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

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.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein














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