From EurekAlert!
Fewer rooftop solar photovoltaics installations exist in African-American and Hispanic-dominant neighborhoods than in white-dominant neighborhoods, even when controlling for household income and home ownership
Tufts University
MEDFORD/SOMERVILLE, Mass. and BERKELEY, Ca. (Jan. 10, 2019)–Although the popularity of rooftop solar panels has skyrocketed because of their benefits to consumers and the environment, the deployment has predominantly occurred in white neighborhoods, even after controlling for household income and home ownership, according to a study by researchers from Tufts University and the University of California, Berkeley, published today in the journal Nature Sustainability.
While solar energy is a popular, cost-effective, sustainable source of energy that can be deployed at large, utility-scale projects as well as on individual rooftops, deployment of rooftop solar has been uneven.
“Solar power is crucial to meeting the climate goals presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but we can and need to deploy solar more broadly so that it benefits all people, regardless of race and ethnicity,” said Deborah Sunter, Ph.D., a professor of mechanical engineering at the School of Engineering at Tufts, and the study’s lead author. “Solar energy can be a resource for climate protection and social empowerment.”
Researchers combined data from Google’s Project Sunroof on existing rooftop solar installations across the United States with demographic data, including household income, home ownership, and ethnicity and race, from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The Project Sunroof data includes information on more than 60 million rooftops, and almost 2 million solar installations.
“Advances in remote sensing and in ‘big data’ science enable us not only to take a unique look at where solar is deployed but also to combine that with census and demographic data to chart who gets to benefit from the solar energy revolution,” said Sergio Castellanos, Ph.D., a research faculty at UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group and the California Institute for Energy and Environment (CIEE). “This information allows us to think more deeply about the effectiveness of current policies and approaches to accelerating solar PV (photovoltaics) deployment.”
The study found that for the same median household income:
- black-majority census tracts – or neighborhoods – have installed 69 percent less rooftop PV than census tracts (neighborhoods) where no single race or ethnicity makes up the majority (no-majority); and
- Hispanic-majority census tracts have installed 30 percent less rooftop PV than no-majority census tracts. Meanwhile, white-majority census tracts have installed 21 percent more rooftop PV than no-majority census tracts.
When correcting for home ownership, black- and Hispanic-majority census tracts have installed less rooftop PV compared to no-majority tracts by 61 percent and 45 percent, respectively, while white-majority census tracts installed 37 percent more.
The study’s authors said more research is needed to help determine the root causes of the differences. They noted that the findings could be useful in developing better and more inclusive energy infrastructure policy and outcomes, including as part of the evolving ‘Green New Deal’ and programs at the state and federal level.
“Our work illustrates that while solar can be a powerful tool for climate protection and social equity, a lack of access or a lack of outreach to all segments of society can dramatically weaken the social benefit,” said Daniel Kammen, Ph.D., former science envoy for the U. S. State Department, and current professor and chair of the Energy and Resources Group, professor in the Goldman School of Policy, and professor of Nuclear Engineering at UC Berkeley. Both Sunter and Kammen have been fellows of the Berkeley Institute for Data Science (BIDS), and Castellanos is a fellow at UC Berkeley´s Data for Social Sciences Lab (D-Lab).
###
Sunter, D., Castellanos, S., Kammen, D. (2019) “Disparities in rooftop photovoltaics deployment in the United States by race and ethnicity,” Nature Sustainability. DOI 10.1038/s41893-018-0204-z.
About Tufts University
Tufts University, located on campuses in Boston, Medford/Somerville and Grafton, Massachusetts, and in Talloires, France, is recognized among the premier research universities in the United States. Tufts enjoys a global reputation for academic excellence and for the preparation of students as leaders in a wide range of professions. A growing number of innovative teaching and research initiatives span all Tufts campuses, and collaboration among the faculty and students in the undergraduate, graduate and professional programs across the university’s schools is widely encouraged.
Stupid white men eh?
that was my thought
The article didn’t mention men.
I’m guessing that once again, the joke went right over Simon’s head.
What joke.
I wonder if they also looked at democrat vs republican.
OMG Simon! I didn’t think that anything could be more ridiculous than that study, but then you proved me wrong.
I suspect single men have more of these than single women.
Simon, he’s not funny really.
Yeah, us whites have fallen for the hype of solar. If you live in the upper two-thirds of the US, solar simply cannot break even. In the southern third, there is still the maintenance and longevity problems, as the panels need cleaning, age, lose productivity, and even leak heavy metals. Then, there are the issues with the many fittings that penetrate the roof, abrogate the roof waterproofing, and cause leaks. Wind sees the panels as wings for lifting if the panels are not flush with the roof. Then, there are the circuitry issues as weather starts dismantling the many wires and connections in the whole solar panel system. The way it is presented, it sounds like an install and forget project but that is far from the real world.
The reason is obvious, even if a bit insensitive to point out. Black homeowners have already got their victim virtue established by birthright, so there’s no need for them to waste money by buying indulgences that they can show off to their neighbors. That’s exclusively the province of white progressives. And when you understand it as a mechanism by which they hope to expiate their own Original Sin of being both White and Wealthy, it becomes obvious that the more money that they can waste on schemes like this, the more credit they have earned for the Forgiveness of their Sins.
A new addition to: Stuff White People Like – solar panels to signal their ‘green’ virtue.
Exactly.
“a resource for XXXXXX social empowerment… Our work illustrates that while solar can be a powerful tool for XXXXXX social equity, a lack of access or a lack of outreach to all segments of society can dramatically weaken the social benefit.”
White racist liberals often think that “a lack of access” is the cause of differences due to individual choice. Maybe they don’t have driver’s licenses? Or they don’t know how to apply for subsidies? Sheesh. Yeah, their work illustrates that the problem is one of “outreach.”
I agree. It’s basically a cultural difference. One group values it, the other doesn’t. The apparent inequality is simply by choice, not a case of one group under the thumb of the other. The authors should have overlayed the question to each group, “How important is to you to contribute/be a part of green energy?” I’m sure that would line up with their results, regardless of income!
that isn’t the reason I got mine (and I am an old white guy). I got mine because I didn’t like paying out over $300 a month for electricity even after I put in impact windows (very energy efficient), added insulation to the crawl space, changed out the light bulbs to LEDs and bought a 3 stage pump for the pool (in FL). I got mine because I’m cheap.
First full year electricity costs were $324 for the whole year. I calculated the payback at between 6 and 8 years though as they are beginning to produce a bit less each year it likely will be closer to 8 years. So, no virtue signaling here (as I don’t believe most of that green crap), just cheap.
Holy racial rooftops Batman!
This paper is reminiscent of this scene from “Billy Madison”:
“Mr. Madison, what you just said is the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
Everyone is this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Leo – stupid -old- white men.
exactly, Leo.
Are black and Hispanic households with the same income level as whites equally common in suburban settings, where houses suitable for PV panels are located? Or do they tend to be urban located where roof real estate is very limited? Or do they have more common sense?
Exactly, probably a difference in house and land type.
That was certainly a factor that crossed my mind, certainly something that needs to be controlled in this sort of study.
Good questions. There is so much wrong with their assessment. If they can’t provide reasons (“more research is needed to help determine the root causes of the differences”) it’s only a wag. Also note the always present, “send more money” meme.
Maybe a study of “vehicle ownership” rather than “rooftop PV” would provide a clue?
ps
ps
ps
Home ownership is a serious consideration of whether or not to install rooftop PV
Why be in a race at all unless you’re trying to win 😉
Because you’re a modern Progressive Leftist, and the corner stone of your belief system is the color of an individual’s skin.
“the corner stone of your belief system is the color of an individual’s skin”
How does that differ from the KKK?
In theory I fail to see a difference. In practice, the extreme Left in the U.S. savagely beats people, but I’ve heard of no one being burned at the stake.
Pretty amusing, I must say. There must be all kinds of interesting statistics regarding the “upkeep of the house” practiced by different racial groups. Somewhere.
It is however, far to easy to fall into “stereotype rationale” on this. Whether or not a house owner of any color, creed or country club membership sizes, designs, buys and installs a roof mounted solar panel power generating and management system depends a LOT on whether they feel “the inspiration” to do something relatively techy-edgy.
Myself? I would expect to find a strong correlation of solar-panel-house-owners and the kind(s) of hobbies that the homeowners have. For instance, it wouldn’t surprise me one iota that my fellow members at the DIYAudio (online) club have a far higher rate of solar-panel installs than the folks that hang out (as a hobby) at the local bar. Homeowner, or not.
Just saying,
GoatGuy
Meanwhile, by a far majority, most Americans don’t have solar panels on their roof at all.
Yet somehow, of the handful of Americans that do, academia once again cries foul because after counting the beans it appears that the “white” skinned human variant is statistically more likely to have solar panels on his roof. That observation isn’t necessarily bad in and of itself, but then I see this lovely bit assuming that this should influence policymaking: “The study’s authors said more research is needed to help determine the root causes of the differences. They noted that the findings could be useful in developing better and more inclusive energy infrastructure policy and outcomes, including as part of the evolving ‘Green New Deal’ and programs at the state and federal level.”
Policymaking from the leatherback chair at its finest!
Obviously, people who sell and install solar panel systems must be racist.
The solution is to require sensitivity training.
What’s ‘race’ to do with this in the first place? For real. It is just a proxy of profession, education, income, and how many green morons you have in the family.
Once again, I’d like to thank all of you for your generous subsidies for the solar panels we installed. I’d have installed some anyway, just to cut down on AC bills(solar power and air conditioning power are pretty closely correlated). But thanks to stupid government programs both state and federal we now pay essentially zero for electricity- government grants paid for about 2/3 of the cost of installation, and now, thanks to stupid laws in Pennsylvania, our electric bill is just about zeroed out. We get bills that average less than $100 a month and also get checks to the tune of $1200/year for something called renewable energy credits. That means virtuous liberals can can “buy” all their power from renewable resources like mine because the power company is compelled by law to get 20% of their power from “renewables”.
It’s a big scam, but we’ll benefit until folks wise up and demand changes to the laws.
Hmm?
“Enwave’s system takes cold water from the Great Lakes to cool downtown buildings, reducing energy costs by 80 per cent.
McKenna said this partnership will help create jobs and help tackle climate change in a “smarter way.””
https://www.680news.com/2019/01/10/climate-change-enwave-toronto/
If it has a good ROI, it’s worth doing. The claim regarding climate change is just PR boilerplate.
My first thought was, if true, so what? What a waste of $ and effort. Who pays for this garbage?
And the warmed water is pumped back into the lake.
Thereby having a “climate impact” – oh God! Warmer water = more evaporation = more “greenhouse gases” (water vapor) will be released. We’re all doomed!/sarc
Have you checked what tuition is at Tuft lately? I haven’t but I know without checking it would be “unaffordable, and definitely not worth the money even if I had it” territory.
You can easily separate the sheep from the goats in a non-racist manner if you just apply as a criterion, people with more money than brains. That group across all racial lines is more likely to spend their own money stupidly.
“more inclusive energy infrastructure policy and outcomes”???
Did they forget diversity? What is wrong with these authors. We need to increase the diversity of energy policy makers SO THAT energy infrastructure policy is more inclusive. There is only one thing to do…Start a quota system to ensure that all policies have an equal and diverse make up so that more inclusive outcomes are forced upon a racist Green Energy industry.
We need Federal Judges to weigh in on this immediately to enact fair quotas to protect well-off minority middle income home owners so that they receive their fair share of government subsidies.
(Just in case someone doesn’t get it, that was ALL sarcasm.)
How is it that we have marginalized the transgendered and gender-confused communites in all of this? Not one word of acknowledgement that Big Green enforces archaic gender norms?
A study by Ferroni & Hopkirk 2016 shows that after 25 years, solar panel farms in Germany & Switzerland produced only 82% of the energy required to manufacture, install, & maintain them. It also demonstrated that at this point in time (at current solar panel efficiency) latitude 35N (approximately the southern border Tennessee) is the solar energy break even line. After 25 years of operation, solar farms north of this line produce LESS energy than it takes to manufacture, install, & maintain them, while solar farms south of this line produce more.
I know this article specifically refers to rooftop solar panels, but it looks to me like about half of them will never generate enough electricity to break even.
Great stat…do you have a link to the studies? I don’t doubt them, actually. Further, my own studies on wind turbines show that they cannot produce enough energy in their lifetime to build their replacements – even if 100% of their output is devoted to that. That is the definition of “not sustainable.”
Ferroni & Hopkirk’s reply the principal paper disagreeing with their methodology is also worth reading and I highly recommend it. It us shorter than the original, presents most of the originals conclusions and explains why the disagreements with their conclusions are wrong.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwjjrObE2uXfAhUJxVQKHdkhB5IQFjACegQIAhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fc-c-netzwerk.ch%2Fimages%2Fccn-blog_articles%2F284%2FFerroni_Guekos_Hopkirk_ERoEI_further-considerations.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3ffJudVJA0cXIRkZ-o7hNx
And that is just about what those panels “produce” compared with the energy it takes to manufacture, install, & maintain them, which is not the sum total of the energy they need to produce to REALLY be “breaking even,” since it does NOT include the grid destabilization costs of running back up generators (fossil fuels) inefficiently on stand-by to ramp up or down to compensate for the whims of the sun and clouds (not to mention day and night), and the waste of maintaining two redundant systems, the other of which is the ONLY one actually needed.
From the map it looks like half the installations are north of Tennessee. The large cluster around Seattle is especially amusing since there is hardly any sun for most of the year there. Of course Seattle is at the forefront of saving the planet – banning straws, plastic bags, etc.
Clearly some in the USA have examined the risk benefits of putting solar panels on their roofs and decided they have better things to do with their time and money.
Clearly the Tufts’ academics thing they are wrong and this is an example of disrimination. The Hispanics probably have big families and are educating them.
The needs of the white population are not theirs.
I wasn’t a racist until they started calling me one. Now I guess I are one.
White guilt.
“While solar energy is a popular, cost-effective, sustainable source of energy” Hot water solar perhaps, not the PV they’re talking about.
Did I read correctly that they googled 60 million homes with 2 million having solar? If so, it looks like 3% is the new definition of “popular”.
“Our work illustrates that while solar can be a powerful tool for climate protection and social equity, a lack of access or a lack of outreach to all segments of society can dramatically weaken the social benefit,” said Daniel Kammen, Ph.D., former science envoy for the U. S. State Department, and current professor and chair of the Energy and Resources Group, professor in the Goldman School of Policy, and professor of Nuclear Engineering at UC Berkeley.
………………….
A Ph.D and extensive credentials are not worth much if it leads one to make a nitwit statement like this.
There is no evidence that any part of the statement is true.
Indeed, Dr. Kammen deeply disgraces himself as a critical thinker with that statement. That statement clearly only plays to the ignorant, partisan Liberal base (at Berkeley mostly) who see everything through the lens of identity politics.
At some point in his career he probably could have recognized this problem with his gibberish statement. But the brainwashing goes deep when you are immersed in a culture he is in, and where any “snowflake triggering” mis-step by a faculty member can have a screaming hoard of sit-down protestors storming your office in minutes.
Absolutely right. Maybe virtue-signalling (and gullibility) are less prevalent with our black and Hispanic brethren?
But I guess there isn’t much Grant money in pointing that out.
Thesis: white guilt played out on susceptible morons then appears as virtue signalling behavior.
Tesla in the garage, solar panels on the rooftop, soda straw and plastic bag bans.
All Evidence of repressed guilt behaviors.
Probably a psychology PhD dissertation to be had in that thesis.
“… and social equity…”
Remember, the claim that Climate Science is just a cover story used in order to bring in a global government are nothing more than paranoid right wing nutjobs. Honest. Completely honest.
/snark
Ask him to define social equity .. always a good laugh.
Wanna bet that what a professor of nukular engineering teaches at Bezerkly is that nukes are inherently unsafe and cause social inequality?
Anyone else notice the obviously racist assumption in that paragraph?
That suggests that minorities as a group are somehow less capable of understanding the “advantages” of solar installations compared to the general population and need a special “outreach” to raise their awareness.
(Very similar to the racist assumption that minorities are way less capable than “white folk” in obtaining an ID.)
I am also delighted that Tufts has introduced Social Justice into their Engineering Department.
Dr. Sunter, “You go girl!”
It may be a new part of the Department: social engineering.
This goes hand in hand with the NAACP in Portland saying the signs the city is putting on old red brick buildings (owned or in mostly Black neighborhoods) saying they would be unsafe in an earthquake are racist. The issue is the signs devalues the buildings.
Of course, when the big one hits and most of the casualties are in the older red brick buildings we will hear how it’s the racist’s city council’s fault.
I’m fed up with the social engineering crap being foisted on people today. You can’t even fart without there being a racial/ethnic/religious/gender reason for it. We’re being manipulated to divide us and nothing more.
Next paper should be on the demographics of Tesla owners, and the unequal distribution of Teslas in society.
Clearly what we need is non coloured, non gender specific, vegan enviromental renewable energy generation so the uptake is improved.
So true! How did they forget about microaggressions against the vegan community in all of this? The relevance is so glaringly obvious as to be incandescent /ridicule
some people have way too much time on their hands, or someone has more money than brains
Two takeaways in my mind:
1) This statement is ironic: “Our work illustrates that while solar can be a powerful tool for climate protection and social equity, a lack of access or a lack of outreach to all segments of society can dramatically weaken the social benefit,”
I say ironic because they now want to prey on the black and hispanic community to further plague this group.
2) This sounds like a marketing study for how to move solar by using the race card to get funding.
Isn’t it obvious? White liberal guilt. Pretty much the backbone of the democratic party.
News Flash:
White kids stick their fingers in outlets more than minority kids. MAJOR INEQUITY.
Government programs should be established to get minority kids sticking their fingers in outlets AT LEAST at the rates of whites, or RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!!
My flabber is completely gasted.
For those with limited time, the Reader’s Digest version of this study is “Poppycock.”
Diversity or color judgment is an insidious discriminator.