ANOTHER Solar company files bankruptcy!!!

[westwall]

Hmmm...correct me if I'm wrong on this Junky but I don't recall the US government bankrolling Henry Ford. Gee, how DID we ever develop the automobile without government stimulus money?

What about Tom Edison, the guy that was just retired for inventing the light bulb. Wonder how much government money he got??

Heck, I don't think Steve Jobs had any stimulus money to get started either. Now that I think about it I wonder if Hewlett & Packard did??

Neither Henry Ford nor Edison had competitors that were being bankrolled by foreign governments who provide billions in low interest loans, loan guarantees, and government sponsored research.

That's true. So impose stiff tariffs like the Chinese do to our companies. Either play fair or don't play.

 

[The T]

...and if they did, how much did they kick into the Obama bagmen to get the stimulus money?

The company has received millions of dollars in state tax breaks but did not receive a Dept. of Energy-backed loan.
Bankruptcy paperwork shows Energy Conversion Devices lists the City of Greenville as a debtor, owing the city $209,866.49 for a "refund of grant proceeds."
The company has been hurt by the elimination of European subsidies that helped boost demand for its products overseas. Increased competition from less-expensive products resulted in declining sales over the past several years.

SOURCE

Nice!

Happy that YOU think so...now why?

 

[Pheonixops]

SOURCE

Nice!

Happy that YOU think so...now why?

I thought that you were presenting an objective fact, then i saw that you were corrected after I posted it.

 

[Flopper]

The single most biggest reason the left are against drilling and using our own resources, we have about 600 years worth of oil and gas that can be used "Thats just what we have discovered so far", which would make us into an exporter and no doubt would pay down our debt and put us on a track to be successful, which would go against the radical green agenda. Who would take green energy seriously if we where bringing in trillions a year off of oil and gas?
These loans to these solar companies where for nothing more than a loan to be held onto and for it to be kicked back into democrat reelection coffers. The multiple bankruptcies should be more than enough proof for that.

IMHO, there are three reasons why the left supports alternative energy.
1. The use of fossil fuels is changing the climate and polluting our air and water. Left unchecked, it will eventually destroy the environment of the earth.

2. Although we will never actually run out of fossil fuels, the cost of production is increasing. Wells must be sunk deeper. Environmental concerns are adding to both the cost of production and refining. While the cost of production is rising, the demand is rising even faster creating upward price pressure. The fact that most countries have little or no oil, creates serious political problems which will only get worse as the world oil prices rise.

Although the US can influence world oil prices, it can not dominate the market. The reason is the cost of production. Cost of getting Middle East out of the ground is $1 to $2/barrel, $2/barrel in Africa, $4 in Russia and $6 in the US. In addition transportation costs and exploration costs are higher in the US.

3. From a scientific view, oil is a very inefficient source of energy for transportation producing dangerous byproducts. 80% of the energy is wasted. Most of the energy is expended through heat lose. By comparison the efficiency of an electric motor will range from 85% to 95%.

 

[westwall]

The single most biggest reason the left are against drilling and using our own resources, we have about 600 years worth of oil and gas that can be used "Thats just what we have discovered so far", which would make us into an exporter and no doubt would pay down our debt and put us on a track to be successful, which would go against the radical green agenda. Who would take green energy seriously if we where bringing in trillions a year off of oil and gas?
These loans to these solar companies where for nothing more than a loan to be held onto and for it to be kicked back into democrat reelection coffers. The multiple bankruptcies should be more than enough proof for that.

IMHO, there are three reasons why the left supports alternative energy.
1. The use of fossil fuels is changing the climate and polluting our air and water. Left unchecked, it will eventually destroy the environment of the earth.

2. Although we will never actually run out of fossil fuels, the cost of production is increasing. Wells must be sunk deeper. Environmental concerns are adding to both the cost of production and refining. While the cost of production is rising, the demand is rising even faster creating upward price pressure. The fact that most countries have little or no oil, creates serious political problems which will only get worse as the world oil prices rise.

Although the US can influence world oil prices, it can not dominate the market. The reason is the cost of production. Cost of getting Middle East out of the ground is $1 to $2/barrel, $2/barrel in Africa, $4 in Russia and $6 in the US. In addition transportation costs and exploration costs are higher in the US.

3. From a scientific view, oil is a very inefficient source of energy for transportation producing dangerous byproducts. 80% of the energy is wasted. Most of the energy is expended through heat lose. By comparison the efficiency of an electric motor will range from 85% to 95%.

Point one is unsupported by empirical data.

Point two is only partially correct. So long as the US remains unwilling to grant leases on land companies are indeed forced to drill offshore and ever deeper. But that's the governments fault. Not Natures.

Point three is likewise incorrect. No pther energy system (other then nuclear) approaches fossil fuels for efficiency. In fact they are not even close. That's why government must mandate their use AND give them massive taxpayer support.

If they were as efficient as you claim they would be cheaper than fossil fuels and the population would be pounding on their door to get them. None of which is happening.

 

[The T]

Nice!

Happy that YOU think so...now why?

I thought that you were presenting an objective fact, then i saw that you were corrected after I posted it.

Such is life, eh?

 

[starcraftzzz]

The single most biggest reason the left are against drilling and using our own resources, we have about 600 years worth of oil and gas that can be used "Thats just what we have discovered so far", which would make us into an exporter and no doubt would pay down our debt and put us on a track to be successful, which would go against the radical green agenda. Who would take green energy seriously if we where bringing in trillions a year off of oil and gas?
These loans to these solar companies where for nothing more than a loan to be held onto and for it to be kicked back into democrat reelection coffers. The multiple bankruptcies should be more than enough proof for that.

IMHO, there are three reasons why the left supports alternative energy.
1. The use of fossil fuels is changing the climate and polluting our air and water. Left unchecked, it will eventually destroy the environment of the earth.

2. Although we will never actually run out of fossil fuels, the cost of production is increasing. Wells must be sunk deeper. Environmental concerns are adding to both the cost of production and refining. While the cost of production is rising, the demand is rising even faster creating upward price pressure. The fact that most countries have little or no oil, creates serious political problems which will only get worse as the world oil prices rise.

Although the US can influence world oil prices, it can not dominate the market. The reason is the cost of production. Cost of getting Middle East out of the ground is $1 to $2/barrel, $2/barrel in Africa, $4 in Russia and $6 in the US. In addition transportation costs and exploration costs are higher in the US.

3. From a scientific view, oil is a very inefficient source of energy for transportation producing dangerous byproducts. 80% of the energy is wasted. Most of the energy is expended through heat lose. By comparison the efficiency of an electric motor will range from 85% to 95%.

Point one is unsupported by empirical data.

Point two is only partially correct. So long as the US remains unwilling to grant leases on land companies are indeed forced to drill offshore and ever deeper. But that's the governments fault. Not Natures.

Point three is likewise incorrect. No pther energy system (other then nuclear) approaches fossil fuels for efficiency. In fact they are not even close. That's why government must mandate their use AND give them massive taxpayer support.

If they were as efficient as you claim they would be cheaper than fossil fuels and the population would be pounding on their door to get them. None of which is happening.

Point 1 is 100% the only people who dont believe it are idiots
Economists: Coal Is Incredibly Costly | ThinkProgress
^New study finds that Coal and Oil are more costly then renewable energy once health and environmental effects are included.

Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress
^New study fines that Coals negative effect on human health and the environmental cost the nation at least 125% more than the electricity generated from coal.
^Coal results in at least 30,000 American deaths each year.

Coal Is Cheap Because Of The Massive Unpriced Externalities | ThinkProgress
Coal's hidden costs top $345 billion in U.S.: study | Reuters
^Coals negative impact on health and the environment is estimated to cost the united states over 400 billion dollars yearly.

 

[The T]

Unisolar - Greenville Michigan - files bankruptcy!

UniSolar, parent file for bankruptcy

"GREENVILLE, Mich. (WOOD) - At its peak five years ago, 424 people worked at the Uni-Solar plant in Greenville. Now, the solar-panel maker and its parent company, Energy Conversion Devices, filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and Uni-Solar is for sale."

UniSolar, parent file for bankruptcy | WOOD TV8

Does anyone know if they received stimulus money too????

And this makes you happy.

If they got Federal funds and still fucked up? YOU bet...shows the payback Obama gave and the funds he pissed away and left the taxpayers on the hook for and unmasks Obama for the war he is waging on the people?

YOU BET we are happy he is being unmasked.

 

[westwall]

IMHO, there are three reasons why the left supports alternative energy.
1. The use of fossil fuels is changing the climate and polluting our air and water. Left unchecked, it will eventually destroy the environment of the earth.

2. Although we will never actually run out of fossil fuels, the cost of production is increasing. Wells must be sunk deeper. Environmental concerns are adding to both the cost of production and refining. While the cost of production is rising, the demand is rising even faster creating upward price pressure. The fact that most countries have little or no oil, creates serious political problems which will only get worse as the world oil prices rise.

Although the US can influence world oil prices, it can not dominate the market. The reason is the cost of production. Cost of getting Middle East out of the ground is $1 to $2/barrel, $2/barrel in Africa, $4 in Russia and $6 in the US. In addition transportation costs and exploration costs are higher in the US.

3. From a scientific view, oil is a very inefficient source of energy for transportation producing dangerous byproducts. 80% of the energy is wasted. Most of the energy is expended through heat lose. By comparison the efficiency of an electric motor will range from 85% to 95%.

Point one is unsupported by empirical data.

Point two is only partially correct. So long as the US remains unwilling to grant leases on land companies are indeed forced to drill offshore and ever deeper. But that's the governments fault. Not Natures.

Point three is likewise incorrect. No pther energy system (other then nuclear) approaches fossil fuels for efficiency. In fact they are not even close. That's why government must mandate their use AND give them massive taxpayer support.

If they were as efficient as you claim they would be cheaper than fossil fuels and the population would be pounding on their door to get them. None of which is happening.

Point 1 is 100% the only people who dont believe it are idiots
Economists: Coal Is Incredibly Costly | ThinkProgress
^New study finds that Coal and Oil are more costly then renewable energy once health and environmental effects are included.

Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress
^New study fines that Coals negative effect on human health and the environmental cost the nation at least 125% more than the electricity generated from coal.
^Coal results in at least 30,000 American deaths each year.

Coal Is Cheap Because Of The Massive Unpriced Externalities | ThinkProgress
Coal's hidden costs top $345 billion in U.S.: study | Reuters
^Coals negative impact on health and the environment is estimated to cost the united states over 400 billion dollars yearly.

Oooooohhh, panties in a bunch there trolling blunder? I can allways tell you lose whatever semblence of control you had. Then post up useless simpletons drivel....which is good as you ARE a simpleton.

 

[Caroljo]

Unisolar - Greenville Michigan - files bankruptcy!

UniSolar, parent file for bankruptcy

"GREENVILLE, Mich. (WOOD) - At its peak five years ago, 424 people worked at the Uni-Solar plant in Greenville. Now, the solar-panel maker and its parent company, Energy Conversion Devices, filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and Uni-Solar is for sale."

UniSolar, parent file for bankruptcy | WOOD TV8

Does anyone know if they received stimulus money too????

And this makes you happy.

How in hell did you get that this makes me happy??? I live about 35 miles from Greenville, the people in the city has had a very rough time over the last few years. Many people that lost their jobs when the Electrolux plant closed, many got jobs at this solar plant...now they're out of work AGAIN! How can that make anyone happy?

I wish the plant hadn't closed, i wish those people still had their jobs. I posted this for the fact that this is ANOTHER Obama failure. This is another proof of how the stimulus didn't and never will work.

 

[Seawytch]

Study Sheds Light on Solar PV Trade Flows, US-China Manufacturing

Research and analysis of solar PV manufacturing costs and international trade flows shows that Chinese silicon solar PV manufacturers have only a slight cost advantage on their US counterparts, and that excludes transportation costs, the effect of inflation rate differentials, and other factors. Furthermore, the extraordinary rise in Chinese exports of silicon solar PV cells and panels to the US could only be sustained with the support of massive government subsidies, according to a US DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) presentation. [...]

“This analysis from the renewable-energy research arm of the U.S. government corroborates our view that an export drive sponsored by the Chinese government is improperly intervening in the U.S. market,” Brinser stated in a news release.

