The Path To Green Energy

President Obama is convinced that green energy is the future. He has already spent billions of dollars of your money on  failed green energy companies

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

List: 36 Of Obama’s Taxpayer-Funded Green Energy Failures – Fox Nation

Now he blames climate skeptics for the technology failures he backed. This is spectacularly irrational, but there is a path forward for him.

Pick a heavily Democratic state like Rhode Island or Vermont, and turn it into a green energy demonstration. Run the entire state off green energy generated inside the state borders, and no one will be able to doubt the viability of the technology. Senators Sanders and Whitehouse would surely go along with this.

Are they serious about green energy, or are they just witch burners looking for someone to blame for their failures?

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to The Path To Green Energy

  1. AndyG55 says:

    You have to do a quick search, but the * means that company has filed for bankruptcy.
    Wonder how many of the scammers behind those companies have taken that money and run. ??

    This would be a good list to send to the frightbat in the previous thread. 🙂

    Perhaps you could ask the Hopeless one to do the research on where all the money went.

    • Shazaam says:

      They’re not “scammers”.

      Most of them appear to be well-connected contributors to the Obama campaign funds. I would love to see a match-up of campaign contributions (aka bribes) to grant pay-offs (aka kickbacks). Won’t happen, but I can dream.

      Just another fine example of the Chicago political machine at work in Mordor-on-the-Potomac (aka DC).

  2. AndyG55 says:

    “Run the entire state off green energy generated inside the state borders”

    ACT in Australia wanted to try that, but EVERY wind turbine was going to be outside its region, in NSW. Quite bizarre !!

  3. John Goetz says:

    Do Vermont instead.

    • Vermont has hydro. I don’t want to give them a way to cheat.

      • John Goetz says:

        They have hydro Quebec. In-state hydro is a pittance. I still think you’d win.

      • Andy Mirlach says:

        To make the experiment fair you would need to take a heavily Republican State and do the opposite.

        I would like to see that experiment run on a larger scale. For example take the five most left and right states and allow them to set policy independently from the Federal Government for a period of time, say five years. With an option to renew.

        I would bet that leftists would be opposed to this while the right would embrace the idea.

  4. Raindog says:

    I will throw this into the equation. My line of work deals with Chinese cyber espionage and US based Green Energy is *highly* targeted by the Chinese, which gives them a huge tech advantage costing next to nothing.

  5. omanuel says:

    Thank you, Steven, for using your keen analytical mind and ability to communicate for the benefit of our deeply troubled society.

    The request for an interview confirms the effectiveness of your investigation and reporting.

    It you grant the interview, the political and financial resources behind the AGW fable and consensus science news may focus on destroying your reputation, although you “carried the day” on the unedited interview.

    “Never argue with one who buys ink” (cameras, video film, news media, politicians, ‘scientists’, etc) “by the barrel.”

  6. Chewer says:

    The most viable bet would be geo-thermal.
    The two deepest conventional shaft-drilled bore holes at 7.1 and 7.4 miles deep hit the same problem of 568 degrees F.
    Using alternate approaches should allow us to drop into 1700 degrees (or better), on demand anywhere on the face of the planet…
    These twisted bastards don’t care about renewable energy, CO2 or anything GREEN, but for the past 35,000 years their kind has feared there fellow human, so the goal is reduction at any and all means.
    With reduction comes nirvana…

  7. ren says:

    Strong solar wind (speed) and the polar vortex recedes up from Canada, which will change circulation.

  8. ren says:

    For a long time, it has been known that low-energy continuous gamma radiation is present in open air at the Earth’s surface. In previous investigations it was assumed that this radiation is produced almost exclusively by gamma photons emitted due to the natural radioactivity, which are backscattered by air above ground. We show that significant amount of this radiation (related to energy region 30–300 keV) that peaks at about 90 keV, is produced by cosmic-rays, with the photon flux of about 3000 m−2 s−1. We find that the contribution of this omnipresent low-energy gamma radiation of cosmic-ray origin, including the corresponding low-energy electron flux, to the doses of general population are non-negligible components of overall doses induced by cosmic rays near sea level.

  9. B says:

    Green energy is a wealth transfer device, nothing more.

    Here’s how to get rich. Come up with an idea so good people should be forced to fund it. Buy some politicians or make friends with them and cut them in on the deal. Start your company and get the government funding. Pay yourself a large salary and be sure to support your government pals. Go through the motions. Use company funds for trips, parties, etc for yourself, employees, etc.Try to get more government funding. If that fails let the company fail. Walk away with a pile of money.

    Roughly half of the american public will defend your company and roughly half will be against it. Just depends on what sort of company you create. Green energy, defense contractor, police supplier, whatever. It’s the same game no matter what, just make the company compatible with the team that has management power at the time.

    • Edmonton Al says:

      You might also add this.
      Form a corporation; issue yourself and your political and business friends lots of shares [call them consulting fees]. Go public. Goldman Sachs will handle the new issue; give themselves and top client mega share allotments; start the hype about being a “green energy” winner; have the NYSE or NASDAQ start trading the stock at a ridiculously high price; unload your shares; walk away a millionaire.
      Repeat the above over and over.

  10. gator69 says:

    All that money spent, and my energy bills keep going higher. I think we have found a correlation.

  11. AndyG55 says:

    Haven’t added this list up, looks like around $10 BILLION at least.

    That is US taxpayer money that has had basically ZERO return… an utter WASTE.

  12. ralphcramdo says:

    How Wind Energy Creates More Dependence on Fossil Fuels

    One of the strongest arguments against wind energy is the assertion that “natural gas alone” would produce fewer emissions than when it is combined with wind. That’s because having to switch natural gas generation on and off, literally at the whim of the way the wind blows, is less efficient and therefore less clean.

    • Hugh K says:

      Thanks for the info ralph. Did not know that. Will add that to my arsenal…

    • Byron says:

      Might go some way to explain petroleum companies enthusiasm for investing in “green” NGOs , gas turbines cost around 50% more per kwh to run than coal fired plants and as gas turbines have a much reduced operating life under constant use it can a good deal more cost than that over the life of the plant . Why would You use them when coal is available unless You need something to deal with intermittent peaks in demand or to fill in the all too frequent troughs in supply that come with the fashionably erratic renewables .

  13. Steve Case says:

    Comes to only $3.3 Billion – What are you whining about?

  14. Charlie says:

    I doubt that Johnson Controls is bankrupt. This may have been a tiny portion of their business.

  15. smamarver says:

    There are demonstrations and marches all over the world, having the climate change as the main subject. One of them was in London, during this week-end – That reminds me about the fact some of the protesters (a large number, I suppose) forget o don’t konw one essential fact: the one that the sun and the oceans are the most important factors in climate change and, since we don’t have the power to influence the sun (at least not now), we have to pay much more attention to the oceans. They are here, so close to us, and human activities affected them a lot in the past century.

  16. Alterra Penguin says:

    So much for the Green business and their big numbers, to have all this bankrupcy, destruction of the environment, i believe many people have been victims of dementia praecox for too long. I always take note to self: What is bad for the economy is bad for the environment…

  17. Gail Combs says:

    The oceans are affected by the SUN not humans!

    The amount of sun reflected or absorbed is dependent on albedo. The albedo has changed since the 1997/98 El Nino. It has been 17 years since then and the temperature has been static.

    In September 2012, Antarctica sea Ice reached record levels extending 7.51 million square miles (19.44 million square kilometers).

    In October, 2013, the Antarctic sea ice extents was at a record high maximum at right at 19.5 Million square kilometers.

    In September 2014, Antarctic sea ice extent set a new record high for daily extent: 20.11 million square kilometers (7.76 million square miles).

    …The Antarctic sea ice extents ANOMALY in October 2013 was also very high – over 1.5 Mkm^2 of “excess” southern sea ice extents. ALL of this “excess” sea ice was between latitude 60 south and latitude 59 south. ALL of this “excess” southern sea ice extents covered an area LARGER than the entire area of Hudson Bay….

    Just remember, at today’s sea ice extents, the “edge” of the Arctic sea is a tiny ring about latitude 78 -82 north in mid-September. The “edge” of Antarctic’s sea ice minimum is also a “ring” – but that ring is about latitude 66 south. Much closer to the equator, much more energy reflected from the Antarctic sea ice, right? Now, at maximum extents, the “edge” Arctic sea ice is at its closest point to the equator is only down to 72 north, not even as close to the equator as the minimum Antarctic sea ice! But at its maximum, Antarctic sea ice extents is much, much higher at 59.2 to 59.0 latitude. Closer to the equator than even the most southern tip of Greenland!

    Now, at the equinoxes, when both Arctic and Antarctic are both hit by the same solar intensity, the Antarctic Sea Ice receives between 2x (Feb-March) to 5x (September-October) the energy that the Arctic sea ice receives. Thus, to reflect equal energy into space, the “gain” of even 1.0 Mkm^2 of southern sea ice extents needs to be balanced by a loss 2 to 5 LARGER in the Arctic.

    Instead, we see near even sea ice changes. So, since at today’s levels of sea ice extents, “more Arctic sea ice loss” up north means a net loss of energy from the planet; and “more sea ice extents gain” down south means a net loss of energy from the planet, we are facing a future big problem. If today’s trends continue.
    RA Cook


    Albedo of Arctic sea ice changes only based on day-of-year. Albedo starts high at 0.82, stays steady at 0.82 until May, decreases through the summer to a low of 0.46, then rises again to 0.82 until about September, then remains at 0.82 until the end of December. This is from Dr Curry’s measured data.

    1. Albedo of sea ice does NOT change with latitude.

    2. Albedo of open ocean changes with every HOUR of every day as the solar elevation angle changes each minute. Specifically, open ocean albedo does NOT change explicitly with latitude, but latitude affects the overall SEA change over day-of-year AND latitude and hour-of-day (HRA), These changes are based on the earth’s declination and geometry and is strictly and specifically defined. But, Hour-of-day and day-of-year CANNOT be separated from latitude.

    3. Opposite the above, the yearly maximum solar radiation occurs in early January at 1410 watts.m^2. The minimum solar top-of-atmosphere radiation occurs July 3, when the Arctic sea ice is decreasing strongly day-by-day, BUT while Arctic sea ice is between min and max. Roughly, the edge of Arctic sea ice is between 74 and 76 north.

    At the point of maximum solar radiation at TOA, the ANTARCTIC sea ice is is a wide “ring” slowly varying from 59.2 south (last October under 1370 watts/m^2) to about 64 south latitude (in January under 1410 watts/m^2) to a minimum sea ice extent at 3 Mkm^2 (in March at 70 south latitude back down to 1360 watts/m^2). So, when the TOA solar radiation is at its maximum, ARCTIC sea ice is dark. When the top-of-atmosphere radiation is at its max, Antarctic sea ice is not at its minimum.

    Net effect: As a whole, Antarctic sea ice is MUCH, MUCH closer to the equator every day of the year.

    Overall, increased heat losses from open ocean in the Arctic (when Arctic sea ice is at a minimum in late August-September) are much greater than increased heat absorbed into that open water. More sea ice loss in the Arctic => More heat loss from the planet and a net cooler planet.

    The opposite happens in the Antarctic: More sea ice around Antarctica means more heat reflected from the planet and a net cooler planet.

    It is not really necessary to “combine” or group the other two parts of the Antarctic

    Up north, the Arctic Ocean STARTS at 70 north latitude, and this IS the southern limit of the Arctic Ocean. Essentially ALL “Arctic sea ice” then cycles between 70 north latitude (at MAXIMUM extents at 14.0 Mkm^2) and 80 north (if 4.0 Mkm^2). In the future, this minimum could go even closer to the pole: if there were 1.0 Mkm^2, all the arctic sea ice is a little beanie cap from the pole to 85 north latitude.

    The Antarctic sea ice is INCREASING at all times of the year.
    The Antarctic sea ice cycles between a minimum of of 4.0 Mkm^2 at latitude 70 south, to a maximum of of 19.5 Mkm^2 at latitude 59.2 south.

    The Arctic sea ice only varies between 72 north and 82 north.

    On EVERY day of the year, Antarctic sea is exposed to 2 to 5 times the radiation that Arctic sea ice receives, and is therefore Antarctic sea ice is 2 to 5 times MORE important to the earth’s heat balance than the Arctic sea ice. (But the tropics are even more important.)
    RA Cook

    RA Cook’s spread sheet of solar insolation by day of year by latitude: link

  18. Gail Combs says:

    Think about what RA cook said about a combination of sea ice loss in the NH and gain in the SH means a major heat loss for the planet over all.

    It is summer in the Southern Hemisphere and the Antarctic sea ice is still above normal. I read recently that even at minimum extent it is at record high levels.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The last graphs are February sea ice for 2013, 2014 and 2015 from Climate4you.


      Back to Albedo, this time clouds. (Again from Climate4you)

      Scatter diagram showing the total monthly global cloud cover plotted versus the monthly global surface air temperature, since July 1983. High values of global cloud cover is associated with low global temperatures, demonstrating the cooling effect of clouds. A simple linear fit model suggests that an increase in global cloud cover of 1 percent corresponds to a global temperature decrease of about 0.07oC. From a simple statistical point of view, this model explains about 28 percent of observed spread of surface air temperature in the diagram….”

      Total Global Monthly Cloud Cover. Note the decrease from ~1987 to ~1999 followed by an increase follows the same pattern as the Earthshine Albedo graph. Also note it follows the global temperature quite nicely but dies not follow CO2 as the ClimAstrologists predicted.

      Diagram showing monthly variations in total global cloud cover since July 1983. During the period of observations, the total amount of clouds has varied from about 69 percent in 1987 to about 64 percent in 2000. The annual variation of the cloud cover follows the annual variation in atmospheric water vapour content, presumably reflecting the asymmetrical distribution of land and ocean on planet Earth….
      Within the still short period of satellite cloud cover observations, the total global cloud cover reached a maximum of about 69 percent in 1987 and a minimum of about 64 percent in 2000 (see diagram above), a decrease of about 5 percent. This decrease roughly corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.9 W/m2 within a period of only 13 years, which may be compared with the total net change from 1750 to 2006 of 1.6 W/m2 of all climatic drivers as estimated in the IPCC 2007 report, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels. These observations leave little doubt that cloud cover variations may have a profound effect on global climate and meteorology on almost any time scale considered.

      Earthshine Albedo graph

  19. J.P. Lane says:

    Not one person here has come up with an alternative to green energy despite bashing it, and everything the world’s top climate scientists have warned us about has been disregarded. Pythagorus calculated that the world is spherical as early as the 6th century BC, yet educated Europeans at the time of Columbus still believed in a flat earth. The more things change, the more they remain the same. I suppose denial is part of human nature.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s