PDA

View Full Version : Economics More green energy fun


mlyonsd
01-27-2012, 09:27 AM
Parent of Obama-backed battery maker goes bankrupt


Published January 27, 2012 | Associated Press

The parent company of an electric car battery maker that received a $118 million grant from the Obama administration filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Thursday.

New York-based Ener1 said it has been affected by competition from China (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/china.htm#r_src=ramp) and other countries.

Ener1 subsidiary EnerDel received a $118 million stimulus grant from the Energy Department in 2009, and Vice President Joe Biden (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/obama-administration/joe-biden.htm#r_src=ramp) visited the company's new battery plant in Indiana last year.

Ener1 is the third company to seek bankruptcy protection after receiving assistance from the Energy Department under the economic stimulus (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/economic-stimulus.htm#r_src=ramp) law.
California solar panel maker Solyndra Inc. and Beacon Power, a Massachusetts energy-storage firm, declared bankruptcy last year.

Solyndra received a $528 million federal loan, while Beacon Power got a $43 million loan guarantee.

Solyndra, of Fremont, Calif., was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee under the 2009 stimulus law, and the Obama administration frequently touted it as a model for its clean energy program.

Since then, the company's implosion and revelations that the administration hurried a review of the loan in time for a 2009 groundbreaking has become an embarrassment for President Barack Obama (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/obama-administration/barack-obama.htm#r_src=ramp) and a rallying cry for GOP critics of the administration's green energy program.

The chairman of a House subcommittee that is investigating Solyndra said the latest bankruptcy showed that the administration's clean energy program has failed.

"Unfortunately, you can now add Ener1 to the growing list of failed companies that went belly up after hundreds of millions of dollars in administration backing," said Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla.

"One bankruptcy may be a fluke, two could be coincidence, but three is a trend," Stearns said. "Our investigation continues, and we are working to ensure taxpayers are never again stuck paying hundreds of millions of dollars because of the administration's risky bets."

An Energy Department spokeswoman said EnerDel had received $55 million so far under a program in which EnerDel matches federal investment dollar-for-dollar. Ener1 said in a statement that the restructuring would not affect EnerDel's operations. The company makes lithium-ion batteries for electric cars such as the Chevrolet Volt (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/energy/chevrolet-volt.htm#r_src=ramp).

"While it's unfortunate that Ener1, the parent company, has entered a restructuring process," a recent infusion of $80 million in private investment "demonstrates that the technology has merit," said Jen Stutsman, a spokeswoman for the Energy Department.

"The restructuring is not expected to impact EnerDel's operations and they do not expect to reduce employment at the site" near Indianapolis, Stutsman said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/27/parent-obama-backed-battery-maker-goes-bankrupt/



It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that rarely has been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that never has been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits. Create these jobs. (Applause.)


Does anyone seriously think this guy has a clue when it comes to defining a US energy policy?

Mr. Kotter
01-27-2012, 09:31 AM
Well, at least we are finally ending the abomination of government welfare for the boondoggle of the ethanol industry....that's progress, at least...

:hmmm:

jiveturkey
01-27-2012, 09:36 AM
What's going to be the opinion when China and Europe control the future energy markets?

Are we going to see daily posts from HCF bitching about the Chinese winning the green energy market?

I'm not saying that mistakes haven't been made with regards to our investments but I do believe that we should continue investing in the future.

And then once we have future energy figured out we should ship all of the jobs out. Not before. :)

mlyonsd
01-27-2012, 08:28 PM
What's going to be the opinion when China and Europe control the future energy markets?

Are we going to see daily posts from HCF bitching about the Chinese winning the green energy market?

I'm not saying that mistakes haven't been made with regards to our investments but I do believe that we should continue investing in the future.

And then once we have future energy figured out we should ship all of the jobs out. Not before. :)That's all fine and dandy but how much government money should go towards a losing cause?

mlyonsd
01-27-2012, 08:31 PM
Yeah I didn't really expect this level of cricket noise in this thread. I really thought someone would make at least some sort of attempt to back Obama's energy policy.

I guess we now can all agree Obama has failed miserably on this issue. At least he got OBL right?

HonestChieffan
01-27-2012, 08:47 PM
They were making batts for the Volt?

How many Chineese batt makers does it take to make batteries for a few hundred cars?

Is china the issue really? Or was this a failure from the get go building a product that has no market?

In any case we are freaking broke and pissing money away on pipedream business ideas with no demand and no track record is madness. Good business ideas do not need Washington nitwits to get capital. Investors will fund good ideas that have real potential

patteeu
01-27-2012, 08:48 PM
Yeah I didn't really expect this level of cricket noise in this thread. I really thought someone would make at least some sort of attempt to back Obama's energy policy.

I guess we now can all agree Obama has failed miserably on this issue. At least he got OBL right?

And he rescued some aid worker from stone-aged kidnappers in a country filled with drug addicts, so that's 2 things. Oh, and he took GM from it's legitimate stakeholders and gave it to the unions. Kotter should like that last one.

patteeu
01-27-2012, 08:51 PM
Seriously, if we're really going to throw government money at this kind of technology, I like Newt Gingrich's idea of prize money for generic capabilities (without to much micromanagement of the specific technology) better than relying our bureaucrats and politicians to choose technologies wisely. It's kind of the "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" of technology research so Ron Paul fans might even be able to swallow it.

