backtop


Print 68 comment(s) - last by toyotabedzrock.. on Feb 3 at 11:10 AM


  (Source: green.autoblog.com)
Ener1's EnerDel subsidiary, which is wholly owned, won an $118.5 million grant in August 2009 from the U.S. Department of Energy to develop electric batteries

The Obama administration has had some horrible luck when it comes to dealing out energy loans. In 2011 alone, two energy companies filed for bankruptcy after receiving hefty sums from the government. Now, the administration can add a third strike to its list of bad deals.

Ener1 Inc., a company that provides efficient technology for the auto industry, filed for bankruptcy protection yesterday. The company's EnerDel subsidiary, which is wholly owned, won an $118.5 million grant in August 2009 from the U.S. Department of Energy to develop electric batteries for a Volvo electric vehicle and Think models. So far, EnerDel has spent $55 million of the $118.5 million.

"This was a difficult, but necessary, decision for our company," said Alex Sorokin, Ener1 CEO. "We are extremely pleased to have the strong support of our primary investors and lenders to substantially reduce the company's debt. Their support demonstrates that our business partners have an appreciation for our future business opportunities in proving energy storage solutions for electric grid, transportation and industrial applications. We expect the new funding to provide ample liquidity for our subsidiaries to meet their ongoing obligations to employees, customers and suppliers."

Ener1 is looking to jump on a restructuring plan that will provide $81 million to recapitalize the company and reduce its debt. Also, the company's existing common stock will be canceled, long-term debt holders will receive a new term loan, cash and new common stock in exchange for claims, new preferred stock will be given to the provider of the post-petition and exit funding, and Ener1's general creditors will be paid under the restructuring plan.

Vice President Joe Biden toured Ener1, located in Greenfield, Indiana, in January 2011. Biden believed the loan still seemed like a good move at the time, since Obama was pushing to put 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 and needed electric batteries to do so. But in June 2011, its largest customer, Think Global, which filed for bankruptcy, affected Ener1. It has since been a downhill battle for Ener1, which was delisted from NASDAQ in December 2011.

"The Department of Energy's grant to EnerDel is supporting a cutting edge battery manufacturing plant that is producing batteries in America that are being sold across the country and around the world," said Jen Stutsman, spokesperson for the Energy Department. "This grant is part of the department's efforts to commercialize promising vehicle technologies that will help America to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and ensure U.S. companies can compete in the global auto industry. While it's unfortunate that Ener1, the parent company, has entered a restructuring process, the new infusion of $80 million in private capital demonstrates that the technology has merit. As the company has said, the restructuring is not expected to impact EnerDel's operations and they do not expect to reduce employment at the site."

Despite the bankruptcy filing, the Department of Energy said the program is still moving forward and Ener1 will continue to operate normally. Employees are also expected to keep their jobs.

In addition to the $118.5 million grant from government, EnerDel also received $10 million in grants from the Bush administration and another $7.1 million in tax credits from Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) to create the electric batteries.

Electric batteries for EVs have recently fallen under the spotlight due to General Motors' Chevrolet Volt, which had battery fire issues throughout 2011. Four different Volts participated in side-impact crash tests conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and three of them sparked or caught fire. This led to an investigation, which resulted in GM CEO Dan Akerson being called to testify in front of Congress this week. Thousands of Volts were also recalled to receive a steel piece that would better protect the lithium batteries.

Ener1's failure marks the third bad energy loan dealt by the Department of Energy. In September 2011, Silicon Valley-based solar panel company Solyndra filed for bankruptcy after receiving a $535 million loan from the DOE in 2009. Government officials reportedly warned the administration of the viability of Solyndra, saying the company would go bankrupt in a matter of two years. The warnings were put aside in order to meet political deadlines.

Later in November 2011, Beacon Power, a company that creates flywheels to store power and increase grid efficiency by preventing blackouts, filed for bankruptcy after receiving a $43 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy in August 2010.

Sources: Businessweek, The Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Nothing...
By mmatis on 1/27/2012 10:14:48 AM , Rating: 5
to see here, folks! Move along now...

Once again, FedGov at its finest. Taking care of the cronies and homeboys.




