Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Despite Solyndra's failure, U.S. clean energy loan program could double
Saturday, September 17, 2011 9:18 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:The controversial Energy Department loan program that backed a now-bankrupt solar panel maker could nearly double in size by the month's end. The Department of Energy has until Sept. 30 to give 14 companies final approval for loan guarantees totaling over $9 billion. So far the Energy Department has already backed over $10 billion in loans to 18 companies, including a $535 million loan to Solyndra, the solar panel maker that went bankrupt and is now the subject of congressional and FBI investigations. The high-profile bankruptcy is causing some to question whether the rest of the loan guarantees should be made. "Taxpayers may be better served by putting that money towards reducing the deficit," Rep. Cliff Stearns, a Republican from Florida, said during a congressional hearing Wednesday. The companies awaiting funding, detailed on a Department of Energy website, include firms building advanced ethanol projects like Abengoa, ones building solar generation projects like Sunpower (SPWRA), wind generation projects, and a geothermal project from Ormat (ORA). "These firms are sweating right now," said Dan Ries, a renewable energy analyst at Collins Stewart, a New York-based boutique investment bank. "They are wondering if they will get this money." Solyndra failure shows rift over taxpayer role The loan program, set up in 2005 and then expanded after the stimulus act in 2009, is intended to support emerging energy technologies. Freeing the nation from foreign oil and developing cleaner sources of energy has been a major rallying cry for presidents since Richard Nixon. Under the program, the government doesn't hand out any money unless the companies fail. The Energy Department essentially acts as a sponsor, putting the government on the hook for the loan should the company default. DOE estimates that maybe 10% of the loans will go bad, and Congress has $2.4 billion on hand to support over $20 billion in renewable energy loan grantees. The loan program is part of a broader energy loan program that includes nuclear power plants and electric vehicles. All told, DOE has backed nearly $40 billion in projects. Despite the Solyndra bankruptcy supporters of the program say it's working exactly as it should. "Support for innovative technologies comes with inherent risks," Jonathan Silver, the DOE official in charge of the loan program, told a House panel Wednesday. "Congress believed that the overall positive impact that the program, and its many successful investments, would have on our national clean energy economy outweighed the associated risk." But there are many who feel the government shouldn't be involved in giving direct loans to companies -- that should be the realm of banks or private equity firms. They say the Solyndra case highlights just how bad the government is at picking successful companies. But it appears most of the riskiest loan guarantees have been already made. There are no solar manufacturing facilities like Solyndra that remain to be funded by Sept. 30, just power generation projects. Those projects are "loans that help to facilitate the deployment of wind and solar arrays, with many of those based on technologies that have been proven to be stable and viable in years of deployment," said Collins Stewart's Ries. http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/16/technology/energy_loan/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=hp_bn4
Sunday, September 18, 2011 5:42 AM
Sunday, September 18, 2011 9:20 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Sunday, September 18, 2011 10:34 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Sunday, September 18, 2011 11:51 AM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Sunday, September 18, 2011 1:14 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: I'd be curious to know how many jobs the previous administration created, and how much money it spent. After all, this program was that administration's idea.
Sunday, September 18, 2011 3:24 PM
Sunday, September 18, 2011 4:48 PM
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 8:30 AM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:30 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: When trying to promote a new industry there are going to be failures. I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:26 AM
Quote:May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics, Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels. July 2005: The Bush administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program. February 2006 - October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing, worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund. December 2006: Solyndra applies for a loan guarantee under the 1703 program. Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment. October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the "company's second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location." November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra's very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date. January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee just one day before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE because it wasn't ready for conditional commitment. March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE's credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee. June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50 percent. September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years -- not the 41 days that is sometimes reported. January - June 2010: As the price of conventional silicon-based PV continues to fall due to low silicon prices and a glut of solar modules, investors and analysts start questioning Solyndra's ability to compete in the marketplace. Despite pulling its IPO (as dozens of companies did in 2010), Solyndra raises an additional $175 million from investors. November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month -- on time and on budget -- employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected. February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company -- which was a going concern -- for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses. March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.): "Despite the administration's urgency and haste to pass the [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] ... billions of dollars have yet to be spent." And House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.): "The whole point of the Democrats' stimulus bill was to spend billions of dollars ... most of the money still hasn't been spent." June 2011: Average selling prices for solar modules drop to $1.50 a watt and continue on a pathway to $1 a watt. Solyndra says it has cut costs by 50 percent, but analysts worry how the company will compete with the dramatic changes in conventional PV. August 2011: DOE refuses to restructure the loan a second time. September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers, and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of Sept. 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3 percent of DOE's loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that's known to be troubled. Meanwhile, after complaining about stimulus funds moving too quickly, Upton and Stearns are now claiming that the administration was pushing funds out the door too quickly: "In the rush to get stimulus cash out the door, despite repeated claims by the administration to the contrary, some bets were bad from the beginning." What critics fail to mention is that the Solyndra deal is more than three years old, and started under the Bush administration, which tried to conditionally approve the loan right before Obama took office. Rather than "pushing funds out the door too quickly," the Obama administration restructured the original loan when it came into office to further protect the taxpayers' investment. http://www.grist.org/solar-power/2011-09-13-bush-admin-pushed-solyndra-loan-guarantee-for-two-years called "getting real".
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:32 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor:The govt has no business in trying to promote new industry. Especially one which has no real market yet.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:36 AM
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:37 AM
Quote:The Energy Department says that the green-jobs program is still on track to meet its employment goals. It claims credit for saving 33,000 jobs at Ford Motor Co. — about half of the Detroit automaker’s entire hourly and salaried U.S. workforce. The department says the biggest of its loan guarantees, for $5.9 billion, protected the jobs at Ford by enabling the automaker to upgrade plants in five states to build more energy-efficient vehicles. The Energy Department said the loan would “convert” the Ford jobs to “green manufacturing jobs.” Several economists said they doubt the loan program saved 33,000 jobs at Ford. “I always take these job estimates with a big grain of salt,” Josh Lerner, a Harvard Business School professor who has written about failed government efforts to stimulate targeted industries, said in an e-mail. “There tends to be a lot of fuzzy math when it comes to calculating these benefits (regardless of the party taking credit for the program).” A Ford spokeswoman said the loans helped “transform what were primarily truck/SUV plants into flexible manufacturing plants capable of building more fuel-efficient vehicles.” That flexibility is key to “helping retain the 33,000 jobs by ensuring our employees can build the fuel-efficient cars people want to drive,” said Meghan Keck, who handles government relations for Ford.
Quote:“This does not include tens of thousands of indirect jobs these projects create up and down the supply chain, or the countless additional jobs that depend on America staying competitive with countries like China in the clean-energy race,” department spokesman Damien LaVera said. Renewable-energy firms say many other workers and companies have prospered by being part of the supply chain. BrightSource Energy, for example, a developer of utility-scale solar-power projects, is the recipient of a $1.6 billion loan guarantee, the second-biggest awarded so far; it says it has purchased goods in 17 states.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:45 AM
Quote:Under the California Solar Initiative, effective January 1, 2007, this rebate provides renewable energy users with an immediate return on their investment. The rebate started at $2.50 per watt to defray the cost of buying and installing solar power systems of 30 kW or less. However, its dropping rapidly as more and more people go solar. It's available to residents, businesses and agricultural enterprises connected to the grid in areas serviced by Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison Company. Solar Tax Deduction Residents who borrow money to buy solar energy systems can deduct 100 percent of the interest from their California income tax. The deduction is for loans from publicly-owned utility companies, but customers whose utility companies don't offer such loans may be able to deduct the interest of a home equity or home improvement loan. Property Tax Exemption Solar energy systems installed in California are not subject to property taxes. Public Leadership Solutions for Energy Loan This loan finances renewable energy systems in public buildings, such as those owned by cities, counties, special districts, schools and community colleges. Loans of $2 million or more with no maximum are available for the expected life of the project.
Quote:FEDERAL SOLAR POWER INCENTIVES Solar Energy Federal Tax Credit Residents and businesses receive a tax credit worth 30 percent of the cost of buying and installing a photovoltaic system. This legislation is part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Section 1336- 1337). The latest renewable energy tax credit went into effect on January 1, 2009. At this time, for residential solar power systems you can take 30% off your taxes for the cost of the solar power system. Federal Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System (MACRS) Under the Modified Accelerated Cost-Recovery System (MACRS), 26 USC § 168, businesses can recover investments in solar and wind and geothermal property through depreciation deductions. The MACRS establishes a set of class lives for various types of property, ranging from three to 50 years, over which the property may be depreciated. For solar, wind and geothermal property placed in service after 1986, the current MACRS lifetime class is five years. Special 50% First year Depreciation Allowance This IRS depreciation allowance, IRS Section 179, allows a 50% first year depreciation deduction for equipment placed into service. Check IRS publication 946 for more details. Renewable Energy Systems Improvement Grant Agricultural producers and rural small businesses may be eligible for a grant that pays up to 25 percent of the project costs. This program grants up to $500,000 per renewable-energy project. Awards are made on a competitive basis. http://www.solartechnologies.com/cm/About-Solar-Power/Solar-Power-Incentives.html, and here's an interactive link where you can find state-by-state descriptions of tax incentives for renewable energy. It coverse state, local, utility and federal incentives: http://www.dsireusa.org/ So it's being done both ways, for the individual and for companies. This is only for solar, I'm not going to bother looking for the other alternative-energies.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:49 AM
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:53 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Only an obamaphile would think that Solyndra is in any way the path to 'economic prosperity'.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:55 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: I love it Nick. Predictably, Raptor takes your statement about green-energy companies promoting economic prosperity (and your very on-point remarks about China) and "negates" it by speaking ONLY of Sonyndra, adding his usual diversion of "Obamaphile", which you are not. Are you beginning to see the pattern? Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani, Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”, signing off
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:56 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Only an obamaphile would think that Solyndra is in any way the path to 'economic prosperity'. Not, Solyndra but the green energy industry. Face it, our current means of generating power will not last forever. The countries holding the keys to renewable green energy will prosper. The ones that don't will pay.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:03 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Renewable green energy ? You think that we need to invest billions of tax payer money into a pipe dream, or we'll be stuck paying the Chinese for our energy ? Really? Wow.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:27 AM
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:39 AM
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:43 AM
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:53 AM
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:14 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Niki - they're not emoticons, they're images. wow. And my Calvin and Hobbs easily out classes yours, hands down. Give up, while you're so very far behind. And you have my permission to go back to ignoring me now. As you were.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011 7:52 AM
Friday, September 23, 2011 1:31 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Renewable green energy ? You think that we need to invest billions of tax payer money into a pipe dream, or we'll be stuck paying the Chinese for our energy ? Really? Wow. Yes, why don't you?
Friday, September 23, 2011 2:00 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Nope. If investing means Solyndra type cronyism by this administration, then HELL nope. There, question answered.
Friday, September 23, 2011 2:09 AM
Friday, September 23, 2011 2:19 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Business competes when govt gets the hell out of the way. That's how. You're stuck in the delusional belief that we need govt to lead the way in order for industry to get started.
Friday, September 23, 2011 8:27 AM
Friday, September 23, 2011 11:23 AM
Friday, September 23, 2011 12:48 PM
Friday, September 23, 2011 1:41 PM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: No responce yet, I think I broke our Randroid!
Friday, September 23, 2011 2:01 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Shirley, you can't be serious.
Friday, September 23, 2011 2:07 PM
Friday, September 23, 2011 2:21 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: What the hell are they going to build ? Solar panels ? Rechargeable batteries ? Windmill blades ?
Quote:Spare me. None of those are worth much if they don't work, or there's no real market for them...
Friday, September 23, 2011 2:27 PM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: What the hell are they going to build ? Solar panels ? Rechargeable batteries ? Windmill blades ? Yes, and more such as the internal components of the wind mills. Quote:Spare me. None of those are worth much if they don't work, or there's no real market for them... They do work. Plus there is going to be a market for them in the future. That is a fact.
Friday, September 23, 2011 2:44 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: OK McFly. Why don't you hop back into your Delorean, zip into the future again, and come back w/ the next 10 years worth of winners for the World Series and the Super Bowl.
Friday, September 23, 2011 3:24 PM
Friday, September 23, 2011 3:44 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: They won't last forever, but they'll last longer than what some alarmists are claiming. Solar and wind will never be able to run factories. No where near reliable enough. As for electric cars... that technology isn't all that different than it was 100 years ago. Takes energy and materials to make batteries, and oh yeah, what are you going to charge them with ? The sources for that power ? Most likely coal burning power plants. How enviro-friendly is that ?
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: There's coal, and eventually we'll have to face reality and start using that more. And there's natural gas. Probably no shortage of THAT any time soon.
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Just as it was with the y2k 'fiasco', those who are vested in continuing their business will find ways to make it happen. R and D, which comes from those who know what the hell they're doing, and NOT from the Federal govt, tossing mountains of money at the issue, and simply saying " make it happen ".
Friday, September 23, 2011 4:00 PM
Friday, September 23, 2011 4:08 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Coal isn't hard at all to find. We have plenty of it. Only much of it is off limits, thanks to Clinton, stashed away on govt owned lands. As are plenty of oil reserves, (ANWR) and untapped fields , in many places. The only thing China has over the US is man power. Not technology, not resources. Gonna take many players to win at this game, and no one holds all the cards.
Friday, September 23, 2011 4:18 PM
Quote: Even if you are dumb enough not be believe in climate change...
Friday, September 23, 2011 5:02 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Yeah, just like Dr Roy Spencer, the late Michael Crichton, and a host of very well educated, informed individuals who happen to view the evidence with a bit more skepticism than those who buy into the latest fad. We're all just "dumb", huh?
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: I answered your question. That I didn't cower in a corner and curl up in the fetal position, begging for mercy, seems to have left you w/ the impression that I some how 'dodged' something. I didn't. You just didn't like / expect the answer you got. Deal w/ it.
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor:Oh, and as for coal? It's not all that hard to find OR get to, actually. We just need to sell the mineral rights to private corporations who are capable of extracting it, and get it to market.
Friday, September 23, 2011 5:14 PM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Skepticism is one thing...out and out denial is another.
Saturday, September 24, 2011 6:56 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: If you knew anything you were talking about, who these guys are, or their arguments, you'd know it's anything but 'denial', and instead reasoned, evidence based difference of opinion.
Saturday, September 24, 2011 7:15 AM
Quote: Quote: Even if you are dumb enough not be believe in climate change...
Saturday, September 24, 2011 7:44 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote: Quote: Even if you are dumb enough not be believe in climate change... Then what ARE you saying ? Please clarify, to avoid further confusion.
Saturday, September 24, 2011 8:08 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote: Quote: Even if you are dumb enough not be believe in climate change... Then what ARE you saying ? Please clarify, to avoid further confusion. There is no doubt the climate of the planet is changing. The question is whether human activities are causing that change or merely adding to it, and by how much. Being skeptical of findings and predictions regarding climate change is a good thing. Outright denial of those things is not. Now please address my question.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL