Obama Green double down question

Ockham · Apr 20, 2012

On April 18th, 2012 in Michigan, President Obama again called for a "double down" on clean energy, which was met with some skepticism and rightly so. There have been a few high profile failures in the green sector; some of which used taxpayer money to fund, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, only to fail. The private sector can do that and the down side is, that failure costs investors in the market place. Government does it with taxpayer money, there is no down side; just get more tax payer money and keep trying until something succeeds.

Investors.com said:
Green Energy: Another day and another set of layoffs at a Department of Energy-backed solar company and an electric-car maker funded with stimulus dollars. Yet the President wants to double down on green energy.
First Solar, a solar energy company that received a $1.46 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, announced Monday it will lay off 2,000 workers worldwide. In December, First Solar laid off 100 employees at a Santa Clara , Calif., plant.
The DOE has committed the loan to a project in Riverside County, Calif., expected to create a whopping 15 permanent jobs and 550 construction jobs.
Contrast this boondoggle with the privately funded Keystone XL pipeline, delayed by President Obama over alleged environmental concerns, which would create 20,000 jobs initially and perhaps 10 times that over the life of the project. It will bring 800,000 barrels of oil daily to U.S. refineries, whether the sun shines or not.
Last Friday, Delaware Online reports, 12 more workers — including engineers and maintenance technicians — were laid off at Fisker Automotive's plant in Wilmington, Del., an old General Motors facility.
Originally Fisker was to build its $107,850 dream car, the electric Fisker Karma, there. The Karma, which Consumer Reports labeled "undrivable" after it had to be towed away after a test drive, is being built by Valmet in Finland. Fisker Automotive is the recipient of a $529 million federal government loan guarantee.
Unlike the "subsidies" allegedly given to oil companies, these are real dollars going from our wallets to theirs. The oil companies actually get not a dime, but the same tax breaks as all other manufacturers.
Solyndra, the politically connected recipient of a half-billion-dollar stimulus loan before it too went bankrupt, was only the tip of the iceberg in Obama's green energy failures.

President Obama Doubles Down On Green Energy Despite New Layoff - Investors.com

Barack Obama - Michigan April 18th said:
We need to be supporting scientists and researchers who are trying to make the next breakthrough in clean energy or biotech. I want clean energy to happen here in the United States. I want advanced batteries made here in the United States. I want electric cars made here in the United States. I want solar and wind power made here in the United States. (Applause.) We’ve been subsidizing oil companies with taxpayer giveaways for about 100 years now. It’s time for us to double down on clean energy that has never been more promising. (Applause.)

Obama in Dearborn, Michigan – 4/18/2012 – Photos, video, and transcript | Eclectablog

"I want"... "We need"... "I want..."

Now take the poll.

Kandahar · Apr 20, 2012

Ockham said:
On April 18th, 2012 in Michigan, President Obama again called for a "double down" on clean energy, which was met with some skepticism and rightly so. There have been a few high profile failures in the green sector; some of which used taxpayer money to fund, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, only to fail. The private sector can do that and the down side is, that failure costs investors in the market place. Government does it with taxpayer money, there is no down side; just get more tax payer money and keep trying until something succeeds.

Yep, that's how technology always has worked and always will. In the history of every new technology that changed the world, there has always been a period of time preceding it when it was expensive and didn't work very well. And prior to THAT period, there has always been a period of time when it didn't work at all. That isn't a reason to stop funding it; just the opposite.

Presumably, everyone agrees that the world would be a better place if we had clean energy production, at a price competitive with fossil fuels. The government can provide incentives to make that happen faster. And before you tell me that we should just wait for market forces to do it, keep in mind that people are ALREADY not paying the full cost of fossil fuels. For example, the general public (rather than the consumer himself) is responsible for pollution that results from coal and oil. If people actually had to pay for the full cost of the oil/coal they use, alternative energies would become economically viable much sooner.

Quag · Apr 20, 2012

On April 18th, 2012 in Michigan, President Obama again called for a "double down" on clean energy, which was met with some skepticism and rightly so. There have been a few high profile failures in the green sector; some of which used taxpayer money to fund, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, only to fail. The private sector can do that and the down side is, that failure costs investors in the market place. Government does it with taxpayer money, there is no down side; just get more tax payer money and keep trying until something succeeds.

I consider that a big downside.
I think the biggest problem is they are thowing money away trying to get these technologies into service, when really they should be investing more into R&D. Untill you get to the point where you can come up with better methods in terms of efficiency (both production and output) you are wasting money. If that money was put into R&D then the solutions could come sooner than they will using the current wastefull method.

specklebang · Apr 20, 2012

I agree that it is appropriate for the USG to support research into green technology as long as it is domestic research for domestic purpose using domestic labor. I'm not supportive of investing in Finnish automobiles or Chinese solar panels, that should be done by private industry.

Personally, I'm not very hopeful about American green projects. We sure could use oil alternatives but I doubt this is the country that will accomplish that. Hopefully, other countries will develop alternatives and we will import them with our dollars (the one thing we are good at manufacturing).

Mycroft · Apr 20, 2012

And don't forget about the DOE loan guarantee to Tesla Motors so they can build a factory to produce their S Model to the tune of 465 million dollars. Someday, if we are lucky, we can buy one for 50 grand for the base model. (after the 7.5k tax credit) for a car that might get you 160 miles on a charge...if you don't drive over 55 mph.

Taxpayer money well spent, I'm sure Obama would say.

Catawba · Apr 21, 2012

Hell yes! It was time to double down 30 years ago when we passed peak oil in this country.

Your Star · Apr 21, 2012

Obviously. If we don't the tech just won't develop fast enough, we need to be a leader in this field, not a follower.

pbrauer · Apr 21, 2012

Mycroft said:
And don't forget about the DOE loan guarantee to Tesla Motors so they can build a factory to produce their S Model to the tune of 465 million dollars. Someday, if we are lucky, we can buy one for 50 grand for the base model. (after the 7.5k tax credit) for a car that might get you 160 miles on a charge...if you don't drive over 55 mph.

Taxpayer money well spent, I'm sure Obama would say.

The loan guarantee program for alternate energy sources was actually signed into law by President Bush.

PolitiFact | Did the program that funded the Solyndra loan start under George W. Bush? David Plouffe says so

Exclusive Timeline: Bush Administration Advanced Solyndra Loan Guarantee for Two Years, Media Blow the Story | ThinkProgress

LizardofOz · Apr 21, 2012

You know what else tax payer money helped fund? Nearly everything technologically advanced you have including the thing your typing on. There have been plenty of missteps along the way with cellphones and computers to. Maybe if they slapped green energy on the DoD budget like they used to in the past you would care less.

Henrin · Apr 21, 2012

Your Star said:
Obviously. If we don't the tech just won't develop fast enough, we need to be a leader in this field, not a follower.

Another talking point that makes no sense.

Henrin · Apr 21, 2012

Kandahar said:
Yep, that's how technology always has worked and always will. In the history of every new technology that changed the world, there has always been a period of time preceding it when it was expensive and didn't work very well. And prior to THAT period, there has always been a period of time when it didn't work at all. That isn't a reason to stop funding it; just the opposite.

Energy has always been a bit different mostly because of how the model was affected early on by the government and simply not allowed to normal out, so comparing it to just about anything else is just not workable.

However, there is a vast difference between funding something that has potential with millions/billions of dollars in the market and simply funding something for the hopes that it will have potential in the future for decades on decades with trillions of dollars. The fact is, when you decide to fund technologies two of the things you weigh it on are potential and cost effectiveness and on both fronts what you guys are pushing is outright ridiculous.

MoSurveyor · Apr 21, 2012

Other:
"Is it time to double down on green energy?" Yes.

The rest of the question as phrased is vague at best.

Henrin said:
[...] The fact is, when you decide to fund technologies two of the things you weigh it on are potential and cost effectiveness and on both fronts what you guys are pushing is outright ridiculous.

Both of which are subjective calls.
Thanks for your input.

tecoyah · Apr 21, 2012

Henrin said:
Another talking point that makes no sense.

I fail to see how this is a talking point "Obviously. If we don't the tech just won't develop fast enough, we need to be a leader in this field, not a follower.". Nor is it nonsense.

If we do not invest in this technology, it will not develop as quickly, and we will fall even further behind those who do so. This is a very simple reality.

These folks (Germany), knew this in the 80's:

"It seems a simple enough concept: build a development around its solar energy strategy, rather than just adding solar panels later as a kind of eco-decoration. Builders in Freiberg, Germany seem to have the right idea. The Sonnenschiff solar city, a large-scale, self-sustaining development (which comes to us via Inhabitat), uses energy efficient home design, smart solar orientation and a whole lot of photovoltaic panels pointed in the right direction to go way beyond beyond net-zero, producing four times as much energy as it actually consumes. Now that’s what we call grid-positive."
German Solar City Super Grid Positive | Earthtechling

These guys (China), know it as well...are we really that backwards?

"The filing claims Chinese rivals – propped up by tens of billions in government subsidies – are “dumping” solar panels in U.S. at below fair value to seize market share and drive out competitors. The Chinese government aid ranges from cash grants to preferential loans to deep discounts on land, water, power and raw materials, the complaint alleges."

Read more: Solar industry divided, threatened by Chinese imports

cpwill · Apr 21, 2012

Kandahar said:
Yep, that's how technology always has worked and always will. In the history of every new technology that changed the world, there has always been a period of time preceding it when it was expensive and didn't work very well. And prior to THAT period, there has always been a period of time when it didn't work at all. That isn't a reason to stop funding it; just the opposite.

For decades now, the green movement has been swearing to us that with some support to start, green energy can take off on its' own.

Well, now with skyrocketed deficits and a looming fiscal crisis, the time has come;

time to fly, little bird.

tecoyah · Apr 21, 2012

cpwill said:
For decades now, the green movement has been swearing to us that with some support to start, green energy can take off on its' own.

Well, now with skyrocketed deficits and a looming fiscal crisis, the time has come;

time to fly, little bird.

I would venture to say the entire field is indeed advancing quite nicely.

This paper provides an overview of some of the key technological and market developments for leading renewable energy technologies—wind, wave and tidal, photovoltaics (PV) and biomass energy. Market growth, innovation and policy are closely interrelated in the development of renewables and the key issues in each area are explored for each of the main types of renewable energy technology. This enables the prospects for future development and cost reduction to be considered in detail. Key issues for policy are outlined.

ScienceDirect.com - Environment International - Progress in renewable energy

Imagine is we had decided to stop our funding for NASA in the 70's.

Fletch · Apr 21, 2012

Its always easy to double down when you are using someone elses money. When this current bet fails, expect Obama to double down again.

Canell · Apr 21, 2012

Can't burn fossil fuels forever. Gotta go for it.
Cell phones were also expensive and had the size of a brick at first but now they are slim and the battery last for a week or so. You get the idea, I think.

Mycroft · Apr 21, 2012

The only way alternate forms of energy will become economically viable in the near future is if the price of petroleum is artificially inflated. That appears to be Obama's goal.

The only problem with this action is that in the time between full implementation of alternate energy technologies and the increase of petroleum, the consumer gets screwed...royally.

So much for caring about the people.

sawyerloggingon · Apr 21, 2012

I have watched people get stubbornly obsessed in Reno and Vegas and keep doubling down until they lost everything they had. Obama reminds me of them, he is going to stubbornly keep throwing OUR money on the table until WE are broke!

Kandahar · Apr 21, 2012

Henrin said:
Energy has always been a bit different mostly because of how the model was affected early on by the government and simply not allowed to normal out, so comparing it to just about anything else is just not workable.

I would suggest that energy, at least on the production side, is among the most efficient, commoditized markets that we have...at any given time I can go online and find out the exact price of a barrel of oil anywhere in the world, down to the cent (after adjusting for transportation costs). Sure, there are some inefficiencies, such as the "natural monopoly" that exists on the distribution side: our power grid. But even that's a good reason to fund alternative energy; many people could go off the grid entirely or even start selling energy back, if we had the technology to produce cheap and efficient solar panels for the roofs of homes.

Any regulations that the governments of the world impose upon the producers of energy (e.g. environmental restrictions, drilling permits, etc) are pretty minor compared to what many other industries face.

However, there is a vast difference between funding something that has potential with millions/billions of dollars in the market and simply funding something for the hopes that it will have potential in the future for decades on decades with trillions of dollars.

Not really. How much does our economy directly spend on oil and coal? And then there are the indirect costs too...How much environmental damage (as a dollar amount) do those things do? How much does the volatility of those commodities harm our economy? How much does our reliance on fossil fuels promote expensive interventions and/or wars in the Middle East? When you add up all these hidden costs that the consumers don't pay for themselves, it becomes very worthwhile to make a strong national push to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels as soon as possible.