RE: Nothing...
By Flunk on 1/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing...
By Kurz on 1/27/2012 11:10:44 AM , Rating: 2
Hard to do anything about it since we opperate under the theory of we live here and we are forced into whatever system is here. There is no voluntary aspect to our government.


RE: Nothing...
By Kurz on 1/27/2012 11:31:42 AM , Rating: 2
The Theory of Social Contract. (Took me a few mins to remember).


RE: Nothing...
By Spuke on 1/27/12, Rating: -1
RE: Nothing...
By Kurz on 1/27/2012 1:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
The majority vote determines the laws, taxes, of all.
A Mob rule is not a free society.

You are not able to voluntary not be part of government in some way or another. You are forced to be part of the Social Security system, you are forced to be part of the Medicad/Medicare system. I cant at anytime say I don't want to be part of the system, and deny supposed benefits it brings.

I have choice in terms Job, School, and lifelong prosperity. But in the end I am working in part for someone else and not myself.


RE: Nothing...
By FITCamaro on 1/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: Nothing...
By Spuke on 1/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: Nothing...
By Kurz on 1/27/2012 4:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm... I did my best to see if you had a logical Argument.
Nothing so if you want to try again please do.


RE: Nothing...
By Spuke on 1/27/2012 6:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hmm... I did my best to see if you had a logical Argument.
I rarely concern myself with fitting "things" into the "right" frame. Take my response anyway you wish.


RE: Nothing...
By Kurz on 1/31/2012 11:40:58 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm I wish you did make your point to at least say what you were getting at. Took me a second read to understand what you were getting at.


RE: Nothing...
By toyotabedzrock on 2/3/2012 11:10:03 AM , Rating: 2
SORRY TO PUNCTURE YOUR REALITY BUBBLE BUT

THESE WHERE GOP BACKED GREEN COMPANIES!!!

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/bankr...


RE: Nothing...
By LordSojar on 1/27/2012 12:02:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Once again, FedGov at its finest. Taking care of the cronies and homeboys. .


Yes, indeed. 3 out of 400+ companies... man... what a dismal tracker record. I bet the private sector is doing SOOOOOO much better. Stupid government and them caring about sustainable, long term energy and global warming. GRRRR, stupid Obama, all his fault! GRRR GRRRR GRRRR.

Oh right... almost forgot this for those less enlightened to the subtleties of sarcasm, else I might get down rated yet again, but this time for the opposite of the AT&T thread! OH NOES! /SARCASM


RE: Nothing...
By ebakke on 1/27/2012 12:27:05 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Yes, indeed. 3 out of 400+ companies... man... what a dismal tracker record. I bet the private sector is doing SOOOOOO much better.
Except in the private sector the only people investing (read: risking their money) are those who've willingly made the decision to do so. With the feds, the money being invested (again, read: risked) is taken from all of us at the threat of fines and prison time. Ok... fine, from 53% of us.


RE: Nothing...
By rs2 on 1/29/2012 8:45:46 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever. $118M is a pitiful drop in the bucket as far as government spending is concerned. All-told, this investment probably cost less than $1 per taxpayer. Even if you had gotten to personally choose what to do with it, it wouldn't have been enough to do anything significant. So calm down already. Or if you're really so upset over the government's waste of your $1, I'll mail you one of mine.

Do I really need to point out that we wouldn't have the Internet if not for the government backing of speculative ventures? Not all such ventures will succeed, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. But it only takes a single really successful one in order transform the world.

There are *far* worse things the government could be doing with its money than funding research, development, and specuilative new technologies. If a failed tech venture is the worst example of wasteful government spending you can come up with, then your perspective is completely out of whack.


RE: Nothing...
By steven975 on 1/30/2012 10:25:10 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, take waste like this, multiply by a thousand, and all of a sudden it actually means something.

Waste is still waste. Giving away $100M to a company that the private sector was unwilling to risk money on is waste, pure and simple.


