• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,055
Reaction score
33,368
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Link

by Herald Staff | Monday, August 15, 2011
Evergreen Solar Inc., the Marlboro clean-energy company that received millions in state subsidies to build an ill-fated Bay State factory, has filed for bankruptcy.

Evergreen, which closed its taxpayer-supported Devens factory in March and cut 800 jobs, has been trying to rework its debt for months. The company announced today it is seeking a reorganization in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware and also reached a deal with certain note holders to restructure its debt and sell off certain assets.
What about all these 'green' jobs?

Evergreen Solar Files for Bankruptcy Owing $485.6 Million - Bloomberg

Stock Market Research - Zacks Investment Research
 
It's not a shock, it was a scam product propped up by tax payer money with no real product to bring to market.

... Solar energy is a scam? LMAO.
 
The company, based in Marlboro, Massachusetts, blamed the bankruptcy on increased competition from government-subsidized solar-panel makers in China and the failure of the U.S. to adopt clean-energy policies.

I always get a kick out of the statements made and the message not quite said. They are right that you can not compete with subsidized Chinese made products, especially when the U.S. government assists in that. We knew that going in but still threw the money away. I've stated my simply solution many times.

Seems to me that the second statement is a complaint that like with lightbulbs, the government has failed to force people to buy solar energy.
 
Good riddance. If you read the article, Evergreen failed because they couldn't handle the competition and the overall price drop for solar panels.They can whine about the Chinese and lack of subsidies all they like, but the truth is that their business simply couldn't cut it. Cheap solar panels are good for the customer and good for expanding the market.
 
seems to support the fact that our transition from imported energy is going to take more public and private support.

while alternatives are being developed, i would pick nuclear as the most ready to build technology. i'm interested in thorium technology; seems to show some potential promise.
 
They didn't go out of business because no one has interest in green energy or employment in the green sector, but because their product was placed on the market at inflated prices. They weren't competitive.

Nice try at propaganda though.
 
It's funny how conservatives can be so blindly partisan that they actually root against clean, renewable energy. Liberals support it, therefore they're against it.

Cell phone companies and internet providers have gone bankrupt. Clearly that internet thing isn't going to catch on!
 
It's very, very expensive to replace conventional energy sources with solar, wind, etc.
This news should come as no surprise, especially after an economic down turn.

This is true as long as CO2 emissions remain outside of the cost calculations as they are now.
 
It's not a shock, it was a scam product propped up by tax payer money with no real product to bring to market.

Both coal and nuclear received government subsidies. It's a shame so many Americans don't want to invest in the future.
 
Well really, Evergreen was one company. That doesn't mean that the whole industry is failing. For example, First Solar is a $9 billion U.S. solar company that has quite a healthy balance sheet.
 
Both coal and nuclear received government subsidies. It's a shame so many Americans don't want to invest in the future.

Not to mention what we have to spend to maintain access to oil internationally.
 
This is true as long as CO2 emissions remain outside of the cost calculations as they are now.

Wind and solar manufacturers emit pollutants as well, why stop at Co2?
Even with the externalities of coal and oil priced into the cost, they are still cheaper than wind and solar.
 
Even with the externalities of coal and oil priced into the cost, they are still cheaper than wind and solar.

That's true, but the cost of wind and solar are coming down and the price coal and oil are only going to go up. Depending on location, some places are already very close to grid parity.
 
That's true, but the cost of wind and solar are coming down and the price coal and oil are only going to go up. Depending on location, some places are already very close to grid parity.

I'm not anti solar or wind but they'll never be replacements for coal and gas fired power generation.

Edit: well not anytime soon.
 
Both coal and nuclear received government subsidies. It's a shame so many Americans don't want to invest in the future.

Coal and Nuclear actually ya know, work.
 
It's funny how conservatives can be so blindly partisan that they actually root against clean, renewable energy. Liberals support it, therefore they're against it.

Cell phone companies and internet providers have gone bankrupt. Clearly that internet thing isn't going to catch on!

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.
 
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.

Unfortunately free markets don't really take climate change into account.
 
The company, based in Marlboro, Massachusetts, blamed the bankruptcy on increased competition from government-subsidized solar-panel makers in China and the failure of the U.S. to adopt clean-energy policies.

I always get a kick out of the statements made and the message not quite said. They are right that you can not compete with subsidized Chinese made products, especially when the U.S. government assists in that. We knew that going in but still threw the money away. I've stated my simply solution many times.

Seems to me that the second statement is a complaint that like with lightbulbs, the government has failed to force people to buy solar energy.

There's some serious irony in that statement.

"The government subsidizes - they fail - because the government still encourages and supports international companies who are in competition and fails to enact measure sthat would put the power back in the hands of local businesses"

LOL

Oh ****.
 
Unfortunately free markets don't really take climate change into account.

Or the future effects of pollution on any number of health issues. At the gas pump you aren't paying your share of the extra cases of lung cancer that burning fossil fuels causes.
 
Unfortunately free markets don't really take climate change into account.

Why should the markets take climate change into account? It isn’t like there is anything the markets can do to change the climate.
 
Wind and solar manufacturers emit pollutants as well, why stop at Co2?
why indeed? The problem here is that ecosystem components such as clean air, water, and soil have no economic value in the current system - that's a problem. But yes - let's also put a cost on mercury, sulfur, nitrogen oxides, and all of the other toxins released by coal-fired electricity generation and other industrial processes. And yes - solar and wind should pay these same costs, commensurate with the emissions that their manufacture and use causes.
Even with the externalities of coal and oil priced into the cost, they are still cheaper than wind and solar.
Clearly, that would depend on the costs imposed.
 
Why should the markets take climate change into account? It isn’t like there is anything the markets can do to change the climate.

If it costs money to emit carbon, less carbon will be put in the atmosphere. Whenever something is taxed, less of it will be produced, all other things remaining equal.
 
Back
Top Bottom