Fisker: we scarcely knew ye

*




Of all the Department of Energy's green loan debacles and there have been many, Fisker stands above even the Solyndra disaster for a combination of audacity and incompetence.

(For previous posts regarding Fisker, please go here)

To quickly recap: Fisker Automotive was to build electric hybrids cars and was approved for $529 million in loan guarantees (more than they requested) from the Department of Energy to do so. Originally, the two models of cars they were to build were going to be in the $50,000-$60,000 range. In short order, that price escalated upwards to the $110,000 range for it's high-end model thus going from hybrid to luxury hybrid.

The cars were to be assembled at a plant in Delaware as part of the justification for this massive loan was that it would create good paying green manufacturing jobs here in the U.S. The only problem was that the Delaware plant never produced a single car, rather the assembly operations had been relocated to... Finland.

If you were thinking that perhaps a stipulation of the loan would be that our tax dollars wouldn't go to pay the salaries of Paavo, Heikki and the rest of the boys over there, you and we are in the same company.


After falling drastically short of production and sales goals (last year, they sold only 900 out of the 48,000 market-wide plug-ins), the cars plagued by mechanical, electrical and software problems and the failure of A123 batteries (yet, another DOE green loan #fail) last year was a harbinger of doom for Fisker and its aptly-named luxury model "Karma".

And on Monday, there was even more bad news for the car company that has not produced a car since last August.


From the New York Times:

The all-but-closed company skipped a large loan payment that was due on Monday, leading the federal government to take the unusually aggressive step of seizing $21 million from the company's cash reserves to begin recouping the $192 million in taxpayer dollars spent on the company's flawed strategy.

Which means, of course, Fisker is still on the hook to U.S. taxpayers to the tune of $171 million.


The fall-out from this extends beyond merely financial as green technology and our wisdom of taxpayer subsidies for green technology takes a P.R. hit:

Some environmental activists worry about the potential ramifications of a Fisker bankruptcy.

"We can't get to where we need to be in electric vehicles without government help," said Dan Becker, head of the Safe Climate Campaign, an advocacy group in Washington.

Mr. Becker, good sir, if $192 million committed out of $529 million promised isn't considered "help", we scarcely know what is and Fisker still managed to bollox things up.



And if the Obama administration has committed tax-payer money to other, more established auto-manufacturers like Ford and Toyota for their EVs without such disastrous results what is the explanation for what happened with Fisker?

From CBS News:

The Obama administration was warned as early as 2010 that electric car maker Fisker Automotive Inc. was not meeting milestones set up for a half-billion dollar government loan, nearly a year before U.S. officials froze the financing after questions were raised about the company's statements, newly released documents show.

An Energy Department official said in a June 2010 email that Fisker's bid to draw on the federal loan may be jeopardized for failure to meet goals established by the Energy Department.

Fisker continued to receive money until June 2011, when the Energy Department halted further funding. The agency did so after Fisker presented new information that called into question whether key milestones - including launch of the company's signature, $100,000 Karma hybrid - had been achieved, according to a credit report prepared by the Energy Department.

The December 2011 credit report said "DOE staff asked questions about the delays" in the launch of the Karma "and received varied and incomplete explanations," leading to the suspension of the loan.

Recall that the Fisker loan was approved in mid-2009 so it only took a year for the warning flags to go up. One year.

If the warning flags were going up that early, it would suggest perhaps that exercising some due diligence at the front end would've revealed that the loan should not have been made in the first place. Just sayin'.


As it stands, and we are being polite, what this represents is a dereliction of duty by Team O in the stewardship of the taxpayers' scratch. There's really no other way to look at it and yet there will be no repercussions for this willful negligence.

Committing tax-payer money to not-yet-market-ready technology is a losing proposition and committing the same to a start-up using that same technology that can't find sufficient private backing is a guaranteed losing proposition.

Unfortunately, Team O won't learn this lesson. The pursuit of currently suspect green technology subsidized by your money is an article of faith embedded in their collectivist religion and for the smartest kids in the classroom picking winners and losers with respect to directing the economy and "creating" jobs is a divine rite not to be left to the whims of market realities. That we should be so fortunate to be blessed by their benevolence and wisdom.




* Perhaps the quintessential image of the Karma. Being towed off the track after breaking down shortly into Consumer Reports test drive of the car. On the bed of that truck, the Karma achieves the greenie dream of a zero emissions vehicle lumbering down the highway at 50 mph.

The average number of bumper stickers on a Prius is insufficient in communicating the smugness we feel right now

Electric cars by the numbers:

1,000,000: the federal government’s goal of number of electric cars on the road by 2015.

50,000: the number of electric cars sold in the U.S. in 2012.

$100,000: the price of the Fisker of which you are subsidizing the production… in Finland.

30,000: the number of pounds of carbon-dioxide emissions from the production of an electric car.

14,000: that number for a conventional car.

A big chunk of that 30,000 lbs. comes from the production of the batteries which require lithium-ion of which the Chi-comms have a virtual corner on the market and whom have never been confused with the Sierra Club in their extraction of the rare earths required for most green energy applications.

Oh, and…

$10,000: the replacement price tag for a new car battery.

It is duly noted that we haven’t yet figured out how to safely dispose of the lithium-ion in the battery.




80,000: the number of miles needed for an electric car to be driven to break even with the amount of carbon-dioxide that is emitted in the production of said electric car.

Slim and none: the chances your electric car’s odometer will see 80,000 miles because…

73: the range in miles per charge for a Nissan Leaf and…

6: average mph for an extended road trip owing to extensive battery charging time and…

55: the range in miles per charge of that Leaf after 5 years.

Bottom line: you better be doing a hell of a lot of senseless and logistically ill-conceived running of errands around town in order to make your electric car pay off from an environmental standpoint.




And in case anyone forgot:

$7,500: the amount you are subsidizing others’ efforts to feel morally superior by purchasing an electric car.

$5.5 billion: the amount we are giving in federal grants and loans to an industry that builds $100,000 vehicles.

We feel the need to go on the record as saying we are not opposed to green energy, per se. However, the manner in which it currently is pursued as a hodge-podge of tax-payer supported crony capitalism via methodologies and industry practices that are the antithesis of "green" makes us strident opponents.


Call us back when we stop giving billions to wealthy politically-connected "investors" and when green technology starts making long-term sense both financially and environmentally because, right now, it's not even close.

More great moments in the history of crony capitalism

.

The gift that keeps on giving...


Not everyone lost out in that train-wreck that was Solyndra; the now-bankrupt solar panel firm that received a $537 million loan guarantee from the highly suspect Department of Energy green loan program back in 2009.

Via the Free Beacon the Wall St. Journal reports:

Argonaut Ventures I LLC—a private-equity fund linked to George Kaiser, a fundraiser for President Barack Obama—and Madrone Partners LP are set to pilot a reorganized shell company out of the wreckage of Solyndra, part of a Chapter 11 plan that promises scant repayment of a $528 million federal loan.

The reorganized shell company could be a vehicle to transform the money Solyndra lost in the solar-panel-manufacturing business, losses that total “significantly more than one-half billion dollars,” into future tax breaks for the private-equity firms, according to the DOE and IRS.

Bankruptcy filings reveal that Argonaut and Madrone could potentially write-down the Solyndra losses saving themselves hundreds of millions of dollars of future income taxes.

And similar to the GM and Chrysler bankruptcy cramdown, private investors, like Argonaut, will be given priority status over the tax-payers in a loan restructuring deal worked out between Solyndra and the DOE back in 2011.

Please remember this sort of shenanigans that have been rampant with this administration when you hear about the success of their green energy program next week.

RINO Alert

.

For those Republicans out there that fear the party has been taken over by extremist elements led, in large part, by the tea party, can turn their lonely eyes to Brian Bilbray (R-San Diego) who is more than willing to throw your money away down the crap hole of green energy subsidies.

Rep. Brian Bilbray is winning praise from the solar industry for casting the sole Republican vote this week against efforts to dismantle the federal loan guarantee program for clean energy linked to the Solyndra debacle.

In the run-up to fall elections, many Republicans in Congress have embraced the "No More Solyndras Act," which would go beyond implementing safeguards to improve loan guarantees and dismantle the program altogether.

California-based solar panel manufacturer Solyndra received a half-billion dollar federal loan guarantee before filing for bankruptcy protection last year.

Bilbray participated in vote on a rough draft of the new legislation by the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power. The measure moved ahead 14-6 toward a possible House vote.

The Solar Energy Industry Association expressed its appreciation on Friday in a news release.

"It takes true vision and courage to ignore politics and take a principled, fact-based stand in support of renewable energy," said Rhone Resch, president of the umbrella trade group for solar manufacturing, distribution, research and financing.

Yes. What passes for vision and courage in D.C. is committing $537 billion dollars of tax-payer money on technology that isn't market-ready and which is owned, in part, by a presidential bundler. That Bilbray is some sort of maverick, or something.



So, who does the congressman think is to blame for the Solyndra fiasco?

Reached by phone, the congressman blamed "mid-management" at the Department of Energy for mishandling clean energy loan guarantees and asserted that his colleagues in the House were "blaming the vehicle" instead of the driver.

"The program is being thrown under the bus because people don't want to admit that it was administered horrendously," Rep. Bilbray said. "The program should be able to do great things if it's administered properly."

This is a prime example of willful ignorance. The decision to award Solyndra this money was made at the White House/cabinet level. Independent and Treasury Department auditors, pleaded with the Department of Energy and the White House not to make this loan - they rightly saw it as a bad bet - but ultimately, their pleading was to no avail.

And guess what? We will blame the driver and the vehicle. Yes, it was administered poorly and yes, it is a fatally-flawed concept. If Solyndra's ability to manufacture solar panels was a viable business plan then what do they need of tax-payer money?

As the Department of Energy's green energy loan program body count continues to mount (Solyndra, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Ener1, Evergreen Solar, Range Fuels, Raser Technologies, Spectrawatt, Thompson River Power LLC; a partial list of companies that participated in the DOE loan program and which have all filed for bankruptcy), we are waiting to hear of one of its success stories and which will then beg the question if they could've succeeded without tax-payer assistance.

Moving beyond gotcha

.

The latest talking point/attack angle coming from Team O is with respect to #BettingOnAmerica and attempting to score points by going after Mitt Romney's foreign investments and Swiss bank accounts.

Some vetting would appear to be in order, however, as the person they have assigned as lead dog in the wolf pack, DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has had, in the past, a Swiss bank account and a foreign investment or two of her own.



But never mind all that; let's take a look at who's really investing in America:

(courtesy American Enterprise Institute)

please click to enlarge

Tech-comms, oil and gas and Wal-Mart.


