Google’s Obama-Led Solar-Energy Hype Defies Reality‏ - EPA's Own Research Expert 'Shut Up' On Climate Change - What the Liberal Media Aren't Telling You About Obama's Healthcare Plans


Google's $1,500 coffee makers

Posted: June 23, 2009
8:10 pm Eastern

By Arthur Robinson
© 2009 

Google Inc. spends quite a lot of time burnishing its self-created image as a "green" company – largely on the basis of the solar array at its corporate headquarters. It is also trying to build support for the administration's cap-and-trade "energy" bill by pretending that solar energy can substitute for hydrocarbon, nuclear and hydroelectric energy.

Google states that its multimillion-dollar solar array has generated sufficient electricity over the past two years to run 5,158 coffee makers for one hour each day. Google does not mention, however, that this solar array supplies insufficient electricity to run Google's search engine computers for even one minute per day and that the coffee makers, if supplied with solar panels to operate them, would cost approximately $1,500 each.

Google claims that its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters buildings are paved with 1.6 megawatts (Mw) of solar panels. This installation was completed in June 2007, about the same time as the Nellis Air Force Base 14 Mw, $100 million solar panel installation that "energy expert" Obama – who is now attempting to seize control of the energy industries of the United States – visited recently and advertised as an example of his administration's plans for America.

As of June 21, 2009, Google reports that it has generated 4,592,364 kilowatt (Kw) hours of electricity with this installation, or about 2.29 gigawatt (Gw) hours per year. Nellis reports 30.1 Gw hours per year. So, Nellis is producing 25 percent of its advertised quantity and Google is producing 16 percent. The apparent 75 percent and 84 percent losses arise because the sun does not shine 24 hours per day and because these installations are routinely overrated. In fact, the Google installation actually generates, on average, only 0.26 megawatts – not 1.6 megawatts (1 Gw = 1,000 Mw = 1,000,000 Kw).

Is Al Gore being disingenuous? Read the truth about climate change in "Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed"

Google brags that the average 24-hour output of its solar array is sufficient to operate 5,158 coffee makers for one hour – based on its daily reports. It does not, however, reveal the cost of this solar equipment. If we assume that the installations at Google and Nellis are similarly cost effective – they are both 2007 technology and our assumption allows for technical differences in the installations (Nellis has solar-tracking arrays), then Google's installation cost an estimated $7.5 million. With current electricity and maintenance costs, this solar installation will not even pay for itself in more than 40 years, so it produces nothing of net value.

Without considering depreciation, maintenance such as cleaning the panels, and employees to oversee the equipment, this $7.5 million works out to $1,454 per coffee maker. So, if the coffee maker is priced at $46 and delivered with a share in the Google solar array sufficient to operate it for an average of one hour each day, the price is $1,500 per coffee maker.

To be sure, Google is a private company. If its directors want to provide $1,500 coffee makers to their staff, why complain? After all, this is not our money – or is it? Google does not reveal the source of the funds that built its solar array, but virtually all such installations in the United States are being built with federal and state tax funds. These funds come in the form of tax credits, tax deductions, grants from publicly funded organizations, and other tax-supported subsidies. So, these $1,500 coffee makers were probably built at taxpayer expense.

Google has not purchased – or accepted at taxpayer expense – a practical energy-producing solar energy system. It has, instead, purchased $7,500,000 in advertising. It is painting itself as a "green" company – but just how green is it?

Google is in the Internet search engine business. Its primary equipment consists of vast arrays of computers that use so much energy that its new data center, currently being built in Oregon, is sited at The Dalles, Ore., near Columbia River hydroelectric power – not a solar array.

As with the cost of its solar advertising project, Google also keeps secret the power usage of its computers. The power consumption of the Oregon installation has been estimated at 100 Mw, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. It is also estimated that Google has 19 such centers in the United States and 17 built or under development in other countries. The Dalles installation is one of the largest. If we assume that The Dalles center is about twice the average size, Google is using an estimated 1,000 Mw in the U.S. – or approximately the output of one Palo Verde nuclear reactor. Even if Google's actual usage is as little as half this much, our analysis is still applicable.

If Google generated 1,000 Mw of power with solar panels like those it touts at its corporate headquarters, the construction cost would be approximately $30 billion. Moreover, Google's customers would be unhappy if their Internet search services were only available during midday and in good weather, so a hydrocarbon or nuclear-powered electricity generating station would need to be standing by to provide power most of the time.

If built with the more efficient Nellis solar tracking equipment, this 1,000 Mw solar installation would cover 40,000 acres, or 63 square miles. Since Google's earnings are about $4 billion per year, the construction of this system would require the entire earnings of the company for eight years – probably an expenditure that management would prefer not to make.

Alternatively, Google could obtain the $30 billion from American taxpayers via its friends in Washington (Google is very Obama friendly). This would, however, subject Google executives to federal wage controls.

Google's directors have definitely chosen the best option for their computers. They are powering their energy-intensive company with hydrocarbon, nuclear and hydroelectric power. They are at least restricting their "green" energy to coffee makers and other minor uses at their corporate offices. The energy they are using in their computer installations is helping to produce a very useful product, like many other useful things Americans can do with energy. Neither Google nor the fortunes its founders have earned would exist without the great energy industries that were created by American free enterprise – industries now demonized by "green" Obama administration anti-technologists.

The Google advertising department is, however, involved in blatant hypocrisy. Instead of advertising that the average 24-hour output of their solar array will operate 5,158 coffee makers for one hour, why don't they tell us how long that 24-hour solar output will operate Google itself? – by our calculation from these numbers: 23 seconds per day.

Allowing for uncertainties resulting from Google's secrecy, I estimate that the entire 24-hour output of the Google solar array will run Google for between 10 seconds and 1 minute per day. (When asked, Google refused to provide information that would allow a precise estimate.)

Americans currently import 30 percent of their energy – a luxury they can no longer afford. This 30 percent is not made in America because the gradual increase of government taxation, regulation and sponsorship of litigation against American energy industries over the past 40 years has created a business environment in the United States that is very unfavorable for the production of energy. So, even though the United States is awash in plentiful nuclear resources and coal, oil, natural gas and other hydrocarbon resources, most new energy production is instead sited abroad.

Now, Congress and the Obama administration are pushing a new "energy bill" including so-called "cap-and-trade" that will sharply increase taxation and regulation of the energy industries. To sell this greatly increased suppression of free enterprise, Washington politicians are advertising boutique energy technologies like solar and wind, without mentioning that these methods produce very small amounts of energy at very high costs. These costs are so high that they not only require enormous taxpayer subsidies, but also cannot be financed in sufficient quantity to avoid energy shortages, high energy prices and, ultimately, rationing and diminished prosperity.

Google is supporting this political charade. It is using solar energy to supply minor office needs and to enhance its public image, while simultaneously using large amounts of energy generated by nuclear, hydrocarbon and hydroelectric methods to run its business. It apparently thinks that Americans can be fooled into using its products and supporting the political agenda of its friends through "green" advertising.

This hypocrisy should not be rewarded, and Google should not participate in it.


EPA's own research expert 'shut up' on climate change
Government analyst silenced after he critiques CO2 findings

Posted: June 24, 2009
11:05 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Environmental Protection Agency officials have silenced one of their own senior researchers after the 38-year employee issued an internal critique of the EPA's climate change position.

Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics, or NCEE, submitted his research on the agency's greenhouse gases endangerment findings and offered a fundamental critique on the EPA's approach to combating CO2 emissions. But officials refused to share his conclusion in an open internal discussion, claiming his research would have "a very negative impact on our office."

His study was barred from circulation within the EPA and was never disclosed to the public for political reasons, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, a group that has accessed four internal e-mails on the subject.

CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman told WND, "His boss basically told him, 'No, I'm not going to send your study further up. It's going to stay within this bureau.'"

A March 12 e-mail to Carlin warned him not to have "any direct communication with anyone outside NCEE on endangerment."

Carlin, a researcher who earned his doctorate in economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an undergraduate degree in physics from California Institute of Technology, informed officials that two-thirds of his references were from peer-reviewed publications and defended his inclusion of new research on the topic.

"It is also my view that the critical attribute of good science is its correspondence to observable data rather than where it appears in the technical literature," he wrote. "I believe my comments are valid, significant and contain references to significant new research … They are significant because they present information critical to justification (or lack thereof) for the proposed [greenhouse gas] endangerment finding."

After nearly one week of discussion, NCEE Director Al McGartland informed Carlin on March 17 that he would not include the research in the internal EPA discussion.

"Alan, I decided not to forward your comments," he wrote. "… The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. … I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

In yet another e-mail sent only minutes following the previous one, McGartland wrote, "With the endangerment findings nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate."

CEI charges that suppression of Carlin's study denied public access to important agency information, as court rulings have indicated that both "the evidence relied upon [by the agency] and the evidence discarded" must be included in the rulemaking record.

"They could come up with reasons to reject it, as I'm sure they're going to come up with reasons to reject the scientific objections that are coming in now from outside parties in the general public and from skeptical scientists," Kazman told WND. "But I'd say the real issue here is that this critique is coming from a career EPA insider, so it can't be dismissed as the work of someone in the pay of the coal-burning fossil-fuel industry. The fact that someone within the EPA was taking this approach is something that would be naturally embarrassing to the agency."

CEI also said the incident violated the EPA's commitment to transparency and scientific honesty.

Prior to taking office, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared, "As Administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency."

Likewise, CEI reminds the EPA of President Obama's April 27 speech to the National Academy of Sciences in which he stated, "[U]nder my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over."

In a memo to the EPA, Kazman wrote, "Because of ideology, however, it was this back seat to which Mr. Carlin's study was relegated; more precisely, it was booted out of the car entirely."

"The irony of the president and Administrator Jackson talking about EPA's new transparency and commitment to scientific integrity, that's really incredible," Kazman said.

CEI is asking the agency to make Carlin's study public, extend or reopen the comment period to allow public response to his research and publicly declare that there will be no reprisals against Carlin for his research.

Kazman said the issue is "coming to a head" because the EPA's internal commentary period just closed, and the 1,200-page Waxman-Markey climate bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions is scheduled to come to a vote Friday on the House floor.

He believes Carlin's study could have implications on how lawmakers feel about the allegedly solid research behind the climate bill – especially if objecting analysts within the agency are being silenced.

"Any right-minded administrator would have said, 'Fine, put it in and we'll give our reasons for why we reject his contentions," Kazman said. "But instead, they shut the guy up."



What the Liberal Media Aren't Telling You About Obama's Healthcare Plans


Breaking News

Cost to Taxpayers


Threat to Patients/Health Care Consumers


Media Promote Nationalized Health Care


Fighting Back




Inspector general fired to avoid embarrassing Obamas?
Report cites his dedication to investigating AmeriCorps

Posted: June 24, 2009
11:05 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Gerald Walpin


A new report reveals that there is substantial evidence that Inspector General Gerald Walpin was fired from his post where he was investigating AmeriCorps funding to avoid embarrassment for President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle.

The report is from Byron York at the Washington Examiner. On his blog, he wrote he interviewed a Republican member of the board for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the overseer for AmeriCorps, a favorite program for the Obamas.

The report said the board discussion was revolving around the St. HOPE program in California, which has been given hundreds of thousands of federal dollars and used it for, among other things, washing cars for Obama friend and Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson.

The board member told York Walpin opposed an agreement that would require a return of only part of the allegedly misused money and leave Johnson open to receiving more federal dollars.

"Walpin told board members at the meeting that he wanted to issue some sort of public statement to the effect that there should be more investigation of the St. HOPE matter," York reported.

"He said, 'I feel so strongly about this that today I am going to issue a statement to the press calling for further investigation,'" the member said, York reported. "The board members all caught that."

The report said that was distressing for the board because of AmeriCorps' high profile and the fact it was a favorite program for the Obamas and was in line to receive some of the $5.7 billion from the new Serve America Act.

"In the midst of that, here was the agency's inspector general saying he might re-open an investigation into an embarrassing episode involving hundreds of thousands of mis-spent dollars and a politically prominent supporter of the president," the report said.

"We did not need any press out there on this St. HOPE matter, which was already settled," the board member told York.

Ultimately the FBI was contacted and asked to look into the St. Hope scenario, and the White House issued a statement that Walpin was confused and disoriented at the meeting and that was why he was being dismissed.

"But there is no doubt that, whatever the other reasons, the board feared that a revival of a scandal they thought was in the past would be embarrassing to the newly-prominent AmeriCorps," the report said.

At Hot, the comment was that Walpin "was anything but confused and disoriented."

"It looks from this account that Walpin did his job too well for the CNCS and the Obama administration," said the report.

On the website's forum page, one participante said, "Walpin was confused. He forgot that things now work the Chicago way."

Walpin is asking for a hearing on his dismissal and as WND reported, Sen. Charles Grassley has demanded records on Walpin's job performance and any documents related to the Corporation's dealing with Johnson and related issues.

Also as WND reported, an FBI investigation has been launched into the St. HOPE affair, now that allegations have surfaced in the Sacramento Bee from Rick Maya, former executive director with St. HOPE, suggesting a member of the charter school's board had deleted e-mails from Johnson during the federal investigation.

"All of this suggests that the purported White House mistreatment of independent inspectors general is a scandal that might have real legs," writes an editorial in the Washington Times. "As well it should."

Radio host Rush Limbaugh further accused the administration of breaking the law by firing Walpin, attributing it to "political cronyism" and declaring, "Alberto Gonzales as attorney general fired a couple of U.S. attorneys. He took hell for it. This is bigger. Inspectors general are supposed to be completely above politics."



Staged questions for Obama alarm beat reporters
Press secretary grilled over briefing standards

Posted: June 25, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Reporters on the White House beat are alarmed over what apparently was an incident of a question being staged for President Obama's news briefing on Tuesday, and they have grilled Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about it.

There were accusations the White House "planted" a reporter with a question, and that led to a defense by Gibbs of the practice that brought a query at one point from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House that, "Aren't you – you and the president aware that this cast suspicion that all of such questions may be presidentially planted."

The situation had been described by Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, who reported Obama's statement, "I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post."

"Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian," Milbank reported.

"Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row," Milbank continued. "The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world – Iran included – that the American press isn't as free as advertised."

The columnist wrote that the drama of the news briefing belonged to Pitney.

"During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner – from the Huffington Post," he said.

Milbank wrote that Obama later called on Macarena Vidal of the Spanish-language EFE agency in what apparently was another staged question.

"The White House called Vidal in advance to see whether she was coming and arranged for her to sit in a seat usually assigned to a financial trade publication," he wrote.

The sometimes-testy exchange with Gibbs started with the question: "I've got a procedural question about yesterday's news conference. What led to your decision to plant a designated hitter right here to ask the president a question? And what kind of a message do you think that sends to the American people and to the world about the kind of free-flow and pure questioning that's been expected at presidential news conferences?"

Gibbs: "Well, I think it did nothing more than underscore that free-flow. Peter, that was a question from an Iranian in Iran, using the same type of manner and method to get that information as, I guess, many of you and virtually every one of your outlets has done, because in this country we enjoy the freedom of the press."

Responded a reporter, "Couldn't he have accomplished that without you guys escorting someone through here and planting him the room?"

Gibbs deflected.

But the reporters were far from done: "Is this going to become a regular feature of President Obama's news conference, that you all are going to bring people in here that you select to ask questions?"

"I don't have any – I won't make any apologies for that," Gibbs concluded.

To Kinsolving's question about questioners being planted, Gibbs deflected again, asking other reporters whether they knew they would be allowed a question.

Still another reporter chimed in, "He (Kinsolving) makes a good point…"

The exchange continued with Gibbs avoiding direct answers, then he said, "I don't know how that perception comes out there, but I feel confident that if you feel that perception is out there, that you could deal with it."

"The question wasn't planted. That question wasn't planted," Gibbs said.