HonestChieffan
01-27-2012, 08:54 PM
I bet there was someone who did a startup on tail lights for the Edsel who can relate to this battery outfit

mlyonsd
01-27-2012, 09:13 PM
Seriously, if we're really going to throw government money at this kind of technology, I like Newt Gingrich's idea of prize money for generic capabilities (without to much micromanagement of the specific technology) better than relying our bureaucrats and politicians to choose technologies wisely. It's kind of the "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" of technology research so Ron Paul fans might even be able to swallow it.One problem, how do you reward your campaign bundlers if you make them compete for our money? Seems like you're tying Obama's hands with that kind of policy.

HonestChieffan
01-27-2012, 09:36 PM
One problem, how do you reward your campaign bundlers if you make them compete for our money? Seems like you're tying Obama's hands with that kind of policy.

You always pick on Obama. Wutsupwiththat

Mr. Kotter
01-27-2012, 09:39 PM
One problem, how do you reward your campaign bundlers if you make them compete for our money? Seems like you're tying Obama's hands with that kind of policy.

Yeah, kinda like rewarding the Ethanol industry for all these years for doing absolutely NOTHING for the energy industry or overall economy....other than lining the pockets of investors in a short-term no-fix industry that has sucked taxpayers dry for the better part of two decades, along with inflating the prices of both corn crop and dairy products, and related consumer items, for average Joe-Six-Pack citizens...of course, who gives a rat's ass about them...

mlyonsd
01-27-2012, 09:45 PM
Yeah, kinda like rewarding the Ethanol industry for all these years for doing absolutely NOTHING for the energy industry or overall economy....other than lining the pockets of investors in a short-term no-fix industry that has sucked taxpayers dry for the better part of two decades, along with inflating the prices of both corn crop and dairy products, and related consumer items, for average Joe-Six-Pack citizens...of course, who gives a rat's ass about them...When China starts shipping us gasoline you'll have a point. Stay on point here Einstein.

HonestChieffan
01-27-2012, 09:50 PM
Yeah, kinda like rewarding the Ethanol industry for all these years for doing absolutely NOTHING for the energy industry or overall economy....other than lining the pockets of investors in a short-term no-fix industry that has sucked taxpayers dry for the better part of two decades, along with inflating the prices of both corn crop and dairy products, and related consumer items, for average Joe-Six-Pack citizens...of course, who gives a rat's ass about them...

Renewable

Made in USA

Profitable

Evil

mlyonsd
01-27-2012, 10:07 PM
So to summarize, Obama and the left have absolutely no clue on the issue of energy.

patteeu
01-27-2012, 10:12 PM
One problem, how do you reward your campaign bundlers if you make them compete for our money? Seems like you're tying Obama's hands with that kind of policy.

Surely they can fake some data or something so they can award the prize to the favored donors.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-27-2012, 10:12 PM
So to summarize, Obama and the left have absolutely no clue on the issue of energy.

Yes you dump 400% the energy you need into something you will get 100% out of it.

patteeu
01-27-2012, 10:15 PM
So to summarize, Obama and the left have absolutely no clue on the issue of energy.

What we need is a younger, healthier Dick Cheney to set us back on the right course to energy prosperity.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-27-2012, 10:17 PM
What we need is a younger, healthier Dick Cheney to set us back on the right course to energy prosperity.

:spock:

No No No were trying to cleanup a mess not create a larger one.

mlyonsd
01-27-2012, 10:20 PM
Surely they can fake some data or something so they can award the prize to the favored donors.I'm pretty sure the MSM would look the other way so you're probably right.

mlyonsd
01-27-2012, 10:27 PM
What we need is a younger, healthier Dick Cheney to set us back on the right course to energy prosperity.Cheney has more common sense in his off hand pinky finger than all of Obama's cabinet combined.

Just don't go hunting with him, or at least stay in the truck.

patteeu
01-27-2012, 10:33 PM
Cheney has more common sense in his off hand pinky finger than all of Obama's cabinet combined.

Just don't go hunting with him, or at least stay in the truck.

LOL, good points.

Chiefshrink
01-28-2012, 04:38 PM
That's all fine and dandy but how much government money should go towards a losing cause?

You are right on the mark but remember the cloward/piven theory that all good Marxist Dems want is to overwhelm the system in debt whether it be entitlements/govt investing in losing causes.:thumb:

dirk digler
01-28-2012, 05:00 PM
What's going to be the opinion when China and Europe control the future energy markets?

Are we going to see daily posts from HCF bitching about the Chinese winning the green energy market?

I'm not saying that mistakes haven't been made with regards to our investments but I do believe that we should continue investing in the future.

And then once we have future energy figured out we should ship all of the jobs out. Not before. :)

Your post is pretty much spot on. We have to keep investing in these types of companies or the Chinese are going to own this market and we can't let that happen.

Also while everyone is bashing Obama maybe some of you should do some checking into the past of the company and realize that Republicans also supported investing in this company. Including the white knight Mitch Daniels, both of Indiana's Republican Senators, and our wonderful former POTUS Bush.

Ener1 got a $118 million grant from the federal government in 2009. But it also got extensive aid from the Indiana Republican governor who delivered the GOP response to Obama's Tuesday address -- Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Daniels' administration granted the firm, which makes its batteries in Indiana, more than $7 million in tax credits, and praised it effusively.

"Eight hundred fifty jobs of any kind is great news," Daniels said at the time, in August 2008. "When those jobs are in a technology of tomorrow, like electric cars, it offers the prospect of even bigger news to follow. Indiana has what it takes to lead this automotive revolution and today is step one." (Daniels stars in the Ener1 video below, even holding up a paperweight that declares "Love.")

Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar (R) was also a strong supporter, as was Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.). "EnerDel is the wave of the future. Its cutting edge technology will help relieve our dependency on foreign oil," Burton said in October 2007, using the name for one of Ener1's units.

Lugar went so far as to call on Obama (or whomever turned out to win the White House in 2008) to keep pushing for technologies made by companies such as Ener1.

The firm also had backing from George W. Bush's administration, including winning defense contracts and significant work from Bush's Department of Energy and the United States Advanced Battery Consortium.

HonestChieffan
01-28-2012, 05:25 PM
Investing in losers is not a good practice. Unless the loser seems to be owned by a friend of Obamas.

Smart investors win more than the lose. And they make sure the opportunity is real not something they just want to be real bad.

beach tribe
01-28-2012, 10:43 PM
Does anyone really believe that we are going to be running on anything besides black gold as long as there as a shit ton of it still in the ground? I don't.

mlyonsd
01-28-2012, 11:00 PM
Your post is pretty much spot on. We have to keep investing in these types of companies or the Chinese are going to own this market and we can't let that happen.

Also while everyone is bashing Obama maybe some of you should do some checking into the past of the company and realize that Republicans also supported investing in this company. Including the white knight Mitch Daniels, both of Indiana's Republican Senators, and our wonderful former POTUS Bush.JFC. Maybe we should also invest in the cheap plastic toy market because we certainly don't want to lose that one either.

beach tribe
01-28-2012, 11:06 PM
JFC. Maybe we should also invest in the cheap plastic toy market because we certainly don't want to lose that one either.

I would imagine these investors were probably trying to gain control of the company to make sure it went bankrupt.

Comrade Crapski
05-07-2012, 09:12 AM
So to summarize, Obama and the left have absolutely no clue on the issue of energy.

Sky-high Electric Bills Courtesy of Obama EPA’s War on Coal
Written by William F. Jasper

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” — Candidate Barack Obama, 
San Francisco Chronicle interview, 
January 17, 2008

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” — Candidate Barack Obama, 
Same interview as above

“We’re going to have to cap the emission of greenhouse gasses. That means that power plants are going to have to adjust how they generate power … but a lot of us who can afford it are going to have to pay more per unit of electricity, and that means we’re going to have to change our light bulbs, we’re going to have to shut the lights off in our houses.” — Candidate Barack Obama, 
Iowa PBS interview, November 9, 2007

Electricity rates are indeed set to skyrocket, as Barack Obama predicted back in 2008, while he was still a freshman Senator and ambitiously aspiring to White House occupancy. The Obama administration’s new Environmental Protection Agency regulations on coal-fired electrical power generation, if allowed to go into effect, will mean that even a lot of us who can’t afford it will “have to pay more per unit of electricity.” But the pain will be much more severe than merely having to change our light bulbs.

A Grim Scenario

If Congress doesn’t act to rein in the EPA’s all-out war on coal, we will all be paying much higher electrical rates — and higher prices for just about everything else, since virtually everything we eat, drink, wear, and use requires energy for production and transportation. Thousands of coal-mining jobs are on the chopping block, of course, but hundreds of thousands of other jobs spread across all sectors of our economy are on the same chopping block. For businesses that are struggling to remain viable in this ongoing recession, energy costs are critical and even a slight uptick in rates can be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

The billions of dollars in compliance costs that the Environmental Protection Agency is mandating for coal-fired electrical plants will be that straw for many businesses, as those costs get passed on. Dozens of power plants, however, are simply shutting down; the costs of compliance are simply too high. So, another pain we may soon experience is an increase in rolling brownouts and blackouts.

In July 2011, Georgia Power Company announced that it would be closing three coal-fired power plants over the next two years, due to the EPA’s new regulations.

“Georgia gets more than half its energy from coal, and Georgia Power gets 60 percent or more from coal,” noted Benita Dodd, vice president of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation. “So this is going to become a very expensive venture for Georgia ratepayers.” Georgia electricity customers will be socked by a formidable one-two economic punch, Dodd explained.
“The closures are going to hurt ratepayers now, but the regulations are going to hurt when they’re implemented,” Dodd said. “These regulations are indefensible, they’re unnecessary, and they’re incredibly expensive.”

The same grim scenario is rolling out across much of the nation. “The impact of these EPA rules will be felt most severely in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania, which together account for more than a fourth of all U.S. manufacturing,” writes Paul Driessen, in his 2001 report, The EPA’s Unrelenting Power Grab, published by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. “These states,” notes Driessen “rely on coal to generate 65-92% of their electricity, which keeps costs down for hundreds of companies that remain competitive nationally and internationally primarily because they can utilize energy-intensive industrial boilers, furnaces and electrical machinery, to boost their productivity per worker-hour: 6.9 to 9.4 cents per kilowatt-hour in those six states, versus 11 to 17 cents per kWh in states that generate 1-30% of their electricity with coal.”

In December 2011, the Associated Press reported that “32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to shut down and an additional 36 might have to close because of new federal air pollution regulations.” The AP also published a list of the plants that would be shuttered. However, that list quickly became obsolete; as utilities crunched the numbers and surveyed the costs, more began throwing in the towel.

Politics in Play

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, condemned EPA’s attack on coal in unsparing terms. “It’s hard to imagine that the Obama EPA is announcing a massive energy tax today on Americans at a time when they are already reeling from skyrocketing gas prices,” Inhofe stated. “So much for President Obama’s claims to be for an ‘all-of-the-above’ approach — these regulations are designed specifically to kill coal in American electricity generation, which will significantly raise energy prices on American families. This plan is the most devastating installment of the Obama administration’s war on affordable energy: it achieves their cap-and-trade agenda through regulation instead of legislation.”

The regulations to which Inhofe, Driessen, Dodd, and other critics are referring is actually a series of three EPA policy edicts unleashed by the Obama administration that include a huge array of complex mandates. They are:

• The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which requires 27 states to reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from power plants in Eastern states in an effort supposedly to improve ozone and fine particulate air quality in other downwind states. Under CSAPR, EPA set new limits on SO2 and NOx emissions for each state beginning in 2012. The limits tighten in some states in 2014.

• Utility MACT, which requires stringent new standards for removing mercury and other hazardous wastes.

• Policies to regulate coal combustion residuals (CCR) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and to regulate cooling water intake under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act.

• Carbon dioxide regulations requiring new coal plants to produce no more than 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of electricity.

The first three policies outlined above are aimed at killing off existing coal-fired plants; the fourth policy, on CO2, aims at killing new coal-fired plants before they can be born.

A study released in September 2011 by National Economic Research Associates, Inc. (NERA) paints a very harrowing picture of the impact of the EPA rules on existing coal plants. The study concluded:
Over the period from 2012 to 2020, about 183,000 jobs per year are predicted to be lost on net.... The cumulative effects mean that over the period from 2012 to 2020, about 1.65 million job-years of employment would be lost. U.S. GDP would be reduced by $29 billion each year on average over this period, with a cumulative loss from 2012 to 2020 of $190 billion (2010$). U.S. disposable personal income would be reduced by $34 billion each year on average over this period, with a cumulative loss from 2012 to 2020 of $222 billion (2010$).
And those are conservative estimates; the NERA economists note that they do not consider several other variables that would likely drive the total costs and losses higher.

Those figures also do not include the costs that the EPA’s CO2 rules will impose on future energy production.

This being an election year, and with energy prices being a major campaign issue, it is not surprising that the Obama administration is trying to portray the onerous new regulations as moderate, sensible, and flexible. “Today we’re taking a common-sense step to reduce pollution in our air, protect the planet for our children, and move us into a new era of American energy,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in her March 27 statement announcing the CO2 mandates. “We’re putting in place a standard that relies on the use of clean, American made technology to tackle a challenge that we can’t leave to our kids and grandkids.”

Jackson concluded her statement with the incredible assertion that “EPA does not project additional cost for industry to comply with this standard.”

Environmental extremists have greeted all of the EPA’s attacks on coal, and especially its CO2 regulations, with jubilation because they believe (the administration’s current rhetoric notwithstanding) these will prove to be lethal blows to coal, the ultimate villain d’jour of those who identify themselves as “greens.” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune is overjoyed that the EPA’s CO2 rule would make it “nearly impossible to build a new coal plant,” apparently agreeing (for once) with the American Public Power Association, which claims the new mandate will “kill coal going forward.”

“EPA’s action will effectively ban the construction of new coal-fired power plants,” says Dr. Bonner Cohen, senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. He explains why that is:
Under the rule, no new power plant will be allowed to emit more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. On average, U.S. coal plants emit 1,768 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of electricity. The rule requires future plants to use as yet non-existent carbon capture and control technologies to cut their emissions to the new standard. With no technology available to bring down CO2 emissions to the new standard, EPA, in the name of combating climate change, is effectively telling the coal industry, which produces 55 percent of our nation’s electricity, that its days are numbered.
The “All-of-the-Above” Lie

Striking his best moderate-sensible-flexible pose, President Obama stated, in his February 23, 2012 Miami speech on energy, that “we’ve got to have a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. Yes, oil and gas, but also wind and solar and nuclear and biofuels, and more.”

Whether the President’s omission of coal in that equation was intentional or a Freudian slip, it is clear that his administration does indeed have coal in the crosshairs — and it is firing one shot after another into its intended victim. That is a terrible crime because it is killing our economy as well as killing some of our best prospects for moving toward energy independence, prosperity, and fuller employment.

In our March 19, 2012 cover story, “Coal: The Rock That Burns,” Ed Hiserodt provides a detailed report on the enormous current and potential benefits that our massive coal deposits offer, noting that the United States “is considered by many geologists as the ‘Saudi Arabia’ of coal.” He writes:
The Energy Information Agency reports the United States has a Demonstrated Reserve Base of 496 billion short tons of coal, of which 272 billion tons are considered recoverable with current technology. With U.S. usage at 1.1 billion tons per year, we have about 250 years’ supply at the present rate of consumption. But as with other energy resources — though we use millions of tons of coal — reserves rise each year as new coal seams are located.
Coal, Hiserodt points out, “provides life-saving and life-enhancing energy for America.” It is, he notes, “a resource that is proven and available. We should be very thankful for this energy miracle that provides us comfort, improves our health, and gives us more years to enjoy the blessings of life.”

However, the Obama administration seems to be packed with activists who are pathologically obsessed with obstructing our ability to utilize this “miracle rock.” At the same time, the EPA radicals are also throwing roadblocks in the way of our access to, and use of, oil, natural gas, uranium, and every other viable form of energy.

http://thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/11160-sky-high-electric-bills-courtesy-of-obama-epa’s-war-on-coal

FD
05-07-2012, 02:35 PM
Seriously, if we're really going to throw government money at this kind of technology, I like Newt Gingrich's idea of prize money for generic capabilities (without to much micromanagement of the specific technology) better than relying our bureaucrats and politicians to choose technologies wisely. It's kind of the "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" of technology research so Ron Paul fans might even be able to swallow it.

The Department of Energy has a few recent projects that are based on these kinds of prizes. They have been much criticized on the right but I think with a GOP president people could get behind it. I agree that they are a much better idea than the kind of federal loan guarantees the Obama administration was so fond of.

These loans just go to show how bad the government is at picking winners. Different types of alternative energy and high energy efficiency technologies look to be the big industries of the future and I do think there is a role for the federal government in encouraging them to be located here and not in China, but picking winners just doesn't work. What the government can do well is fund basic research though NSF and Department of Defense as well as the types of prizes you mention.

Of course the best solution would be to just implement a revenue neutral carbon tax and let the market sort everything out, but that isn't happening anytime soon.

suzzer99
05-07-2012, 03:17 PM
I'm pretty sure the best way to torture a conservative is to tie them to a wall and read them green energy initiatives.

J Diddy
05-07-2012, 03:22 PM
I'm pretty sure the best way to torture a conservative is to tie them to a wall and read them green energy initiatives.

ROFL

blaise
05-07-2012, 03:26 PM
When he's tied up they can empty his pockets to help pay for it.

J Diddy
05-07-2012, 03:27 PM
The Department of Energy has a few recent projects that are based on these kinds of prizes. They have been much criticized on the right but I think with a GOP president people could get behind it. I agree that they are a much better idea than the kind of federal loan guarantees the Obama administration was so fond of.

These loans just go to show how bad the government is at picking winners. Different types of alternative energy and high energy efficiency technologies look to be the big industries of the future and I do think there is a role for the federal government in encouraging them to be located here and not in China, but picking winners just doesn't work. What the government can do well is fund basic research though NSF and Department of Defense as well as the types of prizes you mention.

Of course the best solution would be to just implement a revenue neutral carbon tax and let the market sort everything out, but that isn't happening anytime soon.

You do realize that out of these loans only 2 percent have gone bad? I'm thinking that 98% success is not indicative of how bad the government is at picking winners.

vailpass
05-07-2012, 03:33 PM
When he's tied up they can empty his pockets to help pay for it.

LMAO Bingo

FishingRod
05-07-2012, 03:35 PM
Well, at least we are finally ending the abomination of government welfare for the boondoggle of the ethanol industry....that's progress, at least...

:hmmm:

Gentlemen. When someone you argue with all the time says something you agree with, you should acknowledge it. Ethanol is a local renewable energy source. Unfortunately it, like most of the other Green government pushed ideas, just don’t stand on their own merit.

HonestChieffan
05-07-2012, 03:48 PM
actually we are still using the same amount and more ethanol. And there is no reason to celebrate till a new budget is passed....the money is still flowing. Corn acres will be an all time high in US this year.

go bowe
05-07-2012, 04:03 PM
What we need is a younger, healthier Dick Cheney to set us back on the right course to energy prosperity.

i'll vote for you...

but is romney wise enough to make the right choice?

go bowe
05-07-2012, 04:07 PM
Your post is pretty much spot on. We have to keep investing in these types of companies or the Chinese are going to own this market and we can't let that happen.

Also while everyone is bashing Obama maybe some of you should do some checking into the past of the company and realize that Republicans also supported investing in this company. Including the white knight Mitch Daniels, both of Indiana's Republican Senators, and our wonderful former POTUS Bush.

what's this?

republicans invested in this failed boondoggle of a company?

surely you jest... :jester:

patteeu
05-07-2012, 04:26 PM
The Department of Energy has a few recent projects that are based on these kinds of prizes. They have been much criticized on the right but I think with a GOP president people could get behind it. I agree that they are a much better idea than the kind of federal loan guarantees the Obama administration was so fond of.

These loans just go to show how bad the government is at picking winners. Different types of alternative energy and high energy efficiency technologies look to be the big industries of the future and I do think there is a role for the federal government in encouraging them to be located here and not in China, but picking winners just doesn't work. What the government can do well is fund basic research though NSF and Department of Defense as well as the types of prizes you mention.

Of course the best solution would be to just implement a revenue neutral carbon tax and let the market sort everything out, but that isn't happening anytime soon.

I like that idea too. I think you're right that a GOP president might be better able to implement these things for Nixon/China type reasons, although Romney isn't the ideal guy to play the Nixon role I suppose.

patteeu
05-07-2012, 04:31 PM
You do realize that out of these loans only 2 percent have gone bad? I'm thinking that 98% success is not indicative of how bad the government is at picking winners.

Defaulting on a government subsidized loan isn't the only indication of failure. Decades of ethanol subsidies and years of hybrid vehicle subsidies without evidence that either is close to being able to stand on it's own merits are a couple of other high profile examples.

go bowe
05-07-2012, 04:35 PM
Defaulting on a government subsidized loan isn't the only indication of failure. Decades of ethanol subsidies and years of hybrid vehicle subsidies without evidence that either is close to being able to stand on it's own merits are a couple of other high profile examples.

but bush did it first!

J Diddy
05-07-2012, 04:49 PM
Defaulting on a government subsidized loan isn't the only indication of failure. Decades of ethanol subsidies and years of hybrid vehicle subsidies without evidence that either is close to being able to stand on it's own merits are a couple of other high profile examples.

Perhaps, but I wasn't addressing that. I was addressing this:



These loans just go to show how bad the government is at picking winners.

HonestChieffan
05-07-2012, 04:56 PM
Defaulting on a government subsidized loan isn't the only indication of failure. Decades of ethanol subsidies and years of hybrid vehicle subsidies without evidence that either is close to being able to stand on it's own merits are a couple of other high profile examples.

Do you assume we will see ethanol/gas mixtures go away at some point in the near future?

J Diddy
05-07-2012, 04:59 PM
Do you assume we will see ethanol/gas mixtures go away at some point in the near future?

Doubtful.

HonestChieffan
05-07-2012, 05:02 PM
Doubtful.


I agree its very doubtful with the volume being used now and state mandates that a % be ethanol as a base minimum. If it were to go, it would have to be replaced with a lot of oil

patteeu
05-07-2012, 07:39 PM
Perhaps, but I wasn't addressing that. I was addressing this:

How many of the loans have resulted in success? Just because a company hasn't gone belly up yet, doesn't mean it's achieved any level of success. Do you have any reason to believe that these loans have been more successful at developing viable alternative energy technologies than the type of program FD described or even than a laissez faire approach?

patteeu
05-07-2012, 07:39 PM
Do you assume we will see ethanol/gas mixtures go away at some point in the near future?

They seem pretty politically entrenched to me. I have no idea.

J Diddy
05-07-2012, 07:52 PM
How many of the loans have resulted in success? Just because a company hasn't gone belly up yet, doesn't mean it's achieved any level of success. Do you have any reason to believe that these loans have been more successful at developing viable alternative energy technologies than the type of program FD described or even than a laissez faire approach?

Here is one.

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2012/05/04/sunpower-jumps-on-q1-analysts-largely-cautious/

patteeu
05-07-2012, 08:59 PM
Here is one.

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2012/05/04/sunpower-jumps-on-q1-analysts-largely-cautious/

Uphill battle for profitability? Sounds like a real gem.

Comrade Crapski
05-09-2012, 07:46 AM
Uphill battle for profitability? Sounds like a real gem.

98% success rate my ass.ROFL

J Diddy
05-09-2012, 07:09 PM
98% success rate my ass.ROFL

How do you achieve success as a lender? By getting people to pay back their loans. If 98% are paying back their loans then how is that not a 98% success rate.

The 98% wasn't an evaluation of how their business model is working, it was a reply to a statement saying we we didn't know how to pick who the loans were given to and then using Solyndra as an example. The context made it seem that the majority have defaulted, when in reality only 2% have.

You should give reading comprehension a big hug and get to know one another better.

Saul Good
05-09-2012, 07:11 PM
How do you achieve success as a lender? By getting people to pay back their loans. If 98% are paying back their loans then how is that not a 98% success rate.

The 98% wasn't an evaluation of how their business model is working, it was a reply to a statement saying we we didn't know how to pick who the loans were given to and then using Solyndra as an example. The context made it seem that the majority have defaulted, when in reality only 2% have.

You should give reading comprehension a big hug and get to know one another better.

Where are you getting this 98% versus 2% from?

J Diddy
05-09-2012, 07:22 PM
Where are you getting this 98% versus 2% from?

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/straining-the-facts-on-federal-spending/

Saul Good
05-09-2012, 07:26 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/04/straining-the-facts-on-federal-spending/

Your source is an unsourced number from a group sympathetic to Obama?

mlyonsd
05-09-2012, 07:35 PM
I'm pretty sure the tax payers loss on the GM deal alone goes past 2%.

Comrade Crapski
05-09-2012, 09:06 PM
Your source is an unsourced number from a group sympathetic to Obama?

Dudes a mouth foamer.

:drool:

patteeu
05-09-2012, 10:32 PM
How do you achieve success as a lender? By getting people to pay back their loans. If 98% are paying back their loans then how is that not a 98% success rate.

The 98% wasn't an evaluation of how their business model is working, it was a reply to a statement saying we we didn't know how to pick who the loans were given to and then using Solyndra as an example. The context made it seem that the majority have defaulted, when in reality only 2% have.

You should give reading comprehension a big hug and get to know one another better.

:facepalm: You think that post was about picking projects where loans could be repaid? I don't think you should be criticizing anyone's reading comprehension.

J Diddy
05-09-2012, 10:50 PM
:facepalm: You think that post was about picking projects where loans could be repaid? I don't think you should be criticizing anyone's reading comprehension.

These loans just go to show how bad the government is at picking winners

Nothing is a guaranteed thing. From a tax payer standpoint I'm interested in these loans getting paid back. The fact that they're getting paid back at a rate of 98% (which is a number that's been associated with an independent study by Bloomberg and I stand by, however I'm not paying money to see the report) to me makes a successful loan.


The fact that an unsuccessful loan was made to Solyndra is what started all this.

I took an issue with one sentence in reference to the loans. Now run along Patty cakes.

patteeu
05-09-2012, 11:15 PM
These loans just go to show how bad the government is at picking winners

Nothing is a guaranteed thing. From a tax payer standpoint I'm interested in these loans getting paid back. The fact that they're getting paid back at a rate of 98% (which is a number that's been associated with an independent study by Bloomberg and I stand by, however I'm not paying money to see the report) to me makes a successful loan.


The fact that an unsuccessful loan was made to Solyndra is what started all this.

I took an issue with one sentence in reference to the loans. Now run along Patty cakes.

The issue is whether or not these companies actually pan out, not just whether the taxpayer gets out of the smoldering ruins with his seed money.

J Diddy
05-09-2012, 11:53 PM
The issue is whether or not these companies actually pan out, not just whether the taxpayer gets out of the smoldering ruins with his seed money.

Companies are panning out and research is being done. There are success stories and all one has to do is google doe success stories. The problem here is that people are wanting immediate and foolproof success in innovation. That isn't going to happen. Some companies will fail and some loans will be defaulted. That will happen. It's the nature of the beast.

Here's another example of a company that looks to be panning out:

http://gas2.org/2012/03/22/how-doe-loans-helped-bring-cng-taxis-to-the-streets/

blaise
05-10-2012, 09:00 AM
If these companies are so attractive why don't they just rely on private investors?

J Diddy
05-10-2012, 09:07 AM
If these companies are so attractive why don't they just rely on private investors?
If you were an investor and had a choice, oil or alternative energy which way would you go?

One has a solid infrastructure in place, but not sustainable. The other is a fledgling but the direction we need to go but is sustainable.

As an investor you are looking to maximize your return, that is probably not going to happen any time soon.

patteeu
05-10-2012, 09:33 AM
Companies are panning out and research is being done. There are success stories and all one has to do is google doe success stories. The problem here is that people are wanting immediate and foolproof success in innovation. That isn't going to happen. Some companies will fail and some loans will be defaulted. That will happen. It's the nature of the beast.

Here's another example of a company that looks to be panning out:

http://gas2.org/2012/03/22/how-doe-loans-helped-bring-cng-taxis-to-the-streets/


"Another" implies that the first company you pointed to was panning out. It wasn't.

blaise
05-10-2012, 09:59 AM
If you were an investor and had a choice, oil or alternative energy which way would you go?

One has a solid infrastructure in place, but not sustainable. The other is a fledgling but the direction we need to go but is sustainable.

As an investor you are looking to maximize your return, that is probably not going to happen any time soon.

You understand people can invest in more than one thing, right?

mlyonsd
05-10-2012, 10:26 AM
If you were an investor and had a choice, oil or alternative energy which way would you go?

One has a solid infrastructure in place, but not sustainable. The other is a fledgling but the direction we need to go but is sustainable.

As an investor you are looking to maximize your return, that is probably not going to happen any time soon.
One produces a product the cheapest way possible.

The other produces the same product at higher cost and doesn't come close to covering the demand.

go bowe
05-10-2012, 11:38 AM
One produces a product the cheapest way possible.

The other produces the same product at higher cost and doesn't come close to covering the demand.

those damned democrat demanders...

like friggin five year olds...

J Diddy
05-10-2012, 08:27 PM
"Another" implies that the first company you pointed to was panning out. It wasn't.


I fail to see how it wasn't. It's shares are up. In business that's what you're supposed to do.

J Diddy
05-10-2012, 08:28 PM
You understand people can invest in more than one thing, right?

would you invest your money into something that you felt would lose money initially and long term could boom?

J Diddy
05-10-2012, 08:30 PM
One produces a product the cheapest way possible.

The other produces the same product at higher cost and doesn't come close to covering the demand.

Very true, however oil has been used for a long time. Of course technology is going to advance. It is incredibly unrealistic to assume that a new technology is fully advanced in a few short years.

patteeu
05-10-2012, 09:21 PM
I fail to see how it wasn't. It's shares are up. In business that's what you're supposed to do.

When a company is described as having an "uphill battle for profitability", it's a little premature to conclude that the venture has panned out.

J Diddy
05-10-2012, 09:36 PM
When a company is described as having an "uphill battle for profitability", it's a little premature to conclude that the venture has panned out.

It is also premature to conclude that it isn't. You're taking the advice of a stock broker over the market. The market dictated that it is profiting by the shares increasing.

blaise
05-10-2012, 09:49 PM
would you invest your money into something that you felt would lose money initially and long term could boom?

I thought you were saying they were success stories.

J Diddy
05-10-2012, 09:57 PM
I thought you were saying they were success stories.

They are. However, initial investment is a tricky business.

patteeu
05-10-2012, 10:07 PM
It is also premature to conclude that it isn't. You're taking the advice of a stock broker over the market. The market dictated that it is profiting by the shares increasing.

Incorrect. Until a company actually "pans out", it hasn't panned out.

J Diddy
05-10-2012, 10:27 PM
Incorrect. Until a company actually "pans out", it hasn't panned out.

Panning out is a subjective term. How about you give me an objective one.

patteeu
05-10-2012, 11:12 PM
Panning out is a subjective term. How about you give me an objective one.

It's not subjective enough to mean what you're trying to make it mean. "Dark" is a subjective word, but if you try to tell someone that it's dark outside at high noon on a cloudless day, they're going to think you don't know what you're talking about.

J Diddy
05-10-2012, 11:20 PM
It's not subjective enough to mean what you're trying to make it mean. "Dark" is a subjective word, but if you try to tell someone that it's dark outside at high noon on a cloudless day, they're going to think you don't know what you're talking about.
For someone who is decrying it as you are, you surely have a definition in mind for your "panning out." All I'm merely asking is that you clue us in to said such definition so that we may scrutinize it.

I'll start. At this point in the game it is early. I want to see positive growth. I want to see that they are repaying the loans. I want to see them moving towards independence.

patteeu
05-10-2012, 11:31 PM
For someone who is decrying it as you are, you surely have a definition in mind for your "panning out." All I'm merely asking is that you clue us in to said such definition so that we may scrutinize it.

I'll start. At this point in the game it is early. I want to see positive growth. I want to see that they are repaying the loans. I want to see them moving towards independence.

"Panning out" comes from the type of gold mining where you scoop up a bunch of gravel and debris from a stream bed and slosh it around until only the heaviest pieces remain. If you're lucky, those heavy pieces are gold and it's said to have "panned out".

The company you offered as an example of the success of these government loan programs was described as having an uphill battle for profitability. In this context, I'd call sustained profitability without the benefit of ongoing government subsidy "panning out". That company may pan out in the future, but until it faces that uphill battle and wins (without the help of Uncle Sam), it hasn't.

J Diddy
05-10-2012, 11:41 PM
"Panning out" comes from the type of gold mining where you scoop up a bunch of gravel and debris from a stream bed and slosh it around until only the heaviest pieces remain. If you're lucky, those heavy pieces are gold and it's said to have "panned out".

The company you offered as an example of the success of these government loan programs was described as having an uphill battle for profitability. In this context, I'd call sustained profitability without the benefit of ongoing government subsidy "panning out". That company may pan out in the future, but until it faces that uphill battle and wins (without the help of Uncle Sam), it hasn't.

I am aware of the etymology of the phrase panning out. They've not received any new loans and are paying back the old. You can't do that without some level of success.

Here, I'm going to help ease your mind 10 days ago forbes said to buy the stock.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/05/01/solar-stks-rally-citi-analyst-calls-bottom-ups-spwr-yge/

patteeu
05-11-2012, 12:01 AM
I am aware of the etymology of the phrase panning out. They've not received any new loans and are paying back the old. You can't do that without some level of success.

Here, I'm going to help ease your mind 10 days ago forbes said to buy the stock.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/05/01/solar-stks-rally-citi-analyst-calls-bottom-ups-spwr-yge/

If you're aware of what the phrase means then don't waste my time by asking me what it means.

BTW, "beleaguered sector" and "nearing a bottom" are not hallmarks of success.

J Diddy
05-11-2012, 12:40 AM
If you're aware of what the phrase means then don't waste my time by asking me what it means.

BTW, "beleaguered sector" and "nearing a bottom" are not hallmarks of success.


We were discussing your criteria for meeting your definition. You still failed to deliver that.

But yet he tells them to buy? Why would that be?

blaise
05-11-2012, 07:06 AM
They are. However, initial investment is a tricky business.

Well, how are you saying they're a success then? Unless people are wanting to privately fund them I'd say it's way too early to label them a success. You could say there's positive signs, I guess.

Saul Good
05-11-2012, 01:51 PM
We were discussing your criteria for meeting your definition. You still failed to deliver that.

But yet he tells them to buy? Why would that be? Is it possibke that the analysts might look at this stock as having a high likelehood of being bailed out if it were to fail?

J Diddy
05-11-2012, 02:12 PM
Is it possibke that the analysts might look at this stock as having a high likelehood of being bailed out if it were to fail?

I wouldn't think so. They didn't bail out Solyndra.