harris
June 17, 2010
In my opinion, wind energy would be a more attractive technology for the White House. All the hot air that blows on capitol hill 24/7 would eliminate the concern of solar inefficiencies at night.
Brian Allen
Brian Allen
June 17, 2010
Hmm, billions of dollars spent each year on oil lobbying efforts and there are people getting upset about the renewable energy industry trying to create some pressure on the president to side with saving the planet. Let's get our priorities straight. The White House needs solar, my house needs solar, and all of your houses need solar.
DANIEL MARTIN-RIOS
DANIEL MARTIN-RIOS
June 16, 2010
yes,solar pvs for the White House ,every State Capitol building and City Halls,Pentagon and all goverment buildings
Let our goverment lead the way into ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND FISCAL RESPONSABILITY!
Bob Tregilus
Bob Tregilus
June 15, 2010
As Steven once reported on Inside Renewable Energy, the German Parliament (Reichstag building) is almost entirely powered by RE. That fact alone speaks volumes about Germany's commitment to renewables. But if that is not enough, all one has to do is extrapolate into a football score the solar watts per-capita of our two countries and it's Germany 189, United States 7. We're getting our butts kicked.

Both the White House as well as the Capital should be powered by renewable energies and we should have a national renewable energy multi-technology cost-based feed-in tariff. Anything less and we as a country are only paying lip service to renewables.

So yes, guerrilla marketing or not, Obama should go for it - and all the other RE technologies should be making similar offers as well.

Bob Tregilus
Co-host-
This Week in Energy (TWiEpodcast)
http://ThisWeekinEnergy.tv
Paula Klaus
Paula Klaus
June 15, 2010
I am adamantly opposed to a chotsky little pr array. If it is to be done, whomever should walk through the load calcs, the space limitations, etc, etc and do a real time project, NOT a postage stamp PR piece of ......
Dinesh Kagathi
Dinesh Kagathi
June 14, 2010
Yes! Putting solar on the white house certainly sends a strong message and it should be done unless there is a strong technical reason not to do so.

But, it should be done more an in inititive of the white house rather than as an initiative of the industry lobby. The industry lobby providing it FREE to the White House, in my opinion, will have a negative impact on the public mind than a positive impact. Instead, the Industry Lobby should convince Obama to pay for it and install.
ANONYMOUS
June 13, 2010
Scott Sklar (comment #31) writes: "We need to laud anyone pushing for PV on The White House."

I suggest we paint the front door of the White House green to illustrate our environmental concerns and I volunteer to pay for 1 large can of paint to get the job done (grin). Perhaps Scott would like to endorse my plan too....

It may well be true that solar energy deserves increased political support in Washington (I'd favor more R&D rather than any of the various price support schemes others seem to prefer). However, if the President were to fall for this gimmick it would diminish the credibility of both his office and the technology. If solar is really trending towards affordable pricing in some regions it should not need goofy publicity stunts. And presidents should not be seen as engaging in trivial gimmicks unless they want to be seen as ineffectual (I also note that comparisons to Jimmy Carter are not really something the Democrats want during an election campaign that is already not trending their way).

If someone wants to promote solar by giving systems away, they should put one on some minor government building in Hawaii to illustrate that there are places where solar can compete (Hawaii is one of the few places in the country that actually generates most of its electricity from oil).

Steven
mark bryant
mark bryant
June 13, 2010
This country needs to wake up, of course the White House needs to go solar, should they pay, YES, put it out to bid. Did Regan set back this country by taking off the panels, YES, do Oil, Gas and Coal have their have strong lobbyists helping control this country's future, YES

We need to get off Oil, Gas and Coal, cut the subsidies they are getting and put them toward alternative energy.

Look at the Gulf, that should be enough to change our minds, it will take years to clean up. How much clean up is with wind, solar, tidal, geothermal etc.

The federal subsidies need to be guiding this country towards renewable energy for our kids sake, grand kids and the future of the planet.
Scott Sklar
Scott Sklar
June 12, 2010
My comments are to JN #18 and a few of you commenting on the cost of PV. First, President Carter ddid put solar pool heating system on The White House which worked great. Reagan pulled them off the first six months in office to make a political statement against clean energy and those Carter/Jerry Brown types he despised. The costs arguments on PV are insipid - all new technologies cost more - and PV costs less than electricity from batteries, is cost effective in remote applications, and also cost competitive where electric rates are variable or high. More importantly, this President has made green technology one of his top policy planks, and PV was invented in modern times in the US and his policies are trying to maintain US dominance in this field. We need to laud anyone pushing for PV on The White House. - Scott Sklar, The Stella Group, Ltd.
ANONYMOUS
June 12, 2010
The white house could avoid the whole lobbying issue by paying to have solar installed in the whitehouse. This would show more support for solar, save money in the long run and I don't think $100,000 is a lot for the white house. They probably spend more on a function or a plane trip.
Tor 'Solar Fred' Valenza
Tor 'Solar Fred' Valenza
June 11, 2010
To #25, Anonymous, and all the others who are repelled by the notion of SEIA being involved with this.

