What does irony look like? It’s a concept, so normally it doesn’t look like anything. But when the President of the United States flies 1,530 miles on Air Force One to Las Vegas to give a speech on energy conservation — irony looks a lot like this:
At the Copper Mountain solar energy plant in Boulder City, Nevada, our characteristically condescending Chief Executive said this, according to the transcript issued by the White House Press Office, which helpfully adds “(Laughter)” so that those of us unable to fly to Nevada on Air Force One — although we were privileged to pay for his trip — can appreciate what it must have been like to bask in his withering wit and scintillating sarcasm (emphasis added):
Now, you’d think given this extraordinary site, given the fact that this is creating jobs, generating power, helping to keep our environment clean, making us more competitive globally, you’d think that everybody would be supportive of solar power. That’s what you’d think. And yet, if some politicians had their way, there won’t be any more public investment in solar energy. There won’t be as many new jobs and new businesses.
Some of these folks want to dismiss the promise of solar power and wind power and fuel-efficient cars. In fact, they make jokes about it. One member of Congress who shall remain unnamed called these jobs “phony” – called them phony jobs. I mean, think about that mindset, that attitude that says because something is new, it must not be real. If these guys were around when Columbus set sail, they’d be charter members of the Flat Earth Society. (Laughter.) We were just talking about this – that a lack of imagination, a belief that you can’t do something in a new way – that’s not how we operate here in America. That’s not who we are. That’s not what we’re about.
This from a man whose own vehicle is not exactly a model of what he touts for us.
At Reason, Ronald Bailey takes a closer look at what the president is promoting, and what its real cost would be:
Yes, America has always been about subsidized electricity. In any case, let’s add up once again what federal subsidies (in this case a 30 percent tax break) can conjure into existence and compare costs with a new natural gas-fired electric plant. As the president noted, the new 58-megawatt Copper Mountain facility can generate enough power to supply 17,000 homes. How does he come by that number? Very roughly, one megawatt of installed capacity when operating can supply electricity for 1,000 homes. Since solar is intermittent, the usual estimate is that solar plants operate at 30 percent of maximum capacity. In this case, Copper Mountain would supply enough electricity for 17,000 homes.
We should, of course, be suspicious.
When it comes to the president’s calculations, Bailey cautions:
The Electric Power Research Institute latest estimate for building a new 550 megawatt natural gas-fired electric plant operating at 80 percent capacity is $1.2 billion. Using the same form of calculation implied by the president (1 megawatt per 1,000 homes x 80 percent of 550 megawatts) suggests that such a plant could supply electricity to 440,000 homes.
Now let’s scale up the Copper Mountain plant ten-fold for a rough comparison to a 580 megawatt plant. The current plant cost $140 million to build, so a ten-fold increase would (again roughly) be $1.4 billion. Not so much more than a natural gas plant; but then there’s the 30 percent capacity factor to take into account. So to get the same amount of electricity generated means that a comparable solar plant would actually have to have maximum capacity of more than 1,800 megawatts. So at $141 million per 58 megwatts of capacity such a plant would cost roughly $4.4 billion to build. That’s almost four times more expensive than a comparable natural gas plant would be.
But surely, the extra expense for solar will be made up in fuel cost savings, right? Recent calculations of the levelized costs of various forms of electric power generation technologies (including lifetime fuel costs) suggest not.
Taking a puckish approach to presidential squanderlust, At the Rubicon throws down the gauntlet:
Ok, Mr. President. Let’s play a little game: You First. Declare a moratorium on the direct and indirect use of petroleum at the White House.No more jetting around in Air Force One.
No more using the Marine One helicopter.
I guess that mothballs your big fancy bullet-proof limo and bus.
The White House is probably heated via heating oil so that has to stop.
All of the White House electrical power will have to come from non fossil-fuel sources.
And that’s why irony looks like this:
Photo credit: Leila Navidi of The Las Vagas Sun








“And yet, if some politicians had their way, there won’t be any more public investment in solar energy. There won’t be as many new jobs and new businesses.”
Solyndra, Mr. President. What happened to our money?
What Obama (I wanted to put down “the President” but could not do it…) does not understand is that there would still be private investment, as there has been for years (decades?). The private investment would make the companies more efficient, innovative, and provide better products. Maybe when they have reached the point of being a viable market product, then we could consider public investment.
Instead Obama wishes to throw more money at companies that build new factories with whislting robots…
As Obama’s jaw-droppingly corrupt green energy boondoggles proliferate, their only conceivable usefulness seems to be as (superfluous) contributions to the already overwhelming body of empirical evidence of its impracticability on a large scale for at least decades to come.
Meanwhile, America sits on the oleaginous equivalent of “The Diamond as Big as the Ritz,” as this guy actively works at keeping us hostage to over-priced zirconia from countries halfway around the world that hate our guts and given the opportunity, would dance on our graves,
The only folks buying into his lies are those who’ve already had the “lights within their brains blown out” (to paraphrase Edwin Markham, with apologies) by our so-called educational system.
Let’s hope there are more of us than there are of them voting in November.
is it too much to wish that he gets his energy-independent future, by living as a bum under a bridge?
I might even go for poorly maintained, rotten mansion, a la green gables.
can we turn on the halo-light around chelsea? she, at least, worked at a hedge fund for a while. she might have, possibly, learned that real money can disappear down bad investments.
I know it’s too much info to remind the man that France had state investment policies. While Britain let it’s eccentric inventors work out the kinks, first, and then reformed the banking and investment laws so that their friends, also eccentric inventors, could invest. They knew bunk when they saw it. They knew good tech when they saw it, too. The hustlers were confined to small areas of damage, while the state of France was on the hook for all the fools close to the government.
And, come to think of it, an enormous number of inventors- british and otherwise- were religious non-conformists or eccentrics. Which I think means there’s a catholic tech boom coming up in the US, within a few years. There’s already a fairly interesting evangelical/pentecostal one underway.