Yet Another Green Energy Stimulus Recipient Hits the Skids

AspenValley wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: We were talking about this issue at home yesterday. While desirable, green energy support is going to the wrong place was our conclusion. Instead of supporting companies, we thought the stimulus would be better spent assisting homeowners in implementing green energy . Company stimulus packages did not make green energy more affordable to homeowners, a key to having the technology take off. Our current economy wars against such homeowner expenditures, but if there were substantial financial assistance for homeowners, they would i turn support the industries currently failing from lack of customers. So what is wrong with our logic?

I think it would be wise to encourage a switch to sustainable energy on both fronts. But the problem with only doing it from the consumer end, in my view, is that it may not encourage the best technology. I remember during the Carter administration when there were tax credits for renewable energy, a lot of little cottage industries sprang up supplying demand but there really wasn't a significant investment by businesses in serious R&D. And the cottage industries died out as soon as the tax credits ended, which tells me the products they were supplying weren't financially viable from the customer's view.

There needs to be serious support given to R&D in producing reliable, affordable and financially sensible products or I just don't think it's ever going to happen. One day we'll wake up to $15 gasoline and $3000 a month electric bills and it will be too late then.

I beg to differ with your pessimistic view of consumer driven technological innovation. Viable companies thrive because their products work. Viable companies find support for research or buy innovative research of start up companies to remain competitive.

Investment in R&D is a company decision. A CEO with vision will promote R&D whereas one focused on the bottom line and trying to impress shareholders will not. Ultimately, the Steve Jobs, will lead a company to great heights with technological innovations while still being able to more than satisfy the shareholders. In essence, I don't believe you can create a viable R&D culture by poring money into it if you do not have the management and vision in place to drive the company. It's more complicated than that.

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: We were talking about this issue at home yesterday. While desirable, green energy support is going to the wrong place was our conclusion. Instead of supporting companies, we thought the stimulus would be better spent assisting homeowners in implementing green energy . Company stimulus packages did not make green energy more affordable to homeowners, a key to having the technology take off. Our current economy wars against such homeowner expenditures, but if there were substantial financial assistance for homeowners, they would i turn support the industries currently failing from lack of customers. So what is wrong with our logic?

I think it would be wise to encourage a switch to sustainable energy on both fronts. But the problem with only doing it from the consumer end, in my view, is that it may not encourage the best technology. I remember during the Carter administration when there were tax credits for renewable energy, a lot of little cottage industries sprang up supplying demand but there really wasn't a significant investment by businesses in serious R&D. And the cottage industries died out as soon as the tax credits ended, which tells me the products they were supplying weren't financially viable from the customer's view.

There needs to be serious support given to R&D in producing reliable, affordable and financially sensible products or I just don't think it's ever going to happen. One day we'll wake up to $15 gasoline and $3000 a month electric bills and it will be too late then.

I beg to differ with your pessimistic view of consumer driven technological innovation. Viable companies thrive because their products work. Viable companies find support for research or buy innovative research of start up companies to remain competitive.

Investment in R&D is a company decision. A CEO with vision will promote R&D whereas one focused on the bottom line and trying to impress shareholders will not. Ultimately, the Steve Jobs, will lead a company to great heights with technological innovations while still being able to more than satisfy the shareholders. In essence, I don't believe you can create a viable R&D culture by poring money into it if you do not have the management and vision in place to drive the company. It's more complicated than that.

Let me ask you this....do you think we would have ever gone to moon by subsidizing people who thought they might want to take a ride to it?

Oh, and if you find a CEO with actual vision to invest over decades in R&D, and not just shuffle numbers to make next quarter's profits (and his bonus) look good, please let me know as I want to invest in his company for the long haul. Haven't seen that kind of vision in a couple of decades, I'm afraid.

What?

Rockdoc is talking about entrepreneural-driven efforts driving the green industry, and not government subsidies. AspenValley you're saying that if government subsidies don't drive the green effort, then it won't happen, because people are generally only casually interested in it.

