• 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!

Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy

LesGovt said:
Ah, they might arrange for a small business loan. Good correction. Are those loans guaranteed by the Federal Government? Does the government make the loans or are they made through banks or other financial institutions? Again, my belief is that the Federal Government should not be making or guaranteeing loans for businesses, start-ups or otherwise.
Click to expand...

The loans are financed by private institutions and guaranteed by the SBA.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The loans are financed by private institutions and guaranteed by the SBA.
Click to expand...

So, as I thought, the taxpayers are stuck with the defaults. Not a good idea.
 
teamosil said:
That isn't how it works. It isn't binary like there is either global warming or no global warming. The more factors causing the earth to heat up, the more it will heat up. At this point, no matter what we do, we're realistically going to keep increasing our emissions for the foreseeable future. If we do nothing to limit emissions, it will increase faster. The more we limit emissions the less it will increase. If we really are at a point in history where it is going to increase from natural causes, then that is all the more reason we need to limit emissions to soften the blow.
Click to expand...

We should be fine. Explore, drill, and refine oil and gas to supply us for the next 75 years or so and get us off foreign oil. In the meantime, develop alternative energy to replace fossil fuels.

teamosil said:
Because oil is currently cheap. It won't always be. And there are scientific breakthroughs happening all the time that make solar cheaper.
Click to expand...

So, is it your suggestion that we increase the prices of our current energy sources so that alternative energy can compete? That doesn't sound like a financially sound idea to me. I am truly glad that they are making solar cheaper. When they can compete, let them compete.

teamosil said:
Certainly a lot more rapid than things that take 20+ years of R&D before they are commercially viable.
Click to expand...

Well, then we have fossil fuels to keep us humming until that day arrives and we do not crush the American public with high cost energy.

teamosil said:
Whether the government is buying the product and stimulating development or giving out loans to stimulate development doesn't really matter to me as long as it is getting done. The effect is the same either way. Besides, a lot of those things listed there are either government agencies or funded by research grants. I'm not saying the only development of green energy should be driven by government loans or something. Certainly private industry should continue to take the lead. But government boosting it makes sense to me. It's a good investment for the nation economically.
Click to expand...

Let the products stand on their own merit.

teamosil said:
"Expanding production" is just a name for using the finite supply up faster. We need to be looking for ways to slow our consumption, not increase it.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is why we need to continue to develop alternative sources.
 
Temporal said:
Demand for alternatives is there, but supply is not high and prices are often non-affordable. It's because the industry is new, and without major government backing it won't take off. If the U.S. doesn't figure this out, it will lose an opportunity at a burgeoning new market. Europe and even Asia are starting to take advantage of this.
Click to expand...

This is my thinking too. Basically we have to create a demand for these products and in this economy and with less expensive alternatives available that is tough. We need much higher subsidies for these products that would allow them to be attractive for users to buy and maintain. Congress and the President aren't willing to take the criticism for spending that much money at this time so they throw out token subsidies that are doomed for failure. Getting people to use these products is the only way to make them attractive enough to draw interest.

Part of my work is to do energy studies for schools and busninesses. My area is concetrated mostly on energy savings on lighting systems. There is a lot of innovation out there to drastically reduce energy costs associated with lightingl but the problem is the payback for using a lot of these measures can be 8, 10 or 12 years at current energy prices. I live in the south and frankly, energy costs are too low to get the payback to a reasonable time. Used to be during some of our energy crisis times power companies and the government were offering all kinds of incentives to upgrade. Today there is nothing for the average business or school district so they are very reluctant to spend the money.
 
LesGovt said:
So, as I thought, the taxpayers are stuck with the defaults. Not a good idea.
Click to expand...
Your opinion of SBA loans to restaurants is irrelevant; that you acknowledge they exist is relevant to the point/counterpoint, and disproves your earlier claim:

LesGovt said:
[...] Restaurants don't receive the loans or subsidies [...]
Click to expand...
 
LesGovt said:
The government is well known for guaranteeing loans that won't be paid back. [...]
Click to expand...
Can you provide some examples, or are we supposed to take your word for it?
 
LesGovt said:
[...] Explore, drill, and refine oil and gas to supply us for the next 75 years or so and get us off foreign oil. [...]
Click to expand...
Impossible, as any intelligent review of the situation will clearly show.

Now if you want to reduce consumption of crude by 50% (by, say, a 25% reduction in fuel consumption bolstered by 25% changeover to an alternative, perhaps such as natural gas), then you have outlined a possibly achievable goal. Otherwise, this air-headed drill-our-way-to-oil-independence populist mantra that is often heard from the right is too ignorant to even contemplate.
 
jambalaya said:
[...] Part of my work is to do energy studies for schools and busninesses. My area is concetrated mostly on energy savings on lighting systems. There is a lot of innovation out there to drastically reduce energy costs associated with lightingl but the problem is the payback for using a lot of these measures can be 8, 10 or 12 years at current energy prices. I live in the south and frankly, energy costs are too low to get the payback to a reasonable time. Used to be during some of our energy crisis times power companies and the government were offering all kinds of incentives to upgrade. Today there is nothing for the average business or school district so they are very reluctant to spend the money.
Click to expand...
The solution there is via regulation, such as implementing stricter requirements into new building codes. This avoids the incurring the cost of retrofit on older buildings, and better amortizes the up front cost on newer buildings.... and over time, eventuall implements energy savings universally as older buildings fall into disuse or are demolished for bigger and better construction.

However, this will run afoul of the over-regulation crowd (and we all know who they are), foaming at the mouth on radio and TV about the government controlling their lives, who consider it a God-given right to waste as much energy as they desire (or pollute as much as they desire), with zero regard to the long term implications for the country as a whole.
 
Karl said:
Your opinion of SBA loans to restaurants is irrelevant; that you acknowledge they exist is relevant to the point/counterpoint, and disproves your earlier claim:
Click to expand...

Well, if this is your note for cheering, be my guest. I have continuously said that guaranteed loans are not good and taxpayers should not be punished for bad decisions. Cheer on!
 
Karl said:
Can you provide some examples, or are we supposed to take your word for it?
Click to expand...

Sure. Would you like to take a look at student loans and the non-payment of those?
 
This is an interesting topic for a number of reasons. It seems that conservatives would very much like to see the government (small government?) engaging in more protectionism. But they also seem to oppose things like SBA loans which are designed to make some of our fledgling industries more competitive, which seems to be quite a contradiction. In this case, the SBA has been working to boost our domestic solar cell manufacturers. What has doomed some of them, like Solyndra and Evergreen, is massive investment in crystal cells by China's government, which has driven down prices. In other words, the SBA loans were a form of protectionism -- just too little too late.

On the other hand, American manufacturers of a competing solar cell technology -- thin film -- are doing pretty well. Thin film has not been so effected by China's actions. Thus it was just announced that an Indian firm (Reliance Power) has just taken out an $84 million loan to purchase cells from America's First Solar -- our most successful solar manufacturer. The contract is expected to double or triple in size in the coming years. Thin film panel makers Abound Solar and GE are also doing pretty well. The consolidation in the crystal panel market will eventually make that sector more competitive.
 
LesGovt said:
We should be fine. Explore, drill, and refine oil and gas to supply us for the next 75 years or so and get us off foreign oil. In the meantime, develop alternative energy to replace fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Two problems with that. First, if we continue to escalate our consumption of oil and gas at anywhere near the current projections we will run out well before 75 years. Second, if we do that we get into the absolute worst case scenarios for global warming. Like major ice sheets in Antarctica melting -> no more Florida.

LesGovt said:
So, is it your suggestion that we increase the prices of our current energy sources so that alternative energy can compete? That doesn't sound like a financially sound idea to me.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. That would be one way to do it. Other ways include subsidizing green energy or research, carbon taxes, etc. I don't have strong opinions about which way is the best. What is important is that we address the problem asap. Any of those would work, I don't know which is best.

LesGovt said:
Well, then we have fossil fuels to keep us humming until that day arrives and we do not crush the American public with high cost energy.
Click to expand...

If we just keep humming along until the day arrives we will be totally screwed. You can't just flip a switch and be off oil. It takes decades of conversion and we need to start yesterday if we want to get it done in time. The economic impact of a long transition is many times smaller than the economic impact of a sudden transition. The sudden transition scenario pretty much means becoming a third world country.
 
Karl said:
The solution there is via regulation, such as implementing stricter requirements into new building codes. This avoids the incurring the cost of retrofit on older buildings, and better amortizes the up front cost on newer buildings.... and over time, eventuall implements energy savings universally as older buildings fall into disuse or are demolished for bigger and better construction.

However, this will run afoul of the over-regulation crowd (and we all know who they are), foaming at the mouth on radio and TV about the government controlling their lives, who consider it a God-given right to waste as much energy as they desire (or pollute as much as they desire), with zero regard to the long term implications for the country as a whole.
Click to expand...

We already have regulations for newer buildings. The work I do is for buildings 10 years or older for which the current regulations didn't apply. The new regulations are good and we follow them for all new construction.
 
AdamT said:
This is an interesting topic for a number of reasons. It seems that conservatives would very much like to see the government (small government?) engaging in more protectionism. But they also seem to oppose things like SBA loans which are designed to make some of our fledgling industries more competitive, which seems to be quite a contradiction. In this case, the SBA has been working to boost our domestic solar cell manufacturers. What has doomed some of them, like Solyndra and Evergreen, is massive investment in crystal cells by China's government, which has driven down prices. In other words, the SBA loans were a form of protectionism -- just too little too late.

On the other hand, American manufacturers of a competing solar cell technology -- thin film -- are doing pretty well. Thin film has not been so effected by China's actions. Thus it was just announced that an Indian firm (Reliance Power) has just taken out an $84 million loan to purchase cells from America's First Solar -- our most successful solar manufacturer. The contract is expected to double or triple in size in the coming years. Thin film panel makers Abound Solar and GE are also doing pretty well. The consolidation in the crystal panel market will eventually make that sector more competitive.
Click to expand...

The news regarding thin film is good news. I hope they sell a ton of it.
 
Karl said:
Impossible, as any intelligent review of the situation will clearly show.

Now if you want to reduce consumption of crude by 50% (by, say, a 25% reduction in fuel consumption bolstered by 25% changeover to an alternative, perhaps such as natural gas), then you have outlined a possibly achievable goal. Otherwise, this air-headed drill-our-way-to-oil-independence populist mantra that is often heard from the right is too ignorant to even contemplate.
Click to expand...

Impossible? Intelligent? Air-headed? Too ignorant?

My! My! If your argument is so strong, why do you have to use such invectives? It could lead one to believe that your argument might be very weak.

Perhaps, you under-estimate the amount of energy to be discovered. Perhaps, we can have efficient and cost-effective alternative energy in a few years. If solar is viable, it should not take 75 years to develop it and have it as a viable product.

As you probably know, the "sky is falling" with regards to availability of petroleum goes back nearly 100 years:

• 1906 -- Fears of an oil shortage are confirmed by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS). Representatives of the Detroit Board of Commerce
attended hearings in Washington and told a Senate hearing that car manufacturers
worried "not so much [about] cost as ... supply."

• 1919, Scientific American notes that the auto industry could
no longer ignore the fact that only 20 years worth of U.S. oil was left. "The
burden falls upon the engine. It must adapt itself to less volatile fuel, and it
must be made to burn the fuel with less waste.... Automotive engineers must turn
their thoughts away from questions of speed and weight... and comfort and
endurance, to avert what ... will turn out to be a calamity, seriously
disorganizing an indispensable system of transportation."

Untitled Document

We know that we are not going to run out of domestic petroleum tomorrow or for years to come. We have large resouces that are untapped. We certainly should do well supplying our own petroleum for the next 75 years and if we need additional, we can purchase it from Canada, our friendly neighbor to the North. In the meantime, I would hope that alternative energy will finally be advanced to the stage that the American public will willingly accept its use in daily life.

My question to you is, when will solar be a viable cost-efficient product for the American public?
 
teamosil said:
Two problems with that. First, if we continue to escalate our consumption of oil and gas at anywhere near the current projections we will run out well before 75 years. Second, if we do that we get into the absolute worst case scenarios for global warming. Like major ice sheets in Antarctica melting -> no more Florida.
Click to expand...

Two problems with what you have said. First, as I stated in my last posting, the "sky is falling" argument about running out of oil and gas is over 100 years old. In 1919, we would not make it another 20 years. Nearly 100 years after that statement, we have oil and gas and we have many untapped resources. Second, the last time we had global warming, we did not use fossil fuels and yet it warmed. If we have global warming today, we could devastate our economy over a false pretense that cutting the usage of fossil fuels will solve the problem. History shows that global warming occurs without fossil fuels.

teamosil said:
Not necessarily. That would be one way to do it. Other ways include subsidizing green energy or research, carbon taxes, etc. I don't have strong opinions about which way is the best. What is important is that we address the problem asap. Any of those would work, I don't know which is best.
Click to expand...

I know which is best. Let the market work without the government distorting the market.

teamosil said:
If we just keep humming along until the day arrives we will be totally screwed. You can't just flip a switch and be off oil. It takes decades of conversion and we need to start yesterday if we want to get it done in time. The economic impact of a long transition is many times smaller than the economic impact of a sudden transition. The sudden transition scenario pretty much means becoming a third world country.
Click to expand...

We started decades ago. It is time for the alternative energy companies and its advocates to put on their big-girl panties or big-guy briefs and start producing a viable, efficient, and cost-effective product that the American public wants. It's time to stop the bellyaching and begging the taxpayers to foot their bills. We have time to make the transition. Just do it!

History of Solar Power | View timeline
 
LesGovt said:
Sure. Would you like to take a look at student loans and the non-payment of those?
Click to expand...
I was thinking of business loans, since that is the topic, but since I did not specify I'll give you that one.

Got any more?
 
The argument that we are running out of oil is quite valid. Why do you think oil has become so expensive? Speculation? That's part of it, but the bigger part is that there is insufficient supply to meet demand and it's pretty clear that demand is only going to outstrip supply at a faster rate going forward.
 
