[OstiaAntica]

"Clean Tech" is a big scam...politically connected VC like Doerr ripping off U.S. taxpayers to fund crony capitalist boondoggles like Solyndra and Fisker. The VC get all the upside, and taxpayers have all the downside.

If the elites really cared about solving climate change, they would advance honest, technology-neutral policy solutions like a simple tax on carbon production. Instead, from battery cars to ethanol, Green Tech has been an excuse for a multi-billion dollar money grab.

[joshmaker]

The problem with that idea is that in the current political climate any new carbon tax is a dead on arrival. Realistically, the only options that are politically feasible are to either do nothing or else subsidize green tech industries that seem promising.

[ScottBurson]

My understanding (can't find a reference, sorry) was that there was around $1B of private money in Solyndra before the U.S. government added a little over $500M. So while the taxpayers definitely lost, the VCs lost more.

But I agree with you about the carbon tax.

[startupfounder]

WRONG! Clean Tech and Green Tech are not scams, they are investments in our future. Just like any other technology the US has invested in. Like any investment some are good and some go south.

If you want to complain about our government "wasting" money and trillion dollar money grabs look no further then the Department of Defense: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/03/13/opinion/13opcha... (note the numbers in this graph are in billions, not millions)

Solyndra was a rounding error in what the US Government wastes on defense.

VCs are like the government, they only win when companies win. Just like the government VCs loose many, but win big on a few. Government wins when the companies they "invest" in create American jobs. I am not even going to go into you putting "simple" and "tax" next to each other in the same sentence.

[OstiaAntica]

Nearly every single American green energy program, from the 1970s to today, has failed, or is in the process of failing. Some, like massive ethanol tax subsidies and mandates, have significantly damaged the environment. Battery cars are a passing fad that are also bad for the environment-- they rely on coal-fired plants for electricity, and much of that power is wasted in transmission. And the batteries are hazardous.

The fact that DoD is a bigger waste of money is not a defense of Clean Tech.

The real solution is getting the big incentives correct-- tax pollution, and get the government out of the business of picking technology and playing venture capitalist.

[mkramlich]

> Nearly every single American green energy program, from the 1970s to today, has failed, or is in the process of failing.

Solar is booming and doing much better than in the 1970's, and there have been many breakthroughs combined to helping getting the cost per watt way down.

> And the batteries are hazardous.

You do know gas and oil are hazardous and toxic right? You do know that the extraction, processing and consumption of oil and it's byproducts are putting very large amounts of bad stuff into the air we breathe and water we drink, right? You did hear about the various huge oil spills, including the BP Gulf disaster, Nigeria, etc?

The whole point of government, one of many, is is to act as a neutral guardian for society's shared resources and common benefits. Individuals and businesses are relatively free to pursue their own interests, but only so far as it does not harm others (ideally), or bring about Tragedy of the Commons kinds of situations. Thus, some regulation, and some punishment/reward mechanisms are in place to help maintain or bring about the kind of world we want to live in. This should be pretty clear, and has no malevolent intent.

I do find it funny that some folks never complained that Big Oil was getting subsidies, incentives, breaks, special treatment, etc. but when it comes to solar, wind, anything intended to be a cleaner or renewable energy source, suddenly there are complaints that government is distorting the market place or picking winners. The difference, clearly, is which technology or industry one would personally rather see favored. Put me down for favoring energy sources that are renewable or better for health. This should not be some kind of radical position, because the benefits are pretty clear.

We agree that taxing pollution is probably a good thing for government to be doing. But the oil/coal industries world-wide are fighting such things, and they spend lots of money on Congress. And the Republican Party, in particular, does their bidding almost every time a relevant bill comes along.

[Turing_Machine]

Look into the environmental impact of producing solar cells. Semiconductor fab chemicals are nasty stuff, and when you think about how many square miles would be needed for solar to make any significant impact...

[quanticle]

So why should the US government invest in clean tech over, say conservation? Moreover, why should the US government be making commercial investment decisions at all? The way I see it, the US government should be investing in basic research, then turning that research over to industry for rapid commercialization.

Solyndra was not basic research.