'Putncalls' pid='61568' datel Wrote:Why do the global warming believers keep citing IPCC? IPCC IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE!!!!You could provide links to a billion pages but they are not credible sources!!!! These are the hockey stick code writers and the creators of the new it's probably the hottest hiatus year statistics. This is all political and the champions are known for Solyndra, Lerner, keeping your doctor, Benghazi, US U238 goes to Russia, the men did it, Bush did it, racism did it, trillions and trillions of debt, Keystone destroys the water, fracking is bad and Christians are eating gay people.

In several parts.

First up, Solyndra, you keep bringing this up.

1) Yes, it received big loan guarantees from the DOE

This, in and by itself shows its commercial prospects were rather unsure, otherwise it would have been able to assure private credit on acceptable terms. The DOE program exists exactly to fund this kind of companies, not all will be a success.

2) Yes, Solyndra failed

Does that invalidate the whole DOE program? No. In fact, that program as a whole turns a (rather small) profit.

But more importantly, if a single company in the market fails, do we declare the whole market system a failure?

Of course not.

3) Solyndra's failure

This had a lot to do with the steep fall of the price of polysilicon, a crucial ingredient in a rival (and market leading) technology. Even First Solar was knocked sideways by this for quite some time, as it enabled solar cell producers based on polysilicon (mainly the Chinese) to undercut prices.

Happens all the time, part of a giant trial-and-error.

'Putncalls' pid='61570' datel Wrote:I see a different picture of Solyndra. Ron Klain was in on it. Total moral failure!!!!! http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390677/ron-klain-and-solyndra-andrew-c-mccarthy

You're entitled to your views, put, I have no problem with that, especially as you're part of the SHU family and are always civil.

Even if fraud was committed and responsible for the downfall of Solyndra (I don't exclude that, I'm not a forensic accountant), what does it prove?

There are plenty of other available explanations for the downfall of Solyndra, as the solar industry went through the biggest shake-out at the time and many more private companies, including the biggest solar producer in the world (Suntech) and a good deal of the German solar manufacturing capacity went bust as there was a prior gigantic overinvestment wave in new capacity.

But do guys like me say the whole market system is defunct because of that overinvestment resulting in so many bust companies, or alternatively because of a fraud case? Not me. Nothing is perfect.

What I do say is that too much special interest is messing with politics and altering outcomes. Perhaps Solyndra was a case like that, although I can sort of understand why the DOE wanted to back it. The Chinese were taking over the industry at the time and their companies are almost exclusively based on polysilicon.

At least in theory, it did make some sense to try to replicate the success for First Solar, which is based on an alternative technology (CdTe thin film) and Solyndra was trying another thin film tech:

Back in 2005, when solar energy was on the brink of today's boom, Solyndra set out to produce a lower-cost alternative to panels made with crystalline silicon, a century-old photovoltaic (PV) technology that uses polysilicon to produce solar cells and wafers. At the time, polysilicon was scarce and expensive, which meant that solar panel prices were high. So Solyndra invested in a nascent thin-film solar technology called CIGS for the copper, indium, gallium and selenium elements it contains.

Can Solyndra's Breakthrough Solar Technology Outlive the Company's Demise? | InsideClimate News

Like I argued, the price of polysilicon collapsed, there was an enormous over-investment wave leading to an epic bust. Had that not happened, who knows, the US might have had another important domestic solar producer, besides the likes of First Solar and SunPower (and a few others). All IMHO, of course.

'Putncalls' pid='61568' datel Wrote:Why do the global warming believers keep citing IPCC? IPCC IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE!!!!You could provide links to a billion pages but they are not credible sources!!!! These are the hockey stick code writers and the creators of the new it's probably the hottest hiatus year statistics. This is all political and the champions are known for Solyndra, Lerner, keeping your doctor, Benghazi, US U238 goes to Russia, the men did it, Bush did it, racism did it, trillions and trillions of debt, Keystone destroys the water, fracking is bad and Christians are eating gay people.

"The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.^[7]

"Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)^[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.^[9]"- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

^{Without a doubt those scientists who  on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC, contribute to the review of  published literature are all in it for the money.  As for the suggestion the IPCC is not a credible source, well that is about as weak an ad hominim attack as I've ever read.   If you search the world it is unlikely you we find one more authoritative.  As to your Benghazi reference it reminds me an awful lot of Rudi Juliani's use of "911" in every other sentence.}

Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson said Wednesday the company backs a price on carbon and believes climate change brings “real” risks that require “serious” action. Speaking at the Oil & Money conference in London, Tillerson also noted that the Paris climate accord set to kick in this November is unlikely to limit near-term consumption of oil and gas, Climate Central reported. “We have long used a proxy cost of carbon… there’s a range depending on the country, depending on the tax that we think would be appropriate,” he said. “We’re trying to influence and inform people and business on the choices they make.”

Exxon boss: climate change is ‘real’ and ‘serious’

So we have the Exxon CEO (and basically all climate scientist) warning about climate change but the new president argues that it's a hoax brought about by the Chinese to gain advantage. To whom is he going to listen? To Greg:

Gregory Mankiw is a Harvard professor, one of the most influential economists in the world, and a Republican. He served as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush, and advised both the 2008 and 2012 Mitt Romney campaigns for president. And he thinks the US needs a carbon tax. In an interview with National Geographic — conducted, incidentally, by actor Leonardo DiCaprio, who stepped into the role of science reporter for "Before the Flood" — Mankiw explained why he believes a carbon tax is the best option for curbing US emissions. A "carbon tax" is actually a series of taxes that increases the cost of activities like burning coal or buying gasoline that pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "You want to tax bad activities that have negative effects on other people in society," he said. "We raised the price of cigarettes by putting a tax on cigarettes, people then consume fewer cigarettes."

Harvard professor Gregory Mankiw: Carbon tax is a good idea - Business Insider