cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: NASA cuts

I don't think you nead to listen to the article by 60 Minutes again, dagwud. It said the President had to cut the program, but that the REPUBLICANS cut it by half again.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: The links to Bush, Puhlease....

Happy to oblige! Now go cry in your beer. If that doen't satisfy you there are more, by the way.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/17/david-plouffe/solyndra-loan-george-w-...

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: NASA cuts


@tomtoolbag wrote:

  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 articles were just the first that came up.  I did not know that CBS got it wrong, as I found no correction, or retraction.

 

  The other article makes things sound as though there's some conspiracy or malicious behavior going on by some type of Obama connection

 

Obama was not mentioned in the article at all.  What seemed odd, is that the same guys who ran Solyndra when it went into bankrupcy, bought stuff that cost $58.8 , for $17.5, and put it into Solyndra II.  I belive that is what the guy said sounded 'suspicious'. 

However, if the price truly did drop to 30% of original value, it would be sold for approximate value, but why were the tubes being smashed, without being offered at the sale, and without the knowledge of the original manufacturer?  Shouldn't they get a chance to reclaim it?

 

. 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%.

 

Did you mean the price dropped to 30% of the original value?  Because if the price dropped by 30%, it still would have been worth over 40 million

 

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.

 

I also did not know that the Washington Times was not trustworthy either.  I assumed the Times and CBS would do proper fact-checking.

 

  *

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.


 

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: NASA cuts

  You're adept at the d-d-d routine and who was it that actually brought up Solyndra? And, you accused me of trying to employ one of the fall back positions of the right, that of distraction? Look in the mirror.

 

  But hey, you want to talk about useless gov't subsidies, we can go there. In reference to the Solyndra company look across the board at all the companies that have filed bankruptcy in that industry in the last couple of years. State and federal gov't subsidies, grants, and tax credits have manipulated the industry and the product prices that China's participation only compounds them. Imagine what implementation of solar thermal technology would do to natural gas demand and prices if even 10-20% of households could buy-in to the technology. From manufacturing to ag look at how those gas prices affect profits and prices for consumers, not to mention what it does to household disposable income. 

  As much as most of the people want this to somehow be an ideology issue and go to considerable efforts to make it one, it's not and it's also boring and very redundant.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: The links to Bush, Puhlease....

I can find nothing in your link, that states that the Bush Administration, gave Solyndra anyhing, other than 'support'.

The actual money came from the Obama administration.


Now, with Bush being the biggest knumbskull in the Northern Hemisphere, why would they approve something just because Bush gave it his 'support', without doing their own fact-checking?

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: NASA cuts

  The washingtontimes site is a political slanted one to say the least and look at when the article was written, along with the point that have they ever previously covered the industry at all? Cbs had some reporter that did about half the factual research and the whole piece and everything that came after it was written to be some political hit article, and was debunked by even people with casual, everyday knowledge of the industry, not to mention the industry groups and professionals.

 

  The glass tubes must have had some type of flaw, otherwise they would have a value to either that company for even credit to the supplier or for sale to another company. I never heard of that but for any company to pay people to destroy inventory defies logic unless those glass tubes were determined to be useless or flawed for their or any other company's use. There's more than likely a contractual dispute over payment for substandard quality that's going on, otherwise why wouldn't they just return them to the manufacturer?

 

  Yes, I worded the reduction wrong, and it should be to the level of 30-35% of their previous value. The price would allow for some type of wholesale pricing which would probably explain a slightly lower price as opposed to the current market or retail price.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: NASA cuts


@tomtoolbag wrote:

  You're adept at the d-d-d routine and who was it that actually brought up Solyndra? And, you accused me of trying to employ one of the fall back positions of the right, that of distraction? Look in the mirror.

 

I will give you that one, on the condition that you accept that I only mentioned it, in response to someone else blaming one party, and one party only, for that sort of thing happening.  I was merely trying to point out that there are wastes of money, that is the fault of BOTH parties.  If you want, do a search, where I defended any waste of money by Bush, I'll bet you a six pack of Mountain Dew that you won't find any.  I believe both parties are to blame for the mess this country is in, and was just trying to strike a balance.

 

  But hey, you want to talk about useless gov't subsidies, we can go there. In reference to the Solyndra company look across the board at all the companies that have filed bankruptcy in that industry in the last couple of years. State and federal gov't subsidies, grants, and tax credits have manipulated the industry and the product prices that China's participation only compounds them. Imagine what implementation of solar thermal technology would do to natural gas demand and prices if even 10-20% of households could buy-in to the technology.

 

 Or even locally, here.  Our local ethanol plant got all sorts of subsidies and tax breaks to get built.  The local 'investors' who just happen to be the folks who knew an ethanol plant wanted to come here, and run the county zoning commission, somehow got zoning approved for the ethanol plant on one certain parcel of land, which happened to be owned by the 'investment committee'.  How a productive cornfield ever got called 'blighted', I'll never know.  Anyway, by getting the cornfield 'blighted' they got the taxpayers to run water, power, and nat. gas to this site, and paved a gravel road, at the taxpayers expense.  They then sold this land to the ethanol plant, doubling their money TWICE, in just over a year.  The ethanol plant went under, and they bought up some land around it cheap, in the old RR right of way, and no more than the ink dried, than another company was willing to buy the old plant, if they could get by a moratorium on the property tax.  Lo and behold, this new company wasn't even up and running yet, and wanted more room for grain storage, etc, and the ground on the old RR right of way, was just perfect, allowing the investors to sell it for about 5X (give or take) what they paid for it.

Just for the record, the zoning guys are a mix of political parties, but stand united when they can milk the system to their benefit.

 

 From manufacturing to ag look at how those gas prices affect profits and prices for consumers, not to mention what it does to household disposable income. 

  As much as most of the people want this to somehow be an ideology issue and go to considerable efforts to make it one, it's not and it's also boring and very redundant.

 

No, it's not an idealogoy issue for me, unless you consider the taxpayer not wanting to be screwed, an ideology.  It has been mentioned that it was a paltry $500+ million, hardly enough to worry about.


Well, to butcher a phrase I once heard,

Half a billion here,

half a billion there,

and it starts to add up to real money.

 

I'm for cutting waste, wherever we can, and ending special tax breaks for the privelaged, plain and simple.  If I see one or the other, I usually can be found griping about it, no matter who's idea it was.


 

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: NASA cuts

  Subsidies are a mixed bag where there's a fine line between when and how they are implemented and when they negatively affect the problems that they're designed to overcome. The natural gas industry is playing both sides of the table to maintain price levels/demand by even the most ridiculous schemes. I've tried to work within their boundaries but have expended a lot of effort to alleviate them from any equation.

  This economy relies and depends on cheap energy, and all forms of energy must be considered in every move, whether human energy or EROEI for purchases and lifespan comparisons. Our economy is so dependent upon consumption that high energy prices rob us of economic activity that's really needed right now. For every penny rise in the cost of gasoline, it displaces $1 billion of consumer spending. Take that figure and add in nat gas/propane prices and it really hurts.

  I've also wondered about China getting into the solar thermal and PV industry and thought that all the vital resources that's needed to manufacture them, why not let China use up their supply and sell the finished products to us cheap instead of using our resources up. Plus, that leaves a large balance of dollars(that we pay them) that they in turn use to buy our products at high prices. We get cheap technology without depleting our vital resources.

  Just a thought.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: NASA cuts

Heck, why not just pull a 'China', and let them spend buckets of their money, and then reverse-engineer what they came up with, and not pay any royalties for it. 

I heard somewhere, that if China would pay full royalties, for all their patent infringements, and bootlegged technology/products, we'd be at about an even keel with them, in terms of money flow.

Highlighted
Advisor

Chinese bootlegging.. and other stuff like that