The fact is, when you decide to fund technologies two of the things you weigh it on are potential and cost effectiveness and on both fronts what you guys are pushing is outright ridiculous.

OK, let's examine those two metrics:

Potential - Solar energy alone is advancing on a Moore's Law-like exponential curve, albeit a bit slower than the one for computer chips. The cost per kilowatt-hour of solar energy falls between 7% and 14% every single year, consistently. This is because every year, new solar technologies come online, which increases the energy density of solar panels for any given cost. Nationwide, solar energy costs about 10-14 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to about 2-4 cents per kWh for coal or natural gas, and about 5 cents per kWh for oil. If we merely assume that solar power will continue the trend that it has been on, it will reach cost parity with fossil fuels in the sunnier parts of this country by the middle to end of this decade...and will reach cost parity with fossil fuels nationwide some time in the 2020s. And if the price of fossil fuels continues to increase, this could happen even sooner.

Cost-effectiveness - As of 2009, the total amount spent worldwide (both private and government) on renewable energy was $162 billion. In the US, this included $18.6 billion in private investments and another $7 billion in corporate R&D and government grants. This compares to about $3.1 TRILLION worth of oil that is consumed worldwide every year. The investment that we are making on alternative energy is a drop in the bucket, and we are nowhere near the point where it is no longer cost-effective.

tecoyah · Apr 21, 2012

Mycroft said:
The only way alternate forms of energy will become economically viable in the near future is if the price of petroleum is artificially inflated. That appears to be Obama's goal.

How is removing subsidies that artificially deflate a price...artificially inflating it?

The only problem with this action is that in the time between full implementation of alternate energy technologies and the increase of petroleum, the consumer gets screwed...royally.

The consumer is already getting the shaft, and we are using petroleum.

So much for caring about the people.

This shortsightedness, combined with an inability to lead...is why we are so far behind right now.

Mycroft · Apr 21, 2012

tecoyah said:
This shortsightedness, combined with an inability to lead...is why we are so far behind right now.

1. How is removing subsidies that artificially deflate a price...artificially inflating it?

2. The consumer is already getting the shaft, and we are using petroleum.

1. Ummm...what subsidies have been removed?

2. And why is that, do you think?

No, the problem is that Obama aims to cause the price of oil to increase by not doing anything that will keep the price down.

The consumers suffer as a result.

Obama really cares, eh?

MoSurveyor · Apr 21, 2012

Mycroft said:
No, the problem is that Obama aims to cause the price of oil to increase by not doing anything that will keep the price down.

:lamo The canned Party Line! :lamo

Fletch · Apr 21, 2012

MoSurveyor said:
:lamo The canned Party Line! :lamo

How does that represent a canned party line? There are only two ways to make green energy compete with lower priced fossil fuels. 1. heavily subsidize the green energy to make its price low enough to compete or 2. do things that will make the cost of fossil fuels rise. Obama has chosen to do a mixture of 1 and 2. Saying that is not towing a party line but stating fairly obvious facts.

MoSurveyor · Apr 21, 2012

Fletch said:
How does that represent a canned party line? There are only two ways to make green energy compete with lower priced fossil fuels. 1. heavily subsidize the green energy to make its price low enough to compete or 2. do things that will make the cost of fossil fuels rise. Obama has chosen to do a mixture of 1 and 2. Saying that is not towing a party line but stating fairly obvious facts.

From 2001-2008 there wasn't a damn thing GWB could have done to stop oil prices from rising. American presidents can do a lot of things but there is little any of them can do about prices on a global market. From 2009-present there wasn't a damn thing Obama could do about oil prices, either. Saying so or even implying that there's a legal way for any US president to control the price of oil is, at this point in time, towing the Republican Party Line.

When GWB was in office and the Dems were screaming the same thing, it was the same answer - they were towing the Party Line.

Don't like being told you're towing the Party Line? Then quit saying stupid ****!

Obama Green double down question

Is it time to double down on green energy that has never been more promising?

Yes

No

Other (Explain)

Noblesse oblige

Enemy Combatant

Discount Philosopher

Genius is where you find it.

Disappointed Evolutionist

Rage More!

Illusionary

Illusionary

Genius is where you find it.

Enemy Combatant

Illusionary

Genius is where you find it.