-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 227 comments
-
The Pigs of Pigford
April 30, 2013 | 71 comments
-
Overstating Boston
April 26, 2013 | 143 comments
The Energy Spectator
A Dark Day for Solar Power
“Renewable” energy subsidies have become an unaffordable feel-good luxury.
First Solar Corporation was indeed first at something: It was the first solar company to lose more than $15 billion of market value. FSLR’s stock plummeted from $140 per share a year ago, and $170 a few weeks before that, to under $21 per share early this week before rebounding modestly on Tuesday. In fact, $15 billion substantially understates the peak-to-trough drop in the company’s value, as the stock traded above $250 per share for most of 2008, briefly peaking over $300. As of Tuesday, the company’s value was just under $2 billion; at its all-time high stock price, that number was over $25 billion.
In a press release on Tuesday morning, the company announced that a massive decline in its business, especially its European business, will cause it to record about $300 million in restructuring charges while firing 2,000 employees, about 30 percent of its total work force. This is due primarily to Germany’s recently cutting its solar subsidies, following a similar move in Spain.
According to the company’s Chairman, Mike Ahearn: “After a thorough analysis, it is clear the European market has deteriorated to the extent that our operations there are no longer economically sustainable, and maintaining those operations is not in the best long-term interest of our stakeholders.”
Further: “The solar market has fundamentally changed, and we are quickly adapting our market approach and operations to maintain and build upon our competitive advantage,” said Ahearn. “After a period of robust growth, First Solar is scaled to operate at higher volumes than currently exist following the reduction of subsidies in key legacy markets. As a result, it is essential that we reduce production and decrease expenses to reflect the smaller volume of high-probability demand we forecast.”
As usual, one has to wonder about certain stock analysts, with one firm reiterating a buy (how much has that cost the firm’s clients so far?) and Goldman Sachs cutting from buy to hold (in a business where “better late than never” is not a wise approach). Amusingly, the Goldman analyst’s cut preceded the stock’s biggest percentage gain in months, as “short covering” and a sigh of relief that the company is at least recognizing that its business is a shadow of its former self brought buyers into the game. (Fully one third of the company’s “float,” the number of shares issued and available to trade, has been sold short, representing bets on the stock price falling.)
As worldwide government balance sheets have worsened in recent years, “renewable” energy subsidies became an unaffordable feel-good luxury. Particularly in the U.S., with our massive natural gas supplies, it is unlikely that solar power could ever be a competitive electricity source in terms of cost per kilowatt-hour without even larger subsidies than we have already seen — and which are not likely to be tolerated by voters in this time of Solyndra and trillion dollar deficits.
There are physical limits to improvements in solar technology so that Moore’s Law, which has described improvements in computer technology (or more specifically transistor density) over recent decades, does not apply despite the use of silicon in both. Gains in solar efficiency, both in how well panels work and how much it costs to make them, are limited by laws of physics, at least with all current solar technology. In other words, most of the gains in the price of solar electricity generation have already been achieved, and the industry still cannot compete without subsidies.
Most Americans probably know that “renewable” energy sources receive handouts of taxpayer money. These are true subsidies, not the common tax deductions used by oil companies, along with many other companies, which the left terms “subsidies.” But do we understand the scale of these numbers and how fast they have been growing?
According to the Institute for Energy Research, subsidies for renewable energy (related to electricity generation) jumped 186 percent during the three year period from FY 2007 to FY 2010. Wind was the dollar leader in terms of picking taxpayers’ pockets, going from $476 million in 2007 to $5 billion in 2010, making it the largest energy subsidy recipient. (Nuclear power came in second, at half the level of wind, and coal came in third, at less than one quarter the level of wind.) Solar, in fourth place in absolute dollar subsidies, made a very large percentage jump as well, going from $179 million to $1.1 billion over that same time frame.
The above data only include federal subsidies, however. Solar power receives state and local subsidies, including from utilities which pass those costs along to ratepayers, far more than other sources of power. In fact, there is a whole database of “State Incentives for Renewable and Efficiency,” where you can find your particular state’s waste of money on the solar swindle.
What really demands examination, however, is the subsidy per amount of electricity produced, and by that measure solar is the undisputed champion. Consider the top four recipients of subsidy dollars: wind, nuclear, coal, and solar: Coal’s subsidy equates to 64 cents per megawatt hour and nuclear comes in at just over $3. Wind subsidies cost a shocking $56 per megawatt hour. But even that is a tremendous bargain when compared to solar which — and again this is only the federal subsidies — costs taxpayers $775 per megawatt hour. (What wind lacks in apparent costs, it makes up for in slaughter of birds, showing the true hypocrisy of so-called “environmentalists.”)
A 2010 study by the Commonwealth Foundation of electricity costs in Pennsylvania showed that in 2009, electricity generated by wind cost 150 percent of the average electricity cost in the state while solar-generated electricity cost an incredible 706 percent of the average. Furthermore, while natural gas and oil prices declined from the prior two years, solar and wind power costs jumped 65 percent and 92 percent, respectively.
Another IER analysis determined that states which require a certain percentage of their electricity production to come from renewable sources have electricity prices “nearly 40 percent higher than states that do not have similar mandates.”
Natural gas is more difficult to export than oil or coal because it has to be compressed or liquefied before it is shipped. But at a 13-year low price of $2 per million BTUs, the cost is so low that more international trade in natural gas will become economical, putting even more pressure on solar and wind power and highlighting the absurdity of subsidies, even without travesties like Solyndra.
