Clean Tech Could Come Crashing Down

[msirach]

Federal Support to Nearly Evaporate

Ken Silverstein - ENERGYBIZ - April 19, 2012

Will another round of "welfare" be enacted? --Ed.

Clean tech could come crashing down. That’s what some heavy hitters are saying, noting that if the level of federal subsidies given to such enterprises takes a precipitous fall then it will also bring down some of tomorrow’s companies.

Several clean technology enterprises have grown nicely: Renewable electricity generation doubled from 2006 to 2011, say the think tanks that authored the report called “Beyond Boom and Bust.” Wind and solar equipment prices fell, enabling those energies to make headway into the market. Other entities also grew and include advanced batteries and vehicles. Altogether, employment in the clean tech sector jumped by 12 percent from 2007 to 2010, adding 70,000 jobs.

Now, many of the federal programs that have given life to such businesses will expire, or be significantly curtailed. And while some programs may get renewed, the uncertainty is building. “Without timely and targeted policy reform, several sectors are likely to experience more bankruptcies, consolidations, and market contraction,” say the Breakthrough Institute, Brookings Institution and World Resources Institute.

The authors are trying to convey that this is not the time to mourn, or celebrate. But it is the moment to rethink America’s energy policy and to more constructively channel its outlays. It’s about accelerating technological progress and more effectively spending taxpayer resources.

According to the authors, the U.S. federal government will spend more than $150 billion on clean tech from 2009 until 2014. The federal awards provided during this time are three-times the levels given during the previous six years. Of the $150 billion, about $44 billion is the result of the 2009 federal stimulus. ... [Read More]

[herm]

It will be one of the consequences of electing a businessman to the top job.. its worth a try.

[herm]

I was thinking that John Slattery (Roger Sterling from Mad Men) should play Biden in the upcoming movie.. what do you guys think?

Love the cars in that series.

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

It's a common consequence of politics, where short-termism rules. One side invests and the others cut it off according to the wind of public opinion.

Proper policy budgets for a tapering decline in support to match expected cost-reductions. Fast cut-offs favor the teat-suckers over those in it for the long term.

[Kurz]

Thats why research and development should be left up to private industry.
They are farther removed from the influences from the world of politics, and are founded in real world of actual supply and demand.

Even if it takes longer to develop technology its going to have a solid foundation.

[ALS]

I don't have a problem with public money be used to fund orphan industries but there needs to be a point where they need to be weened off the Government teet as they say. If after say three years if they haven't made any break throughs or profits kick them to the curb.

There also needs to be limits on executive pay and perks when these companies accept public money. We don't need political contributors becoming millionaires on the public buck, then filing bankrupting for the company after they have filled their pockets with our tax dollars.

The problem with Solyndra was, it was never going to work in the first place, the fixed over head costs made it an impossible endeavor.

[southerncannuck]

It’s impossible to argue for leaving future energy paths to the whims of the private sector without noticing the incredible support that oil gets from the treasury. How much is the Fifth Fleet costing these days?

[lightfoot]

Originally Posted by Kurz

They are farther removed from the influences from the world of politics, and are founded in real world of actual supply and demand.

Actually, "in the surreal world of quarterly reports, share prices, and executive compensation".

And these days private industry is tightly intertwined with politics.

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Originally Posted by Kurz

Thats why research and development should be left up to private industry.
They are farther removed from the influences from the world of politics, and are founded in real world of actual supply and demand.

Even if it takes longer to develop technology its going to have a solid foundation.

Although there's a lobbying issue, the fundamental reason not to leave everything to the private sector is that they are amoral and profit-driven.

Society LLC can't relocate.
Society LLC can't fire workers.
If Society LLC sells more sugary and fatty foods its profits decrease.
If Society LLC sells more SUVs its profits decrease.
If Society LLC reduces its spending on training and hires more outside workers long-term profits decrease.
(I could go on.)

For Society LLC to maximize profits it can't act like most companies. Sure, the board shouldn't get in the way of its smart employees, waste money on wild goose chases or develop loss-making products, but it has more to consider in calculating profit and loss and it has to think in much longer term than most companies.

[herm]

Originally Posted by southerncannuck

It’s impossible to argue for leaving future energy paths to the whims of the private sector without noticing the incredible support that oil gets from the treasury. How much is the Fifth Fleet costing these days?

Read this article on the $4.5B oil subsidies, you will be surprised where the money is going.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/...oil-subsidies/

"Survey Says…

If you were to survey people and ask the question “Should we subsidize oil companies?” — the overwhelming majority would undoubtedly respond “No!” The notion that we are subsidizing oil companies generates outrage in many people, but in this article I will show why these subsidies aren’t going to go away any time soon. The reason may surprise you."