Solyndra vs Oil Subsidies

What is the big ‘deal’ about Solyndra? Why are we letting this company go? Compared to what we spend on subsidizing the oil industry the Solynda loan is a drop in the bucket. The oil industry does not need subsidizing.

If we compare the annual big oil subsidies to the Solyndra loan, we gain the appropriate perspective of the issue.

Solyndra Loan vs Oil Subsidies

Eric Curren from the Energy Bulletin outlines the hope of cutting big oil subsidies:

While the GOP House leadership seeks $60 billion in savings from programs including food-aid for pregnant women, public transportation and the EPA, Democrats say they can find most of that amount just from cutting oil subsidies.

Zachary Shahan wrote a great synopsis of the issues we are dealing with regarding energy independence, green jobs and global competition. Here Zachary highlights the main reason that Solyndra was defeated by China:

Bottom line: China has identified solar exports as a national priority, and it has tailored national policies and devoted national resources to achieving that goal. The strategy is working – at the expense of U.S. companies and American workers.

Here David Miller of Solyndra hints at the source of the problem for the US solar manufacturers:

Despite strong growth in the first half of 2011 and traction in North America with a number of orders for very large commercial rooftops, Solyndra could not achieve full-scale operations rapidly enough to compete in the near term with the resources of larger foreign manufacturers. This competitive challenge was exacerbated by a global oversupply of solar panels and a severe compression of prices that in part resulted from uncertainty in governmental incentive programs in Europe and the decline in credit markets that finance solar systems.

The Solyndra technology seems so promising. Bailing out a company like this will return real benefits of improved energy production that fits into the plan of ridding ourselves of the need for fossil fuels. Unfortunately the US currency is based on the oil trade. We will not become energy independent until we change the way our money works.

R. Buckminster Fuller had a great idea as described in his book ‘Critical Path‘. Instead of basing our currency on debt, we change our currency valuation to be a derivative of kilowatt-hours. If the dollar was redeemable for kilowatt-hours instead of being debt that had to be repaid to a foreign corporation, we would change the system to be supportive of energy independence from fossil fuels.

Read more about these issues:

Tags: , ,

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

%d bloggers like this: