Should "Green/alternative" energy loans and subsidies continue?

[AMDScooter]

We've been hearing for sometime now how 33bil oil companies reap the benefits of "oil tax breaks" that supposedly lead to "obscene" profits. Turns out the tax break oil companies get is not even specific to oil companies but instead a domestic-manufacturing deduction that many industries take advantage of. And those "obscene" profits? Well it turns out oil company profit margins are statistically on the low end. They simply sell a lot of oil, produce a ton of energy, generate a buttload of tax $$$ and create a lot of jobs in doing so.

On the flip side of the coin is an industry that nearly never gets the attention garnered by the oil industry. This industry gets billions in subsidies and loans, produces a statistically insignificant amount of energy, generates few tax $$ and even fewer permanent jobs. I'm talking about "green/alternative" energy companies. Now we've heard of some of the recent fiasco's like the $525 million or so wasted at Solyndra, $100 million at Nevada geothermal and some of the DOE's recent "loans" that stink like h3ll as political payoffs. But those places are just the tip of the iceberg. Wanna talk about "subsidies"? A quick google turns up a regular cottage industry set up to get you those gubberment buck$! Keep in mind that oil companies have one.. uno.. 1.. subsidy that is not even specific to oil companies:

Renewable Energy Tax Credit:
IRS Guidance

Cooley Government Financing Resource Center

On February 17, 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). Many of the provisions in this Recovery Act, which constitutes the largest single economic stimulus program in U.S. history, open up new sources of funding and procurement opportunities for renewable energy facilities, energy infrastructure and energy efficiency programs. The clean-energy provisions are a central piece of the Recovery Act. Out of a total of $787 billion in spending and tax incentives, the Recovery Act directs approximately $43 billion to renewable energy and clean technology-related programs and includes approximately $22 billion in energy-related tax incentives.

On February 19, 2009, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced sweeping reorganization of the Department of Energy (DOE) to expedite disbursement of Recovery Act funds. Secretary Chu noted, "We need to start this work in a matter of months, not years." Subsequently, the DOE's funding opportunities under Recovery Act authority have included relatively speedy timelines to application deadline, project selection, and award funding.

Recovery Act
Cooley Alert: Recovery Act
Cooley Government Financing Updates

The following are Cooley Government Financing Updates summarizing key loan guarantee solicitation announcements and funding opportunity announcements for clean technology companies, including federal financing opportunities, as well as federal, state and local procurement opportunities. Please check back for additional updates.

Loan Guarantee Solicitation Announcements

DOE Extends Submission Deadline for Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Applications, Issues New Solicitation for Commercial Technology Projects, and Launches New Online Application Portal
Federal Loan Guarantees for Commercial Technology Renewable Energy Generation Projects Under the Financial Institution Partnership Program
Federal Loan Guarantees For Electric Power Transmission Infrastructure Investment Projects
Federal Loan Guarantees for Projects that Employ Innovative Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, and Advanced Transmission and Distribution Technologies
Funding Opportunity Announcements

Biomass Research and Development Initiative
FY 2011 Vehicle Technologies Program Wide
Smart Grid Research, Development, and Demonstration
Photovoltaic (PV) Manufacturing Initiative
Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E)
Building Energy Efficiency Through Innovative Thermodevices (BEETIT)
Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E)
Grid-Scale Rampable Intermittent Dispatchable Storage (GRIDS)
Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E)
Agile Delivery of Electrical Power Technology (ADEPT)
Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E)
Innovative Materials and Processes for Advanced Carbon Capture Technology (IMPACCT)
Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E)
Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage in Transportation (BEEST)
Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) – Electrofuels
Development of Algal/Advanced Biofuels Consortia
Local Energy Assurance Planning (LEAP) Initiative
Solid-State Lighting Product Development
Building America Energy Efficient Housing Partnerships
Large Wind Turbine Drivetrain Testing Facility
Advanced Energy Efficient Building Technologies
Smart Grid and Energy Storage Demonstrations
Smart Grid Investment Grant Program
Carbon Capture and Sequestration from Industrial Sources and Innovative Concepts for Beneficial CO2 Use
Deployment of Combined Heat and Power Systems, District Energy Systems, Waste Energy Recovery Systems, and Efficient Industrial Equipment
Systems Level Technology Development, Integration and Demonstration for Efficient Class 8 Trucks (SuperTruck) and Advanced Technology Powertrains for Light-Duty Vehicles (ATP-LD)
Clean Coal Power Initiative – Round 3
Energy Efficient Information and Communication Technology
Geothermal Technologies Program: Ground Source Heat Pumps
Site Characterization of Promising Geologic Formations for CO2
Wind Energy Consortia Between Institutions of Higher Learning and Industry
Geothermal Technologies
High Penetration Solar Deployment
Solar Market Transformation
Near Term Energy-Efficient Technologies
Demonstration of Integrated Biorefinery Operations
Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E)
Enhanced Geothermal Systems Demonstrations Grants
Transportation Electrification Grants
Electric Drive Vehicle Battery and Component Manufacturing Grants
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants
Tax Announcements

Cooley Alert: Guidance Released on Wind Energy Partnerships
Advanced Energy Project Tax Credit Internal Revenue Code Section 48C
Cooley Alert: Grants in Lieu of the Investment Tax Credit or Production Tax Credit
General Recovery Act Sites

Recovery Act Home Page
Grants.gov Portal
FedConnect Portal
U.S. Department of Energy Sites

DOE Home Page
DOE Recovery Act Site
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
Office of Fossil Energy
Office of Science
Office of Environmental Management
Western Area Power Administration
Bonneville Power Administration
Funding Opportunities
DOE Loan Guarantee Program Sites

Loan Programs Office Site
Loan Guarantee Program Governing Documents
Loan Guarantee Program Online Application Portal
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program Governing Documents
Recovery Act Sites for Other Agencies with Clean Energy Funding

U.S. Department of the Treasury
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. General Services Administration
Clean Energy Tax Provisions and Related Resources

IRS Notice 2009-89 on the §30D Qualified Plug-In Electric Drive Motor Vehicle Credit
IRS Notice 2009-58 on the §30 Qualifed Plug-In Electric Vehicle Credit
Treasury and Energy Depts. Press Release on § 48C Advanced Energy Project Tax Credits
Energy Dept. Homepage for § 48C Advanced Energy Project Tax Credits
IRS Notice 2009-72 on § 48C Advanced Energy Project Tax Credits
Treasury Dept. Program for Section 1603 Grants: Payments for Specified Energy Property in Lieu of Tax Credits
IRS Notice 2009-54 on the §30D Qualified Plug-In Electric Drive Motor Vehicle Credit
IRS Notice 2009-53 on the Nonbusiness Energy Property Credit
IRS Notice 2009-52 on Electing the §48 Investment Tax Credit in Lieu of the §45 Production Tax Credit
CRS Report on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Tax Incentive Resources
IRS Fact Sheet FS-2009-10 on Key ARRA Provisions
IRS Notice 2009-29 on Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECBs)
IRS Notice 2009-33 on New Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (New CREBs)
IRS Notice 2009-41 on the Residential Energy Efficient Property Credit

That's the info at just one site I found. there is much... much.. more. IMHO we've gone way to effin far for an industry that has been around for decades and still cannot stand on it's own 2 feet and is simply a conduit for other industries to mooch more taxpayer $$$ all the the name of "going green". $7,500 subsidy for a Chevy Volt.. any takers? FREE MONAY!

So what say ye? Should we pull the plug on "green/alternative" energy subsidies and loans let the free market decide how and when (if ever) these technologies are ready for prime time? Doing so would save Billions of dollar$$ in the process.

-or-

Should we continue to pump money into this industry?

[Dutchcedar]

Its as dumb as my borrowing money from the bank to loan to an unemployed friend who promises to pay it back if/when they find work.

The numbskulls in DC have to get one thing clear. We're broke. Busted. In debt to our eyeballs.

And besides, man-made global warming is bulldung.

[madhatter256]

The numbskulls in DC have to get one thing clear. We're broke. Busted. In debt to our eyeballs.

True, but we are not in over our heads, so we can still borrow....

[Dutchcedar]

Another one:

A recent audit by Deloitte & Touche expressed “significant doubt” about Nevada Geothermal Power’s “ability to continue as a going concern.” The company’s vital signs are not looking good: it “has incurred net losses over the past several years, has an accumulated deficit of $44.0 million and an anticipated inability to retire its long-term liabilities,” the audit concluded.

Nevada Geothermal enjoyed significant backing from the federal government. It received a $79 million loan guarantee from the same Energy Department program that helped finance the failed solar company Solyndra. It also got $66 million in federal grants from the Treasury Department.

Reid was instrumental in securing that financing for Nevada Geothermal, the New York Times reported on Monday. “Mr. Reid has taken the nascent geothermal industry under his wing,” the Times noted, “pressuring the Department of Interior to move more quickly on applications to build clean energy projects on federally owned land and urging other member of Congress to expand federal tax incentives to help build geothermal plants, benefits that Nevada Geothermal has taken advantage of.”

Link to right wing news source (MSM won't tell ya about this... betcha).

[BlackDragon24]

My opinion on this issue is that solar, geothermal, and other "green" technologies are just not ready for the market. But I'm not sure I would be in for voting to cut off all funds to the research that can make them ready for primetime, nor would I be willing to cut off all of the tax breaks for "going green."

The problem is multi-layered. If we look just as solar panels for example: My wife works for a small business that installs solar panels on the roofs of RV's and such. The MAIN selling point that they have is that he government will cover 30% of the cost with a tax credit. Eliminate that credit and people buy less solar panels, the business makes less money. On top of that, in order to remain competitive they buy all of the solar panels from China because they cost about half as much as US made ones.

That's just one clusterf%^k example and there are several others. I would say that if we are going to spend money on research to improve solar panels or batteries, that maybe we should do something that ensures that China doesn't end up selling it all back to us.

[AMDScooter]

My opinion on this issue is that solar, geothermal, and other "green" technologies are just not ready for the market. But I'm not sure I would be in for voting to cut off all funds to the research that can make them ready for primetime, nor would I be willing to cut off all of the tax breaks for "going green."

The problem is multi-layered. If we look just as solar panels for example: My wife works for a small business that installs solar panels on the roofs of RV's and such. The MAIN selling point that they have is that he government will cover 30% of the cost with a tax credit. Eliminate that credit and people buy less solar panels, the business makes less money. On top of that, in order to remain competitive they buy all of the solar panels from China because they cost about half as much as US made ones.

That's just one clusterf%^k example and there are several others. I would say that if we are going to spend money on research to improve solar panels or batteries, that maybe we should do something that ensures that China doesn't end up selling it all back to us.

And that's the biggest rub for me personally. Minus the gubberment subsidies these "green/alternative" programs simply go away. Why exactly am I paying a portion to put solar panels on someone elses RV? The only "alternative" function I see in there is someone else is paying for it. And as far as the "green" claims. Have you seen the side effects of rare earth mineral mining and refining? How about the side effects of manufacturing and disposing of all those Ni-cad batteries used to store that energy? "Green"?? Seriously?? They make oil production (when done right) look clean by comparison.

I think the more reasonable approach is to take away the lions share of the loans & subsidies for "green/alternative" energy altogether. The gubberment should not be in the business of propping up industries that will never turn a profit (or ever be self sufficient for that matter) at all.

Stick to funding the research. When a economically viable and self sustaining product is discovered.. go with that. The gubberment should collect all royalties for the technology it's funding produces. ROI baby!!

[BlackDragon24]

And that's the biggest rub for me personally. Minus the gubberment subsidies these "green/alternative" programs simply go away. Why exactly am I paying a portion to put solar panels on someone elses RV? The only "alternative" function I see in there is someone else is paying for it. And as far as the "green" claims. Have you seen the side effects of rare earth mineral mining and refining? How about the side effects of manufacturing and disposing of all those Ni-cad batteries used to store that energy? "Green"?? Seriously?? They make oil production (when done right) look clean by comparison.

I think the more reasonable approach is to take away the lions share of the loans & subsidies for "green/alternative" energy altogether. The gubberment should not be in the business of propping up industries that will never turn a profit (or ever be self sufficient for that matter) at all.

Stick to funding the research. When a economically viable and self sustaining product is discovered.. go with that. The gubberment should collect all royalties for the technology it's funding produces. ROI baby!!

There definitely needs to be major breakthroughs in battery tech and solar capture efficiency for there to be any real discussion about whether or not we can all hop off of the grid. I'd very much like to see research money devoted to these two technologies specifically.

I mean for love of God, my HTC EVO can't even go a full day without needing to be charged. It's ridiculous. And at the same time if my 21 year old self heard my 32 year old self bitching about this, it would slap my 32 year old self silly.

[AMDScooter]

There definitely needs to be major breakthroughs in battery tech and solar capture efficiency for there to be any real discussion about whether or not we can all hop off of the grid. I'd very much like to see research money devoted to these two technologies specifically.

I mean for love of God, my HTC EVO can't even go a full day without needing to be charged. It's ridiculous. And at the same time if my 21 year old self heard my 32 year old self bitching about this, it would slap my 32 year old self silly.

My sister had lived for nearly 2 decades off the grid. Not as in they simply decided to not plug in... they literally had no power line at all to their home. Solar panels.. inverters.. deep cycle batteries.. you know the drill. And for all their effort and trying they still ended up with diesel generators. The state of the technology is just not there yet... I'm beginning to doubt if it ever will exist in a cost effective manner.

I'm still all for sensible spending of R&D $$$. It's a bargain by comparison to the current approach of dumping billions into technologies that are not there yet and may never be.

As for subsidies for solar panels on homes.. weatherproofing.. buying cars.. starting "green/alternative" energy businesses.. ethanol.. etc.. full stop.. right now. No more taxpayer $$$.

Another good resource if you wanna be amazed by how many subsidies there are federally or by state. Not sure if the list is complete.. but it sure is extensive:

http://www.dsireusa.org/

[myv65]

Why exactly am I paying a portion to put solar panels on someone elses RV?

+1

BD, seriously, I'd like to hear an explanation. RVs almost by definition are a luxury item, and certainly not the most green-friendly of vehicles. They tend to get far less than 10 mpg and their purpose in life is to let people haul their "home" around while they tour the country. Renting one will set you back about as much as booking hotels (trust me, I did the 5000 mile Southwest tour with the extended family this summer), and buying one takes a hefty chunk of change.

Bottom line? They're vehicles of the middle-upper class on up, and anyone behind the wheel has got money (or at least *had* money before buying the RV ).

So just for a moment, forget that your wife's employment depends partially on putting Chinese panels atop RVs.

Now try to objectively explain why the rest of us should subsidize them.

For me personally? I haven't given the overall topic a lot of thought. Without question, I think stuff like Solyndra is simply far too big for the government to be directly involved. How anyone could defend the government literally dictating winners and losers to that magnitude boggles the mind, especially when the government's horse of choice seemingly staggered to the starting gate with two broken legs. Subsidized research? Conceptually that's easier to stomach, but it's still got a lot of details that need to be considered. While some may argue that "pure research" like university projects benefits from *not* needing to turn a profit, I counter that knowing your livelihood is on the line is a great motivator.

Without spending more time pondering, I guess I'll leave it at this. In my mind there is a line between reasonable government spending to nuture technological progress and slathering over a half billion dollars on a questionable / doubtful prospect. I can't definitively describe the absolute line position, but can generally tell you which side of the line a given project falls. Anything that involves for-profit industry or political donors almost certainly falls on the verboten side of the line.

What does this mean for all those assorted tax breaks of today? For me? End them. They're only there because the friggin' tax code has so much crapola in it already. Fix the code, kill the credits, and find jobs for the millions of accountants and government paper pushers who are no longer required, LOL.

[BlackDragon24]

+1

BD, seriously, I'd like to hear an explanation. RVs almost by definition are a luxury item, and certainly not the most green-friendly of vehicles. They tend to get far less than 10 mpg and their purpose in life is to let people haul their "home" around while they tour the country. Renting one will set you back about as much as booking hotels (trust me, I did the 5000 mile Southwest tour with the extended family this summer), and buying one takes a hefty chunk of change.

Bottom line? They're vehicles of the middle-upper class on up, and anyone behind the wheel has got money (or at least *had* money before buying the RV ).

So just for a moment, forget that your wife's employment depends partially on putting Chinese panels atop RVs.

Now try to objectively explain why the rest of us should subsidize them.

For me personally? I haven't given the overall topic a lot of thought. Without question, I think stuff like Solyndra is simply far too big for the government to be directly involved. How anyone could defend the government literally dictating winners and losers to that magnitude boggles the mind, especially when the government's horse of choice seemingly staggered to the starting gate with two broken legs. Subsidized research? Conceptually that's easier to stomach, but it's still got a lot of details that need to be considered. While some may argue that "pure research" like university projects benefits from *not* needing to turn a profit, I counter that knowing your livelihood is on the line is a great motivator.

Without spending more time pondering, I guess I'll leave it at this. In my mind there is a line between reasonable government spending to nuture technological progress and slathering over a half billion dollars on a questionable / doubtful prospect. I can't definitively describe the absolute line position, but can generally tell you which side of the line a given project falls. Anything that involves for-profit industry or political donors almost certainly falls on the verboten side of the line.

What does this mean for all those assorted tax breaks of today? For me? End them. They're only there because the friggin' tax code has so much crapola in it already. Fix the code, kill the credits, and find jobs for the millions of accountants and government paper pushers who are no longer required, LOL.

I don't think my post emphasized my position well enough...When I said the MAIN selling point for these things is the tax break, I was illustrating that as a BIG problem.

But what I do reject the notion of is this "Why should I have to pay" mentality that you and many others here share. I could ask the same question as to why should I have to pay for tax cuts for millionaires, or why should I have to pay taxes that go to schools when I don't have any kids?

Those are some extreme examples, but anytime.....anytime I mention how much tax breaks/tax cuts "cost" I often get the third degree. So it can't work both ways, IMHO. I don't wanna de-rail the thread, but explain to me how you or any other conservative complaining about how much this green tax subsidy stuff costs is different than myself or any other liberal complaining of the "cost" of Trillions of dollars in tax cuts. In other words, why should I have to subsidize millionaires if you don't want to subsidize someone's solar panels?

Sorry for the OT Scoot. I really do agree with you guys on dropping most of these tax breaks.

[tucker]

but explain to me how you or any other conservative complaining about how much this green tax subsidy stuff costs is different than myself or any other liberal complaining of the "cost" of Trillions of dollars in tax cuts.

Wrong, wrong, wrong...

[AMDScooter]

I don't think my post emphasized my position well enough...When I said the MAIN selling point for these things is the tax break, I was illustrating that as a BIG problem.

But what I do reject the notion of is this "Why should I have to pay" mentality that you and many others here share. I could ask the same question as to why should I have to pay for tax cuts for millionaires, or why should I have to pay taxes that go to schools when I don't have any kids?

Those are some extreme examples, but anytime.....anytime I mention how much tax breaks/tax cuts "cost" I often get the third degree. So it can't work both ways, IMHO. I don't wanna de-rail the thread, but explain to me how you or any other conservative complaining about how much this green tax subsidy stuff costs is different than myself or any other liberal complaining of the "cost" of Trillions of dollars in tax cuts. In other words, why should I have to subsidize millionaires if you don't want to subsidize someone's solar panels?

Sorry for the OT Scoot. I really do agree with you guys on dropping most of these tax breaks.

I'm gonna leave the "schools/no kid" argument for some other time and stick to the energy theme. Honestly.. if "green/alternative" energy producers ever got anywhere near what the oil industry produces by way of:

Cheap energy.
Jobs.
Tax revenue (even with the tax break they pay a f*cktonne in taxes).

You would not hear nary a peep outta me. My issue is that "green/alternative" energy is almost universally a losing proposition.

Very little energy for the cost.
Very few jobs.
Very little (if any?) tax revenue.

-BUT- A very high cost to taxpayers for perpetuating.

And you are not really subsidizing just millionaires. The "fatcat" argument kinda fails the acid test. Sure people make lots of $$$. But those companies (oil producers) are public companies. If you have a 401K I'd be willing to bet you own shares in a few of them.

You could make a better argument by profit margins... but then you'd have to take oil companies off your hit list.

Oil Industry Profit Margin Ranks Fairly Low: There Are Bigger Fish

The table below shows industry rankings for net profit margin (profits / sales) of the top 114 industries out of 215 total industries during the most recent quarter, from Yahoo!Finance.

The top five oil companies (Chevron (CVX), Shell (RDS.A), BP, ExxonMobil (XOM) and ConocoPhillips (COP)) are part of the "Major Integrated Oil and Gas" industry, and the CEOs of the "Big Five" are appearing today before the Senate Committee on Finance, to get grilled about the "taxpayer subsidies" and "tax breaks" they receive, explain why they deserve to earn record "windfall" profits, and explain the role they play in higher oil and gas prices.

As the table below shows, the Integrated Oil and Gas industry made an average profit of 6.2 cents per dollar of sales, which ranks #114 out of 215 industries by profit margin, and puts oil companies right in the middle of industries by profitability.

If the Senate Finance Committee wants to investigate "excessive" or "windfall" profits, they might consider going after some of the other industries that have benefited from higher commodity prices and achieved much higher profit margins than oil (at 6.2%), like silver (44.7%), copper (24%), gold (21%), and industrial metals (21%) and lumber (17.7%).

Rank Industry Net Profit Margin
1 Closed-End Fund - Equity 81%
2 Publishing - Periodicals 51.7
3 Silver 44.7
4 Closed-End Fund - Foreign 38.3
5 REIT - Diversified 36
6 Copper 24
7 Internet Information Providers 23.8
8 Application Software 22.7
9 Foreign Utilities 20.5
10 Industrial Metals and Minerals 20.1
11 Gold 20.1
12 Cigarettes 19.8
13 Semiconductor - Broad Line 19.2
14 REIT - Healthcare Facilities 19.1
15 Lumber, Wood Production 17.7
16 Semiconductor - Integrated Circuits 17.6
17 Diversified Investments 17.5
18 Healthcare Information Services 16.6
19 Beverages - Brewers 16.5
20 Regional - Southwest Banks 16.4
21 Semiconductor- Memory Chips 16.1
22 Publishing - Books 16.1
23 Networking and Communication Devices 15.7
24 Drug Manufacturers - Major 15.4
25 Long Distance Carriers 15.2
26 Railroads 15
27 Beverages - Wineries and Distillers 14.9
28 Nonmetallic Mineral Mining 14.6
29 Beverages - Soft Drinks 14.3
30 Wireless Communications 14.1
31 Semiconductor Equipment and Materials 14.1
32 Personal Products 13.9
33 Personal Computers 13.9
34 Medical Instruments and Supplies 13.9
35 Drug Manufacturers - Other 13.6
36 Security Software and Services 13.2
37 Property and Casualty Insurance 13.2
38 Agricultural Chemicals 13
39 Specialty Chemicals 12.7
40 REIT - Residential 12.7
41 Biotechnology 12.7
42 Medical Appliances & Equipment 12.6
43 Technical and System Software 12.5
44 Mortgage Investment 12.5
45 Entertainment - Diversified 12.5
46 Air Services, Other 12.4
47 Diversified Electronics 11.9
48 Processed and Packaged Goods 11.5
49 Foreign Regional Banks 11.5
50 Water Utilities 10.9
51 Semiconductor - Specialized 10.5
52 Money Center Banks 10.5
53 Consumer Services 10.5
54 Broadcasting - TV 10.5
55 Regional - Midwest Banks 10.4
56 Toys and Games 10.1
57 Textile - Apparel Footwear 10.1
58 Restaurants 10
59 Investment Brokerage - National 10
60 Oil and Gas Drilling and Exploration 9.9
61 Paper and Paper Products 9.8
62 Foreign Money Center Banks 9.8
63 Regional - Northeast Banks 9.7
64 Business Software and Services 9.7
65 Synthetics 9.5
66 Scientific and Technical Instruments 9.5
67 Data Storage Devices 9.5
68 Internet Software and Services 9.4
69 CATV Systems 9.3
70 Specialty Eateries 9.2
71 Telecom Services - Domestic 9.1
72 Specialized Health Services 9
73 Diversified Computer Systems 9
74 Savings and Loans 8.9
75 Internet Service Providers 8.9
76 Conglomerates 8.8
77 Research Services 8.7
78 Diversified Machinery 8.7
79 Education and Training Services 8.4
80 Independent Oil and Gas 8.3
81 Industrial Equipment and Components 8.2
82 General Entertainment 8.2
83 Diversified Utilities 8.1
84 Asset Management 8.1
85 Accident and Health Insurance 8.1
86 Information and Delivery Services 8
87 Gas Utilities 8
88 Business Services 8
89 Telecom Services - Foreign 7.9
90 Oil and Gas Equipment and Services 7.9
91 Insurance Brokers 7.8
92 Cleaning Products 7.8
93 Steel and Iron 7.7
94 Drug Related Products 7.7
95 Home Furnishing Stores 7.6
96 Diagnostic Substances 7.6
97 Auto Parts Stores 7.3
98 Industrial Electrical Equipment 7.2
99 Waste Management 7
100 Confectioners 7
101 Aerospace/Defense - Major Diversified 7
102 Publishing - Newspapers 6.9
103 Jewelry Stores 6.9
104 Home Health Care 6.9
105 Computer Based Systems 6.9
106 Pollution & Treatment Controls 6.8
107 Lodging 6.8
108 Communication Equipment 6.7
109 Aerospace/Defense Products & Services 6.6
110 Sporting Activities 6.5
111 Packaging & Containers 6.5
112 Catalog & Mail Order Houses 6.5
113 Drugs - Generic 6.3
114 Major Integrated Oil and Gas 6.2

[myv65]

I don't think my post emphasized my position well enough...When I said the MAIN selling point for these things is the tax break, I was illustrating that as a BIG problem.

Uh, yeah. I took your post as in favor of such subsidies as the RV panels.

But what I do reject the notion of is this "Why should I have to pay" mentality that you and many others here share. I could ask the same question as to why should I have to pay for tax cuts for millionaires, or why should I have to pay taxes that go to schools when I don't have any kids?

Those are some extreme examples, but anytime.....anytime I mention how much tax breaks/tax cuts "cost" I often get the third degree. So it can't work both ways, IMHO. I don't wanna de-rail the thread, but explain to me how you or any other conservative complaining about how much this green tax subsidy stuff costs is different than myself or any other liberal complaining of the "cost" of Trillions of dollars in tax cuts. In other words, why should I have to subsidize millionaires if you don't want to subsidize someone's solar panels?

Well, you let your bias (apparently) slip into the earlier post about your wife's work, so I'll let mine slip into this one to address the two specific questions you've asked. Oh, and pardon me while I go into pedantic / pedagogical mode. . .

Taxes for education? I'm not a huge fan of several aspects of the way we go about this, primarily that we seem to fund education almost entirely off of property taxes. Nonetheless, continuation of our society by definition depends upon raising successive generations of educated and productive citizens. Whether you have kids or not, you're reliant upon our society thriving if you expect to thrive.

Taxes on the rich? I'm not sure how to begin when our terms seemingly are miles apart. How does one apply the word "subsidize" to what amounts to the taking of money from another? What the heck, I'll go for generalities. Government produces nothing of intrinsic value. At best, they seize money from the citizens and fund activities that may benefit the society at large. For money to exist, we need tangible assets to exist. Some tangible assets are fixed, like land, though their value may vary widely depending on other conditions (covering the gamut from a "marketable property" to finding precious minerals, etc). Others are produced, like cars, appliances, and burgers and fries.

Let's look at the extremes of what government can do with taxation / ownership. Set the tax rate to 100%. You do a job and the government gives you what you "need". Set the tax rate to 0%. The government does not exist. Both extremes set you on the fast road to anarchy. The logical conclusion: Somewhere between 0% and 100% lies the sweet spot.

The question we ought to be asking is what form of taxation yields the "best" society. And no, there is no single answer. Lefties are liable to think "best" means limiting the range between the richest and poorest. Righties are liable to think "best" means a meritocracy where those willing and able to seize opportunity thrive while those unwilling or unable wither.

Your sarcasm aside, you should be asking conservatives for evidence that lower marginal rates on the rich benefit society as a whole. Instead, "subsidizing" seems to be your word of choice and derails any rationale discussion about the situation.

You also asked about how complaining of this green tax subsidy is any different than complaining of tax cuts. Well, to a conservative our (especially federal) government is simply far, far larger than it ever should have gotten and dumping half a billion down the Solyndra toilet is an example of that failure. One way to reduce government's reach is to reduce its money supply. So a simple question for you: Is our government larger than it should be, the proper size, or smaller than it should be?



And to otoc, really? AFAICT, everyone mentioning research in this thread spoke in favor of it. I guess if anything I'm simply befuddled by your brief post that (to me) comes across with a sanctimonious air yet aligns with the vast majority of the views expressed in the thread.

Maybe some elaboration would help. Forget the Solyndra case for a moment. Do you support government guaranteeing loans to the tune of half a billion on behalf of for-profit businesses? Maybe it's the way Scooter framed his original question, which arguably lumped all money from the government to green industry into one bucket, without separating out not-for-profit R&D from for-profit private industry.

[Enmore]

Governments should stay out of the venture capital market. They are totally out of their depth.

$7,500 subsidy for a Chevy Volt.. any takers? FREE MONAY!

No, but I'll have a Tesla Model S please.






Nice

[AMDScooter]

^^^ Not to be a wet blanket... but. If these cars were so sh*t hawt they would not need gubberment $$$ to produce and sell them.

Tesla has been bleeding money. Tesla lost $260.7 million from its inception through the end of 2009.

Tesla IPO: What the Toyota-NUMMI Deal Could Mean for Tesla's Public Offering

. . .
History of Losses, Future Expenses

Tesla lost $260.7 million from its inception through the end of 2009, has sold just over 1,000 cars, and will likely lose many millions of dollars more as it retires its current-generation Roadster next year and strives to produce the more mainstream and lower-cost Model S.

Under its agreement with the DOE, Tesla must spend up to $33 million “plus any cost overruns” for the two government-supported projects (the Model S project and a powertrain facility). The startup is also obligated to direct half of the net proceeds from the IPO to an account dedicated to its DOE-backed project, although the feds will later reimburse those costs. Tesla said in its latest filing with financial regulators that it expects to make aggregate capital expenditures between $100 million and $125 million during the 2010 calendar year.

. . .

Not to worry though. Our DOE was nice enough to loan them $456+ Million to purchase part of the old GM/NUMMI plant literally a stones throw up I-880 from Solyndra:

Report: Tesla requesting another loan from DOE

House Republicans want to cut another of Obama’s green-jobs program – one that provides many new start-up electric car makers some finance to get things going. It’s the same program under which Tesla received up to $465 million. That loan has helped Palo Alto electric-car maker open an electric powertrain factory at its headquarters and refurbish the NUMMI plant where it will build the Model S sedan.

The loans have helped Tesla add over 1,000 jobs with another 1,000 expected as production of the Model S ramps up.

Apparently, Tesla is now looking for another loan.

“Tesla has applied for a loan, in our continued mission to make more affordable electric vehicles,” Tesla spokeswoman Khobi Brooklyn confirmed in an e-mail to the Chronicle. She declined to say how much Tesla is seeking or what the loan will be used for.

- By: Omar Rana

Source: SFGate

Schpeel and price tag sound familiar? 1k jobs.. about $500 million in taxpayer backed loans. And Tesla wants more still... theme forming here??