The glass, aluminum, and stainless steel panels reclined at low angles and basked in the sun as the men in suits and ties, flanked by reporters, took to the West Wing roof to look at what they thought was the future. That day, June 20, 1979, was clear enough for the sun to bring out a bright reflection on the panels, and for shadows of those on the roof to be drawn dark and tight around them.
For President Jimmy Carter, it had been nearly three years of tough fighting for clean energy. After a long rollout of green tax credits, the creation of a nascent Energy Department, and a pledge to conduct the “moral equivalent of war” (at the time, spoofed by critics as “MEOW”) against an energy crisis, Carter had built up scars. And there would be more to come. He had had battles with Congress and with his political enemies over green issues. But he had some victories, too, and this day brought one more, a small moment of symbolism.
Solar panels, some 32 of them, were on the roof of the White House. The set was just right — the sun had come out for the press as though for a stage call. Tape rolled, the cameras snapped.
Self-conscious about his idealism, or perhaps just realistic, the president gave voice to his doubts about the panels: “A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.”
The point of all this was simple, Carter said. America was to harness “the power of the sun to enrich our lives as we move away from our crippling dependence on foreign oil.”
Carter was a person of simplicity, of conservation; he was also sort of an oddball, a hybrid, an anti-political Christian proto-green who had donned a cardigan sweater, lowered the White House thermostat, and declared “Sun Day” on May 3, 1978.
A year later he had his panels.
In the stillness of that rooftop scene — captured now in celluloid for history — Carter reaches out both hands, straight out, palms to the ground, as if to feel the heat. Trees ring the background. The panels reflect the image of his outstretched arm. An election defeat, a grinding stagflation, a mad Ayatollah, and a bungled hostage crisis were all soon to end his political future. But in that moment he was a creator.
The panels were primitive but serviceable. They heated water. They cost about $28,000 to install. According to the person who convinced Carter to put up the panels, George Szego, who died in 2008 at 88, they were models of industry. They cranked out hot water “a mile a minute,” he said.
Carter, in his State of the Union address the year the panels were installed, presented an ambitious plan to put America on a clean energy path: 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2000. Part of his idea was to go far beyond simple hot water solar collectors and direct government research funds toward the development of photovoltaic cells, the kind that could put energy into the grid.
It’s worth tracing the history of Carter’s panels — the idea and the reality — where they went, how they got lost.
Reagan: Tear down these panels
The 1979 panels survived for a surprising seven years, well into the age of Ronald Reagan — well into the age of what seemed a waning energy crisis, of deregulation, and of a final showdown with a dying “evil empire.” The panels became objects of increasing indifference. And so did the tax credits and research funds that had provided the real meat of Carter’s energy initiatives.
President Reagan had declared government the problem, not the solution. That meant no energy credits. That also meant no solar panels. Ronald Reagan helped tear down the Berlin Wall, and he also helped tear down the White House’s solar panels.
Seven years after the West Wing roof party, in 1986, the symbolic solar collectors met with “roof repairs,” and they were never reinstalled. They were put in a warehouse in Virginia and forgotten. There must have been a little hue and cry at the time — enough to force a statement from the White House media shop.
Reagan press secretary Dale Petroskey told the Associated Press: “Putting them back up would be very unwise, based on cost.” That said, the exact motives for the removal of the panels nonetheless remain murky. A top Reagan official “felt that the equipment was just a joke,” the panel installer Szego recalled to The Washington Post, “and he had it taken down.”
There is no easy way to get the truth — whether it was part of an anti-environment, anti-regulation, anti-Carter policy, or just prudent home repairs by Reagan’s groundskeepers as they fixed a roof leak. A few rumors assuming the worst about Reagan’s motives of course float on the Internet. No big deal. A scan of dozens of biographies and histories of the Reagan era sheds little light.
Edwin Meese, Reagan’s Attorney General and longtime confidant and adviser, is said to have given the thumbs-down to the panels, insisting they were not befitting of a superpower. Maybe that’s apocryphal, too. But in 2008, Meese issued memos from a conservative think tank to the Bush White House, urging the Bush EPA to stall on climate change regulation, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Curiously — and this may say it all — the Reagan administration also allowed Carter’s financial incentives promoting renewables to expire around the time that the panels were removed. Tax credits established in 1977 for homeowners installing solar water heaters ended Dec. 31, 1985, just months before the White House roof coup d’état.
Much of America’s fledgling solar industry, started under Carter, went dark.
A long strange solar trip
Meanwhile, the 32 solar panels had been collecting dust in Virginia. They spent five years there. Finally, an administrator at Unity College, a then down-at-heel Maine school looking for publicity, stripped out the seats from a tattered school bus, drove down I-95, and took the panels from the government warehouse back to Maine.
There, in the hinterlands, U.S. energy policy was postponed, exactly 559 miles from relevance — the distance between 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the Unity campus at 90 Quaker Hill Road.
The panels remained far from Washington under later presidencies, too, even under the Bill Clinton/Al Gore self-proclaimed “green” one. Clinton had come into office with some promises to address our energy dependence problem. But the 1990s will not be remembered as a time of clean energy renewal.
“[D]uring his eight years in office — aside from a failed effort to pass a carbon tax in 1993 — Clinton pretty much ignored the energy business,” writes energy journalist Robert Bryce in his book, “Gusher of Lies.”
Eventually, in 2006, one panel made it down to the Carter Library in Atlanta, delivered there, fittingly, by two students in a vegetable oil-powered vehicle.
Library director Jay Hakes said in a 2007 statement that “the current problems of dependency on unreliable sources of oil and climate change would probably be much less than they are today” had the panels and their symbolic power been taken more seriously.
Editor’s note: A lot has happened since we first published this article in 2008. Solar panels went back up on the roof of the White House during the Obama administration. President Donald Trump left the panels in place, according to ThoughtCo. ThoughtCo also reports that the Carter panels “can be seen today at museums and show houses around the world. One resides at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, one at the Carter Library and, one joined the collection of the Solar Science and Technology Museum in Dezhou, China.”
Solar panels were added to the White House grounds (an outbuilding) under George W Bush. The Carter "panels" were a water heater (as noted) but there was never any quantification of cost benefit. Drained in winter (no heat exchanger), they very likely had negative EROI after a 20 year service life (7 on the WH and 13 at Unity). That's probably true compared to gas heated water at the WH and certainly true at Unity. Unity spent over $150,000 on refurbishing and plumbing for half of the panels (16). They had room for all of them on the cafeteria roof. Links to references, and my attempt at quantification: followthedata.dev/wx/whp/whp.html
Yes, there is a positive symbolism expressed in the article. But there is also symbolism of virtue signaling and wasted resources which occurs in some renewable efforts. China, for example, has 7.5% capacity factor on their solar photovoltaic (2022 data). That will improve with demand shifting and batteries and they are certainly doing tremendous work on R&D on all of the above. But for deployment we need complete focus on EROI, not symbolism.
Eric:
The technology has certainly changed since 1979, and in 1979 the economics may not have been all that favourable, but I'm not sure I would call that decision "virtue signalling". In the early development stages of any technology, there is often a "sell it at a loss" strategy to get the market going (and growing), with expectations that the technology and economics will both improve over time.
Even GM, with the Chevrolet Bolt, apparently expected to lose money on production in the first few years. According to this Wikipedia page (information not confirmed by GM), they expected to lose $8-9K per vehicle at the start, and only expected to reach profitability in 2025. (Feel free to speculate why they stopped production, or why they started production on a money-losing proposition).
...and Tesla did not make profit until 2020 (and didn't turn a profit, excluding Bitcoin and regulatory credits, until June 2021). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.#Finances). That's 15 years of losing money. Does Elon Musk strike you as someone that is into "virtue signalling"?
Eric, criticising Jimmy Carters solar panels is pointless and baseless. Everything has to start somewhere often with primitive beginnings. The first ever mobile phone was the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X launched in 1983, the size and weight of a brick and it cost about $4,000, and it would cost about 12,000 in todays money. It had a talk time of 30 minutes and took 10 hours to charge. Maybe some people bought it as a status symbol or as virtue signalling. But they still bought these phones, and they were useful. And look what is lead to. Eric youre a smart guy. Use some imagination .
Eric (skeptic),
A complete focus on EROI would have merit if the socioeconomic-political system is effectively governed by the pursuit of increased awareness and improved understanding of what is harmful and that constant learning is diligently applied to limit the development of harmful activities and to rapidly fully repair and make amends for any damage done. Also, the people penalized for benefiting from the harm done should not be able to influence how much they are required to do to repair and make amends for the harm done that they benefited from (they could potentially justifiably lose more than the benefit they obtained from the harm done). Note that people who did not benefit from the harm done would have their ‘repair and adaptation’ fully funded by those who benefited from the harm done.
The issue of climate change is a powerful example of what happens when ‘the system is not effectively governed by learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others’. There has been an understandable massive failure of the ‘marketplace focused on EROI’ to effectively responsibly self-govern to avoid being harmful. Plus there has been an understandable failure of external governing of the marketplace to effectively limit harm done and make those who benefited the most from the harm done do the most mitigation and neutralizing of damage done. Also, there has been a failure to have those who benefited most from the unavoidable future damage done responsibly and equitably do the most to help all others adapt to the future harm.
The major problem is misunderstandings, especially the mistaken belief that the economic and political games produce better results when there is more freedom of action. The potential for success through misleading marketing and the related misunderstandings and lack of awareness make it very unlikely that ‘free-pure competition for perceptions of superiority’ will be effectively responsibly self-governed.
I would support EROI if all risks of harm are more than adequately included in the evaluation, and the evaluation is not done by the people who hope to benefit.
So, the bottom line is that I am very skeptical of a simple limited focus on EROI because the conditions required for that self-interested short-term narrow-view focus to not produce harmful results are highly unlikely to freely be developed and sustained. In fact, the evidence indicates that there is significant misleading marketing effort against the development of the required conditions.
Bob and Nijel, thanks for your replies. I think the examples you give of electric cars and even cell phones show that there is improvement with technology. But those types improvements are difficult with thermal water heating, even when indirect. That's because moving the warm fluid can't optimize variables as compared to a hot water heat pump where the heat pump can be optimized for the conditions. At that point, typically, the solar water system reverts to electric resistor.
One Planet, I should have included the avoided external costs in my chart. Some cost per metric ton of CO2 seems appropriate.
Eric,
You should Google subjects before you say incorrect information about them
This Wikipedia article says that in 2017 solar water heating provided 472 GW of heating worldwide. I have seen newspaper articles more recently that the capacity has increased a lot since then but my first Google didn't find it, there were too many advertisements for new systems.
When I lived in Australia 20 years ago solar hot water was common. I only remember using he electric back up once in two years. The USA is under the control of fossil fuel interests so they are not as common here as they should be.
My recollection from decades ago was that direct solar water heating was much more efficient than using solar panels to generate electricity and then heat water electrically. This was for small installations in houses, where it did not take a lot of panel area to get enough heat to fill a standard hot water tank. Obviously, if everyone showers in the evening, there won't be any hot water in the tank until the next day, unless electric backup is used. Use patterns are important.
I would suspect that water heating may not scale well to commercial settings, but that is purely a guess on my part.
There would certainly be extra costs in installing panels on one building, taking them down, then installing them on another building. That would clearly be an inefficient use of labour costs.
Eric (skeptic) @5,
Regarding your point that “Some cost per metric ton of CO2 seems appropriate.” There are many other ‘externalities’ to be considered in order for EROI evaluations to not result in unsustainable harmful developments. But I will limit my response to carbon pricing and include points regarding the 1970s.
The appropriate carbon pricing value depends on the circumstances being evaluated. An example evaluation is provided in the Queen’s Gazette’s: The Conversation - “Carbon pricing alone is not enough to meet Paris Agreement targets”: By Sean Cleary, Queen's University, and Neal Willcott, Queen's University, December 20, 2023. It includes the following:
“We found that while carbon pricing on its own could limit global warming to 2.4 C, the global price would have to rise dramatically and rapidly to accomplish this. The price would have to start at $223.31 per tonne in 2023 and increase to $435.55 per tonne by 2045.
“While such an abrupt global policy change is unlikely, the price would not need to be so high if it was accompanied by other measures, including regulations that provide clarity and stability regarding green investments, clean technology subsidies and financing mechanisms (such as those facilitating transition investing by companies).”
Note that the above pricing is in Canadian dollars. And the evaluation’s methodology would result in an even higher pricing, and/or more significant other measures, being needed to achieve a 1.5 C limit. For comparison, the IPCC evaluation indicates (based on Google’s current AI summary) that the carbon price required to limit the harm to 1.5 C is US$170 (~ CAN$230) by 2030 and US$430 (~ CAN$590) by 2050.
However, it is important to understand that a correction of what has developed is required. And earlier and more significant ‘effective harm limiting action’ reduces the required magnitude of future corrective actions. So, an appropriate carbon price for starting the correction in the 1970’s would be lower. However, it could be argued that in the 1970’s there was an understandable possibility of limiting the harm done to be below 1.0 C. And achieving a lower level of future harm would require higher pricing. And most important is understanding that to properly develop sustainable improvements the developed actions, and corrective actions, need to be effectively harmless. A related essential understanding is that reducing undeserved (obtained in ways that are harmful) perceptions of superiority or advancement is ‘not harmful’. That objective understanding would require even higher pricing and more significant ‘other measures’, even in the 1970s.
The real challenge is getting people to appreciate that what has been developed is massively harmful and undeniably unsustainable (proven by the Stockholm University: Stockholm Resiliency Centre’s evaluation of Planetary Boundaries - linked here). In many cases the developed perceptions of superiority are massively undeserved. And the magnitude and required rate of the required corrections of developed perceptions of superiority and advancement increases as the required corrections are delayed by successful misinformation campaigns promoting misunderstandings and limiting awareness.