Follow the Money
Buried in the news of the holiday weekend was a story about the Obama administration committing $1.85 billion from the stimulus slush fund to two solar companies for the ostensible purpose of creating “green jobs.” The facts of the story:
- $1.45 billion will go to Abengoa Solar Inc, a Spanish company, to help it fund a solar generation plant in Arizona
- $400 million will go to Abound Solar Manufacturing, a Colorado-based company, to manufacture advanced solar panels
- A grand total of 5,100 jobs, including 3,600 temporary construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs are expected to result from the allocation of these federal funds
If we evaluate the effectiveness of stimulus dollars based on how many resulting jobs are created, the nearly $2 billion awarded to these solar companies doesn’t give us much bang for our buck. The government is spending an average of $370,000 per job (including 3,600 temporary construction jobs!) with these funds.
Clearly, throwing $2 billion to these two companies isn't about job creation. And it’s not really about developing alternative energy sources either. If it were, the administration would have to explain why it’s eschewing the development of much more efficient energy sources, like nuclear power.
So what’s this all about? Is Obama simply throwing a bone to the global warming fanatics that make up a chunk of his base? Or this simply one of dozens of examples of government folly and ineptitude?
Silver lining: At least these stimulus dollars will be spent in places that actually exist.
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Follow the Money
The really awful thing is that, thanks to TARP and the "stimulus" bill, $1,850,000,000 doesn't sound like much money unless you list all the zeroes!
Describing the stimulus as a slush fund sums it up nicely - most of what's been spent has been utterly wasted, but that doesn't mean the rest won't be treated like free money.
May '10
Re: Follow the Money
I love the admonishment of follow the money! I would also like to see a background check of the recipients of such goverment largess. Indeed, I'll bet these beneficiaries have some connections personal or are ideological comrades to members of the administration. I have yet to see anything Obama does that is not shot through his rigid ideological prism rather than what is the correct action or remedy for a given situation.
Ironic, money is going to a Spanish company given their own dismal track record on getting bang for the Euro in the alternative energy space Chicago ward political corruption gone national.
Re: Follow the Money
My thoughts exactly, Brian. I spent a chunk of my morning checking to see if Abound's corporate officers had made any campaign donations to Obama or the DNC. So far, nothing. But I haven't checked up on the Board of Directors yet. And even then, one of any number of people associated with the company could have a special relationship with one of any number of people associated with the administration. These things are difficult to ascertain. We'll probably never know the full story.
Re: Follow the Money
Diane, I have to disagree with your conclusion that the Obama administration has to have some ulterior motive in the funding of solar energy. Just because it is not the most effective alternative energy source does not mean it shouldn't be explored. I'll use defense spending as an analogy. Though nuclear missiles may have the biggest bang for their buck, the government still buys small ammunitions. An assortment of arms for different situations is necessary. Likewise, a portfolio of energy sources is not folly but smart planning, especially when are current grid is out-dated, inefficient, and totally dependent on fossil fuels and natural gas.
May '10
Re: Follow the Money
But our current grid is out-dated, inefficient, and totally dependent on fossil fuels and natural gas because of government policies, policies that have choked off nuclear plant development and made it almost impossible to build new generating capacity of any sort. You can't have a radical environmental and anti-development policy in place for decades, and then legitimately make the argument that we need green energy sources because of our ramshackle grid. That's like wrecking the price system in the health care delivery system with tax-deductible insurance and arbitrary Medicare and Medicaid price schedules, then claiming that as proof we need to replace it with a single payer system.
Murder, parents, Court, orphan, chutzpah.
May '10
Re: Follow the Money
Diane, I would guess that the connection is either one of the investors or Colorado State. For example, Salazar doubtless has a strong link with CSU, plus this is a NREL project that into which they have already sunk a lot of DoE cash.
I actually agree with the principle espoused by Mao Zehedgehog; we should not neglect to support a broad portfolio of new discovery approaches (I prefer flex fuel and methanol plus nukes). The problem is, he is selecting the wrong approach and the wrong technology. PV is a great to pursue on a development basis or for very low power uses (calculators, isolated sensor arrays), but for large scale power generation it will be worthless until you can get the conversion efficiency to a point where it is meaningful.
Why? Because the sunlight-to-power factor is less than 10%, and until you double that, there are literally not enough flat surfaces under the reliable sunny areas to cover with arrays to generate enough power to bother with the whole thing.