Scientist Manfred von Borks, Sc.D. Just wrote a letter to State Auditor Elaine M. Howle, asking her to look into California's spending on solar power. He wrote a report. And here's his letter:

Oct. 21, 2013

California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814

Atten: Ms. Elaine Howle, Auditor

Subject: Solar Power, a Bottomless Money Pit.

Hello Ms. Howle,

I have enclosed for your information a detailed report concerning the growing billion dollar California solar program wherein vast sums of California Tax Payers money has been and will continue to be spent on politically correct “feel good” environmental programs that have not produced any measurable results and in fact have complicated the very problems they were implemented to solve.  My paper discusses these problems in detail and suggests a proven alternative, a less costly and more effective approach that will reduce wasteful spending and benefit California by providing a pro-business energy rich environment encouraging a robust industrial base thus creating many full-time skilled jobs and additional tax revenue.

This report was mailed last week to Governor Brown and to each and every member of the California Legislature. It will not be received with much enthusiasm as it exposes the dark side of solar and the serious on-going problems with State supported grid-tied roof-top pv-solar power and pv-solar farm programs that are increasing the cost of grid electricity and discouraging in-state manufacturing.

California has recently embarked upon another politically conceived million dollar program to “Store Solar and Wind Energy”. Many private high tech companies and universities in Asia, Europe and the United States have been working on this complex problem for the past half century with no end in sight; the technology is not ready for prime time, it is experimental, not the kind of program wherein California Taxpayers money should be invested. What California is proposing, the big picture if you will is that it is acceptable to use vast quantities of fossil fuel and natural resources to create heat and electricity to manufacture more solar panels and windmills which in turn inconsistently generate expensive electricity, usually at inconvenient times, thus creating a temporary surplus that will be stored, at great expense, for later use!  Common sense suggests we should use our abundance of already stored energy, namely “clean burning natural gas” to generate electricity as it is needed eliminating the wasteful billion $ solar and wind “middlemen” and the vast amount of energy forever lost in solar/wind electrical conversions and experimental inefficient 100 year old storage technologies.

We are talking about a great deal of money and the future of California, you may be the only person in California government that can turn a spotlight on this growing fiscal problem, in that regard I urge you consider authorizing your staff to research this report, send it out to as many qualified independent solar and environmental consultants and specialists as you can locate, analyze their comments with your professional insight, knowledge and experience, and then provide desperately needed fiscal guidance to the Governor and the Legislature.

Thank you in advanced for reviewing this paper. I would appreciate your comments.

Manfred von Borks, Sc.D.
www.vonborks.org
vonborks@cox.net

But this week, when one more federally subsidized green firm went belly-up, it doesn’t even seem to be considered news in California or elsewhere.  The screen grab at right shows zero hits on a Google News search for “Ecototality.”

I only heard about it via New York state professor/blogger Walter Russell Mead, who cited this Sept. 17 Reuters report:

“(Reuters) – Ecotality Inc, a maker of charging stations for electric cars that won a $99.8 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy four years ago, has filed for bankruptcy protection and said it plans to auction its assets next month.

“The San Francisco-based company is among a growing number of U.S. alternative-energy companies that have struggled or succumbed amid consumer resistance to the high cost and restricted driving range associated with electric vehicles. …

“Citing ‘significant liquidity constraints and the difficulty of obtaining long-term financing,’ Ecotality said an auction is necessary to maximize value for creditors and avoid a ‘fire-sale liquidation.’ …

“Among other U.S. alternative energy companies, green car startup Coda Holdings Inc filed for bankruptcy protection in May after selling just 100 all-electric sedans.

“Meanwhile, the Energy Department on Tuesday said it will in October sell a non-performing loan made to another green car startup, Fisker Automotive.

“Ecotality’s $99.8 million grant was awarded in August 2009 to help develop the EV Project, a network of charging stations for vehicles such as the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf in major U.S. metropolitan areas.”

Apparently California journos simply don’t find it newsworthy that subsidized green ventures keep failing. It’s the norm, so why bother informing the public about it?

Sheesh.

By Chris Reed

The latest Californa-based green energy fiasco took center stage in the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform on Wednesday. It is Anaheim-based Fisker Automotive. This is from the Washington Post’s Wonkblog:

“It’s time for another round of scrutiny over the Obama administration’s clean-energy programs. On Wednesday, House lawmakers held a fractious hearing over federal loans that had been made to struggling electric-car manufacturer Fisker Automotive.

“There’s no doubt that Fisker is in serious trouble. The Anaheim-based company hasn’t built a vehicle since last summer after running into battery-supply issues and other problems. To date, the company has sold just 2,000 Karmas worldwide — a plug-in hybrid sports sedan that retails for $100,000. The Karma never really found a mass audience beyond Justin Bieber, Leonardo DiCaprio, and a handful of other A-list drivers.

“The Department of Energy finally halted all further loans to the company in June 2011 after having disbursed $192 million of a planned $529 million. (Since then, the government has seized some $21 million from Fisker’s accounts.)”

I love this part. As the kids say, epic fail:

“In the spring of 2012, Consumer Reports gave the Karma a failing grade after it died on the track. ‘This is the first time in memory that we have had a car that is undriveable before it has finished our check-in process,’ said Tom Mutchler.”

A fiasco for venture capital investors as well

An article on the Gigaom tech news site makes another interesting point. This wasn’t just a debacle for the Obama administration. It was a debacle for Silicon Valley venture capital investors who put tens of millions into Fisker:

“The heart of Fisker’s business model was in that early deal with Quantum. The idea was to design a gorgeous car, and have suppliers like Quantum provide the technology because off-the-shelf parts from suppliers would help keep costs down.

“But there were problems with this strategy: Sometimes, those parts had to be custom-made to fit the design vision, which resulted in higher prices for Fisker. Other times, parts were delivered late or, worse, faulty, but Fisker was locked in to those supplier relationships. Sources close to Fisker have also said that many of the parts were owned by the suppliers themselves, so Fisker didn’t own a lot of the internal technology. …

“Indeed, Fisker’s business model wasn’t the type that funders in the Valley typically like — it’s the polar opposite of the ‘Intel inside’ approach. That so many investors were so eager to back the company has left many in the electric car and tech industries scratching their heads over the years. ‘It would have only taken a couple a phone calls to industry veterans to have prevented all of this,’ says electric car advocate Chelsea Sexton, adding ‘there’s no excuse for not doing homework. It appears none was done.’”

But at least the venture capital investors lost their own money — not taxpayers’.

Katy Grimes: Has anyone seen Sen. Dianne Feinstein lately? She refuses to debate challenger Elizabeth Emken, she runs from reporters, and now there is news that Feinstein will not meet with the editorial boards of California’s newspapers.

What prompted her to walk away from Mark Matthews, the ABC reporter during an interview at the Democratic convention? “She (Emken) really wants to debate you,” Matthews told Feinstein during the brief interview.

“I’m running my own campaign. Thank you Mark,” Feinstein said as she started to get up. Then she sat back down and continued. “I did a large event in Modesto, three to four meetings, and Southern California… that’s what I’m going to continue to do,” Feinstein said. Then she got up, patted Matthews on the shoulder in a patronizing manner, and walked away.

“She really does not like that question,” Matthews said. “I saved that question for last.”

Senate royalty

Feinstein needs to be reminded that this is a race for the U.S. Senate — not a coronation. She’s the only U.S. Senator running for reelection who will not debate her opponent.

“U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein continues to enjoy a large advantage in her bid for a fourth full term, with a new statewide poll showing the Democratic senator widening her double-digit lead over GOP challenger Elizabeth Emken,” the Sacramento Bee reported Sunday. “Field Poll results released today show the 79-year-old incumbent leading her opponent by 26 percentage points, 57 percent to 31 percent, heading into the final seven weeks of the campaign.”

But the Bee story failed to note that other polls, including the recent California Business Roundtable/Pepperdine poll show significantly different results, with Feinstein polling at 45.9 percent, Emken at 33.6 percent, and ‘undecided’ voters still reporting in at  20.6 percent.

“Compared with the Field Poll released last month, Feinstein’s lead has shrunk from 19 percent to 12.3 percent among all voters, and just 10.3 percent among those who will ‘definitely’ vote. Feinstein continues to poll well under 50 percent, and leads with just 45.9 percent among all voters. By contrast, President Obama is polling at 52.5 percent, or 6.6 percent better than Feinstein, who has been in the office for nearly 20 years,” the Emken campaign reported.

“Nothing screams ‘entrenched incumbent’ more than a refusal to debate an opponent,” the Los Angeles Times recently wrote.

“I don’t see any point in debating my opponent,” is the response from Feinstein, the Emken campaign reported.

According to a recent Gallup poll, only one in 10 Americans approves of the job Congress is doing, tying the lowest approval rating in 38 years. Given that Feinstein has been in the Senate since 1992, and in politics since 1961, and also polls unfavorably, her refusal to debate publicly can’t help her approval numbers.

Empty chair debate

In 2009, Dianne Feinstein proudly announced support for Solyndra.

“U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today applauded the U.S. Department of Energy’s decision to finalize a $535 million loan guarantee to a California-based solar company, Solyndra,” Feinstein’s official Senate website reported. “The Department of Energy announced the initial selection of Solyndra as a conditional loan guarantee recipient in March and formalized the decision today at a ground-breaking ceremony in Fremont, California.”

“This is a major milestone for California’s solar industry,” Senator Feinstein said. “This federal loan guarantee of $535 million will enable Solyndra to secure affordable financing – at a time when credit is extremely tight – in order to build and operate a commercial-scale facility to manufacture the next generation of rooftop solar systems.  The operation is expected to generate at least 3,000 clean energy jobs in an area whose largest employer – NUMMI – may soon shut down. And it will ultimately help make it more affordable for more Americans to power their homes and buildings through solar energy.  So it’s a win-win for the economy and the environment.”

Feinstein’s ceremonial Senate seat has become an empty chair. Maybe Emken should hold a debate with Feinstein’s empty chair.

Clint Eastwood proved that it can be done effectively.