The first is totally expected but the second may be somewhat counter-intuitive until you step back and look at the facts on the ground: we keep finding more and more of that black sticky stuff underneath our sovereign soil. Also, green energy may indeed be the energy of the future but, right now, we don't know when that future is because it is not market-ready - the failures of the Department of Energy's green energy loan program bears this out.

Abundant, cheap, market-ready and emerging technology to burn oil and gas more efficiently... why wouldn't the money be pursuing this particular sector?

And as for Wal-Mart..? Alas, we suppose you'll just never be able to wean America off quality goods at a reasonable price: a reality too uncomfortable to be confronted by the more progressive among us and Wal-Mart knows it.

.

Tales from Bailout Nation (cont.)

.

... or how green energy loans are like steak sauce.




The ranks of Department of Energy green loan failures continue to mount.

A geothermal energy company with a $98.5 million loan guarantee from the Obama administration for an alternative energy project in Nevada — which received hearty endorsements from Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — faces financial problems, and the company’s auditors have questioned whether it can stay in business.

Much like Solyndra LLC, a California solar-panel manufacturer with a $535 million federal loan guarantee that went bankrupt, Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP) has incurred $98 million in net losses over the past several years, has substantial debts and does not generate enough cash from its current operations after debt-service costs, an internal audit said.

“The company’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on its available cash and its ability to continue to raise funds to support corporate operations and the development of other properties,” NGP auditors said in a financial statement for the period ending March 31.

“Consequently, material uncertainties exist which cast significant doubt upon the company’s ability to continue as a going concern,” the statement said.

(italics, ours)


So, we are being told that NGP's ability to continue as a going concern is dependent upon factors other than actually turning a profit. Good to know.

Mr. Reid, a Nevada Democrat who led passage of the $814 billion stimulus bill and worked to include the loan guarantee program to help finance clean-energy projects, predicted in 2010 that NGP would “put Nevadans to work” and declared that Nevada was the “Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy.”

Comparing your state to a country that hands out checks to its citizens because of all that oil they're sitting on begs the question of why NGP would need tax-payer assistance in the first place.



Cue the evil Republicans:

But Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on regulatory affairs, stimulus oversight and government spending, is concerned about NGP’s finances and the timing of the loan guarantee.

“The company was in danger of defaulting on its financial obligation, and the [Department of Energy‘s] assistance served as a de facto bailout,” Mr. Jordan said. “After receiving a taxpayer-backed $98.5 million loan guarantee, the company is still struggling.”

He said the loan guarantee “essentially served to prop up an already-faltering firm.”

We thought the following was of particular interest:

Mr. Jordan said the Energy Department handed out more than 20 loan guarantees to companies with an average credit rating of BB-, or “junk status,” meaning they were vulnerable to default if economic or business conditions changed. NPG was rated BB+, which is considered speculative or junk and a step below investment grade.

Mr. Jordan and Mr. Issa have questioned why taxpayer money was “put at such risk.”

That pretty much sums up why this DOE green loan program is such a disaster. Where you wouldn't waste a wooden nickel of your own scratch on junk-rated investments, the DOE, because it has no real skin in the game - it's not like it's coming out of their hide, is more than willing to pour billions of tax-payer dollars down the drain.


The next time you hear the President drone on about "investing" in the future with respect to clean/green energy, recall the rule our chow hall table captain laid down during our first year at Seminary regarding his ban on steak sauce: "Good steak don't need it and bad steak don't deserve it."


.

Don't expect a change any time soon

.

When the President signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act back in November of last year granting himself the power to indefinetely detain U.S. citizens here on American soil without cause, we're wondering if he had this lady in mind.

Sheryl Attkisson of CBS News has been one of the few members of the legacy media to cover Fast and Furious and now she will continue to be a thorn in the side of the administration as she gets into the failed and corrupt Department of Energy green energy loan program.


A123 Systems builds batteries for electric cars and they spent $1 million in lobbying efforts and for their trouble they received $249 million in federal stimulus funding. This allowed them to employ 1,000 people to make these batteries - one small problem, however, the batteries don't work.



Here's Attkisson's report:






Oh goody. They've still got $100 million of our money to blow through on a product/technology for which they did not receive the original grant money. Considering their success with the battery, what could possibly go wrong?


And as for the Fisker, perhaps the slow demand, aside from the fact that it doesn't work is due to the fact that the two models being produced (in Finland... with over $500 million of our money, no less) cost $97,000 and $57,400 a copy and, unfortunately, we currently have a shortage of rich, smug liberals.


As the subject of this post, suggests, no amount of these embarrassing failures are going to dissuade these rigid ideological extremists from behaving any diffently.


H/T: Hot Air


.

The problem is...

.

... we just keep finding more of the stuff

From Zero Hedge:

The oil in the ground will run out some day. But as the discovery of proven reserves continues to significantly outpace the rate of extraction, the claims that we’re facing immediate shortages looks trashy.

Some may try to cast doubt on these figures, saying that BP are counting inaccessible reserves, and that we must accept that while there are huge quantities of shale oil in the ground, the era of cheap and readily accessible oil is over. They might cite the idea that oil prices are much higher than they were ten years ago. Yet this is mostly a monetary phenomenon resulting from excessive money creation beyond the economy’s productive capacity. Priced in gold, oil is still very cheap — almost as cheap as it has ever been:

So no. I’m not lying awake at night worrying about imminent peak oil. There’s plenty of extractable oil, and renewable energy will eventually supplement and replace it. But will politics get in the way of energy extraction? The United States has huge hydrocarbon reserves, yet regulation is preventing drilling and shipment, leaving America dependent on foreign oil. And the oil companies themselves are largely to blame — after Deepwater Horizon, should anyone be surprised that politicians and the public want to strangle the oil industry?

The President calls himself an "all of the above" sort but his actions betray his words. He has committed himself fully to the business of picking winners and losers in his energy policy. An aggressive pursuit of crude and shale oil and natural gas would jump-start and sustain a robust economy that could then, with private capital, fund the fledgling green energy sector instead of throwing tens of billions of dollars at the politically connected and technology that, quite simply, is not yet market-ready.




And somewhat related if we're talking politics: Hey, that speech on the economy on Thursday was a big flopper. How about an extra-constitutional executive order on illegal immigration to distract everybody?

Here's Leslie at Temple of Mut:

Dear Readers: While I usually strive to put some humor into my posts, as it helps sustain our emotional balance during these turbulent times, I find little to joke about today. President Obama, in an exceedingly cynical and politically-motivated move, has forgotten the basic tenets of the US Constitution and legislated by executive order.

Leslie predicts Obama will move on to forgiving student loan debts and underwater mortgages via EO sometime prior to November. Markets would necessarily take a dump but when you are on a re-elect panderfest run like this guy is, anything is possible.

.

Enjoy your Father's Day, everybody. We'll see you tomorrow.

.

Well known pol goes Borscht Belt to defend incoherent energy policy

.

Entrance question: Can a guy who refuses to acknowledge the technology for his pet green programs aren't quite market ready get off calling his political opponents as being, uh, unscientific?


Entrance answer: It's campaign season so let'er rip, baby, even if you beclown yourself.

.

President Barack Obama on Thursday derided his GOP challengers, calling them members of the “flat earth society” for their positions on energy.

“Lately, we have heard a lot of professional politicians, a lot of the folks who were, you know, running for a certain office, who shall go unnamed, they’ve been talking down new sources of energy,” Obama told a crowd during a speech in Maryland. “They dismiss wind power. They dismiss solar power. They make jokes about biofuels. They were against raising fuel standards. I guess they like gas guzzlers. They think that’s good for our future. We’re trying to move towards the future, they want to be stuck in the past!”

While not identifying any of the GOP contenders by name, Obama continued: “We’ve heard this kind of thinking before. Let me tell you something, if some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail, they must have been founding members of the flat earth society. They would not have believed that the world was round.”

Boy, that's rich. Dude is presiding over some of the highest gas prices ever and is running a corrupt, cronyistic and now we are finding via the GAO, a completely incompetent and unaccountable DOE loan program.


Perhaps, the President should consult with a flat earth convert in his midst, Dept. of Energy HMFIC, Steven Chu, who has appeared to submit to the reality that people really don't give a damn about sparkly, shiny new green technology when they are paying $4.50/gallon at the pump.




And as for that 2% myth the President has been peddling as an excuse to not drill: don't believe it. Known reserves are only the tip of the iceberg.

Please note that one of the sources is the very government department that appears completely dis-interested in developing this cheap and dependable energy resource.

That we would not go after that which is setting beneath us to spur economic growth that would provide the private capital to get green technology up and market-ready is near criminal.

.

Yeah, but you should see the other guy

.

Out: Crumple zones, sound engineering

In: Brute force

People who invest in hybrid cars are significantly less likely to be injured in an accident because heavy batteries under the hood make the vehicles safer than a traditional car, an insurance industry study found.

The average hybrid is 10 percent heavier than a traditional car of the same size, and the extra heft reduces the odds of being hurt in a crash by 25 percent, the report says.

"Saving at the pump no longer means you have to skimp on crash protection," said Matt Moore, vice president of the Highway Loss Data Institute and author of the report.

The first generations of hybrids generally were smaller, lighter vehicles than those produced more recently. With manufacturers increasingly converting a portion of some traditionally powered car models to hybrids, the hybrid versions are heavier.

For example, a Honda Accord takes on about 480 pounds when transformed into a hybrid.

Now, ain't that a turn?

Wasn't it just like, yesterday, that over-sized/over-weight SUVs were the scorched Earth bullies of the highway? And wasn't the fact these larger SUVs provided an inherent safety advantage an unspoken selling point with families in the market for the modern day station wagon?

The moral preening and hand-wringing is entirely absent, however, when it is applied to these front-end biased hybrid battering rams and the Newton's 3rd law damage they are inflicting on other cars and drivers out on the highway.


More evidence of the selective logic that is applied when bowing before the altar of green technology.

More great moments in the history of crony capitalism

We suppose the good news here is that potentially only $43 million will be lost as opposed to the over $500 million that was sunk into the doomed-to-failure Solyndra outfit here in California.

Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy on Sunday, just a year after the energy storage company received a $43 million loan guarantee from a controversial Department of Energy program.

The bankruptcy comes about two months after Solyndra -- a solar panel maker with a $535 million loan guarantee -- also filed for Chapter 11, creating a political embarrassment for the administration of President Barack Obama, which has championed the loans as a way to create "green energy" jobs.

Beacon Power drew down $39 million of its government-guaranteed loan to fund a portion of a $69 million, 20-megawatt flywheel energy storage plant in Stephentown, New York.

There are several key differences between the two loans, an Energy Department spokesman said on Sunday, noting the Beacon plant continues to operate, unlike Solyndra, which shut down shortly before filing for bankruptcy.

The Energy Department also had agreed to restructure Solyndra's debt in a last-ditch effort to keep the company alive, a deal which put taxpayers behind $75 million in private investment. But for the Beacon project, the government loan is the first debt the company must pay, the spokesman said.

(italics, ours)

It's comforting to know that in running this green jobs picking winners and losers program, the Dept. of Energy is becoming a little more PR-savvy in recognizing that it's important that the tax-payer recoup at least some of their "investment".


Oh, and about that crony capitalism thing, just how was it that Beacon Power secured that loan?

Beacon is using the money to develop a 20 MW regulation plant at a site in Stephenton, NY. The site will use several 1 MW flywheels to store energy as well as electrical and technological equipment.

Company spokesman Gene Hunt said Beacon didn’t have financial advisors per se, just its outside law firm of Edwards, Angell, Palmer & Dodge. “We also used our in-house expertise and we have good relationships with our congressional members.”

Per se!


For those of you scoring at home: the afore-linked Solyndra, SunPower, Fisker, Lightsquared and now Beacon Power.

Stacking up like cord wood.


H/T: Hot Air

More great moments in the history of crony capitalism

The San Diego Tribune really wants us to get over the Solyndra scandal


Solyndra Aside, State Leads U.S. in Solar Jobs Tally*

California has the most solar industry jobs of any state by far — 25,575 — but was ranked sixth in per-capita employment, according to a survey by The Solar Foundation, a nonprofit education and research organization.

The study, published Monday, runs counter to the gloomy picture conjured by the demise of Northern California solar manufacturer Solyndra and the uproar over a half-billion dollar federal loan guarantee to the company.

Yeah, we probably should just get over this half-billion dollar adventure in cronyism as it's just one example that doesn't prove the entire green sector is rife with corruption, especially when there is another one brewing that makes Solyndra look like child's play.

How did a failing California solar company, buffeted by short sellers and shareholder lawsuits, receive a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee for a photovoltaic electricity ranch project—three weeks after it announced it was building new manufacturing plant in Mexicali, Mexico, to build the panels for the project.

The company, SunPower (SPWR-NASDAQ), now carries $820 million in debt, an amount $20 million greater than its market capitalization. If SunPower was a bank, the feds would shut it down. Instead, it received a lifeline twice the size of the money sent down the Solyndra drain.

Two men with insight into the process are SunPower rooter Rep. George R. Miller III, (D.-Calif.), the senior Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee and the co-chairman of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, and his SunPower lobbyist son, George Miller IV.

That $1.2 billion dollar loan is for the construction of a solar farm in the San Luis Obispo County that will create 350 construction jobs over two years and 15 permanent jobs. 15.... for $1.2 billion.

Go to the link and check out the political conections and the interesting timing of some of the events surrounding the loan approval and you'll understand how SunPower may just be the latest green jobs boondoggle to blow up in the administration's face.



* We went with the title the U-T used in their print edition today.

Video clip of the day

If we're not going to drill for it, why not let the "nice" people of this planet do it. And who's nicer than Canadians?

Kudos to EthicalOil.org. In the space of 30 seconds, the non-profit group has managed to enrage an entire kingdom, put an army of lawyers to work, and make the front page of newspapers across Canada. All thanks to a television ad which does nothing but state a set of facts, and posit a choice between two products, one produced “ethically” and the other “unethically”.
.
.

The answer is that the concept of ethical oil poses a huge dilemma for the left, because it exposes a truth they would prefer to ignore. The reality is that the oil they love to hate makes modern civilization possible. The world is not going to end its dependence on fossil fuels any time soon, indeed, until other forms of energy are price-competitive. This will only happen when oil becomes too expensive, either due to scarcity or the invention of a cheaper (read: non-subsidized) form of alternative energy.

Until that happens, the ethical thing to do is not to eschew all fossil fuels, but to make choices between their sources, just as we have done with other products. To wit: Conflict diamonds are no longer cool. Running shoes made with child labour have become verboten. An international boycott of South African products helped bring the apartheid regime to its knees. All of these goods were boycotted based on human rights concerns – just like oil from Saudi Arabia should be.

The Saudis have made it official to the government of Canada that they're not hip to being called out for their dismal human rights record. Given the huge economic stake our neighbors have in what's setting right beneath their feet vs. their somewhat squishy free speech rights protections, it will be interesting to see what happens.

But why this response from the Saudis? What do they have to worry about? Perhaps they see the handwriting on the wall. Maybe they see what an utter waste the West's massive subsidization of green energy has been before even we wake up to that realization and are making a pre-emptive strike.

Come 2012, we may see a change in leadership in this country that re-prioritizes the energy agenda to where we are going after known quantities (yes, drilling) that will in turn create jobs and wealth that will, in turn, privately subsidize the development of green energy to be used on a larger scale at a later date as its maturity will determine that its competitive in the free market.

Yet one more reason why we need more rich people

More bad news for the Chevy Volt:

The sales figures for the Chevy Volt are down, raising red flags throughout the auto industry—especially during a time were Volt production has been ramped up.

A new study by CNW marketing, a private research firm that focuses its research on consumer motivations and decisions in automotive purchases, has been released showing that the potential buyers that GM is counting on are rapidly losing interest in the Volt. In March, 21% of Early Adapters said they were “very likely” to consider buying a Volt, while 38.1% said they were “likely” to do the same. Those numbers slipped to 14.6% saying “very likely” in July and 31.1% “likely.” Among EV Enthusiasts, reports the CNW study, the number of those likely or very likely to consider Volt fell from a combined 71% to 51% during the same four month timetable.

And those figures represent that of the true believers, gang - only 3% of mainstream car-buyers, i.e., us, you and pretty much everyone else you know, would consider buying a Volt.

The article tries to spin some positive out of this dismal news (it's an eco-blog) but is reduced to coming up with things like the following:

Chevy officials defend the Volt’s high price tag by pointing to the complexity of the dual gas electric hybrid drivetrain. The Volt is capable of traveling 35 miles on battery power alone.

Nothing like trying to justify the price of your car by touting just how damn complex it is. And for all that complexity... only 35 miles?



Here's the deal: At 47-48,000 large (up front - that tax credit doesn't get back to you until later) buying you a serious case of "range anxiety", the Volt is reminding us more and more of this:

$4,000 for that thing and all it did was make phone calls.



Look, maybe they'll get it figured out. Maybe they'll figure out the lithium ion/China thing. Maybe they'll figure out a safe and cheap way of disposing of the batteries. Maybe they'll get the cost of the battery down. Maybe they'll figure out how to mass generate electricity without using coal, gas or oil which is the dirty yet not-so-little secret EV enthusiasts have difficulty acknowledging (hey, wouldn't it be awesome if we could generate electricity from electricity?) Maybe. But the fact remains, they just aren't there yet.

Chevy just better hope there is a recurring supply of rich, smug liberals that are willing to subsidize the technology because they are nowhere near being competitive in the open market.

Tales from Bailout Nation (cont.)

*

Recall how Team O wants to make the General Motors bailout, the one that will cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars when all said and done, a centerpiece of their re-election campaign and how GM isn't, for obvious reasons, thinking that is not such a hot idea? Well, chalk up yet another reason why bringing attention to such a smashing success may backfire.

New emails obtained by The Daily Caller contradict claims by the Obama administration that the Treasury Department would avoid “intervening in the day-to-day management” of General Motors post-auto bailout.

These messages reveal that Treasury officials were involved in decision-making that led to more than 20,000 non-union workers losing their pensions.

Republican Reps. Dan Burton and Mike Turner say that during the GM bailout, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner decided to cut pensions for salaried non-union employees at Delphi, a GM spinoff, to expedite GM’s emergence from bankruptcy.

At a Wednesday hearing, the House Oversight Committee’s Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending started pushing the Treasury Department for answers on the effects of the bailout and on how much of a role the department played in picking winners and losers.

The key point of the Wednesday hearing was to show that the Obama administration advised GM on how to eliminate the Delphi workers’ pensions. The evidence suggests Geithner’s team played a significant role in that process, despite claims to the contrary.

In 2009 congressional testimony, senior Obama administration official Ron Bloom said the president told the Treasury Department to stay out of the management of these companies and downplayed any administration intervention.

“From the beginning of this process, the President gave the Auto Task Force two clear directions regarding its approach to the auto restructurings,” Bloom said then. “The first was to behave in a commercial manner by ensuring that all stakeholders were treated fairly and received neither more nor less than they would have simply because the government was involved. The second was to refrain from intervening in the day-to-day management of these companies.”

We know that first directive was a crock as the unions were shoved to the head of the line ahead of secured creditors in the bankruptcy divvy-up and now it looks like the second was not adhered to either as that noted captain of industry and business tycoon, Timothy Geithner, was wacking pensions in order to hasten an exit from bankruptcy.

The exchanges go on to clearly demonstrate that the administration had a controlling stake in GM’s management timeline.

Borst replied that GM had not “begun conversations with the UAW pending hearing back from you and the PBGC. We can begin that dialogue but our reading of the benefit guarantee is clear that it’s for the benefit of the retirees and not the PBGC. The UAW may not be available to us this week as GM is in the summer shutdown.”

Feldman responded by reminding Borst the steps required to eliminate Delphi’s pension plans.

“Keep in mind we need the PBGC’s help to terminate this plan so we will have to deal with the PBGC,” wrote Feldman. “If you think there is a way to cause its unilateral termination (outside of Delphi going down an 1113 process) let me know.”

Team O will want to take credit for saving a couple of heartland American institutions and the domestic auto industry along the way but the record will show that this was a hostile take-over with the government wielding unprecedented powers in a private sector business to curry favor with the unions and where that government-GM partnership will lose billions of dollars while pushing a heavily-subsidized technology that nobody's buying right now and which may not even be any good for the environment and then turn around and lie about how it is they paid off the loan they received from the Feds. For that you are to be thankful.

Yeah, sounds like a record to run on.



* The dreariness of this post demanded we do something to cheer it up. So we did.

Terrific: China's going green on us

Let's talk energy independence, shall we?

So, let's get this straight: electric car batteries which last between 3-8 years, cost $10,000 a copy and are difficult to dispose of because what they contain. Additionally, the lithium needed for the batteries and which the Chinese have most of will run out in less than 40 years.

Well, at least we have a willing trading partner in China for this lithium, right?

Ehhh...

Prices of some rare earth metals have doubled in just three weeks amid heavy stockpiling in China that has raised fears over global supplies.

China produces more than 90 per cent of the world’s rare earths, 17 elements used in hybrid cars, fluorescent lights and many high-tech applications.

A recent crackdown by Beijing on rare earth mines and restrictions on exports have caused chaos in some of these markets.

Japan and the US, the world’s biggest importers of rare earths, have repeatedly voiced concerns to China, while complaints from industrial users of rare earths have been growing. Last year, China cut their exports by 40 per cent and temporarily banned exports to Japan during a political dispute.

Rare earth prices have already been rising sharply this year, but the recent sharp price increase has puzzled Chinese analysts, who blamed it largely on hoarding by companies who expect prices to rise further.

Chinese officials said environmental concerns were the main driver behind a restructuring on the industry, which will close illegal mines and reduce output and ultimately put such state-owned miners as Minmetals, Chinalco and Baotou at the helm of the rare earth sector.

Isn't that rich? Green technology imperiled because of environmental concerns. Don't believe for a moment, however, that the Chi-comms have embraced any sort of come-to-Gaia moment, rather they have come to the conclusion that with ours and Europe's ill-considered, head-long plunge into electric cars, choo-choo trains, solar panels and wind turbines, they can set themselves up rather nicely as a one-nation rare earth cartel because lord knows, we aren't going to mine for any rare earths here.

And you thought that having to deal with OPEC was a bitch.

The more time passes and the more transpires with respect to its unfolding, the more underwhelmed we become with green/electric technology.

Not getting what we're paying for...

...and being sold a bill of goods in the process.



More bad news on the green technology front. Turns out those electric cars you aren't quite ready to shell out $41,000 for aren't quite as green as people would like you to think.

ELECTRIC cars could produce higher emissions over their lifetimes than petrol equivalents because of the energy consumed in making their batteries, a study has found.


An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.

The British study, which is the first analysis of the full lifetime emissions of electric cars covering manufacturing, driving and disposal, undermines the case for tackling climate change by the rapid introduction of electric cars.

The study was commissioned by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is jointly funded by the British government and the car industry. It found that a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.

Many electric cars are expected to need a replacement battery after a few years. Once the emissions from producing the second battery are added in, the total CO2 from producing an electric car rises to 12.6 tonnes, compared with 5.6 tonnes for a petrol car. Disposal also produces double the emissions because of the energy consumed in recovering and recycling metals in the battery. The study also took into account carbon emitted to generate the grid electricity consumed.

Greg Archer, director of Low CVP, said the industry should state the full lifecycle emissions of cars rather than just tailpipe emissions, to avoid misleading consumers. He said that drivers wanting to minimise emissions could be better off buying a small, efficient petrol or diesel car. “People have to match the technology to their particular needs,” he said.

As is the case here stateside, the Brits will not be deterred by mere numbers as they are charging head long into their own electric car subsidization program and are spending $66 million over the next year giving up to 8,600 buyers of electric cars $7,700 towards the sticker price.


But more on those pesky lithium-ion batteries. Captain Ed provides some fun facts regarding the batteries:

Average life span of lithium ion battery: 3 - 8 years.

Replacement cost of a battery for a Nissan Leaf: about $10,000.

Think that might put a dent in the resale market of electric cars? And think that the lithium contained in the batteries might pose some environmental disposal problems?

85 percent: the percentage of known lithium reserves in Bolivia, Chile and China.

80 percent: the percentage of known large-flake graphite reserves, also needed in battery production, that are in China.

Please remember this next time you hear someone telling you we need to go electric to end our dependency on foreign sources of energy.

2050: the year that Argonne National Laboratory estimates we will essentially run out of lithium.

That's less than 40 years, folks. Doesn't sound like a real attractive long-range solution, now does it? Luckily, we keep finding more and more of that black, sticky stuff in the ground so it's a money-back guarantee that "peak lithium" will arrive before "peak oil".

And finally, think of where it is that we will be getting that electrical energy from once we all start plugging our cars into bed every evening and once both here and back during a trip up to L.A. and 3 or 4 times here and back during a trip to Vegas and...

Oil, natural gas and coal are all on the political class's hit list so it's going to be wind turbines and solar farms?

The joke is on us

No boom-mic gaffe, this. This was right out there for the American public's, uh, general consumption so jump in and chow down, people.

President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness met today in Durham, NC at Cree Inc., a company that manufactures energy-efficient LED lighting. One of the Council's recommendations to President Obama was to streamline the federal permit process for construction and infrastructure projects. It was explained to Obama that the permitting process can delay projects for "months to years ... and in many cases even cause projects to be abandoned ... I'm sure that when you implemented the Recovery Act your staff briefed you on many of these challenges." At this point, Obama smiled and interjected, "Shovel-ready was not as ... uh .. shovel-ready as we expected." The Council, led by GE's Jeffrey Immelt, erupted in laughter.

Now, how did that taste?


We're fond of saying that the only statist solution for failed statist policies is more statism. Inspired by the President's quick-witted humour, we may have to amend that: The only statist solution for failed statist policies is... jokes!

You see, friends, since the President doesn't seem interested in getting outside the federal pump-priming, porkulus, Keynesian box for which we are all paying the price, laughter really is the best medicine.


Oh, and that light bulb manufacturing plant at which the President was speaking? Cree which received $39 million in tax credits and $6 million in grants from the Department of Energy looks to be moving much of its operations overseas to China.

And that's no joke.

"Who, Jarrett? Yeah, get used to it. Even I can't shake her"

Quote and working definition of the day.



When you lose GE CEO and Obama jobs task force chair, Jeff Immelt:

"If I had one thing to do over again, I would not have talked so much about green," he told a Massachusetts Institute of Technology audience.

"Even though I believe in global warming and I believe in the science ... it just took on a connotation that was too elitist.

"It was too precious, and it let opponents think that if you had a green initiative, you didn't care about jobs. I'm a businessman. That's all I care about, is jobs ... I'm kind of over the stage of arguing for a comprehensive energy policy. I'm back to keeping my head down and working."

The quote above comes just six years after GE began a concerted effort to get into the green energy business with wind turbines, solar panels and other politically correct technology. For football fans, this push was probably most evident when for one Sunday Night Football telecast a year (GE owns NBC), they would dim the house lights in the studio and replace it with this eery green lighting.

Look, were saving energy and were greeeeeen!

Smug, sanctimonious and stupid. Immelt was spot on about that. However, if Immelt can't make green pay with the access he has, he is either the worst crony capitalist on the face of the planet or even he realizes that a head-long rush into green technology to the exclusion of traditional energy sources that are currently cheaper, more efficient and yes, more environmentally-friendly is pure folly.



And now about that working definition. We've given you the stock definition for the term regulatory capture, crony capitalism's close friend, but now you get to see it in action. This, from a memo penned by a GE exec to GE employees after the House passage of cap and trade in June of 2009:

"The intersection between GE's interests and government action is clearer than ever ... We must also make sure that candidates who share GE's values and goals get elected to office ...

"On climate change, we were able to work closely with key authors of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, recently passed by the House of Representatives. If this bill is enacted into law it would benefit many GE businesses."

Vote for who we tell you to. Send those people to Washington to write laws which will result in regulations with which only GE has the technology to comply. We crush the competition.


Pretty sweet, huh? That's how it works.


Picking winners and losers, baby!

Thomas Friedman likes this

Reap the benefits of being a "world leader" in wind turbine and lithium-ion battery production, reap also the benefits of a top-down command-and-control energy infrastructure.

Since the Communists came to power, November 15 has been circled in red on many Beijing calendars. It's not Mao Zedong's birthday. November 15 is the day when city officials dutifully flick the switch to turn on the capital's centrally-controlled heating system, supplying warmth to most of Beijing's 22 million residents.

In one of the last vestiges of collective living, Beijing's coal plants pump heat to city apartments on a strict schedule, from November 15 to March 15, every year. Since the 1950s, the schedule has rarely changed, even if temperatures plummet before the appointed day.

After enduring record heat-waves this summer, with the mercury soaring to its highest mark in 60 years, and thick pollution in the fall (which the government blamed on "fog"), Beijingers are now suffering through the early onset of bitter cold. China's state-run media reported October 18 as the city's coldest autumn day since 1986, with temperatures peaking at 48 degrees and then dropping to 44.

Many residents of the capital city are counting down the days to November 15 hunched over their computer keyboards, commiserating about the frigid weather and lack of government-provided relief.

The image of China's growing, increasingly tech-savvy and some would say restive population, hunkering over an internet-connected computer is certainly metaphorical.

And in other totally related news:

An eight-months pregnant woman was dragged from her home and forced to have an abortion because she had broken China’s one-child-per-family law.

Twelve government officials entered Xiao Aiying’s house where they hit and kicked her in the stomach, before taking her kicking and screaming to hospital
.
There, the 36-year-old was restrained as doctors injected her with a drug to kill the unborn baby.

Her husband Luo Yanquan, a construction worker, yesterday described the moment officials burst into his family home.

‘They held her hands behind her back and pushed her head against the wall and kicked her in the stomach,’ he said. ‘I don’t know if they were trying to give her a miscarriage.

‘Our ten-year-old daughter has been excited about having a little brother or sister but I don’t know how I can explain to her what has happened.’

He recalled how a month before the child was due to be born officials told the couple they weren’t allowed to have another baby because they already have a daughter.

His wife (pictured), who was filmed in hospital with large bruises on her arms and her dead child still inside her, said: ‘I have had this baby, feeling it moving around and around my belly. Can you imagine how I feel now.’

Her harrowing experience in Siming, near the city of Xiamen, south-west China, on October 10, comes a month after the government in Beijing said there would be no relaxation in strict family planning laws.

Most Chinese families are allowed only one child to reduce the 1.3 billion-plus population and cut unsustainable demand on resources.

The policy leads to an estimated 13 million abortions every year, with many of those ordered by local authorities. Infanticide is also widespread in many rural areas.
Those who violate the one child law can be fined up to £25,000.

As well as a home invasion and a beating.

The Yanquan's apparently lacked both the money and political connections to prevent this from happening.

Are we somehow implying that Thomas Friedman, with his odd obsession regarding China's economic planning, condones this? Certainly not. However, when your column, time after time, extols, on the whole, the virtues of this command-and-control authoritarian state, you're going to have to answer for certain things.

You may say that it is only with respect to China's economic direction does Friedman's affection lie. China's One Child Policy was put into place, in large part, because of economics and the fact that China was worried that families (and the country, for that matter) could not afford more than one child per couple.

Crappy economic policy spills over and creates brutal, thuggish and murderous human policy.

What better example is there of the importance to rein in the influence and power of government? If the government can direct economic activity, what gives you the reason to think that they will not see that as justification for directing other parts of society. Please see: ObamaCare.

Sorry, Tom. When it comes to being a Chi-comm apologist, if you're in for a dime, you're in for a dollar.


This story is revolting and heart-breaking. Please pray for the Yanquan's as their going public with this will not be viewed favorably by China's own ruling class.