Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 31 Mar 2012, 6:58 am

I notive both of you are asking very specific questions I'm not specifically defending Soyndra, only the concept that govenrmernt intervention can, and has, been crucial in some important US economic advancements .... Often the investment in a developing sector deosn't pay off for many years. Shale gas is a perfect example:
Shale gas was first extracted as a resource in Fredonia, NY in 1825[12], in shallow, low-pressure fractures. Work on industrial-scale shale gas production did not begin until the 1970s, when declining production potential from conventional gas deposits in the United States spurred the federal government to invest in R&D and demonstration projects[13] that ultimately led to directional and horizontal drilling, microseismic imaging, and massive hydraulic fracturing. Up until the public and private R&D and demonstration projects of the 1970s and 1980s, drilling in shale was not considered to be commercially viable.
Early federal government investments in shale gas began with the Eastern Gas Shales Project in 1976 and the annual FERC-approved research budget of the Gas Research Institute. The Department of Energy later partnered with private gas companies to complete the first successful air-drilled multi-fracture horizontal well in shale in 1986. The federal government further incentivized drilling in shale via the Section 29 tax credit for unconventional gas from 1980-2000. Microseismic imaging, a crucial input to both hydraulic fracturing in shale and offshore oil drilling, originated from coalbeds research at Sandia National Laboratories. In 1991 the Department of Energy subsidized Texas gas company Mitchell Energy's first horizontal drill in the Barnett Shale in north Texas.[14]
Mitchell Energy utilized all these component technologies and techniques to achieve the first economical shale fracture in 1998 using an innovative process called slick-water fracturing[15][16]. Since then, natural gas from shale has been the fastest growing contributor to total primary energy (TPE) in the United States, and has led many other countries to pursue shale deposits. According to the IEA, the economical extraction of shale gas more than doubles the projected production potential of natural gas, from 125 years to over 250 years[
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 31 Mar 2012, 7:07 am

ray
Now, the topic of this thread is about Obama's investment in alternative energy. He's invested in companies based on questionable science,

Can I point out that the term "questionable science" is the reason developmental work is required. First there's the bench science, then the field science, then the initial prototype then the scaling up .... Every stage and every point in the development is full of questions... Commercial investment is almost impossible to find at many of these levels specifcally becasue of the quesions ... The reason why government has to get involved is often because the questions (read risk) require pockets that can wait for a return . Private investment generally can't work on long term (say 20 year) developmental plans.

Yet it appears; sometimes he hasn't invested in scientific research, but in particular companies
.
Similarly, the US government picked IBM to develop computerization. And IBM picked Microsoft's oeprating systems...It spun off remarkably. And although Mitchell were the first to commercialize much of what was learned, there are dozens of entrants now. They've been shown the way, and the riskiest part of the development process has been accomplished...

It appears that the budgeting process wasn't done well, and that the funding was rushed based on the perceived urgency of our situation. It also seems that quite a bit of funding went to those politically connected to the administration (rent seeking

Well, this may be true. I can think of hundreds of instances where the US government has made these kinds of decisions. Usually it has to do with aerospace and military acquisitions (Haliburton and Boeing?) .... But lets face it, that has a lot more to do with the nature of your form of governance and political system rather than the basic concept that government should never be involved in the development of industry and economic sectors....
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 05 Apr 2012, 6:53 am

WASHINGTON -- Federal financial experts weren't consulted on a $528 million federal loan to Solyndra until the last minute, and only then had "about a day" to complete their review, an internal watchdog concluded Wednesday.

The report from the Treasury Department's inspector general found that the department's review was "rushed" and began only after the Energy Department was poised to sign off on the terms of the loan to the Fremont solar company. The review was completed a day before the department issued a news release saying it was approving the loan with conditions.

Treasury officials complained to the White House that regulations governing federal loan guarantees say that the department should have been involved earlier in the process, but the inspector general said it was unclear whether the review's late start violated the law.

Treasury officials also told investigators that the shortened time frame was sufficient to review the loan. But investigators found no evidence that concerns raised by those officials, such as the debt-to-equity ratio in the project, were ever addressed by the Energy Department.

The investigation is the latest to look closely at the Obama administration's decision to back Solyndra. Congress also is examining the deal, which was used to showcase the economic stimulus bill's support for renewable energy projects and so-called green jobs.


http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_ ... was-rushed
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Apr 2012, 11:54 pm

The Volt, which cost nearly $40,000 before a $7,500 federal tax credit, could take up to 27 years to pay off versus a Chevrolet Cruze, assuming it was regularly driven farther than its battery-only range allows. The payback time could drop to about eight years if gas cost $5 a gallon and the driver remained exclusively on battery power.

The Lundberg Survey, which tracks fuel prices, said in March that gas prices would need to reach $12.50 a gallon for the Volt to make sense purely on financial terms. It said the Leaf would be competitive with gas at $8.53 a gallon.

Still, in a recent survey by Consumer Reports, the most satisfied drivers owned Volts. The survey said 93 percent of Volt owners would definitely buy the car again — though there are only 12,000 of the cars on the road.


Value
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3536
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 12 Apr 2012, 9:57 am

Was at the in-laws for the holiday and got my bi-annual fill of Fox News, and again they were harping on the Volt, just like Steve does. Here's a bit of the other side I heard on the radio this morning:

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2012/apr/12/joe-nocera-chevy-volt-and-bp/

People probably won't listen to it, but in it I learned that the the Volt tax break was signed into law under the Bush administration, and the Obama administration tried to kill it when GM was in bankruptcy, but backed off when GM protested. So why is the Volt tagged as an Obama program?

Regardless of the answer, the whole political discussion about the Volt is just so STRANGE. It's a car, not an ideology. Why is it such a topic of discussion among the far right, especially when it appears that the facts of those discussions are so distorted or just plain wrong, and there are much bigger chicken to fry when it comes to the car market?

It's frankly off-putting to people like me who like choices. I like the fact that the Volt exists. Of course, I'm not in the market for a car, but it's great that it's out there, pushing new ideas in the realm of personal transportation. If it fails, fine; the road to success is lined with many failures, but it certainly hasn't succeeded or failed yet.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 12 Apr 2012, 10:06 am

Geo,
I have no problem with the Volt. I have no desire to own one (I have driven one, and it is too small for my liking), but the issue is subsidies. NOTHING should be subsidized by the government, in my opinion. If the market is there, the Volt would be created and survive.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Apr 2012, 10:48 am

geojanes wrote:Was at the in-laws for the holiday and got my bi-annual fill of Fox News, and again they were harping on the Volt, just like Steve does. Here's a bit of the other side I heard on the radio this morning:

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2012/apr/12/joe-nocera-chevy-volt-and-bp/

People probably won't listen to it, but in it I learned that the the Volt tax break was signed into law under the Bush administration, and the Obama administration tried to kill it when GM was in bankruptcy, but backed off when GM protested. So why is the Volt tagged as an Obama program?


Because he climbed into one? Because he's trying to raise the subsidy to $10? Because it is the poster child for government picking winners and losers? http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16192

Regardless of the answer, the whole political discussion about the Volt is just so STRANGE. It's a car, not an ideology.


It is an ideology and a car. The President wants government to "invest" more in such projects. That is ideology. He attacks the rich and then subsidizes their purchase of the Volt. That is ideology. He even claims he'll buy one. http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/vol ... -volt.html

Why is it such a topic of discussion among the far right, especially when it appears that the facts of those discussions are so distorted or just plain wrong, and there are much bigger chicken to fry when it comes to the car market?


The Volt is symbolic of the President's economic plan. He knows best.

It's frankly off-putting to people like me who like choices. I like the fact that the Volt exists.


If it can survive without billions in subsidies, fine. However, it can't. If you like it, buy it. It does not address our energy or practical needs. Most folks can't use a car that goes 25 miles (not 40 as advertised) and is so small. What about the drain on the grid? Where does that energy come from? Algae? Do you want that choice too?

Of course, I'm not in the market for a car, but it's great that it's out there, pushing new ideas in the realm of personal transportation. If it fails, fine; the road to success is lined with many failures, but it certainly hasn't succeeded or failed yet.