LesGovt said:
Two problems with what you have said. First, as I stated in my last posting, the "sky is falling" argument about running out of oil and gas is over 100 years old. In 1919, we would not make it another 20 years. Nearly 100 years after that statement, we have oil and gas and we have many untapped resources.
Click to expand...

It is true that there have been alarmist statements in the past about running out that haven't turned out to be true. That doesn't mean we aren't going to run out. Our consumption is rapidly escalating. Especially the consumption of China, which is rapidly industrializing. At the same time, new discovery has been slowing. Much of the increased consumption in the last decade or so has been satisfied by increasing production from existing fields rather than finding new oil. There really are no analysts in the industry that don't agree that crude oil is going to be too expensive to be commercially viable for almost all applications in our life times. Some say 10 years, some say 20, some even say 40, but I don't know that anybody goes beyond 40 with their estimates. To get to 40 you need to make extremely optimistic assumptions about how much we're going to cut back on consumption and equally optimistic assumptions about the pace of discovery not continuing to fall.

Now, there are oil sands and shale oil. Currently they aren't really economically viable, but as the price of oil goes up they eventually will be. But, if we end up there- getting by on oil sands or shale oil- we clearly went down the wrong path because they cost more than green energy. The only reason we would be using them was because we failed to adopt to green energy by the time that we should have to be economically efficient and we still have a bunch of equipment that we can't switch over fast enough. Also, once we start getting into that stuff we're off the charts for global warming. Beyond even the worst case scenario projections.

LesGovt said:
Second, the last time we had global warming, we did not use fossil fuels and yet it warmed. If we have global warming today, we could devastate our economy over a false pretense that cutting the usage of fossil fuels will solve the problem. History shows that global warming occurs without fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

I think we already covered this, no? If the earth is going to be warming on its own in the near term, that is all the more reason we need to cut back on things we're doing that worsen that problem.

LesGovt said:
I know which is best. Let the market work without the government distorting the market.
Click to expand...

The do nothing plan just isn't optimal. We'll be unprepared to switch in time and we will do incredible damage to the planet in the process. The invisible hand is great for many things. It can figure out which product is the best, lower prices, etc. But some folks get so enamored by it's performance in those areas that they start to assume it is a magic solution to all problems. It isn't. It's a way to maximize economic production and whatnot in the short term. It is not a way to invest in the long term economic prospects of a country. It does not take the environment into account. It was never intended to be anything like that. The nation still requires leaders who aren't asleep at the wheel.

LesGovt said:
We started decades ago. It is time for the alternative energy companies and its advocates to put on their big-girl panties or big-guy briefs and start producing a viable, efficient, and cost-effective product that the American public wants. It's time to stop the bellyaching and begging the taxpayers to foot their bills. We have time to make the transition. Just do it!
Click to expand...

On one hand you're saying we need to transition now and on the other hand you're arguing that we shouldn't take any of the transitional steps. This is what the transition consists of. Things like carbon taxes, incentives to switch to green energy, research, etc. That is transitioning. You can't be both for and against that stuff at the same time.
 
Karl said:
I was thinking of business loans, since that is the topic, but since I did not specify I'll give you that one.

Got any more?
Click to expand...

Government direct loans I thought have a deferment built in, possibly the FHA program as well thought I'm less sure about the FHA. The Obama Mortgage Modification Relief program was a form of deferment though not at 100% but up to 31% by the lenders and it wasn't a government loan but is subsidized by the government.
 
Karl said:
I was thinking of business loans, since that is the topic, but since I did not specify I'll give you that one.

Got any more?
Click to expand...

This is far from the main discussion here, but no, I don't have any more at this moment. I checked the Statistical Abstract and it shows all kinds of business stats, but does not show how many had government guaranteed loans. I doubt they wish to advertise that defaulting is even an option.
 
AdamT said:
The argument that we are running out of oil is quite valid. Why do you think oil has become so expensive? Speculation? That's part of it, but the bigger part is that there is insufficient supply to meet demand and it's pretty clear that demand is only going to outstrip supply at a faster rate going forward.
Click to expand...

You don't know this. First, we do not know exactly what the supply of oil is. Second, we are not going after much of the domestic supply; therefore, your prediction concerning the supply is no more valid than the prediction in 1919 of having only 20 more years left of petroleum.
 
LesGovt said:
You don't know this. First, we do not know exactly what the supply of oil is. Second, we are not going after much of the domestic supply; therefore, your prediction concerning the supply is no more valid than the prediction in 1919 of having only 20 more years left of petroleum.
Click to expand...

We have a pretty good idea the domestic supply is grossly insufficient for our needs. We know that oil fields are drying up in places like Mexico and Yemen (among others). We know that demand is going to rise quickly as countries like China and India continue to develop. The biggest Gulf discover in the last dozen years would only meet our needs for 30 days. The pace of oil discoveries has been slowing for some time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom