Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

President Wants New Fund To Prop Up Green Energy Projects ‘Too Risky’ For Marketplace

March 22, 2013 by  

President Wants New Fund To Prop Up Green Energy Projects ‘Too Risky’ For Marketplace
UPI
U. S. President Barack Obama (C) tours Orion Energy Systems, Inc. in Manitowoc, Wisconsin on January 26, 2011.

An undeterred President Barack Obama, heavily criticized for his Administration’s support of spectacularly unsuccessful green energy start-ups, told an Illinois audience last week the government should expand its role in helping fund private green projects that wouldn’t survive in a free market.

Obama expanded on a topic he’d mentioned in his State of the Union address: the creation of an Energy Security Trust, funded from revenues the Federal government collects on oil and gas leases on Federally owned lands.

Its purpose? To destroy the oil-and-gas economy and replace it with other sources of energy, nearly all of which are still in development.

“So we’re making progress, but the only way to really break this cycle of spiking gas prices, the only way to break that cycle for good is to shift our cars entirely — our cars and trucks — off oil,” he said.

Crediting “a coalition that includes retired generals and admirals and leading CEOs” with the idea, Obama proposed the fund as an alternative way of subsidizing green projects — one that perhaps might anger the public less than the series of tax-funded venture capital green energy debacles during his Administration.

But why dwell on the past? Obama maintains that green energy is an idea whose time has come, if only it can develop a production and supply infrastructure to rival that of oil and gas. And since the marketplace often rejects green projects for one reason or another (or several), it’s the job of government to shoulder the economic risk.

[A]nd, by the way, the private sector on its own will not invest in this research because it’s too expensive. It’s too risky. They can’t afford it in terms of their bottom lines.

So we’ve got to support it. And we’ll all benefit from it, and our kids will benefit from it, and our grandkids will benefit from it. That’s who we are. That’s been the American story.

Wait, what? The executive branch forcing citizens to support venture capital (without giving us so much as a prospectus) is the American story?

Late last year, The Heritage Foundation compiled a “Green Graveyard,” a list of 19 companies that have declared — or were in the process of declaring — bankruptcy since receiving a combined $2.6 billion in government loans and “taxpayer-funded handouts” as part of Obama’s stimulus package. The list, it cautioned, will likely continue to grow.

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “President Wants New Fund To Prop Up Green Energy Projects ‘Too Risky’ For Marketplace”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

    Alternate list of companies who would not survive in the “free market”….

    Exxon Mobil
    Royal Dutch Shell
    BP
    Chevron
    Conoco Phillips

    Fully fifty percent of the largest companies on the planet today are oil companies

    Simply cancel all subsidies, allowances and tax breaks, and then add the appropriate
    tax for all “externalities” associated with the use of “carbon based fuels”…….to
    include all environmental damage and health care costs….all of which are paid for by
    the “victims” in exchange for the “illusion” of “cheap energy”. Also included in
    these costs would be the cost of “defense”.

    The actual question here, given the “assertion” of this “article” and the list of
    these failed companies……is the following: At what price would a gallon of gasoline
    have to be to provide an environment where “renewable energy projects”
    would not only be competitive but rise to the level of a no contest?

    $6/gal…..$8./gal………$10/gal………..$12/GAL……..$15./GAL….more?

    The fact is…….if the true cost were actually calculated, the cost of using “carbon
    based fuels” would be prohibitive.

    One of the foolish arguments that was raised regarding Kyoto was the
    exemption of China and India, from the restrictions……..the reality here
    is starkly divergent from that claim……..since China has the largest investment
    in green technologies than any other nation.

    The reason for this is………because of the form of government, China is
    forced to confront the effects of these externalities directly……..they can
    not be hidden, and the health effects are obvious……the death rate from
    cancer is currently at 25%. ( and will continue to rise )

    Also, whatever “economic” problems we are currently experiencing can be
    completely eliminated by shifting to “green tech-hi-tech-energy efficient
    and renewable energy sources and infrastructure”……in addition to
    re-pairing and replacing present infrastructure that is long overdue.
    None of these jobs can be exported and there is a sufficient mix of
    jobs available that many of them will not require extensive educational
    investment………

    Despite the “ignorance” of those being manipulated by the “special interests”,
    this path is the only way forward……..

    “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past,
    controls the future.”

    • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT
    • http://www.willchele.whyambitworks.com William Stanley

      You sir are a moron. You tout green energy like is a fix all for everything, all the while displaying a nuclear symbol in your post. What’s so green about nuclear energy. The waste is harmful to us way more than oil and its by products. Guess what would happen to the big pharma companies without oil. They would also go out of business. So you sir, are a moron for condemning oil.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        Firstly it is a bio-hazard symbol and its USE by me is “irrelevant” to the
        content of anything I may post here.

        Were you NOT a “willfully ignorant, functional illiterate”, you would have observed
        that no mention of nuclear energy was discussed in my post.

        You would have also observed that the actual subject of the my post was
        directed at “carbon based fuels”. You do know what the word “fuel” MEANS?

        Finally you close with your final non sequitur, and big pharma, and the final
        demonstration of your “functional illiteracy”………not realizing that if “carbon
        based fuels” were eliminated, as FUEL……their use for “other purposes”
        would make present supplies (less toxic higher grade) cheaper for other
        essential uses…….that big pharma would represent wise use is of course
        another matter entirely.

        Thank you for sharing………was it good for you?

    • Ried

      This seems to make a lot of sense. Let’s end the corporate subsidies and tax breaks for all corporations, including green energy, movies, media, medical, oil, coal, ethanol, etc.

      Thee true green energy is the energy that lets me keep the “green” in my wallet. Let the government get out of the research business. Let people motivated by making money or saving money do the research and develop the technology. That has worked in the past, and can work in the future.

      • Wellarmed

        I cannot agree with you more Reid. It is not a function of our Government to be financing private industries of any variety. I cast a vote for Former NM Governor Johnson for that very reason, as he would have scrapped the Internal Revenue Service and the ENTIRE US TAX CODE! It is the true systemic change that our country needs to remain afloat.

        The mere fact that these private entities show up at the door steps of our elected officials with hat in hand begging for handouts (loans/subsidies/tax exemptions/wage and labor exemptions etc………..) shows to me that they (business/corporations) have no desire to remain in a true free market system. I no longer wish to subsidize the losses or risks associated with any private entity and that is why I threw my vote away as many have said.

        This Intersection of business and government will lead to Facism in our time and it must be stopped at all cost.

        I am a big advocate of renewable technology, and I have put my money where my mouth is. One does not need to except subsidies in exchange for utilizing these technologies, and I would go so far as to say that accepting these subsidies is no different than registering your weapons. Both carry a very high price tag.

      • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

        To both of you above…….while I empathize with your “idealized” vision
        it ignores the “stark” reality of the “present”.

        FACT: Neither governments nor central banks have control….and our government
        has been completely corrupted by “plutocrats”…..who while not unified as
        to a specific agenda……..they are unified in preserving their present “status”,
        which at this point simply requires “obstruction” of “any change”.

        FACT:The situation that presently exists began in 1982…….with the final step being
        the repeal of Glass Steagal……

        FACT; To even begin to test the possibility of your “IDEALIZED VISION” would
        require everything that was done to be undone……..

        FACT; Governments are not businesses……..and (modern economic and monetary
        theory) demonstrates that their proper function…is similar to a thermostat…..which
        acts as a brake in both directions……..

        FACT; Economic Theory is fundamentally flawed, in that it is neither a science
        (empirical ) nor a discipline………therefor no subset of it…..has any claim to validity,
        so that “arguments” based on “subsets” ( capitalism, socialism, communism ) in
        combination with any government construction…..have demonstrated that
        the only expected outcome….is FAILURE.

        FACT; Until such an empirical link is established, the question that must be
        asked and answered is……..do governments and economies serve the
        people…..or vice versa?

        In terms of rhetoric, we the United States of America. has answered this
        question in so far as government is concerned by claiming that “governments
        derive their just powers from the consent of the government”…….unfortunately
        our history demonstrates…….this was pure rhetoric……which when combined
        with “economic fantasy” has led us to the edge of collapse….once again.

        Defining success in terms of “money” and the “acquisition of wealth” is a
        perceptive illusion which serves no one………it involves no merit, no productive
        outcome or benefit, no progress……….since once of certain level of
        “wealth” has been achieved…….its maintainance is simply a matter
        of consolidation and the elimination of competition, and this more insidious when
        “money” makes “money”……since it is virtually unstoppable, and has been
        verified throughout history….with each failed empire.

        We have already experienced this cycle once in the history of this country,
        with the rise of the “plutocrats” in earnest, after the “civil war” which resolved
        the agrarian/industrial conflict……..which ended in the Crash of 1929.

        Unfortunately, the true lesson was not learned……..acquisition and consolidation
        of wealth must be “prevented” at all costs……..whether it is by individuals or
        corporations……….and this has been further exacerbated, because the
        corporations have been allowed to channel wealth, beyond the reach of
        “governments”………which can now be played against one another,
        internationally, as individual states are played against on another domestically,
        and we “the people” do not stand a chance……….

        So whether you like it or not “government” is not your “problem”…..”corrupt
        government” is your problem……..which means the solution is……taking
        back your government for the purpose of taking back your economy,
        and then figuring out a way to make the claimed rhetoric that we
        began with and pretend to believe a reality, for BOTH.

  • kenwa d’arc

    that is 19 bankruptcies out of how many green attempts? is the success rate of green industries better than that of bonds?

    • kenwa d’arc

      startups are generally risky and often bankruptcies. maybe green companies are even more successful than the norm…

      • Alex

        A+ for kenwa!

      • Opal the Gem

        How is that an A+ when it is pure speculation?

      • Chuck S

        Many alternative energy comapanies went bankrupt, despite huge subsidies.

        The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies, as of Oct, 2012:

        Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*SpectraWatt ($500,000)*Solyndra ($535 million)*Beacon Power ($69 million)*AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)SunPower ($1.5 billion)First Solar ($1.46 billion)Babcock and Brown ($178 million)EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*Amonix ($5.9 million)National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)Fisker Automotive ($528 million)Abound Solar ($374 million)*A123 Systems ($279 million)*Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)Johnson Controls ($299 million)Schneider Electric ($86 million)Brightsource ($1.6 billion)ECOtality ($126.2 million)Raser Technologies ($33 million)*Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*Range Fuels ($80 million)*Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*UniSolar ($100 million)*Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*GreenVolts ($500,000)Vestas ($50 million)LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*Navistar ($10 million)Satcon ($3 million)*

        *Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

  • FreedomFighter

    My tax burden is high enough, no thanks.

    Laus Deo
    Semper FI

  • diana

    What is wrong with us allowing this freak to still be in office when he belongs in jail

  • Warrior

    I foresee all sorts of communities of “seniors” springing up in the Arizona desert, living in their “single wides” constructed of solar panels. If we can get a little coorperation from “mother earth” and “climate change” doesn’t ruin the desert, this will work just fine. I have engaged a gaggle of unemployed attorney’s with the mission to secure me an exclusive gubmint “contract” to deliver bottled water to these survivalists.

  • Alex

    Ben Bullard—you are such a silly boy! Your immaturity is betrayed by your fear of the unknown and your clinging to the mommy-apron of assumed ‘safety’ in tradition, both hallmarks of the limited Conservative mindset..

    The first rockets were wildly uncontrollable and often destroyed themselves before leaving the ground. Same with airplanes.

    Early surgery was horrifically painful and dangerous and was very often followed by fatal infection.

    You gotta work the bugs out, Benny boy….

    Suppose Marconi put together his first radio and, finding it an unworkable mess, tossed it onto the trash heap and went on to be a haberdasher? What if Gutenberg threw his hands up and exclaimed, “This press will NEVER work!! Everything, from now until the End of Time must be handwritten!”

    Like a deer caught in the headlights of a speeding inter-mountain bus, the weaning of you from the petrol teat is so uncomfortable as to leave you frozen in your track!

    Green Energies are essential to the future of humanity—and they will cost lots of money to develop. You do not wish to use public funds to facilitate the exploration, implementation, and fine tuning of these emerging technologies. Scaredy-cat!!!
    You would much rather continue to PUBLICLY UNDERWRITE a failed technology like oil with billion of our dollars—-even though they pocket RECORD EARNINGS each quarter!

    The Capitalists do not want any public funds spent on Green Energy development— at least until they can figure out a way to CHARGE you for the sun that shines upon and the wind that blows across God’s green Earth.

    You do not have children, do you boy?

    • S.C.Murf

      Lets use your money alex boy, now that sounds like a good idea. Wait a minute you don’t have any money until the govt. check clears or you can sell some of your food stamps right? Fool

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Alex,

      You write: “you are such a silly boy! Your immaturity is betrayed by your fear of the unknown and your clinging to the mommy-apron of assumed ‘safety’ in tradition, both hallmarks of the limited Conservative mindset..” Ad hominem and argument to ridicule (logical fallacies).

      You write: “The first rockets were wildly uncontrollable and often destroyed themselves before leaving the ground. Same with airplanes. Early surgery was horrifically painful and dangerous and was very often followed by fatal infection. You gotta work the bugs out, Benny boy….” And, save for the rockets (NASA) those “bugs” were worked out by the private sector using with inventors and entrepreneurs using their own money. The last comment, another argument to ridicule (logical fallacy).

      You write: “Like a deer caught in the headlights of a speeding inter-mountain bus, the weaning of you from the petrol teat is so uncomfortable as to leave you frozen in your track!” Logical fallacy.

      You write: “Green Energies are essential to the future of humanity.” Proof by bald assertion. (logical fallacy).

      You write: “And they will cost lots of money to develop. You do not wish to use public funds to facilitate the exploration, implementation, and fine tuning of these emerging technologies.” Your first reasonable comment in the entire screed. As long as it’s private money, I’m all for it.

      You write: “Scaredy-cat!!!” Ad hominem.

      You write: “You would much rather continue to PUBLICLY UNDERWRITE a failed technology like oil with billion of our dollars—-even though they pocket RECORD EARNINGS each quarter!” Fallacy of composition.

      You write: “The Capitalists do not want any public funds spent on Green Energy development— at least until they can figure out a way to CHARGE you for the sun that shines upon and the wind that blows across God’s green Earth.” Mind projection fallacy.

      You write: “You do not have children, do you boy?” Red herring and ad hominem.

      In short Alex, you failed, which is common for your absurd arguments. You bring nothing to the discussion.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Alex

        Dear Bob,
        If you took as much editorial interest in the work submitted by your staff writers as you do with the missives of your general readership, PLD would be rated higher than the 17th Best Libertarian Blog or whatever it was you crowed about in an earlier edition.
        Please, though, continue notating and responding to the various literary missteps of your readership—I am ready for bed but would like to see who else you call onto the carpet—or is it only ad hominen or fallacious when the message does not suit you?
        Best Wishes, Alex

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Alex,

          Thanks again for another batch of irrelevant drivel. You obviously didn’t excel on your HS debate team.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • Alex

        Dear Mister Livingston,
        Hey, I can take all you’ve got and remain standing. I guess it makes you feel better so have at it, but why don’t you take the time to reread your PLD Comment Policy
        and then go after ‘Jimmy the Greek’. She or he violates policy religiously…
        Thanks,, Alex

    • rendarsmith

      “Green Energies are essential to the future of humanity—and they will cost lots of money to develop. You do not wish to use public funds to facilitate the exploration, implementation, and fine tuning of these emerging technologies. Scaredy-cat!!!”

      Alex, if you care about these green energies so much, why don’t YOU and your liberal buddies pay for them and invest in these companies then? If they’re bound to work and take off like you claim, you are bound to make a killing. If others (conservatives) don’t want to invest in this technology, they have every right not to do so. Investing in these companies is not one of the government’s duties and this is not what our tax dollars are for, and it is not the president’s or your place to tell other people how to spend their money. Do it with your own. If you can display your own record profits from your investments then perhaps people will listen to you and invest as well. Put your money where your mouth is. Your OWN money.

      “You would much rather continue to PUBLICLY UNDERWRITE a failed technology like oil with billion of our dollars—-even though they pocket RECORD EARNINGS each quarter!”

      Failed technology? Last I checked it works! If it didn’t work they wouldn’t be making record profits now would they? You really need to think before you type.

      • Vicki

        rendarsmith says:
        “Alex, if you care about these green energies so much, why don’t YOU and your liberal buddies pay for them and invest in these companies then?”

        They do. They just use OPM taken at gunpoint. I.E. Theft. They use henchmen (government agents) to both take the money and to spend it. That way when it fails they don’t lose any of their personal stash.

    • Chuck S

      You name some technologies that succeeded, but I’m sure many more new technologies turned out to be not as good. You don’t hear much about them. One I can think of was magnetic bubble memories, which were expected to replace hard drives. My company spent probably hundreds of thousands of dollars developing it, but the company dropped it when it was evident that bubbles would never be as good as hard drives.

      You need to look at the total cost of the alternatives and the projected future costs. And don’t be confused by subsidies. Some development work on alternatives might be OK, but not building huge quantities at a big loss.

    • Vicki

      Alex writes:
      “Ben Bullard—you are such a silly boy! ”

      And goes on with multiple paragraphs of ad hominem, argument to ridicule and other logical fallacies. Then writes to Bob L:

      “Hey, I can take all you’ve got and remain standing.”

      Too bad that debates are not won on standing alone.

    • Alan

      You speak of the “limited” conservative mindset Alex as if you liberals possess some sort of monopoly on intellect. You, it would seem, are the silly one.

  • http://yahoo don

    It will end up just like his support of the solar companies which took government money then went bankrupt. The idiot thinks we can change everything right now. how can it all be done right now when we’re not ready. new technology Would have to be developed. would be another failure on his part forcing it on us.

    • Wellarmed

      Hello Don, I am in agreement with you that Obama should not force the adoption of renewable technologies. If left to their own devices, I am certain that they would become mainstream technologies all on their own.

      The fact that America has lost over 12 solar panel manufacturing companies over the last ten years (and all the jobs that went with them) is more evidence that China was incredibly affective in their efforts to “dump” product into the U.S. market, just as they did with steel.

      It is merely history repeating itself. China has done everything it could to force the devaluing of their currency against the dollar, and the opening of foreign markets through all of our free trade agreements. These policies were clearly to the benefit of those on Wall Street not Main Street. Nothing more than a race to the bottom that I know our government and the oligarch knew clearly what outcome would look like.

      20% permanent unemployment, if not greater when ones factors in those transferred over to disability (Social Security) so they no longer show up as being in the workforce.

  • Hedgehog

    I don’t know people. I thought I was the most paranoid, pessimist poster on this site! Obviously I’ve got a lot of competition. The only thing necessary to make most green solutions work is TIME. Given time the R&D can be done to make green energy workable.
    take the electric car. Did you know that there is a company in Quebec, Canada, producing actual working electric cars (the company name is ZENN, it stands for zero emissions, no noise.) They are not terribly speedy, and they are only for use in concentrated population areas like cities, but they don’t pollute. Buy one and save your gas guzzler for travelling between cities. Speaking of which (gas guzzlers) why not convert your car to run on natural gas or propane? It’s cheaper to run, much much less polluting, and requires less maintenance to boot. I have one pure propane vehicle, a 1990 GMC that gives about 16 MPG mixed driving (imperial gallon). It has about 600,000 kms on the odometer. I also have a 20 foot Class C Dodge RV, dual fuel, gas/propane. On either fuel I get about 10 MPG, but it runs a lot better on propane. Why do I mention this? Because if you convert North America’s gas guzzlers to natural gas there’s about a 200 year reserve of this fuel underground in North America. Talk to T. Boone Pickens about it. With 200 years of TIME it should be possible to find some green solutions. Maybe vertical axis windmills instead of those ugly horizontal axis behemoths. Part of the problem with finding green solutions is government interference. The ZENN car, Made in Canada can only be purchased legally in one province, British Columbia, not in Quebec where it is made! Go figure! If we can’t come up with some green solutions in 200 years, maybe we should all drink koolaide, lie down and die and let the ecosphere start over again. It’s not rocket science people. I think there’s a solution and pessimism is practically a religion with me.

    • Chuck S

      How much does the ZENN car cosr? Including how much fossil fuel does it take to make one vs a camparable gasolene car? How much resource is needed to geneate the electricity? Including the cost to build more power plan ts and power lines. One thing that should always be done is look at the total cost.

      Are you comparing a little electric golf cart with a big SUV? What gasolene car is the ZENN comparable to? The smart car? Sometimes small alterntive energy cars are compared to big gasolene cars.

      • Wellarmed

        Hello Chuck S.

        You raise some very good questions. I have installed Off Grid and Grid tied PV systems to power many an electric vehicle. I agree with you that each persons circumstances may need to be evaluated to determine the efficacy of purchasing an EV or converting an ICE vehicle to an EV, but I know it would be completely wrong to suggest that the technology is not viable under any circumstances.

        Electric Vehicles and other renewable technologies do have a place in our future, and they can have a direct impact in our reliance and rate of consumption in regards to fossil fuels. The problem that I see is not the technology, but this dangerous intersection of business and government collusion with one another.

        Many of my friends still in the renewable industry ( it used to be a movement ) have been discussing this dangerous scenario for many years. None of us like or agreed with where this industry is heading as far as government dependance is concerned.

        I was glad to hear the other day that even China’s largest solar module manufacturing company (Suntec) has to file for bankruptcy, as they get to now ingest some of their own medicine. China has been subsidizing their countries PV manufacturers to the tune of 30 Billion annually, and I believe that their inflated GDP numbers that were derived through their artificial/fake housing boom is about to go bust.

        Folks the waters are about to become very rough for us when China’s housing market goes bust. I am certain that it will make Americas housing bust look like a pittance compared to what they are about to go through. There will be massive reverberations throughout the world economy when this goes down, and I feel that those who are merely concerned with a double dip recession (did the first one end?) are going to get a serious wake up call when we fall into a full blown depression.

      • Vicki
      • Chuck S

        Wellarmed, I think some alternative energy makes sense – but some of the biggies don’t. A lot of people who buy hybrids probably spend more than they save – which somewhat indicates that they take more resources – including more fossil fuel – than they save. It takes energy to dig out the copper, iron, and lithium ore, ship it, and process it into the generator, motor, and batteries used in hybrids. I think bigger is better in this case. Large motors and generators are more efficient than small. Batteries not so much. Diesel locomotives have been hybrids for many years. I heard about kits to hybridize commercial trucks. They travel many more miles than cars, so that increases the fuel savings. I think some hybrid cars do make sense now, mainly if you drive a lot of miles, and more may in the future. I think it may be a long time, if ever, for most electric cars, wind, and solar to be practical. One subsidy I haven’t seem much of is government agencies doing green projects, which can be very inefficient because they’re the government. I think solar and wind are efficient for many remote locations.

        Another one that seems to make sense is a big kite for cargo ships. It can go 100 feet high when the wind is in the right direction and seems like it could very well save enough fuel to pay for itself.

    • Wellarmed

      I agree with you Hedgehog in many areas and particularly in the suggestion of simply allowing TIME to take it’s course. May I also suggest that we as a nation return to true free market principles and eliminate all forms of corporate welfare so these technologies can at least play on an equal footing?

      I am glad that you have taken it upon yourself to divest yourself in the use of alternative fuels. I wish more people would at least consider the merits and dangle their feet in the water. They may be pleasantly surprised!

      • Vicki

        Wellarmed writes:
        “…..eliminate all forms of corporate welfare….”

        Could you list what things are considered corporate welfare? Beyond the obvious like the resent bailouts of “too big to fail” companies and subsidies like the stimulus money given to Solyndra (that was a loan or a gift btw?)

      • Wellarmed

        Absolutely Vicki,

        There is no shortage of industries representatives that show up at the offices of our elected officials with hat in hand begging for very specific handouts at the expense of the tax payers.

        Nuclear, Oil, Gas,Geothermal, Solar, Wind, etc………….

        All of those in the energy sector are prime candidates for hand outs, bailouts, and special tax exemptions from those that put them in office. As I have said before it is the ROI that they now intend to collect upon rather than fair market principles that are guiding responsible market driven demand.

        One thing I failed to mention is the enviromental damage that is left in these industries wake that is also an expense for the tax payer to rectify. This is no less than another handout to private enterprise.

        For the record, I have not supported any of the decisions to save these failing enterprises that are too big to fail. And it must be deduced that if our Government views their relation to business as too big too fail then the inverse must also be true in their eyes, that I am too small to succeed.

        As far as the failure of Solyndra is concerned, I view it as just ONE example among many which provide sufficient evidence as to why our government should not attempt to compete with the natural way of capturing capital investment. The traditional methods of extracting capital for business venture is in an of its self a way to vett those who may have not thought through their business model. Private investors are the ones best able to provide the level of scrutiny and constructive criticism necessary for the greatest likelyhood that a new venture will see profitability.

      • Vicki

        Thanks.

  • http://gravatar.com/plfprime GALT

    Jerry L. Sunderland · Hot Springs, Arkansas

    GALT…. you are an idiot.

    Impressive start Jerry…….unfortunately, the “facebook” section of
    PLD has been less than impressive in its intelligent contributions to any
    discussion here………

    Do worthy of anymore of a comment than this…..

    You must really learn to control your emotions.

    Your fact are not facts because they are wrong dead wrong.

    I see………..well I imagine that is certainly a powerful rebuttal
    in “facebook” land……..but from down here, you are just another w.i.f.i
    suffering from intellectual dysfunction.

    In the normal course of intelligent discussion, when one challenges
    facts and declares them to be WRONG, this is followed by the “proof”
    which demonstrates the “claim” to be true.

    The sad thing is you will not use common sense and figure it out for yourself.

    Don’t you just hate it when that happens? Meanwhile the question asked
    regarding the “cost/gal” of gas did not receive a response……..and the reality
    here is that…….renewables are approaching competitive parity at present
    levels…….the link provides extensive information regarding the “investments”
    already being made…….although the book is far more comprehensive,
    regarding all aspects of this topic that were raised.

    In 1982, R. Buckminster Fuller, wrote Critical Path, where he raised
    the subject of the “externalities” regarding the use of “carbon based fuels”
    and calculated the “damage” from them to be at one million dollars of
    damage per gallon and this preceded any concerns related to AGW.

    Today, if the price of gasoline were to reach $8 to $10 gal, alternative
    renewable energy sources would be the enthusiastic choice of the
    “common sense” crowd and no doubt they will have claimed to have known it
    all along…….but here is “another thought” he had to offer:

    “We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.”
    ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

    That should be enough to give you all a stroke in “patriot land” so the rest of
    us can get on with things in a sane and sustainable manner.

    Human biological evolution reached its pinnacle 50,000 years ago,
    and the human brain was not structured to employ “logical reasoning”
    as it was not necessary for survival. Human reproduction therefor does
    not select for this genetic characteristic, because it is not available in
    the genome…….each brain must be trained to, perform in this manner
    and current education does not address this deficiency in any serious way.
    No doubt this response is way beyond your comprehension skills and
    attention span, so I will leave you with this final thought……..

    “When I was born, humanity was 95 per cent illiterate. Since I’ve been born, the population has doubled and that total population is now 65 per cent literate. That’s a gain of 130-fold of the literacy. When humanity is primarily illiterate, it needs leaders to understand and get the information and deal with it. When we are at the point where the majority of humans them-selves are literate, able to get the information, we’re in an entirely new relationship to Universe. We are at the point where the integrity of the individual counts and not what the political leadership or the religious leadership says to do.”
    ― Richard Buckminster Fuller, Only Integrity Is Going to Count: Integrity Day, Los Angeles February 26, 1983

  • JUKEBOX

    I noticed that Nerobama’s speech to those young Israelis yesterday included an encouragement for ISRAEL to embrace the same failed industries he has sunk our tax dollars into, solar energy and electric cars. The Israelis will probably make a success of these industries, because they will be funded by private funds.

  • Hedgehog

    Thanks Vicki, for the information on the ZENN car. I doubt that I could have found it today, if at all. I was working from memory. While writing that previous post, I had in the back of mind that since the ZENN is pretty much an urban runabout at this stage of its evolution a way is needed to get ZENNs from city to city, thus eliminating gas guzzlers. I was thinking of using existing rail lines with diesel electric locomotives to pull modified flat cars. On each flat car would be two rows lengthwise of ZENNs with plug ins for charging en route and perhaps a covered walkway to reach dining cars and washrooms en route. Longer voyages would require sleeper cars etc.. I’m sure the logistics could be worked out to benefit everyone! One caveat however, keep the government’s regulating and taxing paws out of it! Your IRS (it really steals) has an entire bureaucracy set up to enable it to steal the money of productive citizens, which then goes to regulators who pass laws which impede and stifle productivity! No wonder it’s hard to make any green (sorry Kermit)!

    • john

      So the ZENN “car” has a top speed of 25mph – I guess that means going out of your immediate neighborhood onto a 35mph street is out of the question…

  • bxarmybrat

    If he thinks these are such necessary investments let him and Michelle pony up their nestegg for these risky ventures.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.