Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

Deuce said:

The emissions caused by construction of the plant aren't even in the same galaxy as the lifelong emissions of a coal plant.

Click to expand...

True. But neither are they insignificant. I'm on team nuclear... just not thrilled about it.

GPS_Flex said:

The 2007 IPCC report you referenced is based upon models that have a much longer timeline than the Spencer study/article being criticized herein. It needed to be clarified that the IPCC studies you rely upon for your opinions are primarily based upon data didn’t directly measure temps but used the direct temp measurements Spencer used to validate their own models.

Click to expand...

I'm confused as to weather you're saying the IPCC conclusions are based on direct or indirect temperature records. It sort of doesn't matter however, as the IPCC cited hundreds of peer-reviewed articles using both types of sources, plus plenty of others that aren't about temperatures at all. I also disagree with your use of the word "primarily."

GPS_Flex said:

How can you claim Spencer is way off the mark with this study without asking yourself why the IPCC models still use this same short timeline data to validate their own models?

Click to expand...

I'm not really attacking the Spencer study, though I do have my doubts. My training is in biology, not atmospheric science, so I tend to leave my authoritative evaluations of scientific lit to the pros in areas that I'm not specialized in. My real point is that even if his findings are in fact 100% accurate, that doesn't change a thing about AGW theory, just some details about how cloud formation is affected by rising temperatures.

GPS_Flex said:

Unfortunately it is going to be hit and miss as far as my ability to keep up with this dialogue as I will begin a new school semester on Monday and have plans to spend much of that time on the water with friends and family between now and then. I’ll do what I can to keep it going though.

Click to expand...

Alas, I'll be back to teaching next week as well!

nijato said:

True. But neither are they insignificant. I'm on team nuclear... just not thrilled about it.

Click to expand...

I have worked in nuclear power. The biggest problem is not the manufacturing of the components for the plants, since most of those things would have to be done for coal burning plants anyway.

The biggest problems with nuclear power are the amount of radioactive waste produced, and the amount of time it takes for the radiation levels of that waste to decay to safe levels, and the potential for a nuclear disaster. Now, we have lots of safety precautions to reduce the potential for a nuclear disaster to very low levels. The waste issue though is a real concern. We can't keep building up the amount of radioactive waste we do at the current levels.

There are a lot of advantages to nuclear power over coal though. And there is much room for improvement. And that improvement is happening all the time.

Nuclear power shouldn't be the final solution, but it is a very viable alternative that produces less pollution overall than fossil fuel energy as we continue to improve the technology, find viable clean, renewable resources, and reduce our overall power usage levels. It is unlikely that we will eliminate the use of all fossil fuels in the near future. But the more we use renewable and comparably cleaner resources to meet power demands, the more we a) reduce the pollution from fossil fuels and b) reduce actual consumption of fossil fuels to get them to last longer.

nijato said:

I'm confused as to weather you're saying the IPCC conclusions are based on direct or indirect temperature records. It sort of doesn't matter however, as the IPCC cited hundreds of peer-reviewed articles using both types of sources, plus plenty of others that aren't about temperatures at all. I also disagree with your use of the word "primarily."

Click to expand...

First, it should be noted that the IPCC is a political body and that said “conclusions” are based upon achieving political objectives using handpicked scientific theories, and even misrepresentations thereof at times. I don’t trust the UN or even the federal government to control energy in the manner they are (using this issue as a means to an end) any more than I would trust them with control over food or water.


As to whether the studies/models cited by AR4 use direct or indirect proxy measurements/data does in fact matter when considering AGW, as long as said long term studies/models are predicting quantifiable warming rates and validating their models with the same short term climate variability models Spencer used, they should be criticized by the same people that criticized Spencer for using them in the same manner.


Even direct temperature measurements taken today incorporate proxy data and algorithms to normalize missing data that has been substituted with measurements from nearby stations. The older the measurements get, the more need there is to fill the holes. This isn’t even challenging the numerous methods used to determine the temperatures of the planet before measurements were taken so yes, “proxy” and “primarily” are appropriately descriptive terms in this instance.

nijato said:

I'm not really attacking the Spencer study, though I do have my doubts. My training is in biology, not atmospheric science, so I tend to leave my authoritative evaluations of scientific lit to the pros in areas that I'm not specialized in. My real point is that even if his findings are in fact 100% accurate, that doesn't change a thing about AGW theory, just some details about how cloud formation is affected by rising temperatures.

Click to expand...

Spencer wasn’t attempting to overturn the AGW theory. He did show further flaws in the IPPC models and as such, has been relentlessly attacked by the usual (politically motivated) suspects. As to the irrelevance of the cause and effect of cloud formations, it is a pretty big deal actually. I think the more important point he made had to do with the time lapse that is causing problems with the IPPC models’ feedback estimations.


I, like Spencer, have no doubt that global warming is occurring, believe that there is a likely anthropogenic contribution but have serious problems with the way this issue is handles politically, the way some of the studies have been done and models have been constructed and believe that the climate is a lot less sensitive to anthropogenic/co2 forcing than many would have us believe. Unfortunately any criticism of any AGW theories floating around out there or support of any criticism thereof is to be a heretic or an uneducated fool in today’s environment. Diversity of thought should be more celebrated than it is today, particularly when discussing scientific theories.

nijato said:

Alas, I'll be back to teaching next week as well!

Click to expand...

You teach K-12 or collegiate?

American said:

Link


What about all these 'green' jobs?

Evergreen Solar Files for Bankruptcy Owing $485.6 Million - Bloomberg

Stock Market Research - Zacks Investment Research

Click to expand...

You're trying to use one example to show the green energy won't create any jobs... massive failure. I don't know why some people have it out for green energy and think it's a waste of time, effort, and energy. Oh yeah, and it defiantly is creating jobs. My dad and his partner's firm has been getting a lot of business from the wind farm industry that is being created right now.

SheWolf said:

You're trying to use one example to show the green energy won't create any jobs... massive failure. I don't know why some people have it out for green energy and think it's a waste of time, effort, and energy. Oh yeah, and it defiantly is creating jobs. My dad and his partner's firm has been getting a lot of business from the wind farm industry that is being created right now.

Click to expand...

Maybe it has more to do with government forcing them to pay for and consume it than a hatred of green energy.

I love cake but if you try to force it down my throat, my reaction will likely create a bit of a mess.

GPS_Flex said:

Maybe it has more to do with government forcing them to pay for and consume it than a hatred of green energy.

I love cake but if you try to force it down my throat, my reaction will likely create a bit of a mess.

Click to expand...

From my understanding, most of these wind farms have involved city councils casting votes and allocating resources such as government property to these farms. The government is going to have to be involved. Local governments are the largest employers of water and wastewater treatment plants. People want clean water and sewage systems, right? Or is that evil government forcing us to flush our **** down toilets and charge us with taxes for each **** we take?

It's one of the benefits of having a government. The people want green energy or a sewage system, and their governments and city councils make it possible. If the free market doesn't think there is a market yet or think it's possible enough, why wait? Sewage systems are practical, and it's practical that people want green energy.

The government has invested money in many great things... the highway system, sewage systems, phone lines, telecommunications, etc. We can't afford to have take an oppressive attitude towards investing in the progress of our nation.

SheWolf said:

From my understanding, most of these wind farms have involved city councils casting votes and allocating resources such as government property to these farms. The government is going to have to be involved. Local governments are the largest employers of water and wastewater treatment plants. People want clean water and sewage systems, right? Or is that evil government forcing us to flush our **** down toilets and charge us with taxes for each **** we take?

It's one of the benefits of having a government. The people want green energy or a sewage system, and their governments and city councils make it possible. If the free market doesn't think there is a market yet or think it's possible enough, why wait? Sewage systems are practical, and it's practical that people want green energy.

The government has invested money in many great things... the highway system, sewage systems, phone lines, telecommunications, etc. We can't afford to have take an oppressive attitude towards investing in the progress of our nation.

Click to expand...

Sewage systems weren’t forced on the free market and neither were highways, phone lines or telecommunications. What you and many liberals are doing today is nothing like what brought these technologies to bear and is nothing like the comparisons you are making. You can’t compare the destruction of an existing market to those where none existed.

Forcing traditional energy to become so unaffordable and overregulated by the government while dumping money you take from us into less efficient energy sources is hardly similar to the development of public utilities or the construction of our transportation system.

There will be debates over the best way to spend government money as there are with any topic but government destruction of the traditional energy sector in an attempt to replace it with something more expensive and less efficient is going to create a bit of an uproar.

Care to ponder why people hate green energy some more or are you starting to understand that it isn’t the green energy people hate, it’s the idea that government knows best and should take away their freedoms and their monies in order to do what is best for them, because the people obviously aren’t intelligent enough to make the right choices on their own?

GPS_Flex said:

Sewage systems weren’t forced on the free market and neither were highways, phone lines or telecommunications. What you and many liberals are doing today is nothing like what brought these technologies to bear and is nothing like the comparisons you are making. You can’t compare the destruction of an existing market to those where none existed.

Forcing traditional energy to become so unaffordable and overregulated by the government while dumping money you take from us into less efficient energy sources is hardly similar to the development of public utilities or the construction of our transportation system.

There will be debates over the best way to spend government money as there are with any topic but government destruction of the traditional energy sector in an attempt to replace it with something more expensive and less efficient is going to create a bit of an uproar.

Care to ponder why people hate green energy some more or are you starting to understand that it isn’t the green energy people hate, it’s the idea that government knows best and should take away their freedoms and their monies in order to do what is best for them, because the people obviously aren’t intelligent enough to make the right choices on their own?

Click to expand...

Sewage systems weren't forced on the free market... you're seriously digging. Yeah, it's not like there was an alternative to a sewage systems like an outhouse. It's like the free market produced ****ters for outhouses or anything.

It's not like horsebreeding wasn't a huge market prior to automobiles and the highway system.

Opposing green energy isn't the solution to rising energy costs either. Green energy is competition, and competition drives down prices. Yes, we have regulations on the fuel and gas industry. We have regulations on a lot of industries, but we also give the fuel and gas industries government subsidies.

Some states and local governments have decided to invest in green energy, but we also give their competitors subsidies... which begs the question if you against those subsidies or not.

And I think you're reaching when you claim the government is trying to destroy traditional energy... Local governments have decided to invest in green tech, and that decision was guided by the people. If you don't want your government to do it, then tell them with your vote. Are wind farms going up in your community?

In all honesty, I find your posts to be full of delusions and fear.

SheWolf said:

Sewage systems weren't forced on the free market... you're seriously digging. Yeah, it's not like there was an alternative to a sewage systems like an outhouse. It's like the free market produced ****ters for outhouses or anything.

It's not like horsebreeding wasn't a huge market prior to automobiles and the highway system.

Opposing green energy isn't the solution to rising energy costs either. Green energy is competition, and competition drives down prices. Yes, we have regulations on the fuel and gas industry. We have regulations on a lot of industries, but we also give the fuel and gas industries government subsidies.

Some states and local governments have decided to invest in green energy, but we also give their competitors subsidies... which begs the question if you against those subsidies or not.

And I think you're reaching when you claim the government is trying to destroy traditional energy... Local governments have decided to invest in green tech, and that decision was guided by the people. If you don't want your government to do it, then tell them with your vote. Are wind farms going up in your community?

In all honesty, I find your posts to be full of delusions and fear.

Click to expand...

You are still comparing apples and oranges.

You want the government to force the price of conventional energy to such an extreme high and to subsidize green energy until consumers will be forced to purchase green energy right?

The infrastructure you reference was not implemented in this manner.

I think you are mistaken if you think this is simply local governments who have decided to invest in green energy. Conservatives wouldn’t have a problem with that. As I said, I don’t think conservatives are anti green energy at all. They are anti federal government shoving it down thier throats.

GPS_Flex said:

You are still comparing apples and oranges.

You want the government to force the price of conventional energy to such an extreme high and to subsidize green energy until consumers will be forced to purchase green energy right?

The infrastructure you reference was not implemented in this manner.

I think you are mistaken if you think this is simply local governments who have decided to invest in green energy. Conservatives wouldn’t have a problem with that. As I said, I don’t think conservatives are anti green energy at all. They are anti federal government shoving it down thier throats.

Click to expand...

And your given me a strawman to debate, how the hell did you reach the conclusion that I want the government to force the prices on fuel to increase so turn to green technology?

That's such a partisan, hack attack and you clearly did not reach that conclusion based on anything I said. You probably have that thought placed in your head by talk radio or some other partisan propaganda medium.

If you think I am mistaken, then post some sources or do some research. I am not simply going to take your word for anything. I have read about he areas building the wind farms that my family's firm is in the works with, and they were decided to go ahead with the project by local government votes. :shrug:

I don't even believe the government is forcing green energy on anybody the way you think. Fuel prices aren't even that high from when Bush was in office, and given all the facts. It just doesn't add up... other countries pay a much higher price on fuel than we do.

Nothing you're saying makes sense.

GPS_Flex said:

I don’t see conservatives rooting against clean renewable energy. Conservatives are rooting for free markets without over regulation by the government and without wasteful spending of our tax dollars.

When clean renewable energy becomes affordable, conservatives will buy and use it.

Click to expand...

Except they're lying. Republicans are pushing hard for nuclear, despite it being one of the most coddled forms of energy out there. The US Government subsidies every kilowatt of nuclear to a degree similar to renewable at the same time as guaranteeing construction loans which severely reduce the amount of interest that otherwise would have been paid. And if we priced in the costs of pollution from coal plants in a real free market rather then spread the cost among everyone else, coal would go up significantly. Republicans dislike the free market just as much as everyone else. They just lie about supporting it.

Deuce said:

So it's an unsolvable discrepancy of an unknown magnitude, and that's taking the paper at face value! Of course, quite a few scientists have already come out and pointed out technical flaws with the paper.

Click to expand...

The more partisan you are, the less you understand science and math. Like a certain user here who argued that the US population doubles monthly because BLS data is cumulative.

AdamT said:

This is what climate change deniers don't get.

Click to expand...

It's not just that. Most of them have no real grasp of science of any measurable amount. So when they see an article they think supports their position as C-man just did, they all pile in. The problem is most of the time the articles they cite either don't actually have any data or don't support their position. C-man's posted article already was pointed out to basically say that the discrepancies cannot be explained because the method of collecting the original and the current data aren't accurate. That basically tells us nothing. But since most of them simply do not understand science at all, they think it supports their positions. And because they do not understand science, when those who DO point it out, they lack the knowledge to understand the rebuttal.

obvious Child said:

It's not just that. Most of them have no real grasp of science of any measurable amount. So when they see an article they think supports their position as C-man just did, they all pile in. The problem is most of the time the articles they cite either don't actually have any data or don't support their position. C-man's posted article already was pointed out to basically say that the discrepancies cannot be explained because the method of collecting the original and the current data aren't accurate. That basically tells us nothing. But since most of them simply do not understand science at all, they think it supports their positions. And because they do not understand science, when those who DO point it out, they lack the knowledge to understand the rebuttal.

Click to expand...

Hell, C-man hasn't even admitted that NASA said nothing anywhere near what he claims.

I was reading an interesting article about Evergreen Solar the other day, and what caused its downfall. When the company was first formed, it succeeded because it invented a way to harvest solar power that avoided using expensive silicon and used cheaper alternative materials instead. But since then, the cost of using silicon in solar panels has fallen dramatically, and Evergreen's manufacturing process became a liability rather than an asset. That sucks for them, but it hardly indicates problems with solar power in general. Quite the opposite. We should be celebrating the fact that the cost of producing solar energy is dropping rapidly, on a Moore's Law-like trajectory. It's quite possible that some time within the next decade, it will reach price parity with dirtier forms of energy like coal/oil.

You want to know how to place solar power on a path to true energy productivity? It's very simple: Change property construction laws to make it mandatory (or atleast an option) to incorporating solar panels into new home/commercial property construction. I understand this is already an option in high energy usage states/areas, i.e., Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Oklahoma, areas known for high energy cost and extreme heat but if it were a wider held option for new home construction across the country instead of being centralized mainly within the "heatwave states", solar energy would stand a better chance of catching on as a way to reduce energy costs.

Right now, most people who want to install solar panels on their homes do so first generally by applying for a federal home improvement/energy grant and then finding a company to purchase solar panels from. They then right off the purchase on their taxes. The problem with this process is who wants to re-wire their home for solar panels after the home has been constructed? Moreover, if you have to "apply" for the grant and wait to ensure you've found the right "grant writing formula" to win those federal dollars...

To cumbersome. Why not remove all the red tape and just give the new homeowner the option up front? Bottom Line: solar power needs to be given the right incentives to become an alternative energy sources if it is ever to be given a change to succeed in this country. Changing new home construction laws or atleast providing the option would be a great first step. Look at it as putting the horse before the cart as it should be...or atleast providing an option to choose a buggy - an upgrade or alternative energy conservation source - over the cart.

SheWolf said:

And your given me a strawman to debate, how the hell did you reach the conclusion that I want the government to force the prices on fuel to increase so turn to green technology?

That's such a partisan, hack attack and you clearly did not reach that conclusion based on anything I said.

Click to expand...

If you don’t like the way I interpret your vague and rambling comments, feel free to be more clear about your position in the future. I reached my conclusion based upon your liberal lean and your comments.

SheWolf said:

You probably have that thought placed in your head by talk radio or some other partisan propaganda medium.

Click to expand...

Isn’t this a partisan hack attack and an assumption by you?

obvious Child said:

Except they're lying.

Click to expand...

Conservatives are lying about the desire for free markets without over regulation by the government and without wasteful spending of our tax dollars?

obvious Child said:

Republicans are pushing hard for nuclear, despite it being one of the most coddled forms of energy out there.

Click to expand...

Really? Republicans are probably more supportive of nuclear than democrats are but I don’t see a “hard” bush by republicans for more nuclear energy. Don’t post a link to a handful of congressmen who have made comments, if you are going to refute this, provide a link to the republican leadership pushing a bill or something that looks like “pushing hard”.

obvious Child said:

The US Government subsidies every kilowatt of nuclear to a degree similar to renewable at the same time as guaranteeing construction loans which severely reduce the amount of interest that otherwise would have been paid.

Click to expand...

I don’t trust the liberal use of the terms subsidize or subsidies, don’t believe your claim that the amount is similar to what is being invested in other renewable energies and doubt your claim about construction loans is accurate. Feel free to educate me.

obvious Child said:

And if we priced in the costs of pollution from coal plants in a real free market rather then spread the cost among everyone else, coal would go up significantly.

Click to expand...

I see, you deal in abstracts rather than facts. Perhaps you have a peer reviewed article to accompany this externalized “cost” you reference as though it were fact?

obvious Child said:

Republicans dislike the free market just as much as everyone else. They just lie about supporting it.

Click to expand...

I agree that republicans have been complete schmucks when it comes to the free market and that their words haven’t matched their actions. There has been a groundswell of pressure within the grassroots of the party to change that recently. Haven’t you noticed?

obvious Child said:

The more partisan you are, the less you understand science and math.

Click to expand...

Interesting perspective. Are you a partisan or are you one who understands science and math?

obvious Child said:

It's not just that. Most of them have no real grasp of science of any measurable amount.

Click to expand...

So liberals are educated and conservatives aren’t? Or is this just another one of those sweeping and unsupported proclamations typical of your comments?

obvious Child said:

So when they see an article they think supports their position as C-man just did, they all pile in.

Click to expand...

As opposed to liberal alarmists who are all educated, informed and restrained I presume.

obvious Child said:

The problem is most of the time the articles they cite either don't actually have any data or don't support their position.

Click to expand...

This is probably true of both sides on this forum. Care to take me on in a moderated debate over AGW obvious Child?

obvious Child said:

C-man's posted article already was pointed out to basically say that the discrepancies cannot be explained because the method of collecting the original and the current data aren't accurate. That basically tells us nothing.

Click to expand...

I’ll make a platinum donation to DP if you enter a moderated 1v1 debate with me on this issue and win.

obvious Child said:

But since most of them simply do not understand science at all, they think it supports their positions. And because they do not understand science, when those who DO point it out, they lack the knowledge to understand the rebuttal.

Click to expand...

Can you point me to who you are referring to when you say “those who do”? Would you consider yourself among those who do?

Kandahar said:

I was reading an interesting article about Evergreen Solar the other day, and what caused its downfall. When the company was first formed, it succeeded because it invented a way to harvest solar power that avoided using expensive silicon and used cheaper alternative materials instead. But since then, the cost of using silicon in solar panels has fallen dramatically, and Evergreen's manufacturing process became a liability rather than an asset. That sucks for them, but it hardly indicates problems with solar power in general. Quite the opposite. We should be celebrating the fact that the cost of producing solar energy is dropping rapidly, on a Moore's Law-like trajectory. It's quite possible that some time within the next decade, it will reach price parity with dirtier forms of energy like coal/oil.

Click to expand...

I doubt the problem had as much to do with the price of silicon as it did/does the price of Chinese labor VS US union labor. I’d be willing to bet my house on it in fact.

GPS_Flex said:

I doubt the problem had as much to do with the price of silicon as it did/does the price of Chinese labor VS US union labor. I’d be willing to bet my house on it in fact.

Click to expand...

It seems like solar energy isn't a very labor-intensive industry, so I'm not sure that's accurate. I mean, how much labor does it really take to make a solar panel? I would assume it's mostly an automated process. But I don't know that much about how solar panels are manufactured, so I could be wrong.

GPS_Flex wrote:

I’ll make a platinum donation to DP if you enter a moderated 1v1 debate with me on this issue and win.

Click to expand...

I would take you up on that, but instead of trying to get into a d*ck measuring contest, perhaps you could just explain why you think you're right about climate change and 97% of actual climatologists are wrong?

AdamT said:

GPS_Flex wrote:


I would take you up on that, but instead of trying to get into a d*ck measuring contest, perhaps you could just explain why you think you're right about climate change and 97% of actual climatologists are wrong?

Click to expand...

So do we agree, in principle, to a 1v1 moderated debate or are you just blowing c02?