"No More Solyndras" Act Passes the House

Peter, I fear Michael is a hopeless case and gets his "facts" only from FOX. It's a pity when reality is so accessible. Here is a list of renewable energy production as a percent of total electricity by country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources

'...they cannot supply all our energy needs in a thousand years. ' There is at least one island of the coast of Denmark that gets all its energy needs from renewable energy. The state of California is getting about 19% of its electrical energy from renewable sources right now, and many of the renewable sources are still being built. Much of this has happened in the last 10-15 years, so 100% at the utility level might well take 50 years, but individuals can speed this up (and increase efficiency) by installing their own solar panels, etc., and many businesses are following the same pattern. Walmart (hardly a bastion of liberal environmentalism) is installing PV panels on many of their stores. And even you think that fossil fuels will only last about 150 years (comment 32), and that ignores the other inhabitants of the earth. After that, in your scenario, only the wealthy will be able to afford gasoline for their automobiles, since the easy oil will have run out. Some economists think we have already reached 'Peak Oil', where more is used each year than new sources found. Nepal gets a great deal of its electricity from renewable (hydro) power, and the cities there are loaded with rooftop solar panels heating water and the like. Yes, the Annapurna Base Camp trail is busy with porters hauling propane tanks up and down, but hydro electricity is taking over. Nobody has ever told me to make candles. (Actually it is great fun, and I certainly have made many over the decades). Oh, by the way, gas prices have been falling the last couple of weeks at the neighborhood gas stations. Some OPEC maneuver, perhaps? And someone recently pointed out that the low-high range of gasoline prices under Bush 2 and under Obama are within pennies of each other. Never though of the Texan shrub as a lefty!

Michael, you wrote, "My point is that gas prices would not be rising as fast as they are if environmental groups were not pushing the government to stop all production of fossil fuels."

That is total baloney. Why would you say such nonsense. Oil is an international commodity and the price is largely set by OPEC. We could remove all regulations on drilling in this country and prices wouldn't move a nickle. I fear you've been drinking the tea.

My point is that gas prices would not be rising as fast as they are if environmental groups were not pushing the government to stop all production of fossil fuels. This is how they are trying to justify going to alternative energy, only to find out that they cannot supply all our energy needs in a thousand years.

So then, when they have taken away our fossil fuels, we are told that we should purchase bicycles and make candles. It will eventually turn out that only the wealthy will be able to afford automobiles and electricity, but our environment will be much cleaner. The environmental groups are fine with that scenario and would go further to say that only half of us should survive the experience (for the sake of their environment).

I don't intend to follow that game plan, but you can go right ahead. Anyone who supports this scenario should be one of the ones who volunteers to be a victim.

michael-bailey, Sir, I put a number of solar panels on my home:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4C5qWwFTFY
Email me at hljmesa@yahoo.com and I will attach a document explaining how I justified such a purchase.

Michael, you asked, "Why should I pay three times as much for energy because a bunch of environmental groups said the sky was falling?"

No one is asking you to. Indeed, based on your comments here, I'd guess you will be one of the last Americans to embrace renewable energy. That's fine, the rest of us can cover for you.

The simple fact is, and as Peter points out above, the in many cases the economics already favor renewables regardless of existing federal or state incentives. This advantage will grow in the near term as gasoline prices rise and as natural gas returns to its normal price premium once we begin exporting it as LNG.

So go ahead; do your fossil fuel cheer leading. It's amusing to watch a dinosaur waving pom poms.

I don't know what "lies" you are talking about. The Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska is still causing environmental damage to sea-life and along the shore, even this many years later. The damage from the recent massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is still ongoing. The environmental effects of the inherent CO2 production from fossil fuel burning is clearly apparent and increasing, as observed by both climate change and the effects of acid rain altering the pH of lakes and streams, leading to serious population changes in amphibians such as frogs and salamanders. Bird and animal migration patterns are changing in both time and geography. Insect populations are showing similar changes. Various plants are changing their spacial patterns. Simple high-school chemistry, physics and biology would lead one to expect such changes, and researchers are indeed finding them, often at even greater rates than they expected.

The only "lies" I know are from those who are denying these changes. It is not clear to me whether these denials are due to personal economic interests, or just psychological denial of unwelcome truths, but in either case, society needs to overcome them.

As to the costs, the PV solar panels on our roof generated 70% of the electricity we used over the last three years, at a capital cost of under 2% of the value of our house. Even without the State subsidy, it would be under 3% of the value of the house. Over the expected lifetime of the panels, they will more than pay for themselves. The costs for such installations have dropped almost in half since we installed ours, according to ads in our newspaper. I consider that a small investment to reduce our environmental impact on our (and your) grand-children's future.

I am not saying that renewable energy sources are wrong or that we should not use them. I am saying that trying to sabotage the main energy sources that we use today is wrong headed. Telling lies about how bad fossil fuel is and how the methods of obtaining and using those fuels are killing the environment is a disservice to all of us. The price of fossil fuels could be much lower if the government weren't involved in restricting their production.

I am all for the production of local renewable energy wherever it is economically feasible, but not at three times the cost of fossil fuel. It would be great to see solar on every roof top if I could pay the same price I am paying for electricity now, but we both know that is not possible.

So the question finally comes down to "Why should I pay three times as much for energy because a bunch of environmental groups said the sky was falling?"

Thank you, Cliff, for expressing my thoughts so much better than I did! Another example of the hidden environmental costs not borne by the fossil fuel industry comes from hydraulic fracturing or "fracking", where water supplies have been polluted (so badly with fuel the tap water caught fire in at least one case) with the "fracturing" chemicals pumped into the ground, which in many states the operators do not have to reveal.

Michael, you wrote, "We have enough known fossil fuels right now in the US to last us the next 150 years at our current burn rate."
Maybe, but not at the current prices. It's getting harder and more expensive to tap those reserves you are speaking of. At some point, the cost and the energy required will be prohibitive.

"The real question is which energy will be the least expensive to use to fuel our transportation and heat & light our homes." No, that isn't the real question because the costs of fossil and nuclear are not borne at the meter or the gas pump. They cost us in the form of degraded health, environmental damage, and now unavoidable global warming. If these costs were not externalized by fossil and nuclear, renewables would be the obvious choice - even for you.

"If we did away with all fossil fuels today our country would step back 100 years in time and at least half of us would die." That's crap and besides, no one is suggesting we do it today. We need to develop the renewable assets first and that will take time, money, and energy. There are plenty of communities and countries that are already 100% renewable and many more striving for that sort of economic stability. Shallow thinkers are preventing that progress in this country.

"People are not going to stand for using less and paying way more for something we already have." At what point in your imaginary 150-year vision do we decide it's time. From any intelligent perspective, fossil fuels are way to scarce to be burning them to produce electricity. Even it we confined their use to transportation, they will soon run out - particularly oil. What's your solution, or do you have no children?

The essence of this bill is that Government should not fund new technology projects that are going to fail. Obviously (except to politicians) you have to gamble to win.
The real world decision that adults have to make is - do you fund development and commericalization of new technologies? If not, then there will be no internet/computers/advances in energy/biotech - you know, the technogies that has made the US profitable.
So if you go down this road, you give up the things that the US is good at, and concentrate on making things at the lowest cost and copying others - you know, what China does.

The belief that government can successfully decide what is in the best interest of the majority or assist private enterprise in improving the human experience is one that history has shown to be a fools opinion.

"If we did away with all fossil fuels today our country would step back 100 years in time and at least half of us would die"

Not sure if this is true either. People lived just fine a 100 years ago without these current energy problems. If those who are so dependent on fossil fuels up and die, good for them. That leaves more for those who have learned to live without it and will once again make people prioritize the things in life that are really necessary for survival like food, water and clean air.....

If we continue to use fossil fuels at the current rate, the resulting CO2 levels and the consequent changes in climate, sea level, and probable weather patterns will cause serious issues long before 150 years. Ice core readings from Greenland and Antarctica show that the CO2 levels in the last 150 years or so have risen way above any prior fluctuations they record, a time scale out to about 800,000 years. Other data, less precise, supports the idea that the current CO2 levels have not been seen since the end of the Carboniferous era, when the atmospheric CO2 was converted into the fossil fuels we are now exploiting. Yes, natural processes in the ocean will convert some of that CO2 back into living material, but estimates are that even if we stopped generating extra CO2 NOW, it would be several decades before the CO2 level would stop rising, and start back down. If we had a realistic method of charging energy systems and other industries for the costs of their downstream effects, renewable sources would look much more economically viable. What cost the tens of thousands of premature deaths in the US alone from particulate and mercury pollution from coal-fired power stations? So far, the power stations pay nothing, the costs come out of the health system. As does the costs associated with all those coal miners with black lung disease. Enough, I will start getting angry soon. Let's leave a better world for my grandchildren.

We have enough known fossil fuels right now in the US to last us the next 150 years at our current burn rate. The real question is which energy will be the least expensive to use to fuel our transportation and heat & light our homes. If we did away with all fossil fuels today our country would step back 100 years in time and at least half of us would die. People are not going to stand for using less and paying way more for something we already have.

Thomas, good point. This present propping up of an excessively consumptive and wasteful economy is a fossil-fuel-dependent hiccup in the long term. If we don't pursue more successful versions of Solyndra, our children will be in for a very rude awakening.

"The fact of the matter is that no green energy technology has yet been developed that is economically viable."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the entire Earth, and everything upon it, was developed from what we call "green technologies", at no cost.....It took all types of energies working in conjunction with each other in order to develop all kinds of mass, from fire to air to earth to water to plants and to animals....So how is it we are so ignorant to believe that mankind is responsible and necessary for energy production? Free energy was around long before mankind existed and will continue to be around long after it is gone...

IN RESPONSE TO COMMENT 9 TO KATRINA IS TOAL FALSE

I SUFFERED 75 % WATEER DAMGED FORM A 6 FT STORM SEURGE AND 3 FT OF WATER IN MY HOME DAMAGED TO MY HOME AND PLUS 3 YEARS MY NSEAL TB ROOF DIALED TO TEH 80 MILES PER HOURS AND THE ENTIRE ROOF WAS REPLACED.

YES I HAD FLOOD INSURANCE PLUS THE ELEVATION PAPERWORK

IT WAS DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR BLANCO WHO CANCELLED ON FEMA -ICC CONTRACTS IN PLACE FROM LAND BANK AND HIRED ICF A CONTRACTOR WHO USED A USA BANK AND MANGED TO PUT APPROXIMATE 350,00 HOME OWNRES UNDER WATER AND YES I DDI SELL MY HOUSE BEFORE FORECLOSURE BECAUSE WE DO GET OUT,

WE ALSO DO BALANCE ENERGY USING LIKE NATURAL GAS AND OIL

TNASK TO MR BUSH WE CHAGED US A 20% PENALTY ADN WITH ADD THE ADDED REGULATION IT IS NOW AT 30% AND CLIMBING

SO IF THE BUSH TAX CODE GOES INTO EFFECT WE CAN NOW START LIMITING OUR ENERGY EXPORT TO THE NORTH

THANKS TO BARRACK OBBA HUSEIN OBAM II OR JR

OK Peter Bradshaw, let's consider the situation in California, the land of the green giant and environmentalist haven. Dams are being taken down to save the fish, geothermal is not developed due to many of the locations being on Indian holy lands, you can't harvest trees or clear undergrowth without screams of anguish from the green crowd. We are shutting down nuclear and won't license any more. Burning hydrocarbons is like killing your aunt Millie.

The above scenario pretty much leaves solar and wind, which are way more expensive than anything else and do not have the potential to replace what we have now within the next 50 years. I find that a little frustrating and it tends to discount all the whining I hear.

Re michael bailey "The fact of the matter is that no green energy technology has yet been developed that is economically viable."

Hydroelectric power is renewable, and has been viable for about a century. Geothermal power plants are also economically viable. Both solar and wind power are getting close to economic viability.

And, as pointed out above, US nuclear power plants have all required government financial guarantees to get built. Not that their proponents ever mention that...

It is interesting that as soon as you throw the Force of government into the picture, it starts subverting the system. Those that seek political power, most often attorneys, are the ones you least want having it. What the fascists always fail to understand is the judiciary, if it were not totally controlled by government, would remedy many of the problems that occur in a free market. To fix both the free market and the judicary they then think that piling on even more regulations are going to solve the problems. We only get more taxes and regulations and the problems still remain and than they blame it on the free market. There are always going to be disputes among people, and since government is in of itself an antagonist, it only exacerbates the problems. Hense, in 50 years of so called modern society we still have the same problems, only worse.

doggydogworld, Sir, you are exactly right ! ! ! let the consumer have a tax credit and decide on the best product ! !

Of course a Republican propaganda ploy. That's money that supposed to be earmarked for the military industrial complex.

Of course, almost all legislation is really designed to either skim off the top of the redistribution of wealth or protect the special interests of the ruling oligarchy. It's not necessarilly always obvious because they do throw the dogs a bone now and again to keep up the illusion of a government by and for the people. Just replace the word people with oligarchy and you have reality. Anyone who doesn't realize this is living in the twilight zone.

As others suggest, this program only LEAKS a little (comparatively), so leave it in place, BUT "tighten down the screws & replace the filter" & allow it to run a serviceable/serviceful life.
If Co. "XYZ" has "Product A(-)" & $10M to promote/produce it, while "ABC" has a like "Product A(+)", which is 1/2-again better in quality & value, but only has $100K to promote/produce it, then w/o this program "XYZ" will probably blanket the market quickly and force "ABC" into BK or otherwise out of business while WE (as Joe Public)are unaware of "ABC" & therefore, "lose" 1/2-again the quality & value (longevity/savings) w/ the lesser product (A-).
If "XYZ" brings in $1B/yr, then they run with it, while in essence, WE LOSE $500M/yr w/o the A(+) product. Investors would further promote "XYZ", posibly unaware that a "BETTER" product "existed"!!

Is not this "legislation" little more than an internet fueled propaganda device for purposes of building an either/or case for Keystone XL and other fossil fuel interests in the 113th Congress? To GOP strategists this effort only has to last in our "Google attention span" brains until November 6 when their oxymoron definition of sustainable energy can be redefined by them next year?

If public Google interest (hits) is at all connected to public voter trust and issue discrimination the sustainable energy and perhaps even US electoral process is in serious trouble. Google journalism seems to be rewarding failure, corruption and energy lies while covering the fact that all future energy production is growing abroad, fast. A few Google hit-counts on related RE/ political search seemed to me worth perusing...

Suntech – OLDEST SUCCESS STORY BUT PLAGUED WITH CORRUPTION CHALLENGES About 4,610,000 results (0.20 seconds)


Solyndra – BANKRUPT FOR OVER A YEAR AND NEVER REALLY HAD A VIABLE PRODUCT - About 3,750,000 results (0.17 seconds)


Sunpower – MOST EFFICIENT USA PV PRODUCERS NOW OWNED BY TOTAL About 4,610,000 results (0.22 seconds)


Fred Upton – ANTI SCIENCE – ANTI CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION CONGRESSIONAL ACTIVIST.
About 1,620,000 results (0.18 seconds


Yangli Solar – GEARING UP TO BE THE BIGGEST PV MFG IN 2012
About 966,000 results (0.35 seconds)


Ed Markey – PRO-CLIMATE CHANGE, PRO-RENEWABLE ENERGY
About 1,020,000 results (0.18 seconds)

A possible case to be made: "Instant scandalization" of government investment programs pays political dividends for US anti-CE, AGW deniers, and anti-science politicians, and especially for Chinese solar/wind manufacturers AND THE MILLIONS OF JOBS THEY CREATE FOR THEIR POLITICIANS BENEFIT.

"What can emerging developers use to replace this much needed credit support? Too many lenders want to be first to be second. New and potentially disruptive capabilities are unfamiliar and unproven to most lenders and lenders are not in the business of investing in innovation.

Government support of long term improvements to quality of life is part of the mandate to serve the people....often needed before it is obviously and enormously profitable. We should not expect the private sector to adopt the philosophy of "People before profits" and yet it is one that is sorely needed to save our entire quality of life. Maybe a profit sharing arrangement like was done with some of the recent bailouts can be adopted?"

Allowing one group or individual, as you say to feed of the loan guarantee trough, gives unfair advantage to that individual of group. As you see, we are now a society awaiting each years budget to attempt to exploit the treasury for our own personal gains. Of course politics plays no part in the game, HA HA. The most powerful of course don't garner the lions share of the budget. HA HA. Why do you think these people spend so much money trying to get into political power. Their altruism. Why would anyone spend $95,000 for a $22,000 a year job as a State Legislator??? TO gain privilege and access to the public trough. Doesn't this give you an idea of why this government and so many of it's Citizens are now insolvent.

If everyone would stop hyperventilating we could discuss why direct subsidies for companies who build products are different than end-user subsidies for a certain type of product or service.

Subsidizing end-user purchase of solar panels leaves the market free to pick winners and losers. Companies like Solyndra compete on an even playing field with all comers. Customers win when multiple companies compete for their business, and we all win in the end because this competition forces companies to continuously improve. Subsidizing one company directly (or several companies) perverts the marketplace, puts the government in charge of picking winners and losers instead of customers. It doesn't work because no single entity, especially a government bureaucracy, is as smart as the marketplace, and worse yet it promotes cronyism and rewards the politically connected instead of the better companies.

"No More Solyndras" may be political grandstanding (as was Obama's visit to Solyndra HQ), but anyone who truly supports solar should be even more in favor of stopping Solyndra-style deals. They are bad policy and only set the movement back in the the long run.

By all means, let the fed get rid of the deadbeats feeding at the loan guarantee trough and they are many: college students, Chrysler, home buyers, nuclear plant operators, Chrysler, unconventional energy (solar, wind, etc), EV manufacturers, conventional energy (coal and gas), small business, Chrysler, GM, railroads, farmers, banks, marginal oil and gas wells, the list goes on. Mortgage guarantees alone gave the fed a $10.8B haircut and who said ordinary Americans deserve to own a home anyway? Or, in the energy field, consider Vogtle 3&4 nukes - $8.3B guaranteed at 0.5 to 1.5% while the recipient risks only $53M. At least in the Solyndra case, other investors took a bigger haircut than the fed. The fact is that all federal loan guarantee programs come in at a cost of less than 1% and generate more than 30X economic activity; but when your standing up high on a soap box, that's hard to see.

Loan guarantee programs underwrite risk and enable otherwise financially untenable projects to proceed (like obtaining a BA in political science) so one should also consider government sponsored insurance programs with less than economic premiums or no premiums (which no for-profit insurer would undertake)and other measures that free entities from potentially expensive liabilities; for example, disposal of toxic waste. The 'superfund' program is an example where 1/3 of the cost of cleanup is paid for by the fed. Recall that BP's liability was only $75M until Obama twisted their arm - then they took a $17B tax writeoff to cover their costs.

Note that this bill specifically exempts loan guarantess for oil and coal from scrutiny except for projects aimed at reducing emissions. Yes, Virginia, there are still plenty of clean air act opponents to go round.

If this means no more corporate welfare than I applaud but we all know it just means only those businesses which are deemed to big to fail, will "continue" to get the govenment handouts.

Many people do not consider what the negative ramifications of government intervention into the market place are and only look at the potential benefits. If you research these effects over history, the negative effects outway the positive. It is the unseen negative ramification that end up distroying every nation, as they collapse under their own debt and expenses. Check out the accumilated debt of all government entities (local state and federal) and see when we will be able to get caught up on the payments, never!!!! continued currency debasement is the only was to sustain the system and it will eventually backfire like a warnout gun.

I say "No more Tea Party." This has nothing to do with practical reality. It's an ideological vendetta against clean energy and an effort to smear Obama, pure and simple. The only solution is for clean energy advocates to take control of both houses of Congress, so get to work guys. It's too bad Republicans are so much more effective than the Democrats at complaining. There has been more hand-wringing about Solyndra's tiny loan than about Blackwater (aka Academi) which has been paid billions in no-bid contracts, much of it wasted. The US wasted 32 BILLION on contractors in Iraq. Remind me: what did the Iraq war get us?

Anyone who knows anything about R&D knows that the success rate of new ventures is about one in ten. As Cliff points out, there have been many stellar DOE success stories, more than enough to justify the investment. These guys are just playing politics, the title of the bill will tell you that. The Senate will not pass it.

I think its aimed at renewable energy
why did they not end subsidies when they didn't notice
of the loan gaurentees for nuclear plants
50% of them were never paid pack
which totals much more money than these 3 companies

Absolutely! The government should stop all crony capitalism. No one has ever been more beholden to banks, oil and other special interests than Obama, not even Bush. The idea that Obama illegally trampled property rights of GM bond and share holders in favor of auto workers unions to the tune of $20B is unprecedented and reprehensible. Crony capitalism by both parties will be the downfall of the US.

What about the BANKS, Auto industry? can we quit giving subsidies to corporations as well................

Good news! The government has no business picking winners and losers

Of course not. But the act of passing it will sell well in the land of tea baggers. They might as well have passed a 'No More Katrinas' act.

Does this bill have a chance of passing the Senate or being signed by the President?

Nice work Upton (R-Mich) and Stearns (R-Fla). Clearly you chose to ignore the hundreds of DOE loan guarantees that were a success and resulted in thousands of jobs. Your petty political nonsense would have a lasting effect on where renewable technologies are developed and would guarantee other countries that the US will be their marketplace. Brilliant move. Let's hope the Senate has some common sense.

What does this mean? Exactly nothing. Desperate Republicans have determined that saying "Solyndra" gets them votes so they will keep saying it. This represents a complete back of leadership.

I don't think that the federal government is in the mood to fund start-up companies at this time. Have you seen our deficit? The federal government has always been involved in R&D through defense contractors and universities and I don't see that changing. Many businesses spin-off through that research. The fact of the matter is that no green energy technology has yet been developed that is economically viable.

What can emerging developers use to replace this much needed credit support? Too many lenders want to be first to be second. New and potentially disruptive capabilities are unfamiliar and unproven to most lenders and lenders are not in the business of investing in innovation.

Government support of long term improvements to quality of life is part of the mandate to serve the people....often needed before it is obviously and enormously profitable. We should not expect the private sector to adopt the philosophy of "People before profits" and yet it is one that is sorely needed to save our entire quality of life. Maybe a profit sharing arrangement like was done with some of the recent bailouts can be adopted?

Might as well carve the tombstone for nuclear power then. That industry CANNOT survive without federal guarantees. There's no insurer who'll insure a nuclear plant and they have such ridiculous cost overruns that no private lender will finance one without a loan guarantee from the US gov't.

I still think the gov't should be in the business of R&D. Either issue grants for R&D or directly order production products like the gov't does with fighter jets etc. Or they can directly lend like so many other countries do with sovereign investment funds/companies. There's at least an upside of profits to offset the losses then. Gov't loan guarantees like we have today are just guaranteed to socialize losses to the gov't/taxpayers and privatize profits to the 1%.

Hi: I have an idea...how about the Congress get its hand out of the cookie jar and pass a, "NO MORE MONEY IN POLITICS ACT".. followed by a bulldozing of "K" street for symbolism...

If that were to happen, even the dead would wake up in disbelief!!

Not coming to this planet anytime soon....

.....Bill

Not sure how to take this decision. Does it mean congress will no longer support businesses designed to fail or is it an end to supporting solar?