Glass City Jungle

Ujvagi announces almost 1 million in Green Energy Grants for our area, Governor announces over 13 million in Ohio

This entry was posted on Monday, November 30th, 2009 at 1:02 pm and is filed under Energy, General Assembly, Governor, Green, Media Release. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

31 Responses to “Ujvagi announces almost 1 million in Green Energy Grants for our area, Governor announces over 13 million in Ohio”

1
Tim Higgins Says:

Pardon me for noticing, but these state grants are taxpayer money, are they not? With the state in the midst of a serious budget crisis, might not $1 million be put to better use balancing it?
When are we going to start to realize that state and federal grants are not “free money” to be gifted, but the hard earned dollars of taxpayers that government is supposed to take sparingly and spend grudgingly?
I am not against alternative energy production or the concept of green technology (in fact, I applaud it), but these grants seem to do little but reinforce the belief that such technology does not pay for itself. If it did, these organizations would have long since completely the projects that these grants will in some part fund, and be already reaping the benefits.
Now some will say that the technology does pay for itself and using the available grants is merely sound reasoning, the question still remains however on why such behavior requires incentives if it does.
I am also growing increasingly tired of politicians taking credit for bringing money back to the region that was taken from it by the state in the first place. This warped version of the “Robin Hood” story is a lie and needs to be called one.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

2
LisaRenee Says:

You might have started writing as I was updating with the release from the Governor’s office. That tells you where the funding came from – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – which means chances are it could not have been used for other budget purposes. Which could lead to a larger discussion as to when money is given, even if the need is larger in one area, conditions have to be met.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

3
Tim Higgins Says:

LisaRenee,
You are correct in the timing, and I appreciate your clarification. This does not change the larger point that I was trying to make however, it merely moves the funding from the state to the federal level.
Federal funds are still taxpayer money, and the federal government’s budget is in worse shape than the state’s. Green technology must learn to walk without the crutches of these grants and government must stop treating the money it collects as a well that will never run dry.
November 30th, 2009 at 1:51 pm

4
LisaRenee Says:

By way of disclosure, my son works for First Solar
That written, while I hope they benefit from all of these grants, I don’t disagree that granting can be seen as a robbing Peter to pay Paul moment, grants do not always create the desired result. I’m actually in more support of the concept of low interest loans as opposed to grants, even if the re-payment terms are generous that does create a scenario where there is a higher chance of a return on the investment made.
In scenarios where there can be no monetary return such as grants to social service agencies, there still can be a careful evaluation as to does that particular organization serve at a value even using simplistic information such as the amount of administrative costs versus the amount of actual costs by those who serve.
But this was part of the whole stimulus package so now we are left to see if it truly does stimulate the economy in a manner where the taxpayers do get a return on their investment.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

5
Not Again Says:

I agree, there would be no “green jobs” without tax money. What a waste.
November 30th, 2009 at 2:17 pm

6
DD BOOTS Says:

It only stimulates those that receive
it and gets something for nothing!!
November 30th, 2009 at 2:50 pm

7
SensorG Says:

Sadly, we don’t think big in America anymore.
Look at the Hoover dam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam) or the Tennessee Valley Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority) two of the ultimate government funded green job projects.
Anyone want to argue that these didn’t provide crucial jobs during the depression and provide long term economic growth for their areas?
November 30th, 2009 at 4:26 pm

8
Not Again Says:

Sadly, obama is not half the man FDR was, and that is not saying much.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:31 pm

9
SensorG Says:

In fairness, Hoover dam was a Commerce Secretary/President Hoover thing, but then again NA, economics is obviously not your strong suite, I shouldn’t expect you to know much history either. You avoidance of the answer speaks volumes.
It’s ironic that these two massive government jobs/cheap energy initiatives in what today have become traditionally conservative regions is that now what more progressive northern regions now have to compete against.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:47 pm

10
SensorG Says:

Spelling and grammar are obviously not my strong suit…
November 30th, 2009 at 4:50 pm

11
Not Again Says:

SensorG Says:
“You avoidance of the answer speaks volumes.”
Sorry, but I didn’t want to lead you off topic. This thread is about “Green” energy in Ohio.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:01 pm

12
Chad Says:

Solar Panels huh??? As all of us Toledoans know the city has plenty of sunshine year in and year out!
November 30th, 2009 at 6:52 pm

13
Not Again Says:

The entire “green” energy movement is a transfer of wealth sham just as the global warming sham has proven to be, through the fraud of email gate.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:57 pm

14
SensorG Says:

My point is, todays solar fields and windmills are yesterday’s dams and levies… it’s what made America great. It worked 70 years ago, why can’t it work today?
November 30th, 2009 at 9:05 pm

15
LisaRenee Says:

That is a good point, and is related to the topic.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:06 pm

16
Doug Says:

I think the biggest difference SensorG is that dams and levies had already proven themselves when they were built. Windmills have also proven themselves but unless you can create an artificial constant wind of sufficient strength, it’s just not enough. Solar panels have yet to prove themselves. When I say prove themselves, I mean produce enough to make the investment worth the output.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:55 pm

17
SensorG Says:

How have solar panels not proven themselves? We’ve been using them for almost 50 years. I know a dozen guys making a good living over at First Solar who would be happy to explain their very proven technology to you.
China is about to put in solar field that will generate more power then a nuclear power plant.
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5874XC20090908
December 1st, 2009 at 6:58 am

18
Not Again Says:

SensorG Says from #14:
“My point is, todays solar fields and windmills are yesterday’s dams and levies… it’s what made America great. It worked 70 years ago, why can’t it work today?”
Solar cells have been around “for almost 50 years now (from #17)” and they still are not a viable source of electricity. One that can stand on its’ own without government interference.
Ha, ha, ha, SG, your own link provides the evidence (see excerpt below) that solar is currently not economically viable, not without extensive government subsidies provided on the backs of the people. This is too easy! LOL What a farce.
“The agreement hinges on signing contracts with a power generator to operate the project in China, as well as Beijing’s approval of a feed-in tariff mandating utilities pay a premium for solar power, similar to supports in place in Germany.”
“That tariff is expected to be enacted by the end of the year, with a support likely in the range of 15 to 25 cents per kilowatt hour, Ahearn said.”
December 1st, 2009 at 7:22 am

19
SensorG Says:

It’s called infrastructure! It’s kind of the point!
This is exactly what the government should be involved in. Private industry didn’t (and wouldn’t have) build the Hoover Dam (or any dam) or create the Tennessee Valley Authority, both of which provided 10s of thousands of jobs and still provide cheap electricity to their regions. Heck, Las Vegas wouldn’t exist today if not for the cheap water and electricity that is provided by the Hoover Dam.
I don’t see conservatives complaining about the HEAVY subsidizing of nuclear power.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:21 am

20
Doug Says:

Well, I will concede this one on the value of Solar power and such. I do think government can make such investments into renewable/alternative energy sources to build an independant energy infrastructure.
What I won’t concede is that any company that currently survives off of tax payer grants and incentives in order to survive is not real job growth. Until these companies start to survive on thier own without these tax breaks, then I can’t really consider them to be economically beneficial. The problem is, that when you give one company a tax break, another company is paying for it. So you create 100 jobs in Solar but cost 300 spread out everywhere else. This is how we see the politicians claiming that they created X number of jobs but we end up losing jobs overall across the state.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:54 am

21
LisaRenee Says:

Doug, I think if we start asking the question, “What is the real net job gain overall” we might start getting that as answer. I agree with you that if we loose 300 jobs and gain 100 we are still at a 200 net job loss.
Granted it is better to have those 100 new jobs but to keep people here and employed, the net job number is the most critical one.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:25 am

22
Doug Says:

But what if the cost of those 100 jobs is 300 other jobs? We can’t afford that.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:18 am

23
LisaRenee Says:

How we determine that is hard to prove, would those 300 jobs go anyway? Technology has eliminated jobs, but we don’t stop the progress related to that. Is a net job increase an impossible dream? That’s another question that comes to mind…
December 1st, 2009 at 11:34 am

24
Doug Says:

I don’t think it’s an impossible dream we just need to start manufacturing products again in the US. That is the only thing of any real wealth. Everything else is just supportive and service. I know solar panels are manufacturing but again they need to be able to exist on thier own without outside assistance.
It is impossible to prove but not hard to reason out. If we offer tax breaks, incentives, gifts, and/or loans to one company, that money has to come from somewhere. That increases the costs of all other businesses and individuals. Business then move to where it is cheaper to operate and the people will follow, if possible, or just be jobless. Real profit generating companies leave and government handout companies stay. State runs out of money and the state then grows dependant on federal handouts to keep it’s companies alive that survive off handouts.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:06 pm

25
LisaRenee Says:

Let’s explore this for a moment, let’s say Toledo, Lucas County and even Ohio stop offering incentives, grants, and abatements. Other states will continue.
Even if you stop this at a federal level, for cities, counties and states to compete for economic development dollars the businesses will go to whoever is offering the best deal most of the time. While I don’t disagree with you that it’s a problem, how the process as it exists can end knowing that even if we stopped? Others would not is the larger issue. What we can do is make sure that grants, loans, etc., are given to companies who have to put up a portion of their own money and that there is a process in place to make sure they meet the promises made.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:24 pm

26
Not Again Says:

If obama would double the speed of the printing presses all our problems would go away.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:30 pm

27
Doug Says:

I agree with you Lisa, these grants and stuff are not entirely bad. I do think there is value to them and a long term goal that has to be achieved: energy independance. However we can’t rob our other industries blind to fund it. We also have to seperate out what our goals should be: green energy is a long term goal of energy independance with possible job growth, while manufacturing is job growth. Too often we heavily tax industries who have proven themselves to make a profit instead of letting them use that profit to grow themselves. The question then lies in what do we need more of now? Jobs or clean energy? We need to find that balance that allows current industries to expand and the new green industry to start. Right now, it seems we just care about the green jobs because it is the biggest buzz word.
It reminds me of the cell phone industry when they first started. They were all focused on new customers so all the great deals were offered to new customers only. It was the norm that when your cell phone contract ended you switched carriers because it was the only way to get an affordable phone. Finally, they started offering the same deals to current customers as they do with the new customers. We need to do that with our current industries in Ohio. We need to reward our companies that are here more and not penalize them in order to attract new companies. We are seeing that affect now, just like cell phone customers of yore, our industries are leaving to the better deal.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:54 pm

28
LisaRenee Says:

Good comparison Doug, and I agree with your above comment. We need to keep what we can of our base of employers and not forget about them in the rush to attract the shiny new object of the moment.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:04 pm

29
SensorG Says:

Doug says – Jobs or clean energy?
Why can the new jobs be clean energy jobs? Why can’t manufacturing be solar panels and wind turbines?
December 1st, 2009 at 2:59 pm

30
Not Again Says:

SensorG Says:
“Why can the new jobs be clean energy jobs? Why can’t manufacturing be solar panels and wind turbines?”
forlorn hope?
December 1st, 2009 at 4:24 pm

31
Doug Says:

SensorG,
I answered that in the post you quoted from.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:25 pm

Leave a Reply