Discussion:
1,900 Investigations Have Been Opened To Look Into Stimulus Waste, Fraud, And Abuse In The Green-Energy Funds
(too old to reply)
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 21:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:42:59 -0500, Unum says...
Yes, the government can LOAN you the money, but how many "alternate
fuels" companies went tits up, and how many BILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax
money did we get BACK?
All of it and more, apparently.
Bullshit. And the GOVERNMENT getting it back is still NOT the point,
libertard. Had to switch gears and move the goalposts again to make your
argument, didn't you?

The point was, loaning or SUBSIDIZING all those energy companies that went
tits up, didn't pay US, the taxpayers, back. They went bankrupt, but they
weren't going to "pay" us back even IF they didn't.

It money that is spent on something that will never give back. At least
subsidies on coal and oil, give back at the pump. Tesla's profits go back
to paying the government back, not us, and what exactly are we going to
get from Tesla?

Gawd, you're stupid.

You're saying "we" (not WE really... the government) is getting paid back
by Tesla, not us.
All of it and more, apparently.
Nope. Please explain how we're getting back back by BANKRUPT and
fraudulent companies that no longer exist.

The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred
energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened to
look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse in the green-energy funds, and
nearly 600 convictions have been made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy
loans, grants, and tax credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies
that have since either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain.

1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel's subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21. Olsen's Crop Service and Olsen's Mills Acquisition Company ($10
million)*
22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
27. Vestas ($50 million)
28. LG Chem's subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30. Navistar ($39 million)
31. Satcon ($3 million)*
32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 21:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:28:13 -0500, Unum says...
What forms of dirty energy don't change the climate
All of it and more, apparently.

You STILL can't prove ANY form of energy "changes" the climate. WHERE has
the climate "changed"? DEFINE "change", while you're at it.

What desert has changed into a palm tree and water covered oasis?

What jungle has "changed" into a desert? Maybe California... from drought
to deluge. LOL

Cold places are STILL cold.

Warm places are still warm. "Warmer" isn't change... that's nature.

Nature... means it's happened before and will again.

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

EIGHTEEN different temperature proxies. Are they ALL wrong, liar?
Unum
2017-10-10 22:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hillbilly Davis
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:28:13 -0500, Unum says...
What forms of dirty energy don't change the climate
All of it and more, apparently.
You STILL can't prove ANY form of energy "changes" the climate. WHERE has
the climate "changed"? DEFINE "change", while you're at it.
It was your term, dumbass. What did you think it meant?
Post by Hillbilly Davis
all the other forms of energy that work quite
well, and DON'T change the climate.
Why are you so ashamed of what you write that you snip it? And what does
ratboy think is the specific cause of global warming today, seeing as how
greenhouse gases are actually proven to have a warming effect.
AlleyCat
2017-10-11 00:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:55:33 -0500, Unum says...
Subject: Re: World's NEW Energy Capacity -- moron needs a basic education
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.society.liberalism, alt.politics.trump, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.global-warming
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Post by Hillbilly Davis
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:28:13 -0500, Unum says...
What forms of dirty energy don't change the climate
All of it and more, apparently.
You STILL can't prove ANY form of energy "changes" the climate. WHERE has
the climate "changed"? DEFINE "change", while you're at it.
It was your term, dumbass. What did you think it meant?
"What forms of dirty energy don't change the climate" - Unum

Why do you lie?
Wally W.
2017-10-11 03:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hillbilly Davis
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:28:13 -0500, Unum says...
What forms of dirty energy don't change the climate
All of it and more, apparently.
You STILL can't prove ANY form of energy "changes" the climate. WHERE has
the climate "changed"? DEFINE "change", while you're at it.
What desert has changed into a palm tree and water covered oasis?
What jungle has "changed" into a desert? Maybe California... from drought
to deluge. LOL
Cold places are STILL cold.
Warm places are still warm. "Warmer" isn't change... that's nature.
Nature... means it's happened before and will again.
https://i.imgur.com/kw7Br18.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/nlc5HEQ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/0bKaDGA.jpg
EIGHTEEN different temperature proxies. Are they ALL wrong, liar?
Then maybe he will answer this:

:On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 22:19:53 -0400, Wally W. wrote:
:>On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 20:29:10 -0500, Unum wrote:
:<snip>
:>>Merely pointing out that warmer temps are making places uninhabitable where
:>>people have been living for millenia.
:>
:>Name one place that has been inhabited for millenia where human-caused
:>global warming has driven them elsewhere because it has become too hot
:>to live there.

Or maybe he'll just keep running.
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 21:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:31:18 -0500, Unum says...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:50:12 -0500, Unum says...
Name them, liar.
They were named in the article ratboy was tooo stooopid to read.
"They"? Please list "them", liar.
ratboy finally read the article, hilarious!
LOL... the ONLY other "form of energy generation" mentioned, was coal, and
they compared the growth of solar power to THAT from 80 years ago, like we
had the technology to grow coal's "energy capacity" the same as we would
today.
So there was other 'new generation capacity' and you're dumb as dirt?
"... compared the growth of solar power to THAT from 80 years ago..."

Boy, you're a special kind of stupid.

The growth of coal from 80 years ago, is now?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Boy, you're a special kind of retarded.
Unum
2017-10-10 23:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hillbilly Davis
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:31:18 -0500, Unum says...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:50:12 -0500, Unum says...
Name them, liar.
They were named in the article ratboy was tooo stooopid to read.
"They"? Please list "them", liar.
ratboy finally read the article, hilarious!
LOL... the ONLY other "form of energy generation" mentioned, was coal, and
they compared the growth of solar power to THAT from 80 years ago, like we
had the technology to grow coal's "energy capacity" the same as we would
today.
So there was other 'new generation capacity' and you're dumb as dirt?
"... compared the growth of solar power to THAT from 80 years ago..."
Citing the article directly, we see that ratboy is full of shit.

"In fact, solar-energy production rose by 50 percent last year, outpacing any
other fuel and surpassing coal's net growth—the first time a renewable source
has ever achieved such year-over-year growth."
AlleyCat
2017-10-11 01:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:01:36 -0500, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by Hillbilly Davis
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:31:18 -0500, Unum says...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:50:12 -0500, Unum says...
Name them, liar.
They were named in the article ratboy was tooo stooopid to read.
"They"? Please list "them", liar.
ratboy finally read the article, hilarious!
LOL... the ONLY other "form of energy generation" mentioned, was coal, and
they compared the growth of solar power to THAT from 80 years ago, like we
had the technology to grow coal's "energy capacity" the same as we would
today.
So there was other 'new generation capacity' and you're dumb as dirt?
"... compared the growth of solar power to THAT from 80 years ago..."
Citing the article directly, we see that ratboy is full of shit.
"In fact, solar-energy production rose by 50 percent last year, outpacing any
other fuel and surpassing coal's net growth?the first time a renewable source
has ever achieved such year-over-year growth."
"... compared the growth of solar power to THAT from 80 years ago..."???

LOL

They're comparing solar power growth NOW, to Coal from 80 years ago, and
you used THAT as a cite?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You're a liar and a puny little mommy's boy nerd... keep lying dweeb...
you show everyone who you are.

Getting back to the original question, 18 lines up... what was the
"OTHER" fuel they were talking about? You can't list it, because they
didn't SAY, liar.
Unum
2017-10-11 01:57:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:01:36 -0500, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by Hillbilly Davis
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:31:18 -0500, Unum says...
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 22:50:12 -0500, Unum says...
Name them, liar.
They were named in the article ratboy was tooo stooopid to read.
"They"? Please list "them", liar.
ratboy finally read the article, hilarious!
LOL... the ONLY other "form of energy generation" mentioned, was coal, and
they compared the growth of solar power to THAT from 80 years ago, like we
had the technology to grow coal's "energy capacity" the same as we would
today.
So there was other 'new generation capacity' and you're dumb as dirt?
"... compared the growth of solar power to THAT from 80 years ago..."
Citing the article directly, we see that ratboy is full of shit.
"In fact, solar-energy production rose by 50 percent last year, outpacing any
other fuel and surpassing coal's net growth?the first time a renewable source
has ever achieved such year-over-year growth."
"... compared the growth of solar power to THAT from 80 years ago..."???
Have to explain it to ratboy like an incredibly stupid child. The global
coal capacity is being compared to all renewable energy growth, you sad
little moron.

"the report expects renewable energy to grow by about 1,000 gigawatts by 2022,
equal to half of the current global capacity in coal power.

Such capacity in coal power took 80 years to build"
Post by AlleyCat
Getting back to the original question, 18 lines up... what was the
"OTHER" fuel they were talking about? You can't list it, because they
didn't SAY, liar.
A direct quote from the article; "More solar energy was added in 2016
than natural gas or wind".
Post by AlleyCat
What OTHER "new energy capacity" is there, nerdo?
Anything else ratboy needs explained from this article that is
somehow too complicated for retarded folks to ever grasp?
AlleyCat
2017-10-11 02:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:57:21 -0500, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by AlleyCat
Post by Unum
Post by Hillbilly Davis
So there was other 'new generation capacity' and you're dumb as dirt?
"... compared the growth of solar power to THAT from 80 years ago..."
Citing the article directly, we see that ratboy is full of shit.
"In fact, solar-energy production rose by 50 percent last year, outpacing any
other fuel and surpassing coal's net growth?the first time a renewable source
has ever achieved such year-over-year growth."
"... compared the growth of solar power to THAT from 80 years ago..."???
Have to explain it to ratboy like an incredibly stupid child. The global
coal capacity is being compared to all renewable energy growth, you sad
little moron.
COAL is NOT a "new" energy source, moron. Because coal-energy production
didn't rise %50 percent, compare to itself, EIGHTY YEARS AGO, it's a fair
comparison?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Post by Unum
"the report expects renewable energy to grow by about 1,000 gigawatts by 2022,
equal to half of the current global capacity in coal power.
Such capacity in coal power took 80 years to build"
So?
Solar's out-pacing GROWTH of other OLD forms of energy... again, so
fucking what?

