The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Sunday, May 19, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Second DOE Loan Recipient Files for Bankruptcy

Steve Leone, Associate Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
October 31, 2011  |  58 Comments

The embattled Department of Energy has another failed loan on its hands and the Republican-led House Energy Committee has new ammunition as it continues to set its sights on the Obama Administration's green jobs initiatives.

Beacon Power, like Solyndra, was one of the first loans to close under the Department of Energy’s 1705 loan guarantee program. Now, much like the failed solar panel manufacturer, the Massachusetts-based flywheel storage company has filed for bankruptcy protection and set off another ripple in the growing controversy over the federal program.

On Sunday, Beacon Power, which received a $43 million loan guarantee to support the construction of a 20-megawatt flywheel energy storage plant in Stephentown, N.Y., filed for Chapter 11. The flywheel technology at the New York facility was used for load leveling. Essentially, grid operators could dump power into the storage plant when they had too much and pull it back out when they needed more. It remains unclear what will happen to the facility or the technology inside the plant following the bankruptcy.

What is certain is that the latest bankruptcy will add to growing Republican skepticism over the program itself and, for some, whether renewable technologies can ever boost the struggling American economy.

“This latest failure is a sharp reminder that DOE has fallen well short of delivering the stimulus jobs that were promised, and now taxpayers find themselves millions of more dollars in the hole,” said Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., in a written statement. “Unfortunately for the American taxpayers, I am deeply concerned that other DOE programs could follow which goes to the heart of the President's flawed economic program.”

For those inside the renewable energy industry, Sunday’s news was met with the realization that this would deepen the problems for the Obama Administration. But it also came with concern that the highly political nature of the program wouldn’t allow for any distinction between the Solyndra and the Beacon Power bankruptcies.

“Bankruptcies are always very company-specific,” said Robert Lahey, a legislative analyst with Ardour Capital. “They’re all very different. If [Beacon Power’s bankruptcy] had happened by itself, it wouldn’t be nearly as big a news.”

According to Lahey, Beacon Power, unlike Solyndra, has valuable assets to help pay off its loan. At $43 million, the loan itself, is far less than one-tenth of the size of the guarantee to Solyndra. Beacon Power also has technology that is worth much more on the market. Solyndra’s bankruptcy was complicated in that it had a facility and manufacturing equipment designed solely to produce an uncompetitive solar panel. For Beacon Power, the loan went to build a plant with technology that is currently in operation and generating revenue.

But these two loans were alike in that they went to higher risk operations geared more toward research and development. The Department of Energy’s loan program faced early criticism that it was selecting projects that had an interesting technology, but a risky financial future. Toward the end of the program, which expired on Sept. 30, loan guarantees were closed almost exclusively on power generating facilities backed by power purchase agreements. Most in the industry have felt that these types of projects were far less risky from the start.

For Beacon Power, the problems did not stem from the DOE loan, said Ardour Capital Director of Research Walter Nasdeo. The problem was that it could not find the financing to build any subsequent plants. The biggest questions may revolve around the future of the flywheel technology, and what steps are needed to move it forward.

"The question now is, 'Is this technology enough to build a high-potential company around? Or is it better suited to be a product line for a larger company?'" asked Nasdeo.

Sunday’s news came as new developments emerged surrounding the loan program and the Solyndra investigation. There is growing indication that the House energy subcommittee, led by Stearns, will subpoena internal White House communications regarding the Solyndra bankruptcy. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has ordered an independent review of all loans made to energy companies by the Department of Energy.

58 Comments

Register To Comment
Politi Jim
Politi Jim
November 9, 2011
BEST data reanalyzed showing COOLING over last decade. Same as WSJ article challenge, now independently verified. http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/08/surprise-over-the-last-decade-the-us-cooled/
greg chick
greg chick
November 7, 2011
Aw shucks Jaja, I was wanting to hit on you, oh well Im not that pretty either so that saved alot of text.
Just the facts mam, I teach "Climate Care" and actually the largest GHG is Water Vapor ! 95% to be close. but for conversation we for go the inclusion of water.
greg chick
greg chick
November 7, 2011
Global Warming is not my issue at all, I really mean that. I am driven by the best Management Practice. Oil is past tense. if Global Warming is your issue go to Wikipedia, (Global Warming Debate). I really do not subscribe to any Political Ideal, I think all "Camps" are just that, lost in polarity. Issues are USA not sending a lions share of our wealth (as if we had any left), to another Country, when all the Power we need is here in our face and under our feet. Americans as most people in the World are being led around by a few who are not interested in our welfare at all. We are weak, and lazy in our dealings with our responsibilities . We need leadership real bad, or we are going to be lead by those who will in slave us even more.
Greg Chick
greg chick
greg chick
November 7, 2011
Farmers, are subsidized big time, so is Medical Industry. Yes the ideal is as you say, no subsidies. Ideally a total scrapping of the insane Tax system. "Taxes" need be paid, collected and used to protect the public from themselves, and greedy interests that pray on weaker people. Water is totally dependent on a system that is overseen by people who know the best safe reality. Water has brought down Civilizations in past, and we are only more prone now than then due to population densities. We the People elect Politicians that tll us what we want to hear, not what we need. Children are not equipped to choose parents.
We need a test at top of ballot on the ballot issues/People. if test is passed the vote counts, if not, vote is worthless as it is w/o knowledge of the matter at hand.
Greg Chick, no party affiliation, issue specific person. Task driven, self Employed 35 plus yrs. Land owner (paid off), (No I did not re-fi). Married no kids. Self made, no hand outs, Blind in one eye, deaf one ear and not on a med plan.
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
November 7, 2011
Politijim: "If you propose solar project funding, you must then ask, why not medical device manufacturers? Why not farmers? Why not subsidies for bicycle manufacturers? I am in total agreement that the ideal is NO subsidies for any private business including Oil."

I really like your conclusion -- no subsidies for anyone is the ideal.

The reason I often find myself arguing (in the past fifteen or so years, in any case) more for the alternative left rather than the right (though not always) is that I find the right usually ignores a lot of the 'military-industrial-complex' and 'corporate' welfare than I can honestly ascribe to innocent mistakes.

But I am very pleased that we both feel the same about what would constitute an ideal government!

For myself, I would be probably just as euphoric if Ron Paul (or the Libertarian Party candidate) got elected to the presidency as a Denise Kucunich or Ralph Nader-type of candidate. In fact, it would be good to have a good balance even in such fortuitous circumstances so that neither the left nor right would gain too much of the 'upper hand' over the other . . . I love both.
John Bronson
John Bronson
November 7, 2011
@gregchick

Here are some facts: Upwards of 95% of the Earth's CO2 is produced naturally. CO2 only makes up .003 parts of the atmosphere. Ice core measurements show that global temperature increases have PRECEDED CO2 levels by several hundred years on average. Cause/effect relationships do not begin with the effect.

For an alternate theory on climate change, watch this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRyE9_5Z4dk
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
November 7, 2011
Hey Gregchick. Sorry - but my screen name is a joke -- I'm a guy, and probably not very pretty. I also pronounce it with a hard "g." Like most screen names, I make mine up to be funny, and they usually come from the first thing I'm thinking of -- and are off the top of my head. :)

You're right though - global warming needs objectivity and not entertainment (though obviously everything can stand some entertaining elements on occasion to spice things up).
greg chick
greg chick
November 7, 2011
Hey Jaja, are you also pretty like the famous Jaja? If so I am even more pleased with what you wrote. I my self am more like Sargent Friday, just the facts mamm is my line and that is just what this Global Warming debate needs. Opposition to the issue are people who watch Fox news and let others tell them what to think. I say this because the media is entertainment not science.
Greg Chick AKA Sgt. Fri.
OXOXOXOXOOXOOXOXOX
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
November 7, 2011
A few excerpts about Richard Muller's recent about-face after further studying the global warming debate, all from yahoo news/Associated Press:

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.

