Print 41 comment(s) - last by Azethoth.. on Oct 19 at 5:48 PM

Satcon's financial demise was caused by increased competition with Chinese companies and decreased demand for solar power installations around the world

It's just not a good week for renewable energy companies. Just one day after A123 Systems filed for bankruptcy, solar company Satcon Technology has now filed for Chapter 11.

Satcon Technology, which is a Boston-based company that develops solar inverters, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection today as a result of the poor state of the solar power industry as well as financial earnings. It filed its petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Satcon's financial demise was caused by increased competition with Chinese companies and decreased demand for solar power installations around the world. 

From 2005-2011, the solar company posted annual financial losses. It also reported losses in the first six months of 2012, and announced that it would reduce its workforce by 35 percent in January. Around that same time, Satcon also mentioned closing a factory in Canada.

"This has been a difficult time for Satcon," said Steve Rhoades, Satcon's president and CEO. "After careful consideration of available alternatives, the company's Board of Directors determined that the Chapter 11 filings were a necessary and prudent step, allowing the company to continue to operate while giving us the opportunity to reorganize with a stronger balance sheet and capital structure. Our goal is for Satcon to emerge from bankruptcy reorganization and continue to provide our customers with the quality products that they need."

Satcon isn't the only solar company to file for bankruptcy. In September 2011, solar panel company Solyndra filed for bankruptcy after receiving a $535 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). After that, a line of other alternative energy companies also filed for Chapter 11 after receiving government loans, such as Beacon Power, a flywheel maker for grid efficiency that received $43 million in 2010, and Ener1, an electric vehicle (EV) battery maker whose EnerDel subsidiary won a $118.5 million grant in 2009. 

Just yesterday, EV battery maker A123 Systems filed for bankruptcy. It was reported that A123 was missing loan payments and finally decided to sell its automotive business assets to Johnson Controls, which is a company that optimizes energy efficiency in car batteries, buildings and electronics. The total value of the transaction was $125 million.

Sources: Washington Post, Reuters, Satcon Technology

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Interesting
By mdogs444 on 10/18/2012 2:31:57 PM , Rating: 3
Better economic growth, higher standard of living, a free-market thats not dominated by one or two large coorporations, and the like.

Wow. Where to start....

Better economic growth? I fail to see HOW. You do realize that in a socialist country, the government essentially controls the input and output of the domestic product, which in turn, does not create wealth because it all gets spend on social programs. In this style of government, there turn out to be no wealthy of successful citizens because the government absorbs the wealth.

Higher standard of living? First, this is complete nonsense. Second, its not sustainable. Socialism takes from one and gives to another. Therefore it brings down person A's standard of living in order to prop up person B's standard of living. Person A then sees no reason to achieve success because person B is able to live the same lifestyle without the same effort. All socialism does is absorb everyones wealth through redistribution, and then the country goes down, down, down because no one wants to work for anything since it is taken and just given away.

Lastly, you do realize that a free market is what allows multiple corporations to compete against each other for business, right? In a socialist state, the government dictates which businesses are successful through artificial price controls and tax payer subsidies in order to prohibit real competition from taking place in a market.

Then again, maybe theres a reason why Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, and Clinton ALL were able to reduce the debt as a percentage of GDP by following "socalist" economic policies, and Ford, Regan, Bush I, and Bush II all grew the debt as a percentage of GDP by following "capitalist" economic policy. Funny how "socalism" both reduced the debt and grew the economy, isn't it?

Ahh that is a nice attempt, but missing the forest for the trees. By raising taxes and increasing government revenue in the short term to balance the budget, while at the same time printing money out of thin air to devalue the dollar both increases GDP and lowers the debt to gdp ratio. You see, our debt is based on foreign held debt, not what we actually owe to the treasury. If it were, then Obama's deficit would be more in the range of $3T per year as opposed to $1.3T. You need to look at all the factors in this. For example, Obama made the statement the other day that gas was only at 1.83/gal because the economy was on the rocks. That is not true at all. There is a reason that gasoline has skyrocketed in cost - its called devaluation of the dollar. If you sell widgets for $5 today and you sold them for $4 yesterday, the "GDP" would essentially increase if everything else was consistent - and that is because the change in the value of currency, not because of socialist policies bringing about increased value. Increased cost =/ increased value.

Seriously, the US has undergone 40 years of near continuous economic mismanagement. With the middle class more or less defunct, there is no engine of economic growth. Hence the recession.

First off, there is no such thing as the "middle class". That is a figment of your imagination - a made up term by people in government used to wage class warfare for votes. Your life and successes are what you make of it. There is a reason that "classes" were not a definition in the constitution, because they felt everyone one equal. Not everyone is entitled to equal output regardless of input.

"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki