Solar-power equipment manufacturer Stirling Energy Systems Inc. has filed for bankruptcy, adding to a wave of troubles in the solar industry amid soft demand, falling prices and difficulty raising money. [… ] Both [of the company’s plants] were sited on public land in California and obtained fast-track construction pemits from the Obama administration.
Mead notes …
But there’s another factor behind the failure of so many Obama administration initiatives in this field. Because alternative energy generation is expensive and inefficient, it requires some combination of subsidies, high energy prices and forced purchases to make these investments pay off.
I remember the days when SDA was a lonely incandescent bulb of green energy truth, lighting a path through the blogosphere wilderness. Nowadays, it seems everyone’s jumping on the bandwagon. Still, when you read the word “investments” in a sentence like that above, one realizes there’s still work to be done. (h/t Instapundit)
and people will still vote for Dulton McSquinty in Ontario because they seem to like chugging his greenie kool-aide.
Fools & Their money.
Fred, people will vote for McGuinty because he will continue the gravy train for them. In Leaside in Toronto my area is filled with Liberal signs as there is tons of public employees, active or retired , here. Ontario is Greece or Spain where 1 in 4 are employed by government.
McGuinty states 50,000 green jobs will be created and his trained seals clap wildly. Ask where these jobs are and who is paying the employees and you are met with blank stares from the Liberals.
Should there be no government subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear too, or just no subsidies for alternatives?
Is the problem with government energy subsidies in general, or just a personal dislike for a particular form of energy?
North of 60 says: “Is the problem with government energy subsidies in general, or just a personal dislike for a particular form of energy?”
Generally, if it has to be subsidized there’s something seriously wrong with it and its not worth subsidizing. Corn alcohol, solar, wind, all the same. Bad ideas.
Nuclear has to be run by government because government says so, not because of anything inherent to nuclear.
Nuclear and fossil fuels work. Wind, solar are not an “alternative”. Use of the word “alternative” suggests they has the potential to replace fossil and nuclear sources. That very suggestion is at the heart of the scam.
The solar industry is not economically viable at this time, the Levelized Cost of Energy lists solar PV at 131 – 196, coal at 78 – 148 and Natural Gas at 74 – 114 $/MWh. Interesting that McSquinty cancels natural gas generation plant and ignores complaints about wind farms.
if it has to be subsidized there’s something seriously wrong with it and its not worth subsidizing
So what is seriously wrong with fossil fuels and nuclear that they should be subsidized?
Use of the word “alternative” suggests they has the potential to replace fossil and nuclear sources.
So, does that mean we should pretend that the cases where solar is replacing fossil fuel don’t exist, just to support someones erroneous beliefs?
Should there be no government subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear too, or just no subsidies for alternatives?
The solar industry is not economically viable at this time, the Levelized Cost of Energy lists solar PV at 131 – 196, coal at 78 – 148 and Natural Gas at 74 – 114 $/MWh.
That compares subsidized fossil fuel with non-subsidized solar. How is that a valid comparison?
Fred
Don’t count on it…the MSM is conceeding that the McSquinty et al and the Tories are neck and neck….IOW McSquinty is history….
Taxes and Energy costs….
Anyone who seriously believes the canard that “fossil fuels are subsidized” is too damn stupid to breathe.
Governments, at all levels, tax the living Jesus out of fossil fuels. The tiny amount of cash returned in the form of depletion allowances and drilling incentives (tax break of the same nature being available to other industries, too) comes nowhere near close to the tax bite taken.
Oil and gas wells, once drilled, go on producing 24/7, for years, or decades. The Sun only shines 50% of the time, averaged over a year. Then, you get clouds.
“So what is seriously wrong with fossil fuels and nuclear that they should be subsidized?”
Can you say “payola”? Sure you can! Say it with me now, payola.
That’s what “subsidies” for nuclear and fossil fuel.
You don’t seriously think that solar/wind/alcohol could compete if it wasn’t for the mean old oil subsidy, do you? Do some math for God sake man!
Here’s a true alternative energy source to Mideast oil: the high quality crude from the oil sands ( recoverable reserves equal Saudi Arabia’s ). Here’s another: oil and gas from fracked wells. The greens were absolutely gung ho for natural gas, back when it was a HIGH PRICED alternative to coal. What changed to sour them on gas? On the surface the only relevant change between then and now is that natural gas threatens to replace coal as the utility fuel of choice because it’s price has fallen like mortar off a shovel. Could it be the greens want to push all alternatives to coal up in price so that solar and wind are competitive.
Here’s some cheery news: the nuts in Vermont are finally getting a pure taste of wind energy, undiluted and untainted by hypocrisy: clearcutting/bulldozing/ and blasting of ridgelines have begun in Vermont’s mountains. I am sure all those good lefties who moved to Vermont for the beauty of the landscape will find this politically correct alteration of the Green Mountains will, if anything, only enhance the view.
I still contend that all these US green subsidies have actually hampered the ongoing development of solar energy, as many of these American firms spend more time and energy chasing public funds than they do trying to improve the technology.
Solar PV should match coal within 10 years on straight cost, but it will never have the on-demand ability of coal or hydro until storage technology catches up, and in my mind that’s a long way off yet. Hope I’m wrong.
Regardless, there’s some pretty broad negative generalisations made about solar technology here on SDA. Are all oil and gas companies crooked because Enron was? Would it ahve been wise to abandon oil and gas for vehicles back when they ran on kerosene/paraffin? Of course not. So why do some here think it is okay to generalise about solar power in the same fashion?
Anyone who seriously believes the canard that “fossil fuels are subsidized” is too damn stupid to breathe.
By that ‘logic’ all of the delegates to the G-8 and G-20 meetings are included since the fossil fuel subsidies are always on the discussion agenda at those meetings. That of course would also include those who work in the fossil fuel industries because they know it’s subsidized. In fact the number of people who claim that fossil fuels are not subsidized are the fringe minority.
PV incentives are subsidies so that people can afford PV, just like oil subsidies are so that people can afford oil — and the oil subsidies prove that these subsidies work: people can afford oil… so it proves that these economic policies work as planned… so why are the naysayers suggesting that this same economic policy shouldn’t be applied to renewables?
The tiny amount of cash returned in the form of depletion allowances and drilling incentives (tax break of the same nature being available to other industries, too) comes nowhere near close to the tax bite taken.
Does that mean that the companies which pay the most in taxes are entitles to the greatest subsidies?
turtle- Solar is a lousy electric source, yet the political class tries to impose it by fiat to satisfy a component of their political base. Having tax dollars push an in all ways inferior power source is not progress. This is the source of the opposition to mandated solar, and it arises from the citizens, not any power utility.
More cuts to the left-liberals’ red-green arts.
Watch for the bs excuses like this: “prompted by weaker energy demand”.
…-
“EDP Renewables lays off 10 percent of North American workforce
EDP Renewables has cut 10 percent of its North American workforce as part of a reorganization prompted by weaker energy demand and a sudden abundance of natural gas that has made wind and solar projects less competitive, a company spokesman said.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2786515/posts
It always amazes me when people make the “”fossil fuels and nuclear are subsidized, too” type of argument. Their argument is destroyed as soon as someone replies that they shouldn’t be subsidized either.
The only “conservatives” pushing for subsidies are crony capitalists, politicians buying off voting blocks and those who have a direct interest in the subsidized industry. How many taxpayers are gung-ho to see their taxes “invested” in green energy, Spudco or any other business. Most taxpayers would be satisfied with a government that could efficiently fix the roads, protect private property, ensure national defense, etc. and not rack up a ridiculous amount of debt.
Phantom, Kate, gordinkneehill and small c, well said.
gordin, exactly, the mining industry also uses depletion allowances.
I agree LC. The average Canadian isn’t interested in big government or big business. I’m sure the majority of Canadians would agree that the politicians are out of step once they are elected.
Energy Density: read this.
Believing that the problems with solar and wind can be solved through better technology, is like hoping you can turn a teaspoon of water into a gallon through the development of better buckets.
It’s true. Technically speaking, it will be easier to engineer better pollution controls for fossil fuels than improve the basic flaws of a wind and solar dependent electrical system.
Only in fairy tales can straw be spun into gold. A Rumpelstiltskin economy is not a good model to follow.
North of 60
Better start naming those gas subsidies
Is it the 30% royalty? The freehold mineral tax? The lease bonus?(5billion plus this year) The 15% federal tax? The 70cent transport fee ?
These are monies heading away from the industry
There is a huge difference between subsidies given to so-called “green energy” and that for the old reliables:
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/energy-subsidies.jpg
The 15 mile-per-hour winds that buffeted northern Germany on July 24 caused the nation’s 21,600 windmills to generate so much power that utilities such as EON AG and RWE AG (RWE) had to pay consumers to take it off the grid.
Rather than an anomaly, the event marked the 31st hour this year when power companies lost money on their electricity in the intraday market because of a torrent of supply from wind and solar parks. The phenomenon was unheard of five years ago.
With Europe’s wind and solar farms set to triple by 2020, utilities investing in new coal and gas-fired power stations no longer face stable returns. As more renewables come on line, a gas plant owned by RWE or EON that may cost $1 billion to build will be stopped more often from running at full capacity. It may only pay for itself on days like Jan. 31, when clouds and still weather pushed an hour of power on the same-day market above 162 ($220) euros a megawatt-hour after dusk, in peak demand time.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-29/utilities-giving-away-power-as-wind-sun-flood-european-grid.html
Thanks for the link. Posted by: Kate at October 1, 2011 7:28 PM
Found it very informative and easy to understand.
How about a little truth in advertising?
“North of 60” does indeed describe our troll’s IQ.
However, “South of 90” does the same job.
It should be noted that just under 4 years ago, Stirling recorded a conversion efficiency of 32% in an experiment in New Mexico – that’s the most efficient conversion of sunlight to electricity ever recorded.
There are ways to bring the conversion efficiency up even higher than that, and ways to decrease the production costs, but the subsidies so distort the market that innovation is stifled.