Highlighting this near-revolution in energy markets, Cheniere Energy announced on Tuesday that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has approved its Sabine Pass liquid natural gas (LNG) terminal in Louisiana, making it the nation’s first approved large exporter of natural gas. Two other companies, Sempra Energy and Energy Transfer Equity, also aim to build export facilities in Louisiana. Sempra announced on Tuesday that it will spend $6 billion on its liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal, which will be able to export 1.7 billion cubic feet of LNG per day beginning in late 2016.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (91) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From The Energy Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/18/a-dark-day-for-solar-power
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- The Continuing Crisis
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pecos Pete| 4.18.12 @ 7:32AM
Ross: You said, " ... these are people for whom adherence to the Cult trumps the ability of ordinary Americans to affordably cook their food, turn on their lights, or heat their homes ... " No truer words have been written.
The environmentalists will never be happy, at least not until the population of the world has been reduced by maybe 50%.
Harry the Horrible| 4.18.12 @ 8:18AM
More like 99%+. I think the number they're looking for is 100 million.
Spoonamn| 4.18.12 @ 8:33AM
Isn't this the 1% crowd!
Jack in Wi.| 4.18.12 @ 8:47AM
I agree, 100 million tops.
They think that they will be among those fortunate 100 million. Then there are the real radicals who want man to vanish totally. They think the animals should have the whole planet.
I think Ross sums it up well. It is too costly at this time to be an effective replacement for hydrocarbons or nuclear. If they could figure out how to store power, wind and sun might be cost effective.
DTOM!| 4.18.12 @ 9:26AM
Morning, Jack;
Ross! In your comparative costs for Wind and solar, did you include the cost of the 100% spinning reserve required for the unreliable, renewables?
Ya, know, since the wind may stop at any moment, or the clouds may blow over the solar panels at any moment, the utility company has to have the full capacity of the unreliable renewables available and able to pick up the load at any second. They normally install gas turbines and keep them idling whenever they are using the unreliable renewables as a source of energy.
After all when the unreliable renewable stops producing power and there is no other power available, the only option is "shedding load." I.e. rolling blackouts or worse yet brownouts (brownouts are reduced voltage which destroys the motors in your air conditioning and refrigeration very, very quickly.)
Hmmm?
The good news is - it's a back door to expanding available generating capacity at a time when the Federal Government is trying to reduce electric generating capacity in the US by shutting down icky coal-fired generation. The Morons!
Don't Tread On Me!
chuck| 4.18.12 @ 9:29AM
The laws of physics cannot be changed. They will never "figure out" how to make this cost effective.
Conservative Not Republican| 4.18.12 @ 10:54AM
Why does that make you happy? Are you a giant polluter?
DTOM!| 4.18.12 @ 11:17AM
CnR;
Burning natural gas is the cleanest option we have for electrical power generation today, except for nuclear, given a reasonable spent fuel disposal.
Your question "Are you a giant polluter?" indicates that you are significantly uninformed about the history of pollution in this country.
The air in this country is significantly cleaner than it was forty years ago. Looking at the Great Lakes - they are spectacularly cleaner than thirty years ago.
The amount of air pollution emitted by a single 1970's automobile was greater than that emitted by 100 2010 automobiles.
There are no GIANT polluters in the US, unless you look at the municipal wastewater treatment plants that periodically discharge large quantities of raw sewage into lakes and rivers during flooding events. If you want to find giant polluters look to China, Mexico, and the rest of the world - there aren't any here.
Do you think we need less electrical generation capacity in this country?
If you do, then please, please, please:
disconnect from the electricity grid,
turn off your city water,
turn off your natural gas connection,
stop using the Internet,
stop using your cell phone,
stop consuming products from domestic factories,
stop using any commercial business in this country,
don't ever go to any hospital,
don't ever use any government service.
If you do all that, then you have a right to tell us that we don't need more electrical generation in the US. You cannot import electricity from the Mideast. There is no method to store it, to inventory it, to ship across the ocean, all courtesy of the laws of physics.
So please, CnR, please, explain yourself. Because your question makes NO sense.
DTOM
Mike Stein| 4.20.12 @ 1:59PM
@DTOM! -
You wrote, "The air in this country is significantly cleaner than it was forty years ago. Looking at the Great Lakes - they are spectacularly cleaner than thirty years ago.
"The amount of air pollution emitted by a single 1970's automobile was greater than that emitted by 100 2010 automobiles."
This is certainly true, but remember that it came about in large part due to icky government regulation that was (and indeed still is) opposed by industry and many conservatives. Including, it would seem, you:
"The good news is - it's a back door to expanding available generating capacity at a time when the Federal Government is trying to reduce electric generating capacity in the US by shutting down icky coal-fired generation. The Morons!"
Maybe I'm misreading you - please do correct me if I'm wrong! - but it sounds as if you consider NG plants to be a second-best option, and you'd prefer not to see a shutdown of dirty coal plants that cannot economically be cleaned up.
Forget global warming; old coal plants grandfathered under the Clean Air Act emit harmful SO2, NOx, soot, and mercury. Reducing these pollutants is, no question, expensive for coal plants. But there are costs of not reducing them as well - costs that fall on those who suffer the health and property consequences such as asthma, low-grade heavy-metal poisoning, acid rain, etc.
Los Angeles significantly decreased the number of smog alert days, but again that is due in large part to federal and local pollution regulation. After many years of improvement, air quality is there starting to go down again, BTW:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129572&page=1
You don't have to be a liberal to see the reality of externalities. If I can dump my trash in your yard, it saves me the cost of trash pickup, but I rather suspect you will be more than a little unhappy about it.
chuck| 4.18.12 @ 11:44AM
What in the hell makes you think I'm happy about it? There is nothing in my statement that shows pleasure or displeasure, rather it is simply stating the laws of physics are such that solar power will never be cost effective.
I would truly love to install solar panels on my roof, disconnect the power line from the street, and tell Georgia Power to shove it. But it just isn't happening any time soon.
Conservative Not Republican| 4.18.12 @ 12:05PM
You don't get it. I am talking about the Rush Limbaugh conservatives' animosity to clean energy, which makes absolutely no sense from any perspective......continuing to rely on Middle East oil is suicidal. Obviously clean fuel is not happening soon, but it WILL HAPPEN . Jeez, we put a man on the moon in ten years, so don't tell me clean energy couldn't happen. There is simply no WILL to do it. I am not saying that the oil companies are blocking clean energy. I am saying conservatives are on the wrong side of this issue and they should be talking about CONSERVING the environment and the natural resources.
PolishKnight| 4.18.12 @ 12:20PM
I find that metaphor rather interesting: Putting a man on the moon in 10 years.
Indeed, if such a program were created today, it would first decide astronauts and suppliers based upon diversity rather than cost and performance. In addition, Saturn V rockets were massive energy consumers with liquid hydrogen being produced from energy derived from fossil fuels of nuclear. But who knows? Probably the left would insist upon using windmills to make the fuel and that would had a few billion to the cost overrun.
In other words, the left would have turned the space program in The Big Dig.
DTOM!| 4.18.12 @ 12:34PM
CNR,
What exactly is your definition of "Clean Energy?"
If you want power without byproducts, without waste heat you are in the wrong realm. God didn't give us a universe where that'll work. No amount of high energy physics research is going to repeal the laws of thermodynamics.
As I told you before - burning natural gas is as close to clean energy as we're going to get, barring a politically-acceptable solution to spent nuclear fuel or radically-advanced nuclear power fuel cycles.
So what is it that you want?
Well, what?
DTOM
Mike Hawk| 4.18.12 @ 12:35PM
You are no Conservative, you are a troll.
Mike Hawk| 4.18.12 @ 12:36PM
You are no Conservative, you are a troll.
Bob S| 4.18.12 @ 12:37PM
"...which makes absolutely no sense from any persepctive..."
How about the perspective that these companies are failing left and right and taking our tax dollars down the drain with them? How about the perspective that these companies have not made any economic sense, and probably will not make any economic sense for a long time, if ever?
"...continuing to rely on Middle East oil is suicidal."
You'd be surprise to hear how many "Rush Limbaugh conservatives" will agree with you on that one. They are equally frustrated with how insistent the President is on forbidding development of oil and natural gas resources in the US.
"Obviously clean fuel is not happening soon, but it WILL HAPPEN . Jeez, we put a man on the moon in ten years, so don't tell me clean energy couldn't happen."
Funny you should mention the moon missions, seeing how Obama effectively terminated any hope of us going back to the moon after Bush declared we will be going back. He has to use that money to pay for his energy subsidies, but that money is burning up faster than a space shuttle on re-entry. And your assertion that "clean fuel" is not happening soon is misleading. Technological advances have made clean fuel possible from conventional energy sources. And if "clean fuel" WILL HAPPEN as you claim it is, why don't we throw our money behind an energy source that is equally as unlikely, cold fusion? Or why don't we throw our money at perpetual motion free energy machines? If we can ignore the physics for solar and wind, why not ignore the physics for these energy "source" as well?
Drunken Sailor| 4.18.12 @ 1:42PM
You do realize that Clean Energy has been subsidized for at least 20 years don't you? And by subsidized I don't mean tax breaks like Big Oil gets. I mean goverment money in the form of grants.
I have no problem with clean energy. My problem is throwing goverment dollars at a industry that has been around a long time. It should either stand of fall on its own by now. I personally have several solar appliances. But then again I don't expect the tax payer to subsidize it.
Let's not even get into the fact that this "Clean energy"really isn't that clean when you look at battery disposal, or that there has to be a constant backup source available, or that even if we were able to supply all of America's energy via solar. Big Oil would still be around. You can't even make your solar panels without the petroleum needed to make the plastic in them.
TrueBlue | 4.18.12 @ 2:48PM
Given that the best "clean" energy sources are hydroelectric (ie Dams) and nuclear (with proper breeder reactor facitilies, which aren't allowed in this country thanks to Carter) the problem isn't the "Rush Limbaugh conservatives" it's the envirohippie liberals. Solar and Wind are not economical because they rely on non-consistent environmental effects to produce power. Solar and Wind only work in very few areas around the country, and in nowhere near the amounts to produce enough power for the area required to use them.
Try using solar power in the Pacific Northwest for example. The cost of the panels takes nearly 15 years to equal out to what people spend on the panels. The problem is that you have to replace them after 8 years, AND that doesn't account for regular maintenance costs.
Wind power kills tons of birds. Try putting one up in the city, or even the suburbs, you'll get slapped quick. It consumes acres and acres of useable farm and grazing land that is better used producing the food we eat.
A solar friend| 4.19.12 @ 1:52PM
8 Years? What? I think someone's given you some bad data.
Most mono or polycrystalline modules have 20+ year limited warranties. Evacuated tube collectors (for solar water heating) generally have similar warranties. Inverters are generally around 15 years. The choke point are batteries which have 5-10 years (and are the growing price choke for off-grid systems)... but who uses batteries when it's better to have on-grid systems without them?
As long as you treat them right you can get a VERY long life out of your systems with less maintenance than you think. Good system design and fair net-metering agreements with local utilities can make a system last 20 years or more before replacements are needed while keeping your utility bills at zero or negative (meaning you gain credit for excess energy you don't use).
Yes, people are afraid of solar and wind... and this article doesn't help. I mean, really? A cult? Bird Blenders? Very prejudicial.
I think people are more afraid of the sticker shock than anything. The initial cost of a system is expensive, but when you consider what it will save you over decades of use?
I'm a fan of the industry. I love it, I do. And I find it disheartening that we'd rather burn off nonrenewables than try and switch. Solar/wind are not miracle energy sources, but they ARE cleaner and harvest energy both directly and indirectly (what do you think causes wind?) from the sun without having to wait for millions of years of biological processes to produce gas and oil (not to mention the environmental and health hazards).
So I would ask both the author of this article and other commenters,' why all the hate?' We should all be on board with renewables. Instead, we're clinging tightly to what is traditional using snipes at strawmen like Gore, liberals and hippies.
chuck| 4.19.12 @ 10:32PM
Sorry solar friend, but no nice way to put this:
You're just full of shit!
A solar friend| 4.20.12 @ 1:35PM
How exactly? Everything I've said is true.
Al Adab| 4.18.12 @ 3:45PM
There is not animosity to any energy source (except by The Left which hates oil), but there is to government selecting what we need, subsidizing their selected winners and taxing, regulating or otherwise penalizing those they disfavor.
If the nation were serious about a viable energy policy it would include new refineries, utilization of domestic supplies to the exclusion of imports, new nuclear plants, exdpanded fracking and the expansion of all economicly viable fuels and processes without regard to whether any given one is ideologically suitable.
Al Adab| 4.18.12 @ 3:46PM
Thread is too long to get the discussion in rational order. Lots of good comments nonetheless.
DTOM!| 4.18.12 @ 5:19PM
They HATE nuclear, too!
beebop2| 4.19.12 @ 6:21AM
You are a piece of work .... the 0bama campaign is looking for more "diversity," so perhaps you can enlist.
You bitch and moan and then when challenged drag in a Rush Limbaugh straw man. God you are a waste of my precious personal time.
DTOM!| 4.18.12 @ 12:28PM
Brother, chuck,
My response was directed at the confused CnR.
My dream is a natural gas well on my property feeding a generator. WooHoo!
And it's the economics of growing silicon crystals and the limited energy emitted by the sun that makes photovoltaics infeasible. Can't blame it all on physics...
I'm on your side!
chuck| 4.18.12 @ 1:24PM
DTOM,
I understood, and was responding to the idiot troll cnr.
The problem with photovoltaic and windmills is that they produce nothing when the conditions are not right. AC power cannot be stored, it must be converted to DC to charge batteries, then reconverted to AC to use when needed. Batteries are just a chemical reaction they use or give out energy, and as such are subject to the laws of chemistry and physics. To store large amounts of energy, you huge a huge volume of batteries, hence the problem with electric cars. Unless these problems can be addressed, wind and solar power will never be economically feasible.
I would prefer an oil well on my property. Hell, at $100+ a barrel, I could damned well afford the power bill!
Bob S| 4.18.12 @ 12:27PM
It's amazing how you can infer emotions without even looking at his face.
Or are you looking at his face?
DTOM!| 4.18.12 @ 3:09PM
In the 70's I heard about a big ol' Victorian mansion in central Illinois that had a producing gas wqell in the basement. That's where my dream started.
Saw an experimental hybrid based on a Honda 750 cc engine installed in a Vega, too.
There's not much new, is there?
DTOM
Jim | 4.18.12 @ 2:43PM
Dear CNR:
Your comment makes no sense, unless it was meant as sarcasm, in which case it's just puerile.
benny havens| 4.18.12 @ 8:29AM
All we hear from president green is “wind and solar” is the answer to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. 90% of the oil we consume is used in our transportation system. Windmills and solar panels will not do anything to support trucks, buses, trains, planes and people driving to work.
Natural gas seems like the obvious alternative for the transportation system in the future. However, president “all of the above” already has his environmental cry babies complaining that extracting natural gas is detrimental to the environment. Same old crap.
I investigated the use of solar panels for electrical generation for my home. Based on the present cost of electricity, it would take 30 years to break even. If president “cap and trade” has his way, electricity costs will skyrocket. This means that my breakeven point will be shorter. Wow, sounds good. Maybe president “handout” could send me the $50,000.00 for the cost of installation and we’ll call it even. He could send vice president birdbrain for a photo op, handing out another “green” check.
old white guy| 4.19.12 @ 4:45PM
i would like to start the population reduction at their end.
Mike Hawk| 4.18.12 @ 7:54AM
Solar will not drive my car, power Moe's truck nor propel Obama's Air Farce One. neither will Ethanol.
Conservative Not Republican| 4.18.12 @ 12:08PM
That is as intelligent as JFK saying, "Airplanes cannot fly to the moon so we should not bother trying to send a man to the moon. "
Bob S| 4.18.12 @ 12:26PM
You're not as clever as you think.
Skippy| 4.18.12 @ 2:30PM
Bob you are a master of understatement.
Mike 3/505| 4.18.12 @ 9:01PM
+1
Jim | 4.18.12 @ 2:46PM
Okay, gotcha. Just plain dumb. Solar may do these things in future, or may not. If any of these new power-generating technologies are to have a hope of being cost-effective, they first must be just plain effective, and they are not. And tell me what we got out of all the money spent going to the moon?
Mac Jehoff| 4.18.12 @ 2:59PM
Yeah, we did not even get any green cheese.
DTOM!| 4.18.12 @ 3:10PM
Yeah, but we got Teflon, Tang, and HP calculators...
James Biggar| 4.18.12 @ 10:06PM
Mike,
You're wrong about Air orce One. It's going to run on Algae. I know it's true because the President said so and he would not lie. Would he?
saleboter| 4.18.12 @ 8:24AM
When your business plan involves funding from the government forever you are on shakey ground
TLP| 4.18.12 @ 8:38AM
"Things are what you make of them." Isn't that how the old saying goes?
A great man tells us that- "Green is the new Red." The Environmental Movement is just a Weigh Station for the Communists, until they can regain their rightful place, in the World, as the #1 Cause of Death, Imprisonment, Forced Labour, and Poverty.
And, like everything else about these people, one must WATCH WHAT THEY DO, as opposed to what they say.