“Highly efficient U.S. producers like SolarWorld can vie with any company in the world in legal competition. But the government of China’s illegal trade practices are neither economically nor environmentally sustainable for anyone. Free trade is trade free of illegal foreign government intervention.”[...]

The NREL presentation concludes that Chinese producers have an inherent cost advantage of no greater than 1% compared with U.S. producers. When trans-ocean shipping costs are counted, they actually have face a 5% cost disadvantage.

It’s “massive government subsidies” that spur Chinese manufacturers to export about 95% of domestic production. That’s resulted in Chinese manufacturers capturing a 55% share of the global market in relatively short order, according to CASM and SolarWorld.​

But keep trying to make this about the President. I understand ya'll can't help it...its just ODS.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Study Sheds Light on Solar PV Trade Flows, US-China Manufacturing

Research and analysis of solar PV manufacturing costs and international trade flows shows that Chinese silicon solar PV manufacturers have only a slight cost advantage on their US counterparts, and that excludes transportation costs, the effect of inflation rate differentials, and other factors. Furthermore, the extraordinary rise in Chinese exports of silicon solar PV cells and panels to the US could only be sustained with the support of massive government subsidies, according to a US DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) presentation. [...]

“This analysis from the renewable-energy research arm of the U.S. government corroborates our view that an export drive sponsored by the Chinese government is improperly intervening in the U.S. market,” Brinser stated in a news release.

“Highly efficient U.S. producers like SolarWorld can vie with any company in the world in legal competition. But the government of China’s illegal trade practices are neither economically nor environmentally sustainable for anyone. Free trade is trade free of illegal foreign government intervention.”[...]

The NREL presentation concludes that Chinese producers have an inherent cost advantage of no greater than 1% compared with U.S. producers. When trans-ocean shipping costs are counted, they actually have face a 5% cost disadvantage.

It’s “massive government subsidies” that spur Chinese manufacturers to export about 95% of domestic production. That’s resulted in Chinese manufacturers capturing a 55% share of the global market in relatively short order, according to CASM and SolarWorld.​

But keep trying to make this about the President. I understand ya'll can't help it...its just ODS.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be the Executive's job to STOP China from illegally dumping their subsidized solar products on American consumers?

 

[Gadawg73]

The single most biggest reason the left are against drilling and using our own resources, we have about 600 years worth of oil and gas that can be used "Thats just what we have discovered so far", which would make us into an exporter and no doubt would pay down our debt and put us on a track to be successful, which would go against the radical green agenda. Who would take green energy seriously if we where bringing in trillions a year off of oil and gas?
These loans to these solar companies where for nothing more than a loan to be held onto and for it to be kicked back into democrat reelection coffers. The multiple bankruptcies should be more than enough proof for that.

IMHO, there are three reasons why the left supports alternative energy.
1. The use of fossil fuels is changing the climate and polluting our air and water. Left unchecked, it will eventually destroy the environment of the earth.

2. Although we will never actually run out of fossil fuels, the cost of production is increasing. Wells must be sunk deeper. Environmental concerns are adding to both the cost of production and refining. While the cost of production is rising, the demand is rising even faster creating upward price pressure. The fact that most countries have little or no oil, creates serious political problems which will only get worse as the world oil prices rise.

Although the US can influence world oil prices, it can not dominate the market. The reason is the cost of production. Cost of getting Middle East out of the ground is $1 to $2/barrel, $2/barrel in Africa, $4 in Russia and $6 in the US. In addition transportation costs and exploration costs are higher in the US.

3. From a scientific view, oil is a very inefficient source of energy for transportation producing dangerous byproducts. 80% of the energy is wasted. Most of the energy is expended through heat lose. By comparison the efficiency of an electric motor will range from 85% to 95%.

Point one is unsupported by empirical data.

Point two is only partially correct. So long as the US remains unwilling to grant leases on land companies are indeed forced to drill offshore and ever deeper. But that's the governments fault. Not Natures.

Point three is likewise incorrect. No pther energy system (other then nuclear) approaches fossil fuels for efficiency. In fact they are not even close. That's why government must mandate their use AND give them massive taxpayer support.

If they were as efficient as you claim they would be cheaper than fossil fuels and the population would be pounding on their door to get them. None of which is happening.

You claim there is no empirical data to support that the use of fossil fuels is polluting our rivers, lakes and streams?
There are traces of oil and gas in every major river basin in America.
I give you a pass to think on that one again.

 

[Gadawg73]

The fact that many a gree energy compnay is going bankrupt is nothing new as over 50% of new restaurants fail within 2 years after they open.
I do not like the government subsidies but the fact that many of these companies are failing is not abad thing.
Brings the cream to the top-capitalism the way it ought to work.
And quit propping them up with government funds.

 

[Seawytch]

Propping them up with government funds is exactly what the other countries are doing...which is why we are LOSING the solar panel battle to China and Germany.

 

[Gadawg73]

Propping them up with government funds is exactly what the other countries are doing...which is why we are LOSING the solar panel battle to China and Germany.

True, short term but the engineering behind solar is not that complex today. Let their governments spend their taxpayer $$ funding the companies and then we can weed out the worst. The product will come here.
Take a look at the government funded crap the Chinks put out. Their military equipment is beyond crap. Their copy cat fighters hardly fly.
Government subsidies do not account for the bad. Investment $$$ from private sources follows the good.
The solar panel battle is not in the funding, it is in the delivery system of the product. As long as some Chink somewhere will build it for cheaper the jobs and the industry will never be here regardless of who subsidizes it.

 

[Seawytch]

Propping them up with government funds is exactly what the other countries are doing...which is why we are LOSING the solar panel battle to China and Germany.

True, short term but the engineering behind solar is not that complex today. Let their governments spend their taxpayer $$ funding the companies and then we can weed out the worst. The product will come here.
Take a look at the government funded crap the Chinks put out. Their military equipment is beyond crap. Their copy cat fighters hardly fly.
Government subsidies do not account for the bad. Investment $$$ from private sources follows the good.
The solar panel battle is not in the funding, it is in the delivery system of the product. As long as some Chink somewhere will build it for cheaper the jobs and the industry will never be here regardless of who subsidizes it.

That's the point...they AREN'T making them cheaper than we can...they are subsidizing the crap out of them. According to the study I referenced before, WE make them cheaper but their government is subsidizing the hell out of them.

 

[westwall]

IMHO, there are three reasons why the left supports alternative energy.
1. The use of fossil fuels is changing the climate and polluting our air and water. Left unchecked, it will eventually destroy the environment of the earth.

2. Although we will never actually run out of fossil fuels, the cost of production is increasing. Wells must be sunk deeper. Environmental concerns are adding to both the cost of production and refining. While the cost of production is rising, the demand is rising even faster creating upward price pressure. The fact that most countries have little or no oil, creates serious political problems which will only get worse as the world oil prices rise.

Although the US can influence world oil prices, it can not dominate the market. The reason is the cost of production. Cost of getting Middle East out of the ground is $1 to $2/barrel, $2/barrel in Africa, $4 in Russia and $6 in the US. In addition transportation costs and exploration costs are higher in the US.

3. From a scientific view, oil is a very inefficient source of energy for transportation producing dangerous byproducts. 80% of the energy is wasted. Most of the energy is expended through heat lose. By comparison the efficiency of an electric motor will range from 85% to 95%.

Point one is unsupported by empirical data.

Point two is only partially correct. So long as the US remains unwilling to grant leases on land companies are indeed forced to drill offshore and ever deeper. But that's the governments fault. Not Natures.

Point three is likewise incorrect. No pther energy system (other then nuclear) approaches fossil fuels for efficiency. In fact they are not even close. That's why government must mandate their use AND give them massive taxpayer support.

If they were as efficient as you claim they would be cheaper than fossil fuels and the population would be pounding on their door to get them. None of which is happening.

You claim there is no empirical data to support that the use of fossil fuels is polluting our rivers, lakes and streams?
There are traces of oil and gas in every major river basin in America.
I give you a pass to think on that one again.

No, there is no evidence it is affecting the climate. There is more environmental pollution in the water from California's mandated use of MTBE then there is from fossil fuels. And more to the point MTBE takes centuries to breakdown and disappear from the system. Fossil fuels will oxidise within weeks and some within days.

 

[naturegirl]

Propping them up with government funds is exactly what the other countries are doing...which is why we are LOSING the solar panel battle to China and Germany.

True, short term but the engineering behind solar is not that complex today. Let their governments spend their taxpayer $$ funding the companies and then we can weed out the worst. The product will come here.
Take a look at the government funded crap the Chinks put out. Their military equipment is beyond crap. Their copy cat fighters hardly fly.
Government subsidies do not account for the bad. Investment $$$ from private sources follows the good.
The solar panel battle is not in the funding, it is in the delivery system of the product. As long as some Chink somewhere will build it for cheaper the jobs and the industry will never be here regardless of who subsidizes it.

That's the point...they AREN'T making them cheaper than we can...they are subsidizing the crap out of them. According to the study I referenced before, WE make them cheaper but their government is subsidizing the hell out of them.

So if you know that and I know that why does this administration keep propping up an industry that is doomed?? Is there something going to magically happen that will change things. If I were going to invest in something I'd take a hard look at what the competition is doing first.

Doesn't sound like good a business investment to me. You'd think this Administration would see that as well. However, it's not really about developing green energy, it's about trading money. They give taxpayer money to the business, they in turn contribute handily to the campaign then file bankruptcy and liquidate, they aren't even trying to reorganize. Sounds a little like money laundering to me.

 

[Flopper]

The single most biggest reason the left are against drilling and using our own resources, we have about 600 years worth of oil and gas that can be used "Thats just what we have discovered so far", which would make us into an exporter and no doubt would pay down our debt and put us on a track to be successful, which would go against the radical green agenda. Who would take green energy seriously if we where bringing in trillions a year off of oil and gas?
These loans to these solar companies where for nothing more than a loan to be held onto and for it to be kicked back into democrat reelection coffers. The multiple bankruptcies should be more than enough proof for that.

IMHO, there are three reasons why the left supports alternative energy.
1. The use of fossil fuels is changing the climate and polluting our air and water. Left unchecked, it will eventually destroy the environment of the earth.

2. Although we will never actually run out of fossil fuels, the cost of production is increasing. Wells must be sunk deeper. Environmental concerns are adding to both the cost of production and refining. While the cost of production is rising, the demand is rising even faster creating upward price pressure. The fact that most countries have little or no oil, creates serious political problems which will only get worse as the world oil prices rise.

Although the US can influence world oil prices, it can not dominate the market. The reason is the cost of production. Cost of getting Middle East out of the ground is $1 to $2/barrel, $2/barrel in Africa, $4 in Russia and $6 in the US. In addition transportation costs and exploration costs are higher in the US.

3. From a scientific view, oil is a very inefficient source of energy for transportation producing dangerous byproducts. 80% of the energy is wasted. Most of the energy is expended through heat lose. By comparison the efficiency of an electric motor will range from 85% to 95%.

Point one is unsupported by empirical data.

Point two is only partially correct. So long as the US remains unwilling to grant leases on land companies are indeed forced to drill offshore and ever deeper. But that's the governments fault. Not Natures.

Point three is likewise incorrect. No pther energy system (other then nuclear) approaches fossil fuels for efficiency. In fact they are not even close. That's why government must mandate their use AND give them massive taxpayer support.

If they were as efficient as you claim they would be cheaper than fossil fuels and the population would be pounding on their door to get them. None of which is happening.

I won't waste my time debating global warming. It's been accepted by every major scientific organization on the planet. No one but a fool or a conspiracy theorist would deny it.

The internal combustion engine is extremely inefficient. When the fuel is burned, 80% of the energy is wasted producing heat not motion. It seems economically efficient only because we have built a huge infrastructure of exploration, production, refining, and transporting in order to delivery the fuel to an engine that wastes 80% of the energy. Alternative energy sources are expensive only because we have not invested in the infrastructure to support them.

The federal government has leased 40 million acres for oil production yet 3/4 of this land produces no oil and most of it has not even been explored. Oil companies want to drill wherever there is oil regardless of the environmental impact.


Engine Efficiency
Most oil leases on public lands go unused - US news - Environment - msnbc.com