The World’s Largest Green Energy Company Is Facing Bankruptcy

R

RockX

Banned
SunEdison, which bills itself as the world’s largest green energy company, may soon file for bankruptcy protection, according to a recent Securities and Exchange Commission filing, as the company faces “liquidity difficulties” despite getting millions in government subsidies.

An SEC filing from TerraForm Global, a unit of SunEdison, claims “due to SunEdison’s liquidity difficulties, there is a substantial risk that SunEdison will soon seek bankruptcy protection.” Both SunEdison and TerraForm are delaying the filing of their annual financial report to the SEC.


News of SunEdison’s impending bankruptcy filing comes after the company’s shares fell 95 percent in the past 12 months, with shares now trading for less than $1 for the first time since the green energy company went public in 1995. SunEdison’s market value fell from $10 billion in July 2015 to around $400 million today.

i.gif


The news also comes after the SEC announced it was launching an investigation into SunEdison’s disclosures to shareholders regarding the company’s liquidity. SEC enforcement officials “are looking into whether SunEdison overstated its liquidity last fall when it told investors it had more than $1 billion in cash,” according to The Wall Street Journal.


SunEdison builds “advanced solar technology and develops, finances, installs and operates distributed solar power systems,” according to the company’s website. But this solar company has gotten millions from U.S. taxpayers.



The pro-labor union group Good Jobs First reported last year that SunEdison and its subsidiaries got nearly $650 million in subsidies and tax credits from the federal government since 2000. It was the 13th most heavily-subsidized company in America.



roflmao.gif



Another green energy failure, surprise, surprise...
​
 
Moonflower said:
If the technology is a blind alley which solar is, then what is the point?
Click to expand...

Man, do you & I disagree on the promise of solar energy.

I'm old enough to remember when people said computers would always be more of a novelty thing, and when some questioned what practical applications the internet could have. People made the same comments about TV when it first came out.
 
Thing1 said:
Man, do you & I disagree on the promise of solar energy.

I'm old enough to remember when people said computers would always be more of a novelty thing, and when some questioned what practical applications the internet could have. People made the same comments about TV when it first came out.
Click to expand...

Poor worthless Borbo.
 
Thing1 said:
Man, do you & I disagree on the promise of solar energy.

I'm old enough to remember when people said computers would always be more of a novelty thing, and when some questioned what practical applications the internet could have. People made the same comments about TV when it first came out.
Click to expand...

How many more generations do you think before solar is viable ?
 
Celticguy said:
How many more generations do you think before solar is viable ?
Click to expand...

It depends what you mean by "viable," but I hardly think we're talking generations no matter what you're meaning is. It's viable right now on a small scale.

As far as replacing traditional sources of energy on a larger scale? I really don't think it's that far off. Technology advancement is exponential. Just in the past few years alone, there have been some significant strides.
 
Thing1 said:
It depends what you mean by "viable," but I hardly think we're talking generations no matter what you're meaning is. It's viable right now on a small scale.

As far as replacing traditional sources of energy on a larger scale? I really don't think it's that far off. Technology advancement is exponential. Just in the past few years alone, there have been some significant strides.
Click to expand...

A generation is 25 years +/- in humans.
Small scale... not much use as a replacement for current sources of electricity. And all those strides have not made a dent.
 
Thing1 said:
Man, do you & I disagree on the promise of solar energy.

I'm old enough to remember when people said computers would always be more of a novelty thing, and when some questioned what practical applications the internet could have. People made the same comments about TV when it first came out.
Click to expand...

Yeh we've had this argument before and you just cannot compare large scale clean energy projects to the electronics revolution. Moore's Law does not apply here otherwise nuclear reactors would be the size of a car and produce 300 gWatts.

Unfortunately, a chorus of voices in the mainstream media have echoed the claim that Moore’s Law is guiding the regular decline in clean technology costs as production increases, enabling a massive energy transition from fossil fuels. In an excellent 2011 piece, Michael Kanellos at Forbes gently corrected this claim, but he was still too charitable in conceding that clean energy advocates were “wrong in the particulars, but right in their outlook.”

Rather, that outlook is far too complacent, satisfied with pedestrian cost declines and stagnating performance in lieu of disruptive technology advances, more in line with Moore’s Law. To date, there have been three crucial differences between Moore’s law for microchips and the historical cost declines of solar panels and batteries:
.

  1. Moore’s Law is a consequence of fundamental physics. Clean technology cost declines are not.
  3. Moore’s Law is a prediction about innovation as a function of time. Clean technology cost declines are a function of experience, or production.
  4. **Why this all matters** Moore’s Law provided a basis to expect dramatic performance improvements that shrank mainframes to mobile phones. Clean technology cost declines do not imply a similar revolution in energy.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2015/04/23/why-moores-law-doesnt-apply-to-clean-technologies/
 
Last edited:
Moonflower said:
Yeh we've had this argument before and you just cannot compare large scale clean energy projects to the electronics revolution. Moore's Law does not apply here otherwise nuclear reactors would be the size of a car and produce 300 gWatts.



Read more: http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2015/04/23/why-moores-law-doesnt-apply-to-clean-technologies/
Click to expand...

Sorry - missed this.

Look, the sun is an unbelievable source of energy. Incomprehensible, really. Not seeing its place in the future of our energy policy is just short-sighted, imo, and completely ignores mankind's repeated ability to "do the impossible" - or what was thought to be impossible. Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and renewables are the future whether people want to acknowledge that or not.

If we wanted to do a moon-shot effort on solar, we could probably make it viable within 5-10 years. Our investment right now is ridiculously modest, and hardly anything to complain about, and it will still likely yield significant results in the next few decades. It's worth it.
 
Thing1 said:
Sorry - missed this.

Look, the sun is an unbelievable source of energy. Incomprehensible, really. Not seeing its place in the future of our energy policy is just short-sighted, imo, and completely ignores mankind's repeated ability to "do the impossible" - or what was thought to be impossible. Fossil fuels are a finite resource, and renewables are the future whether people want to acknowledge that or not.

If we wanted to do a moon-shot effort on solar, we could probably make it viable within 5-10 years. Our investment right now is ridiculously modest, and hardly anything to complain about, and it will still likely yield significant results in the next few decades. It's worth it.
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the point, renewable energy is not subject to a Moore's Law rate of increase in performance like electronics. For a start you will never be able to miniaturise solar generators and I am not even sure that they can be made much more efficient, at least in the next couple of decades anyway.
 
Moonflower said:
You seem to be missing the point, renewable energy is not subject to a Moore's Law rate of increase in performance like electronics. For a start you will never be able to miniaturise solar generators and I am not even sure that they can be made much more efficient, at least in the next couple of decades anyway.
Click to expand...

Even Google has given up on renewable energy, so that ought to tell even the most naive and zealous tree huggers something!

de-icing-wind-turbine.jpg


A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”. According to an interview with the engineers, published in IEEE;
.
“At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change
​
.
There is simply no getout clause for renewables supporters. The people who ran the study are very much committed to the belief that CO2 is dangerous – they are supporters of James Hansen. Their sincere goal was not to simply install a few solar cells, but to find a way to fundamentally transform the economics of energy production – to make renewable energy cheaper than coal. To this end, the study considered exotic innovations barely on the drawing board, such as self erecting wind turbines, using robotic technology to create new wind farms without human intervention. The result however was total failure – even these exotic possibilities couldn’t deliver the necessary economic model.

The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.

As a review by The Register of the IEEE article states.
.
“Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.”
.
​

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/...ineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
 
Last edited:
Leonthecat said:

​


MOONFLOWER​
Click to expand...

Oh well at least the fuckwit has noticed that I've changed my name anyway. Of course it will be a cold day in Hell before Leon the Trot attempts to use rational arguments to support his views. I mean even Michael Mann now recognises that there has been a pause since 1997, but the warmists on here would rather die than admit it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top