Cont’d.

• Solyndra: Received $535 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 and $25.1 million in CA tax credit — Bankrupt in August 2011
• SpectraWatt: Received $500,000 in federal loan guarantees in 2009 — Bankrupt in August 2011
• Babcock and Brown: Received $178 million in federal grants in December 2009 (4 months after it went bust) – Bankrupt in early 2009
• Mountain Plaza Inc.: Received $424,000 in federal grants through TN Department of Transportation in 2009 — Bankrupt in 2003 and again in June 2010
• Solar Trust of America (parent company: Solar Millennium): Received $2.1 billion loan guarantee in April 2011 – Bankrupt in April 2012 (U$3.9 B)
Other Subsidized Green Energy Companies in decline:
• A123: Received $300 million in federal grants and $135 million in MI grants — Declining orders and have forced multiple layoffs
• Amonix, Inc.: Received $5.9 million in federal tax credits in 2009 through ARRA — Laid off 2/3 of work force
• First Solar: Received $3 billion in federal loan guarantees — Biggest S&P loser in 2011, CEO fired
• Fisker Automotive: $529 million in federal loan guarantees — Multiple 2012 sales prediction downgrades for first car release, delivery and cash flow troubles; Assembling cars in Finland
• Johnson Controls: Received $299 million in federal grants in 2009 — Low demand caused cancellation of a new factory, operating at half capacity
• Nevada Geothermal: Received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 — Defaulting on long-term debt obligations, 85% drop in stock value (U$6b)
• Sun Power: Received $1.2 billion in federal loan guarantees — Debt exceeds assets; French oil company took over last fall
• Abound Solar: Received $400 million in federal loans in 2012 — ½ work force laid off
• BrightSource Energy: $1.6 billion federal loan approved in April 2012 – loan obtained through political connections with the administration; absent the loan, Brightsource’s solar power purchase would have fallen through.

In the face of these multiple “successes,” you want to throw more good money after bad.

So R0bert, tell me again about Tesla?

"When such technologies can stand on their own they will be market ready and an effective alternative to fossil fuels"

You mean like fossil fuels?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/12/renewables-are-replacing-coal-just-not-fast-enough-to-save-the-planet/

"The world is spending a stunning $ 550 billion per year on fossil fuel subsidies"

"Meanwhile, the IEA also projects a stunning growth in renewable sources of electricity -- wind, solar, and hydropower in particular. By 2040, it expects renewables to power 33 percent of global energy demand, as opposed to the current 21 percent, even as subsidies to strengthen the growth of renewables begin to subside"

"The report does note, however, that governments around the world are still subsidizing dirty fossil energy much more than they're subsidizing renewables. As of 2013, reports IEA, world fossil fuel subsidies totaled $550 billion, four times the amount devoted to clean energy."

‘morning Poirot,

Mmm, Wahington Post 2014? Mmm, IEA report 2013?

Couldn’t you find anything more current at the ABC, Fairfax, Guardian, Green Weekly, Matilda or the Conversation? Must try harder.

Methinks you miss the point Poirot, conveniently.

Fossil fuels work
Renewable energy doesn’t work. See my list of failures above.

“Renewables Get 25 Times The Subsidy That Fossil Fuels Do”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/13/renewables-get-25-times-the-subsidy-that-fossil-fuels-do/

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17280&page=0

See where relying on your self referential network gets you?

OK, now you can do what you normally do, change the subject, point to a Unicorn, have a hissy fit, leave the thread or find another “appropriate” link. (oh sorry, one more, you could call me a denier).

"Fossil fuels work"

I'd like to see see how well they "work" without being drip fed $550 billion dollars per year in subsidies.

Lol!

"OK, now you can do what you normally do, change the subject, point to a Unicorn, have a hissy fit, leave the thread or find another “appropriate” link. (oh sorry, one more, you could call me a denier)."

Of course, I know it gets up yer nose that you can't suck me into your narrow-minded junk-science "Oh-my-God-the-humanity!" conspiracy theories...but there you go.

(Sorry to disappoint you - but your scintillating rebuff turns out to be a tad underwhelming - not really worth the energy of a "hissy fit"....maybe next time:)

‘morning Poirot,

I was fairly confident that you would not follow the links in the Washington Post article to the original source and would just adopt whatever the WP journo presented. Thus you went from looking silly, to looking really silly by trying to insist the $550 billion in fossil subsidies was somehow significant.

There are five key omissions in your post, these are;

1. Even the IEA accepts that , “Fossil fuels make up more than 80% of global energy, while modern green energy accounts for about 5%. This means that renewables still receive three times as much money per energy unit”.

2. That “fossil-fuel subsidies are almost exclusive to non-Western countries. Twelve such nations account for 75% of the world’s fossil-fuel subsidies. Iran tops the list with $82 billion a year, followed by Saudi Arabia at $61 billion. Russia, India and China spend between $30 billion and $40 billion, and Venezuela, Egypt, Iran, U.A.E., Indonesia, Mexico and Algeria make up the rest”.

What? Not the big bad western developed big oil after all?

3. The $550 million in fossil fuel subsidies are NOT subsidies to the producers of fossil fuels, they’re subsidies to the consumers of them to reduce energy costs, see 2. above.

4. The exact opposite is true with renewables subsidies, which are expressly designed to go to the producers to increase consumer costs as our price for emitting CO2? Green Energy subsidies to the producers are subsidized by directly and officially sanctioned over-charging the consumers.

5. The per billion BTU subsidies for fossil fuels is $68.72. The per billion BTU subsidies for renewables is $1,724, this represents a 25 fold increase!

Source: The original link I gave you!

You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you do say will be recorded and may be used as evidence against you.

So who is peddling “narrow-minded junk-science” now Madame Poirot?

Spindoc & Poirot are having an argument about subsidies.
That is the wrong argument.
Make no mistake I am very much in favour of our building a new energy system.
Solar/Wind can contribute during the changeover to a new energy system.
They cannot however be the end point of that transition.

The fundamental problem is that the ERoEI of both oil & coal is falling.
Oil is at the most difficult level and it is urgent to get to work on
whatever will replace them.
Because the transition will probably use a lot of steel, coal will be
essential just for that part, but such a huge project will require
great amounts of electricity.

To at this stage handicap the transition by trying to shut down coal
will be very counterproductive.
Oils ERoEI is around 10, some say lower, so very soon it will require
subsidies. ERoEI 0f 7 is said to be the point where we fall off the cliff.

So what are the alternatives, Rhosty has a list some of which may not
be viable because of too low an ERoEI and some would be goers.
My favourite non nuclear is geothermal. There is a lot of energy
down there and the half life of the reaction in the granite is
thousands of years. Geodynamics trial in Sth Australia looked
promising and I saw a video of steam coming back up in enormous
amounts, but there turned out to problems with corrosion and perhaps
other difficulties. Origin Energy pulled out of the project.

It is at this point that I believe governments should step into a
project like this. I would be happier for the government to have an
RET for geothermal than solar.