Originally posted by Asktheanimals
I have to wonder if every clean energy company they're helping prop up with loans is being sabotaged to ensure that they fail financially.
Many of the projects funded have been "in the works" in one form or another for several years.
Some were proof-of-concept tests that were not really expected to produce returns, but were scaled-up when "free money" became available. Others were
supposed to be self-sufficient, such as the energy-independent campus at LACCD, but were money pits instead.
Billions to Spend: Part 6
Grand dream loses sheen in glare of daylight
L.A. community colleges' green energy plan proves wildly impractical. The blunders cost taxpayers $10 million.
www.latimes.com...
I think the real problem is that the DoE is under tremendous pressure from Chu and Obama to fund these projects at any cost, forgetting that
cap-and-trade and Copenhagen failed to make traditional sources so expensive as to make alternative projects comparatively competitive.
See Walter Mead's recent commentary for an excellent summary. Obama was commited even though he and Chu had failed to make electricity and gasoline
go higher than they have otherwise.
Green Energy Industry Staggers
As the Energy Department hustled to get another $4.7 billion in loan guarantees for green tech companies out the door before time ran out and the
program ended last week, yet another solar panel manufacturer was wilting in the sun, and the green jobs scam was looking more threadbare than ever.
blogs.the-american-interest.com...
That way they can say "See? there is no clean energy solution, OIL is the only sensible energy source".
The problem is that alternative energy IS prohibitively expensive compared to the huge domestic and Western gas and oil reserves that Obama is still
trying to obstruct access to.
His energy agenda would have worked if Cap'n Trade and his first mate Copenhagen would've resulted in the "European gas prices" Chu hopes for and the
"skyrocketing" energy prices Obama promised in his campaign.
They didn't, so it doesn't; yet they still funded the speculative projects hoping that the 1 in 100 success would "prove" they were "right." They
didn't, and they aren't.
We've seen how many nuclear power plant incidents in the last year? I can name 5 or 6. More than all the last decade put together.
Maybe you didn't notice, but the US is the largest producer of commercial nuclear power; accounting for almost 20% of all electric power generation.
All nukes were built or begun almost 40 years ago! "Incidents" occur in coal-fired plants (and their ash pits), gas-fired plants, and refineries
every day. A broken water valve (I had one in my 40-year-old kitchen last week) can be an "incident" at any of these now-ancient plants.
Are the oil companies the ones making sure every alternative fails?
No, economic reality does that all by itself; especially when alt. energy advocates fudge the numbers in their own favor to help a little. Our best
"green" projects are based on principles of conservation instead of substitution and replacement. Increased efficiency has tremendously increased
productivity while reducing per-capita carbon. (The "market" actually works, if you let it).
Just wondering out loud here.
No, you weren't.
You were being provocative and unjustifiably accusatory.
A moderator surely should have been able to find the answers to all of these questions with a bit of effort.
deny ignorance.
jw
edit on 3-10-2011 by jdub297 because: quote