TINA CASEY
If House Republicans expected the Solyndra investigation to focus public attention on their opposition to President Obama’s energy policies, by any measure they have succeeded. However, in gunning after the Department of Energy and its solar power loan program they have fallen prey to the law of unintended consequences, and are now heading on a collision course with the Department of Defense.
That is a rather odd position for the Republican Party to be in, given that it has built its brand on unequivocal support for the U.S. military, but for several years now DoD has been committed to transitioning out of petroleum fuels and into solar energy and other alternatives.
DoD highlighted its alternative energy priorities this fall with a flurry of public activity, coincidentally or not just as the Solyndra investigation was gathering steam. On September 15 the Army stood up its new Energy Initiatives Task Force with the mission of fast-tracking utility scale solar power and other renewable energy installations at its bases, and on September 13 the Air Force hosted a media roundtable on sustainable energy, following up on a public display of high performance jet biofuel by the Navy’s Blue Angels aerial demonstration team over Labor Day weekend.
The Navy also held its annual Naval Energy Forum in October under the theme “Creating Spartan Energy Warriors.” In a speech at the event on October 13 Navy Secretary Ray Mabus forcefully articulated the military reasoning behind the move away from petroleum, both foreign and domestic:
We buy too much fuel from potentially or actually volatile places on earth, those places we would never let build our ships, our aircraft, our ground vehicles, but we give them a say. We gave them a say on whether our ships sail, whether our aircraft fly, whether those ground vehicles operate because we get our fuel from them.
And even if we could get all the fossil fuels from the United States, from inside our borders, it’s still a global commodity and subject to price shocks and supply shocks and the price shocks we deal with virtually every day.
Mabus’s remarks were underscored on November 11 when the solar company SunPower Corp. announced that it was moving forward with construction of a utility-scale solar installation for the Navy at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake in California - and that brings us right back around to the Solyndra investigation.
Practically on the same day that Mabus gave his speech, SunPower Corp. was targeted as “Solyndra 2.0” by conservative media, though for another, separate project called the California Valley Solar Ranch. That effort is a partnership with energy giant NRG, funded with a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from DOE, more than double the amount received by Solyndra.
The “worse-than-Solyndra” meme was picked up and amplified by a number of bloggers and other media. That dovetailed with comments by Republican leaders such as Rep. Darryl Issa (R-California), who in September stated that in light of competition from China it would be “reasonable to predict that we could have the collapse of the entire solar panel manufacturing business in America.”
If that is truly the case, then based on decades-long U.S. energy policy there is all the more reason to boost public subsidies for the domestic solar industry. After all, DoD’s reliance on both petroleum and nuclear energy has been supported all along by heavy taxpayer subsidies for those industries, specifically with national defense in mind.
In any case, the Solyndra investigation has failed to uncover anything out of the ordinary, and as amply documented by Media Matters, efforts to paint SunPower as another destined-to-fail solar company have fizzled, though the conservative site Human Events is still doggedly pursuing the matter through the Freedom of Information Act.
As things stand now, House Republicans are still looking for another solar energy bogeyman - and military strategists are probably wondering just who is on their side.
flagged as SPAM Areslv Lv
Ok, so how many years has the military been focusing on transitioning away from fossil fuels?
About 3?
Sea Bear At least seven years. There was a Nat'l Labs assessment in the early 2000's.
The sad part is that the solar technology developed at Solyndra will probably be sold to a Chinese company in the liquidation....Americans win again, NOT!
The company failed because solar prices tanked, not because their tech was deficient.
antonionio I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut but there's been more than one occasion when I've thought Republicans in Congress seem to be acting as if they wish to benefit interests in China over the U.S. It fits so well with Murdoch also having ties with China that it's hard to resist going all out conspiracist about that.
This is really just another example of Daryl Issa, Al Queda's point man in America doing his best to create controversy and corruption where there was none. Im glad that it goes up against what the Pentagon is doing in their planning. Why rightwing scum like Issa and the whole Republican party see giving money to the Arabs for Oil is sane rather than subsidizing the development of altenative energy sources I will never know. Making a mistake in technology like Solyandra did happens. Making policy that is basically insane and harmful to this country is Republican.
Maybe the military's just tired of losing too many soldiers in too many decade-long wars on the other side of the planet in godforsaken countries to insure American citizens can continue to waste energy.
Maybe we should all be paying the $80 a gallon that gas costs in Afghanistan.
Back in the sixties when an experimental moon rocket exploded at great cost, should we have given up, raised a fuss, tried to sue, run down the opposing party, and just given up? Or accept failure, learn by it, try again with better ideas and gone to the moon. All forms of energy are worth looking intoand trying. Oil will not last for ever.
McCarthy ran into a similar problem when he tried to intimidate the Army about half a century ago. And look at what happened to HIM.
What if you're against both? I'm against corporatism in all it's forms, whether it be military, health care, or education.
JohnPidaras I begin to wonder if there is anything you are actually *for*.
I'm for freedom and liberty. I'm for peace.
JohnPidaras What do you mean by "corporatism"?
trying to minimize the scandel of losing $500,000,000 to the rip-off solyndra con-artists and somehow trying to pit the republicans vs. the military will not work. the rip-off stands by itself, the democrats not only gave them the money, they then gave up the rights of tax-payers to collect what will be left over after the bankruptcy to ther creditors [who just happen to be democrats]. pretty soon you will minimize the killing of the pakistani border guards yesterday, the 'fast and furios' gun running, the fleecing of america with fannie and freddie.stand up, take responsibility, just say 'hey, we thought it would do some good, but we were wrong'. those words do not appear in any political party's vocabulary.
Are you kidding me? Asking the partisan hacks here to admit any problems whatsoever that might exist with the Democrats or Our Dear Leader Obama is like suggesting to a religious conservative that there may not be a God.
jjdjjd Democrats didn't give anybody money through the DOE loan program.
The review board, every single one of whom served under Bush, approved a government guarantee of a non-government loan.
There was no con job, Solyndra had a perfectly functional product at a price point that was completely viable at the 2009 price of Silicon. An unforeseen collapse in the price of silicon made their product uncompetitive on price alone - although it's still interesting because of its ability to shed snow.
Solyndra's bankruptcy filing reported more assets than liabilities. The government is first in line to all but $75 million of the assets - the $75 million that was injected as part of the restructuring, which allowed Fab 2 to be completed, thus boosting the value of Solyndra's assets by considerably more than $75 million. The government stands a substantial chance of being liable for precisely zero dollars when all is said and done, and no chance at all of being on the hook for the full half billion.
The Waltons were just about as involved with Solyndra as Kaiser.
Take your pack of specious lies and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.
sullivanst
you lie.
jjdjjdsullivanst No, you are simply projecting.
slbsullivanst
you can't say the words , can you? you're statement shows an astonishingly lack of the facts of the case. like a lawyer, you are only presenting one side in the hope that no one will notice. not even the democrats in congress agree with you.
jjdjjdslbsullivanst Sullivanst provided facts. Your whining "you lie" is not a refutation. If you have the facts to refute the argument, present them. If not, STFU
jjdjjd No, you lie.
See how far that moved the discussion?
BTW, you do understand the difference between a loan, and a guarantee, don't you? You are aware that the DOE-guaranteed loan wasn't drawn down in full, aren't you? You do know that the Walton vehicle Madrone Capital Partners bought at least $10 million of Solyndra stock and issued a $50 million bridge loan to Solyndra, right? You've read the filings that stated assets of $859 million and secured debts of $783.8 million, haven't you?
Switzerslbsullivanst
you STFU. the facts can be found, if you're interest, by looking up the testimony in congress. if you're not interested, and i don't think you are, then just list to what you read on TPM.
sullivanst
YEAH, I'M AWARE
jjdjjd slb sullivanst we are all waiting for the story that you will present...
jjdjjd Facts: that means YOU look them up and present them here, not just say "you lie"...
RealBookwormslbsullivanst
the DEP board voted not to give the loans, as did the OMB from the white house, a of jan.9, 2009. steven chu fell on his sword to protect obama, who was visited by kaiser 19 times in 2009, was a 'bundler' for the obama campaign. the loan guanantee's will have to be paid to the creditors, because obama and his government said they would.
RealBookwormslbsullivanst
tpm has put a limit on the 'characters' i can use, which prevents me from giving all the facts. look it up, this stuff is bad.
jjdjjdRealBookwormslbsullivanst
"the DEP board voted not to give the loans, as did the OMB from the white house"
I don't know what the DEP is but your statement about the OMB having "voted" against the loan is demonstrably false. If the OMB had declined the loan, no money would have been given to Solyndra.
jjdjjd Here's the difference between capitalization and none: I helped my Uncle Jack off a horse. I helped my uncle jack off a horse.
Hank
jack meoff.
I only sort of pity you jjdjjd. You keep telling people to read the congressional testimony. And what is more illuminating than what was said is what WASN'T said. Little time was spent on the investment partners in Solyndra. Less was spent on the structure of the loans. A hell of a lot was glossed over. The hearings were not about finding out what happened but about making political hay any way possible.
Sadly this appears to be beyond your comprehension. Stick to arguing with your fellow eighth graders.
We will NOT stand for you insulting 8th graders like that around these parts ... Stray2Bullet
jjdjjd I guess I'm confused: if democrats are creditors, than does that make them the owners of industry? Why would they be for environmental laws and opposed to big oil than? If they are the "owners of the debt," how is it they would bankrupt companies that owe them money, isn't that not good business? If they are such good businessmen that they have managed to trick everyone into believing that they are for the middle class, and that it is REPUBLICANS that own the debts of this nation, followed up by other nations that Republicans borrowed from under Bush, how is it that they would than support the collapse of these industries to the point they would seek bankruptcy court protection from THOSE SAME DEBTS?????? Isn't it MORE likely that, as FACTS present themselves, Republicans own most debt collection, loan and banking companies. Republicans own most large scale agri-business that employs illegals, and Republicans own all the businesses that sell, make, procure and disperse military equipment.
Owl
you're a dope. did you not read the part of my post where i said'those words do not appear in any political party's vocabulary?' that should give you some idea of what i think of BOTH major party's. so, if you're confused its because you can't read.
jjdjjd you started this off with this all being a democratic "plan" to pit the Republicans against the army, when, in fact, it's the Republicans' plan. They are in the way of progress, and the army, which is usually on the edge of it, is going to inevitably come into conflict with folks that don't feel like accepting that the times they are in are not 30 years earlier, and it has always been so.
Owl
OH MY GAWD, YOU ARE SO STUPID ITS PATHETIC.
jjdjjd Please step away from the mirror before you hurt yourself.
I keep saying these ignorant Repubs DON'T THINK THINGS THROUGH.
Everything is "gotta get Obama" with absolutely NO thought to reasoning, facts, consequences, or liability.
Let's see...so far they've managed to go after the blacks, hispanics, seniors, college students, union members, unemployed, sick, children, firemen, police (except the ones they're using to evict OWS)....who's left????
I'm amazed the House hasn't introduced a bill to outlaw the military using any energy not from oil or nuclear.
So now we'll find out what the Tea Party GOP hates more, brown foreign people or clean energy.
mmbeitler: "we desperately need to make all elections publicly funded so our government once again becomes a tool to keep our country safe and prosperous instead of keeping special interests happy at the expense of our national security and our economic health"
so much wisdom in that statement...
the real story here is that all 3 branches of the military, arguably the most conservative non-partisan / right leaning component of the united states hierarchy, recognize the danger to our security if we don't move away from fossil fuels and the volatile governments that control their production and distribution. the question then becomes why doesn't the united states congress recognize these risks inherent in our dependence and act to mobilize our sleeping industrial capability and grow a renewable energy sector to make us the envy of the world and remove oil and it's producers from the international stage.
we desperately need to make all elections publicly funded so our government once again becomes a tool to keep our country safe and prosperous instead of keeping special interests happy at the expense of our national security and our economic health.
mmbeitler <blockquote>the question then becomes why doesn't the united states congress recognize these risks</blockquote>
Because the military has no choice but to operate in the reality-based world. That's where wars are fought and are either won or lost. Politicians can afford the luxury of creating their own reality and bamboozling voters to join them in their delusion, because they are not going to be the ones that ultimately have to bear the hard consequences of denial.
One has to wonder how much money Sunpower "owes" the California Demo Party. I know Solandra listed the Calif Demo Party as one of its creditors. Imagine, taxpayers having to pay money to the Repub Party????
Topper01 "Imagine, taxpayers having to pay money to the Repub Party?"
You mean like in 2004 when they helped fun Bush's re-election campaign?
Flying SquidTopper01 pre-quoting Topper01 here: "...Oh! Snap!!"
Topper01 Still unaware that the loan guarantee was initiated under GW Bush???? If you're gonna slam them, at least get the name right. It's Solyndra, not Solandra.
The Republicans seem to have no basement on criticizing Obama - even if it means they have to align themselves with China against the U.S. solar industry AND the U.S. Defense Department to do it.
What a ship of fools they be. Talk about working against your own best interests.....just astounding!
Sexy Babydoll Lingerie Our sexy babydolls are made to make a woman feel beautiful in her own skin. This hot lingerie is made with soft, delicate sheer fabrics, such as lace or silk, you can see right away they are here to make you feel wanted. Most of our babydoll lingerie is made with formed cups and a matching panty, the revealing mid section is an added bonus for a little extra vavoom. Shop Our Sexy Babydoll Lingerie
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like