Tax dollars backing some "risky" energy projects

[Stephanie]

good grief...
links in article at site.

SNIP:
BySharyl Attkisson .Add Comment Have Your Say

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - Solar panel maker Solyndra received a $528 million Energy Department loan in 2009 - and went bankrupt last year. The government's risky investment strategy didn't stop there, as a CBS News investigation has uncovered a pattern of cases of the government pouring your tax dollars into clean energy.


Take Beacon Power -- a green energy storage company. We were surprised to learn exactly what the Energy Department knew before committing $43 million of your tax dollars.


Documents obtained by CBS News show Standard and Poor's had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of "CCC-plus."


Read the documents


Asked whether he'd put his personal money into Beacon, economist Peter Morici replied, "Not on purpose."


"It's, it is a junk bond," Morici said. "But it's not even a good junk bond. It's well below investment grade."


Was the Energy Department investing tax dollars in something that's not even a good junk bond? Morici says yes.


"This level of bond has about a 70 percent chance of failing in the long term," he said.


In fact, Beacon did go bankrupt two months ago and it's unclear whether taxpayers will get all their money back. And the feds made other loans when public documents indicate they should have known they could be throwing good money after bad.


It's been four months since the FBI raided bankrupt Solyndra. It received a half-billion in tax dollars and became a political lightning rod, with Republicans claiming it was a politically motivated investment.


CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES' subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.


Others are also struggling with potential problems. Nevada Geothermal -- a home state project personally endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- warns of multiple potential defaults in new SEC filings reviewed by CBS News. It was already having trouble paying the bills when it received $98.5 million in Energy Department loan guarantees.

read it all here..
Tax dollars backing some "risky" energy projects - CBS News

 

[Full-Auto]

good grief...
links in article at site.

SNIP:
BySharyl Attkisson .Add Comment Have Your Say

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - Solar panel maker Solyndra received a $528 million Energy Department loan in 2009 - and went bankrupt last year. The government's risky investment strategy didn't stop there, as a CBS News investigation has uncovered a pattern of cases of the government pouring your tax dollars into clean energy.


Take Beacon Power -- a green energy storage company. We were surprised to learn exactly what the Energy Department knew before committing $43 million of your tax dollars.


Documents obtained by CBS News show Standard and Poor's had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of "CCC-plus."


Read the documents


Asked whether he'd put his personal money into Beacon, economist Peter Morici replied, "Not on purpose."


"It's, it is a junk bond," Morici said. "But it's not even a good junk bond. It's well below investment grade."


Was the Energy Department investing tax dollars in something that's not even a good junk bond? Morici says yes.


"This level of bond has about a 70 percent chance of failing in the long term," he said.


In fact, Beacon did go bankrupt two months ago and it's unclear whether taxpayers will get all their money back. And the feds made other loans when public documents indicate they should have known they could be throwing good money after bad.


It's been four months since the FBI raided bankrupt Solyndra. It received a half-billion in tax dollars and became a political lightning rod, with Republicans claiming it was a politically motivated investment.


CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES' subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.


Others are also struggling with potential problems. Nevada Geothermal -- a home state project personally endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- warns of multiple potential defaults in new SEC filings reviewed by CBS News. It was already having trouble paying the bills when it received $98.5 million in Energy Department loan guarantees.

read it all here..
Tax dollars backing some "risky" energy projects - CBS News

When it comes to paying off supporters, no amount of your money is too great!!

 

[Stephanie]

good grief...
links in article at site.

SNIP:
Sharyl Attkisson .Add Comment Have Your Say

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - Solar panel maker Solyndra received a $528 million Energy Department loan in 2009 - and went bankrupt last year. The government's risky investment strategy didn't stop there, as a CBS News investigation has uncovered a pattern of cases of the government pouring your tax dollars into clean energy.


Take Beacon Power -- a green energy storage company. We were surprised to learn exactly what the Energy Department knew before committing $43 million of your tax dollars.


Documents obtained by CBS News show Standard and Poor's had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of "CCC-plus."


Read the documents


Asked whether he'd put his personal money into Beacon, economist Peter Morici replied, "Not on purpose."


"It's, it is a junk bond," Morici said. "But it's not even a good junk bond. It's well below investment grade."


Was the Energy Department investing tax dollars in something that's not even a good junk bond? Morici says yes.


"This level of bond has about a 70 percent chance of failing in the long term," he said.


In fact, Beacon did go bankrupt two months ago and it's unclear whether taxpayers will get all their money back. And the feds made other loans when public documents indicate they should have known they could be throwing good money after bad.


It's been four months since the FBI raided bankrupt Solyndra. It received a half-billion in tax dollars and became a political lightning rod, with Republicans claiming it was a politically motivated investment.


CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES' subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.


Others are also struggling with potential problems. Nevada Geothermal -- a home state project personally endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- warns of multiple potential defaults in new SEC filings reviewed by CBS News. It was already having trouble paying the bills when it received $98.5 million in Energy Department loan guarantees.

read it all here..
Tax dollars backing some "risky" energy projects - CBS News

When it comes to paying off supporters, no amount of your money is too great!!

no kidding...this administration is SO corrupt.

 

[Full-Auto]

good grief...
links in article at site.

SNIP:
Sharyl Attkisson .Add Comment Have Your Say

(CBS News) WASHINGTON - Solar panel maker Solyndra received a $528 million Energy Department loan in 2009 - and went bankrupt last year. The government's risky investment strategy didn't stop there, as a CBS News investigation has uncovered a pattern of cases of the government pouring your tax dollars into clean energy.


Take Beacon Power -- a green energy storage company. We were surprised to learn exactly what the Energy Department knew before committing $43 million of your tax dollars.


Documents obtained by CBS News show Standard and Poor's had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of "CCC-plus."


Read the documents


Asked whether he'd put his personal money into Beacon, economist Peter Morici replied, "Not on purpose."


"It's, it is a junk bond," Morici said. "But it's not even a good junk bond. It's well below investment grade."


Was the Energy Department investing tax dollars in something that's not even a good junk bond? Morici says yes.


"This level of bond has about a 70 percent chance of failing in the long term," he said.


In fact, Beacon did go bankrupt two months ago and it's unclear whether taxpayers will get all their money back. And the feds made other loans when public documents indicate they should have known they could be throwing good money after bad.


It's been four months since the FBI raided bankrupt Solyndra. It received a half-billion in tax dollars and became a political lightning rod, with Republicans claiming it was a politically motivated investment.


CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES' subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.


Others are also struggling with potential problems. Nevada Geothermal -- a home state project personally endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- warns of multiple potential defaults in new SEC filings reviewed by CBS News. It was already having trouble paying the bills when it received $98.5 million in Energy Department loan guarantees.

read it all here..
Tax dollars backing some "risky" energy projects - CBS News

When it comes to paying off supporters, no amount of your money is too great!!

no kidding...this administration is SO corrupt.

Move over Nixon, there is a new sheriff in town and he smuggles drugs and guns...........

 

[Mr. H.]

It's one thing for the feds (DOE) to support research and development through grants, but to dump money into manufacturing and marketing is ludicrous.
Government funded programs can bear fruit in the lab, but that's where it should end on such projects.
Intellectual rights should be turned over (sold, auctioned) to private equity firms.
They're the ones that should judge market worthiness.

 

[Full-Auto]

It's one thing for the feds (DOE) to support research and development through grants, but to dump money into manufacturing and marketing is ludicrous.
Government funded programs can bear fruit in the lab, but that's where it should end on such projects.
Intellectual rights should be turned over (sold, auctioned) to private equity firms.
They're the ones that should judge market worthiness.

DAMN REP GUN JAMMED.


I owe you.

 

[freedombecki]

It's one thing for the feds (DOE) to support research and development through grants, but to dump money into manufacturing and marketing is ludicrous.
Government funded programs can bear fruit in the lab, but that's where it should end on such projects.
Intellectual rights should be turned over (sold, auctioned) to private equity firms.
They're the ones that should judge market worthiness.

You're right. When the right product==safety-tested to public worthiness--comes along and the price is right, the people will buy into it.

The government rewarding unworthy enterprises is being given to family members of people like Nancy Pelosi. I call that nepotism, and it's just a guarantee that whatever the appointed nephew does will be protected, not that it will benefit Americans with the best product.

Government control over intellectual productivity is a fail for just that reason. Great ideas do not always come from wealthy families, but is born of necessity, not golden umbrellas as are being doled out to members of congress' families these days in Solyndra-type deals.

 

[merrill]

No contemporary energy source is as environmentally irresponsible, imposes such a high liability on taxpayers, or is as dangerous as nuclear power. Industry efforts to "greenwash" nuclear energy make a mockery of clean energy goals.

Although nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide, promoting nuclear risks to reduce greenhouse emissions is the classic jump from the frying pan into the fire!

The Real Dirt on "Clean" Nuclear Energy

* Estimated "energy recovery time" for a nuclear power plant is about 10 to 18 years, depending on the richness of uranium ores mined for fuel. This means that a nuclear power plant must operate for at least a decade before all the energy consumed to build and fuel the plant has been earned back and the power station begins to produce net energy. By comparison, wind power takes less than a year to yield net energy, and solar or photovoltaic power nets energy in less than three years.

The Waste Problem

* A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive for a quarter of a million years.

* The nuclear power industry has amassed hundreds of thousands of tons of "low-level" radioactive waste (or, in industry and regulatory parlance, "slightly radioactive solid materials"), which has created an enormous disposition problem.

The industry hopes to absolve itself from liability for this waste through the insane practice of "releasing" it from regulatory control, whereupon it could be sent to recycling facilities and ultimately end up in common consumer products!
===============
Safety and Security Risks
===============
* The insurance industry won’t insure against nuclear power plant accidents. Nuclear power plant operators rely on a government-backed "Price-Anderson" insurance scheme(WE taxpayers) that limits their liability in the event of an accident or attack.
=============
And Expensive Too!
=============
* The Department of Energy admits that "Economic viability for a nuclear plant is difficult to demonstrate." Since the inception of commercial nuclear power in the United States 50 years ago, this industry has been propped up by huge government subsidies.

*Throwing more tax dollars at nuclear power will not make it safer, cleaner or more economical. Further, these subsidies to a mature industry distort electricity markets by granting nuclear power an unfair and undesirable advantage over safe, clean energy alternatives.

Public Citizen | Energy Program | Energy Program - Nuclear Power Is Not Clean or Green!

 

[merrill]

The Bush administration set up our tax dollars to promote the construction of new nuclear reactors.

Energy legislation authorized production tax credits for new nuclear power plants, which would cost $5.7 billion by 2025, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Public Citizen Climate and Energy

After decades and decades shouldn't the nuke industry live by the Free Market and finance all aspects on its' own?

 

[Mr. H.]

After 1 month and nearly 500 posts and you still don't have the hang of this do you?

 

[merrill]

A perfect example of how taxpayers fund nuke power and coal power for that matter.

Can we say damn little liability and a ton of guaranteed profits?

Taxpayers should own it!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No contemporary energy source is as environmentally irresponsible, imposes such a high liability on taxpayers, or is as dangerous as nuclear power. Industry efforts to "greenwash" nuclear energy make a mockery of clean energy goals.

Although nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide, promoting nuclear risks to reduce greenhouse emissions is the classic jump from the frying pan into the fire!

The Real Dirt on "Clean" Nuclear Energy

* Estimated "energy recovery time" for a nuclear power plant is about 10 to 18 years, depending on the richness of uranium ores mined for fuel. This means that a nuclear power plant must operate for at least a decade before all the energy consumed to build and fuel the plant has been earned back and the power station begins to produce net energy. By comparison, wind power takes less than a year to yield net energy, and solar or photovoltaic power nets energy in less than three years.

The Waste Problem

* A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive for a quarter of a million years.

* The nuclear power industry has amassed hundreds of thousands of tons of "low-level" radioactive waste (or, in industry and regulatory parlance, "slightly radioactive solid materials"), which has created an enormous disposition problem.

The industry hopes to absolve itself from liability for this waste through the insane practice of "releasing" it from regulatory control, whereupon it could be sent to recycling facilities and ultimately end up in common consumer products!
===============
Safety and Security Risks
===============
* The insurance industry won’t insure against nuclear power plant accidents. Nuclear power plant operators rely on a government-backed "Price-Anderson" insurance scheme(WE taxpayers) that limits their liability in the event of an accident or attack.
=============
And Expensive Too!
=============
* The Department of Energy admits that "Economic viability for a nuclear plant is difficult to demonstrate." Since the inception of commercial nuclear power in the United States 50 years ago, this industry has been propped up by huge government subsidies.

*Throwing more tax dollars at nuclear power will not make it safer, cleaner or more economical. Further, these subsidies to a mature industry distort electricity markets by granting nuclear power an unfair and undesirable advantage over safe, clean energy alternatives.

Public Citizen | Energy Program | Energy Program - Nuclear Power Is Not Clean or Green!

Estimated "energy recovery time" for a nuclear power plant is about 10 to 18 years, depending on the richness of uranium ores mined for fuel.

How rich is the slightly used fuel that we still won't store in Nevada?

We could run all our reactors for hundreds of years on the fuel we already have.
More proof Jimmy Carter is an idiot.

 

[merrill]

Reactors are not designed to run on spent fuel nor are they designed to operate for 100 years.

Taxpayers are responsible for building more at 6-7 $$$ billion a piece = bad business plan and high risk investment.

In fact many are operating beyond their suggested lifetimes as we speak

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reactors are not designed to run on spent fuel nor are they designed to operate for 100 years.

Taxpayers are responsible for building more at 6-7 $$$ billion a piece = bad business plan and high risk investment.

In fact many are operating beyond their suggested lifetimes as we speak

Why would you run them on spent fuel?

Just how spent is spent fuel? Give me a percentage if you can.

 

[bripat9643]

Estimated "energy recovery time" for a nuclear power plant is about 10 to 18 years, depending on the richness of uranium ores mined for fuel.

What a load of pure unadulterated bullshit. Where did you get this information, Mother Jones? The idea that the "energy recovery time," if there is such a quantity, is lower for nuclear energy than for wind energy is absurd. For one thing, every watt of wind energy* constructed requires an equal amount of some other reliable form of energy as a backup.

There's little point in debating libs when they constantly pull stuff out of their asses.

 

[Steelplate]

After 1 month and nearly 500 posts and you still don't have the hang of this do you?

What's there to catch on to? Oh, I know.... we must all bow down to Conservatism. We must never question anything a Conservative says....We must kneel down and pray to the Gods of money, greed and power.....

Sorry, I ain't buyin' what you're sellin'.