The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Saturday, May 25, 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
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured 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
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Putting the A123 Bankruptcy in Context

John Rogers, Senior Energy Analyst, Clean Energy
October 19, 2012  |  17 Comments

You've probably already heard the news this week about a clean energy company that received a government grant filing for bankruptcy. What you may not have heard quite so clearly is that clean tech is working, for the United States and our transformation to a better, stronger, cleaner energy future.

Yesterday’s announcement from A123 Systems needs to be viewed in the context of federal government support for clean tech to jump-start this sector, and the performance of the industry as a whole.

Many More Winners Than Losers

An important context is one of the main points of the government programs in question: making investments to drive innovation and progress in important areas for the United States. Congress expected to see winners and losers when it passed the relevant legislation in 2009, and the program as a whole has seen far more winners than losers so far. As the Washington Post’s Brad Plumer says, for example:

To date, 30 battery and electric drive firms have received stimulus funding. A full list is here. Two of them, A123 Systems and EnerDel, have filed for bankruptcy so far. (They haven’t disappeared, however: EnerDel continues to operate and A123′s stimulus-funded facilities will remain open under the deal with Johnson Controls.)

Those two companies represent 18% of the vehicle battery grants, which means that 82% of that portfolio is still “performing”.

Plumer also offers as context another stimulus-funded program that’s gotten a lot of attention but has an even more impressive performance to date:

In a similar vein, of the 26 clean-energy projects that have received federal loan guarantees under a separate 1705 program, just three have filed for bankruptcy, including Solyndra, Abound, and Beacon Power. (Though Beacon is still operating and has largely paid back its federally backed loans.)

Even the full amount at risk from those three companies adds up to 6% of the portfolio, meaning that the performing piece of the investments is 94% of the whole.

The Broader Context

Another context in which to consider these developments is what’s happening to renewables in general. In short, as UCS’s president Kevin Knobloch has pointed out, throughout the economic downturn, renewables “have delivered”:

In response to targeted but limited investment (e.g. wind and solar production tax credits and stimulus spending) and policy tools (e.g. renewable electricity standards, now in place in 29 states), the nascent wind and solar industries have delivered. Over the last five years, the wind industry more than tripled its electricity output and solar PV more than quadrupled its output.  

This summer, our collective investments in wind power brought U.S. installed capacity to more than 50,000 megawatts, enough to power almost 13 million homes — “as many as in Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Virginia, Alabama, and Connecticut combined”, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

The story is similar elsewhere in the world: renewable energy has been going great guns globally, despite worldwide economic challenges.

Investments in clean energy and clean tech can bring with them jobs and other economic benefits. They also are key to moving us away from dependence on fossil fuels—oil, coal, and natural gas — and the climate change troubles they bring with them.

Beyond the Political

Despite assertions to the contrary, support for clean tech in the U.S. has been and continues to be bipartisan, as Plumer and a UCS colleague point out. The same has been true for A123, as the U.S. Department of Energy reports:

A123’s promising technology has a long history of bipartisan support. In 2007, the company received a $6 million dollar grant as part of the Bush Administration’s efforts to promote advanced battery manufacturing, and the company has used $132 million of a 2009 grant from the Department of Energy.

Some will want to politicize a few failed companies, but don’t be fooled. Investments in the clean tech — private and public — are what we need to get to a responsible, viable, thriving energy future, one that strengthens our economy, enhances our security, and addresses the huge challenge of climate change.

Our greatest investment risk comes from not investing boldly enough.

John Rogers is a senior energy analyst with expertise in renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies and policies. He co-manages the Energy and Water in a Warming World Initiative (EW3) at UCS that looks at water demands of energy production in the context of climate change. He holds a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Michigan and a bachelor's degree from Princeton University.

Lead image: What does it mean via Shutterstock

17 Comments

Register To Comment
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
October 25, 2012
If you're looking for facts, you have to avoid advocacy groups and websites. I use IRS tax records and DoE/EIA data and Congressional Research Service Reports to Congress as the most unimpeachable sources. There are lots of externalities that don't get priced into things, and those who want to manipulate the facts can charge them all to whatever account they want. The environmental costs of an iPhone are staggering when one considers the toxic materials that have to be mined and the pollutants released in all the manufacturing processes and the long-term waste disposal issues and the impacts on human health of all the workers in the value chain including the Foxconn workers who assembled it in China. Same for solar panels and wind turbines, and especially battery manufactures with all the toxins involved. An honest assessment would charge the external costs of oil to the consumers of that oil energy, and solar panels and wind turbines and batteries and environmental columnists with their iPads would all bear their share of the "guilt." I won't cite Clean Coal Council and you don't cite Environmental Law Institute, deal?
david rasmussen
david rasmussen
October 24, 2012
@Cliff,
A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[5] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies over the 2002–2008 period. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil-fuel based sources amounted to approximately $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion.
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)
This is well over $2.8B/year... well over $10B/year.
The excise taxes you are using as offsetting income to the govt is paid (as you say) by the consumer at the pump. Thus not related to the subsidies paid to the oil industries. Last year the oil industries made over $135B PROFIT above that they paid less than 10% corporate taxes. Big Oil is not subsidizing the govt with money. The consumer is subsidizing the govt with taxes paid at the pump. This money was supposed to be used to maintain the highway system, but has been re-allocated to general fund use. The oil companies give the consumers nothing (put their product at high profit) and give the govt little for the resources they take from public (and private) lands at VERY LOW lease rates (relative to their value).
The problem with just closing all tax breaks to everyone is that is stifles new technology that cannot compete at development stages. The govt makes investments in the future by subsidizing new tech. Much new tech fails, but that does not mean the investment was not worth it. It shows what can work and what cannot. This is similar to the military weapons and technology programs that cost BILLIONS for the first several units and then IF the technology works they full production costs get reduced and technology gets passed on to other industries (such as IR cameras on weapons systems that are now common to firefighters and even home energy inspectors).
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
October 24, 2012
@David-R:
-2009 oil company corporate taxes paid to the federal government: $13.7B
-2009 excise taxes on gasoline and diesel collected by federal government from consumers at the gas pump $42.4B
-2010 total federal direct and indirect assistance to oil companies from all government agencies: $2.8B
The federal government's position on oil and gas is net annual revenue of almost $9 per barrel of domestically produced oil. That's a pretty good return on investment for their $2.8B outlay. Big Oil is subsidizing the government with money, our economy with tens of thousands of jobs, and our economy with 81% of its energy.
-2010 total subsidies and tax breaks to alternative fuels: $14.7B of which $7.7B went to biofuels. These subsidizes work out to
-Geothermal : $7.52 per barrel of oil equivalent energy (BOE)
-Biofuels: $10.46 per BOE
-Wind energy: $31.33 per BOE
-Solar: $59.60 per BOE
Bottom line: big oil (and informed America) would love for all subsidies to end and for the playing field to be leveled. Oil subsidies and tailored tax breaks for all major industries are part of a legacy of tax law loopholes crafted by politicians. Close them all for everybody including alternative energy.(sources: 1. The Federal Excise Tax on Gasoline and the Highway Trust Fund: A Short History. Congressional Research Service, March 9, 2012. 2. Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010. Energy Information Agency, July 2011. http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/. 3. EIA Financial Reporting System Survey - Form EIA-28 Schedule 5112 - Analysis of Income Taxes. Energy Information Agency, 2009. ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/energy.overview/frs/s5112.xls.)
ANONYMOUS
October 24, 2012
i am so sick of cliff-claven and his half baked distortions. can someone put him out of his wah wah wah cry baby misery? Seriously, has anyone encountered anyone lamer on any website?
david rasmussen
david rasmussen
October 24, 2012
The biggest issue and reason for the large amount of solar industry failures over the last year has been the competitive "race to the bottom" pricing of commoditized PV panels. Sales has been tremendous with most companies growth of 2x to 3x in total sales. However this has come at the expense of profits. Some of this competition came from China "dumping" PV panels at below cost to capture market share and intentionally drive compeitors out of business.
Current PV electricity production cost is comparable to nuclear which was federally subsidized for decades. With just a few more years of subsidies the current market will succeed and no longer need subsidies (unlike the continuing fossil fuel subsidies that have been in place for many decades).
The current level of integrating new electricity sources into the grid has also brought challenges to the utilities and it is going to take time for everyone involved in this industry to understand the limitations and REAL cost for PV and whet the expected returns on investment in R&D will produce.
Kevin Fooce
Kevin Fooce
October 24, 2012
We can talk about Franklin all someone wants. Simple fact read the history books for it if you wish. He did work for the government and created items while employed and learning while traveling for the government he seen many ideas and brought them forth. But as for government research creating stuff, just look at the air and auto industry, the expansion of our utlity infrastructure on the backs of taxpayers, or the robber barrons who built the RR with help from the government again. So yes government has for many years here in the good ole USA helped private business out. We also need to remember all the technology transfers from our institutions of higher learning to the private sector. And be fore I forget what about the military?
david rasmussen
david rasmussen
October 24, 2012
@Cliff... and how has the $10B in oil company subsidies helped the consumer?
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
October 24, 2012
@bob - case in point: Beckman launched a semiconductor startup (Shockley) that imploded. The debris field from that failure is called silicon valley. The immediate fall-out includes Fairchild and then Intel, NatSemi and AMD. But, before Beckman took the belly-flop, it started with a pile of government bread cast on the waters of military research contracts. Perhaps not such a good example since it also gave us the A-bomb and Windows Vista.

When you put a bunch of smart people together to push the envelope, even when you lose, you win.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
October 24, 2012
Can always count on Bob_Wallace to make a personal attack when the facts don't support his argument. Consider that there is a fundamental difference between using energy to make a product or technology, and using energy to create more energy. In the first case, it is a trade of one thing for a different thing, and a market of free individuals can determine the value of the inputs and outputs and set a price for the exchange. Food is often a good trade for energy in most people's books, as well as iPhones and cars and clothes and homes. However, when using energy to create more energy, it's all about return on investment. There is no subjective valuation when the trade is for a like thing. The output energy must yield more value in energy terms of value, than the input energy or else it is a bad trade. 81% of our US primary energy is fossil fuel. Trading those for biofuels is a bad trade. Trading them for solar energy and wind energy is a bad trades. And I'm talking about a bad trade across all the clean and green metrics of lifecycle GHG emissions and polluting emissions and environmental damage and foreign energy dependence and land use change. The only way to compel people to make that bad trade is by lying to them (what most green tech start-up entrepreneurs do to investors), or by paying them (what the federal government does with taxpayer-funded grants and loan guarantees and tax breaks and mandated artificial markets), or by beating them with a stick (which is what the EPA does with fines and lawsuits for non-compliance with blending standards, etc.). The government can pioneer moon travel and microchips, and some people can believe they were worth the trade of public resources while some may not. But no one can agree that transforming large piles of money into small piles of money and large amounts of energy into small amounts of energy is a good trade. Nobody sane, anyway.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
October 24, 2012
Franklin had government contracts and was also a government employee. He fulfilled his obligations honorably in both cases. He didn't take government loans and never defaulted on taxpayers. He performed the service for which he was hired. Where is the handout? Read his autobiography to correct your facts on the patent issue. The British stole his stove and patented it. He shared the details within the colonies without enforcing any rights because it helped economize the use of wood. Tearing down Ben Franklin to save Obama, now I've seen everything.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
October 24, 2012
@cliff - off the mark as usual. 'Ben Franklin was subsidized by the Government?' Well, actually, he started his business on the back of government contracts. Most of his scientific and engineering research was conducted while employed by various governments. His ground-breaking work with the Royal Society would never have happened had the government not paid his travel expenses. As for the Franklin stove, invented in 1741, he could patronize his own patent office or wait until the US patent office opened (after his death) in 1790(the cost of British and French patents being exhorbitant at the time - several times his annual income). However, the patent specification for the Franklin stove is still in print. Franklin understood the value of innovation to the economy and wrote in some detail about ways of monetizing intellectual property. He also managed to steer government funding to a number of businesses and academic institutions - certainly not above using government money to promote new ideas - not all successful investments. In any case, my small point is that America is falling behind in S&E R&D.
Your 'facts' are a bit off too - somehow you assume that all announced funding is used and that none of it is offset by assets or, more importantly, IP. The average lifetime of a tech startup is less than 5 years - so what? Even Henry Ford went bankrupt once and nearly failed a second time. His company went on to receive many helping hands full of government cash along the way an even now 'No company was a bigger beneficiary of the DOE's green car funding initiative than Ford'. Why cry over spilt milk? You should just stop using dairy products!
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 24, 2012
Cliff, I'll bet you aren't an honest enough person to list all the technologies we now enjoy which were assisted to maturity with taxpayer dollars.

Show us you can do something other than cherry-pick the small percentage of failed companies, Cliff.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
October 24, 2012
Ben Franklin was subsidized by the Government? Maybe in your history books, but in mine he created the Franklin stove all by himself and refused to patent it so it could help the most people. He also didn't subscribe to government subsidizes for public projects unless he and his Junto vetted the project and did a cost analysis first, then were able to persuade a critical mass of citizens to agree to the need and to subscribe to the project with voluntary financing from their own pockets first. Look into his lending library, street sweeping, university, and public medical clinic projects for an example of how our government should work. Thomas Paine railed against King George III for doing exactly what King Obama is doing, giving away public property to private friends and making law by executive fiat. As to Obama's investment savvy, I only cited DoE because they are kind enough to post their data and I don't have room for the full $90B swindle. Here's the list of Obama-backed green tech bankruptcies you are begging for: Evergreen Solar ($25M) SpectraWatt ($500K) Solyndra ($535M) Amonix ($5.9M) Beacon Power ($43M) Ener1 ($118.5M) Abound Solar ($400M) A123 Systems ($279M) Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($701K) Raser Technologies ($33M) Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3M) Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2.5M) Olsen's Crop Service and Olsen's Mills ($10M) Range Fuels ($80M) Thompson River Power ($6.5M) Stirling Energy Systems ($7M) Azure Dynamics ($5.4M) Nordic Windpower ($16M) Satcon ($3M) Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20M) Compact Power ($151M) GreenVolts ($500K) UniSolar ($13.3M) Plenty more are on the way. Even Obama's lap dogs in the military can't funnel enough money to the Solazymes and Sustainable Oils and all the cellulosic and pyrolytic and algaeic biofuel start-ups out there that are always five-years away from making a profit.
Michael STAVY
Michael STAVY
October 24, 2012
Another Li battery company in bankruptcy is Austin Texas based Valance Technology (VLNCQ). Do you have information on the status of VLNCQ's current battery production or its status in the bankruptcy procedure? VLNCQ supplies Segway with all its batteries. Unlike all the battery companies listed, VLNCQ was able to go into bankruptcy without any government help. It only relied on its major shareholder, who seems to have gotten tired of continuing to finance the firm. Perhaps he ran out of cash? I do not know. Check VLNCQ out. Is anybody following VLNCQ?
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
October 24, 2012
Let's not get confused with facts. Most of the companies Cliff names aren't even part of the DOE program. Of the recipients, 24% went to a nuclear power project and another 21% went to Ford and Nissan. Hopefully, Cliff will be able to explain the impending failure of these companies. The fact is that R&D is a treacherous game in which a 500 record is a small miracle. The suggestion that R&D spending can somehow have a deterministic outcome is nonsense. Sadly, most prognosticators simply have no idea how hard it is to take a decent bit of science from lab notes into a practical existance. It's not unusual to see a promising product still in development 15 or 20 years after first light. And way too many think R&D is just playing around when it is actually the lifeblood of the economy. Ben Franklin understood the value of Yankee know how - too bad that's history now. Sadly, for the US economy, US business is spending less and less on R&D. Academic research is also struggling to the point where tuition fees pay for more research than corporate donations. Anyone who has studied startups is quite familiar with the 'valley of death' - the place where impatience, skepticism and luck cause a new enterprise to founder. And, it should be easy to appreciate the inherent weakness in any sort of monoculture. My take away from the A123 story is that Johnson Contols, one of the world's foremost battery makers, got a bargain.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
October 24, 2012
@Bob Wallace: Which Obama-backed green start-up has had a single profitable quarter of true commercial operation? Your failure rate is a "failed so far" rate. The success rate of administration-backed green enterprises transitioning to a profitable enterprise that is viable without being artificially propped up is 0%. $34.5B in DoE green energy spending has created 60,000 temp jobs @ $575,000 apiece, displaying the usually government efficiency. Digging deeper, it turns out less than 4,000 are permanent jobs @ more than $8 million apiece. The jobs all go away as soon as the subsidies dry up. Here's a starter list of major green energy bankruptcies: Verasun, Cello, Range Fuels, Solyndra, Choren, Abound Solar, Pacific Ethanol, Cascade Grain, Renew Energy, Bionol, Clean Burn Fuels, Evergreen Solar, Beacon Power, Ener1, Sterling Energy, A123, etc., etc., ad nauseum, with Gevo, Amyris, Solazyme, KiOR, Ineos-Bio and more teetering on the edge. The Department of Energy has already spent more than $600 Million on bio-refineries since 2010 and now has DOD complicit in funding more while hundreds of failed ones are on the market today for bankruptcy fire sales. The U.S. military has purchased 1.3 million gallons of biofuel since 2007 at an average cost of more than $48 a gallon as a way to prop up these politically connected schemes. The US is being killed by a thousand cuts like this inflicted upon us by two Nobel Prize winners (Obama and Chu) who obviously know less than they think they know about business, economics, and energy. (references: 1. Leonnig, Carol D., and Steven Mufson. "Obama Green-tech Program That Backed Solyndra Struggles to Create Jobs." The Washington Post, September 14, 2011, sec. Business. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-green-tech-program-that-backed-solyndra-struggles-to-create-jobs/2011/09/07/gIQA9Zs3SK_story.html.
2. "Loan Programs Office?» Our Projects." Department of Energy, n.d. https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45.)
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 19, 2012
An 18% failure rate? That's terrible winner and loser picking.

We should be letting an experienced businessman like Mitt Romney make these decisions. After all when he was at Bain he had only a 43% failure rate.

Oh, wait.....

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 8
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Texas Legislature Passes Commercial and Industrial PACE Bill
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • marcus evans
  • GreenBrilliance
  • SMA America, LLC
  • AR Power Company, Ltd.
  • Tigo Energy
  • SunHedge
  • Met Office
  • American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
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
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