How many billions of dollars should the government waste on products for a niche market?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 12 Apr 2012, 2:37 pm

steve
How many billions of dollars should the government waste on products for a niche market?

You mean niche products like Frakked natural gas?
Or niche products like computers?
All products, in their early stages appeal to a niche market... Some of these niche markets, if they grow in response to an improving product offering or increasing perceived need of can become large and often vital parts of the national economy.
The whole point in early stage involvement by the government is to ensure that the companies involved have the wherewithall to take the product past the niche stage .
That worked out pretty well for IBM and Microsoft .... (Poster boys for being picked as winners and losers by govenrment programs), and turned out pretty well for the spin off industry that developed in Silicon Valley and through out the US.
And it appears to have worked pretty well for Mitchell Energy, and now other energy companies. However with the abundance of gas, driving the price of natural gas way down ..... perhaps it needs to develop more markets for the use of natural gas,.....
Electrical production might be a great bet....

It might not work out for Volt. But it might. If GM doesn't participate in the industry they won't learn and should a competitor develop an electric car that engages the market substantially .... not participating would leave GM miles behind. Not good for the US economy.

Industries that are as vital to the economic health of the US, hold a strategic interest. Participating in the industry in order to help the industry secure future markets, especially those that contribute in other strateguc ways, like energy security and CO2 reduction.... is important. Thats why so many national governments have done what the US has done with Volt in their auto industries.
Maybe they'll all lose. But I doubt it. And I strongly suspect that in 10 years, electric cars will be way beyond niche. And that a lot of their electricity will come from electrical plants powered by frakked natural gas.
Winners! Which means that the initial investment by the government wan't wasted.(And thats the thing about investments.... the pay off doesn't come next quarter. like how you measure the success of the Volt with quarterly sales..)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Apr 2012, 2:58 pm

You're a parrot. Now, someone might say I lean heavily toward the market and tend to "parrot" that. Fair enough, but I'm not asking anyone else to invest their money in something that won't work.

I guess the President isn't either. He's simply taking it and giving it to his friends and to causes he believes in. I guess I'm old-fashioned because I think it's fine for him to do that with his own money, but not with mine--or anyone else's that is taken involuntarily.

Back to the Volt: where is the evidence that lifting the credit to $10K is wise? Where is the evidence that the market would take off and leave the US behind without the Volt? Is Japan willing to lose countless billions to try and corner a market limited to yuppies with incomes of $170K a year who actually want a death trap for a vehicle?

Make the case on facts and not speculation. Where are the big-selling plug-in cars? Any in the top 20 selling vehicles? Top 40? Where is the supply of electricity coming from? Do we have an overabundance of electricity so that we should be looking to transfer vehicles from oil to the energy grid? Does it really reduce CO2 if more people plug into the grid? Again, where does that electricity come from? In States like CA, they've already got a shortage of electrical energy.

Until you can answer those, you're just making it up. Then again, nothing has really changed. Same guy; same saw; same lack of evidence.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7463
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 12 Apr 2012, 4:30 pm

Just curious RickyP, What do you drive?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Apr 2012, 6:10 am

b
Just curious RickyP, What do you drive

Right now, a 4 cylinder Saturn vue.... (Its my 4th Saturn....) Imagine my consternation in actually having to go find a new brand to be loyal to.... (I need the SUV for business reasons... loads of material in the back). And I hate shopping for cars. (Sorta why I ended up at Saturn)

Steve, you say I'm parrotting. Well, you keep bringing up the same case, and don't respond to any of the points I've made. So I feel I have to remake them.

Most importantly you ignore the fact that I'm not specifically vouching for the success of the Volt, either today or in the future. I beleive that is something we're unlikely to know for a few years at best... I have pointed you to the fact that almost every auto maker in the world has an entry in the electric car market. Which indicates to me that they see a potential in this market that you apparently don't. I'll go with their collective wisdom over your ideological mindset, and deep hatred of Obama.

But then you ignore the fact that I'm arguing that government intervention and involvement can be, and has been very successful in the past. Including, with lots of examples in the US. (Even under Reagan.)
Hell you even ignore the references to the successful intervention in the natural gas business which, besdies being a great example of a successful govenrment involvement in the US, offer you an answer to your concerns about electricity consumption by electric cars... (An abundance of cheap domestically produced natural gas, if Boone Pickens says true, is the key to solving energy shortage, carbon out put and the balance of trade...)

I'll harp on one thing you don't appear to have grasped. Market development. Many products in their early stages are expensive and appeal to a limited market. Examples? Thats true of things like televisions for instance. The first big screen flat televisions were massively expensive.
As the bugs were worked out of the early stage products the products improved, and the production techniques improved, and prices declined. The market expanded as middle class families and then working class could afford them....
I expect electric cars will follow that classic model.
Oh, by the way. The US didn't invest in the display industry. That was lost in the 80's when Taiwan,S Korea and Japan had their government's invest in the display industries and in a decade took that industry right out of the US. The last US television was built in something like 1990.
As an example of what happens when the US doesn't work to keep an industry segment in the country....displays are apt. If the US auto makers didn't participate in the electric car business from the beginning....its a sure bet they would be either shut out or far behind the comeptitive curve when/if the market takes off. And again, the entire industry seems to be expecting that its a likely occurrence even if you don't. (I'll bet your one of those guys who couldn't imagine people wanting 72 inch screens in their apartments?)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 16006
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 13 Apr 2012, 6:27 am

All those public roads which existed prior to widescale uptake of automobiles are a prime example of subsidies. Metalled roads were originally brought in for other forms of transport, but were crucial to the development of the car and expanded at taxpayer cost in most cases - apart from toll roads which were often subject to publicly backed laons or state underwriting.

Yet the market ideologues would have it that this was wrong.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 13 Apr 2012, 6:59 am

Ricky:
Well, you keep bringing up the same case, and don't respond to any of the points I've made. So I feel I have to remake them.


As a general matter, you really don't need to make the same point over and over again if you feel that no one has responded to it.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3536
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 13 Apr 2012, 7:23 am

bbauska wrote:Geo,
I have no problem with the Volt. I have no desire to own one (I have driven one, and it is too small for my liking), but the issue is subsidies. NOTHING should be subsidized by the government, in my opinion.


If I had a choice of no subsides or subsidies, I'd probably choose no subsidies, too Brad. However, things like tax deductions for raising children is a subsidy that I think makes a lot of sense. Kids are expensive. They are also fundamental to the future of the country, so why put the burden on just the parents? I know, it's their choice, but those kids will grow up to be taxpayers (hopefully) one day. You can make less good arguments about things like education and child care subsidies, which anyone can get if they qualify and file taxes. We get subsides when we pay state and local taxes, mortgage interest, make charitable donations. Heck, we even get a foreign tax credit, which is a subsidy for paying taxes to a foreign government. Could be argued, but even less good than the others.

We live in a country with a profound amount of subsidies. Some I think are good, like the benefits we get for raising children. Others are less good, but could be argued for in a rational way. Others are outright terrible, like the 25% duty on light trucks (which while not a subsidy, acts as one since it makes foreign trucks more expensive.) or the sugar subsidy, or the ethanol subsidy, which just make everyday products we use more expensive, the benefits of which go into the pockets of the very few.

In my opinion, the Volt subsidy ranks somewhere between the less than good but better than the absolutely terrible. Sure, it's kind of silly, but at least we, as a society, have the potential to get something out of it. This experiment may change how the nation travels. Probably not, but it may.

So I guess what I find so off-putting about the right's attack of the Volt is the disproportionality of it. Fine, it's easy not to like the Volt, but if you're informed, you have to be more outraged about dozens (hundreds?) of other subsidies that are simply wealth transfers from consumers and taxpayers into the hands of those with the best lobbyists.

The real answer, in my opinion, is that this hatred is not about the Volt, it's about politics and the Volt is a symbol--and an unfair symbol at that since the tax credit was signed into law under the Bush administration. Hatred of the Volt is simply "politics by other means" and its disproportionality shows either naked partisanship or ignorance. Take your pick, but I find either of them distasteful when put on display by show that calls itself "News."
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 13 Apr 2012, 7:29 am

dozens (hundreds?)


Tens of thousands!