Unbelievable, isn't it? Or is it? Given that it's in California, and involves Google, I'm sure our current Secretary of Energy, Dr Ernest Moniz, will recommend to the Secretary of the Treasury, Jack Lew, who is also the former White House Chief of Staff, that the grant be approved.
Bottom line - we, the federal taxpayers, are being asked to pay for 30% of a $1.6 Billion solar plant, for Google and NRG Energy without receiving any of the revenue that the plant will generate.
Of course, given that the plant is only generating roughly 25% of the power that the application for the federal loan claims it will generate, perhaps there is no revenue being generated by the plant, which is why the taxpayers are being asked to donate money to the cause.
Unbelievable, isn't it? Or is it? Given that it's in California, and involves Google, I'm sure our current Secretary of Energy, Dr Ernest Moniz, will recommend to the Secretary of the Treasury, Jack Lew, who is also the former White House Chief of Staff, that the grant be approved.
Bottom line - we, the federal taxpayers, are being asked to pay for 30% of a $1.6 Billion solar plant, for Google and NRG Energy without receiving any of the revenue that the plant will generate.
Of course, given that the plant is only generating roughly 25% of the power that the application for the federal loan claims it will generate, perhaps there is no revenue being generated by the plant, which is why the taxpayers are being asked to donate money to the cause.
Since this plant is so good at attracting and cooking a variety of different birds, maybe they should convert that place into a giant KFC type restaurant and fowl processing plant.
Thousands of birds are flying into a new solar "mega-trap" in the middle of California's Mojave Desert, killing the avian lot at a rate of up to one bird every two minutes, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Rick wrote: Since this plant is so good at attracting and cooking a variety of different birds, maybe they should convert that place into a giant KFC type restaurant and fowl processing plant.
There ya go! The perfect use for yet another government/corporate boondoggle. At least the taxpayers would get some chicken out of it! Then again, they'd charge us for the chicken. IMO we've already paid for it. Maybe EBT chicken cards for the taxpayers?
ZHawke wrote: With these posts, I feel I should ask if you guys are anti-solar?
Nope, not anti-solar at all. If, when, and where solar can be used in an efficient and cost effective way, I'm all for it. I'm against forcing a technology for political reasons without fully understanding all the related costs. How many fried birds per hour is acceptable... 20, 30, 50? I don't consider myself to be an environmentalist, but I do think that a massive solar plant that is only producing 25% of what was expected should at least be somewhat environmentally friendly, don't ya think? In that sense I think nuclear is a better option, especially if the plant needs to produce a set amount of energy 24/7.
Do you think the taxpayers should bail this one out as well, just because it's supposedly "green"?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
ZHawke wrote: With these posts, I feel I should ask if you guys are anti-solar?
Is anyone truly anti-solar except the people who get wind power subsidies.
In a related note, this is a good story. Available for free download.
""Let There Be Light" a science fiction short story by Robert A. Heinlein, originally published in Super Science Stories magazine in May 1940 under the pseudonym Lyle Monroe. It is the second story in his Future History and was included in the first collection, The Man Who Sold the Moon, but was omitted from the omnibus collection The Past Through Tomorrow for unknown reasons. This story draws on Heinlein's early leftist philosophies, and makes references to George Bernard Shaw's "The Apple Cart."
The story concerns the invention of "light panels" - devices which turn electrical power directly into light (similar to LEDs, invented in 1962). In the course of their discovery, the inventors also discover that these panels can also be used to derive power from light. In attempting to bring their discovery to market, they encounter the active opposition of the Power Syndicate, a conglomeration of energy-producing companies dedicated to preserving their monopoly on power production. Rather than trying to maintain a patent on their invention, the scientists then publicly release the scientific details of their discovery for a small royalty, allowing anyone to obtain their own power, and thus outwitting the Power Syndicate. Douglas-Martin sunpower screens appear in several other Heinlein stories, such as "The Roads Must Roll".
Rick wrote: Nope, not anti-solar at all. If, when, and where solar can be used in an efficient and cost effective way, I'm all for it. I'm against forcing a technology for political reasons without fully understanding all the related costs. How many fried birds per hour is acceptable... 20, 30, 50? I don't consider myself to be an environmentalist, but I do think that a massive solar plant that is only producing 25% of what was expected should at least be somewhat environmentally friendly, don't ya think? In that sense I think nuclear is a better option, especially if the plant needs to produce a set amount of energy 24/7.
Do you think the taxpayers should bail this one out as well, just because it's supposedly "green"?
Thank you. Solar energy, from what I've been reading, has been making significant strides in both efficiency and in cost. That doesn't mean it's there yet. It's improving.
I'm not sure about your statement regarding "political reasons without understanding all the related costs", though. In order to get a Federal "grant", such as this one being bandied about, the application process is pretty stringent. I don't know for certain if the project talked about in the OP is covered under this program, but if it is, I'd say there is more to the story than the article in the OP let on:
The bird issue could be countered with something like this:
Nuclear power is currently more efficient than solar. I agree on that. But, having worked in a program that required me to become fairly knowledgeable about the nuclear energy industry, I can say with a pretty fair degree of certainly that nuclear waste is an issue we cannot ignore. Neither is the seismic aspect of where nuclear power plants are currently located in this country.
Finally, with regard to taxpayer bailouts, I'd much rather see this kind of bailout than those both the Bush and Obama administrations gave to "too big to fail" Wall Street banks and investment firms. This one, by comparison, would be a pittance. At least with this one, the taxpayers would get something in return; an investment in renewable energy. Hopefully, the R&D to help improve efficiencies will be on-going in the event a grant is awarded.
How can paying taxes to build something and then paying higher rates to consume what it produces be considered and "investment" by anyone with the IQ God gave a fence post? That's not an investment, it's government sanctioned theft.
PrintSmith wrote: How can paying taxes to build something and then paying higher rates to consume what it produces be considered and "investment" by anyone with the IQ God gave a fence post? That's not an investment, it's government sanctioned theft.
And there's yer sign.....
Investments in alternatives to fossil fuels called renewables are just as "necessary" from my perspective as subsidies are to fossil fuel developers/producers. Some consider those kinds of subsidies to be government sanctioned theft, as well.
In the end, fossil fuels are finite resources. Renewables are are called that for a very good reason.
ZHawke wrote: Investments in alternatives to fossil fuels called renewables are just as "necessary" from my perspective as subsidies are to fossil fuel developers/producers. Some consider those kinds of subsidies to be government sanctioned theft, as well.
In the end, fossil fuels are finite resources. Renewables are are called that for a very good reason.
You call it "investments" for alternative fuels, but call it "subsidies" for fossil fuels. Is there a difference between the terms you use other than one sounds better than the other?
And can you be specific as to what "subsidies" (I think we are actually talking about tax deductions) fossil fuel developers/producers get that other companies do not get? Maybe I'll learn something, but last time I looked into it I couldn't find a big difference from tax deductions other companies get (including those outside the energy sector) other than the name of it.
And no, I have no problem with alternative energy so long as it doesn't cost a whole lot more after all tax breaks are considered. I really hope they succeed. I had a solar water heater on my roof years ago, which had a high pressure water leak causing a hole in my ceiling which flooded a room in my house (would of been a much bigger disaster had I not been home). Oops. And I've looked into solar cells on the roof recently, but I still don't see the payback yet and I'm again worried about damage to the roof due to a bad installation which would cause other problems. But I digress...
Then again, they'd charge us for the chicken. IMO we've already paid for it. Maybe EBT chicken cards for the taxpayers?
