Blog
Bier family members—Dan and Jerry—blogged notable responses to Obama’s State of the Union energy policy recommendations this week. Over at Speak With Authority, Jerry (my uncle) points out that while the president mentioned “renewable” and “clean” energy, the president was light on details like the Department of Energy’s proposed volcano energy project in Oregon. Jerry writes, “Of all the recent ideas for developing new sources of energy, this volcano project is the one that sounds most like some junior high school boys pouring all the chemicals in the science lab into one beaker just to ‘see what will happen.’”
Earlier this week, Stimulus beneficiary Evergreen Energy bit the dust. Then, Ener1, a manufacturer of batteries for electric vehicles and recipient of Stimulus largesse, filed for bankruptcy. And today, the Las Vegas Sun reports that Amonix, Inc., a manufacturer of solar panels that received $5.9 million from the Porkulus, will cut two-thirds of its workforce, about 200 employees, only seven months after opening a factory in Nevada.
I foresaw this spate of bad news last November. As I explained yesterday,
In a previous post, I compared renewable energy spending in the 2009 Stimulus to a green albatross burdening the President. I argued that Stimulus spending was inherently wasteful, because politics invariably corrupts government’s investment decisions. The result is taxpayers losses on bankrupt companies that existed only by the grace of political favoritism, a la Solyndra. I predicted the green stimulus would haunt the President, in the form of a slow drip public relations nightmare, as a litany of bad investments go belly-up in the run up to the 2012 elections.
Mr. President, are you still sure you want to “double down” on renewable energy giveaways?
In January 2010, Ener1, a manufacturer of lithium-ion batteries for use in plug-in electric cars, received a $118.5 million Stimulus grant from the US Department of Energy. Today, it filed for bankruptcy. Their Chapter 11 filing lists around $100 million each in assets and debts and proposes a restructuring plan to reduce its debt and provide up to $81 million to recapitalize the company.
The bankruptcy follows in the footsteps of Solyndra ($535 million from the DOE), Beacon Power ($43 million from the DOE) and SpectraWatt ($500,000 from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), all government-subsidized green energy companies which collapsed within the last year.
Ener1 cites heavy competition from Asia, a rough economy, bad investments and the slowly developing electric car market for its failure. Even though Asia may have a cheaper workforce and more relaxed labor laws, the repeated failures of federally-backed green industry corporations—which according to CBS, will perhaps total 11 bankruptcies in the near future—is due to the Obama administration’s unrealistic insistence on creating a green energy industry out of subsidies, particularly when the demand for “green” products is virtually non-existent in the real marketplace.
At a hearing Wednesday morning, GOP members of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs opined that General Motors (GM) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) colluded to withhold information from the public about battery fires in the Chevy Volt, the plug-in hybrid car lavishly subsidized by the Obama administration as part of its bailout of the auto industry, the Washington Post reports.
NHTSA began to investigate the green car’s safety risk in June after a test car caught fire, but waited until November to inform the public. Subcommittee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) called the delay “deeply troubling,” particularly because the Government owns 26.5% of GM shares and an expanding market for electric vehicles is critical to the administration’s plan to raise fuel economy standards to 54.5 mpg.
“Strickland,” says the Post, “insisted there was no connection and said he had not been pressured by anyone from the administration on the investigation.” So why the delay?
Strickland said he would have gone public immediately if there were an imminent safety risk. He said it would have been irresponsible to tell people that something was wrong with the Volt while experts looked into the cause of the fire.
“I hear you. I don’t believe you,” said full Committee Chair Rep. Darrell E. Issa (R-Calif.). Issa has good reason to be skeptical. [click to continue…]
President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address hitched its wagon to the 99 percent. The speech was rife with populist rhetoric, of which the following is only one example:
We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.
This morning, less than 48 hours removed from his defense of the little guy, the President gave a speech in Nevada during which he championed…H.R. 1380, the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act (a.k.a., the NAT GAS Act, a.k.a., “The T. Boone Pickens Earmark Bill,” a.k.a., the “Pickens-Your-Pocket Boondoggle Bill”), legislation that was manufactured by billionaire T. Boone Pickens in order to make himself even richer. The bill would subsidize the use of natural gas as a fuel for the transportation sector, in particular for the trucking industry. Pickens is a gas tycoon, and it goes without saying that legislation to increase demand for gas is good for his bottom line.
By throwing his weight behind this Billionaire’s Bailout, President Obama exposed the vapidity of his SOTU commitment to an America where “everyone plays by the same rules.” The NAT GAS Act was written by billionaires, for billionaires.
In a previous post, I compared renewable energy spending in the 2009 Stimulus to a green albatross burdening the President. I argued that Stimulus spending was inherently wasteful, because politics invariably corrupts government’s investment decisions. The result is taxpayers losses on bankrupt companies that existed only by the grace of political favoritism, a la Solyndra. I predicted the green stimulus would haunt the President, in the form of a slow drip public relations nightmare, as a litany of bad investments go belly-up in the run up to the 2012 elections.
Earlier in the week, Stimulus beneficiary Evergreen Energy bit the dust. Today, Ener1, a manufacturer of batteries for electric vehicles and recipient of Stimulus largesse, filed for bankruptcy. As is noted by the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Bluey at The Foundry, the Obama Administration mistakenly deemed Ener1 a success a year ago.
Mr. President, are you still sure you want to “double down” on renewable energy giveaways?
During Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, President Barack Obama called for an “all of the above” energy policy. My colleague Dr. David Kreutzer, Research Fellow in Energy Economics and Climate Change at the Heritage Foundation, offers the following observation regarding the President’s pitch:
Obama’s version of “all of the above.”
Which energy policy is best?
a. Subsidize solar energy, wind energy, and biofuels
b. Mandate the consumption of solar energy, wind energy, and biofuel
c. All of the above
d. Allow markets to produce petroleum, natural gas, and coal at affordable prices
In Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy, Institute for Energy Research’s Robert Bradley points out that the global warming scare is really a response to long-forgotten scares of old. The Malthusian theory that mankind would exhaust their resources was debunked repeatedly, energy prices fell and production increased dramatically, outpacing all projections. Those who demanded the U.S. leave fossil fuels behind needed a new argument, and they found it with the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
Capitalism at Work was released in 2009
Measurements in 1957/58 first documented the increasing concentration of (CO2) in the atmosphere, portending a warming of the Earth’s surface by an enhanced greenhouse effect. This was a theoretical concern only. The worry of the 1970s was anthropogenic global cooling, a phenomenon linked to increasing sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from coal and oil combustion. Mankind’s energy emissions were culpable in either direction.
The global cooling trend that had begun in the 1940s changed into a warming trend by the late 1970s. As early as 1979, the Carter administration debated whether its proposed synthetic fuels program would increase global warming. Synfuel production and combustion was estimated to emit 40 percent more CO2 than directly burning coal to generate the same energy. Gus Speth, acting chairman of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality, and soon-to-be co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), warned Carter personally about the “very important and perhaps historic” scientific development.
Earlier today, a woman from South California found her Toyota Prius vandalized. A classic case of ‘who done it’? – more like what done it. Heather Patron claims that the energy efficient window installed in a neighbor’s condominium is melting the plastic parts of her car and other cars in her carport.
“I just don’t feel like it’s fair,” says Patron. “I feel like it needs to be known that this is happening. And a lot of people probably have damage out there, that they aren’t aware that it’s the windows that are causing this.”
What brought her to this cathartic conclusion? After Toyota assured her that there was nothing wrong with her Prius, Patron apparently observed a “powerful beam of light” that was reflecting off of the said window, emitting a beam on her carport.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
CEI.org