EPA: "Crucify Oil Companies"[W:186]

[beerftw]

It was 3) none of the abov
e. They got screwed by a decision made by some bureaucrat in China that they could in no way predict.

so now chinese are responsible for companies elsewhere?

once again mind backing your claim or simply just admit it as opinion

 

[apdst]

It was 3) none of the above. They got screwed by a decision made by some bureaucrat in China that they could in no way predict.

The Chicoms weren't already undercutting American labor? It came as a shock to the Solyndra clowns? You've just confirmed that it was #1: They are diabollically stupid. Look at the folks in our government that thought it was a great idead to give these nutjobs a half billion bucks. They're just as stupid.

 

[AdamT]

so now chinese are responsible for companies elsewhere?

once again mind backing your claim or simply just admit it as opinion

Mind reading the links I provide instead of asking for them and then ignoring them and then asking for them again?

 

[LaMidRighter]

so now chinese are responsible for companies elsewhere?

once again mind backing your claim or simply just admit it as opinion

He has no leg to stand on for the claim. First off Solyndra was deemed an unviable venture under the Bush administration for the very reasons that left it a failure. 1) Less demand than supply 2) Insufficient competitive environment versus the global market, especially China 3) gross incompetence at the highest levels. Any half-assed economist could have predicted the company failing, and only an agendist would waste hundreds of millions of tax dollars trying to prove common sense wrong.

 

[AdamT]

The Chicoms weren't already undercutting American labor? It came as a shock to the Solyndra clowns? You've just confirmed that it was #1: They are diabollically stupid. Look at the folks in our government that thought it was a great idead to give these nutjobs a half billion bucks. They're just as stupid.

Umm, no, that's not what happened. China made it's massive investment in solar AFTER Solyndra was formed. It wasn't just Solyndra that got bricked by the Chinese price dump. Every non-Chinese solar manufacturer in the world got hammered. For example:

OSLO, April 24 (Reuters) - Norway-based solar energy firm
Renewable Energy Corp., struggling through a global
silicon glut, said on Tuesday it would close its last production
plant in Norway to focus on operations in Singapore and the
United States.

It said production of monocrystalline wafers at Heroeya,
south of Oslo, would likely cease in the second quarter,
affecting 460 jobs. Last month it announced the shutdown of a
similar plant in northern Norway.

Chief executive Ole Enger said a production boom in China
had pushed down wafer prices by a third in the past year, more
than offsetting cost savings achieved by the Norwegian plant
managers.

 

[AdamT]

He has no leg to stand on for the claim. First off Solyndra was deemed an unviable venture under the Bush administration for the very reasons that left it a failure. 1) Less demand than supply 2) Insufficient competitive environment versus the global market, especially China 3) gross incompetence at the highest levels. Any half-assed economist could have predicted the company failing, and only an agendist would waste hundreds of millions of tax dollars trying to prove common sense wrong.

You don't know what you're talking about. Solyndra had tons of private investors, including many private equity firms.

Solyndra was led by Brian Harrison, a veteran of Intel Corporation. He took the reins on July 27, 2010 when founder Chris Gronet was replaced as CEO.

Major investors included George Kaiser Family Foundation, U.S. Venture Partners, CMEA Ventures, Redpoint Ventures, Virgin Green Fund, Madrone Capital Partners, RockPort Capital Partners, Argonaut Private Equity, Masdar and Artis Capital Management.

In 2009, the company posted $100 million in revenue. It was estimated that its production and sales growth could lead to a market cap between $1.76 - 2 billion dollars.[10] 2010 revenues were approximately $140 million.

Other executives include Bill Stover, CFO; Karen Alter, SVP of Marketing; Corby Whitaker, VP, Sales United States; John Gaffney, Corporate Counsel; and Ben Bierman, EVP Operations and Engineering.[

In fact the Bush administration pushed the Solyndra loan process for several years and tried to conditioally approve the loan just before Bush left office.

But never let facts get in the way of a good partisan rant.

 

[apdst]

Umm, no, that's not what happened. China made it's massive investment in solar AFTER Solyndra was formed. It wasn't just Solyndra that got bricked by the Chinese price dump. Every non-Chinese solar manufacturer in the world got hammered. For example:

All that proves, is that there is a collection of idiots in Norway, too.

 

[AdamT]

All that proves, is that there is a collection of idiots in Norway, too.

Give up while you're behind. :rofl

 

[LaMidRighter]

You don't know what you're talking about. Solyndra had tons of private investors, including many private equity firms.

So you're an economist now? I DO know what I'm talking about. Plenty of FAILURES had backing, it's an absolutely stupid assumption to believe that just because people are throwing money into a venture that the economics favor it, this is why most people fail at investing. You don't know what you are talking about, and here is why. PROFESSIONAL analysis came to the conclusions I stated, all you have is bloggers who don't make a dime for their analysis, only their WORDS. So let's stop the pretenses that you are more informed than the rest of us, thanks.

In fact the Bush administration pushed the Solyndra loan process for several years and tried to conditioally approve the loan just before Bush left office.

AND THEY CANCELED FUNDING. Ya know why? Because it was rated unviable. Thank you.

But never let facts get in the way of a good partisan rant.

You don't have any facts.

 

[beerftw]

Give up while you're behind. :rofl

great idea,insult him because you have no further debating points,thats how you prove intelligence alright.

 

[AdamT]

So you're an economist now? I DO know what I'm talking about. Plenty of FAILURES had backing, it's an absolutely stupid assumption to believe that just because people are throwing money into a venture that the economics favor it, this is why most people fail at investing. You don't know what you are talking about, and here is why. PROFESSIONAL analysis came to the conclusions I stated, all you have is bloggers who don't make a dime for their analysis, only their WORDS. So let's stop the pretenses that you are more informed than the rest of us, thanks.

Now that's odd -- I thought business experience was the key to good government. Apparently not.

AND THEY CANCELED FUNDING. Ya know why? Because it was rated unviable. Thank you.

No, they did not CANCEL funding.

Why don't you look at the actual facts and drop the wingnut party line for two seconds:

Climate Progress is publishing this timeline — verified by Department of Energy officials — that shows how the loan guarantee came together under both administrations. In fact, rather than rushing the loan for Solyndra through, the Obama administration restructured the original Bush-era deal to further protect the taxpayers’ investment:


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 < a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=8333">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.”

http://grist.org/solar-power/2011-09-13-bush-admin-pushed-solyndra-loan-guarantee-for-two-years/

 

[LaMidRighter]

great idea,insult him because you have no further debating points,thats how you prove intelligence alright.

He lost and he knows it.

 

[AdamT]

He lost and he knows it.

As usual, the facts make a fool out of you. :lol:

 

[LaMidRighter]

Now that's odd -- I thought business experience was the key to good government. Apparently not.



No, they did not CANCEL funding.

Why don't you look at the actual facts and drop the wingnut party line for two seconds:

I notice you didn't have the nerve to give the source of this report, ABC news, after a similar 2 second search and a center LEFT organization says the exact opposite, in fact all news organizations that actually care about the appearance of credibility say what I have. Here ya go;Solyndra Hearing: Blame It On Bush, Say Obama Officials - ABC News

Game, Set, Match, Goodbye.

EDIT - I see you sourced it in an edit and I also see WHY. Seriously, "green news" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You lose.

 

[beerftw]

Now that's odd -- I thought business experience was the key to good government. Apparently not.



No, they did not CANCEL funding.

Why don't you look at the actual facts and drop the wingnut party line for two seconds:

great if bush did it its ok?soobama is off the hooks for failed ideas,because bush did it first and he followed,liberals canstill blame bush for their problems.

great so bush can be blamed for his failures but obamas failues are bushesfault too,keep playing your cards,you keep digging yourself a deeper grave.

 

[LaMidRighter]

As usual, the facts make a fool out of you. :lol:

Right. beerftw already stated it best, all you have is personal attacks left. CYA.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Well, that's really the bottom line here, isn't it? If we could weed out all the BS and other crap in this thread and just concentrate on that question we'd be better off.

I would have no problem separating the EPA into "enforcement", "investigation", and "research, testing, & monitoring". That should make EPA's enforcement groups no different than any other federal enforcement agency. Will there still be abuses on occasion? I don't think anyone can stop that from happening completely but I'm sure there are well-proven ways to reduce the possibility - or are we going to start down a road about the DoJ, FBI, and Federal Marshals next?

Id go one further. Let the EPA be research primarily. Enforcement only in cases where felonies are occurring---IE malicious intent to cause grevious harm. Let states handle most of the enforcement and field work, they are more responsive to both the people involved and the companies in the state so that careful balance is easier to maintain.

Give the Fed EPA oversight on large state cases and intervention powers only when bribery or other collusion is occurring to subvert enforcement. Return the EPA to watchdog status and let the states not just do the heavy lifting but do most, if not all, of the fieldwork.

Oh and MoSurv.... /handshake
Thanks for attempting some honest dialog.

Adam...not so much.

 

[AdamT]

Right. beerftw already stated it best, all you have is personal attacks left. CYA.

Personal attacks are all you have, period.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

I guess I misunderstood you to say that all state regs are stricter than EPA regs. If they aren't, then why should we believe that the regs that are only adhering to the EPA baseline wouldn't be dropped or weakened without an EPA to enforce them?

In other words, I was trying to make your statement logical when it apparently was not.

Talk about a

First you claim that 1 out of 3 aren't as strict as the EPA and then when shown that it's the EPA with the least restrictive guidelines you say "what says they wont drop their rules when the EPA is gone?"

Do you know how to be wrong, because you certainly are wrong quite often, even if you don't realize it.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Talk about a

First you claim that 1 out of 3 aren't as strict as the EPA and then when shown that it's the EPA with the least restrictive guidelines you say "what says they wont drop their rules when the EPA is gone?"

Do you know how to be wrong, because you certainly are wrong quite often, even if you don't realize it.

He mastered being wrong, the thing he never got down was acceptance of such.

 

[AdamT]

Talk about a

First you claim that 1 out of 3 aren't as strict as the EPA and then when shown that it's the EPA with the least restrictive guidelines you say "what says they wont drop their rules when the EPA is gone?"

Do you know how to be wrong, because you certainly are wrong quite often, even if you don't realize it.

Yes, I already said that misunderstood what Blue was trying to say. But Blue is simply wrong when he claims that every state has standards stricter than EPA guidelines. In fact Florida is attempting to apply weaker guideliness than the EPA allows even now.

I'll accept the weasel description and keep feeding on y'all. :lol:

The least weasel feeds predominantly on mouse-like rodents, including mice, hamsters, gerbils and others.

 

[j-mac]

Personal attacks are all you have, period.

Striking the similarities....


j-mac

 

[Blue_State]

Yes, I already said that misunderstood what Blue was trying to say. But Blue is simply wrong when he claims that every state has standards stricter than EPA guidelines. In fact Florida is attempting to apply weaker guideliness than the EPA allows even now.

I'll accept the weasel description and keep feeding on y'all. :lol:

Actually, I explained how it is a gong show what your state politics and the EPA are doing.

 

[Grant]

Solyndra was a for-profit solar panel manufacturer that, like pretty much all the solar manufacturers, got screwed by the Chinese who pumped billions into solar development, causing prices to plummet.

So Barrack Obama gave millions of taxpayer dollars to Solyndra without knowing that the Chinese were also developing solar panels?

Now how many degrees of stupid is that?

 

[Grant]

It is absolutely correct. Solyndra specialized in non-silicon solar panel that was price competitive with silicone cells when the company was founded. Solyndra got what? $600 million from the US? The same year China subsidized its solar industry to the tune of $30 BILLION. Chinese companies produced so many silicone cells that they caused the price to collapse. As a result, Solyndra's technology was no longer competitive. US solar manufacturers have filed a complaint against China with the International Trade Commission.

China Almost Kills Premier U.S. Solar Company - Forbes

So BHO, on an apparent whim and against the advice of professionals, decided to go head to head with the taxpayer $600 million against the Chinese $30 billion?

That takes a spectacular kind of stupid.