Reply With Quote
Where have I taken a particular stance on any individual project?
Corporate ethics implies the behavior of firms and I am not even commenting on that anyway.
glad you noticed.
I'm just pointing out that your stance on corporate ethics is phony. Corporate welfare is ok, aslong as it's used for the projects you approve.
Where have I taken a particular stance on any individual project?
Corporate ethics implies the behavior of firms and I am not even commenting on that anyway.
I can't believe you're so ignorant.
You were just defending corporate cronyism or favoritism because it's govt intervention for the common good.
Obviously, your ethics come with strings attached and is based on purely phony grounds.
Please point out specifically where i do this. You make these claims but fail to provide and evidence analysis or anything.
I just said that government subsidization of an industry will have failures as the need for subsidization implies a field that is inherently risky.
You just are antiestablishment and pretty mindless about it so you twist me saying that government intervention in a risk adverse field to be a blanket permission. its not.
That being said battery technology is something we desperately need innovation in. Rare earth elements are a .
That isn't something that should be done with tax dollars, unless it is vital to the nation. If investors see a proper payoff vs. risk, they will invest. Let the capital venturists risk their money instead of yours and mine.
It's not stupid to freak out over something that was warned against doing, and then have the money still doles out, based on agenda rather than proper risk assessments.
These people should be jailed.
"it is vital to the nation"
non-fossil, renewable energy is extremely vital to the nation.
Much more immediate and critical is forcing the fossil fuel companies to pay for all the "externalaties" damage they commit to air, land, water, food, humans.
In your opinion. The voters of this nation as a majority disagree with you.
Why don't you rally a group of like minded people as yourself to form a charity. Collect money and you can head the foundation, and give the money to research you deem appropriate.
Put your money where your mouth is and stop using tax dollars.
I would think the majority of voters would prefer thier air not be polluted unecessarily...just sayin
A Gold Rush of Subsidies in the Search for Clean Energy
A great deal of attention has been focused on Solyndra, a start-up that received $528 million in federal loans to develop cutting-edge solar technology before it went bankrupt, but nearly 90 percent of the $16 billion in clean-energy loans guaranteed by the federal government since 2009 went to subsidize these lower-risk power plants, which in many cases were backed by big companies with vast resources.
When the Obama administration and Congress expanded the clean-energy incentives in 2009, a gold-rush mentality took over.
As NRG’s chief executive, David W. Crane, put it to Wall Street analysts early this year, the government’s largess was a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and “we intend to do as much of this business as we can get our hands on.” NRG, along with partners, ultimately secured $5.2 billion in federal loan guarantees plus hundreds of millions in other subsidies for four large solar projects.
“I have never seen anything that I have had to do in my 20 years in the power industry that involved less risk than these projects,” he said in a recent interview. “It is just filling the desert with panels.”
From 2007 to 2010, federal subsidies jumped to $14.7 billion from $5.1 billion, according to a recent study.
Most of the surge came from the economic stimulus bill, which was passed in 2009 and financed an Energy Department loan guarantee program and a separate Treasury Department grant program that were promoted as important in creating green jobs.
===========
Seems like a lot of $Bs?
compare with the sure-fire positives if solar/wind energy production with the well-known negatives of wasting/burning $100B/year, year after year, in Iraq and Afghanistan, or at total of $1.5T/year year after year for DoD, NatSec, DoState budgets to maintain the UCA's imperial empire against a bunch of ragheads.
Unlimited $Ts for guns, while we have to fight for a few $Bs for butter.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-12-2011 at 10:54 AM.
Hey everybody, what about this "oops" moment? See, it happens to everyone. Let's HUMANIZE the living outta of these events!
People don't want to pay taxes here because a large proportion of taxes aren't spent back on the society. US tax money is stolen and squandered at every possible point that it can be.
All government "waste" exists for a reason -- to funnel money in to the proper coffers. Seemingly nothing the government does is very efficient, because the incentive to steal and lack of oversight/criminality is too tempting a combination.
I don't understand why anyone thinks either political party is any different from the other in this aspect.
Clean Energy Has Highest Do ented Rate of Return of Any Federal Program, But the WashPost Cluelessly Smears the Effort
The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2001 that a handful of clean energy technologies returned about $30 billion on an R&D investment of about $400 million. The United States is an amazing venture capitalist when it comes to clean energy R&D.
n 1997, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) recommended doubling the energy efficiency budget from $450 million to $880 million, noting “the return for this portion of the government investment would be on the order of 40 to 1–a cost to the government of about $5 per ton of carbon” with annual fuel cost savings of $75 to $95 billion in 2020, and reductions in oil consumption of 4 to 10 million barrels of oil a day by 2030.
(which is the last thing the Kock Bros and other oil extortionists want to prevent)
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...deral-program/
Greyforest: very good point. I also hate the idea that the people who do not pay taxes get a vast more of the resources that the tax money goes to. Also the thing I hate the most is paying a tax on something that someone already paid the tax for. like the truck i just bought that has been sold atleast twice before me.
lol vast more
"US tax money is stolen and squandered"
bloated,corrupt defense budget with $300B more spent per year than is justifiable, imperial wars and garrisoning the planet, $1.5T+ PER YEAR more spent on health care than would be spent in other countries that get better outcomes, etc, etc.
If the Repugs were really anti-government and anti-regulations, they would foment a tax revolt as some did in the VN war. But the Repugs actually suck $Bs out of the govt and write/abuse regulations to their profit.
Anybody remember this Repug investment? Where were the Repugs whining about dubya wasting taxpayer $$ ?
The Demise of FutureGen
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021503186.html
If FutureGen was such a good idea, why didn't private investors go it alone?
Chu has restarted it with FutureGen 2.0, but ...
Large-Scale Carbon Capture and Storage: Feasibility, Permanence and Safety Issues Remain Unresolved
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...safety-issues/
Koch-Fueled Americans for Prosperity Spends $2.4 Million on Solyndra Attack Ad
(VIDEO)
In its latest advertisement, a 60-second spot that has been running heavily in places across Florida, Michigan, Nevada and Virginia, an announcer repeatedly names Solyndra, the government-backed solar power company that went bankrupt and has become a focus of conservative anger over wasteful spending.
Then it suggests that Solyndra’s political ties to Democrats played a role in its winning a government loan guarantee: “Is this the change we’re supposed to believe in? Tell President Obama you shouldn’t use taxpayer dollars for political favors.”
An analysis from Kantar Media showed that in recent weeks Americans for Prosperity has already spent $2.4 million buying airtime for the advertisement, which has been broadcast nearly 4,000 times.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...tack-ad-video/
Solar Power Much Cheaper to Produce Than Most Analysts Realize, Study Finds
The public is being kept in the dark about the viability of solar photovoltaic energy, according to a study conducted at Queen’s University.
“Many analysts project a higher cost for solar photovoltaic energy because they don’t consider recent technological advancements and price reductions,” says [co-author] Joshua Pearce, Adjunct Professor, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering. “Older models for determining solar photovoltaic energy costs are too conservative.”
Dr. Pearce believes solar photovoltaic systems are near the “tipping point” where they can produce energy for about the same price other traditional sources of energy.
That’s the news release for a new journal article, “A review of solar photovoltaic levelized cost of electricity” (subs. req’d). The analysis concludes:
Given the state of the art in the technology and favourable financing terms it is clear that PV has already obtained grid parity in specific locations and as installed costs continue to decline, grid electricity prices continue to escalate, and industry experience increases, PV will become an increasingly economically advantageous source of electricity over expanding geographical regions.
That argument is one Climate Progress and others have been making for a while (see ‘Ferocious Cost Reductions’ Make Solar PV Compe ive and Utility CEO on Solar: In “3 to 5 Years You’ll Be Able to Get Power Cheaper from the Roof of Your House Than From the Grid”.)
Here’s more for the news release (plus some more must-have CP charts):
Analysts look at many variables to determine the cost of solar photovoltaic systems for consumers, including installation and maintenance costs, finance charges, the system’s life expectancy, and the amount of electricity it generates.
Dr. Pearce says some studies don’t consider the 70 per cent reduction in the cost of solar panels since 2009 . Furthermore, he says research now shows the productivity of top-of-the-line solar panels only drops between 0.1 and 0.2 percent annually, which is much less than the one per cent used in many cost analyses.
Equipment costs are determined based on dollars per watt of electricity produced. One 2010 study estimated this cost at $7.61, while a 2003 study set the amount at $4.16. According to Dr. Pearce, the real cost in 2011 is under $1 per watt for solar panels purchased in bulk on the global market, though he says system and installation costs vary widely.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...realize-study/
ooops!
Second Romney-Backed Solar Company Files For Bankruptcy
On Thursday, Mitt Romney campaigned at the headquarters of Solyndra — the first renewable energy company to receive a federal loan under the stimulus — and reiterated his debunked claims that its bankruptcy symbolized the corruption and cronyism of the Obama administration. But just one day later, a solar panel developer “that landed a state loan from Mitt Romney when he was Massachusetts governor” went belly up, the Boston Herald reports, creating an inconvenient storyline for the GOP presidential nominee.
The company, Konarka Technologies, “filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and will cease operations, lay off its 85 workers and liquidate”:
“Konarka has been unable to obtain additional financing, and given its current financial condition, it is unable to continue operations,” CEO Howard Berke said in a statement. “This is a tragedy for Konarka’s shareholders and employees and for the development of alternative energy in the United States.”
The demise of Konarka could become a hot topic on the campaign trail because Romney personally doled out a $1.5 million renewable energy subsidy to the Lowell startup in 2003, shortly after taking office on Beacon Hill.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...yndra-konarka/
So what was Romney's MA doing "in the business of picking winners and losers"?
This will be a huge talking point on the Fox Repug Propaganda network for weeks!
So? At least it was an operational company. Different details. Others in the same category took gig hits too.
Romney is really the exact same as Obama, tbh. Pretty sad that people who identify as "conservative" will vote for this clown because he has an R next to his name.
"Romney is really the exact same as Obama"
Total bull
CNN On Solyndra Loan: Bush Started It, There’s No Evidence of Wrongdoing, And Romney’s Attacks Are Made Up
CNN has two dynamite pieces on Solyndra, “Romney wrong on Solyndra facts” and “Seven things you should know about Solyndra.”
The first one, by Steve Hargreaves of CNN Money, ends:
It’s one thing to spin something to one’s advantage. It’s another to simply make things up to make the other guy look bad. Romney’s Solyndra speech was an example of the latter. Disgraceful.
Hargreaves shows that Mitt Romney’s key claim — “An independent inspector general looked at this investment and concluded that the Administration had steered money to friends and family and campaign contributors” — has no basis in fact.
The second piece, also by Hargreaves, lists 7 key facts:
1. It was started by Bush: The DOE loan program that funded Solyndra was actually started by President Bush in 2005. It was intended to provide government support for “innovative technologies”….
In fact, as Climate Progress reported back in September, the “Bush Administration advanced the Solyndra loan guarantee for two years” before Obama became President.
2. Congress thought there would be more failures: Two companies have declared bankruptcy under the loan program so far, out of the 33 projects funded. Congress was expecting more….
Congress appropriated money to cover expected losses, and multiple independent reviews have confirmed that the actual losses will likely be less than Congress expected.
3. Solyndra wanted more: The company applied for another $468 million in funding shortly after its first DOE loan closed. The government did not award the second request.
4. Taxpayers aren’t the only losers: Private investors lost almost twice what the government did — nearly $1 billion.
While much has been made that the largest private investor was an Obama supporter, the second largest was a fund controlled by the Walton family — of Wal-Mart fame. Walton family members are noted Republican donors.
5. The renewable program is closed: The renewables loan program that funded Solyndra and other wind and solar ventures is now over. There is still $170 million available for renewables under a separate program that also handles nuclear power….
6. No smoking gun with Solyndra wrongdoing: Last week Mitt Romney said an inspector general “looked at this investment and concluded that the administration had steered money to friends and family.”
That appears to be incorrect, as no evidence of undue influence peddling by the White House has been uncovered in an official, independent report.
As a major Bloomberg analysis of Solyndra and the media hype of the story concluded, “The Focus on Solyndra Is Not Proportional to Its Impact.”
7. Solyndra isn’t a typical solar company: Solyndra did not make regular, flat solar panels.
It made a more advanced, cylinder-shaped device designed to capture the sun’s rays on its entire surface — hence the company’s name.
It was the rapidly declining price of traditional, flat solar panels and silicon – mostly from China — that did the company in.
Precisely.
Put it all together and you can understand why a major analysis by the Center for American Progress concluded that federal loans and loan guarantees have a huge benefit but a low and predictable cost.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...s-are-made-up/
We went over this before ShazBot.
The Bush Administration rejected this for Solyndra. Sure, they started the program for such financing. That doesn't mean they are to blame.
lol thinkprogress.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
