View Poll Results: Should "Green/alternative" energy loans and subsidies continue?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Stop the insanity now!

    23 88.46%
  • Let the subsidies & loans continue!

    3 11.54%
Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 193
  1. #121
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,185

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

    ^^^ Perfect example. The lifetime academic/community organizer vs. the guy who has actually run a business.

    Oh.. it appears we're gonna eat another half billion on that Fisker dealeo as well.

    More Layoffs At Obama-Funded Electric Carmaker Fisker Automotive, Delaware Plant Is “Absolutely Empty”…

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  2. #122
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    6,932

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

    Quote Originally Posted by kbohip View Post
    ^^^Every time I read about another one of BO's great "Green" plans to put Americans back to work, all I can think of is that great scene in the movie "Back to School" with Rodney Dangerfield. Replace "tape recorders" with "Li-Ion batteries" or "Green technology" and you'll find it's a perfect analogy.

    Yep, Obambi and his band of inept Ivy League cronies.

    Here's my all time favorite movie scene and it just happens to be from Back to School.

    Professor Turgeson
    "Walk Heavy, Stand Tall, Carry a Big Stick"
    Daily Driver - ASUS CROSSHAIR Atholn 64 X2 6400+ - Liquid Cooled
    A/V Mastering & Processing - ASUS A8N32-SLI Opteron 180
    Print/File Server - ASUS A7V880 XP-3200 Barton
    System Specifications

  3. #123
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,185

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

    All together now:

    Green shoots!!!!
    Alternate energy!!!
    Clean energy!!!

    And as usual when the gubberment subsidies for said industries go away... so do the industries.

    First Solar lays off 2,000 as Europe demand wanes

    NEW YORK (AP) -- First Solar Inc. will lay off 2,000 workers and close its factory in Germany following a collapse in solar panel prices that has erased the industry's profits and forced some smaller companies into bankruptcy.

    America's biggest solar manufacturer said the layoffs amount to 30 percent of its global workforce. It's an about-face for a company that doubled the number of employees at the Frankfurt, Germany, plant to more than 1,200 just last year. First Solar will also shutter some production in Malaysia. It plans additional job cuts in Europe and the U.S.

    "The solar market has changed, and so must we," Mark Widmar, First Solar's chief financial officer, told analysts in a conference call.

    The price of solar panels, which generate electricity from sunlight, has plummeted recently. An influx of Chinese competitors has led to a rapid buildup in supply. At the same time governments in Europe, the biggest market for solar power, are reducing generous subsidy programs that had fueled demand. From March to December last year, solar panel prices dropped 50 percent, said Aaron Chew, an analyst with the Maxim Group.

    Cheaper solar is good news for consumers, but manufacturers are struggling to stay afloat. Last year, Solyndra LLC of Fremont, Calif., Evergreen Solar Inc. of Marlboro, Mass., and Spectrawatt Inc. of Hopewell Junction, N.Y. all declared bankruptcy.

    "Nobody's making money in this business right now," Chew said.

    Analysts said job cuts, factory closures and even mergers are to be expected in a relatively young industry that still welcomes new players every year. They see the industry following in the footsteps of television and computer makers by locating factories in Asia, where labor costs are low and governments provide few regulatory obstacles.

    "It's a very healthy thing," Jefferies & Co. analyst Jesse Pichel said. "This is a shakeout period for solar in which uncompetitive technologies are getting kicked out."

    First Solar specializes in "thin film" solar modules that are cheaper than those made by competitors. But the decline in global panel prices has eroded its status as the industry's low-cost leader. First Solar's modules are also less efficient than others, limiting their use. For instance, they're ideal for large-scale projects that deliver power to the electrical grid, but they less effective for smaller systems used on rooftops.

    The company lost $39.5 million in 2011 after earning $664.2 million in 2010. Its shares have dropped nearly 85 percent in the past 12 months. They rose about 10.3 percent Tuesday to $22.96 after the company announced the cuts.

    "It is essential that we reduce production and decrease expenses," First Solar Chairman and CEO Mike Ahearn in a statement. "These actions will enable us to focus our resources on developing the markets where we expect to generate significant growth in coming years," such as the U.S. and China.

    First Solar expects the restructuring to reduce its manufacturing costs by $30-$60 million this year and another $100-$120 million a year afterward. It will book a charge of $245 to $370 million, mostly in its first-quarter results.

    Analysts said First Solar needs to cut costs even more and demonstrate that its panels are as durable as its competitors. Pichel said that as prices continue to fall, consumers will likely favor more efficient, polysilicon panels made by other solar companies. Goldman Sachs analyst Brian Lee downgraded First Solar to "Neutral" from "Buy" and cut 2014 earnings expectations to $4 from $5.75 per share.

    Meanwhile, sales of solar panels and related equipment should keep rising, but nowhere near the blistering pace of the past several years. Solar installations are expected to increase by 3.7 percent this year, compared with a 49.7 percent increase from 2010 to 2011, according to energy research group GTM Research.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  4. #124
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,748

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

    A Red Letter day! Today the first Volt I've seen was driving in front of me! Amazing it took this long considering how long they've been out. Meanwhile in the same amount of time I've seen hundreds of Prius's and dozens of Kia Optima hybrids. Hmm, I wonder if it's because they both cost many thousands less, even taking into consideration the useless $7,500 tax credit.

  5. #125
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

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

    Brian

  6. #126
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,185

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

    The name is surely appropriate...

    Sens. Grassley, Thune Want Answers on Fisker Loan

    Why are taxpayers forced to underwrite a loan for the producer of a $107,000 toy vehicle for the wealthy, the majority of which is assembled at a European auto plant?

    Two weeks ago Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and John Thune of South Dakota asked Energy Secretary Steven Chu those and some other pointed questions about his department’s decisions, in granting a $529 million taxpayer loan guarantee to Fisker Automotive, a luxury electric car manufacturer.

    The politically connected automaker has stumbled a number of times in delivering its six-figure Karma to market, with two recalls related to battery defects, an investigation of its top venture capital raisers, and layoffs of dozens of “green jobs” that had been bragged about by the Obama administration.

    The senators questioned the wisdom of extending the loan – which has now been suspended after issuance of $193 million because of Fisker’s troubles – in the first place.

    “The statute which created the (Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing) program did not specify a retail price range for vehicles that are financed by Federal dollars, but it would seem questionable how financing $100,000 luxury class automobiles would be the best use of taxpayer money,” the senators wrote in a letter to Chu, dated April 20. “The Department of Energy appears to have decided otherwise.”

    The senators then asked a series of questions which sought to “bring sunlight and transparency” to DOE’s loan process. Among their queries:

    1. Why did the department fail to grasp the concept that money is “fungible,” when considering that Fisker planned to assemble the Karma in Finland at Valmet Automotive? As much as $169 million in taxpayer guaranteed funds were dedicated to production of the Karma – allegedly for U.S. operations – allowing Fisker to commit its precious private resources to Finnish operations.

    2. How did DOE calculate that its $529 million guarantee would produce 2,000 permanent jobs ($264,500 per job)? From the time it initiated plans in California and Delaware until DOE halted the loan, Fisker laid off at least 77 U.S. employees.

    3. DOE estimates that the equivalent of 30,000 fewer cars would be on the road as a result of the Fisker loan. Only 1,500 Karmas are expected to be sold by the end of this year, and plans for a $50,000 sedan – the Atlantic – are on hold, as is renovation at a planned plant to produce it in Delaware.

    In addition, the senators asked Chu “what technical expertise” DOE used “to evaluate, originate and monitor the loan to Fisker.” According to the Recovery.gov Web site, international law firm Debevoise and Plimpton, LLC, received $1.8 million to provide legal advice, conduct due diligence, and review documents for the loans to Fisker and to Ford Motor Company.

