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

Re: NASA cuts

Solynda is just one of the many green energy companies that have filed for bankruptcy after getting government loan guarantees. And what is Obama's answer, more green energy loan guarantees.

 

snip-

Solyndra was just the appetizer. Earlier today, in what will come as a surprise only to members of the administration, the company which proudly held the rights to the world's largest solar power project, the hilariously named Solar Trust of America ("STA"), filed for bankruptcy. And while one could say that the company's epic collapse is more a function of alternative energy politics in Germany, where its 70% parent Solar Millennium AG filed for bankruptcy last December, what is relevant is that last April STA was the proud recipient of a $2.1 billion conditional loan from the Department of Energy, incidentally the second largest loan ever handed out by the DOE's Stephen Chu. That amount was supposed to fund the expansion of the company's 1000 MW Blythe Solar Power Project in Riverside, California. From the funding press release, "This project construction is expected to create over 1,000 direct jobs in Southern California, 7,500 indirect jobs in related industries throughout the United States, and more than 200 long-term operational jobs at the facility itself. It will play a key role in stimulating the American economy,” said Uwe T. Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Solar Trust of America and Executive Chairman of project development subsidiary Solar Millennium, LLC." Instead, what Solar Trust will do is create lots of billable hours for bankruptcy attorneys (at $1,000/hour), and a good old equity extraction for the $22 million DIP lender, which just happens to be NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, another "alternative energy" company which last year received a $935 million loan courtesy of the very same (and now $2.1 billion poorer) Department of Energy, which is also a subsidiary of public NextEra Energy (NEE), in the process ultimately resulting in yet another transfer of taxpayer cash to NEE's private shareholders.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/worlds-largest-solar-plant-21-billion-energy-department-loan-guarantee...

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: NASA cuts

  LOL, turnabout is fair play isn't it. The unemployment rate could drop a full % by inspecting every inbound load from there.

  I remember a long time ago that if you bought some cheap tools from China that they would either break when you were using them or when you dropped them. They've got better about that but for the most part anything that they make and sell cheaply isn't worth buying. 

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

.

 
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: NASA cuts

Why do I get the feeling that we are not to mention Ted Kennedy or Sylondra but that Reagan, the Iran-Contra scandal, Bush and Haliburton are always welcomed.

 

I don't believe there any flaws in the glass Tom.  I watched a news report and video clip on the subject and there was some reason claimed of not being able to return the glass tubes.  I do recall they came from over seas.  The video showed rows and rows of pallets stack high full of these tubes that were destroyed. 

 

The news interviewed some guy that routinely buys and resells stock from bankrupt companies.  He was upset after seeing the video as he said he would have been very interested in buying them.

 

To bad they didn't donate some to colleges or high schools that showed an interest as they would have made a great learning tool and hopefully encourage more young minds to pursue solar improvements.  One news report said Santa Clara University requested some but was turned down. 

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: NASA cuts


@tomtoolbag wrote:

  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?

 

According to the article, they had called the manufacturer, who claimed no knowledge of what was happening to the cylinders.

My best guesses on that would be:

1) The workers were told to clear everything out by a certain date, and the tubes were still there, by some oversight, so assumed they were to be disposed of

2)There was some sort of dispute over them, perhaps over a flaw, or payment or whatever, so someone ordered them smashed

3)It was just a screw up.  With bankrupcy and everything else, they got lost in the shuffle

4)it was Bush's fault

5) It was Obama's fault

 

(I had to include the last two to cover all my bases for the conspiracy buffs out there)

 

  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
Senior Contributor

Re: NASA cuts

  Good on you. You can believe what you want to, and I really don't care which way that is. Facts or no facts aren't going to change that as you've portrayed here before, and now again to everybody.

 

  But, that doesn't explain the alleged destroying of some tubes that apparently took some considerable amount of time and that there was also a forklift involved. That's a whole lot of effort and energy(by paid employees no less) expended just for no reason at all. You come to some type of conclusion, or are trying to somehow make this an ideological incident whereas some company that you've tried to pair with your ideological enemy did some malicious acts and destroyed something that's again alleged, that they didn't pay for, or still owe money to the company that manufactured them. Good correlation of weaving your beliefs into that.

  Now, wouldn't the easiest thing to do, which requires the least amount of effort and time of paid employees, be to just ship them back? But, that would squash your narrative and intent then too, so that can't be. 

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: NASA cuts


@tomtoolbag wrote:

  Good on you. You can believe what you want to, and I really don't care which way that is. Facts or no facts aren't going to change that as you've portrayed here before, and now again to everybody.

 

  But, that doesn't explain the alleged destroying of some tubes that apparently took some considerable amount of time and that there was also a forklift involved. That's a whole lot of effort and energy(by paid employees no less) expended just for no reason at all. You come to some type of conclusion, or are trying to somehow make this an ideological incident whereas some company that you've tried to pair with your ideological enemy did some malicious acts and destroyed something that's again alleged, that they didn't pay for, or still owe money to the company that manufactured them. Good correlation of weaving your beliefs into that.

 

I don't think I was weaving my beliefs into anything.  I merely posted a blurb on what happened, and my thoughts on possibilities why. 
Could you please tell me what possible ideological incident I would be trying to make it into?
I see it as a terrible waste, worsened by the fact that taxpayer dollars are involved, to simply destroy something, that obviously would have a buyer (the guy in the article - even if he gave 10 cents on the dollar, and hauled the tubes off, it would be better than smashing them).

However, I did think of one other possiblity:  Maybe the tubes involved had some sort of process done to them, that they didn't want the technology to get into the wrong hands, hence their destruction.  Again, I don't know, but it is a possibility that would make sense.

 

  Now, wouldn't the easiest thing to do, which requires the least amount of effort and time of paid employees, be to just ship them back? But, that would squash your narrative and intent then too, so that can't be. 

 

What intent?  Who am I trying to blame for this?  I think you may be reading too much into my objection to their being destroyed.  The simple answer is that the company that originally made these tubes, is still owed money for the tubes.  The tubes are being destroyed, without knowledge of the originally manufacturer (according to the article). 
Can you give me a reason why this would be, other than for technology security, or inepntess?

If the maker didn't want them back, fine, but if the article is accurate, they didn't know the tubes were being smashed.


 

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: NASA cuts

They are being destroyed because they guys destroying them are using some one else's money.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

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

I guess if you push for passage of a bill and you don't talk about one aspect of the bill, that means you don't support that aspect.  Is that about right?

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: NASA cuts

  I was replying to dagwud, and it wasn't meant for you unless of course, you are dagwud.

 

  The whole idea that those tubes were or were not destroyed defies logic and I've pointed that out for just that reason. Did it really happen, or to the extent written about in that article? Neither one of us know for sure, and only the people that allegedly destroyed them would know. It's a moot point now to say the least.

  The sad part of the Solyndra tale is that little to no coverage was given to their technology, obviously until the company was aligned with some political people and the ensuing fallout, whereas political pundits and all the moronic hacks are trying to use their(Solynda's) bankruptcy to smear certain political persons because it's an election year. The crying that we've heard about this is nothing new from that crowd, and unfortunately we'll hear more of it before November. Technology-smechnology, but if some people can use the issue for ideological purposes, they will and have.

  Did you ever hear of Solyndra before and how often did you prior to their bankruptcy and the constant efforts to tie it to Obama and make it some type of fraud issue? How about when the solar PV market plummeted last fall and the other companies that went under too?