Biden admin quietly released study showing green energy receives far more

Interesting comparison:

For example, natural gas power generated 44.9 quadrillion British thermal units in 2022, 45% of total energy generated economywide, but received $2.3 billion in taxpayer subsidies that year. That means for every million British thermal units (MMBtu) produced by natural gas, the industry received about $0.05.

By comparison, in 2022, the solar industry generated about 0.6 quadrillion British thermal units, less than 1% of total energy produced economywide in the U.S., but received $7.5 billion in subsidies. That means the solar power industry received $11.9 per MMBtu

Why don’t we just forget about all this renewable power nonsense! Let’s rip out all the dams, wind turbines and solar panels, they’re ugly and they kill fish and birds!

We oughta drill, dig and burn all we can while it’s cheap… who CARES about the grandkids, let 'em deal with IT! … It’s not OUR problem!

1 Like

Fox News is questionable when it comes to actual news reporting. They are more opinion than fact, and only report what suits their narrative.

It’s not an accident that Fox has several multi-million-dollar lawsuits going on.

If you can find your article on a valid NEWS source, I’d read it.


I’ve long been looking for one. Recommendations?

It’s pretty simple. There are incentives in place to help the solar industry get off the ground. You incent behaviors and technology you want the world to move to. No reason to incent the natural gas or oil industries that are already up and running. Fox News couldn’t figure that out?

1 Like

What time period would you recommend is getting an industry off the ground vs. sustaining it indefinitely?

1 Like

It appears Fox is referring to a report released by DOE. Where did they misrepresent it or error in referring to it?

" The report — authored by the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) and published in August — represents the first of its kind since 2018. The EIA analyzed data from 2016 through 2022, and determined that, during that time period, the federal government doled out $183.3 billion in direct and mainly indirect taxpayer subsidies, more than half of which came over the last three years."

1 Like

Like Solyndra?

Which is how we treat our finances now as well…

I wonder if we had had a Manhattan Project urgent type endeavor to pursue solar energy during the Carter years would we be where we are now? Perhaps the push to achieve affordable scaled commercial solar energy would have accelerated the technologies of Silicon Valley even faster back then?

As I understand it, oil keeps the US dollar in play ( until it doesn’t). Military force helps too. But money is money. Maybe we will see Exxon doing much more solar in a few decades. Meanwhile, communities do not recycle basic refuse items like plastic and metal and glass. It all comes down to money and who will pay for conservation of materials, energy, space, etc.

That was a fraud. So we shouldn’t invest in green energy because of one bad player?

1 Like
1 Like

Oh… maybe as long as Big oil? They’ve been at the Fed’s feeding trough since 1916, and last year global subsidies for them reached $7 Trillion.

Ref: Rest-in-Peace-The-List-of-Deceased-Solar-Companies

It ain’t much compared to beginnings of the US automotive industry.

From Wikipedia: " Starting with Duryea in 1895, at least 1,900 different companies have been formed, producing over 3,000 makes of American automobiles. (Automotive industry in the United States - Wikipedia)"

How many Duryea car owners do you know? How many of those 1,900 companies are still around?

The Solyndra failure has been a right-wing talking point deriding non-fossil fuel projects for nearly a dozen years, now. Aren’t you getting just a bit tired of beating his lame horse? Here’s a recent, balanced, look at the issue which adds quite a bit of perspective to the issue.

1 Like

The newly released emails reveal that, internally, some staffers pushed back against a press even from the White House to move ahead with the loan. Solyndra’s largest private investor is George Kaiser, a bundler of campaign donations for Obama in 2008.

Obama administration agreed to Solyndra loan days after insiders foresaw firm's failure – Center for Public Integrity.

It was also revealed that the Obama administration had already been aware of Solyndra’s financial troubles. For example, according to the company’s security filings in 2009, the company had been selling its product for less than the cost of production.

In 2010, Obama visited the Solyndra factory and cited it as a role model for his “stimulus” program, saying “It’s here that companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.”

I’ll see your $535M 12-year-old SolyndraObama scam and raise you $1.5B with my 3-year-old Jared Kushner/Trump/Saudi loan scam!

I’ll keep my Saudi/Trump $6B Sportswashing story in my reserve chip stack… it’s your bet now…


Here are the relevant parts from the article:

Despite the pressure DOE was under to issue a loan guarantee, our boss, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman never even considered overruling that committee. As a result, the Bush Administration did not issue a loan guarantee to Solyndra – or anyone else.

In 2009 however, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act armed the loan guarantee program with millions in taxpayer dollars and the new Administration wanted to show it could do what the former one hadn’t. Late that year DOE issued Solyndra a $530 million loan guarantee. President Barack Obama even visited the company to tout the program.

It took Solyndra only 24 months to burn through the DOE money and declare bankruptcy. The federal government took a massive financial loss.

Thats pretty much all that you need to know. I don’t really care what side you are on…that’s a colossal waste of taxpayer money. Its roughly 10% of the Federal budget back in 2009-2010.

1 Like

Did those funds come from the US Taxpayer? I think that’s been the point of the discussion…

The point of the discussion is the alleged failure of green energy as compared to the continued successful and alleged lower costs of fossil fuels. You attempted to make it a taxpayer-specific discussion.

My comment to you points out the fact that not only is big oil big synomonus with big money, but is also points out that big oil money has a slimy pro-corruption aspect to it. Do you really think the Saudis granted a $2B loan to Javonka out of the goodness of their hearts?