Obama: $12 billion new federal loan guarantees for renewables

solyndra_fail

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Obama administration has just announced $12 billion in new Federal loan guarantees for renewables businesses.

According to a Whitehouse press release;

FACT SHEET: President Obama Announces New Actions to Bring Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency to Households across the Country

President Obama is committed to taking responsible steps to address climate change, promote clean energy and energy efficiency, drive innovation, and ensure a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations. That is why at Senator Reid’s National Clean Energy Summit later today, he is announcing a robust set of executive actions and private sector commitments to accelerate America’s transition to cleaner sources of energy and ways to cut energy waste.

To continue to reinforce American leadership in deploying clean energy and cutting energy waste while creating jobs and reducing carbon pollution, the Administration is announcing the following actions:

Making $1 Billion in Additional Loan Guarantee Authority Available and Announcing New Guidelines for Distributed Energy Projects Utilizing Innovative Technology: Distributed Energy Projects are currently driving innovation and transforming U.S. energy markets. Technologies such as rooftop solar, energy storage, smart grid technology, and methane capture for oil and gas wells, solve key energy challenges. Catalyzing these technologies and demonstrating the viability of these markets would create economic opportunity, strengthen energy security, transform certain energy markets, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To accelerate the pace of innovation in distributed energy, the Department of Energy is:

Inviting Innovative Distributed Energy Projects to Apply to More Than $10 Billion in Current Loan Guarantees: The Department of Energy is supplementing its current loan guarantee solicitations to invite applications for Distributed Energy Projects. The current Solicitations, totaling more than $10 billion in loan guarantee authority, are now clearly unlocked to support scale up of Distributed Energy Projects utilizing innovative technology. Today’s announcement includes guidance from the Department on how a Distributed Energy Project transaction could be properly structured.

Making Available $1 Billion in Additional Loan Guarantee Authority for New, Innovative Projects: As part of its new push for Distributed Energy Projects utilizing innovative technology, the Department of Energy is providing up to $1 billion in additional loan guarantee authority through its current Solicitations for new Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Projects and Fossil Energy Projects. This significantly boosts the resources available to new applicants.

Read more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/24/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-new-actions-bring-renewable-energy

Federal renewable loan guarantee schemes have attracted significant criticism in the past, for example when Solyndra went spectacularly bust in 2012, a bankruptcy which cost US taxpayers $535 million in lost federal loan guarantees. Perhaps President Obama believes his administration has learned from that experience.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

120 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ScienceABC123
August 26, 2015 7:25 am

Progressives/leftists never admit their plans fail. They simply believe they didn’t try hard enough or with enough money.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

Hornblower
August 26, 2015 7:34 am

I read this site daily and agree with most. However, some of these comments are really silly. Please react to the points in the article and stop ranting about how the whole world is going to hell and its Obama or someone behind the scenes fault. I have lived a longlife and believe me the country is much better now than years ago.
Renewable energy is a good idea. There are good reasons to pursue it. One does not have to subscribe to Agw to see that it can be helpful in the future.

Reply to  Hornblower
August 26, 2015 9:51 am

Large scale, subsidized renewable energy is a terrible idea. If implemented it will drive up the cost of energy for everyone. That will affect the lower and mid income families the worst, as well as impacting businesses with a likely result of increased unemployment from layoffs.

Reply to  goldminor
August 26, 2015 10:43 am

I agree. Renewable energy is hugely expensive, and it requires massive taxpayer subsidies. But even that is not enough to support it. The “war on coal” has resulted in shutting down dozens of power plants, forcing electricity users to pay for whatever is available.
Coal power costs 6¢ – 9¢ a kwh. Alternative energy costs exceed 25¢/kwh.
This giant scam is based on the totally discredited idea that a rise in the trace gas CO2 from 3 parts in 10,000 to 4 parts in 10,000 over the past century is bad.
But there is no evidence whatever that more CO2 has caused any global harm – or any measurable global warming. In addition, agricultural productivity has tracked the rise in CO2. So the only evidence we have is that more CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
Mr. Hornblower says:
…believe me the country is much better now than years ago.
It is. But it would be in much better shape without the massive government interference caused by subsidizing expensive alternative energy, prematurely shutting down dozens of our power plants, and replacing them with very costly, unreliable alternatives.

Editor
Reply to  Hornblower
August 26, 2015 1:50 pm

I agree with goldminor and dbstealey. The push into “Renewables” is forcing up costs, stressing the grid, wrecking the environment, and – something its proponents are blind to – it is unsustainable. Why is it unsustainable? Because it requires such massive areas for so little generation. Instead of trying to force fossil fuels out before their time, people should recognise that fossil fuels have been so very effective and so very beneficial because of their high intensity (lots of power for little footprint). When replacements are needed, the best candidates are likely to be high intensity. Consider this : low-intensty sources like windmills and watermills have already been replaced by fossil fuels because of their low efficiency, and the “equations” that caused that still apply.
So what high-efficiency power source will replace fossil fuels? Well, it’s alway dangerous to try to force the ftuture, so the candidates should be left free to compete, but as things stand nuclear is an obvious candidate, and is already a measurably better option than “Renewables”. But note that new technologies have a habit of emerging when needed – the internal combustion engine is a good example – and there is no reason to suppose that human inventiveness will fail in future.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
August 26, 2015 2:35 pm

Mike J says:
…there is no reason to suppose that human inventiveness will fail in future.
Exactly right. The apparently unstoppable horse manure crisis in the 1890’s was solved completely by new petroleum technology, which also saved the Right whales from extinction .
The average horse defecates ≈9 tons of manure annually; that’s about 35 pounds of manure a day, plus up to 10 gallons of urine — all of which had to be picked up and carted away by an army of sanitation workers. Alarmist predictions were being made at the time that industry would grind to a halt. And 25% of agricultural output was required simply to feed all the horses.
The Erie Canal was built based on the argument that farms supplying big cities could not be farther than 200 miles away, since a horse being fed from the wagon of grain it is pulling will run out of food in 200 miles. (Canals tripled this distance, but they only lasted about ten years before railroad technology made canals obsolete.)
Human ingenuity will solve energy problems just like it solved pollution emissions from coal plants using by scrubbers. Now, the only emissions from those power plants are CO2 and H2O — both are beneficial, and necessary for all life on earth. Neither is pollution, despite EPA politics.
To the extent that government meddles in the economy, human inventiveness is smothered. Money is mis-allocated into inefficient and wasteful projects. Government subsidies make individual progress difficult because it allows subsidized companies to undercut the true costs of power generation. Unsubsidized products and inventions cannot compete, when $12 Billion is funnelled into competing power sources. The result is unreliable power at a very high cost to consumers. That is what’s going on now.
So why does it happen? The answer is obvious: a small minority of the population financially benefits at the expense of everyone else. That is the same basic problem with the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ scare. A small clique of rent seeking scientists, politicians and bureaucrats are sticking it to the public for their own self-serving interest.
I can almost not blame them. At least they have a reasonable motive, even if it is dishonest. What astonishes me are the legions of true believer lemmings; people who gain nothing, and who will lose money like the rest of us — and still they try to convince everyone that there is measurable MMGW, and that it’s a problem. They have no credible data, all they have is their quasi-religious belief. MMGW has become a matter of faith to them, and they proselytize endlessly.
At least they give my ocular muscles a workout, because every time I read a comment by one of them, I do a reflexive eye roll.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Mike Jonas
August 26, 2015 3:38 pm

It is a classic ruse to conflate energy with electricity.
Aside from the extraordinarily inefficient, intermittent, and unreliable transduction of wind and solar energies to electrons is the stupendously difficult task of storing those electrons. With a few billion in federal and state gifts, subsidies, land grabs … Elon Musk will not be able to save us. The entire annual output of the “gigafactory” if charged, might provide sufficient power to the US grid to provide us with 5 minutes of baseload needed electricity (assuming anything could draw down all the batteries that fast and direct it everywhere!) And then what?
I’m not saying Musk, and many others, shouldn’t engage real R & D on batteries, but going to giga production with one that won’t satisfy ain’t R & D. It sure tells us volumes about what is really going on though. Mass production of DOA wind technologies is equally as bad.
We can transport and store coal, gas, nuclear to make and ramp up electricity when and where needed, but one cannot pour electrons into a tank or a rail tanker. Nearly 100% of electricity used is generated immediately for that use. That is the nature of electricity supply and demand.
Well, perhaps not in 1850 where we are headed.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Hornblower
August 26, 2015 2:10 pm

If renewable energy is a good idea then let it succeed without taxpayer subsidies. If it does not pass that test, it is not ready for implementation. Sadly when we subsidize something we get more of it and build a political base that prevents the subsidies from ever ending.
It can only be helpful if it makes economic sense.

Hornblower
Reply to  Leonard Lane
August 26, 2015 2:19 pm

Actually, the transcontinental railroad was subsidized by the government. Sometimes goverment funding is a good idea.

Reply to  Leonard Lane
August 26, 2015 6:55 pm

Hornblower:
The primary “subsidy” for rail in the 1800’s was the granting of land next to rights of way. At the time, that cost nothing except for a small surveyor’s expense. There is no comparison whatever to the $Billions of taxpayer dollars currently being given away to cronies.
Furthermore, the railroads would have been built regardless. The demand was there, and businessmen like James J. Hill were getting rich building railroads without any government handouts.

Reply to  Hornblower
August 30, 2015 8:38 am

How can renewable energy save nature from fossil fuels when Green Energy industrializes nature with Wind that kills birds and Bats and vistas while needing fossil fueled backup energy? How does green energy help the poor by being 2-4x more expensive per KWh? Why does the Dems turn their backs on 4th gereation nuclear energy that is the least impacting on nature? Why do the Dems allow the teachers unions to kill off School vouchers and Charter Schools, while producing an illiterate underclass?

vounaki
August 26, 2015 7:36 am

Buying votes with BS and other people’s money.

Bruce Cobb
August 26, 2015 7:44 am

FACT CROCK O’ SHEET
There, fixed.

Resourceguy
August 26, 2015 8:03 am

Who pays the piper when interest rates rise on federal debt? Answer: Not the banana republic guy slinging billions from the podium.

Tim
August 26, 2015 8:17 am

“$1 Billion in Additional Loan Guarantee Authority for New, Innovative Projects”
(Suppressed possibilities might be a clue)

Man Bearpig
August 26, 2015 8:18 am
Hornblower
August 26, 2015 8:21 am

Banana republic guy? What does that mean.?

Resourceguy
Reply to  Hornblower
August 26, 2015 8:56 am
Reply to  Hornblower
August 26, 2015 7:00 pm

Hey, don’t insult banana republics with a comparison to a ‘community organizer’!

AllanJ
August 26, 2015 8:25 am

Eisenhower warned of the Military-Industrial complex in the 1950s. The problem has now morphed into a Big Government-Big Business complex. Climate Change, Immigration, Iran negotiations all fit into the model of big government supporting big business.
The idea of defined and distributed power has somehow gotten lost in the process.

Richmond
Reply to  AllanJ
August 26, 2015 2:50 pm

Eisenhower’s other warning is a better fit to the present situation regarding climate science:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields.
In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

August 26, 2015 8:33 am

Considering Solyndra was a big supporter of President Obama these gurantees are basically funnelling taxpayer money to the Democrats.

John F. Hultquist
August 26, 2015 8:37 am

One of the very-hard-to-know aspects of the defaults is what happens to the “assets” that remain after bankruptcy and reorganization. Land, machines, buildings and the like do not just vaporize. These are marked down and sold. A few years ago the same moneyed folks that started the corporation ended up with the assets. I do not remember if this story was about Solyndra or another company. The transactions happen long after the story is no longer news.

Sioned Lang
August 26, 2015 9:13 am

Someone asked where BO will get this money: check out the CEDA (clean energy developnent agency ?). It has an unlimited spending “budget” and little to no congressional oversight.

Resourceguy
Reply to  Sioned Lang
August 26, 2015 10:04 am

Which is the new trend in program and agency design by the way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau

john
August 26, 2015 9:55 am
Resourceguy
August 26, 2015 10:23 am

This new IG report on Solyndra sounds like the green version of the housing bubble and the subprime lending scams. Of course it lays the blame on the company execs and not enough on the due diligence of DoE. Now let’s see, who’s congressional district was this in?
http://www.pv-tech.org/news/solyndras_media_spin_used_to_get_us500_million_loan_us_doe_report

mwhite
August 26, 2015 10:39 am

“Brits to Force £2 Wind Power Outfits to Hold £Millions in Reserve to Pay Damages to Victims & for Decommissioning”
http://stopthesethings.com/2015/08/26/brits-to-force-2-wind-power-outfits-to-hold-millions-in-reserve-to-pay-damages-to-victims-for-decommissioning/
” David Davis MP recently introduced a Bill in UK’s Parliament which will allow Britons to enforce judgments against wind power outfits; and which will ensure the removal of these things when they grind to an inevitable halt within the next decade or so”
Hope it passes.

Say What?
Reply to  mwhite
August 26, 2015 10:41 am

When they stop – will they remove the eyesores?

Resourceguy
Reply to  mwhite
August 26, 2015 12:45 pm

Wow, decommissioning. We don’t even talk of the concept in the U.S. wind giveaway program.

Say What?
August 26, 2015 10:40 am

Look at Ontario. The government paid others to come in and increase the cost of electricity. Any surplus (a sunny or windy day) gets sold to the US for well below cost. You see, they guaranteed a price to Samsung for their windmill farms. Renewable energy sucks!

Resourceguy
August 26, 2015 10:57 am

The fraudster-in-chief is not averse to going back to the well even as the IG report comes out on Solyndra. There is no remorse from gangsters either.

Hornblower
Reply to  Resourceguy
August 26, 2015 11:18 am

Renewable energy will certainly be used greatly in the future. We are in its early stages. Experimentation requires financial support. I dont mind the government helping. I think the father of this board supports it as well.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Hornblower
August 26, 2015 11:56 am

“Experimentation”? Give me a break. Outright thievery, and for something there is no reason to believe “will be used greatly” in the future.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Hornblower
August 26, 2015 12:35 pm

Hornblower:
You claim renewables are in their “early stages”. I presume that includes solar? Well, it just so happens that the solar panel was actually invented in 1954:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/solar_timeline.pdf. I’ll do the math for you — that’s 61 years. I don’t think one can say that something that has been around for 61 years is in its “early stages”.
So the solar PV panel is probably about as old as nuclear technology is in this country, and nuclear has been providing 20% of our electrical energy needs for some time now (although that number is now slipping a bit because of the shutdown of some nuclear plants).
So how much energy has solar been providing us with? If you check with the federal government’s Energy Information Agency, you will find solar provides about 0.4% of our electrical energy as of March of this year. Why is this still the case? Because solar is a lousy energy source — it is low density, diffuse, intermittent and unreliable.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3. So we have 20% versus 0.4% for two energy technologies that are roughly the same age — even with all the govt support that solar has been getting for — what — how many years now?
And how long have windmills been used down on the farm? A century, or more? Yet wind only provides 4.4% of our electricity today according to the EIA.
Might I suggest you check your facts before making claims about renewables — or anything else for that matter.

Resourceguy
Reply to  Hornblower
August 26, 2015 12:43 pm

Hey, you do get points for word choice in deflecting the hard questions like fraud and illegal activity. But that does not work in the real world with auditors and the FBI. It does work in DC much of time though. There is no excuse for covering it up now and doing more of it with taxpayer funds in a double down bet. Let’s see now, which Senator sponsored the bill to be able to fire IG inspectors?

Resourceguy
Reply to  Hornblower
August 26, 2015 12:50 pm

For whom the Hornblower blows?

Resourceguy
Reply to  Hornblower
August 26, 2015 2:00 pm

Housing loan scams with subprime mortgages was fraud, not experimentation. The same applies to misrepresentation of packaged subprime loans for investment purposes. There have been many convictions and court settlements since then.

Editor
Reply to  Hornblower
August 26, 2015 2:01 pm

Renewable energy is certainly not in its early stages – and many years ago it was replaced by higher-intensity energy sources. Expect high-intensity power sources, not renewables, to replace fossil fuels in due course.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Hornblower
August 26, 2015 2:17 pm

If you believe this, why don’t you lead by example and support renewables out of your own pocket. Why do the taxpayers always have to supports someone’s “good idea”?

F. Ross
August 26, 2015 11:16 am

WH Fool-in-Chief acts like money was printed on paper…
…uhhh wait a minute now.

Resourceguy
August 26, 2015 11:20 am

Note the protection racket to shield the current administration by only mentioning the loan program as originally setup by the Bush Administration with no mention of who abused it later. The same technique is routinely applied to the ethanol scam, as though everything bad that happens in public policy is from an auto pilot mistake.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/report-solyndra-misrepresented-facts-loan-guarantee-33331079
http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/08/26/report-solyndra-misrepresented-facts-to-get-loan-guarantee
http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Report-Solyndra-misrepresented-facts-to-get-loan-6466556.php

August 26, 2015 11:33 am

Great. Spend more money you haven’t got on something you don’t need. Just like a single mother on benefits, in debt, buying another tattoo.

indefatigablefrog
August 26, 2015 12:21 pm

Back in the 1927 the basic principle behind the design of the first commercially available wind turbine was to fit blades to a directly driven generator unit.
During my lifetime, I have constantly encountered schemes and dreams that would radically change the design of turbine from this basic horizontal axis fan principle.
Meanwhile, what has happened is that the same design principle has been scaled up.
Geared drive systems and blade pitch controls have been introduced.
BUT – how much money has been spent along the way on all the radical new designs that are constantly being unveiled and sucking in investor money and govt. subsidies?
I’m not the only person making this point. See link – recommended.
http://www.gizmag.com/dodgy-wind-turbines/27876/

Resourceguy
August 26, 2015 12:48 pm

Is there a mathematical relationship between the number of days left in office and the amount of wasted taxpayer funds to be thrown to the wind?

Reply to  Resourceguy
August 26, 2015 2:03 pm

Seems to be inversely proportional, doesn’t it?
Now, if we had a real opposition party, this could be blocked, or at least reined in. But $12 Billion is irresistable to both parties, and to heck with the taxpayers who are expected to fund this inefficient, expensive nonsense.

August 26, 2015 2:01 pm

Not only is ‘clean’ energy not very clean, but it would not even exist for the most part without massive gov’t support:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/08/24/clean-energy-summit-promotes-gruesome-bird-and-bat-kills
Government “Summits” were never necessary for electrifying the entire nation. But they are necessary to fund this bureaucratic/big business rent seeking.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  dbstealey
August 27, 2015 7:55 am

Spot-on! And perhaps if this subsidy was for perfecting molten salt reactors we would be on our way to the next cheap, reliable and eco-friendly energy platform, while developing cleaner coal tech to bring affluence to the remaining undeveloped world. Global population would inevitably begin to drop, and more educated and inspired individuals would join the ‘brain pool’ of humanity, who otherwise would have just existed and reproduced uncontrollably.
An bright and optimistic future is only a few key decisions away. So is a dark and despotic one.

Hornblower
August 26, 2015 2:26 pm

Wisconson, tv was invented in the 1920’s but not common until the fifties. A few solar panals in the 50’s hardly represent a trend. Renewable energy will be around long after we are. It makes sense to pursue it.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Hornblower
August 26, 2015 4:44 pm

Hornblower:
First of all, the cathode ray tube was invented and commercialized in 1922, according to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television. If I recall correctly, the first commercial TVs for homes appeared in 1948 or 1949. That is only 26-27 years, and its development was probably interrupted by WWII. So you can probably take about 4-5 years off of that development time. That is significantly less time than the development of solar panels has taken.
Second, I don’t think you fully understood the reasons WHY solar panels have been going close to nowhere for 61 years despite the big push in recent decades. I told you that solar is a low density and diffuse energy source. I am not a scientist, but I understand that any energy source that is low density has a POOR energy content. That matters. And it is a diffuse energy source that is spread out making it difficult to collect and concentrate for effective use in one place, making its limitations worse yet. That also matters. And those issues are just for starters. Wind has issues that place it in the same camp as solar on top of the bird life it kills. Fossil fuels have a significantly higher energy density and nuclear fuels (especially thorium) higher yet, if I am not mistaken.
Hornblower, for our purposes here, it does not matter how much longer humanity will be here on Earth. Yes, we will run out of fossil fuels someday if we do not find the technological replacements for them in time. That however has nothing to do with the physics that make wind and solar poor choices for our energy needs. Having Obama throw another $12 billion at them isn’t going to change that. Wind and solar are BIG steps backwards because of their physical limitations and inferiority, and humanity has always sought to move in the opposite direction.
Thorium is an example of a nuclear fuel which has an incredible energy density that leaves wind and solar VERY far behind in the dust. I am told that it is the most energy dense material on this planet. Its supporters say that we have enough of it just here in the US to last far, far longer than fossil fuels, probably into the next century. That is how humanity moves forward with its energy requirements instead of backwards. Nuclear power is superior in many ways to fossil fuels, and it is the ONLY technology we currently have that can replace our fossil fuel power plants for the reasons I have explained here.
And you can take that to the bank.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 26, 2015 4:52 pm

….my comment above should have said that thorium could take us into the next millenium, rather saying into the next century.

Gamecock
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
August 26, 2015 6:39 pm

I’m looking forward to the ride into the next millenium. Wait . . . what?

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Hornblower
August 27, 2015 8:20 am

If it makes sense to pursue, it will not need to be government subsidized. All practical inventions reach the market when they become profitable for the private sector to manufacture. This will happen for the next generation of nuclear power probably before the present failing attempts at grid generation through the intermittent sources of sun and wind are scrapped. We have shown that they are useful generation for point of use (e.g. highway warnings, electric livestock fencing, remote dwellings, etc. in small installations which have no negative impact on the ecology. Large installations and commercial grid supply are ecologically impractical to the point of absurdity. This is presently being ignored by policymakers who are jumping on the cash wagon for themselves.

Reply to  Hornblower
August 30, 2015 8:52 am
Hornblower
August 26, 2015 2:30 pm

Resourse, I’ll leave you to the low rent talk show rhetoric you seem so fond of. You give this useful site a bad name.

Resourceguy
Reply to  Hornblower
August 27, 2015 6:44 am

Which words offend you? Is it FBI, IG investigation, or auditors?