Power Generation and Distribution Blog

I can think of a few automobile manufacturers whose failures set back and at the same time advanced the industry.

It's easier to learn from others' mistakes.

It's much cheaper, too.

What the Solyndra failure pointed out to me is how government subsidies distort the market. As long as government money is easy to come by, everyone flies high, whether the business is economically feasible or not.

GA cwarner7 11.

The governments involvement takes the free market out of the equation and distorts the impact of natural market forces. If an industry can't make it on it's own it shouldn't survive. They have to have a viable product, that consumers want, at a price they can afford and they see value in. If those factors aren't met the business should fail.

There are countless instances in history where the governments involvement exacerbated conditions and made them worse for almost everyone except for maybe a few elite insiders.

The statement of "any news being better than no news" doesn't apply here. Skepticsm and lack of trust doesn't usually bring good results.

My understanding is that the federal government subsidizes both alternative energy and fossil fuels. The subsidies to the fossil fuel industry (a mature industry) are considerably larger than those for alternatives. Out of the $30B or so that the current administration has provided to alternatives, the $0.5B lost with Solyndra is less than 2%. If the rest of these 'investments' (or most of them) also fail then we'll be in a position to judge.

But the argument that alternatives should be able to compete on their own merits with the subsidized fossil fuel market is absolute nonsense. If the direct subsidies to fossil fuel industry are eliminated, if they are required to pay for the pollution their products cause, and raise their own private armies and navies to keep the supply lines open, we will have a free market for energy and the buyers can make rational decisions about which one to buy.

Don't forget the add the impact of gasohol to the subsidies. It's pretty significant...and yet seems doomed to stagnation or failure.

For the record, I am as adamantly opposed to subsidies for existing industries as I am to subsidies for non-existent industries.

Where do these subsidies come from? Our tax dollars (or Bernacke's printing presses, depending on your perspective).

Would you rather pay directly to the producer a fair market price, or would you rather give your money to the government, and let the government decide how it should be doled out?

Another point to ponder: Solar and wind technologies are NOT direct competitors with Big Oil. Most of the petroleum production goes to the transportation sector, not power generation. Solar and wind technology compete more directly with coal (but that is also a heavily subsidized industry, which shouldn't be).

Please describe the subsidies that are specific to fossil fuels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

I don't consider an article that includes the disclaimer "this article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information." worthwhile.

you should do your own research

offer something that proves your point, [if you can]

here some discussion from the EIA

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/index.html

the exact numbers depend on who is citing them & what they are trying to prove

there is no disagreement that subsidies for fossil fuels exist

Really? Johnfotl made a statement, I ask him to site a reference to verify his claim, you hijack the post and give me a reference the site owner states has unsupportable data. Then you give a reference from the very entity that has given 3 subsidies to alternative energy sources that have gone belly up. (I am perusing the site, so far I've seen nothing about fossil specific subsidies.)

No sir, it is up to you to provide references for your claims. Are you next going to ask me to prove Darwinism by siting the Old Testament?

I can't offer any proof, as there are no fossil fuel specific subsidies. I learned in 10th grade math a long time ago, that you can't prove a negative. That may or may not be true in your alternative reality.

Subsidies exist for all forms of energy production, that is not the question.

John never said a word about any subsidies exclusive [you did] to fossil fuels, go back & read

discounting or otherwise foregoing the lease fees for drilling for oil or digging for coal, would meet the definition of subsidies exclusive to fossil fuels, this is mentioned on many links revealed on a simple search

this is not asking you to prove a negative

here have another link or 2

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/business/global/cost-of-subsidizing-fossil-fuels-is-high-but-cutting-them-is-tough.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-09/fossil-fuels-got-more-aid-than-clean-energy-iea.html

I think it's fine for government to invest in research into certain technologies, which typically takes place at universities.

Any businesses that stem from those technologies.................................you're on your own. Government has no business in business.

I agree with you- no problem with the government supporting research (DARPA, NASA come to mind), especially in areas where the benefits are promising and the commerical potential too far out in the future to attract businesses. I have no problem with the government contributing to alternative energy research. However, if public funds pay for it, the results ought to be in the public domain.

Busiensses that decide to commercialize a product or service should most definitely be on their own.

If it's a feasible idea, they won't be on their own for long. Private investment will find them.

It's time for the government to stop financing an agenda. It's not working.

Back to the original blog:

The answer is no. Solyndra did not set the solar industry back.

Through Solyndra, the US government attempted to artificially propel the solar industry forward. It failed.

The US government needs to stop placing agenda based bets with other people's money. Those of us that have to work for it, are getting tired of seeing our money being flushed down a rathole.

This is not complicated.