I’m guessing ‘expert guest’ has a different meaning at Fox than in the rest of the world.

Near the end of the segment, it occurred to Carlson to ask her expert guest, Fox Business reporter Shibani Joshi, why it might be that Germany’s solar-power sector is doing so much better [than ours]. “What was Germany doing correct? Are they just a smaller country, and that made it more feasible?” Carlson asked.

Joshi’s jaw-dropping response: “They’re a smaller country, and they’ve got lots of sun. Right? They’ve got a lot more sun than we do.” In case that wasn’t clear enough for some viewers, Joshi went on: “The problem is it’s a cloudy day and it’s raining, you’re not gonna have it.” Sure, California might get sun now and then, Joshi conceded, “but here on the East Coast, it’s just not going to work.”

Gosh, why hasn’t anyone thought of that before? Wouldn’t you think that some scientist, somewhere, would have noticed that the East Coast is far less sunny than Central Europe and therefore incapable of producing solar power on the same scale?

You would—if it were true. As Media Matters’ Max Greenberg notes, it isn’t. Not even remotely.

UPDATE: Relevant findings (pdf)



  1. Schleprock says:

    It’s amazing how people will themselves into intentional ignorance. New Jersey is second-only to California in solar energy production.New Jersey!? Not exactly a sunshine state. Solar has the benefit of producing best when the most energy is needed. This happens to be the highest cost time for consumers. When the grid is straining under the load of extreme demand on blistering hot days, solar is full tilt.
    A fiscal conservative should understand that money not spent is the best money of all. If solar is made easy, it will become very, very cheap to manufacture. Unfortunately, monopolies are more profitable and powerful than competitive industries.

  2. Anonymous Coward says:

    Rather late for the discussion, but some news anchor ditz at CNN suggested that the near earth meteor fly by was somehow linked to Global Warming.

    ‘Makes that “expert” from FOX look like a braniac by comparison.

    Like I said earlier, ‘F’ in high school science is the norm for journalists.

    http://popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/cnn-anchor-wonders-bill-nye-did-global-warming-send-asteroid-near-earth

  3. MikeN says:

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/16/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-cover-up/

    Don’t worry. Unlike the UN, the AAAS predicted 50 million climate refugees by 2020. There’s still time! Be afraid, very afraid!

  4. MikeN says:

    http://www.wtop.com/209/3222349/Solar-industry-grapples-with-hazardous-wastes

    Overall, solar and wind power increase CO2 emissions, because they have to run less efficient natural gas plants when the renewable energy is not available. Having the plants in stop and start mode creates more emissions than a regular gas plant. So you would have less emissions if you just ran a natural gas plant 100% of the time.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Hey Mickey–your review doesn’t match the link at all.

      As the lies ramp up, you can tell the alternative is having its impact. Yes–a ONE TIME production of waste in manufacturing the solar panels does exist. A .o1 per centage of the constant waste produced by mining and burning coal.

      I would still be interested in any relevant link to the issue you tried to palm off–that backup plants that come on are less efficient than when being run constantly. That also has a fish smell about it.

      At lest I hope that is Fish, Mickey. Mickey….. what did you have for lunch?

      • MikeN says:

        I’ve posted it before, but you were too busy name calling to read.

        http://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenergy/writev/517/m59.htm

        The CCGT produces about 0.4 of a ton of CO2 per MWh. This is 50% more efficient than the OCGT that may produce same amount of power but uses more fuel and this results in about 0.6 ton of CO2 per MWh. ..
        Since the wind turbines only operate at about 25% of their rated or name-plate capacity* the ‘back-up’ has to supply the remainder, of 75%. Since, as shown above, a gas turbine operating stop/start produces approx. 0.6T/MWh the average is [75% x .6=] 0.45ton per MWh. This is more CO2 [and SO2, Nox etc] than would have been produced by an efficient CCGT working full time; 0.4ton per MWh.

        • bobbo, constantly reminding the foolish of First Principles says:

          Well Mickey–that wasn’t the link you first provided. You spin and twist as if you were a shill. Amusing. Are you a shill Mickey?????? It can’t feel good to be made the fool in public as often as you do…… so the pay must be pretty good?

          Your second link doesn’t work. Truncating it doesn’t work. So…I can’t find the error you now substitute.

          THE BIG LIE technique of display. No, it true====green energy burns more fossil fuel than burning nothing but fossil true. This is proven by one link that says nothing of the sort, and another one that doesn’t work. Take my word for it.

          Dolt.

          • MikeN says:

            Oh my. The first link had nothing to do with my second point, it was a separate point. As to the second link, add http://www., which breaks the links on this blog.

          • MikeN says:

            And I’ve already quoted the relevant portion. It’s basic math.

          • bobbo, one true Liberal recognizing Obama is too far Right says:

            Well thanks Mickey–adding the www did make the link work. Haven’t run into that kind of glitch before.

            So… the memorandum submitted first says that wind energy can only be relied on as 8.7% of its name plate capacity but later the same submission says “Since the wind turbines only operate at about 25% of their rated or name-plate capacity…” /// so, seems like a four fold contradiction right there….. which is it?

            The paper also “assumes” that the wind power will always be so variable as to call for the back up to come on line? I thought wind power was usually added to the grid NOT as a substitute for the turbines but as supplemental to them. IOW, the turbines are always on but maybe at 60-70-80 percent===not on or off as the paper suggests.

            So, while not an expert—I call BS. Of course, if you assume conditions that never exist, the numbers don’t work.

            Head up your ass analysis.

            How much does this other shill get paid?

          • MikeN says:

            So you don’t understand how wind energy works. Big surprise.
            If you assume 8.7%, instead of 25, which is 1/3 not 1/4, the numbers work out even worse.

            So you think when the wind is gone, they just stop supplying energy from those plants?

          • bobbo, one true Liberal recognizing Obama is too far Right says:

            No…. as almost directly stated and overly implied===I assume they go from 60-70-80 percent potential generation to 100%.

            You seems to understand this subject well, so I will further assume we simply aren’t connecting, “but” the explanation in the link is clearly a “very special case” as it just Puke Simple: if shutting done the coal plants makes “the system” less green: THEN DON’T DO IT.

            Simple, No?

  5. MikeN says:

    Washington Post reported as news another site’s parody article about Sarah Palin joining Al Jazeera.

    Note to WP, The Onion is not the only satire website.

  6. Kathleen Roberts says:

    I grew up in NJ and we had lots of sun, we aren’t the Garden State for nothing and you need lots of sun for that. Now not only are you wrong on the facts but you seem to think you should also control what a fiscal conservative should understand which is really your own philosophy about money , which is dead wrong too! So your mindset is really control, not facts. What you need to understand is that money well spent is the best money.