Is this Corporate Welfare?

[DaveFagan]

Sandia Lab building solar test centers across US :: WRAL.com

Sandia Lab building five solar test centers, including one in Denver - The Denver Post

"The Sandia National Laboratory is building test centers in Albuquerque, Denver, Las Vegas, Orlando, Fla., and Burlington, Vt., the Albuquerque Journal reported (ABQJournal Online » Sandia Labs expands, upgrades solar R&D).
"The centers are designed to not only provide independent assessments of commercial systems, but to do that in multiple locations and climates," Sandia solar group member Jennifer Granata said."

I see this as gov't subsidization of Big Corporate.
I see this as Renewable Energy monies being hijacked to maintain the status quo.
Renewable Energy is most efficient when utulized locally, downhome, on individual taxpayers domiciles.
Is this Corporate Welfare?

​

 

[DaveFagan]

Since Sandia Labs is testing to develop COMMERCIAL applications of Solar, I am incensed. Truly angry. Solar power is most efficient on local homes and local homes represent individual taxpayers and voters. I see the taxpayers and voters as those who should get the returns on taxpayer dollars, not BIG CORPORATE. This is an attempt to support the existing Centralized Distribution Network for Energy and that represents the very wealthy of America at the expense of the least wealthy. This will assure that the wealthy owners of Distribution Network continue to get a small percentage of all energies sold. The gov'ts will also continue to get their taxes on the energies sold. I would prefer to see gov't monies benefit gov't taxpayers that actually vote, not "Fictitious Entities," and that is the legal description of any Corporation. We keep subsidizing energy at the Corporate level instead of at the end-user level. We, the people, are the end user. We, the people, should be the recipient of gov't subsidy, not Lockheed Martin.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It is far worse than corporate welfare, while the stated purpose was to provide "expertise" (personnel and a test environment?), the implementation seems to have started by building prototypes of the actual systems, not forcing the "testee" to do so at their own expense. This is simply "green" pork. Imagine the gov't building coal, natural gas or nuclear power stations and then "giving advice" to private companies that include the design details so that they may simply copy them and then profit from them. If "efficiency testing" of "non-green" automobiles, involved first designing and building them at taxpayer expense then we the sheeple would object, but it seems that "green" things are way too cool to pass up.

 

[BobJam]

I see this as Renewable Energy monies being hijacked to maintain the status quo.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify? (Example, perhaps?)

Renewable Energy is most efficient when utulized locally, downhome, on individual taxpayers domiciles.

Right now that may be true, but if it ever becomes profitable on a larger scale (unlikely but possible), that may no longer be uniquely true.

Is this Corporate Welfare?

You mean is BHO subsidizing his cronies in the "Green" energy biz? Yes, I think so.

I was involved in Landfill-Gas-to-Energy (LFGE) projects at one time. That's essentially "alternate energy", and certainly "green". Basically, it's collecting methane generated in landfills and selling it directly or using it to fire turbines to generate electricity.

You'll often see this advertised by your local trash company as "We provide the energy to power 500 homes". That's marketing BS, cosmetic only. It's a loser, like most alternate energy projects right now. The reason large corporations like Waste Management do it is because it provides intangible good will (which they can show on the books as an asset). As I said, it's cosmetic and only makes them look "green". In reality it's a loser, and large corporations only do it because it gives them that good will intangible asset.

Anyway, my point in bringing up LFGE is that there was never any government subsidization via research into what LFGE methods were efficient. There WAS government subsidization in the form of "tax credits", but that was a backhanded method of subsidization and pretty much made the ROI on these projects break even at best.

I don't know of any current government subsidization of LFGE projects like these articles discuss for Solar. Consequently, this leads me to believe that BHO is picking winners and losers in green energy . . . something the government has absolutely no business doing.

The free market will determine winners and losers . . . and so far all have been losers to some degree.

BHO's advertised reasoning is that these things need to be kickstarted, and it's proper for government to do the kickstarting. IOW, government picks the winners and losers. That, to me, is indeed corporate welfare.

Henry Ford didn't have that kind of kickstarting . . . he kickstarted the biz himself. The oil industry, in the mid-1800's didn't have government kickstarting . . . it kickstarted itself!

Would BHO have subsidized buggy whip manufacturers? Probably so, especially since they could have been viewed as "green".

 

[VanceMack]

I think it depends on the outcome. If the project involves bringing down costs and making Solar Power more locally and readily available and more cost efficient, then I am not altogether opposed to investing in the projects. However if at the end of the day nothing changes and we are just giving money away to a company to run tests...then yes...it is inappropriate.

 

[grip]

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify? (Example, perhaps?)

Right now that may be true, but if it ever becomes profitable on a larger scale (unlikely but possible), that may no longer be uniquely true.

You mean is BHO subsidizing his cronies in the "Green" energy biz? Yes, I think so.

I was involved in Landfill-Gas-to-Energy (LFGE) projects at one time. That's essentially "alternate energy", and certainly "green". Basically, it's collecting methane generated in landfills and selling it directly or using it to fire turbines to generate electricity.

You'll often see this advertised by your local trash company as "We provide the energy to power 500 homes". That's marketing BS, cosmetic only. It's a loser, like most alternate energy projects right now. The reason large corporations like Waste Management do it is because it provides intangible good will (which they can show on the books as an asset). As I said, it's cosmetic and only makes them look "green". In reality it's a loser, and large corporations only do it because it gives them that good will intangible asset.

Anyway, my point in bringing up LFGE is that there was never any government subsidization via research into what LFGE methods were efficient. There WAS government subsidization in the form of "tax credits", but that was a backhanded method of subsidization and pretty much made the ROI on these projects break even at best.

I don't know of any current government subsidization of LFGE projects like these articles discuss for Solar. Consequently, this leads me to believe that BHO is picking winners and losers in green energy . . . something the government has absolutely no business doing.

The free market will determine winners and losers . . . and so far all have been losers to some degree.

BHO's advertised reasoning is that these things need to be kickstarted, and it's proper for government to do the kickstarting. IOW, government picks the winners and losers. That, to me, is indeed corporate welfare.

Henry Ford didn't have that kind of kickstarting . . . he kickstarted the biz himself. The oil industry, in the mid-1800's didn't have government kickstarting . . . it kickstarted itself!

Would BHO have subsidized buggy whip manufacturers? Probably so, especially since they could have been viewed as "green".

Rockefeller and Ford may have revolutionized they're industries but it took time and I think the government is trying to speed up the natural selection process. There probably will eventually be an alternative energy source greater than petroleum based though at the rate of current development it may be later than sooner. The environment and economies may not do well from a delay if it can be sped up.

 

[DaveFagan]

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify? (Example, perhaps?)

Right now that may be true, but if it ever becomes profitable on a larger scale (unlikely but possible), that may no longer be uniquely true.

You mean is BHO subsidizing his cronies in the "Green" energy biz? Yes, I think so.

I was involved in Landfill-Gas-to-Energy (LFGE) projects at one time. That's essentially "alternate energy", and certainly "green". Basically, it's collecting methane generated in landfills and selling it directly or using it to fire turbines to generate electricity.

You'll often see this advertised by your local trash company as "We provide the energy to power 500 homes". That's marketing BS, cosmetic only. It's a loser, like most alternate energy projects right now. The reason large corporations like Waste Management do it is because it provides intangible good will (which they can show on the books as an asset). As I said, it's cosmetic and only makes them look "green". In reality it's a loser, and large corporations only do it because it gives them that good will intangible asset.

Anyway, my point in bringing up LFGE is that there was never any government subsidization via research into what LFGE methods were efficient. There WAS government subsidization in the form of "tax credits", but that was a backhanded method of subsidization and pretty much made the ROI on these projects break even at best.

I don't know of any current government subsidization of LFGE projects like these articles discuss for Solar. Consequently, this leads me to believe that BHO is picking winners and losers in green energy . . . something the government has absolutely no business doing.

The free market will determine winners and losers . . . and so far all have been losers to some degree.

BHO's advertised reasoning is that these things need to be kickstarted, and it's proper for government to do the kickstarting. IOW, government picks the winners and losers. That, to me, is indeed corporate welfare.

Henry Ford didn't have that kind of kickstarting . . . he kickstarted the biz himself. The oil industry, in the mid-1800's didn't have government kickstarting . . . it kickstarted itself!

Would BHO have subsidized buggy whip manufacturers? Probably so, especially since they could have been viewed as "green".

You seem to have missed the point entirely. Perhaps my fault for not being clear. This is not about "Green" energy, it is about Lockheed Martin (Big, really Big, defense contractor) receiving huge amounts of money to make sure that Energy monies and taxes grow in the pockets and wallets of the status quo of Big Money. It is an overt manifestation of hijacking Renewable Energy Government monies to make sure Big Money makes more money off of small money voters. Renewable is most efficient when applied locally on end user homes. Why not spend the Renewable Energy monies in that area for research. For example, a low cost inverter triggered by existing AC input to continually keep its output in phase with the existing AC electricity. A low cost no-energy-use housing program to set an example for minimal energy consumption without degradation of life styles. People don't seem to realioze that they are being snookered by the Energy Corporations and their Distribution monopoly..

 

[DaveFagan]

I think it depends on the outcome. If the project involves bringing down costs and making Solar Power more locally and readily available and more cost efficient, then I am not altogether opposed to investing in the projects. However if at the end of the day nothing changes and we are just giving money away to a company to run tests...then yes...it is inappropriate.

There is no way that can be the result of this program. It is a program designed to maintain the current Commercial Distribution of Energy by the status quo, instead of individual homeowners disconnecting from an expensive dinosaur. Keep in mind that the existing Big Money Utilities and government taxing agencies are splitting the profits in this existing system.

 

[BobJam]

I think it depends on the outcome.

But WHO projects the outcome? If it's not the free market making the bet, then WHO in the government makes the wager on behalf of the taxpayers? I don't know about you, but I can't think of anybody in the current administration I'd want to have making bets with MY money (in fact, I can't think of anybody in ANY US government historically I'd want to make bets for me.) I'll make my bets myself, and gladly be responsible for MY OWN poor judgment (some of my OWN stock picks have been losers, and I've suffered the consequences.)

If the project involves bringing down costs and making Solar Power more locally and readily available and more cost efficient, then I am not altogether opposed to investing in the projects

Government investment with MY taxes? Or private investment with stockholder money?

However if at the end of the day nothing changes

Crystal ball? If we all knew how investments were going to perform "at the end of the day", then we'd all be rich . . . it wouldn't even be a wager, it'd be a certainty.

 

[Fisher]

You seem to have missed the point entirely. Perhaps my fault for not being clear. This is not about "Green" energy, it is about Lockheed Martin (Big, really Big, defense contractor) receiving huge amounts of money to make sure that Energy monies and taxes grow in the pockets and wallets of the status quo of Big Money. It is an overt manifestation of hijacking Renewable Energy Government monies to make sure Big Money makes more money off of small money voters. Renewable is most efficient when applied locally on end user homes. Why not spend the Renewable Energy monies in that area for research. For example, a low cost inverter triggered by existing AC input to continually keep its output in phase with the existing AC electricity. A low cost no-energy-use housing program to set an example for minimal energy consumption without degradation of life styles. People don't seem to realioze that they are being snookered by the Energy Corporations and their Distribution monopoly..

I agree with you in the short-term. I still have faith that the long-term gain will be that people can be more off the grid at their homes just to take line loads off the grid for increased supply as we move away from gasoline toward electric without having to retrofit the entire North American powergrid in a shorter time frame. My guess is that what will happen is that energy companies will get a bigger chunk on the front side but eventually places like China will make it much more affordable for Joe Six Pack.

 

[VanceMack]

There is no way that can be the result of this program. It is a program designed to maintain the current Commercial Distribution of Energy by the status quo, instead of individual homeowners disconnecting from an expensive dinosaur. Keep in mind that the existing Big Money Utilities and government taxing agencies are splitting the profits in this existing system.

Oh believe me...I get that the profit incentive is one of the biggest obstacles to encouraging individual outfitting of homes. Kinda tough to tax the sunlight. Still...if the pricetag to outfit a home with solar storage batteries is around 30k, even if the fed subsidized the taxpayer, it would still be a corporate bailout.

If there isnt an investment for the sake of improving and enhancing capabilities and lower costs...then no...its not a good idea.

 

[VanceMack]

But WHO projects the outcome? If it's not the free market making the bet, then WHO in the government makes the wager on behalf of the taxpayers? I don't know about you, but I can't think of anybody in the current administration I'd want to have making bets with MY money (in fact, I can't think of anybody in ANY US government historically I'd want to make bets for me.) I'll make my bets myself, and gladly be responsible for MY OWN poor judgment (some of my OWN stock picks have been losers, and I've suffered the consequences.)

Government investment with MY taxes? Or private investment with stockholder money?

Crystal ball? If we all knew how investments were going to perform "at the end of the day", then we'd all be rich . . . it wouldn't even be a wager, it'd be a certainty.

Im the last person to rush to advocate for government spending. However...I am also very much pro clean energy. So its kinda a conundrum. Personally...I hate flying into big cities...something I do about a dozen times a year...and flying through a smog blanket. Like it or not, there HAS to be SOME investment for the public good. It should be EFFECTIVE.

 

[CalGun]

I got to work in sales for a solar company for a few months. It's a feasible product in states where govt and corps have raised utility rates high enough ( CA, NJ, and Hawaii) but its not economical in places where electricity is really cheap.

What makes me sick is that our govt put billions into solar companies for obama donors. I think it's $3 billion or for for solyndra, 1stwhatever, and others. Most peak energy systems can be installed for $30k or less. Do the math:

$3,000,000,000 / $30,000 = 100,000 homes

Yes they could have just put solar power on a 100,000 homes for the same money.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Im the last person to rush to advocate for government spending. However...I am also very much pro clean energy. So its kinda a conundrum. Personally...I hate flying into big cities...something I do about a dozen times a year...and flying through a smog blanket. Like it or not, there HAS to be SOME investment for the public good. It should be EFFECTIVE.

I never fly into any big cities, so I save that much pollution and energy waste. Perhaps rather than try to find the next magic energy bullet, a decade (or so) before its natural time, we just don't fly (monthly) in smog belching, noise pollution causing aircraft.

 

[ttwtt78640]

There is no way that can be the result of this program. It is a program designed to maintain the current Commercial Distribution of Energy by the status quo, instead of individual homeowners disconnecting from an expensive dinosaur. Keep in mind that the existing Big Money Utilities and government taxing agencies are splitting the profits in this existing system.

Yep. This is not about energy independence at all, but simply changing the source of our energy while keeping us dependent or increasing our dependence on the existing public/private "grid" systems at an ever higher cost.

 

[BobJam]

there HAS to be SOME investment for the public good

I assume this is the "conundrum" you're talking about, i.e. WHO in the government chooses the investment.

Don't mean to box you into a corner, but any current candidates in the current administration? Since you said there "HAS" to be, that automatically means there "HAS" to be someone selected. And whoever that person would be in the current administration would also have to render a judgment on WHAT is the "public good".

Again, I don't mean to be abrasive or coy, but your statement is based on the presumption that there IS someone in the government capable of doing what you posit. I don't believe there is anyone in government even CLOSE to that.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your statements about smog, I think the current efforts to reduce it are completely mismanaged.

I was an Air Quality Engineering Inspector for the South Coast Air Quality Management District in one of my working incarnations. SCAQMD was a regional agency which covered Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties in Southern California, so I saw my share of smog up close. BTW, even though "I'm here to help" is an oxymoron from a government agency, I DID try to help operators avoid entanglements. Since my rate of "Violation Notices" was not up to the "quota" (I preferred to give "Notices to Comply" instead, and gave specific instructions on how to do that cost effectively), my performance reports were consistently low, lower than those that gave out "Violation Notices" like candy, and eventually led to my frustration and seeking employment elsewhere.

Let me give you an example of what I mean by mismanagement. SCAQMD regs for refineries required the reduction of air pollutants from parts per million to parts per billion. Meanwhile, Diesel Trucks were traveling up and down LA freeways gagging out particulate pollutants (mostly lead and sulfur) that you could actually SEE in the exhaust, much more, obviously, than ppm.

So here we were, telling refinery operators to achieve minimal reductions, "OR ELSE", while those trucks at the same time were blowing out much more substantial and harmful pollutants and very lightly regulated in comparison. What's wrong with that picture?

Of course, the SCAQMD's answer was that they were not responsible for regulating mobile sources. The classic "not my job" response. Saying "not my job" to a refinery operator when they brought up the issue, which they DID quite often because reducing pollutants infinitesimally cost them millions of dollars (refitting a flare, for example), was an uncomfortably inadequate answer. And that was another reason why I left . . . I couldn't provide an answer that passed the laugh test.

Hence my dim view of government regulation efforts and my questions on "WHO" etc.

(I don't discount the need to reduce pollutants from refineries, for example, but let's get the right priorities at least. Diesel Trucks in LA contribute to smog much more than refineries in that basin.)

In my youth, I was an idealistic sort. But after seeing first hand how the system worked, I soon wised up.

 

[BobJam]

You seem to have missed the point entirely. Perhaps my fault for not being clear. This is not about "Green" energy, it is about Lockheed Martin (Big, really Big, defense contractor) receiving huge amounts of money to make sure that Energy monies and taxes grow in the pockets and wallets of the status quo of Big Money. It is an overt manifestation of hijacking Renewable Energy Government monies to make sure Big Money makes more money off of small money voters. Renewable is most efficient when applied locally on end user homes. Why not spend the Renewable Energy monies in that area for research. For example, a low cost inverter triggered by existing AC input to continually keep its output in phase with the existing AC electricity. A low cost no-energy-use housing program to set an example for minimal energy consumption without degradation of life styles. People don't seem to realioze that they are being snookered by the Energy Corporations and their Distribution monopoly..

OK . . . before I make a jackass out of myself again by missing your point entirely, let me see if I get it now.

You object to Lockheed Martin receiving huge amounts of money from the government for research benefiting large power companies, while not benefiting the end user at all? I'm guessing by "Big Money" you mean power companies.

If I have that right, I agree.

But you also make reference to "Renewable Energy government monies". By that do you mean the government should be in the business of providing money to Renewable Energy sources or just that they are already anyway (IOW, that's the reality, not necessarily the way it "should" be)?

I ask that because you went on to say, "Why not spend the Renewable Energy monies in that area for research." That makes it seem like you are saying these "Renewable Energy government monies" are proper and the government SHOULD indeed be in the biz of providing money to Renewable Energy sources.

Now if you're talking about the taxes the government collects on energy transmission and sale, and if you're saying the government should turn around and invest THAT money into Renewable Energy, then that may be a different story than the government just willy-nilly taking money out of the tax revenue general fund and putting THAT into Renewable Energy. Sorry for being so dense, but can you give me some clarification on that: where does the "Renewable Energy government money" come from? Of course, the government can always use "creative accounting", and we'll never know where the money actually came from.

Regardless of where it comes from (since it is in reality already being spent), are you saying that it should be spent on research for the end user instead? That's what I'm understanding.

Before I go off on a tangent again and embarrass myself, I need to know if my understandings are correct.

Sorry again for being so "Renewable Energy government monies" challenged.

 

[VanceMack]

I assume this is the "conundrum" you're talking about, i.e. WHO in the government chooses the investment.

Don't mean to box you into a corner, but any current candidates in the current administration? Since you said there "HAS" to be, that automatically means there "HAS" to be someone selected. And whoever that person would be in the current administration would also have to render a judgment on WHAT is the "public good".

Again, I don't mean to be abrasive or coy, but your statement is based on the presumption that there IS someone in the government capable of doing what you posit. I don't believe there is anyone in government even CLOSE to that.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your statements about smog, I think the current efforts to reduce it are completely mismanaged.

I was an Air Quality Engineering Inspector for the South Coast Air Quality Management District in one of my working incarnations. SCAQMD was a regional agency which covered Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties in Southern California, so I saw my share of smog up close. BTW, even though "I'm here to help" is an oxymoron from a government agency, I DID try to help operators avoid entanglements. Since my rate of "Violation Notices" was not up to the "quota" (I preferred to give "Notices to Comply" instead, and gave specific instructions on how to do that cost effectively), my performance reports were consistently low, lower than those that gave out "Violation Notices" like candy, and eventually led to my frustration and seeking employment elsewhere.

Let me give you an example of what I mean by mismanagement. SCAQMD regs for refineries required the reduction of air pollutants from parts per million to parts per billion. Meanwhile, Diesel Trucks were traveling up and down LA freeways gagging out particulate pollutants (mostly lead and sulfur) that you could actually SEE in the exhaust, much more, obviously, than ppm.

So here we were, telling refinery operators to achieve minimal reductions, "OR ELSE", while those trucks at the same time were blowing out much more substantial and harmful pollutants and very lightly regulated in comparison. What's wrong with that picture?

Of course, the SCAQMD's answer was that they were not responsible for regulating mobile sources. The classic "not my job" response. Saying "not my job" to a refinery operator when they brought up the issue, which they DID quite often because reducing pollutants infinitesimally cost them millions of dollars (refitting a flare, for example), was an uncomfortably inadequate answer. And that was another reason why I left . . . I couldn't provide an answer that passed the laugh test.

Hence my dim view of government regulation efforts and my questions on "WHO" etc.

(I don't discount the need to reduce pollutants from refineries, for example, but let's get the right priorities at least. Diesel Trucks in LA contribute to smog much more than refineries in that basin.)

In my youth, I was an idealistic sort. But after seeing first hand how the system worked, I soon wised up.

I think you read WAY too much into my comments. Im not a fan of government spending. Im also not a fan of nasty air and water. I think if we all just wait for industry to develop cleaner resources then they will wait til we are out of oil and coal. Now...Im FINE with coal and oil...just think we NEED better, more efficient, and more affordable alternative fuel means.

 

[VanceMack]

I never fly into any big cities, so I save that much pollution and energy waste. Perhaps rather than try to find the next magic energy bullet, a decade (or so) before its natural time, we just don't fly (monthly) in smog belching, noise pollution causing aircraft.

Wouldst that I did not need to fly so much. But not flying as much is not really going to be a long term solution.

 

[BobJam]

I think the government is trying to speed up the natural selection process.

So are you saying that government messing with the Renewable Energy biz is a legitimate function of government?

While some may view it as a "necessary" function, there's a big difference between "necessary" and "legitimate".

 

[BobJam]

Im not a fan of government spending

Got that part. Don't think I ever said you were a "fan", just that you viewed it as a necessity, and I concluded that based on your "HAS to" statement. Did I misinterpret that ("read WAY too much" into "HAS to"?). Do you think that government spending is a necessity?

Im also not a fan of nasty air and water

Got that, didn't I?

I think if we all just wait for industry to develop cleaner resources then they will wait til we are out of oil and coal.

Seems here again you are saying that government "NEEDS" to step in and do some spending. Same question then, WHO in government is going to decide what to "develop"?

just think we NEED better, more efficient, and more affordable alternative fuel means.

I take it I should have interpreted "HAS to" as "NEED"? Sometimes they mean the same thing . . . sometimes not. Example of not: "You NEED TO brush your teeth" is not the same as "You HAVE TO brush your teeth."

I think you read WAY too much into my comments

Was it that "HAVE TO" thing versus the "NEED TO" thing?

 

[VanceMack]

Got that part. Don't think I ever said you were a "fan", just that you viewed it as a necessity, and I concluded that based on your "HAS to" statement. Did I misinterpret that ("read WAY too much" into "HAS to"?). Do you think that government spending is a necessity?

Got that, didn't I?

Seems here again you are saying that government "NEEDS" to step in and do some spending. Same question then, WHO in government is going to decide what to "develop"?

I take it I should have interpreted "HAS to" as "NEED"? Sometimes they mean the same thing . . . sometimes not. Example of not: "You NEED TO brush your teeth" is not the same as "You HAVE TO brush your teeth."

Was it that "HAVE TO" thing versus the "NEED TO" thing?

I think it is definitely a NEED TO...like...a NEED TO get in a fight with someone. First the OP, now me. I see why you picked your avie...its appropriate.

No one is advocating for the wholesale engagement of government in the private sector development of green energy. Read what is written.

 

[DaveFagan]

OK . . . before I make a jackass out of myself again by missing your point entirely, let me see if I get it now.

You object to Lockheed Martin receiving huge amounts of money from the government for research benefiting large power companies, while not benefiting the end user at all? I'm guessing by "Big Money" you mean power companies.

If I have that right, I agree.

But you also make reference to "Renewable Energy government monies". By that do you mean the government should be in the business of providing money to Renewable Energy sources or just that they are already anyway (IOW, that's the reality, not necessarily the way it "should" be)?

I ask that because you went on to say, "Why not spend the Renewable Energy monies in that area for research." That makes it seem like you are saying these "Renewable Energy government monies" are proper and the government SHOULD indeed be in the biz of providing money to Renewable Energy sources.

Now if you're talking about the taxes the government collects on energy transmission and sale, and if you're saying the government should turn around and invest THAT money into Renewable Energy, then that may be a different story than the government just willy-nilly taking money out of the tax revenue general fund and putting THAT into Renewable Energy. Sorry for being so dense, but can you give me some clarification on that: where does the "Renewable Energy government money" come from? Of course, the government can always use "creative accounting", and we'll never know where the money actually came from.

Regardless of where it comes from (since it is in reality already being spent), are you saying that it should be spent on research for the end user instead? That's what I'm understanding.

Before I go off on a tangent again and embarrass myself, I need to know if my understandings are correct.

Sorry again for being so "Renewable Energy government monies" challenged.

"

Originally Posted by DaveFaganThere is no way that can be the result of this program. It is a program designed to maintain the current Commercial Distribution of Energy by the status quo, instead of individual homeowners disconnecting from an expensive dinosaur. Keep in mind that the existing Big Money Utilities and government taxing agencies are splitting the profits in this existing system.

VANCE MACK
Oh believe me...I get that the profit incentive is one of the biggest obstacles to encouraging individual outfitting of homes. Kinda tough to tax the sunlight. Still...if the pricetag to outfit a home with solar storage batteries is around 30k, even if the fed subsidized the taxpayer, it would still be a corporate bailout.

If there isnt an investment for the sake of improving and enhancing capabilities and lower costs...then no...its not a good idea.""

I'm thinking that investment in battery technology would be a lot more sensible. The rewards are better than the punishment because we are attempting to address Global Warming and Carbon Dioxide with the same investment. Lockheed Martin renews our investment in WAR. The total package must be a plan to help the citizen. We, the people, as one of those quaint documents refers to us.

 

[Muddy Creek]

Sandia Lab building solar test centers across US :: WRAL.com

Sandia Lab building five solar test centers, including one in Denver - The Denver Post

"The Sandia National Laboratory is building test centers in Albuquerque, Denver, Las Vegas, Orlando, Fla., and Burlington, Vt., the Albuquerque Journal reported (ABQJournal Online » Sandia Labs expands, upgrades solar R&D).
"The centers are designed to not only provide independent assessments of commercial systems, but to do that in multiple locations and climates," Sandia solar group member Jennifer Granata said."

I see this as gov't subsidization of Big Corporate.
I see this as Renewable Energy monies being hijacked to maintain the status quo.
Renewable Energy is most efficient when utulized locally, downhome, on individual taxpayers domiciles.
Is this Corporate Welfare?

​

I see this as a needed incentive to make us less dependent on oil. The oil companies get subsidies from the government despite record breaking profits. I see THAT as corporate welfare.

 

[VanceMack]

I'm thinking that investment in battery technology would be a lot more sensible. The rewards are better than the punishment because we are attempting to address Global Warming and Carbon Dioxide with the same investment. Lockheed Martin renews our investment in WAR. The total package must be a plan to help the citizen. We, the people, as one of those quaint documents refers to us.

Offering money to taxpayers to purchase systems is STILL nothing but a gift to industry. The systems need to be better and more efficient. With as long as we have been working on this technology, it should be.