RE: Nothing...
By ebakke on 1/30/2012 11:35:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whatever. $118M is a pitiful drop in the bucket as far as government spending is concerned.
I think you missed the point. I'm not debating how much or how little money was pissed away, and whether or not that's a "large enough" amount to get upset over. I'm upset that my money was forcibly taken in the first place and invested for a political gain. (Again, vs me choosing to invest my own money for an economic gain.)
quote:
Or if you're really so upset over the government's waste of your $1, I'll mail you one of mine.
Yes please. I doubt you're willing to extend your offer to the rest of the federal govt's "investments" that have failed miserably in the last 3-5 years.
quote:
Do I really need to point out that we wouldn't have the Internet if not for the government backing of speculative ventures?
You can try pointing out made up "facts" all you want, but I'll call BS every time. Just because the Internet was started with government funding doesn't mean it wouldn't exist today without that funding. Unless you have an alternate universe machine to view what would've happened, you're just guessing. And your guessing abilities aren't any better than anyone else's.
quote:
There are *far* worse things the government could be doing with its money than funding research, development, and specuilative new technologies.
That is an absolutely terrible reason to keep doing something. "I'm going to keep shooting myself in the foot, because it's *far* worse to shoot myself in the head." And it's not the government's money; it's our money!
quote:
If a failed tech venture is the worst example of wasteful government spending you can come up with, then your perspective is completely out of whack.
No where did I ever say I felt this was the "worst example". Nor did I even attempt to prioritize any examples. It merely is the topic of the original article.


RE: Nothing...
By The Raven on 1/30/2012 12:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
Good post. I just love how people like to rationalize this crap. Also, the boasting about the Internet, etc. being a gov't project? In the whole scheme of things, it is essentially the gov't snapping its fingers to culminate decades of capitalist work. Where is the praise of private entities that paved the way? Oh no no capitalism is baaaad!!


RE: Nothing...
By FITCamaro on 1/27/2012 2:07:51 PM , Rating: 3
I don't want them to care about global warming because its not something they can control. I DO want them to care about American's having access to clean, cheap , reliable energy that is truly sustainable. That means nuclear power. Wind and solar don't fit the bill on two of the three criteria. They sure as hell ain't cheap nor are they reliable. They will always require other sources of energy as a backup which means we will always be spending twice as much.


RE: Nothing...
By Spuke on 1/27/2012 6:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
Most of us think life is complicated. As long as that view holds, we'll continue to seek complicated answers to simple questions ie we'll force solar and wind work until it doesn't. Then we'll go to nuclear power. Mark my words, 10 years from now some idiot will get on TV and say that solar only works when the sun is shining and wind only works when the wind blowing.


RE: Nothing...
By Smilin on 1/28/2012 12:16:34 AM , Rating: 1
...aaaanddd... nukes don't ramp up within a single day/night cycle.

You're back to fossil. Good Job shooting down other possibilities though. There isn't a single answer that doesn't need the others.


RE: Nothing...
By Mint on 1/28/2012 5:56:26 AM , Rating: 2
Neither does coal. Natural gas - and only the less efficient type, rather than CCGT - is used for the vast majority of demand variation.

However, baseline is still the most important category. If we had enough of it to power the night-time minimum, <20% of our power would have to come from natural gas to power the daytime max. Day-night variation will reduce with electric cars, too.

Nuclear is the most important part of the puzzle.


So....
By cooperaaaron on 1/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: So....
By x10Unit1 on 1/27/2012 10:51:30 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Solyndra --- Failed because they could NOT compete with low priced Chinese government supported products that were artifically low in price as the Chinese gave HUGE breaks and help so that their products were cheaper.... an illegal way to compete...


Doesn't the US do this as well?


RE: So....
By WalksTheWalk on 1/27/2012 1:13:07 PM , Rating: 4
Ford - Maintained a responsible amount of operating debt, managed the company reasonably and was able to weather the economic storm without government bailouts.

Any company that is mismanaged such as GM needs to go out of business if they cannot be maintained. If any company is so large that it creates a national economic disaster if it goes out of business should not be allowed to exist and the FTC shouldn't approve it. Companies shouldn't be able to have it both ways.


RE: So....
By Spuke on 1/27/2012 6:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
Ford was actually afraid that if GM and Chrysler bellied up, their suppliers would also file for bankruptcy and force them (Ford) into bankruptcy too. If the suppliers lost 2/3 of their business (just a guess), they would be in a world of hurt. I'd imagine some if not most would fail too dragging Ford with them.


RE: So....
By TSS on 1/27/2012 6:41:20 PM , Rating: 3
In that case the government should've let GM and chrystler fail, then bailed out ford and it's suppliers.

Nobody should be against the government helping it's citizens. Considering the size of GM there's no way ford could prepare for such a calamity. But they had proper management and where in no danger that they had caused themselves or failed to prepare for. Short and simple, it wasn't their fault. It was GM's fault.

GM lost more money in the best autosales year in history, 2007, then they did in 2008. That's quite a feat.

I find a good way of deciding what's right is deciding what example you wish to set for your kids. Do you want your kids to grow up thinking it's right to bail out miss managed companies, as long as their big enough? Or do you want them to grow up thinking it's right to help good people and let the bad ones suffer the consequences of their own incompetence?


RE: So....
By Spuke on 1/27/2012 7:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In that case the government should've let GM and chrystler fail, then bailed out ford and it's suppliers.
Now THAT'S an idea! Sadly, I'm willing to bet the gov thought of that one which makes me believe the gov really did want to bail out GM's unions.


RE: So....
By Smilin on 1/27/2012 1:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Doesn't the US do this as well?


Yes. But for all practical purposes, no. China is subidizing to the tune of 30billion. We cry a river if we lose 1/2 a billion. If Solyndra had been in China they would have doubled down, kept it afloat, and let its subsidized products put more and more US companies under.

They are going to utterly phuk us up if we don't stop whining and get serious.


RE: So....
By FITCamaro on 1/27/2012 2:10:01 PM , Rating: 1
Yes. Except the answer is to compete with them by lowering taxes and encouraging the private sector. Not by spending hundreds of billions of dollars on products not ready for market. China doesn't have a private sector. Everything exists only at the behest of the government.


RE: So....
By Smilin on 1/28/2012 12:09:18 AM , Rating: 2
Encouraging the private sector with... ?


RE: So....
By Mint on 1/28/2012 6:18:20 AM , Rating: 1
Do any amount of reasonable math instead of the usual conservative handwaving with talking points and you'd know that lower taxes do dick all for startups (and most companies in general) in creating jobs or competing with the chinese.

Not that I'm for more investment in solar, as it was a dead end since many people underestimated the Chinese in their ability to ramp up solar production. However, that's no reason to s#!@ on the entire program.

Losing a couple hundred million per year in failed subsidies is peanuts when you're trying to protect a $500B/yr auto industry and manage $1.2T/yr in energy spending.


RE: So....
By Chaser on 1/27/2012 2:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GM---Selling MORE cars in years and are the NUMBER ONE SELLER of cars once again !!! And have paid back all of their original loan !!
Only a fraction of that, $6.7 billion, was in the form of loans. Most of the government's GM investment was converted to an ownership stake in the New GM, the company that emerged from bankruptcy: $2.1 billion in preferred stock; and 60.8 percent of the company's common equity. The jury is still out on how much return the government will get on that investment.

Whitacre could accurately claim that GM has retired its $6.7 billion in loans from the U.S. government. But with the government still owning 60 percent of the company and the prospects slim for getting all its money back, we thought that was highly misleading. And so we rated Whitacre's statement Half True.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/20...

Hey nice try. US taxpayers -those of us that actually pay federal taxes- are GM's biggest share holders. Not to mention the GM UAW bailout for pensions which ALSO has not been paid back. Investors agree and are willing to take risks. But these idiots in DC give us no choice and are gamling with billions of borrowed taxpayer dollars. Absolutely ridiculous.


RE: So....
By idiot77 on 1/27/2012 8:44:19 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, you seriously posted a poltifact link and think that's credible?

Lol. Even the Republicans don't think that site is credible anymore.


RE: So....
By Solandri on 1/27/2012 4:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Looks like to me they decided to go bankrupt to restructure, rather than running out of money, and one of the major companies they were producing for, went out of business.... This is exactly what would have happened if BOTH Chrysler and GM would have gone out of business, manufacturing would have taken a MASSIVE hit as all of the companies that product down the line would have fallen like dominoes..

That's a false and illogical scenario made up by people advocating the bailout. A bankruptcy of the worst kind does not mean everything the company does and owns disappears overnight. In a chapter 7 bankruptcy, the company's assets are sold to the highest bidder, and the money from the sales used to pay back creditors. Those high bidders don't buy those assets to stick them under a mattress. They buy them so they can incorporate them into their existing business.

If what you are saying is true, and a Chrysler and GM bankruptcy would've resulted in a MASSIVE hit to manufacturing, then that is actually a great argument to let them file for bankruptcy. You're saying those companies were so inefficient that without the artificial, poorly structured business they provided to their subcontractors, all that manufacturing behind them would've collapsed. Saving them allows that inefficiency to continue, dragging down the economy.

The only time it makes sense to stave off bankruptcy is when a bankruptcy would result in little to no impact on subsidiaries. The company has a cashflow problem so is slightly in the red. But its business and manufacturing is healthy enough that if its parts would be sold off, the eager buyers would keep the manufacturing intact and incorporate it into their company's products.


Bad luck?
By zozzlhandler on 1/27/2012 10:40:35 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The Obama administration has had some horrible luck when it comes to dealing out energy loans. In 2011 alone, two energy companies filed for bankruptcy after receiving hefty sums from the government. Now, the administration can add a third strike to its list of bad deals.


Once is bad luck. Three times is incompetence, or something worse.




RE: Bad luck?
By x10Unit1 on 1/27/2012 11:08:34 AM , Rating: 2
R&D isn't cheap and doesn't always produce results.

Instead, let us question the due diligence process.

If you want to see some bad luck, go look at some of the military contract.


RE: Bad luck?
By Dr of crap on 1/27/2012 12:12:23 PM , Rating: 3
Due diligence?
It's political, they get money for votes and then spend OUR money in some scheme like this.

There is no checking to see if this is a good place to give money, just give and ake sure you get that photo of you giving the check!


RE: Bad luck?
By Smilin on 1/27/2012 5:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
Once out of how many?
Three times out of how many?

I'm under the impression is is some 400+ (don't quote me on that but it's in the correct order of magnitude). Private VC firms also invested right along the gubmint.


RE: Bad luck?
By Mint on 1/29/2012 12:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously have no idea how many failed companies even the most successful VC firms invest in.


By borismkv on 1/27/2012 11:18:41 AM , Rating: 4
When a *real* VC firm invests in a new business, they put a great deal of effort into making sure that company knows how to succeed and tries to ensure that the company is in a good position to succeed before opening the wallet wide. The federal government can't do this. All it's capable of doing is tossing cash out the window and hoping for the best. VC firms do this, too, in a form of Drive By Capitalism, but the amounts they invest in this technique are usually very small (less than 100K).

While it's often true that having a lot of money can greatly improve your odds of success in business, if you don't know how to properly manage a business, you're just going to waste every dollar you get.




By Smilin on 1/28/2012 12:11:52 AM , Rating: 2
*real* VC firms invested in these as well. It was not 100% gubmit funding. So which is it? VC firms know what they are doing or they dont?


By Just Tom on 1/28/2012 9:54:01 AM , Rating: 2
You're right. VC firms invest in failures all the time. There are two differences between them and Government investments though: The primary purpose behind VC investment is to make money, so their risk/reward calculations are different than the Government's, whose purposes are different; VC firms do not use MY money.


By Smilin on 1/29/2012 10:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, nope...indeed it isn't your money anymore by the time a VC spends it.


By Mint on 1/28/2012 6:25:58 AM , Rating: 2
Do you have any idea how many VC funded companies fail? It a much higher rate than what the DOE is seeing. That's why you sell a majority of your startup to get the funding.


China
By Smilin on 1/27/2012 1:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
The last what five presidents have tried to gain our independence from foreign oil. Obama has made some modest (at best) strides towards greener energy.

We're about to leap out of the frying pan and into the fire. The next five presidents will be trying to reduce our dependence on foreign alternative energy.

Over 3/4 of all solar panels sold in the US come from China. They come in about 10% cheaper (not much huh?) but it's enough to snatch the market. They are able to do this because they get 30 *billion* in subsidies from their govornment.

Meanwhile we're ready to crucify any politician that tries and fails. We're also willing to ignore every success and concentrate on those failures. The lobbiests for oil/gas show up with truck pallets of cash and run advertisements constantly.

In other words our country is completely hostile to any attempts take the lead in alternative energy. Soon we'll be borrowing from china to buy oil and solar panels. Our economy will suffer horribly when energy costs rise...because yes, someday it will be $8 a gallon for gas. Our competitors will have paid their upfront investments and will be reaping nearly free energy for their juggernaut economies.

Screw Solyndra and the latest. A bad bet. There will be more bad bets. Do it anyway. Stop being a wuss. Set a goal of having 75% of all solar panels sold in China be made in the USA instead. Be bold or get left behind.




RE: China
By StanO360 on 1/27/2012 1:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
Your ignoring the primary subsidy to the end user. Almost no one would be buying solar from the US OR China if governments weren't subsidizing them! The same is true with electric cars.

The big union give away to GM and Chrysler might seem good, but don't forget this is the SECOND time Chrysler got bailed out and now the money is going to Fiat! Both companies would still be around it's just that they would be leaner and the fat union contracts would be gone in bankruptcy.


RE: China
By Smilin on 1/27/2012 4:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. A good point and not ignoring that at all. re-read please.

I won't even begin to speculate when gas would hit $8/gal. But I'm willing to guarantee this: Energy prices are not on a downward trajectory. The need to subsidize to compete against fossil fuel will not remain. The reason we're even doing fracking these days is because the cost of oil/gas makes it viable. Same thing with the tar sands in Canada...that is not an efficient way to produce oil.

I'll skip the auto industry portion of the discussion. It's a very complex situation and worthy of more discussion that I'm willing to give right now.


RE: China
By osserc on 1/27/2012 2:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
Switching to alternative energy, even if every single wind-turbine and solar panel were manufactured entirely in the US, wouldn't solve any of our foreign dependency problems.

It may *theoretically* help our dependence on foreign oil. However, all of these alternative energy products rely heavily on rare earth metals. Since China now controls over 95% of the rare earth metals market our new-found freedom from foreign oil would just get replaced with dependence on Chinese REMs. That's not a very benign solution.

Honestly, I'd rather be at the mercy of the oil producing countries, especially since a good portion of our oil comes from Canada, a peaceful ally and neighbor. Putting all of our energy eggs in the rare-earth monopoly would give China de facto control of our entire country. Scary.


RE: China
By Smilin on 1/27/2012 4:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
Think longer term. China operates by looking 50 years out (see development in Africa).

There are already new solar solutions that are not so reliant on rare earth. R&D is part of this. There are also old solutions that never required them, and energy solutions that don't require solar at all. Plus you get nutty stuff like the solar tower going up in Nevada I believe.

Energy will get expensive. Very. Billions more people will be using it. We have to invest. This is not something we want to play catch up in.


RE: China
By cmdrdredd on 1/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: China
By Smilin on 1/29/2012 1:06:28 AM , Rating: 2
You sir are emotional.

We have 'now' figured out. Eisenhower hwy system, robust oil industry, robust coal and nuclear power industry. State of the art ... For 1970.

I do not suggest we discard these. I suggest we think about the future. I suggest we start thinking in terms longer than a single election cycle.

Here, others are starting to pick up on the same clues about china..
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_mid#/video/us/201...


Hopes and Dreams
By FITCamaro on 1/27/2012 10:12:55 AM , Rating: 4
Don't make good business plans. Too bad the government considers them valid ones. But when you have a president creating policy with nothing but hopes and dreams as a basis, it's not surprising.




RE: Hopes and Dreams
By Shig on 1/27/2012 1:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
It'd be nice for a change for you to cite some precedent for your rhetoric, but you never do :(

I respect your opinion, but c'mon man, cite something once in a while, provide these DT readers with SOMETHING other than your politicized viewpoint.

It must clearly be hopes and dreams powering my laptop while I write this, it's clearly not a battery.


RE: Hopes and Dreams
By FITCamaro on 1/27/2012 2:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
The article is my citation. As it points out, in less than 6 months there have been three bankruptcies of companies the DOE has lended very large sums of taxpayer money. All because they want to push "green" energy. It doesn't seem to matter either if the companies have a failing business plan/model. In the case of Solyndra, it was known that the company had a high probability of failure. Yet they were not only given half a billion dollars, when their failure was even more imminent, the terms were rewritten so that the investors got their money before the taxpayers.


RE: Hopes and Dreams
By Shig on 1/27/2012 4:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
You constantly cite "green" energy as being evil.

Can you please cite the failed fossil fuel based companies over the past 120 years that have failed and have used tax payer money?

In a fair debate you must present these facts when you mention Solyndra so many times.


RE: Hopes and Dreams
By Masospaghetti on 1/28/2012 9:34:59 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
As it points out, in less than 6 months there have been three bankruptcies of companies the DOE has lended very large sums of taxpayer money.

What is important here is not the actual number of failures, but the % of failures. 3 out of 50,000 would be pretty damn good. 3 out of 4...you get the idea.

How many energy start-ups were invested in?


a worrying trend?
By kattanna on 1/27/2012 10:43:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, the company's existing common stock will be canceled , long-term debt holders will receive a new term loan, cash and new common stock in exchange for claims, new preferred stock will be given to the provider of the post-petition and exit funding, and Ener1's general creditors will be paid under the restructuring plan


so the only ones getting hit by this are the common stock holders who will lose out completely, while everyone else gets paid.

honestly.. how can anyone trust a company that would invalidate their stock to existing people, then turn around and issue new stock?




RE: a worrying trend?
By TheDoc9 on 1/27/2012 1:11:13 PM , Rating: 2
This is what I picked up as well. I'm not sure how often this happens when a company files for bankruptcy, I don't think it's all too common.

It's definitely a disaster for the stockholders. They're looking at the millions left in the loan and wondering where their cut is. Don't worry though, the board and CEO are getting taken care of.


RE: a worrying trend?
By Just Tom on 1/28/2012 9:58:47 AM , Rating: 2
It happens a lot. Equity gets slammed in bankruptcies.


You have to be quite the idiot...
By masamasa on 1/27/2012 10:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
...to get a $118 million dollar loan and put yourself out of business in 2 years.




By masamasa on 1/27/2012 11:00:16 AM , Rating: 2
Or maybe just a criminal. =P


RE: You have to be quite the idiot...
By Kurz on 1/28/2012 8:55:36 AM , Rating: 2
Its a Grant not a loan. ;)


Frustrating
By Stuka on 1/27/2012 10:50:41 AM , Rating: 2
Is it just me or is all the green market crap smell an awful lot like the dotcom bubble? I think we're gonna end up with 1000 subsidized companies which all claim to have a better battery and, in the next 10yrs, 998 of them will turn out to be red herrings. The two valid ones will prove to be 13% more efficient after $X billion of our money is tossed in the boiler.




RE: Frustrating
By bug77 on 1/27/2012 11:11:56 AM , Rating: 2
It's bound to happen when you throw money at something with very little supervising. IMHO, it's also why much of the "green" research is bogus as well.


You cannot...
By JonnyDough on 1/28/2012 1:26:27 AM , Rating: 2
You cannot give someone money and then expect them to work. Big grants are stupid. I don't know why you wouldn't give them a very small grant, and then wait to see some results.

Even if someone has been working for you for years, you never give them the key to the safe with your savings in it.




RE: You cannot...
By cmdrdredd on 1/28/2012 2:32:14 AM , Rating: 2
Remember what Dan Aykroyd's character in Ghostbusters said? "I've worked in the private sector, they expect results." That is why Government funded is almost always a worse idea than private funded. When you lose Government money it's like nobody cares because it's not out of their pocket and they can just print more or borrow more (higher tax). In the private sector when you lose money someone sees a smaller bank account and will want to know why.


oBAMa
By btc909 on 1/30/2012 2:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
Emmm EMMM, EM! Drinking me some more oBAMa 2012 Kool-Aid!




"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki