View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 2nd, 2014, 10:50 am



Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan 
Author Message
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
There is no double standard from me. I'm just stating another reason why green energy companies require subsidies in this country in order to survive.

_________________
Image


September 22nd, 2011, 1:02 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
gwpf wrote:
Solar Manufacturers Slowly Closing Up Shop In U.S.
Tuesday, 23 August 2011 11:23 Institute for Energy Resarch .“The Solon product we manufacture here in Tucson may have a better fit and finish than some others, but the market doesn’t really value that. The market values a low price. We are going to stop beating our heads against the wall and say, ‘How can we be smart strategically?’” said Dan Alcombright, president and CEO of Solon North America.


First, Evergreen Solar closes its solar manufacturing plant in Devens, Massachusetts at the end of March, laying off 800 workers. And now, following in that company’s footsteps, Solon Corporation, announced that it will close its solar panel manufacturing plant in Tucson in October, laying off about 65 workers. Because of lower prices for solar panels, competition in manufacturing from China, and less income than expected from its sale of the Devens plant assets, Evergreen Solar is now filing for bankruptcy and laying off another 65 workers, most of which are at its Midland, Michigan manufacturing plant. Both companies plan to continue in the solar field, but with different missions and fewer employees. Evergreen Solar with continue in its research of improved solar technology, where it started its business in 1994. Solon will keep its power plant development business, which is more profitable than its solar manufacturing business. Both companies will reduce their work force to about 70 employees.

Solon North America

Solon North America is a subsidiary of Solon SE of Germany and was founded in 2007. It opened its 105,000 square foot, 60 megawatt capacity, solar panel factory in Tucson, Arizona in 2008. Solon SE recently reported that through the first half of this year, it lost about $90 million. Due to competition from low-cost factories overseas and the market favoring low-cost products rather than better fitted or finished products, Solon North America announced that it will have to close its Tucson manufacturing plant, laying off about 65 workers in October. It will maintain operation of its power plant development business where it is currently building power plants for Arizona Public Service Company, Tucson Electric Power Company and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, all of whom are subject to state renewable energy mandates which force the utilities to purchase electricity from such sources. It will still employ about 70 workers in the Tucson area.

Among Solon’s other endeavors are a partnership with the University of Arizona and Tucson Electric Power to study storing energy generated by solar power at a plant built at the University of Arizona’s Science and Technology Park. The company also worked with Arizona Public Service on a 145-acre, 18-megawatt solar plant.

Evergreen Solar

Evergreen Solar started business in 1994 in a 2,500 square foot laboratory in Waltham, Massachusetts with an innovative idea to reduce the cost of photovoltaic solar using a “string ribbon” process for making solar cells. It started selling solar cells using this technology in 1997 and went public in 2000. However, in the first quarter of this year, Evergreen Solar saw its shipments of solar panels drop 62 percent from the last quarter of 2010. The company said the drop was due to sluggish demand and the lowering of subsidies for solar power in Europe. That forced the company to lay off 800 workers at its Devens, Massachusetts plant.

In the hopes of capitalizing on China’s skilled, low cost labor and Germany’s expanding solar market, in 2005, Evergreen Solar expanded globally to Germany and China in conjunction with companies in those countries. It received a $33 million loan from the Chinese government for its China expansion. But even this move was not able to keep Evergreen Solar from filing for bankruptcy and laying off an additional 65 workers, mostly at its Midland, Michigan plant.

The state of Massachusetts subsidized the company ’s solar panel manufacturing industry to the tune of $58 million. Now that Evergreen Solar has filed for bankruptcy, the state is trying to recoup about $4 million from the company. In its bankruptcy filing, Evergreen Solar listed a $1.5 million debt to MassDevelopment, the quasi-public state economic development agency.

Conclusion

Solar panel manufacturing may be profitable for some countries where skilled labor can be found cheaply, especially as long as governments direct consumers to purchase electricity from such sources, regardless of economics. But, in the United States, solar manufacturing plants are closing and the “green jobs” associated with them are evaporating. One may wonder why, but the economics are clear. Without massive subsidies, these industries cannot survive, and without policies that force these products to be purchased, they can’t survive. European countries (e.g. Spain and Germany) are examples where legislative and regulatory policies required solar energy to be purchased at rates far above the going retail rate. These countries found that they had to slash subsidies because of high rates and little power production due to low capacity factors of solar plants.

With such European experiences, and with companies closing down solar manufacturing plants and laying off workers, why must our government continue to push for these expensive technologies that cannot survive in the market place on their own?


http://www.thegwpf.org/energy-news/3686-solar-manufacturers-slowly-closing-up-shop-in-us.html

_________________
Image


September 22nd, 2011, 1:29 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
slybri19 wrote:
There is no double standard from me. I'm just stating another reason why green energy companies require subsidies in this country in order to survive.


You're being dishonest because most of the industries need incentive to keep their manufacturing in the US instead of shipping it overseas because China is playing the subsidies game to bring it over. The part that is the issue here is that you use the argument in a bubble when in fact it is not a "green energy" issue it is a world economic issue more most businesses. To use it as a "industry issue" is being dishonest...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 22nd, 2011, 2:42 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
That is a good article and get's to the point I have made over and over. The price the person pays at the pump and the electric bill does not at all reflect the true cost to that individual. What the gov't is saying is that because of the impacts of these other energy sources, we can either push that cost in the form of taxes or remove that cost from the alternative.

I prefer adding the actual tax to the price ones pays up front so the consumer can actively make a better decision at the time of purchase rather than giving a credit to the alternative without that percieved issue.

You can disagree that the issue takes place, but this is exactly what they are doing. They are saying this product provides more benefit than the cost reflects so we are going to adjust the price accordingly. I think what that does is then the gov't has to pick what technologies should survive as alternatives instead of then letting the consumer decide the alternative to the now properly monotized impact to the consumer at the time of purchase.

Now, to say they can't survive on their own without help because they have never seen it without help is asinine and unsupported. It's one opinion vs anothers... all one can define is that they certainly wouldn't be so profitable without the incentives... that much can be agreed upon. What we can't answer is "what is the market without incenctives and what is the price without incentives?" That is opinion only and neither one of us can say definitely no matter how many articles we quote.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 22nd, 2011, 2:53 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
What I would like to know is why this:

http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid ... 5G20110923

Is only an alternative energy problem? When a COUNTRY takes a stand of "make it here or we'll make it for you" what do you want businesses to do? Lose money?

Wind seems to be taking a stand where other don't:

http://www.windpowermonthly.com/news/10 ... wal-China/

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 23rd, 2011, 11:05 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
As usual, you need a pair of hipwaders to venture into any thread that steensn is participating in. :lol:

So, I post an article where those close to the renewable energy sector state that it can't survive without subsidies, and you write it off as a bullshit opinion? That's par for the course with you since only you and others that agree with you ever have valid opinions. :roll:

As for China, I agree that we have lost a lot of manufacturing to them, but it further proves my point about the renewable energy sector being kept alive here because of subsidies. The current regime has chosen them as the "winners" through subsidies and declared the textile, electronics, steel, and many other industries as the "losers" by not subsidizing them to the extent that they have solar or wind. Remove those subsidies and the same thing will happen to renewables that has happened to those other industries.

_________________
Image


September 23rd, 2011, 4:56 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
No, I didn' just write it off... I addressed the data he thought he was using to make his opinion as BS. See what I did there... I took his points that he based his opinion on, showed how they are not particular to wind so one cannot make a special case for wind in this case just to say they couldn't survive, then called them BS. Almost all manufacturing is kept here through subsadies because China is not just doing this in wind and solar but also in everything else. To make this argument just for wind and solar is nonsense because the SAME argument can be made for almost all othger manufacturing, that is the point. Heck, even states are playing protectionism to other states. Why AZ? Because they are making it very business friendly and states like California are not. Pair that with giving them money to put the plant there and you just bought yourself some piece of an industry. Happens for automotive plants, happens more LOTS of manufacturing. Again, your argument is crap not because I disagree but because it has no merit as the logic doesn't hold true when analyzing everything else you consider profitable without it.

Also, if you are not changing your tune from renewables aren't profitable to renewables aren't profitable manufacturing in the US without subsadies I can agree to this. I then would expand and say neither is a whole list of other industries China is trying to undercut prices on to move manufacturing here. You are using a global market problem to assert a special case for a smaller industry specific market which is completely asinine and lacking any logic.

You are smarter than this argument Sly... it's easier to make it about me though than address my point though whichis what typically happens. You are writting off my responce with no reasoning though exactly as you are accusing me of doing. i'll continue to post real reasons for my disagreement though in spite of your dismissal of me doing so so flipently.

It's hard to get in the weeds with me because I will call out the nonsense instead of just posted articles one after another. I address the issue and point out the fallacy in the logic. I know you guys can't stand that and it makes it hard for you... sorry. ;)

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 23rd, 2011, 5:06 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
It's hard to get in the weeds with you because you're full of bullshit, be it wind power, Ohio State, or religion, and you always have to have the last word. BTW, I am far from the only one that believes this. :D

I've already pointed out to you how wind/solar receives more subsidies than oil, gas, coal, hydro or any other energy source besides biofuels, which I don't particularly like either. Furthermore, if you compare the subsidy dollars per amount of energy produced, the disparity is off the charts. According to the Heritage Foundation, in 2010, solar energy received roughly 52 times more subsidy money per megawatt hour of electricity than coal and 92 times more than natural gas.

My primary issue, and you've even agreed that this is fact, is that wind/solar are not stand alone sources of energy. Nuclear, coal, gas, hydro, etc. plants will still have to be utilized to power the grid whenever the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. This means that it's duplication, which will only increase the costs to the consumer. The fact is that we do NOT need wind or solar to power the grid on a consistent basis, but we DO need nuclear, coal, gas, hydro etc. to do so. If solar/wind disappeared tomorrow, nobody would notice a difference, but if the same happened to the more reliable sources, we might get electricity for 40% of the day.

Why waste taxpayer dollars on crappy energy sources which only work part of the time, when we're still going to need the traditional sources anyway? It's pure politics, plain and simple. Our money could be spent much wiser IMO.

_________________
Image


September 23rd, 2011, 7:01 pm
Profile
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
slybri19 wrote:
I actually agree with steensn that how these green companies obtain their energy has absolutely nothing to do with anything.. They don't determine the power grid that they're hooked up to, so it's a pointless argument. Sorry, wjb.

However, I would like steensn to name one solar or wind company that has turned a profit without any government assistance. Just one. That's all I ask. Until he is able to provide that, I'll stand by my claim that renewable energy isn't sustainable without government support.


Sly, my point was only that even the companies that ACTUALLY PRODUCE the products don't use them... That's like GM auto workers riding mopeds, golf carts, or helicopters to the office... They're basically saying that the products that they make aren't good enough for them, or that the products that they make (which should be available to us cheaper than the public) isn't cost effective to use. I'm not saying that it would somehow take a burden off of "the grid" I'm just using it to show that the engergy that is produced by these things isn't worthwhile even to the companies that make the solar panels.

Further, my arguement was two-fold:
Point 1 - they couldn't survive but for govt. subsidies and tax credits,
Point 2 - proof that they couldn't survive lies in their refusal to "save money" utilizing their OWN PRODUCTS (that is SUPPOSED to save money)...




steensn wrote:
wjb, why are you all the sudden being a jerk? If you would stop acting like a jackle on this, move the argument to attacking me personally, and focus on the responce to the statements I addressed that you made you would maybe possible make a point worht listening to.

You are spouting off "they don't even use their own technology" when you haven't even taken the time to figure out whether or not they manufacture in a location good for solar, whether or not their business is to generate power or to produce power plants, etc. You are pointing out nonsense, then throwing in other crap to justify the stupid comments I am addressing. Don't distract from what I pointed out with something I didn't... get back to the nonsense argument that they "don't use energy from the thing they make" ignorant argument.

Look I am going to pointout dumb points and I am going to point out good ones. If you guys want to continue to make "general statements" that "could be true" so I should somehow "let it be so I don't look like a know it all" so be it. But I am not going to not respond so you guys can take the easy out of "well he always has to have the last word" or by making this nonsensical remark of being "mr open minded" and a "know it all." I love it when people jump that level because it shows just how little they know on the subject and how backed into a corner they are.

You want to ding a company for not using their own product yet THEY ARE NOT THE CONSUMERS OF THEIR OWN PRODUCT. If they produce utility scale products THEY ARE NOT THE CUSTOMERS OF THEIR OWN PRODUCT. You didn't even take the time to think of those questions...

But to make it worse... you made the ignorant claim... without even taking one second to actually FACTUALLY back up your claim! You didn't seach for one second to even take a peak... and guess what... First Solar has a 2.3 MW rooftop setup on their Perrysburg plant in Ohio...

http://www.firstsolar.com/Downloads/pdf ... PBG_NA.pdf

What is on top of their German plant... 1.3 MW's

http://www.firstsolar.com/Downloads/pdf ... FFO_NA.pdf


Why do you continually make it about me when you make FALSE statements again... and again... and again... in almost every topic regarding energy or OSU? I really don't get it... it seems like a complete waste to fit so hard to be wrong so often. What are you really against here? Being right? Because it certainly doesn't seem to make sense any other way.


Steen, sly just posted an article stating exactly the argument that you called "nonsense." It's true that these companies wouldn't exist but for govt. subsidies and tax credits, hell, the article goes further than what I stated... The article says that removing subsides alone would kill these companies, I thought that they MAY be able to survive with the bought and paid for customer base that tax credits provides...

Further, your point about where they're located is moot. They could set up their factories ANYWHERE THEY WANT. They could have CHOSE to set them up in an area where solar energy "makes sense." (in quotes, because it doesn't make "cents" anywhere... it's expensive, problematic, and unreliable) They could have bought cheap land in Las Vegas, took advantage of cheap labor, cheap State Tax rates, and COPOIUS amounts of sun. Instead they chose coal... BRILLIANT!!! And, why did they do that? Because their product doesn't make sesne... It is CHEAPER to use coal, rather than their own product, but for some reason "we" should buy their product and use it...


September 23rd, 2011, 7:16 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
WJB, did you just make the same argument that I showed was total hogwash again? You are really showing some skill at ignorance now...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 23rd, 2011, 7:18 pm
Profile
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
steensn wrote:
WJB, did you just make the same argument that I showed was total hogwash again? You are really showing some skill at ignorance now...


You proved nothing as being hogwash... You showed me evidence that ONE company was using solar panels to create solar panels, what about the rest of the companies?

It has already been proven that a majority of them, even the largest of them, use coal. The fact that one company "gets it" and uses solar (although probable not exclusively), does not dispose of the fact that most do not. Further, I would like to know First Solars total energy usage, and how much of that is Solar energy? I'm not saying that 100% of it isn't solar power, but if they have "gratuitous" solar panels making a fraction of the power that they use it's hardly worth noting.


September 23rd, 2011, 7:22 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
slybri19 wrote:
It's hard to get in the weeds with you because you're full of bullshit, be it wind power, Ohio State, or religion, and you always have to have the last word. BTW, I am far from the only one that believes this. :D

I've already pointed out to you how wind/solar receives more subsidies than oil, gas, coal, hydro or any other energy source besides biofuels, which I don't particularly like either. Furthermore, if you compare the subsidy dollars per amount of energy produced, the disparity is off the charts. According to the Heritage Foundation, in 2010, solar energy received roughly 52 times more subsidy money per megawatt hour of electricity than coal and 92 times more than natural gas.

My primary issue, and you've even agreed that this is fact, is that wind/solar are not stand alone sources of energy. Nuclear, coal, gas, hydro, etc. plants will still have to be utilized to power the grid whenever the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. This means that it's duplication, which will only increase the costs to the consumer. The fact is that we do NOT need wind or solar to power the grid on a consistent basis, but we DO need nuclear, coal, gas, hydro etc. to do so. If solar/wind disappeared tomorrow, nobody would notice a difference, but if the same happened to the more reliable sources, we might get electricity for 40% of the day.

Why waste taxpayer dollars on crappy energy sources which only work part of the time, when we're still going to need the traditional sources anyway? It's pure politics, plain and simple. Our money could be spent much wiser IMO.


Ah.... so you actually don't understand the impact of wind and solar... that is the issue.

Do you understand that if you are able to not run a machine 50% of the time it will last almost 50% longer if maintained properly? So if I build two power plants and I can operate one 50% of the time and the other 50% of the time then that means I get full useful life out of BOTH but can then consider the technology of each and the impact. If I build 50 MW of coil and 50 MW of wind and the wind offsets the coil plant operation 50% of the time, I now have 50% less pollution and the same production with two plants that can last the design life.

You are the only claiming wind can operate on it's own, basically you are building a straw man argument. Either you are doing it on purpose or you are just not getting hwo things work in the energy industry. Further, you are ignoring the benefits to the grid that fast acting power plant bring as you simply are not involved enough with it to know the details. I have detailed these out before but I fear they are over most of your heads or you didn't want to read them. Not sure why you guys ignore half the information given... so it is either on purpose or you simply don't get it.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 23rd, 2011, 7:25 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
wjb21ndtown wrote:
steensn wrote:
WJB, did you just make the same argument that I showed was total hogwash again? You are really showing some skill at ignorance now...


You proved nothing as being hogwash... You showed me evidence that ONE company was using solar panels to create solar panels, what about the rest of the companies?

It has already been proven that a majority of them, even the largest of them, use coal. The fact that one company "gets it" and uses solar (although probable not exclusively), does not dispose of the fact that most do not. Further, I would like to know First Solars total energy usage, and how much of that is Solar energy? I'm not saying that 100% of it isn't solar power, but if they have "gratuitous" solar panels making a fraction of the power that they use it's hardly worth noting.



Ok, now you are being a douche... I spend 10 seconds grabbing the first two instances I can find and you say I need to go out and show every single one of them is doing it for you to change your mind.

Why can;t you make grown up arguments on tis topic?

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 23rd, 2011, 7:26 pm
Profile
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
steensn wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
steensn wrote:
WJB, did you just make the same argument that I showed was total hogwash again? You are really showing some skill at ignorance now...


You proved nothing as being hogwash... You showed me evidence that ONE company was using solar panels to create solar panels, what about the rest of the companies?

It has already been proven that a majority of them, even the largest of them, use coal. The fact that one company "gets it" and uses solar (although probable not exclusively), does not dispose of the fact that most do not. Further, I would like to know First Solars total energy usage, and how much of that is Solar energy? I'm not saying that 100% of it isn't solar power, but if they have "gratuitous" solar panels making a fraction of the power that they use it's hardly worth noting.



Ok, now you are being a douche... I spend 10 seconds grabbing the first two instances I can find and you say I need to go out and show every single one of them is doing it for you to change your mind.

Why can;t you make grown up arguments on tis topic?



Not every single one... How about the majority? How about 1/2 of the top 10? How about figuring out if First Solar gets a majority of its electricity from solar panels before stating that they get some of their energy from solar panels? It has been reported that the largest producer uses coal power, and the majority use coal power. It's not an ignorant argument. It's reported fact.


Further, you called the argument that these companies couldn't survive without subsidies and credits "ignorant" as well... Turns out to be true... Who's not looking things up before they post them?


September 23rd, 2011, 7:30 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
1) WJB, you said they were't using them, I posted links showing that right down 75 one of the largest ones is using their product to produce more of their product. Further, manufacturing plants use the GRID available to produce their produce as it is required to run their facility. If the local grid happens to be coal (which is the predominant power producer in most locations historically) it will use coal.

You simply are showing your ignorance to how electric grids work and what is required to power these facilties. Your areguments are idiotic and I'm willing to chaulk it up to ignorance as you don't know how the system works. I've explained it, you said it was stupid, so you think the way the utility grid works is stupid which has nothing to do with the manurfacturing of these products. If you simply don't like how power is produced, sold, and bought by the utility I could care less. If you want to ding the manufacturers because that is what the location is mostly based on, at some point I'm going to have to just chaulk it up to ignorance and move on.

You simply can either take the knowledge of someone who deals with grid interconnection requirements, bying and selling power, and power plant operation daily or you can continue to think anyone can just hook up a couple MW's to the grid and call it a day. WJB, I am honestly going to tell you here, you sound like the little kid at the ballgame whining to the hotdog guy that you want a hotdog and but you can't afford one so he should give you one. You simply just don't understand the system around you, you are locked into one thing, and you are unwilling to listen to how it works.

2) No, it doesn't turn out to be true. I quoted a piece of an article that explained something that also mentioned their opinion on something else. If you think that is "proof"... I'm amazed you got into lawschool.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 23rd, 2011, 7:51 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.