Two more green stimulus companies have announced layoffs, adding to the long list of tax-payer backed green energy firms by the Obama administration.
FoxNews reports that the "foreign owned" companies received "a combined $84 million in Energy Department tax credits". SunTech (China) and SolarWorld (Germany) can be added to the list of many, many other companies that have either announced layoffs or claimed bankruptcy since the initiative began in 2009. It is a terrible track record. And Americans should know about it.
Solyndra was probably the most publicized failure, and with good reason. The company received $535 million and lost 1,861 jobs. The failures of the initiative are not limited to bankruptcy and layoffs, sadly.
Outsourcing and U.S. Taxpayer Funds Going Abroad
Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bob Casey (D-PA), And Jon Tester (D-MT) "Said That More Than Three-Fourths Of $2 Billion Spent On Wind-Energy Projects Supported By The Stimulus Package Had Gone To Foreign Companies," as reported by the New York Times. The concerns about the amount of taxpayer dollars did not stop there, as reported by the Investigative Reporting Workshop and ABC News, "According to our estimates, about 6,000 jobs have been created overseas, and maybe a couple hundred have been created in the U.S."
Watch the Senators express their concerns here:
Cronyism
Other criticisms include cronyism, as "...fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department's grants and loans went to "individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama's National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party." Despite the President's assertion that the Department of Energy made the sole decision to invest in the green energy companies based on merit, and not politics, a little reported (no surprise there) email exchange was reported by CompleteColorado that reveal that the White House wanted to remove "Abound Solar" forward.
Environmental initiatives are undoubtedly positive and creating affordable clean energy is a noble goal. But it is a goal best left to the private sector. The Green Stimulus program was flawed from the start.
Photo Source: SolarPowerWorldOnline
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 31
Creating impartial incentives for development of particular products of value to democracy is better than kicking back to the advantaged of the corporate world.
Basically, all this amounts to is a huge money laundering scheme. If the money laundering had been done any other way, multiple laws would have been broken and many would have gone to jail. This way, they can rob the piggy bank, declare bankruptcy, and get off scott free.
Basically, redistribution... money from us to them whether them (whoever the favorite special interest group of the day is) deserve it or can be successful or not.
The main thing is take those who have a bit more than them down a peg or two nanny nanny boo boo.
Outsourcing and U.S. Taxpayer Funds Going Abroad
Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bob Casey (D-PA), And Jon Tester (D-MT) "Said That More Than Three-Fourths Of $2 Billion Spent On Wind-Energy Projects Supported By The Stimulus Package Had Gone To Foreign Companies," as reported by the New York Times.
The operating principle here seems to be that anything government is money down a rat hole. I don't think so. I've made a pretty good living from the microprocessor, the development of which was largely motivated by our government wanting to keep one up on the Rooskies through loosing some weight off that missle guidance system.
If only global warmiing were about whacking somebody, perhaps our conservatives would be thrilled for the government to fund the needed research.
Evergreen Solar (received [at least] $55 million, lost 865 jobs) Bankrupt in August 2011 with $485.6 million in debt
SpectraWatt (received $500,000, lost 100 jobs)
Solyndra (received $535 million, lost 1,861 jobs)
Beacon Power (received $43 million, lost ?? Jobs)
Eastern Energy (received ?, lost ? jobs)
Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million, lost ? jobs)
SunPower (received $1.5 billion, lost 125? jobs)
First Solar (received $1.46 billion, lost 2,000 jobs) Update: "First Solar, the world’s largest maker of thin-film solar panels, fell to a record low in Nasdaq Stock Market trading May 4 after reporting $401 million in restructuring costs tied to firing 30 percent of its workforce."
Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million, lost 1,000 jobs)
Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million, lost 600? jobs)
Amonix (received 5.9 million, lost 276 jobs)
The National Renewable Energy Lab (received 200 million, lost 150 jobs)
Fisker Automotive (Finland) (received 193 Million, lost ? jobs)
Abound Solar (received $70 million of that, lost 300 jobs)
Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM) "There are enough scams here to satisfy a Chicago politician."
Solar Trust of America (Received $2.1 billion loan guarantee in April 2011 – Bankrupt in April 2012, lost ? jobs)
A123 Systems (received $374 million, Laid off 125 workers)
Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million, Laid off 40? Workers) "lent or paid themselves almost $1.4 million in company funds from 2008 to 2009 and used company credit cards to purchase airline tickets for family members and attend Detroit Tigers" and Pittsburgh Steelers games."
Johnson Controls (received $299 million, lost ? jobs)
Schneider Electric (received $86 million, lost ? jobs)
Brightsource (received $1.6 billion, lost ? jobs)
Raser Technologies (received $33 million, lost ? jobs)
Energy Conversion Devices (received ?, lost ? jobs)
Mountain Plaza, Inc. (received ?, lost ? jobs)
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsens Mills Acquisition Co. (received ?, lost ? jobs)
Range Fuels (received ?, lost ? jobs)
Thompson River Power LLC (received ?, lost ? jobs)
ECOtality (received $126.2 million, lost ? jobs)
I'm trying to remember the name of a book whose author makes a case that within the broad categories of pure research, applied research, and product development, the USA gets a C on pure research, a B- on product development and a D- on applied research. That's where the big gap is, applied research.
You're right, I think, in pointing out that throwing money at a whole bunch of private companies really better suited for product development than applied research is wasteful.
Suppose, for example there was this global problem that needed a solution pronto, and ok, let's have it be a global problem that's not the one I tend to obsess on. Say an asteroid is on a tragectory to impact Earth and we urgently need some applied research on ways to intercept an astroid and change its course.
It's "let's get out of the way of the private sector to address this?"
God love the private sector, but in a deal like that, I'd get the government involved. What the heck do we pay taxes for anyway if not to deal with global problems that the private sector has no mandate to deal with?
Conservatives, it seems to me, often argue both ends against the middle. Let us not burden our private sector with every little social problem under the sun. The private sector has no mandate to deal with these problems.
And so make use of the government then? No way. Get out of the way of the private sector so it can deal with the problem it has no mandate to deal with.
I pity you.
As Renee has already profoundly stated, this is not an "ideological" issue. It is an issue of what is, what isn't, what we "know," what we DON'T "know," and pragmatism.
Don't bother to inform me that you've not sought my pity. For an adult to have such stilted beliefs begs for it, just the same.
Ok, I won't then.
Here is what I do seek. A tiny bit of respect. Not talking about all the respect in the world here, just enough for oh say that, if God forbid, we should ever have to cooperate with one another to solve a problem, we could.
You do know about cooperation. That thing that makes civilzation, which all good conservatives everywhere are great champions of, work.
Which, by the way, if you'd afforded that much respect to the poor postal worker who had the extreme misfortune of encountering you, his day would have gone a lot better and you'd more likely have solved the issue you had with the postal service.
Must be a long distant relationship between C02 and the climate, as the planet hasn't been warming much in the last 15 years.
"2. Convince me there is no global warming trend and/or give me a better explanation for it than increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere."
As for alternative explanations...Look up CERN cloud research on google.
"3. You claim that climate models are phoney baloney? Very well then, let’s dispense with climate models by measuring, not modeling, measuring Earth’s thermal energy budget. Let’s settle this thing with Earth observing satellites. (Renee has shown some support for this item of my list. Wow. What a breakthrough. Finally.)"
Been doing it for decades now Charles....Where have you been?
I propose we settle it with satellites.
If yer man enough.
One more time.
"Been doing it for decades now Charles....Where have you been?"
Think I'll go with CLARREO myself.
Exactly. Caring about the environment is non-partisan.
Which begs the question: How has it become so partisan, particularly with respect to global warming for example?
Couple of possibilities:
The left has become ideologically fixated upon global warming. They don't really care about the environment except as a means to an end, that of expanding the role of government into every aspect of our lives.
The right has become ideologically fixated on insisting that free markets should be unregulated even to the extent that they're willing to convince themselves that greenhouse gas emissions have no costs, because otherwise, there is a legimate role for government intervention into the energy market with a carbon tax.
Anyone who is intellectually honest has to consider the possibility of having become ideologically fixated.
Those who exhibit an utter incapacity to consider that possibility, doesn't that at least suggest it's at least thinkable they are the ones who are being ideologically fixated?
I do consider that possiblity. And that's why I'm an advocate of the CLARREO program for example.
I hasten to add I don't think that is the case of me. But so many right wingers have told me that about myself, who knows? Maybe they know me better than I do.
Course, as our conservatives are forever reminding us, pioneering a new technical concept is risky. And this one flopped. It might be that the technical concept was flawed but it might also be that the timing was wrong. They were trying to get this new technical concept off the ground just at a time when Chineese were flooding our market with low cost solar panels.
As if the failure of this company wasn't in itself bad enough, there's another potential downside at least from a selfish perspective. The potential of this technology might be lost to our economy and go to somebody's else's economy.
Here's a radical thought. Might there be a place for government to foster technologies that are important to our future?
Only if they are accurate.
"I pity you. ..... Don't bother to inform me that you've not sought my pity. For an adult to have such stilted beliefs begs for it, just the same. "
And I bet you thought Christian pity was on the decline, didn't you?
I'm thinking we're not that far apart in our thinking, Renee. I take slight issue with
"But it is a goal best left to the private sector."
Bravo the private sector. I'm completely with you that government regulations are quite often counter-productive, though I might argue the cause. Some say oh it's those liberals who want government to jump in and solve every little problem. That might part of why government regualations have gotten overly complex and counter-productive, but I think it has a lot more to do with the role that big money plays in our government these days, but that's another topic.
The problem with the private sector and energy is the private sector has socialized the costs of greenhouse gases.
Basically, what this amounts to is a tax.
Let's be clear here. We are paying a carbon tax. Now. Not someday in the future. Now.
And let's understand that this tax is on the increase.
Our bargain basement cheap energy is not a bargain.
The grandkids are going to pay through the roof for it.
And please don't give me that tired old "Oh, well, scientists are still divided on that."
Come on. It's a climate physics problems. Human beings can do climate physics to a high degree of confidence.