posted June 21, 2012 10:28 AM            

Throw all these sorry bums out of government in November.

$9 Billion in ‘Stimulus’ for Solar, Wind Projects Made 910 Final Jobs -- $9.8 Million Per Job
By Michael W. Chapman and Fred Lucas
June 20, 2012

The Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic “stimulus” funds to solar and wind projects in 2009-11 that created, as the end result, 910 “direct” jobs -- annual operation and maintenance positions -- meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those long-term jobs.

At the same time, those green energy projects also created, in the end, about 4,600 “indirect” jobs – positions indirectly supported by the annual operation and maintenance jobs -- which means they cost about $1.9 million each ($9 billion divided by 4,600).

Combined (910 + 4,600 = 5,510), the direct and indirect jobs cost, on average, about $1.63 million each to produce.

As explained in a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“economic stimulus”) of 2009 included Section 1603, a grant program run through the Treasury Department.

The 1603 program offered “renewable energy project developers a one-time cash payment” to reduce the need for green energy companies “to secure tax equity partners” and also help them to achieve “ ‘the near term goal of creating and retaining jobs’ in the renewable energy sector.”

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (EREL) tracked the grant program from its inception in 2009 through Nov. 10, 2011. Its report is entitled, Preliminary Analysis of the Jobs and Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Projects Supported by the 1603 Treasury Grant Program.

The report explains that the program provided “approximately $9.0 billion in funds to over 23,000 PV and large wind projects.” PV stands for photovoltaic, which is the method by which solar power is turned into electricity, usually with solar panels or solar cells. There were specifically 197 large wind projects and 23,692 PV projects that received funds, according to the EREL report.

For calculating the number of green jobs created, the EREL did not actually count the people working at the facilities but instead relied upon Jobs and Economic Development Impact, or JEDI, computer models.

In its summary, the EREL report states that for the 2009-11 timeframe there were an average 52,000-75,000 “direct and indirect jobs per year” created for the construction, installation, and related work on the wind and solar projects.

These were temporary jobs, construction and installation work at the facilities, not long-term positions at the green energy sites.

The number of these “indirect,” temporary construction jobs averaged between 43,000 and 66,000, according to the EREL, and the “direct” jobs “supporting the design, development, and construction/installation of systems” averaged out to about 9,400 per year.

For the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the photovoltaic and large wind systems, however, the report states there are “between 5,100 and 5,500 direct and indirect jobs per year on an ongoing basis over the 20- to 30-year estimated life of the systems.”

The report further clarifies that from that number there are 910 direct jobs and 4,200-4,600 indirect jobs per year.

The 910 jobs are “directly supporting the O&M of the systems” and that number “is significantly less than the number of [indirect] jobs supporting manufacturing and associated supply chains.”

Through the grant program, $9 billion was spent to, in the end, establish 910 jobs that will last upwards of 30 years. That means those jobs cost, in the end, about $9.8 million to create.

posted June 21, 2012 10:44 AM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted June 21, 2012 02:44 PM            

he was apparently very determined not long ago to procure a very similar loan for a republican contributor to his campaigns who wanted some of that very dosh for his OWN solar efforts.

posted June 21, 2012 02:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
funny thing turned up when i was looking at stories about darrell issa today. who as you may know is all over the "debacle" that was solyndra and government getting involved in alternative energies specifically solar...

he was apparently very determined not long ago to procure a very similar loan for a republican contributor to his campaigns who wanted some of that very dosh for his OWN solar efforts.

pot/kettle/black anyone?

---

Not gonna get off the ground. Try harder......................

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted August 02, 2012 03:10 PM            

CHA-CHING!
Solyndra’s CEO labeled President Barack Obama’s administration “The Bank of Washington.”

Chris Gronet offered the description in an internal email one year before the company collapsed in 2010, costing taxpayers roughly $500 million.

The email was obtained and published by the Republican National Committee.

“The Bank of Washington continues to help us!” he wrote in the October 2009 e-mail, which sketched plans for Solyndra to exploit several additional federal programs and tax-incentives.

“Some names fit,” said Darrell Issa, the GOP chairman of the House Oversight Committee. “Using the name of ‘Bank of Washington’ has a legitimacy that I think will transcend this election,” he said in a Thursday press conference called to highlight the Solyndra email.

The email bolsters GOP claims that Obama’s support of green-tech companies amounted to “crony capitalism.”

Several White House officials had close ties to green-tech companies, and many green-tech executives have donated to Obama’s political campaigns.

The company received numerous benefits from the Obama administration, which allocated roughly $60 billion to spur a variety of green-tech companies, including Solyndra.

Numerous companies have since collapsed, including Solyndra, costing the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

For example, taxpayers’ funds given to Nevada Geothermal Power also will pay off private-sector debts, said Issa. “All of the money they got… was to pay off existing private investment, serving no purpose to the taxpayer or the enterprise,” he said.

The Nevada company received $98 million worth of government loan-guarantees, which will pay off commercial creditors if the troubled company’s downward slide continues. That company was lauded by Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the Democrats’ leader in the Senate, as “the Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy.”

Obama has defended his high-risk spending strategy, saying on numerous occasions that it is needed to help the nation shift from the use of oil and gasoline.

Solyndra’s collapse cost the taxpayer $500 million, partly because Obama’s deputies agreed to place the repayment of Solyndra’s commercial creditors at a higher priority than repaying the debts owed to taxpayers.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/02/obamas-bank-of-washington-applauded-by-solyndra-ceo-in-email/

posted August 23, 2012 09:20 AM            

Romney is scheduled to speak about energy independence in New Mexico on Thursday. In advance of the speech, his campaign released a white paper laying out his plans for “North American energy independence by 2020.”

The heart of this plan involves a complete reversal of Obama policy – in other words, the Romney Administration won’t actively work to thwart American energy production. “While President Obama has described his own energy policy as a ‘hodgepodge,’ sent billions of taxpayer dollars to green energy projects run by political cronies, rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline as not in ‘the national interest,’ and sought repeatedly to stall development of America’s domestic resources, Romney’s path forward would establish America as an energy superpower in the 21st century,” the introduction to Romney’s energy plan declares.

To this end, Romney would empower state governments to “establish processes to oversee the development and production of all forms of energy on federal lands within their borders, excluding only lands specially designated off-limits.” Federal agencies would still “certify state processes as adequate,” but Romney’s overall goal is to rein in Obama’s out-of-control EPA, whose regulatory over-reach has been faring poorly in federal courts.

Nothing about America’s currently increasing dependence on foreign oil, and the high prices we’re paying for energy, is accidental. “In the midst of the energy revolution taking place on state and privately-held lands across America, oil and gas production on federal lands somehow plummeted last year,” the Romney plan points out. “This was no accident. President Obama has intentionally sought to shut down oil, gas, and coal production in pursuit of his own alternative energy agenda. Federal land open for exploration has declined nearly 20 percent on his watch, and the rate of permitting is down 37 percent. It now takes a shocking 307 days to receive the permits to drill a new well.” The plan goes on to contrast this miserly federal energy development with the booming oil development on private and state land, in areas such as North Dakota.

Romney also wants to revive the offshore drilling industry, beginning with the coastal regions of Virginia and the Carolinas. Offshore drilling was down 14 percent last year in general, 25 percent in the Gulf of Mexico. Obama has blocked development of significant offshore resources completely, in particular the huge oil field off the coast of Virginia that Romney would begin developing right away.

Of course, Romney wants the Keystone XL pipeline project approved, although Obama has already done incalculable damage to American energy independence by capriciously blocking that vital pipeline. Romney would strengthen partnerships with both Canada and Mexico, which currently provide only about 37 percent of our oil, even though it’s much cheaper – Canadian oil is nearly $18 per barrel less than OPEC oil at the moment.

Romney notes that much of President Obama’s anti-energy rhetoric is based on outdated information, combined with his penchant for confusing “proven” reserves with the actual oil and gas production potential of American lands. (That’s how Obama falsely, and repeatedly, claims that the United States only has 2 percent of the world’s oil. The true size of the oil reserves that we could exploit is about 70 times as large as the one Obama likes to cite.)

“The American people and their policy makers must have a realistic picture of the nation’s true resource abundance in order to make informed decisions about the future of American energy policy,” the Romney plan declares, in the course of calling for new, more accurate surveys of our resources. “There is no excuse for placing any area so far off-limits that its potential cannot be determined,” the white paper adds.

Romney’s plan calls for the reform of regulations that have been “seized on by environmentalists as tools to stop development altogether,” leading to “overregulation, permitting delays, endless reviews, and senseless litigation” that interferes with energy production. A Chamber of Commerce survey is cited, which found that 351 energy projects – good for $3.4 trillion of economic growth and over a million jobs – were delayed by federal regulations in 2010

Romney finishes up by calling for government support of private-sector innovation, instead of subsidizing uncompetitive technologies for the benefit of political supporters, as President Obama has done. “Unfortunately, President Obama’s poor understanding of the private sector has spilled directly into his energy policy, as he sought to have government play venture capitalist and spend billions of dollars subsidizing his chosen companies and technologies,” the Romney white paper states. “Meanwhile, as companies like Solyndra were going bankrupt and the wind industry was shedding 10,000 jobs, revolutionary innovation in the private sector was paving the way for energy independence and an economic resurgence.”

As a result of achieving energy independence, Romney’s plan projects benefits that include over 3 million new jobs, $500 billion in economic growth, lower trade deficits, a trillion dollars in revenue for cash-strapped state and local governments, lower energy prices, and improved national security.