another "green energy" bet goes belly up

[mccumcumber]

I think that the argument goes as such: (at least from what I've heard on NPR)
No "green," for lack of a better word, energy is not competing with fossil fuels. However, there is a limit on fossil fuels, and that limit is causing wars. These wars would be superfluous if we actually could use energy from a source with a much larger limit, like the sun. Not only would the country and companies that reside in it become ten times more prosperous (everyone would want this technology, basic supply and demand here), but it's also good for our environment. And if you've seen the layers of smog hovering over LA, you know that the environment could be doing better.

The counter argument tends to say:
Well, we can't afford that. Plain and simple. Tax payers do not want to pay for that.

Now, fiscally speaking I don't think that the government should interfere with the private sector; unless, there happens to be a country that we are competing with (China) that is also aiming to develop "green" energy because of how lucrative it is. The potential losses, in my opinion, outweigh the current losses.

 

[Red1966]

Nothing bad policy about encouraging solutions to our looming energy crisis. Some of the companies will go under, but if even one leads the way then none of you will have a problem with that. This administrations batting average is quite good on picking "winners" so far, but I notice that you all only point to the failures - typical.

Taxing the whole population to subsidize your political supporters is bad policy. You scream bloody murder when Republicans do it, but it's alright when Obama does it? Just because not all of them have gone bankrupt yet? That's not the standard you have for Republicans, now is it?

 

[Red1966]

Can't find them, I only heard about them on the radio.

Lamest response ever.

 

[UncleBuck]

Taxing the whole population to subsidize your political supporters is bad policy. You scream bloody murder when Republicans do it, but it's alright when Obama does it? Just because not all of them have gone bankrupt yet? That's not the standard you have for Republicans, now is it?

there was no cronyism. what part of that does your stormfront-loved ass not understand? we made loans to green energy companies, not supporters of one party or the other.

the best part? the DOE has a better rate of success investing in green energy then bain capital has with its investments overall

what's even better is that we are positioning ourselves for the future instead of just creating a few min wage jobs slinging staplers and toner.

 

[Red1966]

I think that the argument goes as such: (at least from what I've heard on NPR) No "green," for lack of a better word, energy is not competing with fossil fuels. However, there is a limit on fossil fuels, and that limit is causing wars. These wars would be superfluous if we actually could use energy from a source with a much larger limit, like the sun. Not only would the country and companies that reside in it become ten times more prosperous (everyone would want this technology, basic supply and demand here), but it's also good for our environment. And if you've seen the layers of smog hovering over LA, you know that the environment could be doing better. The counter argument tends to say: Well, we can't afford that. Plain and simple. Tax payers do not want to pay for that. Now, fiscally speaking I don't think that the government should interfere with the private sector; unless, there happens to be a country that we are competing with (China) that is also aiming to develop "green" energy because of how lucrative it is. The potential losses, in my opinion, outweigh the current losses.

Fossil fuels are merely stored up solar energy, lest we forget. So far, "green" energy has NOT been lucrative, if the government subsidies are removed. Nuclear energy has been highly lucrative, tho perhaps only because we don't properly dispose of the waste. I don't have a problem with government funding for research, but I don't think it is proper for the government to subsidize private entities that can not produce a viable product. Methanol is a good example.

 

[canndo]

Lamest response ever.

It is the truth, and that isn't lame at all, I told you where I got my information and may, time permitting attempt to find evidence to back up my statement. Seems that you are only being told of the failures - do you really believe there are no sucesses?

 

[canndo]

Fossil fuels are merely stored up solar energy, lest we forget. So far, "green" energy has NOT been lucrative, if the government subsidies are removed. Nuclear energy has been highly lucrative, tho perhaps only because we don't properly dispose of the waste. I don't have a problem with government funding for research, but I don't think it is proper for the government to subsidize private entities that can not produce a viable product. Methanol is a good example.

When nuclear energy costs are taken in total, they are not as lucrative as you say, we cannot dispose of, and we cannot cheaply decomission the plants.

Note that you don't see much about biodiesel but only ethanol (it isn't methanol that is made from corn btw).

 

[FreedomWorks]

The most important thing is not that the battery company was successful, but instead if they were able to bundle enough money for democratic reelection campaigns before declaring bankruptcy.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

there was no cronyism. what part of that does your stormfront-loved ass not understand? we made loans to green energy companies, not supporters of one party or the other.

the best part? the DOE has a better rate of success investing in green energy then bain capital has with its investments overall

what's even better is that we are positioning ourselves for the future instead of just creating a few min wage jobs slinging staplers and toner.

It's rare that reality and a UB post collide in the same sentence, but it's awesome when his entire post is an outright lie.

The loans went to Obama supporters, almost exclusively.
The DOE under Obama is running .000, quite an average.
Apparently, the future is in bankruptcy law, and we are certainly positioning ourselves for that future.

 

[NLXSK1]

• there was no cronyism​
  
  
  
  

Certain bundlers had millions invested in Soylndra. They did very well after the government bailed the company out before it went bankrupt.

Makes Haliburton look tame by comparison.

 

[FreedomWorks]

Obama endorses his support for A123 in a 2010 speech, 18 months before declaring bankruptcy

[video=youtube;mporvcNbCHQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mporvcNbCHQ[/video]

 

[UncleBuck]

The DOE under Obama is running .000, quite an average.

let's see some citation of that.

you can't, because it is a lie.

but go ahead and squirm a little, shit for brains.

 

[UncleBuck]

The most important thing is not that the battery company was successful, but instead if they were able to bundle enough money for democratic reelection campaigns before declaring bankruptcy.

crayons are fucking awesome!

 

[ChesusRice]

Certain bundlers had millions invested in Soylndra. They did very well after the government bailed the company out before it went bankrupt.

Makes Haliburton look tame by comparison.

One of the biggest and earliest investors in Solyndra is the Walton family

not thinking they are democratic supporters

 

[Red1966]

It is the truth, and that isn't lame at all, I told you where I got my information and may, time permitting attempt to find evidence to back up my statement. Seems that you are only being told of the failures - do you really believe there are no sucesses?

It certainly was lame, truth or not. You had an opportunity to tell us of the successes, but failed to do so. Since many here agree with you, why are there no success stories posted here? Since you can not provide a list of, or even just one, success stories, why do you insist there are? I can't say definitively that there are no success stories, only that I am unaware of any. You seem to be confusing wishful thinking with fact. There are successful methanol operations in India, using switch grass, not corn, that aren't government subsidized, tho the original research was. The way we do it here is inefficient, costly, and geared as payment for votes, not energy production. We are converting land that was once used for food production into something else. We are literally converting food into fuel, while using over a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of methanol. This borders on insanity. The government methanol subsidies have retarded the development of renewable fuels, not promoted them.

 

[ChesusRice]

We in government should learn to look at our country with the eyes of the entrepreneur, seeing possibilities where others see only problems
~Ronald Reagan

 

[desert dude]

THAT is why they need government subsidy desert dude, because currently they cannot compete with big energy.

Then, instead of charging foolishly forward in a commercialization attempt keep green technologies in the R&D mode and spend about 1/1000 of what we are spending on it. When, if, it turns a corner and becomes commercially viable the market place will embrace it. If it never becomes commercially viable... Oh, well.

As things stand, green energy is a huge fucking scam with some emotional appeal.

 

[Red1966]

When nuclear energy costs are taken in total, they are not as lucrative as you say, we cannot dispose of, and we cannot cheaply decomission the plants. Note that you don't see much about biodiesel but only ethanol (it isn't methanol that is made from corn btw).

Note in my statement: "tho perhaps only because we don't properly dispose of the waste.". There was some sort of problem that befell biodiesel, tho I don't recall what it was. It doesn't seem to be for sale anywhere anymore. Perhaps the smell of french fries was objectionable. I stand corrected on the ethanol/methanol, you are correct.

 

[desert dude]

"Al Gore is about 50 times richer than he was when he left the vice presidency in 2001. According to an Oct. 11 report by The Post’s Carol D. Leonnig, Gore accumulated a Romneyesque $100 million partly through investing in alternative-energy firms subsidized by the Obama administration."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-liberals-green-energy-contradictions/2012/10/15/8c251ba2-16e6-11e2-8792-cf5305eddf60_story.html

 

[Red1966]

Then, instead of charging foolishly forward in a commercialization attempt keep green technologies in the R&D mode and spend about 1/1000 of what we are spending on it. When, if, it turns a corner and becomes commercially viable the market place will embrace it. If it never becomes commercially viable... Oh, well. As things stand, green energy is a huge fucking scam with some emotional appeal.

This is the most sensible compromise I've heard so far. In the mean time, we have found methods to vastly increase production from our current resources. We should avail ourselves of this, and stop purchasing fossil fuel from those who have sworn to destroy us.