Another One Bites The Dust

[Spare_change]

The major California-based solar company Sungevity declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy Monday.

Sungevity is laying off workers, auctioning off some assets, and agreeing to hand over control investors in exchange for $20 million in financing to keep the company’s operations going.

Sungevity was one of seven residential solar power companies, which Congress announced in September it would formally investigate for wrongfully receiving billions in tax credits from the government. The federal government likely handed out roughly $25 billion in cash grants and tax credits to these companies.

“The actions we have announced today will allow Sungevity to emerge as a stronger and more competitive company,” William Nettles, the company’s newly appointed Chief Administration Officer, said in a press statement. “With its market-leading software platform and its high quality employees who provide unwavering commitment to customers and exceptional service, Sungevity intends to be at the forefront of the industry as solar continues on its growth trajectory in the years ahead.”

Sungevity cut 350 jobs last week, according to The Mercury News, as is expected to start selling assets at the end of April.

Another solar company called Beamreach went bust in January after it received $3 million in Department of Energy funding in 2008. The major solar company SunEdison also recently declared bankruptcy. Roughly five major solar companies closed up shop in 2015, which follows the historic tendency that solar power companies tend to go bankrupt as soon as the subsidies are cut off.

Solar power companies are heavily supported by financial invective from the government. Most subsidies go to residential installations payments called net metering or a 30 percent federal tax credit. Previously, solar subsidies were so lucrative that solar-leasing companies installed rooftop systems, which run at minimum $10,000, at no upfront cost to the consumer. This naturally favors relatively wealthy consumers.

Solar and wind power get 326 and 69 times more in subsidies than coal, oil, and natural gas, according to 2013 Department of Energy data collected by Forbes. Green energy in the U.S. received $13 billion in subsidies during 2013, compared to $3.4 billion in subsidies for conventional sources of energy and $1.7 billion in subsidies for nuclear, according to data from the Energy Information Administration.

Researchers found that expanding net metering or maintaining it for long periods of time will drive up power prices. Without government support, solar energy is non-viable, according to a 2015 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

 

[skookerasbil]

What a disgrace..........meanwhile, in my field, my staff have not gotten a raise in 6 years working with disabled adults. Can barely fill open jobs at $12.00/hour........a staffing crisis here in New York State. A crime........billions of wasted $ for solar companies.

 

[Olde Europe]

Too ashamed to reveal your source? And for good reason. Here, have a link.

Solar power companies are heavily supported by financial invective from the government.

It's almost as if the semi-literates at the Daily Caller didn't really care about their own text, or their readers.

Without government support, solar energy is non-viable, according to a 2015 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

So, what was the central point of the MIT study?

Massive expansion of solar generation worldwide by mid-century is likely a necessary component of any serious strategy to mitigate climate change. Fortunately, the solar resource dwarfs current and projected future electricity demand. In recent years, solar costs have fallen substantially and installed capacity has grown very rapidly. [...]

The main goal of U.S. solar policy should be to build the foundation for a massive scale-up of solar generation over the next few decades.

Our study focuses on three challenges for achieving this goal: developing new solar technologies, integrating solar generation at large scale into existing electric systems, and designing efficient policies to support solar technology deployment.​

So, in any serious transition towards a carbon neutral energy future, government has a role to play, the anti-enlightened self-government mouth-breathers' screeching notwithstanding.

 

[Spare_change]

Too ashamed to reveal your source? And for good reason. Here, have a link.

Solar power companies are heavily supported by financial invective from the government.

It's almost as if the semi-literates at the Daily Caller didn't really care about their own text, or their readers.

Without government support, solar energy is non-viable, according to a 2015 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

So, what was the central point of the MIT study?

Massive expansion of solar generation worldwide by mid-century is likely a necessary component of any serious strategy to mitigate climate change. Fortunately, the solar resource dwarfs current and projected future electricity demand. In recent years, solar costs have fallen substantially and installed capacity has grown very rapidly. [...]

The main goal of U.S. solar policy should be to build the foundation for a massive scale-up of solar generation over the next few decades.

Our study focuses on three challenges for achieving this goal: developing new solar technologies, integrating solar generation at large scale into existing electric systems, and designing efficient policies to support solar technology deployment.​

So, in any serious transition towards a carbon neutral energy future, government has a role to play, the anti-enlightened self-government mouth-breathers' screeching notwithstanding.

First, the Daily Caller (I don't read it) was not my source.

Second, what difference does the source make? It is the epitome of intellectual close-mindedness to reject information simply due to source. A true student of politics considers ALL sources, extracts the facts, and validates their veracity. To close yourself off to one half of the political viewpoints in the world today is the ultimate in arrogance.

Third, if you hadn't been so narrow-minded, you would have seen the reference (and link) to the Mercury News article in the thread.

Fourth, no one questions the MIT study. The commentary is about, as you conveniently choose to ignore, the ineptitude of the federal government.

Fifth, your childish little attack on anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your ever so hallowed opinion falls neatly into three categories - first, a classic exercise in elitist egotism, second, a demonstration of childish "invective" designed to mask the fragility of your argument, and, third, pretty much what we can expect from those who take a position they are woefully unprepared to defend in honest and open discussion.

We welcome intelligent input - but you missed the mark.

 

[Olde Europe]

Fourth, no one questions the MIT study. The commentary is about, as you conveniently choose to ignore, the ineptitude of the federal government.

Ah, and I thought the comment was about the non-viability of the solar industry...

Without government support, solar energy is non-viable, according to a 2015 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.​

... when, in fact, the study is about steps that should be taken to make it into the much needed, viable and thriving replacement for FFs.

The rest of your insult-to-intelligence nonsense is even less worthy of a retort.

 

[Old Rocks]

Too ashamed to reveal your source? And for good reason. Here, have a link.

Solar power companies are heavily supported by financial invective from the government.

It's almost as if the semi-literates at the Daily Caller didn't really care about their own text, or their readers.

Without government support, solar energy is non-viable, according to a 2015 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

So, what was the central point of the MIT study?

Massive expansion of solar generation worldwide by mid-century is likely a necessary component of any serious strategy to mitigate climate change. Fortunately, the solar resource dwarfs current and projected future electricity demand. In recent years, solar costs have fallen substantially and installed capacity has grown very rapidly. [...]

The main goal of U.S. solar policy should be to build the foundation for a massive scale-up of solar generation over the next few decades.

Our study focuses on three challenges for achieving this goal: developing new solar technologies, integrating solar generation at large scale into existing electric systems, and designing efficient policies to support solar technology deployment.​

So, in any serious transition towards a carbon neutral energy future, government has a role to play, the anti-enlightened self-government mouth-breathers' screeching notwithstanding.

First, the Daily Caller (I don't read it) was not my source.

Second, what difference does the source make? It is the epitome of intellectual close-mindedness to reject information simply due to source. A true student of politics considers ALL sources, extracts the facts, and validates their veracity. To close yourself off to one half of the political viewpoints in the world today is the ultimate in arrogance.

Third, if you hadn't been so narrow-minded, you would have seen the reference (and link) to the Mercury News article in the thread.

Fourth, no one questions the MIT study. The commentary is about, as you conveniently choose to ignore, the ineptitude of the federal government.

Fifth, your childish little attack on anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your ever so hallowed opinion falls neatly into three categories - first, a classic exercise in elitist egotism, second, a demonstration of childish "invective" designed to mask the fragility of your argument, and, third, pretty much what we can expect from those who take a position they are woefully unprepared to defend in honest and open discussion.

We welcome intelligent input - but you missed the mark.

OK, how many fledgling auto companies went broke between 1900 and 1940? And, whatever the original cost, the result of the investments made by the government have resulted in solar and wind that is now cheaper per delivered kw than any of the fossil fuels or nuclear.

https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine...nergy-costs-wind-energy-costs-LCOE-Lazard.png

 

[Spare_change]

Too ashamed to reveal your source? And for good reason. Here, have a link.

Solar power companies are heavily supported by financial invective from the government.

It's almost as if the semi-literates at the Daily Caller didn't really care about their own text, or their readers.

Without government support, solar energy is non-viable, according to a 2015 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

So, what was the central point of the MIT study?

Massive expansion of solar generation worldwide by mid-century is likely a necessary component of any serious strategy to mitigate climate change. Fortunately, the solar resource dwarfs current and projected future electricity demand. In recent years, solar costs have fallen substantially and installed capacity has grown very rapidly. [...]

The main goal of U.S. solar policy should be to build the foundation for a massive scale-up of solar generation over the next few decades.

Our study focuses on three challenges for achieving this goal: developing new solar technologies, integrating solar generation at large scale into existing electric systems, and designing efficient policies to support solar technology deployment.​

So, in any serious transition towards a carbon neutral energy future, government has a role to play, the anti-enlightened self-government mouth-breathers' screeching notwithstanding.

First, the Daily Caller (I don't read it) was not my source.

Second, what difference does the source make? It is the epitome of intellectual close-mindedness to reject information simply due to source. A true student of politics considers ALL sources, extracts the facts, and validates their veracity. To close yourself off to one half of the political viewpoints in the world today is the ultimate in arrogance.

Third, if you hadn't been so narrow-minded, you would have seen the reference (and link) to the Mercury News article in the thread.

Fourth, no one questions the MIT study. The commentary is about, as you conveniently choose to ignore, the ineptitude of the federal government.

Fifth, your childish little attack on anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your ever so hallowed opinion falls neatly into three categories - first, a classic exercise in elitist egotism, second, a demonstration of childish "invective" designed to mask the fragility of your argument, and, third, pretty much what we can expect from those who take a position they are woefully unprepared to defend in honest and open discussion.

We welcome intelligent input - but you missed the mark.

OK, how many fledgling auto companies went broke between 1900 and 1940? And, whatever the original cost, the result of the investments made by the government have resulted in solar and wind that is now cheaper per delivered kw than any of the fossil fuels or nuclear.

https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine...nergy-costs-wind-energy-costs-LCOE-Lazard.png

Psst ---- that's what companies DO. They succeed, or fail, based on their own performance.

How many of those auto companies were government subsidized? How many were created specifically to capitalize on government largesse?

 

[Spare_change]

Fourth, no one questions the MIT study. The commentary is about, as you conveniently choose to ignore, the ineptitude of the federal government.

Ah, and I thought the comment was about the non-viability of the solar industry...

Without government support, solar energy is non-viable, according to a 2015 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.​

... when, in fact, the study is about steps that should be taken to make it into the much needed, viable and thriving replacement for FFs.

The rest of your insult-to-intelligence nonsense is even less worthy of a retort.

Solar energy is, in fact, non-viable. I can think of no logical reason the federal government should prop up a failed business model. When can we expect for the government to receive its return on investment?