On Monday, Muller was taking his results — four separate papers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says — to a conference in Santa Fe, N.M., expected to include many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists.

"After lots of work he found exactly what was already known and accepted in the climate community," said Jerry North, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor who headed a National Academy of Sciences climate science review in 2006. "I am hoping their study will have a positive impact. But some folks will never change."

Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist who is chief author of an upcoming intergovernmental climate change report, said Muller's study "may help the world's citizens focus less on whether climate change is real and more on smart options for addressing it."
greg chick
greg chick
November 7, 2011
Look at Wikipedia, Global Warming Debate. The debate there will save you keystrokes. Go ahead, it is really long and very balanced both sides, all with references.
Greg Chick, AKA Sgt. Fri.
E.Patrick Mosman
E.Patrick Mosman
November 7, 2011
Mr Fisher,
"One of the pivotal studies in the global warming debate has been called out as a fraud… by one of the top members of the team that prepared it. The study purported to show definitive proof that the Earth has been warming since 1950, but in truth the data shows the exact opposite – global temperatures have been almost perfectly flat. No warming, no cooling, no "climate change" at all."
Check it out at:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47334
John Bronson
John Bronson
November 7, 2011
@dave-fisher

The problem is that those graphs are all made up. Raw data is being "adjusted" to match the GCMs. Same with sea level data. Read the climategate emails - it's all a huge fraud.

RE is modular, scaleable, non-polluting, and can be cost competitive. There's no need to be aligned with the global warming fraud, or political campaign financing kickback schemes.
Politi Jim
Politi Jim
November 6, 2011
Those of you that think funding the military is on par with making tax payers fund private solar businesses astound me. I would be embarrassed to make such an ignorant statement.

It's like saying Fossil Fuels are the greenist of all energies since they are made from plants. ...oh. wait.
Politi Jim
Politi Jim
November 6, 2011
To Anonymous - I can't make that leap. Heinz Ketchup (or is it catsup) runs a hundred million dollar enterprise with just 12 employees. Everything else is outsourced. But no one would deny they A) create jobs for themselves and their subcontractors, B) create wealth or C) are a fraud. Many out here may think I'm anti-green. I hope my writings show instead I'm pro-truth. If Beacon were to create a billion dollar company with 65 employees and an INVESTMENT (not subsidy) of $49 Million, I actually would say they were very very good business architects. Now their product, the market and approach DO have issues. But that particular argument doesn't hold water with me.
ANONYMOUS
November 6, 2011
I personally think there is some man-made global warming. However, I think it has become a political issue with an anti-industry theme and a wealth redistribution scheme.

Consider the size of the polar caps and ocean levels. During the last ice age the part of NY I live in was under a glacier. When you consider that the area of a circle goes up with the square of the radius, the oceans must have risen tremendously since then and the earth survived. Going way back I (hundreds of millions of years) I understand that C02 concentration was far higher than it is today.

Also, I believe that when you burn a fossil fuel, you return CO2 back to the atmosphere that it was taken from. My lawn grows year after year and I don't add soil. Plants get their carbon from C02 from the air. As I understand the food chain, animals get their carbon by eating plants directly, or by eating animals that eat plants. When we eat hamburger, we get our carbon from the cow, which got it from the corn or grass it ate, which got its carbon from the air.

If fossil fuels are the remains of ancient plants and animals, does anyone dispute that burning fossil fuels is returning carbon back to the atmosphere from which it was taken?

Again, I expect their is some man made global warming. However, I doubt it is a large danger. Would we be better off if we reversed all the global warming that occurred since the last ice age when at least parts of the US was a glacier? Would the resulting drop in ocean levels needed to create those glaciers have impacts on the ocean? What is the growing season on a glacier?

My opinion is that much of the scare of global warming is from 'what if' worst case scenarios.
ANONYMOUS
November 6, 2011
According to Beacon Power own website they had only 65 employees.
And they got $43 million in government money. I got one word for this. It's called fraud!
Thomas M
Thomas M
November 4, 2011
40,41...sit down and watch the animated movie 'Ants' with your kids or grandkids. It shows how the sheep transforms. 'It's only one litte ant'.....
greg chick
greg chick
November 3, 2011
Hey Dave # 39,
There is already a fee built into Electric bills to fund Solar projects etc. that is where most of the money comes from now. Even if US stopped subsidizing Oil, the Military/Gov would still be the bigest customer!.
E.Patrick Mosman
E.Patrick Mosman
November 3, 2011
"Republican-led House Energy Committee has new ammunition as it continues to set its sights on the Obama Administration's green jobs initiatives." Investigating the DOE or any government agency for using taxpayer or worse borrowed money to place reckless bets on unproven, uneconomic,untried companies many of which are run by "Friends/Donors of Obama" is not a republican thing. It is the only responsible thing to do to protect the taxpayers. The DOE must be staffed with acolytes of Bernie Madoff and John Corzine.
William Fitch
William Fitch
November 3, 2011
Hi:

#40, I think your remark says more about the attitude of the 1% and people like you, than you intended it to.
And you are right, sheep will always be sheep right up until they are not... Psychologically, people who "flip' to the other side are worse and more deadly then people who were that way from the beginning. That is the main reason why the dominator's always underestimate those that they are oppressing and why reciprocity when it comes is so brutal.

.....Bill
ANONYMOUS
November 3, 2011
william-fitch wrote:

"It is time for the sheep to morph into wolves and let the abusers feel the bounce back from their own actions."

LOL, the OWS sideshow really has you lefties in fantasy mode. Sheep will always be sheep.
greg chick
greg chick
November 2, 2011
Yes end all subsidies and let the American way prevail. Stop anyone from buying Congress. That is what is going on now, look at the Oil subsidies that dwarf renewables, and for what? if Oil is so needed and real, lets see if Oil can exist w/o my tax money.
Greg Chick,
Politi Jim
Politi Jim
November 2, 2011
No - not happy with ANY subsidies (you obviously didn't read the article). But here is ANOTHER Senate prospect who i agree with. END ALL SUBSIDIES!! http://biggovernment.com/jradtke/2011/11/02/call-the-liberals-bluff-oil-subsidies-should-go/
Jessica Barry
Jessica Barry
November 2, 2011
Ahhh, so you are ok with dirty subsidies.....I see how it is.
Politi Jim
Politi Jim
November 2, 2011
jessica-barry-: "Fifty billion goes to fossil fuels and we are shining the spotlight on $42 million?"

Actually it would be helpful for you to deal in FACT. $42 Million is only Beacon. Plus $535 Million for Solyndra. In fact renewables account for 40% of all subsidies.

According to DOE - $7 Billion goes to Nuke and Fossil. $14.5 Billion goes to SolarWindBio. THE ENTIRE SUBSIDY BY THE US IS ONLY $37 BILLION>

(see how foolish you look when you throw around numbers without actually backing it up?)

This is why you will loose ALL funding because you are disingenuous with the facts.

The $50 Billion number came from estimates of LOCAL AND STATE TAX BREAKS - (not actually tax dollars put at risk or spent). As I mention in my article here - http://bit.ly/ncqzwi The notion we have to subsidize this at all is inane.

Solar is mature enough to survive on it's own. Not by robbing poor Mr. and Mrs. Jones of Murfreesboro when they can't eat.

But I have to admit - you pro-ignorance...I mean Global Warming and pro-subsidy people sure are enthusiastic about spending other people's money!
Jessica Barry
Jessica Barry
November 2, 2011
Fifty billion goes to fossil fuels and we are shining the spotlight on $42 million? There is no free market. If we are worried about subsidies, there are bigger fish to fry. http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/187919-dems-press-supercommittee-to-go-after-oil-subsidies
William Fitch
William Fitch
November 2, 2011
Hi:

"If Global Warming were real - it would justify funding alternative technologies to stop "fossil fuel" hydrocarbons. But the problem is ...it's not real."

MY GOD!! Did you just go down in flames!! The data is overwhelming!! There are only two types of people left on the planet that believe that:
1. Complete and total idiots.
2. People/corporations that have a vested interest in FF or
nuclear like DrAC (Thorium, etc)

I can not believe you would even say that on a site that was at all serious about energy information.

Go home already....

.....Bill
Politi Jim
Politi Jim
November 2, 2011
I apologize for the length of my comments but did want to add one last note about the ENVIRONMENT. Ultimately solar is NOT an answer if it can not produce energy at or near the cost of conventional energy. I am IN the "clean" and "green" business. I have a bias here - but I hope my bias is toward truth.

If Global Warming were real - it would justify funding alternative technologies to stop "fossil fuel" hydrocarbons. But the problem is ...it's not real. The UN made a pronouncement in 1989 that we had 10 years to address global warming or "it would be beyond human control." (http://bit.ly/rKwuva and http://bit.ly/tIrruH).

Even recently, BEST distorted LAND ONLY temperatures to again declare Global Warming was beyond debate. The problem was - the went to great lengths to EXCLUDE oceanic data directly controverting this theory. Here: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41906

"FAKE" models are unsustainable whether it is a poor business plan or the intent to rob wealth creating entities to subsidize others. Social Security seemed wonderful when it took 142 people to support one senior. Now an even larger "per senior" cost is born by only 3 people and it is headed toward 1.5 to 1. Anyone with a deadbeat relative instinctively knows this is unsustainable. (I am not advocating for or against Social Security - just showing how a model with good intent is unsustainable if built on faulty logic and economic laws).

THIS is what is happening with Greece and why Spain, Italy, Germany and Ireland have all dramatically changed their solar subsidy programs... It is unsustainable.
Politi Jim
Politi Jim
November 2, 2011
Thank you for your comments - jajagabor

I am not ignoring the oil/nuke subsidies. I disagree with them. But the argument that "I should have a pony because Billy has one" doesn't seem to hold up to any critical test of logic. Yes - all government spending comes from you and I and every person ...well 53% of the people who earn a living.

As I mentioned DEFENSE spending is constitutional. subsidizing a PRIVATE enterprise is not. (I am not arguing that the government has done a good job of allocating those dollars to defense by the way - I'm appalled at the waste at the Pentagon and other places).

You may disagree with a specific war (or all wars) but whether it was Bush in Iraq or Obama/Clinton in Libya it is part of the "National Defense"

If you propose solar project funding, you must then ask, why not medical device manufacturers? Why not farmers? Why not subsidies for bicycle manufacturers? I am in total agreement that the ideal is NO subsidies for any private business including Oil. A city council will never be good enough to run the local donut shop even if they want to legislate the price, ingredients and color of the outside. But the person who has trained, failed and lived in that business - will always know best since their financial (and emotional) success and failure are at stake. This was the lesson of Jamestown with the pilgrims who were dying in a socialist society until they allowed each settler to own and farm their own land.

Margaret Thatcher was right. Socialism is a great thing until you run out of other people's money. I am assuming the comment above about GREECE was a joke. Greece can't afford to take from the wealth creators and give it out. That's NOT capitalism.

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Rich Barbarics
Rich Barbarics
November 2, 2011
Beacon has/had some good products in the battery backup business. But like most RE companies, poor if any, marketing strategy. Too much emphasis on winning the lottery.
heb intn
heb intn
November 2, 2011
It'd be wonderful if the media would publish success stories. To counteract the mess we're making of our environment and our climate we must support new technology that will eventually replace fossil fuels. There will be failures, but if we are to survive there will be successes and that is what we need to focus on... not the failures. This is all just a GOPher attempt to discredit the Obama administration.
William Fitch
William Fitch
November 2, 2011
Hi:

Richard Wolfe's, "Capitalism Hits The Fan" is an excellent read and documentary on how we got to where we are today from a financial abuse perspective. I will tell you, I never really understood, accurately, what a "credit default swap" was until yesterday and its true significance in the whole picture.
Total free market capitalism in its practiced form, is nothing more than a ticket for the wealthy and powerful to rape everyone on the planet. Period.
It is time for the sheep to morph into wolves and let the abusers feel the bounce back from their own actions.

.....Bill
Willem Ferguson
Willem Ferguson
November 2, 2011
Maybe Greece is experiencing the firestorm BECAUSE of the dominance of free-market capitalism there?????
ANONYMOUS
November 2, 2011
I have used the above comment as a template for a different point of view. I do this to make a point:

The comment ABOVE indicate how many Americans play the figurative violin while the FISCALLY and EMPLOYMENT dependent Athens is burning. Perhaps ENVIRONMENTALISM has such a strong hold that they do not even see the firestorm coming. ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT sustainability is a nuisance to such persons, not a mandatory requirement.

Consider the firestorm in modern day Greece is experiencing. Are they spending enough to promote renewable energy? Should they be reducing spending? How about our own ecocomic / employment fires?

I see a lot of reasoned arguments on this site from many points of view. I think we need to get the emotion out of the arguments and focus on facts.

By the way, I was making a point above. I do feel we must be environmentally responsible. However, we may not be putting the right weight on the right things, and may not be using appropriate methods in some cases.
Willem Ferguson
Willem Ferguson
November 2, 2011
The comments on this page indicate how many Americans play the figurative violin while the energy and sustainability-dependent Athens is burning. Free-market capitalism has such a strong hold that they do not even see the firestorm coming. Environmental sustainability is a nuisance to such persons, not a mandatory requirement.
ANONYMOUS
November 2, 2011
Someone brought up the issue of the constitutionality of the Federal spending on green energy projects. Can anyone explain how such spending is allowed by the constitution?

As I starting point, I will explain why I feel green energy development spending may notbe. The tenth amendment strips all power from Federal Government which the constitution does delegate it elsewhere as follows:


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Federalist papers were published by the framers of the constitution before it was ratified to explain its meaning. I believe James Madison in Federalist 41 explains why "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;". does not in itself authorize such energy spending.
From: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

"Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. ..."
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
November 1, 2011
Politijim, you said,

"Let's start remembering this is OTHER PEOPLES MONEY you want to spend."

That (duh) is true of all gov't spending.

Subsidies are not just the obvious ones. If a war is waged, such as Vietnam or the Iraqi War, then obviously the government must spend money -- and when they buy "defense" weapons they purchase them from contractors. If the war is a valid one (really for defense) then at least the rationale is valid - but even then the method of military procurement and cost overruns etc. remain issues in this mix . . . and those two problems still persist.

Insofar as the number of families that paid for Solyndra and Beacon, how many paid for the B1 Bomber and all the other war instruments (these things aren't cheap!).

Taxpayer subsidies though, (going to the civilian side) are not just the obvious ones. The auto industry benefited immensely by the Federal and State constructions of highways. If the Feds and the States had built bicycle paths instead, well, obviously one of the chief benefactors would have been bicycle manufacturers, not auto manufacturers or the oil companies.

Of course this all has to do with the public and their lack of both foresight and insight.

When slavery first existed, the states and the feds supported it. Slavery was thus a subsidy to anyone who owned a plantation, and to lesser extent, even to anyone who was white (as they - even if poor - were likely to get some wages, rights etc.).

In regard to energy, the Feds and the States have granted enormous and persistent subsidies to nuclear, oil, coal, and hydro and continue to do so. How you (and so many others) can ignore this is beyond my capability to understand! It makes me laugh, but it also makes me depressed sometimes.
greg chick
greg chick
November 1, 2011
Bill,

I think you have an interesting perspective, thanks for your input. I think before anyone jumps on any "News Media" band wagon they ought to study clear easy to see public info. on the whole picture. Why do people just se what concludes what they are told is "Reality", yea sure, pigs on both sides, so what. The actual task its self shouldn't pay for the too many greedy people on all sides. Let me remind you, we are all in this together and status quo is not sustainable. US needs to stop sending the largest revenue it has to the other countries who will be our enemy as soon as they can afford to be.
William Fitch
William Fitch
November 1, 2011
Hi:

LOL... That's funny, I thought gov contracts and the associated perks went to PI...
I guess Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and hundreds of others are just extensions of our gov... oh but wait, I guess when they are given all that money and the project goes belly up and they don't have to pay it back, that's not a loan....
Or now that the gov owns 80% of AIG, that's not a loan, or bailing out OWS,... OWS my bad, that's right they are the victims not the recipients.....LOL.. INSANE!! cut me a break...

.....Bill
Politi Jim
Politi Jim
November 1, 2011
It is true that the politisphere will not differentiate between Soyndra and Beacon - or (sadly) solar viability in general.

But I'm shocked at the poor level of reporting here. The issue was as much the investors ties to the Obama administration as it was the loan failure - and that is not mentioned even once.

And for the INSANE arguments in comparing the B1 bomber to PRIVATE INDUSTRY investment may I point out two things:
1. The Constitution does NOT give the government right to fund private businesses. National Defense is. Some might argue that energy independence IS a national security issue which is a fair argument. It does NOT however explain why we are taking the most expensive route to do so as I explain in my article which takes RUSH LIMBAUGH to task - http://www.politijim.com/2011/10/why-rush-and-obama-are-both-wrong-on.html

2. Assuming the government is on the hook for all $43 Million (which it might not be) - over 5,000 families Federal Taxes for the entire year were just used up for this private business. With Solyndra it would be over 62,000 families. And that doesn't include the interest to the Chinese from borrowing it against the social security fund of seniors.

Let's start remembering this is OTHER PEOPLES MONEY you want to spend.
ANONYMOUS
November 1, 2011
Wonder how long it will be before First Solar is added to the list?
Felix Hoenikker
Felix Hoenikker
November 1, 2011
@JimRR, thanks buddy =)

@cjoy, I like where your heads at!low cost!

http://opensourcecleantech.blogspot.com/
Thomas M
Thomas M
November 1, 2011
Yup, blue gold, fresh water is our most needed natural resource, without it, everything dies, except salt water beings. The Bush family has already started putting their money into fresh water supplies overseas. People need to educated themselve not only in power independance but in ways of water purification and desalinization if they want to survive.
Charlie Joy
Charlie Joy
November 1, 2011
Pretty sad news. Flywheel energy storage seems too complex and expensive. I think we should focus more on pumped water energy storage.
Jessica Barry
Jessica Barry
November 1, 2011
Why don't fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies get scrutinized to no end?
Jim Rogers
Jim Rogers
November 1, 2011
Felix, that is not 'sooo sad, LOL' and obviously 'billytoe' has a high school mentality. We need to spread the truth anyway we can.

Wouldn't bringing to light Germany's successes with implementing renewable energy fizzle out the attempts our fossil republic has at shutting it down?
William Fitch
William Fitch
November 1, 2011
Hi:

I would not get to caught up in the Blue Red "thing". The wealthy and powerful have their man already in the White House. The side show and ridiculous offerings painted red are just to make you think the incumbent is the "other side" and that there is still a choice. You must always present the illusion of choice, because when the masses figure out there is no longer one, the big "R" will happen real quick.
There is a great doc out there called "Blue Gold". It is about all the global plays going on right now for fresh water sources. Oil is already dead from a long term perspective. Fresh water is where all the multi-nationals are positioning themselves. Water, food and energy and the military assets to protect and control them. This is how the next 2 billion people will be controlled, who will live and who will die. Be clear, this is NOT a conspiracy!! It is just business, the business of survival, power and quality of life for the wealthy as it has ALWAYS been.

.....Bill
Gene Bertsche
Gene Bertsche
November 1, 2011
As William Fitch notes above, the Republicrats will make a big deal of this while completely ignoring the huge amount of wasted money on their pet programs, namely "so called defense spending". And indeed, it's not just Republicrats caught up in that nightmare. Democreeps share in it too.

As for investing in renewables; someone has to do it. If left up to the Grand Ostrich Party, they'd bury their heads in the sand on this issue. Most of these wackos seem to think that Conservatism is a fancy way of saying "no".
Thomas M
Thomas M
October 31, 2011
Just another ploy to put down alternative energies and keep us dependant on fossil fuels til they run out and the big guys run out with our money....
John Bronson
John Bronson
October 31, 2011
The government (SBA included), is only funding dogs that can't get commercial financing. Why should anyone be surprised when they fail? The question should be - why is no one questioning this absurd policy in the first place?
Felix Hoenikker
Felix Hoenikker
October 31, 2011
@billtoe,why "sooo sad!"?
William Fitch
William Fitch
October 31, 2011
Hi:

I love it.. Three solar DOE invested companies fail and there is suppose to be hell to pay for an entire industry.
Lets see, what is the ROI on a B2 Bomber?
How many billions and billions and billions of tax payer money is lost on failed military projects/endeavors??
Oh yes I forgot, the power of terror and the terror of power as a renowned writer puts it....

.....Bill
William Brown
William Brown
October 31, 2011
@Felix Comment #2.. Dude, You posted the EXACT same comment at GreenTech Media (i.e. Cut/Paste). That is sooo sad! LOL.
Brian Julin
Brian Julin
October 31, 2011
Ah, I see pentadyne is now powerthru c/o PSI. I guess we'll get to see eventually whether PSI's intentions are to stifle the tech or actually apply it. Also we'll see if they show up as a bidder for Beacon's assets.
Felix Hoenikker
Felix Hoenikker
October 31, 2011
Actually Pentadyne's technology worked a lot better than Beacon's but focused on the wrong market. Clearly its not frequency regulation, the market Pentadyne left before Beacon. Beacon was approached about acquiring Pentadyne but nothing came of it. And now they are both dead in the water. fail
Brian Julin
Brian Julin
October 31, 2011
Different product, different primary market. Pentadyne is primarily focused on smaller non-arrayed units targeting backup power. Beacon has as much invested in the ISO frequency regulation tie-in (both the administrative and technical aspects) as it does in the flywheel tech itself, and isn't invested in backup power tie-ins to a great extent.

Speaking of which, Beacon would be a good pickup opportunity for Pentadyne.
Felix Hoenikker
Felix Hoenikker
October 31, 2011
Hahahahaha This is another DOE FAIL!!!! For the love of god did they even check the competition? Heard of Pentadyne? Again knownothing cleantech VCs and DOErs (get it?). This is to the point of recklessness.
http://opensourcecleantech.blogspot.com/
Brian Julin
Brian Julin
October 31, 2011
Really a sad thing to hear, in that they finally managed to get a real non-pilot revenue generator up and running. Hopefully the assets will end up in capable hands, and not some fossil company who would just buy it with the intent of mothballing it.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Steve Leone

Steve Leone

Steve Leone has been a journalist for more than 15 years and has worked for news organizations in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia and California.
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 55
    Energy Expert Predicts Solar Could Upend Major Utility in California on Price
  • 27
    Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 12
    Massachusetts Solar: Healthy Mix of Business Sense, Environmental Awareness and Public Engagement

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • American Solar Energy Society
  • Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
  • Karbone
  • Able Energy Co.
  • Arena Solutions
  • ASME - American Society of Mechanical Engineers
  • Brightergy
  • SMA America, LLC
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
  • News
  • Conference & Expo
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information