another "green energy" bet goes belly up

Fungus Gnat

Fungus Gnat

Well-Known Member
But A123 was never able to turn the promise of its creation by MIT students and faculty into real-world products. It lost out on supplying batteries for the Chevrolet Volt to South Korea's LG Chem, with General Motors executives at the time citing the more established firm as a safer bet. A123 did eventually win a GM contract for batteries in the upcoming Chevrolet Spark EV, but that wasn't expected to be a high-volume model.
Click to expand...
Some businesses don't make it. We will still benefit because another company will buy out their IP and use it in future products.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Fungus Gnat said:
Some businesses don't make it. We will still benefit because another company will buy out their IP and use it in future products.
Click to expand...
True, some businesses go belly up, it is the nature of the beast. I have no problem with a business failing, but I do have a problem with them taking $250M of taxpayer money down the drain with them.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Fungus Gnat said:
Some businesses don't make it. We will still benefit because another company will buy out their IP and use it in future products.
Click to expand...
One already has. They are Chinese. Actually, they had secured loans to the company. When the company couldn't pay them, ownership reverts to the Chinese. The unsecured loans from the US were subordinate, and will not be paid.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Nothing bad policy about encouraging solutions to our looming energy crisis. Some of the companies will go under, but if even one leads the way then none of you will have a problem with that. This administrations batting average is quite good on picking "winners" so far, but I notice that you all only point to the failures - typical.
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
Ringsixty said:
Just, plain old bad policy...simple
Click to expand...
It truly is, China is willing to sell at a loss in order to keep products moving, and until the USA is willing to do the same in order to gain market control, we are just pissing in the wind.
 
Ringsixty

Ringsixty

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Nothing bad policy about encouraging solutions to our looming energy crisis. Some of the companies will go under, but if even one leads the way then none of you will have a problem with that. This administrations batting average is quite good on picking "winners" so far, but I notice that you all only point to the failures - typical.
Click to expand...
Yah..right...show me the successes.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
The simple fact is green energy is not economically competitive with existing energy production methods. There really are no green energy successes. Without government subsidies (i.e. tax payer money) none of these green energy companies would exist.

As a country we would be much better off if we expanded nuclear generation.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
The fact that the left likes to equate success with the amount of money thrown at an issue is glaringly clear in this circumstance.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
The simple fact is green energy is not economically competitive with existing energy production methods. There really are no green energy successes. Without government subsidies (i.e. tax payer money) none of these green energy companies would exist.

As a country we would be much better off if we expanded nuclear generation.
Click to expand...


THAT is why they need government subsidy desert dude, because currently they cannot compete with big energy.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
THAT is why they need government subsidy desert dude, because currently they cannot compete with big energy.
Click to expand...
No, they cant compete because they cannot produce a product that is competitive in the marketplace when compared to fossil fuels.

It is like Ethanol. The fuel cannot compete on a level playing field and thus the government subsidizes it in an artificial attempt to promote unsuccessful fuel sources.

The fact that green energy had alot of investors losing money on these programs and those investors happened to be Obama bundlers leads me to believe the agenda was political payback rather than an unconstitutional attempt to pick winners and losers.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
No, they cant compete because they cannot produce a product that is competitive in the marketplace when compared to fossil fuels.

It is like Ethanol. The fuel cannot compete on a level playing field and thus the government subsidizes it in an artificial attempt to promote unsuccessful fuel sources.

The fact that green energy had alot of investors losing money on these programs and those investors happened to be Obama bundlers leads me to believe the agenda was political payback rather than an unconstitutional attempt to pick winners and losers.
Click to expand...

Funny thing, initialy, automobiles couldn't compete with horses. Guess we should't have continued trying there either.
 
Grandpapy

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Funny thing, initialy, automobiles couldn't compete with horses. Guess we should't have continued trying there either.
Click to expand...
Another funny thing, anytime a public transit plan is put before the state, Big Oil is there to put a stop to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top