The unsustainability of "green" energy

[Old Rocks]

Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a great concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.

The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they still went bankrupt.

Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).

World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy

World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy

The world's largest renewable energy developer, SunEdison, may be on the verge of filing for bankruptcy protection after it was revealed that it is reportedly being investigated for overstating its financial stability

READ NOW
SunEdison has had an aggressive acquisition history, but those buyouts have left it with $11 billion in debt, Reuters reported.

"SunEdison is having more than its share of troubles," Deutsche Bank wrote in an announcement that it was suspending its ratings of both SunEdison and its subsidiary, TerraForm Global.

TerraForm Global announced its 10K filing would be delayed due to SunEdison's financial reporting issues. TerraForm's annual report was to be filed by Wednesday.

Nothing to do with renewable energy, but with the management biting off more than it can chew.

 

[percysunshine]

Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a great concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.

The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they still went bankrupt.

Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).

World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy

World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy

The world's largest renewable energy developer, SunEdison, may be on the verge of filing for bankruptcy protection after it was revealed that it is reportedly being investigated for overstating its financial stability

READ NOW
SunEdison has had an aggressive acquisition history, but those buyouts have left it with $11 billion in debt, Reuters reported.

"SunEdison is having more than its share of troubles," Deutsche Bank wrote in an announcement that it was suspending its ratings of both SunEdison and its subsidiary, TerraForm Global.

TerraForm Global announced its 10K filing would be delayed due to SunEdison's financial reporting issues. TerraForm's annual report was to be filed by Wednesday.

Nothing to do with renewable energy, but with the management biting off more than it can chew.

Shit happens.

 

[westwall]

Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a great concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.

The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they still went bankrupt.

Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).

World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy

World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy

The world's largest renewable energy developer, SunEdison, may be on the verge of filing for bankruptcy protection after it was revealed that it is reportedly being investigated for overstating its financial stability

READ NOW
SunEdison has had an aggressive acquisition history, but those buyouts have left it with $11 billion in debt, Reuters reported.

"SunEdison is having more than its share of troubles," Deutsche Bank wrote in an announcement that it was suspending its ratings of both SunEdison and its subsidiary, TerraForm Global.

TerraForm Global announced its 10K filing would be delayed due to SunEdison's financial reporting issues. TerraForm's annual report was to be filed by Wednesday.

Nothing to do with renewable energy, but with the management biting off more than it can chew.

No, it's like some guy telling you he will sell something for 98 cents, but it costs him a buck....he'll make it up on volume! That's the problem with renewables. They ALL (with the exception of hydroelectric, and geothermal) are losers. Scaled up beyond single point users and they fail.

 

[Old Rocks]

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Both wind and solar have come down in price since this was published. Mr. Westwall, your posts are pure bullshit.

 

[OnePercenter]

Wrong, it is weak because there is tons of it. And it is cheap to produce. At least 50% of the cost of a barrel of oil is due to speculators. Investors RAISE the price, not decrease it.

There's difference between investors and speculators? Really? I'll alert the media!

Buy low, sell high. It doesn't really matter how it gets low....does it? Market manipulation, especially in commodities is an ever present norm.

Look at natural gas. Players manipulate lower prices to squeeze out competitive fuel sources (coal), blame the EPA, then raise the prices for higher return.

Natural gas is cheap because they recently found bazillions of tons of it. It is ridiculously cheap to produce, and transport, and it is thermally efficient. None of which bio fuels are. Like I said skippy, you don't the slightest bit about what you speak.

He is a moron.

Yeah? Well he's a moron with two Teslas, bitch.

And he pays a single digit tax rate on his millions.

As does Walmart.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There's difference between investors and speculators? Really? I'll alert the media!

Buy low, sell high. It doesn't really matter how it gets low....does it? Market manipulation, especially in commodities is an ever present norm.

Look at natural gas. Players manipulate lower prices to squeeze out competitive fuel sources (coal), blame the EPA, then raise the prices for higher return.

Natural gas is cheap because they recently found bazillions of tons of it. It is ridiculously cheap to produce, and transport, and it is thermally efficient. None of which bio fuels are. Like I said skippy, you don't the slightest bit about what you speak.

He is a moron.

Yeah? Well he's a moron with two Teslas, bitch.

And he pays a single digit tax rate on his millions.

As does Walmart.

Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.

 

[OnePercenter]

Natural gas is cheap because they recently found bazillions of tons of it. It is ridiculously cheap to produce, and transport, and it is thermally efficient. None of which bio fuels are. Like I said skippy, you don't the slightest bit about what you speak.

He is a moron.

Yeah? Well he's a moron with two Teslas, bitch.

And he pays a single digit tax rate on his millions.

As does Walmart.

Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.

Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.

You seem confused. That's my $23.50/hr minimum wage plan.

What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%. I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He is a moron.

Yeah? Well he's a moron with two Teslas, bitch.

And he pays a single digit tax rate on his millions.

As does Walmart.

Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.

Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.

You seem confused. That's my $23.50/hr minimum wage plan.

What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%. I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.

No, your stupid plan is independent of your stupid belief that effective tax rates should be calculated by dividing taxes paid by revenues.

What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%.

WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.

I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.

Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.

 

[OnePercenter]

Yeah? Well he's a moron with two Teslas, bitch.

And he pays a single digit tax rate on his millions.

As does Walmart.

Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.

Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.

You seem confused. That's my $23.50/hr minimum wage plan.

What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%. I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.

No, your stupid plan is independent of your stupid belief that effective tax rates should be calculated by dividing taxes paid by revenues.

What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%.

WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.

I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.

Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.

WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.

No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.

Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.

It's not being deceptive.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And he pays a single digit tax rate on his millions.

As does Walmart.

Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.

Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.

You seem confused. That's my $23.50/hr minimum wage plan.

What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%. I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.

No, your stupid plan is independent of your stupid belief that effective tax rates should be calculated by dividing taxes paid by revenues.

What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%.

WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.

I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.

Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.

WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.

No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.

Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.

It's not being deceptive.

No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.

And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.

It's not being deceptive.

It's not a useful comparison.

 

[OnePercenter]

As does Walmart.

Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.

Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.

You seem confused. That's my $23.50/hr minimum wage plan.

What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%. I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.

No, your stupid plan is independent of your stupid belief that effective tax rates should be calculated by dividing taxes paid by revenues.

What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%.

WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.

I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.

Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.

WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.

No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.

Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.

It's not being deceptive.

No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.

And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.

It's not being deceptive.

It's not a useful comparison.

And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.

If you want to be deceptive. Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue. Business actually pay very little of the total in tax. Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS, that makes me correct. btw; that includes the top one percent.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.

Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.

You seem confused. That's my $23.50/hr minimum wage plan.

What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%. I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.

No, your stupid plan is independent of your stupid belief that effective tax rates should be calculated by dividing taxes paid by revenues.

What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%.

WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.

I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.

Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.

WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.

No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.

Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.

It's not being deceptive.

No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.

And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.

It's not being deceptive.

It's not a useful comparison.

And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.

If you want to be deceptive. Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue. Business actually pay very little of the total in tax. Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS, that makes me correct. btw; that includes the top one percent.

Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue.

Your idiocy dictates that.

Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

 

[OnePercenter]

Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.

You seem confused. That's my $23.50/hr minimum wage plan.

What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%. I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.

No, your stupid plan is independent of your stupid belief that effective tax rates should be calculated by dividing taxes paid by revenues.

What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%.

WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.

I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.

Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.

WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.

No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.

Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.

It's not being deceptive.

No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.

And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.

It's not being deceptive.

It's not a useful comparison.

And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.

If you want to be deceptive. Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue. Business actually pay very little of the total in tax. Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS, that makes me correct. btw; that includes the top one percent.

Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue.

Your idiocy dictates that.

Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, your stupid plan is independent of your stupid belief that effective tax rates should be calculated by dividing taxes paid by revenues.

What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%.

WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.

I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.

Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.

WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.

No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.

Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.

It's not being deceptive.

No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.

And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.

It's not being deceptive.

It's not a useful comparison.

And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.

If you want to be deceptive. Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue. Business actually pay very little of the total in tax. Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS, that makes me correct. btw; that includes the top one percent.

Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue.

Your idiocy dictates that.

Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.

 

[OnePercenter]

WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.

No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.

Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.

It's not being deceptive.

No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.

And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.

It's not being deceptive.

It's not a useful comparison.

And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.

If you want to be deceptive. Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue. Business actually pay very little of the total in tax. Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS, that makes me correct. btw; that includes the top one percent.

Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue.

Your idiocy dictates that.

Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.

The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.

Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.

And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.

It's not being deceptive.

It's not a useful comparison.

And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.

If you want to be deceptive. Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue. Business actually pay very little of the total in tax. Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS, that makes me correct. btw; that includes the top one percent.

Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue.

Your idiocy dictates that.

Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.

The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.

Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

For the fiscal year ending in January 2016, WalMart paid 1.36% of revenues for their corporate income tax.
As an individual, I don't have revenue and I'm not subject to corporate tax rates.

 

[OnePercenter]

And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.

If you want to be deceptive. Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue. Business actually pay very little of the total in tax. Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS, that makes me correct. btw; that includes the top one percent.

Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue.

Your idiocy dictates that.

Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.

The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.

Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

For the fiscal year ending in January 2016, WalMart paid 1.36% of revenues for their corporate income tax.
As an individual, I don't have revenue and I'm not subject to corporate tax rates.

For the fiscal year ending in January 2016, WalMart paid 1.36% of revenues for their corporate income tax.

So we agree.......corporations aren't overly taxed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue.

Your idiocy dictates that.

Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.

No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.

The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.

Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.

For the fiscal year ending in January 2016, WalMart paid 1.36% of revenues for their corporate income tax.
As an individual, I don't have revenue and I'm not subject to corporate tax rates.

For the fiscal year ending in January 2016, WalMart paid 1.36% of revenues for their corporate income tax.

So we agree.......corporations aren't overly taxed.

It's true, WalMart pays a much higher tax rate than I do.

 

[P@triot]

And the failures (of both the "green" energy sector and of government betting on losers) continues. It's no wonder we're $19 trillion in debt, suffering from record unemployment numbers, and suffering record numbers on food stamps.

"A Spanish solar energy company benefiting from $191 million in financing from the Export-Import Bank declared bankruptcy last month, calling into question whether the embattled agency will see repayment of the tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loans on its balance sheets.

Abengoa, which operates worldwide, filed for Chapter 15 bankruptcy in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del., and has until the end of October to restructure its $16.4 billion of debt."

After Receiving Taxpayer-Backed Loans, Solar Company Files for Bankruptcy

 

[Old Rocks]

26 coal companies in the US have filed for bankruptcy. And more on the way.

China decreased it's use of coal by 3% in 2014.

http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/US-coal-designed-Web.pdf