Obama commits billions to solar firms
President Barack Obama, under pressure to spur job growth, said on Saturday two solar energy companies will get nearly $2 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to create as many as 5,000 green jobs.
In his weekly radio and Web address, Obama coupled his announcement with an acknowledgment that efforts to recover from the recession are slow a day after the Labor Department reported that private hiring in June rose by 83,000.
"It's going to take months, even years, to dig our way out, and it's going to require an all-hands-on-deck effort," he said.
All told, 5,000 jobs are expected to be created through use of $1.85 billion in money taken from the $787 billion economic stimulus that Obama pushed through the U.S. Congress in early 2009 over the strenuous objections of Republicans.
Obama announced the Energy Department will award $1.45 billion in loan guarantees to Abengoa Solar to help it build Solona, one of the largest solar generation plants in the world near Gila Bend, Ariz.
Abengoa Solar, headquartered in Lakewood, Colo., is a unit of Spanish renewable energy and engineering company Abengoa SA. In the short term, construction will create some 1,600 jobs in Arizona.
"After years of watching companies build things and create jobs overseas, it's good news that we've attracted a company to our shores to build a plant and create jobs right here in America," Obama said.
Obama said $400 million in loan guarantees will be awarded to Colorado-based Abound Solar Manufacturing to manufacture advanced solar panels at two new plants, creating more than 2,000 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs.
Plant in empty
car factory
A Colorado plant is already being constructed and an Indiana plant will be built in what is now an empty Chrysler factory.
The announcement addresses Obama's desire to create jobs related to green technologies.
Obama, whose Democrats are anticipating losses in Nov. 2 congressional elections because of the weak jobs picture, said the steps he is taking "won't replace all the jobs we've lost overnight" and that "I know folks are struggling."
He accused Republicans of blocking a $33 billion extension of unemployment benefits that failed to pass the House of Representatives on Tuesday.
"At a time when millions of Americans feel a deep sense of urgency in their own lives, Republican leaders in Washington just don't get it," Obama said.
Republicans say the problem is Democrats want to pass legislation that would add to the country's debt.
In the Republican response to Obama's address, Senator Saxby Chambliss called the country's $13 trillion debt "one of the most dangerous threats confronting America today."
"At a time when many Americans are clipping coupons and pinching pennies, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress continue to spend money that they--we--do not have," Chambliss said.
Story Copyright (c) 2010 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
If its being paid for, not by insurance premiums, but by the general taxpayer - why keep excluding those 50% that never got a dime, and are just as suffering and hungry (even more so, for never having gotten any help).
There is no movement to make this fair, actually not extending these benefits further, is the closest to 'fair' that we've seen in a long time. - not that I recommend that solution, I would do the opposite, extend the benefits to all.
$2 billion for 5,000 jobs, uh huh. The economy needs to create millions of jobs.
It is said that the "longest journey starts with the first step. And, the creation of 500(1) jobs is just just one more of many attempts/bold steps to right the American economy. Also, "Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You.... But, Rather What You Can Do For Your Country"!
the private sector won't usually spend itself into bankruptcy, corporations do sometimes but in general, they try to avoid it.
the issue with public spending, is even if, as a company you tried to become profitable - with the majority of the economy being public sector spending (and its approaching the majority)...it really is a moot point what you do. The spending is going to occur, and you'll be presented the bill.
"the private sector won't usually spend itself into bankruptcy"
So all those billions to bail out the banks so they didn't collapse the entire economy were what, a collective hallucination?
It never ceases to amaze me, the way free-marketeers can manage to so massively delude themselves so-as to ignore even the most obvious clue that their ideas are utterly lunatic.
It's a bit of a bug... I've seen comments disappear, double-posted, etc. Methinks that someone at CNET hadn't done a proper change management this go 'round. :)
I suspect the Javascript source files aren't necessarily loading because it can sometimes take a refresh or two before the 'Reply to this comment' link even does anything.
"It never ceases to amaze me, the way free-marketeers can manage to so massively delude themselves so-as to ignore even the most obvious clue that their ideas are utterly lunatic.
You collectivists can start calling us deluded when you stop pointing the guns to our heads. That putative free market that collapsed last year? That was yours.
For every government-insured, government-sponsored, government-regulated bank and company that diluted risk and engendered moral hazard, and threatened to collapse the "entire economy," private businesses were running just fine.
for a change
Nuclear needs federal government subsidies since its operators need so much approval from OTHER levels of government that projects are routinely delayed by years and years. No private entity would loan money to a nuclear plant that may never be built. What's stopping the solar plant from getting private funds? "Only" its absolute inability to turn a profit. How about that $400 million factory? Same thing, if it was a reasonable investment it would have been funded many years ago when solar panels were worth more.
Again, if these projects were selected for government support by a professional agency (like the Dept. of Energy) from funds appropriated for this purpose (like nuclear power assistance), then I would have few objections. Instead, it's Obama picking the winner based on some campaign promise designed to appease the greenies. It's not good policy.
So you don't see a need to force the pace of development and end dependence on both external suppliers and painfully finite fossil fuels (don't start on coal shale, the whole of Russia has dumped that as too expensive) as a matter of national security?
As much as I agree with the last comment, I can't criticise any of these projects on the basis of profitability for the simple reason that it's going to cost a lot more to deal with avoidable climate change and having to process coal shale for power plants that can't cope without some form of gas or oil. If you think fuel's expensive now, take the trend from ten years ago and project it ten years and that's what's going to happen.
I don't think you really understand how much oil there is and why it's still the best energy source. Solar will not come close to ending dependency on oil. And you're completely wrong about oil shale. Even the USGS says that there is enough economically viable oil in the shale in just the US to provide us with many decades of power.
The reason Russia dropped it is because it's cheaper to use nuclear than to extract shale oil. It's easier for Russia and the rest of the world to use nuclear power than the US because of our eco-wacko policies against any and all things nuclear.
1. why can't I run my little car on propane? Help TJ Pickens
Green Taxes ... double the tax on gasoline. We need the money, not the negative stimilous.
2. Americans must sacrifice for survival ... fear GLOBAL WARMING!!
A large (250-500 MW man. cap.) solar panel manufacturing plant will cost you between $500m - $1bn to build, if it includes every step from raw silicon to finished panels. Building solar panels is a lot like building semiconductors (and some of the processes are pretty much the same - e.g. making wafers), and the equipment prices are somewhat commensurate (hella expensive).
Such a facility will support roughly 1200-2000 employees, depending on automation and other factors. Satellite and supply companies round out the figure.
--
The strange part is, the market for solar cells is in a glut, thanks to cheap and heavily-subsidized companies in China. Prices are dropping like a rock. Two years ago the average price for solar gear averaged $3 per Wp. Now it's $1.75 per Wp, and is expected to hit $1 per Wp by the end of this year.
The screwed-up part is, the solar manufacturing industry is just barely starting to stabilize - this program will just throw it back into chaos. There is time, though - it takes an average of 3-4 years if you're building a facility from scratch, so at least it won't hit until at least 4 years from now (incl. the minimum of 12 months until any of this money actually shows up).
So, until solar power installations get competitive and cheaper, people won't go for it.
Another issue - in Los Angeles county, the country requires 1 foot of walkspace around any installation on a roof - even if you couldn't walk on the roof in the first place (clay tiles can't support walking on them). This seems like a minor argument, but that one foot adds up to almost a 10% reduction in efficiency.
Lastly, in order to take advantage of the 'sell back your excess electricity' features, you have to use a state licensed installer. If you install your own solar - you can forget it. Guess what happens, all the installers are dramatically more expensive than they should be. None will give you an itemized quote of the actual costs of the panels and equipment and labor, because then you'd realize just how dramatic their markup is. If you, as a citizen, were to hire a roofer, electrician, and purchase the equipment yourself, you would never come anywhere near as close to the price you'll get quoted by one of these companies.
That's my rant on solar power. I wanted to get it last year but as a small businessman, I like to crunch the data first. Right now, solar power doesn't add up. Making new plants won't increase the demand. The out-of-pocket costs must come down from the stratosphere first.
The Ontario Gov't here in Canada gave a $750B contract to Samsung to build solar farms in the province.
Not only can they sell the solar power produced for 80 cents per kWH (10 times the current rate) but it creates no jobs here.
No wonder the economy of Ontario is in the toilet.
This is madness.
- by andyengle July 7, 2010 2:09 PM PDT
- Let's see, there were 125,000 jobs lost in June, or 4,167 per day. Adding 5,000 new jobs will cover just over one day of jobs losses just last month alone.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(36 Comments)This is really pathetic. Mr Obama, take your grubby hands off our economy and let us prosper already. You're doing nothing to fix it.