Comments on: Critics: Get Rid of ‘Green Pork’ for Wind, Solar

By: Ucilia Wang

Ucilia Wang — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 03:29:49 +0000

Chris, I don’t know what you mean by the grant program isn’t providing “new money.” Money is money, new or old.

The 30% investment tax credit is valid until 2016.

By: Chris Mentzel

Chris Mentzel — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 23:45:51 +0000

Just to set the article writer right: The grant program is not providing new money – it simply cuts out the banks.

There is an established 30% tax credit, still valid for a few years. The problem was that solar/wind companies had to find a tax payer who would buy their tax credit. Thanks to the grant program they can get the money back from the treasury. That saves 5-10% of the tax credit going as fees to the bankers. Good thing.

Nice article here, concerning the WSJ:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/why-conservatives-are-bad-on-energy-its-all-about-the-costs/

By: MidBosque

MidBosque — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:18:00 +0000

As usual, the WSJ leaves out the comparative context. When it comes to energy subsidies and federal largess, wind and solar are small potatoes compared to the $53.9 billion in tax breaks and the $16.3 billion in direct subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuels sector. Corn ethanol gets a larger share of the federal dole than renewables as well at $16.8 billion. Those are annual figures compiled by the Environmental Law Institute. You can see the data in graphic form:

http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1012/subsidize-this/flat.html

By: eideard

eideard — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:06:51 +0000

Anyone expect Republicans, the WSJ or ol’ Rupert to endorse anything other than old-fashioned dirty pork?

Business as usual in Congress and the Wall Street money barrio smells as bad as it ever did – and will remain so until a political roto-rooter more thorough than anything offered by the hacks Obama relied upon is voted into office.

Not in my lifetime.