The Truth About Solyndra

[waldo]

**yawn**

In any case, Solyndra is a tiny fraction of DOE's green-energy loan program, and

Solyndra's loan guarantees are dwarfed by those of both fossil fuel and nuclear companies

, which range into the multiple billions. There was no scandal in the loan process, and there's nothing unusual about having a certain fraction of speculative programs like this fail. It's all part of the way the free market works.

[Shady]

**yawn**

Excuses, excuses.

At least the oil and gas industry produces energy we can actually use, and produces revenues which are taxed, and produce good paying jobs. Your so-called green energy crap takes in more money than it generates, and barely produces any usable energy. And the jobs they provide, as we've seen with Solyndra, and others, are temporary as soon as the government nipple runs dry.

[waldo]

Excuses, excuses.

At least the oil and gas industry produces energy we can actually use, and produces revenues which are taxed, and produce good paying jobs. Your so-called green energy crap takes in more money than it generates, and barely produces any usable energy. And the jobs they provide, as we've seen with Solyndra, and others, are temporary as soon as the government nipple runs dry.

hey lil' buddy... it's called sustainable for a reason! It's a shame that ole peak oil thingee keeps staring you in the face, hey? What's that? Not in your lifetime, you say? That's right, Shady... keep your blinders on, keep living for yourself, living for 'generation today'! In any case, for you, this issue has nothing to do with sustainable alternatives versus fossil fuels - this is simply another means for you to presume to target Obama. It's what you do, it's what you're about - nothing more, nothing less.

[Shady]

hey lil' buddy... it's called sustainable for a reason! It's a shame that ole peak oil thingee keeps staring you in the face, hey?

More of that peak oil thing huh? Haven't alarmists like you been talking about peak oil for like 50 years. Yet, more and more new oil is found all the time. And that doesn't even count the huge deposits of natural gas that can be used in oil's place.

But yes, your green energy crap would be sustainable if our economy was a tenth of the size it currently is. Fortunately it isn't. All though you alarmist types are working hard to make us that way!

[waldo]

More of that peak oil thing huh? Haven't alarmists like you been talking about peak oil for like 50 years. Yet, more and more new oil is found all the time. And that doesn't even count the huge deposits of natural gas that can be used in oil's place.

But yes, your green energy crap would be sustainable if our economy was a tenth of the size it currently is. Fortunately it isn't. All though you alarmist types are working hard to make us that way!

right! And nothing says peak oil more than bitumen/tarsands extraction Clearly, your ilk look to the glory that is oil/gas fracturing - notwithstanding that its complexities, resulting devastation/impacts and huge costs make the tarsands effort look inconsequential. Clearly, your ilk would sooner 'suck it dry', at whatever costs/impacts, then entertain and work within... and towards... extended and expanded sustainable deployments.

[Shady]

right! And nothing says peak oil more than bitumen/tarsands extraction Clearly, your ilk look to the glory that is oil/gas fracturing - notwithstanding that its complexities, resulting devastation/impacts and huge costs make the tarsands effort look inconsequential. Clearly, your ilk would sooner 'suck it dry', at whatever costs/impacts, then entertain and work within... and towards... extended and expanded sustainable deployments.

Clearly you're unaware of several new large oil discoveries this year. And over the past several years. And I noticed you passed on the whole natural gas thing. Whatever fits your narrative I guess. And what makes projects like the tarsands economical, is the price of oil, which has more to do with more economies using it, like India and China. And the fact like alarmists like yourself continue to fight to prevent us from exploring and using oil reserves that we have. When demand goes up, and supply is artifically choked off by the no-growth, flat-earthers like yourself, the price will rise.

[Pliny]

while China's eating the U.S.' lunch (well... everybody's lunch), where are all the trumped up Conservative/GOP, ahem... "job creators"!

NYT: The Phony Solyndra Scandal

But if we could just stop playing gotcha for a second, we might realize that federal loan programs — especially loans for innovative energy technologies — virtually require the government to take risks the private sector won’t take.

The government must take risks the private sector won't? Your assessment falls short.

The government wants to engineer the direction of what it considers acceptable innovative energy technologies complete with it's regulatory parameters and at the expense of what may be real innovative energy technologies.

The phony Solyndra scandal? Who sends you all this crap, waldo? You certainly can't dig it all up yourself?

[waldo]

Clearly you're unaware of several new large oil discoveries this year. And over the past several years. And I noticed you passed on the whole natural gas thing. Whatever fits your narrative I guess. And what makes projects like the tarsands economical, is the price of oil, which has more to do with more economies using it, like India and China. And the fact like alarmists like yourself continue to fight to prevent us from exploring and using oil reserves that we have. When demand goes up, and supply is artifically choked off by the no-growth, flat-earthers like yourself, the price will rise.

I'm not particularly interested in your puffed up claims of oil discovery... unless you're prepared to equate discovery to reserves and flow through. More to the point, unless you're prepared to qualify your claims in the context of well publicized and acknowledged peak oil analysis/estimates, you're just blowing more hot air. In any case, throwing out the peak-oil reference is simply a means to an end... to highlight there is an eventual closed tap, regardless of your next great 'discovery'. Like I said, nothing highlights peak-oil more than the costly/intensive extractions from tarsands/shale.

as for your presumed unqualified fall-back to natural gas, I'm equally not interested in that alternative; one that would, in the short-term, intensify a climate change impact in switching from coal... natural gas is not a preferred 'bridge fuel' towards sustainable deployments.

clearly, technologies exist today to begin a more forceful, more concentrated effort towards extensive sustainable deployments... you simply prefer to ignore that alternative in favour of extending upon your/a preferred BAU fossil-fuel dependency. The flat-earther you speak to, the dinosaur you infer... is yourself.

[waldo]

The government must take risks the private sector won't? Your assessment falls short.

The government wants to engineer the direction of what it considers acceptable innovative energy technologies complete with it's regulatory parameters and at the expense of what may be real innovative energy technologies.

your assessment of my inferred assessment of the actual assessment... falls short.

The phony Solyndra scandal? Who sends you all this crap, waldo? You certainly can't dig it all up yourself?

Pliny... quit stalking me - your puny efforts to extract my 'motivations/interest' will not prevail... I am inveeencible to the feeble, probative Pliny!

[Shady]

clearly, technologies exist today to begin a more forceful, more concentrated effort towards extensive sustainable deployments... you simply prefer to ignore that alternative in favour of extending upon your/a preferred BAU fossil-fuel dependency. The flat-earther you speak to, the dinosaur you infer... is yourself.

Oh clearly the technology exists. Solyndra proved that point right?

I mean, the technology is so great, that they went out of business, even with $500 million dollars handed to them free of charge. And the vast amount of energy they produced is almost incalculable, right?

Edited September 28, 2011 by Shady

[GostHacked]

I'm not particularly interested in your puffed up claims of oil discovery... unless you're prepared to equate discovery to reserves and flow through. More to the point, unless you're prepared to qualify your claims in the context of well publicized and acknowledged peak oil analysis/estimates, you're just blowing more hot air. In any case, throwing out the peak-oil reference is simply a means to an end... to highlight there is an eventual closed tap, regardless of your next great 'discovery'. Like I said, nothing highlights peak-oil more than the costly/intensive extractions from tarsands/shale.

The tar sands is a drop in the bucket to what is out there globally. No new refineries have been build in north America in the last couple decades. The oil is there, the refinement capacity is not, which also helps moderate the price of oil in the favour of those companies dealing in oil.

clearly, technologies exist today to begin a more forceful, more concentrated effort towards extensive sustainable deployments... you simply prefer to ignore that alternative in favour of extending upon your/a preferred BAU fossil-fuel dependency. The flat-earther you speak to, the dinosaur you infer... is yourself.

Yes technologies do exist to a more sustainable future. But once that is in place and people are self sustainable, those energy companies are going to lose money. So keeping the current racket going as long as they can only benefits them in the end.

[Shady]

Yes technologies do exist to a more sustainable future. But once that is in place and people are self sustainable, those energy companies are going to lose money. So keeping the current racket going as long as they can only benefits them in the end.

How is the legitimate business operations of an energy company equal to a so-called racket? So a company that explores and extracts oil and or natural gas is a racket in what way?

[waldo]

clearly, technologies exist today to begin a more forceful, more concentrated effort towards extensive sustainable deployments... you simply prefer to ignore that alternative in favour of extending upon your/a preferred BAU fossil-fuel dependency. The flat-earther you speak to, the dinosaur you infer... is yourself.

Oh clearly the technology exists. Solyndra proved that point right?

I mean, the technology is so great, that they went out of business, even with $500 million dollars handed to them free of charge. And the vast amount of energy they produced is almost incalculable, right?

are you that dense to ignore one of the principle reasons behind the Solyndra bankruptcy? Do you not even read the links you put up? Sorry, dumb question - of course you don't... see China... see China investing heavily in solar... see China solar manufacturing undercutting Solyndra... see Solyndra bankruptcy.

here, chew on this recent announcement: Calling for world leaders to reach a global commitment to emissions reduction and energy efficiency at the upcoming December COP17 Durban climate change talks, 11 signatory Mechanical Engineering organizations state:

We have the technology to slash global emissions, say engineers

“While the world’s politicians have been locked in talks with no output, engineers across the globe have been busy developing technologies that can bring down emissions and help create a more stable future for the planet.

“We are now overdue for government commitment, with ambitious, concrete emissions targets that give the right signals to industry, so they can be rolled out on a global scale.”

The statement calls for:

- A global commitment at Durban to a peak in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, followed by substantial reductions by 2050;

- Governments to ensure that green policies do not unfairly and unintentionally act to the detriment of one particular industry or country;

- Intensive effort to train and retrain workforces to ensure we have the right skills for the new industries that will spring up around green technologies;

- A heavier emphasis to be placed on boosting energy efficiency, which is the best available measure to bring down emissions in the short and medium term.

[waldo]

The tar sands is a drop in the bucket to what is out there globally. No new refineries have been build in north America in the last couple decades. The oil is there, the refinement capacity is not, which also helps moderate the price of oil in the favour of those companies dealing in oil.

no - bitumen extraction is a recognized signature of peak oil. You clearly didn't follow the recent XL pipeline thread where another MLW member attempted to make this same claim about 'no new refineries' being built in North America. Effectively, that decision reflects entirely on BigOil's decision to recognize it's own best financial interests in not building new refineries - part of a strategic analysis that recognizes the projections against continued (relatively) longer-term fossil fuel reliance. Whether oil exists or not, the effective equivalency to 23 new refineries has been built in the time frame you mention - built via expansion and additions to existing refineries in the U.S..

[Shady]

Effectively, that decision reflects entirely on BigOil's decision to recognize it's own best financial interests in not building new refineries

Effectively that's a lie. That decision has been made by governments, in conjunction from pressure by the no-growth, flat-earth environmentalist alarmists that won't allow new refineries to be built. In other words, people like you.

[Wild Bill]

no - bitumen extraction is a recognized signature of peak oil. You clearly didn't follow the recent XL pipeline thread where another MLW member attempted to make this same claim about 'no new refineries' being built in North America. Effectively, that decision reflects entirely on BigOil's decision to recognize it's own best financial interests in not building new refineries - part of a strategic analysis that recognizes the projections against continued (relatively) longer-term fossil fuel reliance. Whether oil exists or not, the effective equivalency to 23 new refineries has been built in the time frame you mention - built via expansion and additions to existing refineries in the U.S..

Waldo, it seems to me that the private sector stopped building refineries about the same time as governments instituted new "green" laws that drove the cost of construction up far beyond costs in other countries. We used to have a large refinery in Oakville owned by PetroCanada that was closed in the 90's, since refurbishing and overhauling would have made it subject to the new regulations.

Is it fair to ignore the political factor? If governments truly were in the oil market to protect "the little guy", which was the public justification for the Liberals to buy up all those private companies at prices top secret to this day to form PetroCan, shouldn't we expect them to build some refineries as a lever against private sector gouging?

So many people today are so quick to vilify Conrad Black yet they have never even heard of Maurice Strong!

Remember, please be civil! As I said before, I respect your knowledge and truly would appreciate your answer. Just not if I have to pay for it in "crankiness"! :angry:

Edited September 28, 2011 by Wild Bill

[waldo]

No new refineries have been build in north America in the last couple decades.

Effectively, that decision reflects entirely on BigOil's decision to recognize it's own best financial interests in not building new refineries - part of a strategic analysis that recognizes the projections against continued (relatively) longer-term fossil fuel reliance.

Effectively that's a lie. That decision has been made by governments, in conjunction from pressure by the no-growth, flat-earth environmentalist alarmists that won't allow new refineries to be built. In other words, people like you.

in your pubescent, juvenile best, you are forever trotting out charges of lying - calling other MLW members liars. I'd suggest you cool your accusatory jets:

Wall Street Journal

:

Exxon Mobil Corp. says it believes that, by 2030, hybrid gasoline-and-electric cars and light trucks will account for nearly 30% of new-vehicle sales in the U.S. and Canada. That surge is part of a broader shift toward fuel efficiency that Exxon thinks will cause fuel consumption by North American cars and light trucks to peak around 2020 -- and then start to fall.

"

For that reason, we wouldn't build a grassroots refinery" in the U.S., Rex Tillerson, Exxon's chairman and chief executive, said in a recent interview. Exxon has continued to expand the capacity of its existing refineries. But building a new refinery from scratch, Exxon believes, would be bad for long-term business

say what! No new refineries cause it would be bad for the BigOil bottom line...

... notwithstanding the regulatory framework most certainly didn't preclude BigOil from perusing the equivalency of 23 new refineries being built, alternatively in the form of upgrades/expansion to existing refineries... a point most clearly articulated by the BigOil chairman and chief executive in the aforementioned WSJ Journal article/link.

...

increased capacity through expansion of existing plants

?

Moreover, since 1985, when refinery capacity hit a low of 14.7 million barrels per day, we've seen over three million barrels of capacity added, or the equivalent to 23 average modern day facilities. A stark contrast to the misleading tidbit about having no new refineries built since the 1970's.

So while we haven't seen new refineries open in new locations, we have virtually added the capacity of 23 of today's average size facilities

.

[waldo]

Waldo, it seems to me that the private sector stopped building refineries about the same time as governments instituted new "green" laws that drove the cost of construction up far beyond costs in other countries. We used to have a large refinery in Oakville owned by PetroCanada that was closed in the 90's, since refurbishing and overhauling would have made it subject to the new regulations.

no - see the preceding post... the regulatory framework didn't preclude the building of an effective equivalency to 23 new refineries - same regulatory makeup whether new or expansion/addition.

[Wild Bill]

no - see the preceding post... the regulatory framework didn't preclude the building of an effective equivalency to 23 new refineries - same regulatory makeup whether new or expansion/addition.

Ah, I believe I see your point. You're saying that even though the expansion of refinery capacity was all in the States it still doesn't matter as long as we can hold out for another 20 years, at which time the predicted increase in electric vehicles will drop the need for gasoline to a point within our refinery capacity.

You're probably right! Still, I was hoping for some relief for myself before I die. Your scenario means that refining will still remain a convenient bottleneck to justify higher prices - a disconnect from too close a link between the cost of crude and the pump price. Also, by the time we hit 2030 many of those refineries will be a lot older and may be closed rather than rebuilt and forced to be brought up to the new standards.

So those of us still running on gas will pay through the nose and those of us using electricity will likely be in the same boat, thanks to McGuinty.

Gee, isn't it great to be Canadian? It always seems to mean fresh air, the cry of a loon on a lake and a big coffee table book by Pierre Burton that was subsidized by our taxes.

It never means that we get a break on the roof over our head, the cost of our food or of the goods we must buy!

Hell, even the keystones of our identity are expensive as hell! Have you priced Canadian Maple Syrup in the grocery store lately?

Not meaning to thread drift but it seems that being Canadian really means just to pay more! Gasoline is one good example.

[jbg]

Pliny... quit stalking me - your puny efforts to extract my 'motivations/interest' will not prevail... I am inveeencible to the feeble, probative Pliny!

You just paid Pliny a compliment.

Definition (link) of PROBATIVE

1: serving to test or try : exploratory

2: serving to prove : substantiating

Examples of PROBATIVE

<no dearth of probative evidence for the theory of evolution>

Learn at least one of Canada's official languages, Waldo, please.

[waldo]

Pliny... quit stalking me - your puny efforts to extract my 'motivations/interest' will not prevail... I am inveeencible to the feeble, probative Pliny!

You just paid Pliny a compliment.

Definition (link) of PROBATIVE

1: serving to

test

or try :

exploratory

2: serving to prove : substantiating

Examples of PROBATIVE

<no dearth of probative evidence for the theory of evolution>

Learn at least one of Canada's official languages, Waldo, please.

oh... that's right,

with special attachment to probative thingees. I'm glad we could get you to come out and contribute to this thread, after all! As for your personal predilection, who actually cares! Now... within your sterling effort to play dictionaryMan, I'm quite partial to #1... serving to test... cause, like, uhhh... Pliny has for eons been plying, er... testing, ya, testing, with repeated exploratory queries aimed to identify my interest and/or motivations - like I said, in the rest of the quote you ignored! Edited September 29, 2011 by waldo

[waldo]

Ah, I believe I see your point. You're saying that even though the expansion of refinery capacity was all in the States it still doesn't matter as long as we can hold out for another 20 years, at which time the predicted increase in electric vehicles will drop the need for gasoline to a point within our refinery capacity.

You're probably right! Still, I was hoping for some relief for myself before I die. Your scenario means that refining will still remain a convenient bottleneck to justify higher prices - a disconnect from too close a link between the cost of crude and the pump price. Also, by the time we hit 2030 many of those refineries will be a lot older and may be closed rather than rebuilt and forced to be brought up to the new standards.

ahhh, no... pump price relief wasn't my reference/focus, at all. Contrary to Shady's liar labeling, in terms of expansion/additions to existing refineries, the effective equivalency to (23) new refineries has been built in the U.S. in recent decades - the referenced BigOil market analysis, strictly on vehicle efficiency, suggests why no 'new' refineries were built - BigOil's bottom line aligned with that strategic analysis. So, again, the reference was strictly in terms of vehicle efficiency, wholly distinct from other target efficiencies and/or absolute emission reduction initiatives that are coming, regardless how hard the fossil-fuel industry and/or deniers push back. Ultimately, in your lifetime... in my lifetime... will any of this result in personal price relief... or impact? In any case... think of the kids Wild Bill... and the kids kids... and the kids kids kids.............

[Wild Bill]

ahhh, no... pump price relief wasn't my reference/focus, at all. Contrary to Shady's liar labeling, in terms of expansion/additions to existing refineries, the effective equivalency to (23) new refineries has been built in the U.S. in recent decades - the referenced BigOil market analysis, strictly on vehicle efficiency, suggests why no 'new' refineries were built - BigOil's bottom line aligned with that strategic analysis. So, again, the reference was strictly in terms of vehicle efficiency, wholly distinct from other target efficiencies and/or absolute emission reduction initiatives that are coming, regardless how hard the fossil-fuel industry and/or deniers push back. Ultimately, in your lifetime... in my lifetime... will any of this result in personal price relief... or impact? In any case... think of the kids Wild Bill... and the kids kids... and the kids kids kids.............

I realize that price relief was not your focus,Waldo. I just accepted your premises as given and extrapolated as regards how that would affect pricing.

As for thinking of the kids, I've heard that before and always take it with a grain of salt. If you challenge some politician's premise and he tells you that we must wait for the next generation or more to see it proven I can't help but feel he has merely dodged the hook! If he turns out to be completely wrong it will be too late to change any outcome! What's more, he won't be around to face the consequences of being wrong or perhaps, even lying!

No, I much prefer more immediate proofs, or at least detailed predictions that can be examined to see if they are likely. If the predictions are "over my head" then I make a character judgement of the source. That has also served me well over the years!

[Shady]

In the United States, there is strong pressure to prevent the development of new refineries, and no major refinery has been built in the country since Marathon's Garyville, Louisiana facility in 1976. However, many existing refineries have been expanded during that time. Environmental restrictions and pressure to prevent construction of new refineries may have also contributed to rising fuel prices

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery#Safety_and_environmental_concerns

You gota love it when the flat-earth, no growth alarmists contribute to a problem, and then blame that problem on somebody else.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Shady

[punked]

You gota love it when the flat-earth, no growth alarmists contribute to a problem, and then blame that problem on somebody else.

Yah those damed republicans Controlled the white house and both houses for many many times from 1976 onward yet they refused to let people build refineries eh Shady. Look at your self first Shady and ask why during those times weren't refineries built? Answer that simple question first then you can come back.