Shell accused of abandoning solar power buyers in the developing world

[phantom power]

A widespread breakdown of its equipment in Sri Lanka and elsewhere has left the oil firm accused of abandoning a responsibility to impoverished communities while damaging the prospects of the wider renewable power sector in a world desperate to reduce carbon emissions following the Copenhagen climate change summit.

The rural electrification business under which the Shell systems were sold has now itself been passed on – as have most other parts of the group's solar business – but critics say that Shell, which made profits of $31bn in 2008, has a continuing role in ensuring former customers are not left vulnerable.

"Shell exited solar on a global basis, seemingly without due consideration to how after-sales service and warranty replacements would be provided, thereby damaging the very local solar industries it had earlier helped to create," said Damian Miller, a former Shell manager who now heads his own solar business, Orb Energy.

"In Sri Lanka, poor customers with average earnings of $1,500-$2,000 a month have bought Shell's solar systems. The system is equivalent to 30% of their annual income," he added. "They could only afford a system because they could get a loan from microfinance institutions or other banks. But now there are reports of thousands of Shell's solar panels failing in the field and Shell seemingly is not replacing them."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/03/shell-sri-lanka-solar-warranty-row

[Systematic Chaos]

1. So, is solar saving us yet?

:shrug:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Its saving me...but only because of the incentives and tax treatment

[madokie]

3. Thats what you have to say after reading the OP

talk about systematic chaos you got that part down pat.

[Systematic Chaos]

4. As do you with the "mad" part of "madokie".

Expecting solar to ever amount to anything worthwhile is a perfect example of the definition of "madness" which involves doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.

Tell you what: I'll strive to have a nuke plant "in my back yard", with the waste stored in on-site bunkers. In exchange for that, you can have all the solar your local area can handle, but the waste from the production of all those panels gets shipped into your back yard from China and you get to find a way to deal with it, "in your back yard".

I win!

Now go away.

[madokie]

5. If you call that a win, go for it, but if it was me I'd save that arm though

Personally I'll take my chances with us getting there without any more new nukes. As much as I hate to think about it the fact is that with the aging of our fleet of 104 reactors our chances of a catastrophe grows by each day. The possibilities of it making a sizable chunk of America unlivable grows with that aging too.

[roody]

6. It has saved me 8 and one half years

of electric bills. I like that.