WHO here is against solar energy? No one.

The problem lies in OUR money (not yours, mommy's little homeboy), the
government is wasting on companies that take our tax money, then either
fail, or never give us our money back where we can tangibly use it.

I see you are a chicken shit and didn't respond to ANY of the posts I made
that showed how solar and wind and "other" energy tech, is failing and
taking our tax money down the drain along with them.
Post by Unum
Post by AlleyCat
Getting back to the original question, 18 lines up... what was the
"OTHER" fuel they were talking about? You can't list it, because they
didn't SAY, liar.
A direct quote from the article; "More solar energy was added in 2016
than natural gas or wind".
Gas AND wind are NOT "new" technologies. What "NEW" energy technologies is
solar out-pacing?

Lemons?

Coconuts?

Coal and oil "outpaced" twigs and sticks and firewood too... so fucking
watt if solar growing fast now? It's about fucking time... it's been
around for DECADES.
Unum
2017-10-11 04:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:57:21 -0500, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by AlleyCat
Post by Unum
Post by Hillbilly Davis
So there was other 'new generation capacity' and you're dumb as
dirt?
Post by Unum
Post by AlleyCat
Post by Unum
Post by Hillbilly Davis
"... compared the growth of solar power to THAT from 80 years ago..."
Citing the article directly, we see that ratboy is full of shit.
"In fact, solar-energy production rose by 50 percent last year, outpacing any
other fuel and surpassing coal's net growth?the first time a renewable source
has ever achieved such year-over-year growth."
"... compared the growth of solar power to THAT from 80 years ago..."???
Have to explain it to ratboy like an incredibly stupid child. The global
coal capacity is being compared to all renewable energy growth, you sad
little moron.
COAL is NOT a "new" energy source, moron. Because coal-energy production
didn't rise %50 percent, compare to itself, EIGHTY YEARS AGO, it's a fair
comparison?
Nobody claimed coal is 'new', dumbass. I have to say, all this desperate
flailing is righteously amusing.
Post by AlleyCat
Post by Unum
"the report expects renewable energy to grow by about 1,000 gigawatts by 2022,
equal to half of the current global capacity in coal power.
Such capacity in coal power took 80 years to build"
So?
Solar's out-pacing GROWTH of other OLD forms of energy... again, so
fucking what?
So darn angry and frustrated. Maybe ratboy should have asked someone on
the street to read the article for him and explain it in little words.
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-11 03:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:57:21 -0500, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by AlleyCat
Getting back to the original question, 18 lines up... what was the
"OTHER" fuel they were talking about? You can't list it, because they
didn't SAY, liar.
A direct quote from the article; "More solar energy was added in 2016
than natural gas or wind".
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"More Solar Energy Was Added In 2016 Than Natural Gas Or Wind" is the line
in the article, that is a LINK to another article!

Loading Image...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What a fucking LIAR!!!

Liars go in the Bozo Bin, liar. See you in 7 days, little basement
dwelling mommy's boy.

I don't mind the kinds of discussions we have here... you show us exactly
what and who you are, but I will not abide by pure unadulterated lying. If
you prove me wrong with facts, I can take it like a man, but when you lie
like a child, you get treated like a child.

BumbleBee and others can lower their standards and self-respect (just
kidding guys) and keep arguing with you, but for at least a week, or until
I re-image my SSD, at which time the software will revert back to before
this posting, you're going IN the Bozo Bin.

Heyyy... that's a good idea... I'll just make an image now, ahead of on
schedule... thanks. IN the Bozo bin you go, then it's time to reboot and
make a ghost image.

Go ahead... call me names, like chicken, or that I'm "running from
something". Don't care.

No ifs, no buts, no coconuts. In you go. SEE YA!

If you reply to this post, we all KNOW what kind of low-self-esteemed
dweeb you really are.
Unum
2017-10-11 04:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:57:21 -0500, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by AlleyCat
Getting back to the original question, 18 lines up... what was the
"OTHER" fuel they were talking about? You can't list it, because they
didn't SAY, liar.
A direct quote from the article; "More solar energy was added in 2016
than natural gas or wind".
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Bleats like a sheep yet again?
Post by AlleyCat
"More Solar Energy Was Added In 2016 Than Natural Gas Or Wind" is the line
in the article, that is a LINK to another article!
"You can't list it, because they didn't SAY", OMFG this is so hilarious!
Unum
2017-10-10 22:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hillbilly Davis
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:42:59 -0500, Unum says...
Yes, the government can LOAN you the money, but how many "alternate
fuels" companies went tits up, and how many BILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax
money did we get BACK?
All of it and more, apparently.
Bullshit. And the GOVERNMENT getting it back is still NOT the point,
libertard. Had to switch gears and move the goalposts again to make your
argument, didn't you?
I was merely responding to your lie. Why are you running away from what
you said?
Post by Hillbilly Davis
how many BILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax
money did we get BACK?
None.
The program has made a profit of nearly $1 billion in interest payments to the
U.S Treasury to date. At least $5 billion more is expected over the next few
decades as loans are paid back. That compares with $780 million in losses to
date, the bulk of which is accounted for by the $535 million loaned to
Solyndra.
AlleyCat
2017-10-11 01:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:59:03 -0500, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by Hillbilly Davis
Yes, the government can LOAN you the money, but how many "alternate
fuels" companies went tits up, and how many BILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax
money did we get BACK?
All of it and more, apparently.
Bullshit. And the GOVERNMENT getting it back is still NOT the point,
libertard. Had to switch gears and move the goalposts again to make your
argument, didn't you?
I was merely responding to your lie. Why are you running away from what
you said?
Post by Hillbilly Davis
how many BILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax
money did we get BACK?
None.
WE moron... WE... not the government. The government has NOT made up what
it has lost, with all the "loans" and subsidies it has given out to "green
energy" companies that went bust.

"The program has made a profit of nearly $1 billion in interest payments
to the U.S Treasury to date."

Cite it, or it's a lie.

=====

Beamreach Bankrupt Despite $250 Million Spent on Solar Hardware
Development

Debt has come due and the former Solexel's pivot to commercial roofs came
too late.
by Eric Wesoff
January 30, 2017

After spending more than $250 million, Solexel (rechristened as Beamreach
last year) has joined its brethren on the list of failed solar startups.
This follows a late-in-corporate-life shift to low-weight modules and away
from its original thin-silicon aspirations.

In 2008, no solar entrepreneur or investor envisioned photovoltaic module
costs of 30 cents per watt -- which is where we are today. A startup
founded in 2008, like Solexel, based its business plan on module costs of
about $4 per watt and falling.

The firm received $3 million in DOE funding in 2008 for a project with
this description: "Solexel plans on commercializing a disruptive, 3-D,
high-efficiency mono-crystalline silicon cell technology, while
dramatically reducing manufacturing cost per watt. Solexel plans to
deliver a 17%-19% efficient, 156 x 156 mm2, single-crystal cell that
consumes substantially lower silicon per watt than conventionally sliced
wafers. Solexel aspires to be a GW scale PV producer within five years."

That last thing didn't happen.

The first time the company unstealthed in 2012, it was focusing on its
thin-silicon technology and looking to mass-produce 35-micron-thick high-
performance, low-cost monocrystalline solar cells using a lift-off
technology based on a reusable template and a porous silicon substrate.
The startup hit an NREL-certified cell efficiency of 21.2 percent in 2014
with its back contact cell.

Solexel aimed to ship 20-percent-efficient photovoltaic modules at a cost
of $0.42 per watt by 2014.

MOST POPULAR
MOST COMMENTS

Tesla Model 3
Tesla Falls Short on Early Model 3 Shipment Goal
Puerto Rico's Grid Is Ruined. The Solar Industry Wants to Help
Puerto Rico's Grid Is Ruined. The Solar Industry Wants to Help
Send Tesla energy storage sign in US Virgin Islands after Hurricane
Irma
Is Tesla's Popularity Stretching the Company's Battery Supplies Too
Far?

White Papers
How String Inverters Are Changing Solar Management on the Grid
DOWNLOAD NOW
The Financial Impact of Net Energy Metering 2.0 Policy
DOWNLOAD NOW

That didn't happen.

Last year, the rebranded Beamreach pivoted to go after the commercial and
industrial rooftop market with a lightweight, easy-to-install module with
the use of thinner front sheet glass, a composite material for the frame,
an integrated mounting structure and an adhesion method for low-slope
commercial rooftop surfaces.

That product received a positive market reception.

But debt has come due and the company's venture investors are walking
away.

Beamreach raised its quarter billion from investors including Riyadh
Valley Company, the VC investment arm of King Saud University of Saudi
Arabia, and GAF (a large roofing materials manufacturer), along with
SunPower, KPCB, Technology Partners, The Westly Group, DAG Ventures,
Gentry Ventures, Northgate Capital, GSV Capital, Jasper Ridge Partners,
and Spirox. The firm's board of directors includes Jan van Dokkum of KPCB
and, until recently, Ira Ehrenpreis.

Somewhere along the line, the board saw fit to spend millions building a
manufacturing facility in Milpitas, Calif.

The firm has few employees remaining after a series of recent and not-so-
recent layoffs. Vendors are not getting paid. According to sources close
to the firm, this is bankruptcy and liquidation -- not a Chapter 11
reorganization. Beamreach picked up $25 million in senior debt financing
from Opus Bank in 2015.
Commercial market potential, but too late in the game

When Beamreach was a thin-silicon or high-efficiency player, it might have
been competing against SunPower, SolarCity, Panasonic, Samsung, Suniva or
1366 Technologies. After its shift, Beamreach looked a bit like tenKsolar,
which offers high-efficiency photovoltaic systems for commercial rooftops
and ground-mount projects, or even a bit like SunPower with its integrated
solution.

Certainly, the commercial market is ready to grow. In the recently
published report U.S. Commercial Solar Landscape 2016-2020, GTM Research
forecasts the U.S. commercial solar market to "rebound and nearly triple
in size by 2020."

But, nine years of legacy misspending have left Beamreach with "loans
due" and "a catastrophic cash flow situation," despite what sources
suggest is substantial demand and "sales traction" for the new commercial
product. It's a smart market niche to chase -- but it's too late for
Beamreach.
AlleyCat
2017-10-11 01:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:59:03 -0500, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by Hillbilly Davis
Yes, the government can LOAN you the money, but how many "alternate
fuels" companies went tits up, and how many BILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax
money did we get BACK?
All of it and more, apparently.
Bullshit. And the GOVERNMENT getting it back is still NOT the point,
libertard. Had to switch gears and move the goalposts again to make your
argument, didn't you?
I was merely responding to your lie. Why are you running away from what
you said?
Post by Hillbilly Davis
how many BILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax
money did we get BACK?
None.
WE moron... WE... not the government. The government has NOT made up what
it has lost, with all the "loans" and subsidies it has given out to "green
energy" companies that went bust.

"The program has made a profit of nearly $1 billion in interest payments
to the U.S Treasury to date."

Cite it, or it's a lie.

=====

Another Taxpayer-Funded Energy Company Files For Bankruptcy
By Jennifer G. Hickey Published March 10, 2017 Fox News

A cutting-edge battery maker that received millions from taxpayers has
become the latest government-backed energy firm to file for bankruptcy -
reviving the controversy over how stimulus dollars were spent under the
last administration.

Seven years after Aquion Energy received a $5.2 million stimulus-tied
grant from the federal government, the Pennsylvania company on Wednesday
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

"Creating a new electrochemistry and an associated battery platform at
commercial scale is extremely complex, time-consuming, and very capital
intensive. Despite our best efforts to fund the company and continue to
fuel our growth, the Company has been unable to raise the growth capital
needed to continue operating as a going concern," Scott Pearson, Aquion's
outgoing CEO, said in a press release.

The company, which is now seeking a buyer, produces batteries to store
solar and renewable energy. It had been touted as a rising star in the
energy storage business, even attracting investment from Microsoft founder
Bill Gates and millions more in state funding.

In January, the company was named "the North American Company of the Year
Award" at the annual Cleantech Forum in San Francisco, which "focuses on
emerging trends, leading innovation companies, and key players in
sustainable innovation."

Suzanne Roski, the company's chief restructuring officer, did not respond
to a request for comment from Fox News.

Critics say Aquion's fate is further evidence the government should not be
in the business of picking winners and losers.

"Who thinks the Department of Energy has the expertise to predict which
companies will succeed for fail in the marketplace, particularly in an
industry that is not only dependent upon government subsidies, but is
highly unpredictable?" said William Yeatman, a senior fellow at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The company grew out of the work of Jay Whitacre, an engineering professor
at Carnegie Mellon University. He developed a successful design for a
storage battery that would use only non-toxic, non-flammable chemicals,
rather than the more flammable lithium batteries.

Days before the company filed for Chapter 11, Whitacre was named the new
director of the Wilton E. Scott Institute for Energy Innovation at
Carnegie Mellon.

Aquion was awarded its federal grant in 2010. The Department of Energy
issued the funding to build a large-scale battery manufacturing plant that
would be located on the site of a former Sony facility in Westmoreland
County, Pennsylvania.

Private investors flocked to the project.

According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Aquion raised about $190
million from investors, including from Ray Lane, a former president of
Oracle.

They began low-volume production in the summer of 2011, broke ground on
full-scale manufacturing facility in 2012 and have been shipping
commercially since mid-2014, according to its website.

Two years later, Aquion Energy received $16.6 million in funds from the
state of Pennsylvania, including two alternative clean energy loans
totaling $5 million, to develop.

As part of the agreement, Aquion committed to create 341 new jobs and
retain 70 existing employees, according to Heidi Havens, communications
director for Pennsylvania's Department of Community and Economic
Development (DCED).

In February 2016, the company requested a two-year extension to create the
jobs promised. At that time, only 50 jobs had been created.

The Westmoreland facility has since halted operations.

"This announcement is a reminder of the critical need to ensure that
taxpayer dollars for economic development projects are spent appropriately
and that intended outcomes are met," Havens said in an email to Fox News.

"Let's remember that the need for energy storage systems is strictly a
consequence of the intermittency of renewable energy sources like solar
and wind," Yeatman said. "... These companies benefit from the grants and
indirectly from the inefficiencies of an industry that exists by the grace
of political favoritism."
AlleyCat
2017-10-11 01:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:59:03 -0500, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by Hillbilly Davis
Yes, the government can LOAN you the money, but how many "alternate
fuels" companies went tits up, and how many BILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax
money did we get BACK?
All of it and more, apparently.
Bullshit. And the GOVERNMENT getting it back is still NOT the point,
libertard. Had to switch gears and move the goalposts again to make your
argument, didn't you?
I was merely responding to your lie. Why are you running away from what
you said?
Post by Hillbilly Davis
how many BILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax
money did we get BACK?
None.
WE moron... WE... not the government. The government has NOT made up what
it has lost, with all the "loans" and subsidies it has given out to "green
energy" companies that went bust.

"The program has made a profit of nearly $1 billion in interest payments
to the U.S Treasury to date."

Cite it, or it's a lie.

=====

Largest US Solar Panel Maker Files for Bankruptcy After Receiving $206
Million in Subsidies

[giggle]

The company once hailed as Europe's largest solar panel producer filed for
bankruptcy Wednesday, blaming cheap Chinese panels for flooding the
market.

"The ongoing price erosion and the development of the business" has left
the company "over-indebted and thus obliged to file for insolvency
proceedings," SolarWorld, which is also the largest U.S. solar panel
maker, said in a statement.

The filing comes after SolarWorld was forced to lay off employees earlier
this year. The company employs around 3,000 people, including 800 in
Hillsboro, Oregon, and was one of the few German-based solar companies to
survive a recent market downturn.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be
done alone. Find out more >>

SolarWorld is only the latest bankrupt solar company to blame the Chinese.
U.S.-based Suniva Inc. filed for bankruptcy in April, also citing stiff
competition from Chinese solar panel makers.

Suniva even asked the Trump administration to increase tariffs on Chinese
solar panel imports. SolarWorld backed the call, saying China has found
ways to circumvent current tariffs.

"The case of Suniva dramatically demonstrates that the U.S. solar
manufacturing industry still suffers from unfair trade," Juergen Stein,
U.S. president of SolarWorld, said in a statement.

"China now has managed to circumvent and violate existing trade defense
measures in several ways and again incited a ruinous price race to the
bottom, destroying U.S. manufacturing jobs," Stein said.

Not everyone in the solar industry agrees increased tariffs would be a
good thing. The U.S. company Sunnova sent a letter to the U.S. trade
commission arguing the "imposition of tariffs on solar cells and panels
will significantly harm the U.S. economy by destroying jobs."

The Obama administration imposed tariffs up to 35 percent on solar panel
products imported from certain Chinese manufacturers. The 2014 tariff
doesn't seem to have drastically changed the overall industry's economics.

The solar industry's biggest problem is likely the very mechanism that led
to its rise: lucrative subsidies.

European subsidies, mostly in Germany, led to a massive expansion of the
companies' green energy industry, but eventually subsidies became their
undoing as cheaper solar panels from China began to win out.

Cuts to subsidies in Europe only made things worse for the solar industry,
further ensuring cheap Chinese panels would win out. A similar story
played out in the U.S. where lucrative federal and state subsidies spurred
green energy.

SolarWorld has gotten a whopping $115 million in federal and state grants
and tax subsidies since 2012, according to the Union-backed group Good
Jobs First. And that's on top of the nearly $91 million in federal loan
guarantees the company got during that time.

SolarWorld lost 80 percent of its stock value after it announced
bankruptcy filings Wednesday.
AlleyCat
2017-10-11 01:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:59:03 -0500, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by Hillbilly Davis
Bullshit. And the GOVERNMENT getting it back is still NOT the point,
libertard. Had to switch gears and move the goalposts again to make your
argument, didn't you?
I was merely responding to your lie. Why are you running away from what
you said?
Post by Hillbilly Davis
how many BILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax
money did we get BACK?
None.
WE moron... WE... not the government. The government has NOT made up what
it has lost, with all the "loans" and subsidies it has given out to "green
energy" companies that went bust.

"The program has made a profit of nearly $1 billion in interest payments
to the U.S Treasury to date."

Cite it, or it's a lie.

Obama's Green Energy Loans Are Still On Track To Lose Money
Michael Bastasch
1:07 PM 11/30/2016

(They ain't a gonna make up a billion dollars in 11 months)

Former Energy Department (DOE) officials are in the media trying to save
the agency's green energy loan program from being eliminated by President-
elect Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress.

DOE supporters gave a misleading picture about the success of the loan
program that gave $535 million to the solar company Solyndra before it
went bankrupt, according to an economist.

"The fundamental economics are the same today as they were before," Donald
Marron, an economist at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told The
Daily Caller News Foundation.

"Whatever their environmental and economic benefits, DOE's loan programs
are not profitable for the government," said Marron, a former White House
economic adviser who first pointed out DOE's misleading claims in a 2014
blog post.

That year, DOE released a report claiming their $30 billion green loan
program was on track to make $5 billion. The report said the $810 million
in interest payments from taxpayer-backed companies more than covered its
$780 million in losses.

Sympathetic media outlets ran headlines claiming DOE loans were turning a
profit, but that was not true. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
issued a report in 2015 detailing how DOE was on track to lose taxpayers
$2.21 billion.

The "credit subsidy cost of the loans and loan guarantees in its
portfolio" is expected "to be $2.21 billion, including $807 million for
loans that have defaulted," GAO reported.

"The fees DOE has collected have not been sufficient to cover all of its
administrative expenses for the program" because the "fees on the current
loan guarantees were too low to cover ongoing monitoring costs," GAO
found.

But now former DOE officials are back in the news touting their loan
program's supposed success.

"It's hard to know what not to like," former DOE loan head Jonathan Silver
told Bloomberg. "The program is intended to provide a funding source of
last resort for innovative high-growth technologies in the fast-growing
industry in the world."

Peter Davidson, who headed the program after Silver left, said DOE's loan
portfolio outperformed most banks. The loan program's current head, Mark
McCall, told Bloomberg they've "approved 30 guarantees and has a loss
ratio of about 2.3 percent."

Sounds nice, but DOE still can't say its loan program will actually make
taxpayers any money.

"They weren't when DOE issued that report, and they aren't today," Marron
said. "And it's not just me saying that."

"The Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability
Office agree. Last year, for example, GAO reported that the loan programs
would cost taxpayers about $2 billion over their lifetimes," he added.

The DOE's loan program was created by Congress during President George W.
Bush's tenure to boost green energy and alternative vehicles, but got
billions in funding from the 2009 stimulus program under President Barack
Obama.

So far, DOE has spent $30 billion on 34 projects - the most infamous one
being a $535 million loan guarantee to solar panel-maker Solyndra before
it declared bankruptcy in 2011. Solyndra's failure sparked backlash
against DOE loans to green energy companies and a halt to lending.

DOE also lost $70 million to the failed solar company Abound, and $139
million when Fisker Automotive, a luxury electric car maker, went
bankrupt.

"LPO expects to receive about $5 billion in interest payments, which is a
reflection of its good stewardship of taxpayer interests as well as an
important differentiator between a loan program and a grant program that
does not get paid back," DOE spokeswoman Joshunda Sanders told TheDCNF.

"LPO also collects fees to help offset its administrative costs," Sanders
said.
AlleyCat
2017-10-11 01:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:59:03 -0500, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by Hillbilly Davis
Yes, the government can LOAN you the money, but how many "alternate
fuels" companies went tits up, and how many BILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax
money did we get BACK?
All of it and more, apparently.
Bullshit. And the GOVERNMENT getting it back is still NOT the point,
libertard. Had to switch gears and move the goalposts again to make your
argument, didn't you?
I was merely responding to your lie. Why are you running away from what
you said?
Post by Hillbilly Davis
how many BILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax
money did we get BACK?
None.
WE moron... WE... not the government. The government has NOT made up what
it has lost, with all the "loans" and subsidies it has given out to "green
energy" companies that went bust.

"The program has made a profit of nearly $1 billion in interest payments
to the U.S Treasury to date."

Cite it, or it's a lie.

=====

Another Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Company Goes Bankrupt
Posted by James Morrone Jr on Thursday, March 31st, 2016, 9:56 AM
PERMALINK

Another subsidy-backed green energy company, this time the Spanish company
Abengoa, has filed for bankruptcy within the United States. But before
doing so, squandered over $2 billion in federal funds. The company
mistakenly gambled on a government-backed artificial "green energy boom"
they hoped would spurn new growth and opportunity for the company.

The Obama Administration, ever pushing their green energy ideology,
tampered with the market by dolling out $2.7 billion worth of federal
subsidies to Abengoa, which of course was taxpayer funded. According to
the Daily Caller,

"The pro-labor union group Good Jobs First reported last year
Abengoa has 'received $605 million in grants and allocated tax credits;
$464 million came from Section 1603 and most of the rest from Energy
Department research grants.' That's on top of the $2.7 billion the company
got in DOE loans."

The company amassed $17 billion in debt hoping for the green energy boom
that never happened, leading to this eventual bankruptcy.

Sadly, this is just one of many attempts of the Obama Administration's
interference with the free market leading to the loss of taxpayer money.
The name Solyndra should ring a bell. After substantial pressure from the
administration, the DOE expedited loan the process for the company to
taxpayer-backed handouts. The company took over $530 million in loans
from the government in 2009. Only two years after, they laid off 1,100
employees and filed for bankruptcy.

A similar failed attempt to force "green energy" into the market can be
seen by the fiasco of Smith Electric Vehicles. Before the company filed
for bankruptcy, they secured almost $30 million in taxpayer-backed
subsidies. Smith Electric reported that they only created 70.4 jobs
instead of the 220 jobs projected by the White House. The DOE wasted an
average of $414,000 per new job created.

The list of examples of wasteful sweetheart deals the President has used
to force his agenda is not a short one to say the least. In addition to
Abengoa, Solyndra, and Smith Electric, the DOE also handed out $529
million in loans to Fisker Automotive, which in 2014 filed for bankruptcy.
Clearly these failed taxpayer funded gambles are not isolated incidents.

The Obama Administration just doesn't learn from their mistakes. Forcing
the market to further the Administration's ideology by propping up
politically connected businesses is clearly a faulty effort, and more
often than not comes at the expense of taxpayers.
AlleyCat
2017-10-11 01:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:59:03 -0500, Unum says...
Post by Unum
Post by Hillbilly Davis
Yes, the government can LOAN you the money, but how many "alternate
fuels" companies went tits up, and how many BILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax
money did we get BACK?
All of it and more, apparently.
Bullshit. And the GOVERNMENT getting it back is still NOT the point,
libertard. Had to switch gears and move the goalposts again to make your
argument, didn't you?
I was merely responding to your lie. Why are you running away from what
you said?
Post by Hillbilly Davis
how many BILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax
money did we get BACK?
None.
WE moron... WE... not the government. The government has NOT made up what
it has lost, with all the "loans" and subsidies it has given out to "green
energy" companies that went bust.

"The program has made a profit of nearly $1 billion in interest payments
to the U.S Treasury to date."

Cite it, or it's a lie.

=====

US Government Fights to Recover $130 Million Lost to Abengoa Renewables
Bankruptcy
Eric Worrall / December 7, 2016

The US Government has formally objected to an attempt by Spanish Renewable
Giant Abengoa's bankrupt US arm to walk out on $130 million of federal
loans.


Energy, Justice departments among agencies seeking at least partial
repayment of government investments

The U.S. government, which pumped more than $130 million into Spanish
renewable-energy company Abengoa SA's U.S.-based projects, is asking a
federal judge to put the brakes on the company's plan to exit bankruptcy.

Several federal agencies-including the Energy and Justice departments-
are objecting to the bankruptcy-exit plan, demanding changes and at least
partial repayment on the government's investments.

A spokesman for Abengoa couldn't immediately be reached for comment
Thursday on the government's objections.

Judge Kevin Carey is slated to consider the bankruptcy-exit plan for
Abenoga's primary U.S. subsidiary at a hearing on Tuesday at the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del.

The Energy Department had awarded $137 million to fund a total of 11
Abengoa projects over the past 13 years, according to an agency
spokeswoman. The department says the funds were intended to help the it
meet federal energy policies that promote the production of ethanol and
other renewable energy sources.

...

Abengoa, a multi-billion dollar Spanish renewable giant, is still
struggling with unsustainable debts. In March this year the US arm of
Abengoa started bankruptcy proceedings.

Spain's Abengoa Files for Chapter 15 Bankruptcy in U.S.

Renewable energy company in talks with creditors to restructure
billions in debt

Abengoa SA has filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. as the
Spanish energy company continues talks with its banks and bondholders to
agree on its plan to restructure billions of dollars in debt.

The renewable energy company, which operates around the world, on
Monday night filed for chapter 15 protection, the section of the U.S.
bankruptcy code dealing with cross-border insolvencies, in U.S. Bankruptcy
Court in Wilmington, Del.

The bankruptcy filing comes after Abengoa struck a deal with key
creditors that gives it more time-through Oct. 28-to continue negotiations
on restructuring its debts, which court papers show total more than €14.6
billion ($16.48 billion). The company hopes the U.S. bankruptcy will
provide extra breathing room for these talks.

...

It seems likely investors will struggle to get their money back. Abengoa's
head office began bankruptcy proceedings late 2015. Since then there have
been various attempts at debt restructuring, but whatever is happening in
Spain, at this stage US taxpayers seem unlikely to ever see much of their
money back.
Loading...