Fox News explains why solar power works in Germany, but not here.
 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te..._do_video.html

Brilliant.:cool:

Good grief!
But then, isn't that what we have come to expect from those clowns at Fox entertainment....

I heard this on the radio this morning. To say I was surprised would be wrong but I was disgusted. These people want to make their viewers stupider and stupider so that they will swallow anything they're fed.

John

No surprise, spreading stupidity and misinformation is what Fox does best.

Did anyone check out the high speed rail article on that same page?

Dave

Wow I never knew how little sun Germany got..

But then, Fox already has its get out of jail free card. It can legally lie if it wants to.

Regards,

D-Ray

Yes, and an employee's refusal to lie as instructed is legitimate grounds for dismissal.

Truly disgusting!

John

Ok, so I'll bite. Here in MI, there's no way in hell that solar energy would ever be economical. Why? There's not enough days / hours of sunlight per year to make solar power generation an economically viable energy source. Hell, we can go for a week or more with no sunny days in the winter. Just solid cloud cover.

Now, if that's the point that the Fox News person is attempting to make, albeit poorly stated, then that makes sense to me, just base on my experience here in MI. I've not attempted to Google and see if there's any info out there comparing average hours of sunshine per year by country. Maybe that would be a revealing exercise.

Maybe it would prove to you that you believe everything you hear from the Fox propaganda machine, no matter how absurd? Or, would that be too much to ask?

Regards,
Dave

Um, huh? I didn't see the actual clip, just read the transcript posted in he OP. Don't watch TV news much, because most of it makes me want to puke. So, I'm not sure what the hell you're getting at with your post.

Did you look at the graphical representation of hours of sunlight at the bottom of the linked page? It compared the US to Germany (and Spain). From looking at the map, it looks like Michigan is among the lowest states in the US in terms of solar energy (ahead of Alaska, Washington and Oregon). Other states in Michigan's vicinity looked similar to Michigan. Must be those big ol' lakes up there causing all of that cloud cover.

Regards,

D-Ray

The point is it works in Germany and, if you look at the insolation maps in the article, you'll see that Michigan gets more sunshine than Germany does. The obvious conclusion is that, if it works in Germany, it would work in Michigan.

John

Whether you watched the clip or read the transcript makes no difference. You absorbed the material and then defended it at face value.

Germany 64 sunny days per year.

http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/sola...n-solar-power/

Michigan 170 sunny days per year;

http://www.bestplaces.net/climate/state/michigan

That ditz on Fox was wrong and YOU are wrong.

THAT's what my post meant.

Dave

So you pull data from two different sources for comparison, draw a conclusion, and tell me that I'm wrong? Cool. :rolleyes:

Yes, I took it at face value, and then combined it with what I know and what I see. I know some folks in the energy industry, and they're trying to figure out ways to respond to a mandate from the Granholm administration that requires the utilities in MI to ratchet up the percentage of renewable or "green" energy sources that feed the grid in MI. From what I'm told, the consensus is that solar power is a non-starter, or at least several notches down on the list of viable solutions, due to the lack of sunny days. Maybe as the cost of building a solar generating plant come down, that will change.

Now, I'm no expert, and I've never asked that specifically why it works in Germany and not in MI. Your sources don't event cite the location of the measurements. Its like saying that the USA averages 170 days of sunlight per year, just based on measurements taken in MI.

And, for the record, I'm not "down" on solar. There are plenty of individuals / families around here who applied for subsidies and installed solar collectors, solar shingles, etc. They also can't disconnect from the Edison power feeds because of the variability of power that their home systems generate, but good for them that they are, on average, reducing their annual electric bill.

Power grids need constant and predictable sources of energy. Solar may be, at least around here, a way to supplement the grid. But solar and wind combined will not be replacing the coal-fired plants in MI any time soon.

Oh, and by the way:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ubsidies_.html

MM, If I stipulate that there are problems in implementation of a residentially based solar power grid will you stipulate that FOX is full of shit? I mean, that's the subject of the thread, right?

John

I'd suggest that the clip showed the Fox contributor not presenting her facts terribly well. But if you read that article I last posted, sourced from the same on-line publication as the OP, it contains this statement:

"In the words of the German Association of Physicists, “solar energy cannot replace any additional power plants.” On short, overcast winter days, Germany’s 1.1 million solar-power systems can generate no electricity at all. The country is then forced to import considerable amounts of electricity from nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic."

That would seem to support the point that the Fox contributor is attempting to make.

The article you posted doesn't address the subject of this thread. Also, what limitations exist in Germany relative to insolation don't apply in the US except in Alaska. We have much, much more available sunshine than they do overall.

And to say that the Fox reporter didn't "present her facts well" is absurd. She didn't present any facts at all.

John

LOL!

The subject of the thread is that the lady on Fox was dopey for suggesting Germany gets more sun, making solar less viable. I then posted that her comment rings a bell, 'cuz here in MI we don't get much sun, which is why solar isn't getting much traction in MI.

Saying that total hours of sunlight is a factor in solar energy is correct. The Fox contributor got her facts a bit backwards, but the essence of her argument is correct. That's all I was trying to say, as absurd as it may sound. :rolleyes:

By the way, power generation tends to be a local enterprise. What works in California won't always work in Michigan (or Germany). It appears from the article that solar doesn't work in Germany as a long term solution. Doesn't mean it can't work in parts of the USA.

The essence of her argument was the "backward" facts, namely that solar works in Germany, and can't work here, because they get more sun than we do. How can you defend such nonsense in any way?

John

Mini, The idea of solar, wind, geothermal etc. presently is to not replace every dirty source (coal, oil, NG, nuke) power plant. It is to augment it, thereby reducing pollution. BTW, fracked NG is most definitely killing coal. Fossil fuels are all finite, solar isn't. Well, unless you look at the real long term-5,000,000,000 years down the road.

In one I was looking for the stats on a country. In the other I was looking for stats on a state.

I didn't really want to spend much time searching for the article that compares the two specifically. Hence, two different sources.

And who ever said solar would replace other sources of energy?

A little o' this, a little o' that, not one or the other. Ya dig?

Dave

But you know, Dave, since they were from different sources, one has to be wrong!

John

You've got me wrong. I'll say it again: the idea that total available sunlight in a particular geographic area rings a bell with me due to weather in Michigan. That's the only point I'm making. I also posted an article which documents Germany backtracking on solar which would contradict the Fox reporter. But again, that same article suggests that geographically available sunlight is a factor, supporting my suggestion that solar is not viable in MI.

Okay, then we agree that the FOX piece was totally off base? Maybe even a lie?

Now, the article you posted does suggest that Germany's relatively low level of insolation presents a problem for them when it comes to solar energy. That's not in dispute but for you to make the stretch that Germany's problems, with only about 38% as much sunshine as Michigan, means that solar will encounter the same problems here that it does there. It's simply not supported, or even suggested, by the facts.

John

We don't agree that it was a lie. A lie implies intent, and I don't think there's enough info to conclude that. I know some of you guys like to dump on Fox, and more power to you if that floats your boat.

The info that I used to suggest that solar isn't viable here in MI as anything more than a Small supplement to the grid comes from folks in the industry that I've spoken to. You can disagree with that all you wish, but I suspect they knew what they were talking about.

Well, if you ask nicely them Sunshine staters'll be glad to send you some when it's cloudy in Michigan. After all, you all came to their help after those sumbitchin' bushwackers from Missoura shot every man and boy in Lawrence a while back.:)

The reason Germany is cutting subsidies to promote solar energy is because the program has become too successful. They fear is that it will collapse the commercial power grids that are still needed for the efficient transfer of electric power throughout Germany. The solar program was so successful Germany announced last year that they are phasing out all of their nuclear power plants.

When battery storage technology improves it will make solar power more feasible in states like MI. Generate when it is sunny and draw from the battery power when it is cloudy. This is not fiction. I have a friend who's off the grid using solar panels and storage batteries. He has an NG whole house generator for emergencies. It was very expensive to set up. Literally in the millions of dollars, but it is a multi-million dollar house. He is one of the pioneers that will help advance alternative energy sources. He is constantly upgrading to newer technology. He is not really off the grid. He still has commercial power. He is feeding excess power into the commercial grid almost everyday. Here you do not get paid for the power you feed into the commercial grid. You get a credit on your bill. Since he has no bill he is providing electricity to AEP for free. Seems like it is a nice bonus AEP lobbied for.

On thing you are missing MM is that the power grid is not local. We could build thousands of acres of solar panels in the deserts of the US and generate a massive amount of power for the grid that could be used to power homes and business' in MI.

Alternative energy is very feasible. We just have to get over the "it can't work here" mentality. Look at Iowa. It is awash with wind power generators and the last time I was there, four years ago, they were building a huge transmission line to gather the power and feed it into the grid.

As far as the OP, Fox News is a bunch of idiots. What that woman said is bullsh!t. You can't put lipstick on that pig.

How can a reporter who has done "research" get her facts totally reversed, especially when the facts are so strikingly different from what she claimed them to be? That being said, I didn't say that she was lying. I merely asked if we could agree that she might have been. I suppose you're so fond of FOX that you can't even admit that much.

Did you notice that she cited no sources AT ALL in her story? The closest she got was saying that "people are saying" that solar is in trouble here or "many people are talking about on Wall Street" that we should move away from solar and concentrate on "nat gas". Why? Because it pollutes less. No wonder FOX viewers know less than people who watch no news at all.

Now, another thing: you said that the FOX story "supported" your suggestion that the experience of Germany, with significantly less than half the sunshine of Michigan, was relevant to Michigan. That's true ONLY if you swallow the FOX story on its face.

I suppose you realize that because now you're saying that "folks" you know in the power industry tell you that solar is a dead issue in Michigan. So, who are these people, what are they telling you and what is their level of expertise? You say that I'm free to disagree but, in fact, I'm not since I have no idea as to the specifics of what they've told you.

A final word about FOX and lies. It was mentioned earlier in this thread but you might have missed or ignored it. FOX has gone to court (in Tampa as I recall) to defend themselves from a suit by two reporters who were fired because they refused to do a story that was one huge pack of lies. This fact is not in dispute. Not only did the court rule that the fired reporters had no case but it also found that a news organization, like FOX or any other, was under no obligation to tell the truth. Ever. They and any other news outlet are now free to out and out lie in their reporting. How does that sit with you?

John

I'm all for turning that POS backwards state of Arizona into one big solar collector. Asshole Arizona minutemen can move to Michigan and join their dipshit militias...:rolleyes:

I also recall CBS canning Dan Rather for pushing a fabricated story that he still maintains is true. I recall the news reports after the Denver theater shooting being more often wrong than even close to the truth. Same with the Connecticut shooting. I see network news divisions doing "infotainment" shows that liberally mix editorial and news and present the product as fact.

To me, I view it as the state of affairs in modern news reporting today. Likely a product of the 24-7 news networks that need filler to maintain an audience, and will manufacture that filler any way they can. You've apparently chosen to heap your ire on Fox News, and likely not without good reason. But I don't see Fox behaving that much differently than CNN, MSNBC, etc.

I suppose you missed my earlier comment that I don't watch network news shows. As to whether a reporter can get facts reversed, head on out to YouTube. You'll find loads of examples of news reports / anchors / personalities making complete asses of themselves. And I suspect YouTube will need to continue to add server space as folks keep posting new examples.

Your examples are ones of erroneous reporting, not lies. There is no equivalence. FOX sought and won a court decision that allows them to lie with impunity and to even fire employees who refuse to do it.

John

I'm not sure that our national energy policy dovetails with your observations about augmentation. The rate of construction of new coal - fired power plants is declining, and current plants are finding it hard to stay in operation with increasing regulations. Wind power is fine and dandy, but I don't think its proven its viability just yet. Yet, new wind power installations drove up the planned output of wind power ahead of natural gas output last year. Sure, that was due to the prospect of a federal subsidy drying up, but we'll have to see if fracking drives up the contribution of natural gas generated electrical power in a similar fashion in 2013.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...s-in-2012.html

And nuke plants, last i heard, were still in a holding pattern.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/09/news...aste/index.htm

Ah, yes. The Fox news "won the right to lie" internet myth continues to propagate. If it helps you to believe that, go right ahead. However, the last time I checked, Freedom of the press applied to news network affiliates, local news anchors had general managers. and the general managers get to tell their employees what to say on the air.

I suppose if CNN fired Anderson Cooper for picking and choosing the stories that he chooses to pursue, you'd take similar exception with CNN?

We have a national energy policy? I would love to see that. Got any citations? Have the idiots in control of the House of Representatives heard about this?:rolleyes:

LOL! Point taken.

No, I didn't miss it but I suppose I did miss the part where you've been talking all through this thread without checking out the link in the OP or in not reading Don's and my earlier posts about FOX's "get out of jail free card".

And, for someone who doesn't watch network news, you certainly seem to have a well developed opinion of the job they do. How'd that happen?

John

John

"Picking and choosing" stories isn't the same as broadcasting deliberate lies. That's what FOX won the right to do in court. If you can prove me wrong on that, be my guest. Otherwise, your sarcasm is pretty pointless.

John

If you're going to quote someone? Do it right. Otherwise, you're just trolling as usual. Sheesh.... and you call me "stupid"?:rolleyes:Go find yourself a bridge to hide under, would ya?