Safe Mode: On
The Green Graveyard of Taxpayer-Funded Failures

Amy Payne

Solar-cell manufacturer Solyndra became a household name when it collapsed, taking $627 million in American taxpayer dollars with it. It’s the poster company for the government picking winners and losers—or really, just losers—in the energy market. But there are 12 more “green energy” losers that have declared bankruptcy despite attempts to prop them up with taxpayer money—and the list is growing.

There’s a reason why these companies could not rely solely on private financing and needed help from the government. They couldn’t make it on their own; they couldn’t even make it with extra taxpayer help.

These green government “investments” take from one (by taxing or borrowing) and give to another, but they merely move money around. They do not create jobs. They send labor and resources to areas of the economy where they are wasted. Proponents of special fi

-

Added: Jul-26-2012 Occurred On: Jul-26-2012
By: marc1921
In:
Politics
Tags: solyndra, boondoggle
Location: New York, New York, United States (load item map)
Views: 1445 | Comments: 23 | Votes: 2 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 2
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Great report.

    So, I'm off to the local hardware store for one of those $50 LED lightbulbs.

    Thank you Greenies!

    Posted Jul-26-2012 By 

    (5) | Report

    • @Arizona_Patriot Of course they're expensive...incandescents were expensive when they were an emerging technology. LED's are the most efficient and durable light sources available. Just check the specs on any modern Luxeon or Cree...

      Posted Jul-26-2012 By 

      (-1) | Report

  • Comment of user 'Moore Slayer' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • Green is the new RED!

    Beware

    Posted Jul-26-2012 By 

    (4) | Report

  • It was designed to fail. It was a good cover to embezzle government funds into the pockets of a few.. It was never meant to be successful.. It was all about stealing money and covering it up from the start.

    Posted Jul-26-2012 By 

    (3) | Report

  • Comment of user 'Nazel_Hut' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • Idiot Obama. I pass by Solydra every single day, such a bummer to see it.

    Posted Jul-26-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

  • Any company that needs public funds to get started / stay afloat isn't an "engine" of anything unless Obama means that they burn money to continue running.

    Posted Jul-26-2012 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Oblamme
    Yes We Can
    theLAB

    Posted Jul-26-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Given our current economy, who here is really surprised that a company might fail? I know this makes good political theater but even Romney will tell you that not all investments pay out (unless you kill the companies like he did).

    The fact is that fossil fuel is a finite resource and one day we will run out. Not only that, but the supply we have is not on an open market. The prices are fixed and manipulated to ensure that we pay more and more regardless of demand. We need to find and imp More..

    Posted Jul-26-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

    • @mabutoo "..." fossil fuel is a finite resource..."

      Yes and the price mechanism allocates scarce resources.

      "...prices are fixed and manipulated to ensure that we pay more and more regardless of demand."

      I disagree. But if you are correct, then the price is actually making fuel less competitive relative to any alternatives because it is higher than it's market price. When an alternative truly is competitive, you will not be able to stop businesses from exploiting that More..

      Posted Jul-27-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @Yukon6400 I agree with you analysis, but oil is not traded on a free market. I think the Obama administration wants the US to explore these alternatives to accelerate their competitveness.

      I can't think of a way to make a 'seamless' transition off oil but I know I am not the smartest guy in the room on that subject. Someone else might.

      Posted Jul-27-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @mabutoo "...but oil is not traded on a free market."

      How can it not be? Yes, there are forces at work that add additional influences (gov't regs, etc.), but the amount of oil sold by vast numbers of sellers & buyers on the world market basically drive it. If your price is slightly higher than everybody else's, everybody will flock to your competition. If your price is slightly lower, the demand will come to you. And it's not just one market. From producer to middle man to refiner More..

      Posted Jul-27-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @Yukon6400 OPEC controls the price of oil through controlling the supply into the market.

      I know they tell you and the media that those are the reasons but they (OPEC) are currently trying to determine what the market will bear for price, but keep it below the price of alternative fuel sources. It is not a free market at all.

      Posted Jul-29-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

  • OK:

    1. Go to a filling station
    2. Fill your car up
    3. By doing so, you make sure that these companies make a billions of profit and pay some tax dollars from YOUR dollars
    4. And don't forget to blame some green failures
    5. This makes you a smart a guy..or maybe not?

    Posted Jul-26-2012 By 

    (-2) | Report

    • @blue-navigator

      Each fill up is a decision, a voluntary exchange that does not take place if both parties do not think they will profit from it.

      Each subsidy is a command transaction where one group of persons property is confiscated to give to another group for a reason the market place deems not necessary.

      My question to you is, How many watts of solar or wind power generation have you purchased or built on your own property to supply your needs?

      Posted Jul-26-2012 By 

      (2) | Report

    • Comment of user 'Amusing' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • Comment of user 'GraveMatter-' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @Yukon6400
      This is at least a good comment on my comment!
      1. Sometimes you need to subsidize new technologies because they cannot compete with technologies that work for 50 years or so and have reached the end of their development. The market reasons for market rules with are not always the best for a society on the long term.
      And don't you think that the average american should pay a little less for gas and Chevron should have a little less "biggest gain in company history"? But what More..

      Posted Jul-27-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @GraveMatter-
      The german accent is back on track :-)!

      Posted Jul-27-2012 By 

      (0) | Report