Trump declares his wall will be solar

[Lumpy 1]

Democrats don't seem to care about Obama/Democrats losing billions in taxpayer ripoffs on solar is more like it.

(and the link provided is from 2012, it's far worse now..)

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)


List: 36 Of Obama’s Taxpayer-Funded Green Energy Failures

What technologies came out of it? This is a 1 dimensional look. I don't necessarily have a problem with this even though there may be some negative aspects to it. How much money has big oil gotten??

Well, you could do some research on that and start a new thread, this thread is about solar and as it turns out myopic and gullible Democrats with selective memories.

btw. welcome to the USMB Grainbely and the change the topic ploy doesn't fly unless I do it...

I'm on topic. Your post willfully disregards the benefits, although a factual statement. There are pros and cons to everyrthing. We all enjoy for free the inventions of expired patents.

Democrats seem to have zero understanding of the hazardous wastes and carcinogens involved in producing solar panels, trust me, they're far better off produced elsewhere where Democrats do crap about environmental concerns other than let them slide and blame America safely from their couch....

and Yup, if I concerned myself with every pro & con available to explore I'd be still writing this post for the next 2 weeks minimum.

Sudden concern about the environment.

Well, environmental concerns has made Democrats look like hypocritical morons for years. Recall Flint, Michigan, the EPA and Democratic Party local governance.. an all around failure environmentally via (we don't take responsibility but we blame everyone else) Democrats.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If you thought getting Mexico to pay for the wall couldn’t get weirder, you were wrong

President Trump has come up with a new idea on how to cover the costs for a proposed border wall between the United States and Mexico: build it with solar panels.

The U.S. border with Mexico is almost 2,000 miles long. Trump has said his wall, designed to prevent immigrants from crossing into the United States illegally, will cover 1,000 miles, with natural obstacles doing the rest of the work.

That's a lot of solar panels, potentially generating a significant amount of energy. But the realities of building a 1,000-mile wall covered with solar panels — and then getting that electricity to market on either side of the border — are not so simple.

With few actual details about the design of the wall, the cost of building it or the price that would be paid for the electricity, it is difficult to make any realistic conclusions about the impact of Trump’s solar wall — assuming it ever gets built.

Predictions vary dramatically based on what assumptions about solar wall construction are factored in to the calculations.

Tom Gleason, owner and founder of a company that submitted a proposal to build a solar border wall, told The Post that his design could generate two megawatts of electricity per mile, or about enough to power around 350 homes. It would cost about $7.5 million per mile to build based on a contract of $300 million for 40 miles of wall.

Gleason Partners in April released an image of what the wall could look like.

An estimate from Elemental Energy, a solar installation firm based in Portland, Ore., found that 1,000 miles of solar wall could generate 2,657 gigawatt hours of electricity annually, which would be worth $106 million.

But the wall design itself could prove problematic for a solar-panel installation, according to an analysis in the Financial Times.

Fixing the panels vertically could lead to an efficiency loss of around 50 percent, the analysis says, with the angle at which the sun would hit the wall losing an additional 10 percent in efficiency.

Knocking coal plants offline to make way for a solar panel wall is unlikely to chime with the president's “Trump digs coal” mantra.

More: Analysis | If you thought getting Mexico to pay for the wall couldn’t get weirder, you were wrong

So, how will Trump explain this to his coal-loving base? As odd as this seems, at least it makes more sense than Newt Gingrich's idea that NASA should install a "mirror system in space" to light highways and expose criminals.

Whelp --- this is what we get for installing a head of state with the mind of an eight-year-old.

1000 miles at 7.5 million per mile works out to ..... 7.5 Billion. Add that to the estimated 25 Billion for building the conventional wall, equals 32.5 Billion, not counting the costs of ongoing maintenance, which just shot way up by putting solar panels way up there.

---- all to address a fake fantasy about border-jumpers, when most illegal immigration results from overstayed visas.



"Your tax dollars at work, forever".

First thing that occurs to me is that solar panels need to face South. That means toward Mexico.

So remind us why are you against the wall again?



Oh yea because Trump is for it




.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I thought the Right hated solar.

We could build the wall out of spent nuclear fuel.
If anyone does climb over, we could find them in the dark.

 

[WEATHER53]

If they try to climb those panels they will fry

 

[Pogo]

If you thought getting Mexico to pay for the wall couldn’t get weirder, you were wrong

President Trump has come up with a new idea on how to cover the costs for a proposed border wall between the United States and Mexico: build it with solar panels.

The U.S. border with Mexico is almost 2,000 miles long. Trump has said his wall, designed to prevent immigrants from crossing into the United States illegally, will cover 1,000 miles, with natural obstacles doing the rest of the work.

That's a lot of solar panels, potentially generating a significant amount of energy. But the realities of building a 1,000-mile wall covered with solar panels — and then getting that electricity to market on either side of the border — are not so simple.

With few actual details about the design of the wall, the cost of building it or the price that would be paid for the electricity, it is difficult to make any realistic conclusions about the impact of Trump’s solar wall — assuming it ever gets built.

Predictions vary dramatically based on what assumptions about solar wall construction are factored in to the calculations.

Tom Gleason, owner and founder of a company that submitted a proposal to build a solar border wall, told The Post that his design could generate two megawatts of electricity per mile, or about enough to power around 350 homes. It would cost about $7.5 million per mile to build based on a contract of $300 million for 40 miles of wall.

Gleason Partners in April released an image of what the wall could look like.

An estimate from Elemental Energy, a solar installation firm based in Portland, Ore., found that 1,000 miles of solar wall could generate 2,657 gigawatt hours of electricity annually, which would be worth $106 million.

But the wall design itself could prove problematic for a solar-panel installation, according to an analysis in the Financial Times.

Fixing the panels vertically could lead to an efficiency loss of around 50 percent, the analysis says, with the angle at which the sun would hit the wall losing an additional 10 percent in efficiency.

Knocking coal plants offline to make way for a solar panel wall is unlikely to chime with the president's “Trump digs coal” mantra.

More: Analysis | If you thought getting Mexico to pay for the wall couldn’t get weirder, you were wrong

So, how will Trump explain this to his coal-loving base? As odd as this seems, at least it makes more sense than Newt Gingrich's idea that NASA should install a "mirror system in space" to light highways and expose criminals.

Whelp --- this is what we get for installing a head of state with the mind of an eight-year-old.

1000 miles at 7.5 million per mile works out to ..... 7.5 Billion. Add that to the estimated 25 Billion for building the conventional wall, equals 32.5 Billion, not counting the costs of ongoing maintenance, which just shot way up by putting solar panels way up there.

---- all to address a fake fantasy about border-jumpers, when most illegal immigration results from overstayed visas.



"Your tax dollars at work, forever".

First thing that occurs to me is that solar panels need to face South. That means toward Mexico.

So remind us why are you against the wall again?


Oh yea because Trump is for it

Thought I just alluded to it, but because it's a stupid idea voiced only to toss red emotional meat to those not paying attention -- which makes it dishonest. That's primary. Secondary is the enormous waste of taxpayer dollars, which in this scenario pencils out to 32.5 Billion with a B, and that doesn't count ongoing maintenance which is seriously considerable even for a wall with NO solar panels on it.

Rump appears to have thought this solar thing through as deeply as he thought the original wall idea ---- solely for its emotional currency. As his own disgraced "University" playbook put it --- "you don't sell solutions, you sell feelings". Indeed, that's all he does.

Whelp, when I see somebody selling feelings, I immediately want to look under the hood and find out WHY they're selling feelings and what's really going on in there.

Now, your mileage may vary -- maybe 32.5 Billion-with-a-B-plus-maintenance is worth "feelings". That's kinda special.

Hey here's an idea --- why doesn't Rump just build two thousand miles of solar panels on the ground, where they can be maintained, instead of fantasizing about an impossible "wall" boondoggle built to fix what ain't broke?

That too logical? Not enough "feelings"?

 

[Penelope]

If you thought getting Mexico to pay for the wall couldn’t get weirder, you were wrong

President Trump has come up with a new idea on how to cover the costs for a proposed border wall between the United States and Mexico: build it with solar panels.

The U.S. border with Mexico is almost 2,000 miles long. Trump has said his wall, designed to prevent immigrants from crossing into the United States illegally, will cover 1,000 miles, with natural obstacles doing the rest of the work.

That's a lot of solar panels, potentially generating a significant amount of energy. But the realities of building a 1,000-mile wall covered with solar panels — and then getting that electricity to market on either side of the border — are not so simple.

With few actual details about the design of the wall, the cost of building it or the price that would be paid for the electricity, it is difficult to make any realistic conclusions about the impact of Trump’s solar wall — assuming it ever gets built.

Predictions vary dramatically based on what assumptions about solar wall construction are factored in to the calculations.

Tom Gleason, owner and founder of a company that submitted a proposal to build a solar border wall, told The Post that his design could generate two megawatts of electricity per mile, or about enough to power around 350 homes. It would cost about $7.5 million per mile to build based on a contract of $300 million for 40 miles of wall.

Gleason Partners in April released an image of what the wall could look like.

An estimate from Elemental Energy, a solar installation firm based in Portland, Ore., found that 1,000 miles of solar wall could generate 2,657 gigawatt hours of electricity annually, which would be worth $106 million.

But the wall design itself could prove problematic for a solar-panel installation, according to an analysis in the Financial Times.

Fixing the panels vertically could lead to an efficiency loss of around 50 percent, the analysis says, with the angle at which the sun would hit the wall losing an additional 10 percent in efficiency.

Knocking coal plants offline to make way for a solar panel wall is unlikely to chime with the president's “Trump digs coal” mantra.

More: Analysis | If you thought getting Mexico to pay for the wall couldn’t get weirder, you were wrong

So, how will Trump explain this to his coal-loving base? As odd as this seems, at least it makes more sense than Newt Gingrich's idea that NASA should install a "mirror system in space" to light highways and expose criminals.

Nothing like taking an idea given to him, and claiming it as your own, and he lied so arrogantly about it.

 

[jknowgood]

The left has become anti-alternative energy. Predictable.

They were shitting their pants with joy when Obama handed over billions to his buddies for crap solar companies that failed miserably.

The government plays a critical role in helping new technology get off the ground. Google it...

Yes, Government Researchers Really Did Invent the Internet

So, Gore invented the internet?