• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Solar company bankrupt despite 'win-win' DOE loan

I'm so blown away with conservatives' nonstop rants about how they hate Hugo Chavez and Muslim's then in the next sentence tell us how we should always be for massive tax-breaks to big oil and not funnel any money towards what could truly give us energy independence from the very people they say they hate.

What a totally broken and baffling ideology.
 
I'm a simple person. Even the "experts" have differing opinions.

Alternative Energy - ProCon.org

Pro

"Arjun Makhijani, PhD, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, stated the following in his Aug. 2007 article "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free," in Science for Democratic Action:

“[A] zero-CO2 U.S. economy can be achieved within the next thirty to fifty years without the use of nuclear power...

The U.S. renewable energy resource base is vast and practically untapped. Available wind energy resources in 12 Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states equal about 2.5 times the entire electricity production of the United States... Solar energy resources on just one percent of the area of the United States are about three times as large as wind energy, if production is focused in the high insolation areas [strong sunlight] in the Southwest and West…

With the right combination of technologies, it is likely that even the use of coal can be phased out, along with nuclear electricity.

Complete elimination of CO2 could occur as early as 2040. Elimination of nuclear power could also occur in that time frame.”

Con

Tad W. Patzek, PhD, Chairman of the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at the University of Texas at Austin, and David Pimentel, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University stated the following in their Mar. 14, 2005 article “Thermodynamics of Energy Production from Biomass,” published in Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences:

"We want to be very clear: solar cells, wind turbines, and biomass-for-energy plantations can never replace even a small fraction of the highly reliable, 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year, nuclear, fossil, and hydroelectric power stations. Claims to the contrary are popular, but irresponsible...

We live in a hydrocarbon-limited world, generate too much CO2, and major hydropower opportunities have been exhausted worldwide..."
I disagree with each side for different reasons. It's damned difficult to get 24/7, 365 days a year energy from wind and solar. The intermittency problem comes in. So they need to be augmented by power sources that are "clean-er" that will not go down due to the vagaries of weather. So that leaves us with nuclear and natural gas (NG). I would prefer to phase out NG too, but in this time of transition it can help us maintain "normalcy" until fusion is finally worked out. Additionally, wave power is often overlooked. I don't know why. It's an AE that will work 24/7. Hydropower via turbines in rivers is another way to get power 24/7. Again, I don't know why this is always forgotten.

I have no idea why anyone would want to eliminate Hydro-electric systems. They are a fabulous power source that works 24/7. There's no reason at all to shut them down. I disagree with using crops for energy. That amounts to 1 unit of effort to get 2 units of power, leaving you with only 1 energy unit profit. This is hideously inefficient. It's not worth burning up our food. If energy from algae can be made profitable, then that looks promising, but we need to get going on a test plant to see if it can be made profitable before we put too much into it.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with each side for different reasons. It's damned difficult to get 24/7, 365 days a year energy from wind and solar. The intermittency problem comes in. So they need to be augmented by power sources that are "clean-er" that will not go down due to the vagaries of weather. So that leaves us with nuclear and natural gas (NG). I would prefer to phase out NG too, but in this time of transition it can help us maintain "normalcy" until fusion is finally worked out. Additionally, wave power is often overlooked. I don't know why. It's an AE that will work 24/7. Hydropower via turbines in rivers is another way to get power 24/7. Again, I don't know why this is always forgotten.

I have no idea why anyone would want to eliminate Hydro-electric systems. They are a fabulous power source that works 24/7. There's no reason at all to shut them down. I disagree with using crops for energy. That amounts to 1 unit of effort to get 2 units of power, leaving you with only 1 energy unit profit. This is hideously inefficient. It's not worth burning up our food. If energy from algae can be made profitable, then that looks promising, but we need to get going on a test plant to see if it can be made profitable before we put too much into it.


I don't know why anyone

Hydroelectric works when there is plenty of hydro to run the electric. Rivers tend to run pretty full in the spring, particularly after a heavy snow year, but not so much in the fall. Like solar and wind, it is a power source that doesn't require fuel, but also like wind and solar, it doesn't work all of the time.

The other thing about hydro is that systems are already in place on most of the rivers in the US. Unless mother nature gives us a few more rivers, which seems sort of unlikely, we have about exhausted that source of power.

The great thing about solar in a hot climate is that it works best exactly when the demand for electricity is highest, when the AC units are pumping.
 
The great thing about solar in a hot climate is that it works best exactly when the demand for electricity is highest, when the AC units are pumping.

Very true.

Hydroelectric works when there is plenty of hydro to run the electric. Rivers tend to run pretty full in the spring, particularly after a heavy snow year, but not so much in the fall. Like solar and wind, it is a power source that doesn't require fuel, but also like wind and solar, it doesn't work all of the time.

The other thing about hydro is that systems are already in place on most of the rivers in the US. Unless mother nature gives us a few more rivers, which seems sort of unlikely, we have about exhausted that source of power.

When speaking about hydro-electric, we need to be careful about what we mean. A "Dam" works 24/7. Water is constantly flowing through it. This is one kind of Hydro-electric. Another way of getting hydro-electric is to place turbines in rivers. This requires no damming. There are, of course, rivers and streams that periodically do dry up, so they wouldn't be appropriate. Rivers like the Colorado, Mississippi, and the Ohio, maybe even New York's East River would be excellent sources for hydro-electric stations using turbines. They never dry up. These systems would run all day and night. They could use "helical turbines" which I really like because their design doesn't spin fast enough to harm any river wildlife. Environmentalists would have little to complain about.
 
We're, Um, currently getting 45% of our oil from foreign sources. And that's after "drill baby drill" that's brought us the highest domestic oil production of the decade

Drilling on private lands has brought us the highest domestic oil production. How much would we need from outside if we could tap into all the rest that the government is preventing?

Would it not be better to get 99% of the oil from our own lands while we let technology advance for wind and solar?

Ask an environmentalist to pick between oil/coal and nuclear/solar/wind, and they will pick the latter 100% of the time.

Yeah, that's why they are protesting that relatively small solar plan in California. :roll: All this doesn't even mention hydro electric and the blocking of building new dams while they take down old ones.
 
I'm so blown away with conservatives' nonstop rants about how they hate Hugo Chavez and Muslim's then in the next sentence tell us how we should always be for massive tax-breaks to big oil and not funnel any money towards what could truly give us energy independence from the very people they say they hate.

What a totally broken and baffling ideology.

Oil companys get the exact same tax breaks I do with my sawmill and small loigging operation, no more no less.
 
Because, as you've already been told in this thread, that conservative "free market" that we are tied into with the WTO and NAFTA and all that garbage... for some reason means we abide by free market while China subsidizes the crap out of their products to illegally dump their subsidized products into our market to destroy competition all while they tariff our goods coming into their country.

That is why.


You know, I've been pretty nice thus far. I've been asking questions and researching material. I don't need attitude, nor being told "That is why", since I've been really interested in this discussion. And I do want to know both sides, since it seems no one has the "right" answers. Even the experts, as I posted pros and cons, don't agree.

So back off.
 
Drilling on private lands has brought us the highest domestic oil production. How much would we need from outside if we could tap into all the rest that the government is preventing?

Would it not be better to get 99% of the oil from our own lands while we let technology advance for wind and solar?

It would be better and it would create domestic jobs. But consider this: to date the strategy has been to consume the other guy's oil rather than our own. When oil didn't result in a massive geo-political hassle, then this was a great strategy. But now our need for oil is gargantuan. We have to fight wars on multiple fronts just to insure the oil flows freely. Ask Hitler how well that method worked out.

The fact is, we need oil for a lot more than just burning it. Plastics comes to mind immediately. I'm typing on plastics and reading on plastics and later will call and receive calls on devices made with plastics. We'll need oil for a lot of very good reasons in the century to come. So let's not waste it by burning up to 85% of it up in cars when we can make cars that don't need oil at all. Then we can rely on strictly domestic oil for the plastics and other uses for many many years to come. And we don't have to support terrorism to do it.

Yeah, that's why they are protesting that relatively small solar plan in California. :roll: All this doesn't even mention hydro electric and the blocking of building new dams while they take down old ones.

Don't confuse me with environmentalists. I'm interested primarily in the energy security of the USA. If we don't have the power to save ourselves, we'll never have the power to save our animals either. So we make sure WE aren't ****ed up and then we'll have the time to be sure our wildlife isn't ****ed up either. Environmentalists will have to wait until we get our energy squared away and then we can work on their concerns too. One thing at a time.
 
Oil companys get the exact same tax breaks I do with my sawmill and small loigging operation, no more no less.

That would be in-correct. There are many tax breaks that support the petroleum inductry and only the petroleum industry. On top of that, there are other tax breaks where there is an overlap with your industry.
 
The fact is, we need oil for a lot more than just burning it. Plastics comes to mind immediately. I'm typing on plastics and reading on plastics and later will call and receive calls on devices made with plastics. We'll need oil for a lot of very good reasons in the century to come. So let's not waste it by burning up to 85% of it up in cars when we can make cars that don't need oil at all. Then we can rely on strictly domestic oil for the plastics and other uses for many many years to come.

What alternative to oil is there for cars, that is not overly subsidized to make it affordable (ethanol), that will give you the same power, and running duration in a car?

Don't confuse me with environmentalists. I'm interested primarily in the energy security of the USA. If we don't have the power to save ourselves, we'll never have the power to save our animals either. So we make sure WE aren't ****ed up and then we'll have the time to be sure our wildlife isn't ****ed up either. Environmentalists will have to wait until we get our energy squared away and then we can work on their concerns too. One thing at a time.

I agree. Unfortunately envro's do not listen to such things. Blinders on they head in one direction, humans be damned.
 
What alternative to oil is there for cars, that is not overly subsidized to make it affordable (ethanol), that will give you the same power, and running duration in a car?

The best overall option is electric. EVs. But we cannot ethically force Americans into EVs at gunpoint. China may do **** like that, but it's not our style. So while EVs are by far the best choice for future American energy security, it's still in a proto stage and far from perfect. The cost for the new tech is still too high and the range isn't good enough. Charging time is still too slow. New battery advances can change all this, but it needs time, and money. Battery researchers won't get that if there's no demand from automakers. Automakers won't create the demand if there's no demand for EV cars. How do you break the cycle? You create the demand for the cars by adding an incentive, otherwise known as a subsidy. In all honesty, you cannot create a new heavy industry with no current demand without first creating the product and gaining interest with price breaks. Once interest develops you can start ramping up production which will reduce the cost per unit. Once that creates even more interest you can sink profits into R&D to improve the product and thus create more interest.

This is a common marketing and production cycle that exists in everything from mousetraps to guided missile warships. The only difference here is that the government is stepping in to help with the marketing cycle. Why should the government spend OUR money on this? Because if we don't run through years of marketing and development necessary NOW, while we aren't absolutely dying for energy, we'll have to do it when gas inevitably gets too costly to afford (and thereby food gets too costly to afford), we WILL be dying, and the process we're running through NOW cannot possibly happen fast enough. So if the people for whom EVs are appropriate would buy them NOW and provide the marketing impetus and feedback to improve the cars, then EVs will be just exactly what people will need when the time comes when we honest-to-goodness really need them. Production facilities will be poised and ready to support a sharp spike in demand. Popularity and a revised practicality will eliminate any need for further subsidies.
 
Last edited:
But do subsidies really ever go away?

I agree EV's are not practical or affordable for most people. I drive a lot to make a living, an EV would not work, not enough duration, not even 1/10 of what I'd need. And the stuff like the Volt is a novelty car for the wealthy at it's price point.

I see no reason to not open up more drilling, get more of our own oil to cover our own needs, while we await the miracle breakthrough that would make EV's 'better'. If we sit around waiting, we are still purchasing a load of oil that funds 'enemies'. And if and when EV's hit the point they need get to, then we will have all the drilling in place ever needed to get the oil for all the other stuff we use it for.
 
But do subsidies really ever go away?
A valid concern. Oil companies are posting record profits yet still receive $4 Billion in subsidies every year. We cannot make this mistake again.

I agree EV's are not practical or affordable for most people. I drive a lot to make a living, an EV would not work, not enough duration, not even 1/10 of what I'd need. And the stuff like the Volt is a novelty car for the wealthy at it's price point.

Gads, you drive 400 miles per day? Sorry dude. My neighbor in Odessa had to drive about that much too. Such requirements do exist, but are not the rule. Most people commute below 25 miles per day. A $40K car is not only in the realm of the wealthy, but even the upper-middle class. So this places EVs in the price range of a lot of people. You can even find EVs for $17,500, but I don't think I would take one out on the highway. Besides, EVs at that price look like golf carts and that doesn't interest me.

I see no reason to not open up more drilling, get more of our own oil to cover our own needs, while we await the miracle breakthrough that would make EV's 'better'. If we sit around waiting, we are still purchasing a load of oil that funds 'enemies'. And if and when EV's hit the point they need get to, then we will have all the drilling in place ever needed to get the oil for all the other stuff we use it for.

I'm not opposed to more domestic drilling. That's fine to me. But even the massive increase we're seeing now is a drop in the bucket compared to our needs as a nation. And even that won't relieve the price, since that is set on the international market. All the increased drilling means so far is that we're an exporter of gasoline, while Americans still pay insane costs at the pump. The cost for gas will still climb as increasing affluence in China, India, and Brazil means they consume more oil and force the cost of oil to shoot up. We can drill all we want but if won't help individual Americans much at all. EVs CAN help in this regard because a reduced need for oil can slow the steady climb of gas prices. Enough EVs and we can all forget about gas prices completely. And no one will give a **** if Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz or not.
 
Last edited:
Nice. Good find. I actually worked in a call center that was connecting people who wanted solar to connect with SolarCity.


Since you've worked in this area, what is the initial cost to the consumer to have solar panels installed? What is the reliabilty and maintainabilty of these panels?

I think folks would be more open to going in this direction if it were affordable and they could see a return on their investment. We here about solar panels and never hear about the costs and returns.
 
What conservative political hacks fail to mention every time they bring up these companies is that at the time the loan was made profit projections for these companies was strong and reliable and the market for solar power was quickly growing. Then we started to increase fracking and three cost for solar plant materials increased, making the ventures less profitable (short term). Three loans were not bad ideas from an economic stand point (when the radio cost of all the alternatives was taken into account) fortune just had other plans
 
Gads, you drive 400 miles per day? Sorry dude. My neighbor in Odessa had to drive about that much too. Such requirements do exist, but are not the rule. Most people commute below 25 miles per day. A $40K car is not only in the realm of the wealthy, but even the upper-middle class. So this places EVs in the price range of a lot of people. You can even find EVs for $17,500, but I don't think I would take one out on the highway. Besides, EVs at that price look like golf carts and that doesn't interest me.

Not all days, but it is not uncommon to do 200 a day. Some days a lot more, and occasionally less. It's not bad, I have XM, so you stay entertained. ;)

A $40K car may be in the realm of more than the wealthy, but not a $40K EV with limited space and duration. It doesn't make sense at that price for the majority of people. Around here, if you are gonna spend $40k, it's gonna be a truck or SUV. So your investment get's you a vehicle you can work and play with.
 
That would be in-correct. There are many tax breaks that support the petroleum inductry and only the petroleum industry. On top of that, there are other tax breaks where there is an overlap with your industry.

Tell me what tax breaks ONLY the oil industry gets. All I hear about is their massive write offs for investments, that is the same break I get.
 
I am the last person to defend Obama, but Solyndra had a legitimate good concept
The cost of goods sold price point at the time of the loan was about $600 for a 200 watt panel.
The Solyndra panels have a much lower installation cost, so an $800 sales price would
still be very competitive.
The list price now for a 200 watt panel ( in pallet orders) is as low as $300.
Solyndra had no way to know China would subsidies solar enough, to push the price that low.

Most of the cost of Nuclear is in regulation. Someone who worked on the South Texas
Project told me," When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the plant, they can turn it on."

I have to disagree with you on this one,






The FBI is investigating what happened with Solyndra, a solar panel company that got a $535 million government-backed loan with the help of the Obama White House over the objections of federal budget analysts.

Obama and Vice President Joe Biden got a nice photo op. They got to make speeches about being "green." But then Solyndra went bankrupt. Americans lost jobs. Taxpayers got stuck with the bill. And members of Congress are now in high dudgeon and making speeches.

Federal investigators want to know what role political fundraising played in the guarantee of the questionable loan. Washington bureaucrats warned the deal was lousy. And White House spokesmen flail desperately, like weakened victims in a cheesy vampire movie.

So forget optics. What about smell? It smells bad, and it's going to smell worse.

Or, did you really believe it when the White House mouthpieces — who are also Chicago City Hall mouthpieces — promised they were bringing a new kind of politics to Washington?

This is not a new kind of politics. It's the old kind. The Chicago kind.

And now the Tribune Washington Bureau has reported that the U.S. Department of Energy employee who helped monitor the Solyndra loan guarantee was one of Obama's top fundraisers.


Barack Obama's Solyndra scandal smells like it came from Chicago's City Hall - Chicago Tribune
 
I have to disagree with you on this one,






The FBI is investigating what happened with Solyndra, a solar panel company that got a $535 million government-backed loan with the help of the Obama White House over the objections of federal budget analysts.

Obama and Vice President Joe Biden got a nice photo op. They got to make speeches about being "green." But then Solyndra went bankrupt. Americans lost jobs. Taxpayers got stuck with the bill. And members of Congress are now in high dudgeon and making speeches.

Federal investigators want to know what role political fundraising played in the guarantee of the questionable loan. Washington bureaucrats warned the deal was lousy. And White House spokesmen flail desperately, like weakened victims in a cheesy vampire movie.

So forget optics. What about smell? It smells bad, and it's going to smell worse.

Or, did you really believe it when the White House mouthpieces — who are also Chicago City Hall mouthpieces — promised they were bringing a new kind of politics to Washington?

This is not a new kind of politics. It's the old kind. The Chicago kind.

And now the Tribune Washington Bureau has reported that the U.S. Department of Energy employee who helped monitor the Solyndra loan guarantee was one of Obama's top fundraisers.


Barack Obama's Solyndra scandal smells like it came from Chicago's City Hall - Chicago Tribune




After Solyndar went under didn't they take these panels, bought by the taxpayer, and dump them? I thought I saw this on the evening news. Give them to a taxpayer who could use them, rather than throw them in the dump. Dose that make sense to anyone?

Who was it that said" "When I die I want to buried in Chicago so I can continue to vote"? That about sums Chicago politics, don't you think? :mrgreen:
 
Tell me what tax breaks ONLY the oil industry gets. All I hear about is their massive write offs for investments, that is the same break I get.

Here you go. This list isn't complete, but it's damning enough.

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)
Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Finding and tallying federal energy subsidies, however, can be fiendishly difficult. Doug Koplow of the energy-consulting firm Earth Track in Cambridge, Mass., is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic.

He estimates that the US spent between $49 billion and $100 billion on energy subsidies in 2007 – numbers Mr. Koplow says are still accurate if adjusted for inflation. The handouts cover a broad range of activities, from federal loan guarantees and funding for energy research and development to special tax exemptions.

Here is how the subsidies break down by category, adjusted for inflation, according to Koplow.
Oil and gas: $41 billion

President Obama wants Congress to chop $3.6 billion in 2012 oil and gas tax breaks for a total of $46.2 billion over the next decade. Among Mr. Obama’s targets: a nearly century-old oil and gas industry tax deduction for the costs of preparing drill sites and a manufacturer's tax break granted the oil industry in 2004.

The number is significant, but still little more than one-tenth of the federal subsidies that oil and gas companies might receive over 10 years. Adjusted for inflation, they currently receive about $41 billion in annual subsidies annually. That amounts to more than half – 52 percent – of total benefits distributed to energy sectors by the federal government.
Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year? - CSMonitor.com

It looks to me like Chicago politics has got nothing compared to Washington politics when it comes to fleecing the taxpayers.
 
Last edited:
That would be in-correct. There are many tax breaks that support the petroleum inductry and only the petroleum industry. On top of that, there are other tax breaks where there is an overlap with your industry.

Also his little logging industry doesn't need his shipping lanes protected by the US Navy. Hidden costs everywhere.
 
You know, I've been pretty nice thus far. I've been asking questions and researching material. I don't need attitude, nor being told "That is why", since I've been really interested in this discussion. And I do want to know both sides, since it seems no one has the "right" answers. Even the experts, as I posted pros and cons, don't agree.

So back off.

Yes you have been civil. You also didn't address anything I posted at all there. Am I wrong?
 
But do subsidies really ever go away?

I agree EV's are not practical or affordable for most people. I drive a lot to make a living, an EV would not work, not enough duration, not even 1/10 of what I'd need. And the stuff like the Volt is a novelty car for the wealthy at it's price point.

I see no reason to not open up more drilling, get more of our own oil to cover our own needs, while we await the miracle breakthrough that would make EV's 'better'. If we sit around waiting, we are still purchasing a load of oil that funds 'enemies'. And if and when EV's hit the point they need get to, then we will have all the drilling in place ever needed to get the oil for all the other stuff we use it for.

Oil we drill does NOT get used here therefore it will not cover any of OUR needs.

I can't seem to post that enough to sink in to anyone.
 
Back
Top Bottom