First, it's my understanding that it is not illegal to give gifts to the White House so long as it's reported and made public.

Second, I know of no nefarious plan to take over the White House with solar. In fact, even without solar panels on the White House, this administration has been a great supporter of solar, and I'm personally very thankful of that, and I hope the entire industry is too.

Third, SEIA was not originally involved or mentioned in my original call to action. See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea//blog/post/2010/02/yes-we-can-help-obama-put-solar-panels-on-the-whitehouse-again-

So this initiative, was not started by lobbyists, but grass roots marketers like me. But even if it were started by solar lobbyists, GOOD!

"Lobbyist" has a bad connotation because it's often associated with corruption, but please don't pain the entire group as corrupt. As the solar industry's representative, SEIA is in the Washington trenches, and please don't think that this is anything less than an energy war. Right now, solar and other renewables are getting attention because the oil and coal companies have revealed themselves to be dangerous as well as corrupting the Minerals Management Office.

Should Rhone Resch and his crew do the same? Absolutely not. That's bad lobbying. What's good lobbying? Good lobbying is advocacy and getting to meet face to face with Congress and their staff to make the case for solar's benefits and to help shape energy laws to help move us away from polluting fossil fuels--and their anti-solar lobbyists. If you'd all like to quit your jobs and do this individually, have it. But don't be so naive to think that solar doesn't require lobbyists or guerrilla marketers like me.

You want us to keep our head down and not creatively, genuinely promote solar? Well, the coal and the oil biz are going to love that.
ANONYMOUS
June 11, 2010
Or one of Microsoft/Toshiba's household nukes on the back lawn! No wonder BLAGO has that huge grin from watching you wallow in Chicago-style government corruption!
Luke Divemaster
Luke Divemaster
June 11, 2010
Concerning russ's comment...

1) Solar PV is still super expensive - without massive support it is dead!

The reason some folks feel that solar is "expensive" is that you pay for the system upfront unless you have a power purchase agreement (from Wikipedia- Under the PPA model, the PPA provider would secure funding for the project, maintain and monitor the energy production, and sell the electricity to the host at a contractual price for the term of the contract. The term of a PPA generally lasts between 5 and 25 years. In some renewable energy contracts, the host has the option to purchase the generating equipment from the PPA provider at the end of the term, may renew the contract with different terms, or can request that the equipment be removed), or are able to amortize payments in a loan form or another creative financing arrangement.

Even if you pay for a system outright, the cost savings for what you'd pay for electricity in states like California, where rates are high, would have a payback of 5-10 years. So pay a solar company for 5-10 years for clean, renewable energy and then receive that energy for FREE for the life of the system (25+ years) or pay a fun-to-deal-with utility that produces dirty, non-renewable energy forever with hefty rate increases every year or so.

At Lane Community College, in Eugene, OR, where I'm working on a renewable energy degree, 2 large solar PV-EV charging stations are being built to charge student, faculty and college-owned vehicles (at no monetary charge). There are a couple of PV systems already installed and a large solar DHW system on a building that's being constructed now.

This serves as an example and lets people know that LCC is serious about taking action to reduce carbon emissions and increase the health benefits of the populace as well as providing green jobs and training for a sustainable future.
ANONYMOUS
June 11, 2010
Amazing! with the multi-million dollar culture of corruption in Washington in the investment banking industry and mortgages, I see justification for just 'take the gift' it's good for you'....really, have a taste, you'll like it...there's no obligation to buy.

I spent over a decade in D.C. surrounded by lobbyists and this was their sales pitch.

...and then to actually be proud of fostering the culture of corruption ..."to those that say that this is just a lobbying and publicity stunt, I say of course it is and we need more of them". YEAH, and drinks are on Uncle Sam!

There is already substantial corruption in quarters of the renewables' industry---a college accepts a wind tower and a donation(hidden) to a building fund in exchange for promotional exposure and covering up the failure to deliver the name plate capacity in the sales pitch; a member of the Public Utilities Commission accepts a job with a major wind corporation that includes a major 'gift' of shares that won't have any value until after he leaves and his decisions on behalf of the corporation take effect...talk about a ticking time bomb!

Then there is the well, the did it; so I guess we have to too? Now you've opened the door to outright seduction of public officials.

Do it right, run the proposal through Congress, pass an authorization and an appropriation and put it out to bids....or suspend all rules against gifting, because what you are advocating is both illegal,immoral and unethical.
Chuck Conover
Chuck Conover
June 11, 2010
Several people said that solar is too expensive. This just isn't true. I put solar on my house 5 years ago and it was about break-even at 8.5 cents/KWh, assuming no major failures in 20 years. Except now, the grid price is 12.5 cents/KWh. And, it doesn't pollute. And, I didn't have to lay miles of cable to get the energy to my house. And, there is no maintenance, except that I tilt the panels twice per year. Everyone says coal is cheap, but they don't count the cost of building the plant in their calculations, or any of the capital costs like trucks and mining equipment (have you seen those HUGE trucks they use?). They also don't count the cost of finding the coal or buying the land that the coal is under. Neither do they count the cost of cleaning up the mine after it's beat. What's the problem with solar again?
Rob Bryan
Rob Bryan
June 11, 2010
I agree with Solar Fred also. Have you seen this? http://www.coal-is-clean.com/
The system should probably be supplied by SEIA to avoid conflict of interest.
ANONYMOUS
June 11, 2010
I hope President Obama will install solar panels on the White House, but NOT accept gifts from the solar industry. He can use some tax credits. He has to lead by example.
Tim Hanson
Tim Hanson
June 11, 2010
I like what renewables are doing, but I can't support this. This debases the office of the President and potentially politicizes renewable energy. There will be many who see this as using the White House to "sell" a product or get publicity. Then will wind power advocates want a wind turbine in the Rose Garden?

There will also be legal concerns with a public personnel accepting a gift like this. There are a slew of laws about what public workers can accept as gifts/payments.

Realistically this is solely a symbolic gesture, and will be construed widely as publicity seeking. If Obama feels it is important enough, he should pay for it (or have it put into facilities budget for the building). Why not do something more impacting? Put solar on another public building or a school.
William Fitch
William Fitch
June 11, 2010
Hi:

They probably already have land mines anyway...
CC.. of course ST is far more efficient than PV...
Everyone knows this..
Watch this podcast that's on the front page:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/podcast/2010/06/utilities-are-warming-to-solar-hot-water
There are some good comments on how PV got favored in the market today, and of course, it has nothing to do with efficiency! (Hint: MONEY)
Get bi-partisan support for advanced solar representation on the WH and all the low hanging fruit for "throwing stones" goes away...

.....Bill
Christopher Champagne
Christopher Champagne
June 11, 2010
1) Yes, it is high time we put solar back on the White House for all the reasons Oliver outlined above.

2) Yes, solar does directly replace oil - solar thermal, that is - and has for over 30 years. It is inconceivable to me that anyone who knows anything about home energy usage across American could suggest otherwise! I grew up in Pennsylvania, near Three Mile Island. After the 1979 accident at TMI, I found the Solar Technology program at Penn State University and the following year, I enrolled. The house I grew up in had an oil-fired boiler that did double duty, providing both space heating and domestic hot water, as did the homes of many of our neighbors - and you can bet that a good many still do (my parents new boiler does).

3) Yes, solar is a good idea, and one kind of solar would continue to be a sound investment without subsidies - all on its own: solar hot water. One individual appears on the video and incorrectly states that it's time to put "solar PV back on the White House." Where are the advocates for a combined approach? Doesn't anyone appreciate the fact that solar hot water systems have efficiency ratings that are 3 to 4 times that of PV at less than half the cost? And they provide heat for DHW and space heating and swimming pools, ice melting, industrial processes, agriculture, etc., etc., etc.
Jeremy Shere
Jeremy Shere
June 11, 2010
We should just be aware, as Stephen noted, that the last time a president put solar panels on the roof--Carter in 1979--it did not exactly end well. Carter's move was mainly a publicity stunt meant to jump start his "solar bank" initiative--a proposed $100 million fund to encourage residential and business solar activity. Carter was responding to a substantial buildup of interest in solar energy during the 1970s, spurred by the energy crisis that began in 1973. But, alas, Carter's plans were largely scuttled by the Iran hostage crisis that helped sweep Reagan into office. When the solar panels were taken down in the mid 80s, they became something of a joke, a symbol of Carter's failure alongside his cardigans.

But this isn't to say that Obama shouldn't put solar panels back on the White House. Once again we're in a time of great interest in renewable technologies, and Obama would certainly be doing the solar industry a favor by showcasing the technology on arguably the world's most famous "house." But he's surely aware that there's a flip side to such a gesture, when and if his successor tears them down.
david austin
david austin
June 11, 2010
Well he's not going to go for it for reasons already stated, but that doesn't matter. Forcing him to make this decision, and one that will run contrary to his pro-solar agenda should motivate him to prove his devotion to the cause in other ways. It's kind of a perfect move because you're making an offer that you know won't be accepted, but you'll end up reaping rewards anyway - something for nothing really. I don't see this as a pock-mark of any kind "buying his loyalty", because hey ... he's not saving any $ by doing it - there's no personal motivation - no semblance of underhandedness, as would be the case if we offered to put it on his permanent home in ... well wherever he ends up after his time is up as Commander in Chief. Won't stop pro-oil pundits from portraying it that way though.
Angus Campbell
Angus Campbell
June 11, 2010
Gee I'm a weapans dealer and I want to sell land mines to third world countries. You think the president will let me have a demonstration on the lawn of the white house? As much as I agree with your intentions people, your methods will open up some unwanted doors. Try your demonstrations where they matter. Generate some elctricity at competitive prices in a steady and environmental safe manner and the public will buy. Until then you are just another snake oil salesman (person).
Ron Jones
Ron Jones
June 11, 2010
Who can't support the enthusiasm of Solar Fred and other initiators and supporters of this initiative. And yet, I believe the first comment in this thread is the most germane:



"Should the president accept a lobby group's propaganda campaign--No. It demeans the office to be seen as a pawn of a special interest group and will have no real impact on the national debate about renewable energy."

Steven



Steven is right, at least in his underlying assertion that such an campaign can never have a direct victory because it's fundamentally flawed from a political standpoint. The White House cannot accept gifts.



So maybe we should think bigger, and lobby for the Obama Administration to put solar on all new gov't funded housing ... or whatever. Why not aim for more than a symbolic victory?
Thomas Garven
Thomas Garven
June 10, 2010
When we have burned up all of our coal, oil and natural gas; the only thing left will be our existing nuclear reactor which is 93 million miles above out heads. That reactor sends its energy to us wirelessly and we don't even have to deal with any of its waste. Oh and did I mention the power it sends us is free! It is also a very generous provider. It will give us more than 5,000 times the energy we will ever need and continue doing it for about another billion years. There has never been a shortage of power on this plant.

I have yet to understand why we seem to want to pollute our air and water, poison our fish with mercury, contaminate our oceans and rivers and leave our children a polluted and dirty planet. I would sure like to leave my kids and grand-kids something better wouldn't you?

You know folks, burning coal is what they did in the stone-age. If we are still doing this today because we are trying to kill all of our coal miners; then I can probably find a much more effective method. If we have some other plan in mind besides trying to kill them; I would sure like to know what it is? If we consider ourselves to be well educated thinking individuals then why on earth are we still acting like a bunch of cavemen?

I wonder - are we really the sharpest cheddar in the deli case?

tomgarven@hotmail.com
William Fitch
William Fitch
June 10, 2010
Hi All:

I suppose I have to say something here.
Well, if I throw out everything said so far and try to create something new, as in a new perspective, I came up with the following:
1. Is this a PR based initiative? Yes.
2. Is there PV and SDHW already on WH grounds. Yes.
3. Is the WH a high visibility attraction representing the USA. Yes.
4. Does it see new occupants at least every 8 years with different political perspectives and, shall we say, obligations. Yes.
5. Would it be harmful if on its premises, it had a high visibility bi-partisan "statement" about America's direction regarding energy? Hopefully No.
OK, so I began to think how can this be accomplished without it looking like just another lobby, sales job, promo, etc. and about another 100 adjectives saying the same thing.
Suppose rather than putting the current "state of the market" stuff there, we place a solar technology there that is really not in the market.
This accomplishes several things.
First, it completely deflates any comments regarding "some company" just trying to get there name noticed out of the current frenzy.
Second, rather than it saying, we will use more solar, blah, blah, blah, it says we are not only in favor of solar now, but highly supportive of the new promising solar technologies and committed to the now and future of solar.
Third, I think that everyone will agree that the benefit of solar on the WH is not actually how much energy it produces, but the statement it makes. So, if there was, as example, a tracking CSP sterling engine, or a tracking CPV cell, etc.. the list is long, it points a commitment to the future rather than just saying, OK, we will use more of what we already have. Allot of thought and fighting would have to go into the final picks, but in the end, I think the meaning communicated would be worth far more to the solar industry as a whole, and send a very positive message about how the USA feels regarding solar now and in the future.

.....Bill
Christof Demont-Heinrich
Christof Demont-Heinrich
June 10, 2010
Hi Oliver,
I completely agree that it will take time -- a long time to transition from oil-based cars (and an oil-based society) to renewable energy powered cars. So, no, PV+EV won't replace oil completely anytime soon. But it can, over time, begin to make a meaningful and eventually substantial reduction in oil consumption for transportation.

What I'd like to see more of (and I'm starting to see it, slowly emerge -- for instance here: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/08/home/la-hm-realistidealist-20100508) is environmentalists and solar advocates begin to systematically work on building the PV+EV connection in the popular imaginary. The way to do this is to consistently and frequently point to PV+EV as an exciting, real, and completely viable alternative (over time) to oil.

Right now, the average person doesn't even think of PV+EV, doesn't even know this possibility exists. For change to happen, people need to realize that that change exists as a possibility. And solar advocates could do a lot more, in my opinion, to do this. So, for instance, rather than saying "solar doesn't directly replace oil" (not true, actually), note that solar has the potential to (begin) replacing oil in the transportation sector (though this will be a long transition).

Almost no one thinks about solar as potentially replacing oil as an auto fueling option -- and this is exactly the problem. Yet, the fact is, solar can indeed (incrementally, but also potentially significantly) replace oil.

In short, in order for the public to make the solar-oil connection, and think solar beyond a coal-beater, we need solar advocates to make this connection again, and again and again.

--Christof Demont-Heinrich
Founder & Editor, SolarChargedDriving.Com
Ricky Sunshine
Ricky Sunshine
June 9, 2010
maybe change the offer to "free clean coal" at the white house and it might get more attention while highlighting the absurdity of "clean coal." Anyway, here's the petition letter...

Hello Mr. President, Miss First Lady, Malia, Sasha and Socks,

We'd like to offer you a choice of a free clean coal plant or a free clean solar plant at the white house. Either way, you'll be proud to showoff the latest Chinese technology and impress your friends like Carla Bruni and Glenn Beck. But wait there's more... act by July 4 and you'll also get a free offshore, deep-water oil rig and our lifetime sheep-shearing scissors from Switzerland! This offer won't last, so act today! Call 1-800-Solar-Fred.

Sincerely,

The "Real American" Coalition to Ban Coalitions
Oliver Strube
Oliver Strube
June 9, 2010
cbdh19 - I think that all of us at RenewableEnergyWorld.com do make the EV+PV connection, but we also want to be realistic that we are not going to get rid off all gasoline powered vehicles overnight. I believe the current fleet of vehicles on the road is replaced every 14-15 years. So, even if we started only producing/selling/buying EV it would still take more than a decade to switch from oil to electricity as our transportation fuel and, of course, that's not a realistic scenario.

However, I think one of the reasons to put PV on the White House should include charging a presidential EV.

Readers, give us more reasons to put solar back on the White House!
Christof Demont-Heinrich
Christof Demont-Heinrich
June 9, 2010
First, I support this effort and thank SolarFred for all his work in getting it going.

Second, Stephen, you write --> "And while solar doesn't directly replace oil."

In fact, solar CAN replace oil, at least in the transportation sector. Solar panels on homes, carports, buildings, and my least favorite spot for solar, in the desert, etc. produce electricity that can be used to juice the batteries of an electric car! In fact, a small number of Americans are already driving on sun and are completely oil free drivers --
http://solarchargeddriving.com/news/people.html

That number's sure to grow when EVs become widely available, beginning in late 2010. We just had a 5.59 kW system put up on our Colorado roof last week. It'll power 100-percent of our home electric use AND 10,000 air pollution free, and oil free, miles in an future electric car per year.

Wish more in the solar industry would wake up to the EV+PV synergy, especially in the wake of the BP spill. It's the perfect time to point out to people that solar DOES in fact replace oil -- when you think EV+PV!
Brian Somers
Brian Somers
June 9, 2010
I have to agree with Moline and Fred. If you're an advocate for renewables, you should support any campaign that supports the industry, especially one as consumer friendly as this one. Renewables are already facing an uphill battle, the last thing we need are supporters criticizing the industry from within! Let's start with the White House, then move on to every American home.
Oliver Strube
Oliver Strube
June 9, 2010
Here are some reasons why President Obama may want to accept this gift from the solar industry.

1. It's a statement to the World that the U.S. is getting serious about energy independence and making the shift to renewables
2. It would reduce fossil fuel based energy consumption at the White House and nicely complement the organic garden the Obamas have planted
3. The White House could finally be part of the Solar Decathlon, ok, not really, but like Tor said, it would be a very nice demonstration of solar power on a building
4. It's completely FREE, why wouldn't the taxpayers want to do this. As a matter of fact, it will save taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars over the next 20 years
5. It's a whole lot better to be remembered as the President that put solar back on the White House than for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico

more later...
Aaron Moline
Aaron Moline
June 9, 2010
I completely agree with SolarFred. I think after all the time and resources that oil and gas has put into lobbying efforts towards our representatives, it was about time solar and renewable energy got its chance. Although the America COMPETES is getting some head room, our country still has a LONG ways to go before we get serious about renewables. We have a chance to lead this change, and what better way than having the government lead by example. I already signed the petition and I give you guys my full support. Good luck!
Tor 'Solar Fred' Valenza
Tor 'Solar Fred' Valenza
June 9, 2010
Hey, all,

I'm one of the marketers who's part of this initiative and I'm also glad that SEIA is now on board. I've said this before in other posts, but to those that say that this is just a lobbying and publicity stunt, I say of course it is and we need more of them.

Without solar lobbyists and solar guerrilla marketing publicity stunts like this, the coal, oil, gas companies win with THEIR lobbyists and their huge advertising campaigns.

I applaud the solar companies behind this initiate. (see a full list on this post: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2010/04/give-a-hand-to-these-17-solar-pros-and-companies-offering-free-solar-systems-and-services-to-the-white-house)

These companies are not sticking their heads in the sand and humming along, believing that America will have a suddenly wake up to solar's benefits. It's up to solar companies be that alarm clock through their marketing efforts and especially efforts that are reaching out and educating.

This White House initiative is that potential. The President can use its installation to educate the public about solar and lead by example. It can show the White House savings and clean air savings.

Please support this initiative and I encourage everyone in the solar industry to do MORE publicity stunts. If not, then the oil and coal companies and their lobbying/advertising machine win. I don't think anyone reading RenewableEnergyWorld wants that, do we?
Aaron Moline
Aaron Moline
June 9, 2010
Although I completely support the government taking the initiative towards renewable energy, I agree with Steven. This could easily blow back in Obama's face, seen as another lobbying influence in government. Part of me would love to see him do it (considering the amount of oil lobbyist influence in Washington already), but as Steven commented this runs the risk of being taken as another special interest group running our government.

-Consumer Energy Alliance
"A balance approach towards America's energy future"
Sean Deichstetter
Sean Deichstetter
June 9, 2010
I love when the marketing guys get a hold of an idea and just won't let it go.

I am certainly not against solar at the White House but like any installation project you have to look at the limitations of the site.

What roof space is actually available? How much equipment is actually up there? Is it even feasible to install a system on the roof? Even if there is enough space, I would say based on security concerns alone your not getting on the White House roof.

The fact the they put a solar electric system on a maintenance building in 2003 instead of the White House should say something. And to sent the record straight, an 8.75 kw AC system doesn't fit on a shed.

I can admire the idea but in the face of reality this screams "We want media publicity" more than anything.
ANONYMOUS
June 9, 2010
Should the president accept a lobby group's propaganda campaign--No. It demeans the office to be seen as a pawn of a special interest group and will have no real impact on the national debate about renewable energy.
Steven

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stephen Lacey

Stephen Lacey

I am a reporter with ClimateProgress.org, a blog published by the Center for American Progress. I am former editor and producer for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, where I contributed stories and hosted the Inside Renewable Energy Podcast. Keep...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 8
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Texas Legislature Passes Commercial and Industrial PACE Bill
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Solar Site Design
  • Solmetric Corporation
  • American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
  • Mersen (formerly Ferraz Shawmut)
  • Reed Exhibitions
  • Upsolar
  • Quick Mount PV
  • Intertek
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information