    According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, employees of the law firm gave $199,944 to Sen. Barack Obama for his 2008 presidential campaign, and over the last three congressional election cycles (two cycles for the presidency, including this year), Debevoise staff members have donated $746,535 to Democrat candidates and political committees, including $284,420 to the Obama campaign. Debevoise’s media relations manager, Suzanne Elio, is a former Democratic National Committee fundraiser, and top lawyer David Rivkin reportedly served on President Obama’s National Finance Committee, even hosting a fundraiser for presidential candidate Obama in his home in 2007.

    Maybe Debevoise staffers have “technical” expertise too.

    Sens. Grassley and Thune could ask a few other questions also. For example, did top investors in Fisker like co-owner Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers receive special consideration because its employees donated $2.6 million to candidates and political action committees, mostly to Democrats? And was Fisker granted favor because KPCB spent $50,000 per quarter throughout 2009 and 2010 lobbying Congress – in addition to Fisker’s expenditure of $480,000 for lobbying of Congress, the White House and the Departments of Energy and Defense to seek funds through DOE’s loan program?

    The senators also might ask about the reputation of the private capital raisers for Fisker, Advanced Equities. Its primary partners, Keith Daubenspeck and Dwight Badger, have been accused of “foisting junky startups on investors” and are now the subjects of a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.

    And related to Fisker, the senators could ask what DOE grant makers were thinking when they awarded its battery supplier, A123 Systems, a grant for $249.1 million. Fisker has had at least two recalls due to A123’s product flaws, and the Massachusetts battery maker took a loss of $85 million in the 4th quarter last year, partly because of a $11.6 million write-down of its ownership stake in Fisker. Clearly something happened that made A123 executives realize they would never recover that investment.

    Of course Sens. Grassley and Thune are appropriately focused on the absurdity of taxpayers subsidizing a risky start-up company that produces six-figure toy vehicles for rich people. DOE justified the loan by calling attention to plans to produce a less expensive vehicle, the Atlantic, for an approximate retail price of $50,000.

    “This complaint misses the mark in several respects. First, both manufacturers plan to start with high end vehicles and then quickly move to more affordable product lines,” said DOE spokesman Dan Leistikow, also referencing a $465 million loan to EV newbie Tesla.

    But $50,000 a car is not exactly accessible for low-income consumers, or the even broader 99 percent. The Chevy Volt, which retails for $41,000 before a $7,500 buyer tax credit, has sold to customers (and not very many of them) who on average earn $170,000.

    Corporate cronyism, fudgy government numbers, and subsidies of the wealthy – a lot to explain for Steven Chu’s Department of Energy.

    Paul Chesser is an associate fellow for the National Legal and Policy Center.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  7. #127
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,185

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

    Damn facts..

    How Green Was My Bankruptcy?


    My apologies to the memories of the late Richard Llewellyn and late John Ford; but I just had to borrow their title for this post. This paragraph from a 2010 Telegraph article really says it all…

    Its 500,000 photovoltaic panels will generate 30 megawatts of electricity, enough, in the popular measurement, to power 9,000 homes. It is costing about $250 million to build, significantly less than a gas, coal or nuclear power station, which can easily exceed $1 billion. And it represents a sea-change in America’s energy business.

    America has been notoriously devoted to hydrocarbon fuels. Big Oil, Big Coal and big Texan hats in the White House were seen by the rest of the world to be keeping it so, whatever the global interest. Oil barons funnelled money to scientists ready to pour doubt on the science of climate change, and conservative Republicans led the charge to pour scorn on those such as the former Democrat vice-president Al Gore who were urging Americans to rethink where their energy was coming from.
    The power plant described in the preceding passage is the Cimarron Solar Facility, built on Ted Turner’s 590,823 acre ranch in northern New Mexico. It is indeed true that most natural gas- and coal-fired power plants cost a lot more than $250 million to build. However, it’s also true that most natural gas- and coal-fired power plants have nameplate generating capacities a bit larger than 30 MW…

    TVA to build natural gas power plant
    By DUNCAN MANSFIELD, Associated Press
    Posted June 4, 2009

    KNOXVILLE — The Tennessee Valley Authority on Thursday decided to build an $820 million natural gas power plant in northeastern Tennessee to comply with a North Carolina lawsuit over air quality.

    The 880-megawatt combined-cycle gas plant would be as large as the 1950s-era, coal-fired John Sevier plant in Rogersville that a federal judge has targeted for new pollution controls on North Carolina’s behalf.

    [...]

    LINK

    $820 million divided by 880 MW works out to $931,818 per MW.
    $250 million divided by 30 MW works out to $8,333,333 per MW.
    Assuming that the gas-fired plant managed an 85% capacity factor and a 30-yr plant lifetime, the initial capital expenditure would work out to $0.004/kWh… A bit less than half-a-cent per kilowatt-hour. Assuming a 25% capacity factor and a 30-yr plant lifetime for the Cimarron Solar Facility, the initial capital expenditure works out to $0.127/kWh… Almost 13 cents per kilowatt-hour! The average residential electricity rate in the US is currently around 12 cents per kWh… That’s the retail price. As a consumer of electricity, I know which plan I would pick. I’m currently paying about 9 cents per kWh. I sure as heck wouldn’t seek out a provider who would have to raise my current rate by about 50% just to cover their plant construction costs.

    Solar photovoltaic electricity is bankruptcy the green way writ large. Here in Texas, Austin Energy has agreed to a long-term purchase agreement to pay $10 million a year for 25 years, for the electricity generated by the Webberville Solar Farm. That works out to more than 15 cents per kWh.


    Figure 1. Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Sources

    In concert with his efforts to drive up the cost of coal- and natural gas-fired power plants, President Obama has aggressively pursued an agenda of financing expensive power plants with taxpayer dollars. Many of these taxpayer-guaranteed loans have gone to financially strapped companies, lacking the means to repay those loans. In most cases local utilities were coerced or enticed into signing long-term purchase agreements to buy electricity at nearly double the cost of coal- and natural gas-generated electricity. The sole justification for this “green” centralized industrial policy is the Lysenko-like junk science of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

    The economics of this “green” centralized industrial policy are mind numbingly horrible.


    Figure 2. The economics of solar photovoltaic poer plants are simply awful.

    The capex for solar power plants averages between $6- and $7-million per MW of installed capacity. Coal-fired plants generally run less than $2-million per MW and natural gas plants currently run less than $1-million per MW. The average retail residential electricity rate in the U.S. is currently less than 12¢ per kWh. The levelized generation cost for the plants being financed by the Obama administration is more than 20¢ per kWh. His “green” centralized industrial policy will drive the wholesale cost of electricity to nearly double the current retail rate.

    One need not literally seize the assets of businesses and install gov’t bureaucrats into management position to effectively nationalize those businesses. All it takes is to make them dependent on gov’t and/or direct their activities through regulatory constraints.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  8. #128
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,185

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

    More "green" fun with our tax dollars...

    First Solar CEO grilled for dumping stock after taxpayer loan

    First Solar chairman of the board Michael Ahearn, who was once CEO of that fabled “green energy” disaster, hopped on his corporate jet and flew to Washington this week, for a nostalgic look back at President Obama’s “investments” held by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I asked House Oversight chairman Darrell Issa if Ahearn’s jet was solar-powered, or perhaps powered by lightning strikes like the one used by France’s new socialist president Francoise Hollande, but the busy Chairman hasn’t gotten back to me yet.

    The House hearing bore a title that could serve as one of American history’s great rhetorical questions: “The Obama Administration’s Green Energy Gamble: What Have All The Taxpayer Subsidies Achieved?” One of the President’s notable achievements was inspiring Ahearn to sell over $450 million of his own company’s stock between 2008 and 2012, a period when First Solar’s stock value dropped by almost 95 percent.

    Michael Ahearn might have thought his own company was a lousy investment, but who was he to question the investment wisdom of Barack Obama? In August 2011, after years of collapsing First Solar value, and undoubtedly tense conversations between Ahearn and his broker, the President – which means you – subsidized a billion-dollar Department of Energy loan to First Solar. A couple of days later, Ahearn celebrated by selling another 700,000 shares of his own First Solar stock, raking in a cool $68.5 million.

    Life is not tough for everybody under Obamanomics.

    Despite all these taxpayer loans, which actually total up to nearly $3 billion, First Solar has laid of 30 percent of its workforce, and work on its big Mesa, Arizona plant appears to have stalled out. Ahearn got to discuss all this with Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA), who has very different ideas about how “investment” should work. If the video below doesn’t make your blood boil, you probably didn’t pay any income tax last year.

    ^^^ Watch the video...

    &

    Brightsource DOE Funding Exposes Obama Cronyism

    A congressional hearing on May 16 exposed further details on just the kind of political maneuvering that was going on between the Obama Administration and beneficiaries of Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantees. Emails revealed during the hearing are the tip of the iceberg in a corrupt federal funding process that first came under congressional scrutiny with the failure of Solyndra.

    Solar company BrightSource Energy received an even bigger loan guarantee from DOE than Solyndra did. In April 2011, the company received $1.6 billion for its Ivanpah project in California—more than triple the size of Solyndra’s loan guarantee of $535 million! BrightSource’s CEO, John Woolard, claims that at its peak, the project would create 1,400 jobs. That would amount to $1.43 million for every job created.

    John McArdle reports that in an email sent 15 months before the BrightSource loan was finalized, Woolard wrote an email to Matt Rogers, then DOE’s top adviser on the administration of stimulus funds. Woolard wrote, according to Greenwire:

    …that Peter Darbee, head of Pacific Gas & Electric Co., “talked directly to Obama about the program’s challenges and the bad situation it puts him in. DOE credibility is thin and I am currently trying to put off [communication] with the Hill until we talk.” Rogers replied that he appreciated the heads-up and was “working it on this end.”
    Merely a month before the BrightSource loan came through, another email exchange occurred between then-BrightSource Chairman John Bryson (who was nominated by President Obama to serve as Commerce Secretary in May 2011 and was confirmed to the post last October) and Jonathan Silver, who was in charge of the DOE loan program. The email was addressed to then-White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley but was never sent to him, over concerns that it might not be appropriate.

    “The White House needs to focus on finalizing the loan guarantee for what would be the largest solar thermal project in the world,” Bryson wrote in the draft.

    “We need a commitment from the [White House] to quarterback loan closure between [the Office of Management and Budget] and DOE by March 18 to avoid having our project jeopardized by larger budget politics.”
    Even before these emails appeared, BrightSource became known as heavily politically connected. In his new book, Throw Them All Out, Peter Schweizer reported that Sanjay Wagle, a major player in BrightSource’s largest shareholder, Vantage Point, and an Obama fundraiser, “was installed at the Department of Energy (DOE), advising on energy grants.”

    These revelations demonstrate that federal processes to supply loan guarantees and other subsidies are steeped in political favoritism. The only solution to get this cronyism out of government is to get government out of the business of picking market winners among its political friends. This can be done by ending all energy subsidies and freeing up energy markets for companies to compete to create the most value for consumers.
    Last edited by AMDScooter; 06-02-2012 at 01:59 PM.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #129
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,185

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

    "Green investment" = Obama quid pro quo...

    GREEN SCAM: 80% of Green Energy Loans Went to Obama Donors – 19 Companies Went Bust (Video)

    80% of Green Energy loans went to Obama donors.
    The FOX News analyst says 70% in the video but actually 80% of DOE dollars went to Obama backers. 19 of these green energy companies went bust.

    And, it’s expensive.
    Solar power is 35¢ per kilowatt compared to coal, gas and oil that costs 5¢ per kilowatt.


    Here’s a list of the green companies that have gone belly-up since receiving Obama dollars.
    Heritage reported:

    For those who only hear about these failing companies one by one, the following is a list of all the clean energy companies supported by President Obama’s stimulus that are now failing or have filed for bankruptcy. The liberal media hopes you’ve forgotten about all of them except Solyndra, but we haven’t.

    Evergreen Solar
    SpectraWatt
    Solyndra (received $535 million)
    Beacon Power (received $43 million)
    AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy
    Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million)
    SunPower (received $1.5 billion)
    First Solar (received $1.46 billion)
    Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million)
    Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million)
    Amonix (received 5.9 million)
    The National Renewable Energy Lab
    Fisker Automotive
    Abound Solar (received $400 million)
    Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM)
    Solar Trust of America
    A123 Systems (received $279 million)
    Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million)
    Johnson Controls (received $299 million)
    Schneider Electric (received $86 million)

    That’s 19 (that we know of so far). We also know that loans went to foreign clean energy companies (Fisker sent money to their overseas plant to develop an electric car), and that 80% of these loans went to President Obama’s campaign donors.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  10. #130
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    6,932

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    But, but, but, but - what about Bush/Cheney & Haliburton, Dyn Corp........

    I can remember the screaming and whining from our Oober Libberal pals like it was yesterday.
    "Walk Heavy, Stand Tall, Carry a Big Stick"
    Daily Driver - ASUS CROSSHAIR Atholn 64 X2 6400+ - Liquid Cooled
    A/V Mastering & Processing - ASUS A8N32-SLI Opteron 180
    Print/File Server - ASUS A7V880 XP-3200 Barton
    System Specifications

  11. #131
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,185

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveW View Post
    But, but, but, but - what about Bush/Cheney & Haliburton, Dyn Corp........

    I can remember the screaming and whining from our Oober Libberal pals like it was yesterday.
    And the people they demonized actually delivered a product. As opposed to the Billion$ the messiah's pals got for companies that went tits-up shortly after getting their bamma bucks payoff.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #132
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,185

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

    More blatant quidproquo?? To hell ya say!!

    Biggest DoE solar-power loan guarantee went to firm that hired former Biden chief of staff

    . . .
    The recipient of the Obama administration’s biggest loan guarantee for solar energy won federal money after an intense push in early 2011 that included hiring a former chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden to lobby the administration, according to federal records and people involved in the approval process.

    The lobbying blitz came as the $1.6 billion loan to BrightSource Energy Inc.—a centerpiece of the administration’s program to promote nascent green-energy projects—faced a do-or-die moment, and the company called on its Democratic connections to help push the deal forward, according to emails, records and those familiar with the loan.

    . . .
    And..

    The BLS is sounding like Oprah...

    you got a green job....
    and you got a green job....
    and you got a green job....
    and you got a green job....
    and you got a green job....

    Good news: Pretty much everything counts as a “green job” now



    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  13. #133
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,185

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

    Another one bites the dust...

    Another green-tech stimulus recipient going under?

    It won’t be the first, if so … and probably not the last, either. Battery maker A123 got more than $250 million in taxpayer subsidies from Barack Obama’s green-tech stimulus, specifically to produce a robust amount of product for Obama’s promised explosion of electric vehicles. Unfortunately, the only thing exploding are A123′s losses. CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson reports that the company’s latest SEC filings admit “substantial doubt” about A123′s future — even while it spends the remaining $100 million in taxpayer-guaranteed funds (via The Right Scoop):



    Herrera was among 1,000 workers who landed jobs at A123. CBS News spoke with CEO David Vieau last fall. “Approximately half the people here were unemployed, so we put people back to work,” he said.

    But one month after that interview, A123 laid off 125 employees.

    Then the luxury electric car Fisker Karma failed. It was powered by a faulty A123 battery. “It’s low, it’s sleek, it’s sensuous… it’s also broken! ” said Consumer Reports.

    A123 was forced to launch an expensive recall — its second in four months. With $621 million in net losses since 2009, the company disclosed in SEC filings last month that there was “substantial doubt” about its “ability to continue.”

    A123 has declined further interview requests.
    I’ll bet. The company wanted to do nothing but talk about a supposed major breakthrough on car batteries, but since the cars themselves aren’t selling, it’s mainly an academic point. Even if A123 achieved a real breakthrough, it would take years to turn it into practical use, and clearly A123 doesn’t have years on its current trajectory.

    Looks like the track record of government picking losers and losers continues. Perhaps we should get the last $100 million out of A123 before it follows Solyndra into oblivion.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #134
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,185

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

    And another one's down... ain't bamma great at managing our monay?

    Yet another DOE-backed solar panel company bites the dust

    Good grief. I feel like these ailing Department of Energy-backed loan guarantees are so laughably many that they’re barely even worth noting anymore, but you’re darn tootin’ I’ll continue to do so as long as President Obama keeps acting like it’s the federal government’s divine right to pick and choose winners in the energy market on the taxpayers’ dime.

    Abound Solar, a company that President Obama has specifically touted by-name as a poster child of the glorious green future, was supposed to “creat[e] more than 2,000 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs.” …Not quite. The company has been on the rocks for months, and now they’re officially bankrupt:

    Abound Solar Inc., a U.S. solar manufacturer that was awarded a $400 million U.S. loan guarantee, will close its doors and file for bankruptcy because its panels were too expensive to compete with Chinese products, according to the U.S. Energy Department.

    Abound, based in Loveland, Colorado, borrowed about $70 million against the guarantee, the Energy Department said today in a statement. Calls to Abound executives weren’t returned today. …

    U.S. taxpayers may lose as much as $30 million on the loan after Abound’s assets are sold and the bankruptcy proceeding closes, he estimated.
    This article tries to spin the situation to suggest that the company’s failure is the result of too much unfair competition and global oversupply, and we should therefore direct our ire at China. No — just no. This is the fault of the Obama administration. Maybe if we had just left the decision to develop solar (or not!) up to the private sector, we would’ve quickly figured out that investing in solar energy was a bad idea. People are much more judicious when they’re making bets with their own money, since they personally have to feel the loss, than the federal government is in floating free taxpayer cash to their politically-profitable pet projects.

    Speaking in Iowa yesterday, Vice President Joe Biden criticized Mitt Romney for having the audacity to oppose sending more taxpayer money down the tubes with subsidies for green energy:

    Vice President Joe Biden on Wednesday lashed out at Mitt Romney in Iowa for the second straight day, this time taking issue with the Republican’s reluctance to embrace tax credits for wind and solar energy. …

    “We are importing less oil than [at] any time in the last 16 years,” Biden said. “But we think you got to bet on it all … You had our good friend Mitt Romney saying he dismissed wind and solar by saying they’re ‘two of the most ballyhooed forms of alternative energy.’ Tell that to the 7,000 workers manufacturing wind power here in Iowa.”
    Get this through your heads, big-government environmentalists: If it’s a good idea, the free market will take care of it, and take care of it to the degree that there’s a demand for it. If the private sector declines to get too involved in it, that should probably tell you something pretty significant.
    ^^^ That last bit is the part libtards always fail at understanding. If it's economically viable someone would already be making money doing it and it would not cost joe taxpayer a plug nickel. Instead we have bamma gifting cronies our $$$ for to prop up companies that will never stand on their own feet.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  15. #135
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,185

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

    ^^^ 1500 permanent jobs... and millions of solar panels.



    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •