Re: NASA cuts
Good job digging up the articles but there were some important details left out of them. The CBS article has been widely discredited numerous times and the latest was in Solar Thermal Magazine. I subscribe to the magazine but don't have a way to retrieve the articles from their website though to post here.
The other article makes things sound as though there's some conspiracy or malicious behavior going on by some type of Obama connection. But, it's a play on peoples' ignorance because the market prices for solar PV dropped by 30-35%, which if you: 17.5 / 58.1 = 30%. The price per watt was around $3.40-$3.50 before and is somewhere in the area of $1.15-$1.20 now. When Solyndra filed for bankruptcy protection it dropped to about $1.30-$1.35 per watt and their cost of production was too high to absorb that even though they had numerous sales well into the millions.
That's why Solyndra went bankrupt(along wit the fact European subsidies stopped, and Chinese began to manufacture PV for themselves instead of paid/contractual production*)was because the prices plummeted. So, those "assets" were sold at the current market value. Another hyped washingtontimes story debunked.
U.S. Commerce Department Finds China Illegally Subsidized Solar Panel Manufacturers/Exporters http://www.solarthermalmagazine.com/2012/03/20/u-s-commerce-department-finds-china-illegally-subsidi...
But good article research though.
Re: NASA cuts
I have to disagree with Tom and Bruce on Bush approving or even pushing the Solyndra loan.
I would be interested to read any links you have that claims Bush pushed for the loan to be approved.
In 2005 Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a bill intended to address a variety of developing energy problems in the US. One part of this bill authorized the Department of Energy to offer loan guarantees to help finance promising energy projects.
Everything that I have read says that the Solyndra loan application started while Bush was in office but I have yet to see any reporting that Bush pushed for this loan. The loan application was a lengthy process and the applications were handled and vetted by the Dept of Energy.
In October 2007, the Department of Energy had completed vetting of the applications and had narrowed the number it was still considering to 16, one of which was the application from Solyndra. The remaining 16 were invited to submit full applications for the program, and Solyndra did so in May 2008. On January 9, 2009, the Department of Energy's credit committee decided unanimously that although the project "appears to have merit, there are several areas where the information presented did not thoroughly support a finding that the project is ready to be approved at this time." The committee "without prejudice" remanded the project "for further development of information.
It has been reported that the Obama administration pushed for the loan approval even though one White House budget analyst said the deal in not ready for prime time.
After President Obama took office, analysts in the Energy Department and in the Office of Management and Budget questioned the loan, as one Energy official wrote in an e-mail of "a major outstanding issue": cash flow predictions showed that the Fab 2 subsidiary (the entity receiving the loan guarantee) would be low on cash in September 2011, possibly needing help from the parent company until the cash flow recovered in subsequent months.
In March 2009, after a successful milestone in the approval process, the White House wanted to announce the loan guarantee. One White House budget analyst nixed the announcement in a March 10, 2009 e-mail, writing "This deal is NOT ready for prime time" and listing remaining milestones.
In August 2009, an Energy Department stimulus adviser, Steve Spinner, pushed for a quicker final decision on the loan, though he had recused himself from the approval decision itself because his wife's law firm had done work for the company. According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration tried to rush federal reviewers to approve the loan so Vice President Joe Biden could announce it at a September 2009 groundbreaking for the company’s factory.
Re: NASA cuts
I posted the facts before, and whether you like them, or accept them, doesn't change reality. Do I really have to do it again?
I get it, however sly you are about the fact that you don't like anything democrat or Obama, get over it already. Yawn.
In March 2009, after a successful milestone in the approval process, the White House wanted to announce the loan guarantee. That's pretty fast to get that approval in less then 60 days, huh?
Their(Solyndra) technology was the latest and best to come to market in the solar thermal/PV industry. Their cost of production was too high along with other factors that bit them in the behind. They had investor's behind them along with sales to more than justify their loan guaranty.
Bush and company was smart to do it based solely upon the technology and support of private money. Hopefully some Chinese company won't buy the patents and produce it, but the technology needs to be made available.
Re: NASA cuts
I don't know why these people are having such a cow about $535 million dollar loan. Mutt Romney made that much in the propaganda speeches he made! God, how da mned childish you people are! Bush blew our economy to smithereens, and you want to gripe about a measly $535 million! GET A LIFE, PEOPLE! There are things a hell of lot more important than that! Like Ryans POVERTY PLAN FOR AMERICANS.
Re: NASA cuts
LOL, mum was the word when there was billions handed out in no-bid contracts to political donors(Haliburton) for shoddy work that electrocuted our troops and for work that was never done at all. What about the billions that came up missing and still can't be accounted for? Who-da-whatta? Rewriting history so those things never happened has been tried before and it continues to this day.
When they're not trying to claim victim status, they're persecuting real victims and suffer from SELECTIVE MEMORY RECALL. Neither one of us will ever convince them of anything other than what they CHOOSE to believe. Who cares really?
Re: NASA cuts
Tom, your starting to fall victim to the Ollie and GTO belief that all one party is good while the other is evil.
I'm not blaming just Obama and Dems and have already stated that many Repubs also voted for the NASA cuts. I simply disagree with their decision.
I recognize we need to make major spending cuts and would suggest that when the world economy improves that our government solicits other countries into helping finance NASA with the promise that they would also share in any benefits the program produces and share any new knowledge gained from it.
While I am in favor of our government helping to spur new energy technologies and even giving loans to such businesses such as Sylondra, I'm against these programs being used or rushed for political reasons as has been reported in this case.
We were told this $500 million plus loan to Sylondra would produce 4000 new jobs. Makes the $3 billion NASA cuts that resulted in an estimated 14,000 lost jobs take on a whole new light.
I'm having trouble finding any info on Bush pushing for this loan. Can you please provide me with any links showing this?
The links to Bush, Puhlease....
still waiting for a link to show that GW BUsh pushed for the Solyndra loan gurantees. Curious as to why a president, a lame duck, would even be thinking about such a thing. Especially Bush. I want to read more about this.
Re: NASA cuts
"Tom, your starting to fall victim to the Ollie and GTO belief that all one party is good while the other is evil." said the person on some type of partisan crusade. Playing dumb about the timeline of their existence and the federal gov't guaranteeing business loans to them(Solyndra) does not change dates or history. I like the way you always give yourself a disclaimer that's predicated upon you somehow being neutral in terms of ideology. But it doesn't change reality.
As I said BEFORE( for what has to be the third or fourth time now) Bush's cabinet was smart to approve and advance the loan guarantee, and they did it in typical gov't fashion, slow and with excess bureaucracy which actually gave the company more time to secure private investment funds. There was hundreds of millions of investment dollars secured along with strong sales/orders, so obviously the company and the technology was viable, and it still is. Most of the company's sales were in Europe though and when the subsidies stopped the demand and retail prices fell. But, the gov't loan guarantee program has been very successful in the past, and it was worth the risk.
Can't find any info about when the gov't became part of a loan guaranty or when Solyndra applied for it, try looking up the last time that you went through this routine and I posted links to prove you wrong on this very subject. Why should I do it again if you won't believe it anyway, and then at some point in the future this subject comes up again and it's deja-vu time. It's neither entertaining or informational for us nor anybody else.
Re: NASA cuts
The Haliburton thing stinks to high heaven, but that is a separate subject. If you want to start a thread on it, I'll be happy to weigh in. However, it seems to me someone is trying to
Shift the subject, and
Ignore what was said. All you need to do is
Name call, and you'll have a trifecta.