# Another ???Green??? Company Goes Belly Up in the Age of Obama



## FUZO (Sep 1, 2011)

Another ???Green??? Company Goes Belly Up in the Age of Obama



*Evergreen Solar Inc.*, the Massachusetts clean-energy company that received millions in state subsidies from the Patrick administration for an ill-fated Bay State factory, has filed for bankruptcy, listing $485.6 million in debt.
Evergreen, which closed its taxpayer-supported Devens factory in March and cut 800 jobs, has been trying to rework its debt for months. The cash-strapped company announced today has sought a reorganization in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware and reached a deal with certain note holders to restructure its debt and auction off assets.​Getting a sense of déjà vu yet? Just last month, we heard that an *electric car company* in Salinas padlocked their doors after half a million dollars from state and local governments.
A month before that, electric car company *Think Global AS* filed for bankruptcy, too.
Think Global AS plans to liquidate its assets, according to a statement from its exclusive battery supplier, Ener1 Inc.
Ener1, which engineers and makes its batteries in the Indianapolis area at its EnerDel subsidiary, notified investors Wednesday that the company would take a charge of more than $32 million on unpaid loans and accounts receivable from Think Global.​Green cars, batteries for green cars, solar panels???all the industries that people like Obama tout as the hope for American and for jobs seems to be illusory at best. Particularly, after the public money runs out.
In May of 2010, Obama visited Solyndra Solar, in Fremont, California.
*President Obama toured the Solyndra plant* in Freemont, (sic) Calif. and gave an address before the press and state officials, including California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, outlining his vision for a thriving U.S. alternative energy sector buoyed by government funding.
???The promise of clean energy isn???t just an article of faith,??? Obama said, ???It???s not just some abstract possibility for science fiction movies or a distant future or 10 years down the road or 20 years, it???s happening right now. The future is here.??? ??? President Obama, speaking at Solyndra Solar. ​And just how did that work out, Mr. President? According to *Jane Jamison*:
Solyndra Solar Panel plant in Fremont, California has wasted a billion dollars, *$535 million of those a direct bailout from U.S. taxpayers*, and it is going ???bust.???
The Solyndra Solar panel plant in Fremont, California served as the convenient ???backdrop??? for Barack Obama???s ???green economy??? speeches in California, and other campaigning Democrats.​So, for those of you without a score card, there are two types of ???green??? energy companies in the Age of Obama: Plants that produce expensive energy and cars no one wants to drive, that are only kept afloat by the massive infusion of government subsidies, and plants that produce expensive energy and cars no one wants to drive, that could not keep their doors open _despite_ a massive infusion of government subsidies.
Got it? Now if only someone in this administration could!


----------



## Inventive1 (Sep 1, 2011)

What did this solar company produce?  If the company's sales were tied to the construction industry and new home sales, it's no wonder that the company went out of business.  The Construction industry has been hit brutally hard by this current economic downturn.

I believe MOST car companies have seen lower sales during the last several years.  General Motors and Chysler both had to get government bail outs and close up dealerships.  It's been a real tough time in the new car business.  Therefore, it's not surprising that a small car company that few people have ever heard of would end up bankrupt. 

I have NO idea what combination of factors lead to the demise of these companies.  Perhaps their products were over priced, maybe they had poor quality products, or products which failed to meet the needs of consumers.  Perhaps their marketing plan was no good or their management team sucked.  There are MANY reasons companies fail.  I wouldn't blame it on green technology.  Some companies promoting green technology have prospered, while other companies have failed.   Green companies are like other kinds of companies.  Some make it, some don't.

I like sensible green technolgy when:

1.  It is a good investment and saves money
2.  When it improves my comfort and/or quality of life
3.  It's more healthy

The last reason, being more healthy, is something most everyone on this board should agree with since body building and health are tied together.

Edit:  I should add that giving government money to companies (of any kind) often doesn't work out to well.  All to often, well meaning, but inept governement officials are quick to loan money to businesses they don't completely understand.  (The Delorean car company is an example)  Unfortunately, when the company fails, the tax payers get to foot the bill.


----------



## LAM (Sep 1, 2011)

Inventive1 said:


> What did this solar company produce?  If the company's sales were tied to the construction industry and new home sales, it's no wonder that the company went out of business.  The Construction industry has been hit brutally hard by this current economic downturn.
> 
> I believe MOST car companies have seen lower sales during the last several years.  General Motors and Chysler both had to get government bail outs and close up dealerships.  It's been a real tough time in the new car business.  Therefore, it's not surprising that a small car company that few people have ever heard of would end up bankrupt.
> 
> ...



you are spot on about the downturn in construction, with a housing surplus in most metro's there isn't much going on in terms of new contruction.  you also have to factor in the increase in the personal savings rate over the past couple of years which is also contributing to the sluggish economy and reduced GDP growth for this year and the expected for next since gov stimulus was contracted to early.  green energy, etc. is targeted at the middle class as the poor rent and most of the wealthy are not interested as this option has been available at some level for decades.    

there has been substantial jobs losses in the middle class since 2007 this is also a factor.  those that have found employment are most likely working in the service sector which is the largest growing job market right now and they are paying wages from $8-$14/hr.  wages have also been stagnant since 2007.  since then the cumulative inflation has been near 7% with wage growth in that same period average less than the rate of inflation.

* not sure why you brought up the DeLorean Car Company, they received no monies from the fed gov.  after the SEC cancelled the IPO John couldn't raise funding in Ireland or the US.  It's why he tried to get into drug smuggling to raise the capital.  i'm quite familiar with this story as my sister went to private school with his daughter.


----------



## maniclion (Sep 1, 2011)

Evergreen sold an inferior technology, the alt. Energy biz is like the computer industry when it first started booming.  You have guys banking on the wrong type of cell technology, shysters getting big money and letting the company go bankrupt, we have guys here playing illegal games with tax incentives.  Some are in it to stay and do it right and some want to jump on the bandwagon, make a few million and bail...


----------



## AdmiralRichard (Sep 1, 2011)

maniclion said:


> Evergreen sold an inferior technology, the alt. Energy biz is like the computer industry when it first started booming. You have guys banking on the wrong type of cell technology, shysters getting big money and letting the company go bankrupt, we have guys here playing illegal games with tax incentives. Some are in it to stay and do it right and some want to jump on the bandwagon, make a few million and bail...


----------



## Inventive1 (Sep 2, 2011)

LAM, you are correct on the history of the Delorean car company.  (Wikipedia has a good article about the Delorean)  I'm a bit confused, not sure which car company I was thinking of now.


----------



## LAM (Nov 8, 2011)

I'm sure that China subsidizing it's solar factories with billions of dollars had nothing at all to do with the failure of Solyndra. between that and falling demand from the current global recession...nah

Germany installed about 1.5GW of solar in 2009-2010 after taking their nukes off line


----------



## oufinny (Nov 8, 2011)

The root of the problem could be a lot of things but this shows that reckless lending of government money is rarely effective and we foot the bill.  Green energy will take off but government sponsorship will not "produce" a market for it nor will it make the companies that produce it improve efficiencies to be cost effective.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 8, 2011)

LAM said:


> I'm sure that China subsidizing it's solar factories with billions of dollars had nothing at all to do with the failure of Solyndra. between that and falling demand from the current global recession...nah
> 
> Germany installed about 1.5GW of solar in 2009-2010 after taking their nukes off line



That's why several US module manufacturers took out the anti-dumping claim on China last month.  We had dinner twice with one of those companies president last week and he told us if things stayed the same with China selling solar modules at unrealistic prices many more US manufacturers would fail thats more jobs lost in our nation.  

All I know is PV is very hot right now I sold more modules last month than anyone here has in a year....its insane.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 8, 2011)

oufinny said:


> The root of the problem could be a lot of things but this shows that reckless lending of government money is rarely effective and we foot the bill.  Green energy will take off but government sponsorship will not "produce" a market for it nor will it make the companies that produce it improve efficiencies to be cost effective.



Actually it has they cut the cells thinner and thinner all the time, thinner makes resistance lower.  They have also been competing to make the processes more streamlined on the production lines. 

Its kind of like microprocessors right now every 3 months lately they squeeze more wattage in the same size module.  I've seen our main supplier go from 240 watt to 265 in a year.  We just got 255's and they tells us 265 will be ready next month....


----------



## LAM (Nov 8, 2011)

oufinny said:


> The root of the problem could be a lot of things but this shows that reckless lending of government money is rarely effective and we foot the bill.  Green energy will take off but government sponsorship will not "produce" a market for it nor will it make the companies that produce it improve efficiencies to be cost effective.



it's not reckless if it was done with good intentions and at the time the market share was there.  we obviously can't rely on large firms in the private sector as all they care about are profits and stock shares, so then just do nothing? that's not really a viable option either.

there has been plenty of times in US history when the fed gov has stepped up to the plate and gotten things done, but for some reason many forget those parts of our history.


----------



## LAM (Nov 9, 2011)

maniclion said:


> Actually it has they cut the cells thinner and thinner all the time, thinner makes resistance lower.  They have also been competing to make the processes more streamlined on the production lines.



exactly...considering that the US was one of the most industrialized countries after the 2nd phase of the industrial revolution we should have some of the best production lines in the world, but we do not.  they have been constantly sent e sent overseas in the past decades at the sake of higher profits, talk about getting bit in the ass.  many Americans are very short sighted.

take some of the same effort and resources as they do developing military tech and the US would be unstable...we should be selling shit to everyone not buying it from them


----------



## Big Pimpin (Nov 9, 2011)

If green energy was such a viable investment, private equity would be fighting to get involved in it.


----------



## oufinny (Nov 9, 2011)

maniclion said:


> Actually it has they cut the cells thinner and thinner all the time, thinner makes resistance lower.  They have also been competing to make the processes more streamlined on the production lines.
> 
> Its kind of like microprocessors right now every 3 months lately they squeeze more wattage in the same size module.  I've seen our main supplier go from 240 watt to 265 in a year.  We just got 255's and they tells us 265 will be ready next month....



This is great news and I am really happy to hear it.  As efficiency goes up and costs go down, there is no reason that these should not be on the roof of all new build houses or easily installed on existing if the owner wants to.  Responsible green energy that is cost neutral or costs less is something I totally support but this shit China is pulling is another reason why we need to stop kissing their ass when all they are doing is bending us over and giving one spit before we are raped.


----------



## oufinny (Nov 9, 2011)

LAM said:


> it's not reckless if it was done with good intentions and at the time the market share was there.  we obviously can't rely on large firms in the private sector as all they care about are profits and stock shares, so then just do nothing? that's not really a viable option either.
> 
> there has been plenty of times in US history when the fed gov has stepped up to the plate and gotten things done, but for some reason many forget those parts of our history.



I am going to make this simple as we don't see eye to eye on this; fuck intentions, it is either a smart investment with a high probability of paying off or it is not.  Politicians making decisions to fund investment in their districts is just that, reckless and we get the bill for their reelection campaign.  If you actually had people who know how to do this type of analysis like you see in private capital firms, there would be much less waste.


----------



## oufinny (Nov 9, 2011)

LAM said:


> exactly...considering that the US was one of the most industrialized countries after the 2nd phase of the industrial revolution we should have some of the best production lines in the world, but we do not.  they have been constantly sent e sent overseas in the past decades at the sake of higher profits, talk about getting bit in the ass.  many Americans are very short sighted.
> 
> take some of the same effort and resources as they do developing military tech and the US would be unstable...we should be selling shit to everyone not buying it from them




This is very true, there is a limit to how many ships, planes, tanks and constant new tech we need for the military...


----------



## maniclion (Nov 9, 2011)

oufinny said:


> I am going to make this simple as we don't see eye to eye on this; fuck intentions, it is either a smart investment with a high probability of paying off or it is not.  Politicians making decisions to fund investment in their districts is just that, reckless and we get the bill for their reelection campaign.  If you actually had people who know how to do this type of analysis like you see in private capital firms, there would be much less waste.



How much subsidizing do we do for oil, coal and natural gas?  What costs are we going to end up with when we pollute our world into oblivion.

Trust me renewables pencil out beautifully under the 7 generations way of planning...  Here in Hawaii it's even more so since we burn oil for 80%+ for our electricity and we are at 33¢ kW and rising.  My elect bill has doubled in the last 2 years good thing I put solar thermal water heating and PV with battery backup on my house 3 years ago.  At current rate of bill increase my solar will be paid off July of next year and I'll be getting half my elect free for 15+ years just based on warranty of equipment.  The modules will last twice that and they were most of the cost....


----------



## Gissurjon (Nov 9, 2011)

oufinny said:


> I am going to make this simple as we don't see eye to eye on this; fuck intentions, it is either a* smart* investment with a high probability of paying off or it is not.  Politicians making decisions to fund investment in their districts is just that, reckless and we get the bill for their reelection campaign.  If you actually had people who know how to do this type of analysis like you see in private capital firms, there would be much less waste.



The word "smart" appears nowhere in the definition of "reckless". A stupid decision does not automatically constitute recklessness. It is not so stupid to conclude that investing in green energy is a good choice, but as with any "new" industry, there is little history to analyze, predict and so forth.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Nov 9, 2011)

Gissurjon said:


> The word "smart" appears nowhere in the definition of "reckless". A stupid decision does not automatically constitute recklessness. It is not so stupid to conclude that investing in green energy is a good choice, but as with any "new" industry, there is little history to analyze, predict and so forth.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 9, 2011)

All the renewable nay-sayers remind me of Ken Olsen who said we would never see a PC in every home or something to that effect....


----------



## LAM (Nov 9, 2011)

oufinny said:


> If you actually had people who know how to do this type of analysis like you see in private capital firms, there would be much less waste.



private capital firms do not care if their actions are harmful to other sectors of the economy or labor force not a good argument.


----------



## oufinny (Nov 9, 2011)

LAM said:


> private capital firms do not care if their actions are harmful to other sectors of the economy or labor force not a good argument.



LAM, no one is good enough for you or is not corrupt.  Not every freaking company is bad or has an evil agenda, sometimes you need to realize the reality and that is uneducated government officials with no accountability making decisions they aren't experienced enough or qualified for are not the right answer where there are better options out there.  Is private capital the 100% solution to the problem, no, but I would have more faith in them then someone spending money they are not accountable to or for.


----------



## oufinny (Nov 9, 2011)

maniclion said:


> All the renewable nay-sayers remind me of Ken Olsen who said we would never see a PC in every home or something to that effect....



HI has an easy solution to its power problems, its called nuclear power and one per island (assuming there is enough land for a small reactor) is all you need.  That said, people who ask questions or make green energy prove its worth are not naysayers, we are being smart.  Those that right it off are the ones you need to direct that type of gross generalization to as they are the ones that meet that stereotype.  

The US needs a transitional energy policy with 25/50/75/100 year goals that are aggressive but attainable.  The first 50 years is going to highly focused on fossil fuels, namely oil, cause the US probably has over 50-75 million cars and they aren't going away.  You have too big an installed base for oil to not grow as an industry and why not, it creates high paying jobs and removes the risks of doing business with OPEC.  Green energy needs to grow organically and systematically as it becomes economically viable for most Americans.  It should be offered on all new builds as an option in states where there is enough sunshine to work; there is no reason this should not be available.  Wind power is far from "green" when you look at what goes into making the windmills and the power output of the biggest windmills is so little compared to nuclear it is hard, if even possible, to justify.  Are all the greenies ready to give up tons of public land for massive wind farms of will they find some endangered worm that could die if we dig in that remote part of the dessert?

All options need to be considered, the government can be involved as a regulator and to a small extent as an investor, but besides a plan that is backed by laws pushing the changes over long periods of time; nothing will come of it by tons of money being sunk into an industry that is not viable on a large scale.  

The President had a golden opportunity to enact a real energy policy that would have probably made you really happy but he didn't; instead he turned down the main domestic source of energy so we all pay more now.  BP/Halliburton/Transocean were irresponsible and put a horrible spotlight on an otherwise safety conscious industry (regardless of what you think, there are more safety briefings and systems built into all aspects of the industry it is ridiculous).  What happened was a huge setback for a massive job creator for America and out of it all we have an ineffective bureacracy [BOEMRE, it just changed again!] that is ran by people who are not qualified to decide on permits leading to more risk and an industry at the mercy of an organization that is massively understaffed with no clear regulations.

I can go on and on, just as you could to the benefits of solar; both arguments are full of merit.  I am happy your company is making great progress, it is what the industry needs, that does not mean it is ready for the mainstream to replace all fossil fuels though.


----------



## vancouver (Nov 9, 2011)

LAM said:


> it's not reckless if it was done with good intentions and at the time the market share was there. we obviously can't rely on large firms in the private sector as all they care about are profits and stock shares, so then just do nothing? that's not really a viable option either.
> 
> there has been plenty of times in US history when the fed gov has stepped up to the plate and gotten things done, but for some reason many forget those parts of our history.


 
So businesses should invest in early stage technology, with the view to replacing current technology before it's viable; then go out of business and not be able to hire anyone...


----------



## LAM (Nov 9, 2011)

oufinny said:


> LAM, no one is good enough for you or is not corrupt.  Not every freaking company is bad or has an evil agenda, sometimes you need to realize the reality and that is uneducated government officials with no accountability making decisions they aren't experienced enough or qualified for are not the right answer where there are better options out there.  Is private capital the 100% solution to the problem, no, but I would have more faith in them then someone spending money they are not accountable to or for.



they have all the money why aren't they doing it then?  private capital is one thing the US is not short on....but no private investment from those that have the ability...just like no jobs from the the large firms pulling in record profits.  you can't sit around with you thumb up your ass during a major recession recovery, it just make the long term economic outlook that less promising.


----------



## oufinny (Nov 10, 2011)

vancouver said:


> So businesses should invest in early stage technology, with the view to replacing current technology before it's viable; then go out of business and not be able to hire anyone...



Exactly!


----------



## oufinny (Nov 10, 2011)

LAM said:


> they have all the money why aren't they doing it then?  private capital is one thing the US is not short on....but no private investment from those that have the ability...just like no jobs from the the large firms pulling in record profits.  you can't sit around with you thumb up your ass during a major recession recovery, it just make the long term economic outlook that less promising.



Where is the incentive?  Where is the market to support the investment?  Where are the rules to make green energy a part of new builds?  You take an idealistic view that I find admirable but does not sync with reality sometimes (in my eyes at least, you can disagree as I am sure you will).


----------



## LAM (Nov 10, 2011)

oufinny said:


> Where is the incentive?  Where is the market to support the investment?  Where are the rules to make green energy a part of new builds?  You take an idealistic view that I find admirable but does not sync with reality sometimes (in my eyes at least, you can disagree as I am sure you will).



the incentive is for a better future for the country...everything can't be about monetary incentives.  just like capital projects that private firms don't contribute to, they benefit from them but there is no incentive for them to appropriate monies for these projects because there is no direct return on those investments.  the US will lag behind all in the development and implementation of green tech and country's like Germany that are biting the bullet now will be world leaders in their implementation and utilization.  if you hadn't noticed the US doesn't really lead at anything productive anymore


----------



## irish_2003 (Nov 10, 2011)

c'mon....us intelligent people know that global warming is a hoax and going green is the biggest financial scam EVER


----------



## Big Pimpin (Nov 10, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> c'mon....us intelligent people know that global warming is a hoax and going green is the biggest financial scam EVER




You mean the Democrats only want 'green energy' and 'carbon credits' because there's billions of dollars for them and their special interests to make with these initiatives?  

I agree and most Americans agree as well.


----------



## oufinny (Nov 10, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> c'mon....us intelligent people know that global warming is a hoax and going green is the biggest financial scam EVER




I don't know if I agree with this but saying the amount of money and carbon foot print to produce green energy makes it more viable then something like nuclear is complete horse shit and THAT everyone knows.


----------



## irish_2003 (Nov 10, 2011)

oufinny said:


> I don't know if I agree with this but saying the amount of money and carbon foot print to produce green energy makes it more viable then something like nuclear is complete horse shit and THAT everyone knows.



carbon footprint is the lie......it's a well documented and admitted lie


----------



## maniclion (Nov 10, 2011)

oufinny said:


> I don't know if I agree with this but saying the amount of money and carbon foot print to produce green energy makes it more viable then something like nuclear is complete horse shit and THAT everyone knows.



Have you ever looked into how heavily subsidized nuclear energy is?  And given its potential dangers versus inert solar modules how is it more viable?  I'd rather use the nuke generator 93 million miles away than have one 93 miles away, especially knowing how cheap people built shit these days.

Besides I'd rather see solar panels on every home knowing that everyone is in control of their own power than see another mega conglomeration hold the power in their hands.  Power to the People man!  That's why I don't support wind or solar farms.  The further power has to travel the more it's wasted...


----------



## LAM (Nov 10, 2011)

irish_2003 said:


> carbon footprint is the lie......it's a well documented and admitted lie



documented by whom?


----------



## vancouver (Nov 11, 2011)

maniclion said:


> Have you ever looked into how heavily subsidized nuclear energy is? And given its potential dangers versus inert solar modules how is it more viable? I'd rather use the nuke generator 93 million miles away than have one 93 miles away, especially knowing how cheap people built shit these days.
> 
> Besides I'd rather see solar panels on every home knowing that everyone is in control of their own power than see another mega conglomeration hold the power in their hands. Power to the People man! That's why I don't support wind or solar farms. The further power has to travel the more it's wasted...


 
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukashima meltdowns were all a result of old technology. Plants built in the 70's and 80's required constant power generation in order to cool Fuel rods. Fukashima failed because the idiots who designed the plants placed the deisel generators at sea level; had they been 100 feet above sea level, the disaster would have never happened. Old plants are very difficult to shut down because of the constant cooling requirements.

New plants can be shut down with the flick of a switch. 78% of France's power is generated by Nuclear, if it were unsafe, there would have been some major disasters in France.

I 100% agree on the personal use of solar and wind vs farms. You want to see the North American economy explode, provide serious tax incentives to buyers of alternative energy instead of subsidizing businesses that will mostly go out of business. The benefit will be 2 fold; a percentage of the population will reduce their carbon foot print and the most viable technologies will see major capital to further invest and grow. Businesses don't need government funding if they produce products that people will actually buy. Consumers will by if they are provided incentive. (it doesn't work the other way around)...

The idea that bureaucrats can invest in businesses and see better successes than entrepreneurs is ridiculous. The Government has no businesses investing in business, they should stick to law making and representing the people's interest (that includes businesses).


----------



## LAM (Nov 11, 2011)

maniclion said:


> Have you ever looked into how heavily subsidized nuclear energy is?  And given its potential dangers versus inert solar modules how is it more viable?  I'd rather use the nuke generator 93 million miles away than have one 93 miles away, especially knowing how cheap people built shit these days.
> 
> Besides I'd rather see solar panels on every home knowing that everyone is in control of their own power than see another mega conglomeration hold the power in their hands.  Power to the People man!  That's why I don't support wind or solar farms.  The further power has to travel the more it's wasted...



energy in general is one of the most subsided and all utilities naturally are a monopoly since there is no competition when it comes to local utilities.  since here is no competition in reality they are monopoly capitalist industries. there is only one power grid, one water main, one nationwide backbone telecom network, etc.  energy company's are one of the last that want to give the individual the ability to be more self-reliant in this aspect.  in recent years (5b in 2010) all the venture capital in clean tech has come from small firms, start-ups and HSBC who is getting around these days.  those that still believe the lie of "free markets" still believe in energy independence when still under the control of large firms.


----------



## vancouver (Nov 11, 2011)

LAM said:


> energy in general is one of the most subsided and all utilities naturally are a monopoly since there is no competition when it comes to local utilities. since here is no competition in reality they are monopoly capitalist industries. there is only one power grid, one water main, one nationwide backbone telecom network, etc. energy company's are one of the last that want to give the individual the ability to be more self-reliant in this aspect. in recent years (5b in 2010) all the venture capital in clean tech has come from small firms, start-ups and HSBC who is getting around these days. those that still believe the lie of "free markets" still believe in energy independence when still under the control of large firms.


 
The main reason why large utility firms run the show is because governments invested in the business (many were government owned), could not run it like a business and then deregulated. There would be competition if the government did not invest to begin with. It's not the case in all states and provinces, but most of the industry has gone this way...


----------



## LAM (Nov 11, 2011)

vancouver said:


> The main reason why large utility firms run the show is because governments invested in the business (many were government owned), could not run it like a business and then deregulated. There would be competition if the government did not invest to begin with. It's not the case in all states and provinces, but most of the industry has gone this way...



The us fed gov did not invest in the pstn (public switched telephone network) in the US it was all private investment it started with Bell labs and then others others, AT&T did not join until the late 1800's.  from that AT&T grew into a monopoly until it was broken up in the 80's into RBOCs. since then through various acquisitions and mergers it is back to about a good 60% market-share of the wired/fiber backbone network with Verizon controlling the rest.  currently the US telecom infrastructure ranks 15th in the world, which doesn't seem possible considering we had the worlds first and the telephone was invented here.  but in early 2000 (when all of our good jobs at Agilent in R&D were outsourced dam it to hell!) the us telecom company's stopped development of infrastructure and focused on wireless as that's where the profits where.  the telecommunications act of 1996 which further deregulated the market before there was any meaningful competition has only allowed telecom company's to strangle the market by making connection to their backbone network extremely difficult for new company's, and with cable rates have rise at 2-3x the rate of inflation.  in terms of bandwidth in the near future according to all international research OECD households in most large wealthy country's are going to need 100Mbps service in the very near future.  current US options are at about 8Mbps for full rate DMT DSL service and cable service (docsis 2.0-3.0) at around 10Mbps-22Mbps (ready boost tech).  there is no national broadband plan in the US like there is in many other OECD countries, where there is a combination of gov and private funding and development.  it is totally up to the "markets" in the US, which in reality is the duopoly of AT&T and Verizon at the national level.

you can not say that private investment along with deregulation is always the best route, no such thing as only dealing with absolutes in terms of  economics or advancing technology, it's a very narrow minded and inefficient method of "thinking"....


----------



## elliscrawl (Nov 13, 2011)

Government should stick to making laws about businesses, not running them.


----------



## troubador (Nov 14, 2011)

maniclion said:


> Have you ever looked into how heavily subsidized nuclear energy is?  And given its potential dangers versus inert solar modules how is it more viable?  I'd rather use the nuke generator 93 million miles away than have one 93 miles away, especially knowing how cheap people built shit these days.
> 
> Besides I'd rather see solar panels on every home knowing that everyone is in control of their own power than see another mega conglomeration hold the power in their hands.  Power to the People man!  That's why I don't support wind or solar farms.  The further power has to travel the more it's wasted...




No coal or nuclear power = no solar panels.


----------



## LAM (Nov 14, 2011)

elliscrawl said:


> Government should stick to making laws about businesses, not running them.



who's talking about gov running businesses?


----------



## oufinny (Nov 14, 2011)

LAM said:


> The us fed gov did not invest in the pstn (public switched telephone network) in the US it was all private investment it started with Bell labs and then others others, AT&T did not join until the late 1800's.  from that AT&T grew into a monopoly until it was broken up in the 80's into RBOCs. since then through various acquisitions and mergers it is back to about a good 60% market-share of the wired/fiber backbone network with Verizon controlling the rest.  currently the US telecom infrastructure ranks 15th in the world, which doesn't seem possible considering we had the worlds first and the telephone was invented here.  but in early 2000 (when all of our good jobs at Agilent in R&D were outsourced dam it to hell!) the us telecom company's stopped development of infrastructure and focused on wireless as that's where the profits where.  the telecommunications act of 1996 which further deregulated the market before there was any meaningful competition has only allowed telecom company's to strangle the market by making connection to their backbone network extremely difficult for new company's, and with cable rates have rise at 2-3x the rate of inflation.  in terms of bandwidth in the near future according to all international research OECD households in most large wealthy country's are going to need 100Mbps service in the very near future.  current US options are at about 8Mbps for full rate DMT DSL service and cable service (docsis 2.0-3.0) at around 10Mbps-22Mbps (ready boost tech).  there is no national broadband plan in the US like there is in many other OECD countries, where there is a combination of gov and private funding and development.  it is totally up to the "markets" in the US, which in reality is the duopoly of AT&T and Verizon at the national level.
> 
> you can not say that private investment along with deregulation is always the best route, no such thing as only dealing with absolutes in terms of  economics or advancing technology, it's a very narrow minded and inefficient method of "thinking"....



I have known about this for a while and it is why you don't see things like Verizon Fios of AT&T Uverse all over the country, the companies just build systematically in the most lucrative markets and the rest of the populations waits.  The fact that that the wireless carriers are also in charge of broadband is a problem, the firms should have to be broken up or at least be forced to operate independently of the other under the holding company.  The sad thing is that all of this deregulation may have brought some prices down, I really can't say for sure, but it has allowed for a few companies to grow to mammoth size and control everything.  I am all for the idea of free markets but the US continually shows they don't exist.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 14, 2011)

troubador said:


> No coal or nuclear power = no solar panels.



What about the several facilities that are on hydropowered utilities with solar modules installed on the roof and wind farms helping out down the road?  I can't understand why people would choose the most harmful options over the cleanest highly renewable sources?  Let's just keep blackening the skies and building more Fukushimas everybody, yay!  Fuck the world for anybody in the future who gives a shit about them....


----------



## troubador (Nov 14, 2011)

maniclion said:


> What about the several facilities that are on hydropowered utilities with solar modules installed on the roof and wind farms helping out down the road?  I can't understand why people would choose the most harmful options over the cleanest highly renewable sources?  Let's just keep blackening the skies and building more Fukushimas everybody, yay!  Fuck the world for anybody in the future who gives a shit about them....



The largest single site electricity user in my state is now a polysilicon plant. Yeah, they have some solar panels at the plant for PR purposes but most of the power comes from coal and nuclear, then hydro and the amount contributed by solar and wind is negligible. Nothing burns coal like solar. I'm for nuclear and against solar because I give a shit and know how bad producing solar panels is for the environment.


----------



## troubador (Nov 14, 2011)

maniclion said:


> What about the several facilities that are on hydropowered utilities with solar modules installed on the roof and wind farms helping out down the road?



What facilities are you talking about? Name a polysilicon plant that runs on only those three.


----------



## maniclion (Nov 14, 2011)

troubador said:


> The largest single site electricity user in my state is now a polysilicon plant. Yeah, they have some solar panels at the plant for PR purposes but most of the power comes from coal and nuclear, then hydro and the amount contributed by solar and wind is negligible. Nothing burns coal like solar. I'm for nuclear and against solar because I give a shit and know how bad producing solar panels is for the environment.



Which company is that, where do you live?


----------



## maniclion (Nov 14, 2011)

Solar companies with operations in Oregon include SolarWorld, Sanyo, PV Powered, Oregon Crystal, Grape Solar, Solaicx, and Peak Sun Silicon.

One reason they and others in the Silicon Forest moved there is hydropower...

Back 9 years ago a module made up for the power it took to produce it in about 2 years, I imagine now it's even sooner.  I have old technology modules from the early 80's behind my desk that still work.  Today's tech will still be producing 30 years plus... Then we have our solar thermal water heating panels, the most primitive way to heat your water for a hot shower or to do dishes.   Just that alone makes more sense than any other renewable energy method I can think of given that 40-50% of most home energy use is to heat water.  This tech can be taken a step further using Ammonia Absorption science to use solar thermal to air condition or even refrigerate....


----------



## troubador (Nov 14, 2011)

maniclion said:


> Which company is that, where do you live?



I shouldn't say, it's not like that's an accomplishment they go around touting.


----------



## troubador (Nov 14, 2011)

maniclion said:


> Solar companies with operations in Oregon include SolarWorld, Sanyo, PV Powered, Oregon Crystal, Grape Solar, Solaicx, and Peak Sun Silicon.
> 
> One reason they and others in the Silicon Forest moved there is hydropower...



That's better than coal. I don't know about panel manufactures but Peak Sun Silicon is really small compared to the big boys, some of who are approaching about 1,000 times what Peak Sun produces.


----------



## oufinny (Nov 15, 2011)

maniclion said:


> Solar companies with operations in Oregon include SolarWorld, Sanyo, PV Powered, Oregon Crystal, Grape Solar, Solaicx, and Peak Sun Silicon.
> 
> One reason they and others in the Silicon Forest moved there is hydropower...
> 
> Back 9 years ago a module made up for the power it took to produce it in about 2 years, I imagine now it's even sooner.  I have old technology modules from the early 80's behind my desk that still work.  Today's tech will still be producing 30 years plus... Then we have our solar thermal water heating panels, the most primitive way to heat your water for a hot shower or to do dishes.   Just that alone makes more sense than any other renewable energy method I can think of given that 40-50% of most home energy use is to heat water.  This tech can be taken a step further using Ammonia Absorption science to use solar thermal to air condition or even refrigerate....



I agree with solar water heaters, they should be mandatory on all new builds in states where it is viable, have a small electric/natural gas unit as a backup.  Heating water is about as energy intensive a thing as you can do so I am 100% in favor of this.  I don't know where your distaste for nuclear comes from, you mentioned three mile island above which I find most comical.  The coal plants in the Ohio river valley release more radiation into the atmosphere every year than three mile island released in total.  That is one portion of the country, every year.  Nuclear is a complex issue in that the US was asked to produce a next generation reactor in the 1980s, they did produce the design, in 15 years it never got approved by the NRC even though it was asked for by said agency, then the technology was sold to Japan and Korea.  All of those reactors are in service now with no issues.  Why do I know this, I work with one of the guys who worked on the design and who presented it to the NRC.  Once you learn from the source about nuclear power and how safe it can be with simple designs and smart regulation, not what we have now, it is our best option until green tech becomes viable on a global scale.


----------



## LAM (Nov 15, 2011)

maniclion....what's up with First Solar?


----------



## maniclion (Nov 15, 2011)

LAM said:


> maniclion....what's up with First Solar?



Thin-film(11% efficiency) just isn't competitive, this is why Uni-Solar had to shutdown production recently.  Why install twice the number of panels when you can get more efficient 15-20% modules? Right now with prices as low as they are installers are trying to squeeze more watts out of less space to save on mounting and other BOS components.


----------