We got all the way to the second half of the 20th century before government started subsidizing research in this country. What ever did we do before then? Oh, yes. We used our heads, and rolled up our sleeves, pursued our visions and hunted down interested investors to back our endeavors. In other words, entrepreneurial spirits in a free market economy is what built our country, not government subsidies.

AspenValley wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote: We were talking about this issue at home yesterday. While desirable, green energy support is going to the wrong place was our conclusion. Instead of supporting companies, we thought the stimulus would be better spent assisting homeowners in implementing green energy . Company stimulus packages did not make green energy more affordable to homeowners, a key to having the technology take off. Our current economy wars against such homeowner expenditures, but if there were substantial financial assistance for homeowners, they would i turn support the industries currently failing from lack of customers. So what is wrong with our logic?

I think it would be wise to encourage a switch to sustainable energy on both fronts. But the problem with only doing it from the consumer end, in my view, is that it may not encourage the best technology. I remember during the Carter administration when there were tax credits for renewable energy, a lot of little cottage industries sprang up supplying demand but there really wasn't a significant investment by businesses in serious R&D. And the cottage industries died out as soon as the tax credits ended, which tells me the products they were supplying weren't financially viable from the customer's view.

There needs to be serious support given to R&D in producing reliable, affordable and financially sensible products or I just don't think it's ever going to happen. One day we'll wake up to $15 gasoline and $3000 a month electric bills and it will be too late then.

I beg to differ with your pessimistic view of consumer driven technological innovation. Viable companies thrive because their products work. Viable companies find support for research or buy innovative research of start up companies to remain competitive.

Investment in R&D is a company decision. A CEO with vision will promote R&D whereas one focused on the bottom line and trying to impress shareholders will not. Ultimately, the Steve Jobs, will lead a company to great heights with technological innovations while still being able to more than satisfy the shareholders. In essence, I don't believe you can create a viable R&D culture by poring money into it if you do not have the management and vision in place to drive the company. It's more complicated than that.

Let me ask you this....do you think we would have ever gone to moon by subsidizing people who thought they might want to take a ride to it?

Oh, and if you find a CEO with actual vision to invest over decades in R&D, and not just shuffle numbers to make next quarter's profits (and his bonus) look good, please let me know as I want to invest in his company for the long haul. Haven't seen that kind of vision in a couple of decades, I'm afraid.

Ok. Let's address the moon or space issue in general. Most of those efforts were driven by government politics and funding. The actual work was farmed out to private companies chosen for their innovative research. As such, the government was the customer and supporter of products produced by the company.

R&D was the corner stone of Shell in the 1960's and 70's. The company lost its way for a while when new management went in with the attitude, "We already know all that" and stopped funding research. If my sources are correct, Shell is returning to its roots.

Then there is the matter of Apple. We all know the driving force and innovative accomplishment of that organization.

And now that space flight is opened to the private sector and there is an opportunity to make a profit, just wait and see the innovation and efficiency that will evolve from it relative to the years of government regulated space flight.

Rockdoc Franz wrote: [And now that space flight is opened to the private sector and there is an opportunity to make a profit, just wait and see the innovation and efficiency that will evolve from it relative to the years of government regulated space flight.

Maybe. But I don't think there would be much interest from the private sector now if the government hadn't already funded and developed all the technology existing to make private enterprise in this field even feasible.

I don't think we are going to be able to rely on private enterprise alone to develop a vibrant, viable alternative energy network. At least not without the government at least granting subsidies, a monopoloy to selected companies, or some kind of incentive. We wouldn't have developed railroads or nationwide utility grids without support by the government and I don't think this will happen without the government, either. But we seem to have passed the stage where we were willing to invest our tax money into infrastructure and research that benefitted all. We seem way too busy playing around in peevish and selfish "I've got mine, the hell with you if the bridges crumble or the electric grid goes down or there's no way to get to work when oil goes to $200 a barrel" to cooperate on anything.

And if anyone even raises their head and timidly suggests we need to, it gets lopped off by foaming-at-the-mouth madmen screaming "COMMUNISTS!!!"

swampfish wrote: What?

Rockdoc is talking about entrepreneural-driven efforts driving the green industry, and not government subsidies. AspenValley you're saying that if government subsidies don't drive the green effort, then it won't happen, because people are generally only casually interested in it.

We got all the way to the second half of the 20th century before government started subsidizing research in this country. What ever did we do before then? Oh, yes. We used our heads, and rolled up our sleeves, pursued our visions and hunted down interested investors to back our endeavors. In other words, entrepreneurial spirits in a free market economy is what built our country, not government subsidies.

Actually, that's not true. The most famous example of the 19th century would be the huge land tracts and monopolies the government granted to the railroads to encourage them to build them, but there are earlier examples as well. Maybe that isn't directly subsidizing "research", but it sure was subsidizing the development of needed infrastructure. I don't see this as any different.

Entrepreunial spirit is important, but a lot of things simply don't happen without government support, modern-day right-wing dogma aside.

Another thing a lot of people don't seem to realize is the danger of leaving it too late to develop a robust alternative energy industry. You can romanticize all you want about "rolling up our sleeves" and the wonders of the free market, but the fact is, what investor is going to back research into an industry that hasn't already shown it can make a profit? And by the time it can, we may already be in such a sorry mess as the result of sky-rocketing energy costs that we won't even be able to fund such research even if we wanted to.

AV, if we look at the title of this thread it would appear that government funding is NOT the answer. Not only is there no R&D, but the companies can't even survive with government assistance. As an experiment, it would be interesting to take the same amount of government funding and give it back to tax payers who invest in green technology.

As an aside, I do not see oil products skyrocketing in cost as long as the new technology makes oil shale and other non-conventional production feasible. Not only that but there are the deep marine methane hydrates that await exploitation as well. In short, peak oil, once thought to hit us in 2012 is now another 50 to 100 years away. Reserves once calculated on the basis of conventional reservoirs are passe. These days we are getting oil out of formations once considered tombstones or reservoir caps. There is a whole new world. out there. This does not even consider that most conventional reservoirs have a recovery efficiency of no more than 30%, meaning that 70% of the oil is left in the reservoir. New technology will address those issues down the road once the easy recoverable oil is being depleted. Therefore even if we only recover another 1/3 from all proven reservoirs, you have doubled the oil yield.

Vice Lord wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Vice Lord wrote: Ha ha ha ha...Obama shoulda gave them the same kinda deals he gives the war contractors..Just tell Evergreen Energy, Amonix Inc and ENER1 to submit thier mostly fictitious costs, and we'll gaurentee them a 100% profit every year based on that.

What these green companies should have done was employ and fund lobbyist with that stimulus money- That way they coulda kept the money comin year after year after year..You know, like the weapons manufacturers do?

Only this thread is not about war contractors. And you can go on about war contractors until your blue in the face and die and it's not going to change the fact that the Obama administration has spent 10 billion dollars on failed green technology companies. But go ahead, deflect, roger the thread, that's all you mindless ignorant liberals are capable of anyway.

10 Billion Dollars! lol

We spent that on toilet paper every week in Afghanistan

Sorry for this LGOPT
vl I personally don't give a damn if we spend 20million on TP for those serving over there in Afganistan, if that is what they need. The CIVILIAN leadership of this country, including your idiotic liberals in congress sent them there House vote was 420 for 10 non votes Senate was 98 for 2 non vote. So whatever it takes to give them some comfort OH DAMN WELL. You don't like it, to damn bad. Go talk and whine to obama

Back to the thread, seems alot of things the Obama Admin has given money to fails. Seems he like to talk the talk but just can't seem to get the walk down. I quess it is all about the ole saying "Whose your buddy"