Green Energy is this Jimmy Carter's "Synthetic Fuel". Billions of OUR DOLLARS thrown down a Rat Hole on the Ponzi Scheme of all Ponzi Schemes + Madoff x Enron. Think of it as: Every Man, Woman, and Child, going on a GSA Convention (or whatever the Hell they we're doing) in Vegas, every day for the rest of their lives. And, like climbing Mt. Everest, we don' t really have to do it. We do it, because it's there. Because it makes us "Feel Good".
Oh, yeah. And, some of us, do it for THE MONEY.
When the Muslim robbed our accounts for $800 Billion, not that long ago, he told us that he was doing it for US. He had a Plan to "Create all of the Shovel Ready Infrastructure Jobs" in the world.
That never happened.
He did manage to "Redistribute" OUR Money, to HIS Friends. To give it to the Bluest of States, so as to pay for the continued services of his Public Sector Union Street Gangs. Not all of it went there. Oh, no. A guy needs Walking Around Money, don'tcha know. He uses Our money, to keep His Friends on the Payroll, so that They can continue to Pay Dues to their Organized Crime Union Bosses, so that They can GIVE IT BACK to the African. Criss Cross.
Capiche?
The few Billions that the Muslim had left over, he used to Grease the Skids. Every good Mafioso worth his salt, knows that the 1st thing any Mob Boss needs, is a "FRONT". Someplace he can Launder his ill gotten gains. Like, a Pizzaria, or an Olive Oil Importing Business. The Muslim found one in the form of Renewable Energy. What better place than the Utopian's Holy Grail of returning to the times before the Industrial Revolution, when Big Monied ROBBER BARONS clanked their Champagne Glasses with the latest incarnation of the Tammany Hall Politician, while their Serfs, toiling in their dusty fields, struggled along on the Scraps from their Benefactor's tables. (Like the Black Community does now.)
It's Dejavu all over again. The 1st Jimmy Carter spent Billions of Dollars chasing the Windmills of "Renewable Energy". This new one, (the African Muslim version) is using his loot, to chase Actual Windmills. And, the greatest part of all of this, is the COINCIDENCE that, all of the Renewable Energy Companies that he gives Money to, are Owned by His Supporters. his Biggest Donors. His BUNDLERS. What are the odds?
It works just as the Shovel Ready Infrastructure Jobs money did. He gives them OUR MONEY, where bye they use the bulk of it to Pay Off their expenses, and then they go in to Bankruptcy, with the Caveat that THEY get their money back FIRST, before any of the people that they OWE, do. (Think GM and CHRYSLER) Now, his FRIENDS have the Cash to give him a CUT.
I think that the word is: Diabolical.
Environmentalism has always been about Control. the Control over Resources, the Allocation of Land, and of Money. It makes it infinitely easier to Control the Means of Production, instead of having to go through both houses of Congress. And, who doesn't want Clean this, and Clean that.
So what, if the money they use, is DIRTY.
DTOM!| 4.18.12 @ 9:16AM
TLP;
Nice. Teeny, tiny point.
"Weigh" stations are nothing but state government tax collection agencies.
"Way" stations are places where weary travelers find rest, shelter, a little food and fuel.
And just thinks HE is diabolical. He is really misinformed, mis-educated - so much of what he knows is just not so!
His other problem - he is too lazy and too stupid to figure it out. Yes, stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Only an idiot could say, 'drilling won't help the price-so I'm releasing millions of barrels from your Strategic Petroleum Reserve to cut gas prices!' Only a complete idiot could even think a thought as illogical and irrational as that.
Being diabolical requires a lot of planning, hard work, and intuition that this One and His bunch clearly are incapable of. They recycle speeches like high school term papers.
Warning! Even though the recent polls are quickly labeling him a "loser" in the public mind; there is a big danger!
That big danger is: the "loser" label will instill electoral overconfidence and depress turnout on November 6 so much so that the Democrat vote fraud efforts overpower the righteous anger of upstanding citizen voters.
Democrat vote fraud? What sane reason can ANYONE hold, or even imagine, for being against voter photo id laws than an intention to cheat? None exists, ergo the Democrats have every intention of cheating - to bankrupt our democratic republic- by stealing elections to empty the already-empty Treasury and then finish us off by identity-stealing our future financial health by borrowing trillion$ as Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have done. (With the help of MODERATE, self-preserving Republicans.)
I'm very suspicious of Romney's commitment to true conservatism - but I will crawl over broken glass and barbed wire, swim through molten steel, run through clouds of mustard gas to vote for Romney on Nov 6 - RINO or NOT!
Don't Tread On Me!
Obama, you have trod upon us!
TLP| 4.18.12 @ 10:36AM
There you go, again. He is NOT Supid, or Lazy. Unless of course you don't remember how this Country used to work. We've had worse times than 2008. Everybody seems to have forgotten what Reagan inherited from Carter. He got "Double Didgit EVERYTHING. you name it. Unemployment, Inflation, Interest Rates, plus we had Oil Embargoes, a Cold War, and a Military that was a Shell of what it is, today. We had the Soviets, the Cubans, the Sandinistas, and Commie Rebels crawling all over Central and South America. Yet, he got us through it. And, ya wanna know why? Because he LOVED this Country.
Do you really think that everything he's been doing for the last 31/2 Years has been just some big SCREW UP. That he really WANTS to help this Country, but he's just too stupid.
He has done more, in less time, than any President since Reagan. He has SINGLE HANDEDLY Transformed the Greatest, most Powerful Nation, the world has ever known, in to DETROIT.
That could never happen, by Accident,in a Million Years. This was Planned. This has been on the Drawing Boards for Generations.
Your problem, and the problem with others who think as you do, is that, when he said that "We are the ones we've been waiting for" you assumed he was talking to ALL OF US.
And, why do we never want to ASSUME things?
Because it does what?
I think you know why.
Oh, and by the way. In my previous post, I think you missed a couple misspelled words, and a couple times I forgot to start the sentence with a Capitol Letter.
Further more. To your point that "only an idiot would do the Strategic Oil Reserve Shuffle"? It's not that HE is Stupid. It's that he knows how STUPID tha American People are.
Go look at the T.V. Guide, if you don't believe me.
DTOM!| 4.18.12 @ 11:00AM
OBama ain't the brains of their outfit, TLP. Obama is the figure head. George Soros does not spend his money on Obama because Obama told him to. Obama IS clueless. If I he were smarter, he would have incrementally moved the healthcare thing forward - you and I might never have noticed that and a thousand other things we are all outraged about. He would not be continually embarrassing himself and his handlers. Romney would be polling fifteen points behind the successful President Obama.
Obama is embarrassing himself and them. He isn't leading in the polls. If the MSM can't gin his numbers up, they will abandon him - they do have to maintain the slightest, thinnest, sheerest shred of respectability - and Obama is not smart enough to recognize that. He'll lose them, too.
If they were smart and hardworking - we'd already be done.
His cupidity and stupidity leave us the opportunity to educate the new generation of voters about the disaster that is socialism.
TLP, you are not my enemy - I agree with you- I am adding my voice to yours. A choir is louder than a soloist. This is not "friendly fire."
The only people reading TV guide are the 1% who watch over-the-air broadcasts. TV guide circulation is now down to 2 million a week. That is not a reliable indicator of average intelligence of your fellow citizens. Have a little faith in your country men. They are not as stupid as you might think.
The other side is cheating its ass off and still losing in a lot of places, places like Wisconsin...
It ain't over, til we quit and that's the only way they win - if we quit. So don't give up.
Never give in, never give up, never surrender...
DTOM
Robert| 4.18.12 @ 6:50PM
No one writes like this except Timothy Pennell. Why did you change your Nom de Plume? A rose by any other name...
Your next comment -- that obama isn't stupid but diabolical -- you're spot on! This guy cannot destroy so effectively based on stupidity. This is the Marxists Grand Design being implemented.
Keep up the terrific work!
TLP| 4.19.12 @ 7:04AM
Think......Gestapo.
Think......Stasi. (Or is it Stazi?)
Shhhhhhhhhh.
Besides. Maybe you're wrong.
Maybe it's not me?
Indy| 4.18.12 @ 8:40AM
We are the Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas. With the price of natural gas dropping, why did Obama issue a new Executive Order, some industry groups currently support it. Let's see what the EPA comes out with and who will be on this task force,
"The Environmental Protection Agency is slated to unveil final oil-and-gas air pollution regulations next week that would cut smog-forming and toxic emissions from wells developed with fracking. Separately, the Interior Department will soon float rules for fracking on public lands.
Industry groups maintain that fracking should be regulated on the state level and have raised concerns about the effects of the upcoming regulations."
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wi.....tive-order
Solar is failing, it costs too much and the only way it survives is with government subsidies. We don't have the money, it does not creat sustainable jobs, the business plan fails.
Natural gas has a market, costs have come down, the supply is massive, we need jobs. Look to Spain, see what has happened to its economy which was banking on green energy, it tanked, they lost jobs and have now halted green energy projects.
hardcard| 4.18.12 @ 8:59AM
keystone pipeline is stopped by obama, why ? ask w.buffet,ben nelson,g.soros, check-it out.
Von Mises Jr| 4.18.12 @ 10:00AM
After the election, Barry will have more flexibility, as he told Medvedev.
The solution is simple. Nationalize the oil and natural gas industries, and Obama can produce a glut of solar panels and wind farms to rival the Chevy Volt.
We are getting a real life lesson in how socialist "planned economies" operate. "Dear Leader" and his Czars issue mandates, misallocation of resources becomes rampant, GDP (goods) plummet while prices "necessarily skyrocket" and the standard of living declines until we are eating our dogs. Check out North Korea or Cuba for an advanced case study.
Is this the "Hope" and "Change" we have been waiting for? At least it turned out good for George Kaiser and the other bundlers. The only question that remains is our "Bungler-in-Chief" really that ignorant, or is this on purpose?
Conservative Not Republican| 4.18.12 @ 10:47AM
Subsidies are bad ideas, whether for new technologies like solar or old technologies like oil. I do not, however, understand conservatives kneejerk and shallow contempt for a clean environment. Personally, I want a clean air and water for my kids if not for me and it will never come from fossil fuels. We should encourage clean energy development, though not with taxpayer dollars. There are whackos in the conservative movement just like there are whackos in the environmental movement. Why let a few people set us back on the road to clean energy?
squalis| 4.18.12 @ 10:54AM
Did you read the article? What part of the economic realities about renewable energy production did you not understand? And another thing; I must have skipped over the part where Ross was advocating for dirty air and water.
DTOM!| 4.18.12 @ 11:26AM
CnR:
Please provide support for your assertion
"...and it will never come from fossil fuels."
You might review the equations of combustion of methane, before answering. The only byproducts of burning methane are water and carbon dioxide. By the way, without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere photosynthesis cannot happen, i.e. all green vegetation would die. CO2 ain't bad, unless you are uninformed.
We're waiting, Chicken Little.
Chicken Little? He's the chicken you see when you want an omelette made without breaking any eggs.
DTOM
Bob S| 4.18.12 @ 12:24PM
Yeah, never mind all the technological advancements of the past 30 years that have made "dirty" energy orders of magnitude cleaner.
Al Adab| 4.18.12 @ 3:52PM
Con not Rep:
The opposition is not to clean anything (even if there were such a thing) but as you note to the subsidies which follow the government selecting preferred technologies. In fact Conservatives generally support conservation, but not environmentalism. Those two are not the same.
As to the chimera of clean air and clean water, this nation has the best of both in the world (except maybe the mountain air of Switzerland) and has over the last half century improved thwe quality of both. While not done without cost, the government agencies involved have become self-perpetuating institutions rather than, as initially envisioned, instuments of policy.
squalis| 4.18.12 @ 10:50AM
"....bird blender wind turbines...."
Absolutely priceless!
Bob S| 4.18.12 @ 12:23PM
It's telling that a company that has been running since 2008 crumbles as soon as government dollars are pulled. If they can't get people to go solar after four years, then they just can't do it. Short of forcing people to go solar, no one will succeed. Solar costs too much compared with other sources of energy. It's that simple.
Just Suppose...| 4.18.12 @ 12:26PM
Just suppose for a minute that Obama and all his cronies KNOW, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that spending fedbucks on "green" energy boobdoggles is a fast & furious way to burn cash.
In other words, it's intentional. But not to really support any green energy agenda but to vaporize money. It has the outward APPEARANCE of being supportive to the greenies and that satisfies a miniscule portion of his mentally deficient voting base, but his real goal is to just spend as much as fast as possible so that it leaves the US broke.
He has already been successful at it but he opened the spigot to "flood" from "deluge" with that snotty grin he has, knowing full well it will eliminate money.
He's not so much stupid as he is smart in knowing how to make trouble for people and even playing people on their own proclivities. Witness: Buffet and how this administration uses him, much to his own embarrassment. He does the same to people who run green companies and also those in his own cabinet who think he's actually trying to help.
Nope. His one, single, glaring, obvious agenda is to destroy this country from within. He knows though that there are millions of barkers out there who will spin both his words and actions into something palatable to the left-wing fruit-loops. But even the lack of cynicism on the right is sometimes appalling.
There is not any needed analysis of the mechanics of Obama's green energy muck-ups any more than it needs explaining why a person sets a match to a pile of leaves in the fall. The quickest, easiest, fastest way to get rid of them.
Obama is setting a match to piles of money.
PolishKnight| 4.18.12 @ 12:44PM
I think he's just slushing money around to his friends, Chicago style.
Just Suppose....| 4.18.12 @ 1:47PM
I agree. But just because one aspect of the agenda is being met doesn't mean that it can't be multifaceted and effective in more than one area. Pay off the goons and burn money at the same time? Works for them!
Mike Hawk| 4.18.12 @ 12:34PM
You are no Conservative, you are a troll.
Mike Hawk| 4.18.12 @ 12:37PM
Above is directed at Consevative not Republican. Sorry pal, oil is clean energy and also the most efficient.
Conservative Not Republican| 4.18.12 @ 12:38PM
You wouldn't know a real conservative if he bit you on your fat arse. Parroting Limbaugh does not make you a conservative. Conserving things does.
Bob S| 4.18.12 @ 1:30PM
Oh man, that's rich. I guess that's what a public school education does for someone.
chuck| 4.18.12 @ 1:31PM
Yo, dippus:
Conversing things makes you a conservationist, not a conservative!
Do you need to repeat the 5th grade?
chuck| 4.18.12 @ 1:32PM
Sorry, meant "conserving" not conversing.
Oops!
DTOM!| 4.18.12 @ 3:13PM
chuck;
But conversing does help!
You may have been a little presumptuous on whether CnR would be REPEATING fifth grade...might actually be the first time for him. Not sure - I may be overestimating the current fifth grade curricula...
Conservative Not Republican| 4.18.12 @ 3:51PM
You proved my point. "Conserving things doesn't make you a conservative." Probably the most ignorant thing I have read on this website. I can cite you 1000 references in the works of Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet, et al, and all of the founders of TRADITIONAL CONSERVATISM, to the contrary. The founders were all about conserving the land, the farms, the traditions, the morals, the FAMILY, our resources and not forcing future generations to fix our messes, and you Rush Limbaugh conservatives are libertarians/neocons, not conservatives, but you are to ill-read and ill-educated to know this and you won't listen to a true conservative. If just one of you read Kirk's The Conservative Mind, you would see how ignorant you are and what a jackass Limbaugh is.
DTOM| 4.18.12 @ 5:02PM
So you are now name calling quite clearly.
Are you ever going to respond to my simple question about what is cleaner than burning natural gas, i.e. methane?
Let me help you out, burning hydrogen is cleaner than burning natural gas because hydrogen combustion generates only water.
The problem with burning hydrogen is that you can only get it from electrolysis of water or by stripping the carbon atoms from hydrocarbons.
Electrolysis requires more energy to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen, so for every BTU or KWH worth of energy you get from hydrogen combustion you had to put in MORE energy than you get back. So that won't work.
And stripping the carbon atoms from hydrocarbons like methane will waste most of the energy available in the hydrocarbon and will result in large quantities of excess carbon that you'll have to dispose of carefully or it will burn on its own, releasing all of the CO2 you thought you were avoiding through the stripping process.
Dams are not particularly clean - they have catastrophic impacts on riverine ecosystems and also contribute to flooding. I've always been a big fan of nuclear.
You criticize everyone here as not being conservatives. Yet you do not know the first thing about my conservatism or most likely anyone else's. But I have seen enough of yours to recognize that you won't engage in logical argument - you find name calling is easier.
So conserving things IS the essence of conservatism? Eh? Wrong!
Conserving murder rates, oversized government, and government debt makes one conservative?
No, it's not about conserving resources, it's about protecting the Constitutional basis of our country and its Judeo-Christian ethic.
You assail Rush Limbaugh repeatedly-please give an example of his failure as a conservative voice.
Just because you speed-read Kirk does not mean you comprehended or retained a single word of it. You have displayed very little ability to comprehend the comments made here in your direction.
Simple test question for you:
Do your children have a right to healthcare?
Yes or no.
Pick one and we'll know how conservative you really are.
Waiting....
Al Adab| 4.18.12 @ 5:05PM
Con/Rep:
See my above. Conservatives support generally conservation, but they eschew the idolotry and government imposts involved with environmentalism. The first is rational the second a matter of Faith. The two are not synonomous.
DTOM!| 4.18.12 @ 5:21PM
Al,
Good luck with CnR. He has issues.
Mike Hawk| 4.18.12 @ 3:58PM
It's obvious you have a fat head you phony. You sir, are one big arse.
PolishKnight| 4.18.12 @ 12:44PM
Ross, philosophically, we shouldn't be exporting CNG but rather expanding our domestic use of it to reduce our dependency upon foreign oil. My friend in Poland has a CNG converted car and a tank in his trunk that let's him run about 200 miles on CNG and if he doesn't reach a filling station in time, it autoswitches over to regular gasoline. He says it costs him about 1/2 mpg compared to regular gasoline. The conversion kit wasn't ridiculous. About a grand or so.
So we should suggest a tax break for people to buy the conversion kits and drill,drill,drill (or frack, frack, frack!) for as much natural gas as we can get and reduce the number of cars waiting at costco to save 20 cents a gallon on regular gasoline. As more power plants are brought online, have them go natural gas too. Eventually, we would be weaned off of foreign oil entirely.
Al Adab| 4.18.12 @ 3:55PM
Let those who choose buy a Chevy Volt or Ford whatsit, others of us need for business and want for personal other vehicles. We should not be locked into decisions by government choosing on our behalf, ie Solyndra or Four-Squared.
Liam| 4.18.12 @ 12:51PM
IF the value was there, big business would tackle it WITHOUT government intervention. Just knowing that the government has to pay for all these alternative energies proves their lack of value at this time.
Al Adab| 4.18.12 @ 5:09PM
Review the ethanol subsidy. See what the production of the product does to food prices to say nothing of the damage it does the engines. My owners manual is specific about avoiding ethanol, but nowhere can I buy gasoline without the blend. Will the government subsidize my damaged engine or do they prefer I buy a Chevy Volt?
kwan| 4.18.12 @ 2:31PM
Another day and another "alternative energy" company finds out that its profits are heading south while its losses head north. These fraudulent companies are suppose to be saving the planet from the non-existent threat of global warming, yet they plunge into bankruptcy before they are able to complete their mission of saving us. Of course the Community Organizer will save us by loaning another trillion dollars to some con-man who has a plan to convert swamp moss into gasoline.
Skippy| 4.18.12 @ 2:38PM
Oil!
All organic and from the Good Earth.
Nature's most perfect fuel.
Conservative Not Republican| 4.18.12 @ 3:53PM
That's helpful.
DTOM| 4.18.12 @ 5:03PM
More so than you!!!
Really Another Liberal Troll| 4.18.12 @ 7:39PM
What's not helpful about the truth?
Gaea herself produced the oil that is inexpensive, abundant, and has powered more wealth than even trees.
And oil is only the penultimate in green energy. The ultimate green energy, produced by Gaea herself, inexpensive and abundant, that we won't even need to tap for centuries yet, is nuclear.
I'm surprised you and Obama don't know all this. After all, aren't you a 1%er, in Mensa?
Bob| 4.18.12 @ 4:41PM
Too long to get the discussion in rational order. Lots of good comments.
dieta
Al Adab| 4.18.12 @ 5:10PM
Si, Umberto, es verdad.
cicero| 4.18.12 @ 7:21PM
This whole mania started in the 70s when the chicken littles began to rant about running out of oil, and poluting the environement. That gave us the EPA, as well as several other offices on both the federal and state levels. Now that we are aware that we won't be running out of oil or gas for the next 300 years or so, and that the air is cleaner than it has EVER been in this country, what is the excuse for maintaining all of this expense and oversite? It is high time that the citizens of this country take it back, and begin acting in a grown up manner. If the majority of them are not willing to do that, then we might just as well quiet down and observe the ride to serfdom.
I believe that it all started with Rachel Carson's book - "Silent Spring". The chapter that amused me tha most was the bombing of Detroit with DDT pellets. Somehojw, this was supposed to have kelled all the robins. I was a boy in Detroit at that time. The only thing the DDT did was knock out the earth worm population for a while. I noticed, nor do I remember, deadd robins all over the place. Best guess is that they all went to Toledo until the worms recovered.
Nite| 4.18.12 @ 7:53PM
This will be years down the road, and currently is an expensive boondoggle by Obama. He sees his radical ideas slipping through his fingers and he will throw more and more of these ideas the closer he comes to getting tossed out of the WH.
jeff perren| 4.18.12 @ 8:47PM
"The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has approved its Sabine Pass liquid natural gas (LNG) terminal in Louisiana..."
If it's located in Louisiana why does the Federal government get to say yay or nay? What business is it of the Feds whether or not some plant in Louisiana gets built or not? Where in the Constitution is there a warrant for such control?
Mike 3/505| 4.18.12 @ 9:19PM
It's not in the constitution....The control comes from the fact that the government controls the money supply...else businesses and states could tell the Feds to F&$k Off. When you have the ability to make a phone call and direct a bank or banks to sequester all of someones or some businesses funds....THAT is real power.
POST American| 4.19.12 @ 1:38PM
Laying aside this routine,
'Agenda 21' soft programming op
----could we PLEASE get that first sustained
and unflinching take on Warren Buffet's
virally lucrative transport of 80% of our oil
----to RED China?
THANKS!
David, Self Defense Retailer | 4.23.12 @ 10:41PM
I wonder how Israel's doing? I always look to Israel for technology developments. Their small size makes it a lot easier to implement, such as their electric car program.