No announcement yet.

How Green Was My Bankruptcy: SunEdison

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How Green Was My Bankruptcy: SunEdison

    In a nice complement to the Ivanpah solar fiasco...
    Time is running out for SunEdison.

    The Belmont, Calif.-based renewable energy giant has until March 30 to submit its 2015 annual report, a document the company has delayed filing twice already this year, Bloomberg reports. If SunEdison blows past a third deadline, it will have to begin negotiating with creditors on an outstanding $1.4 billion it has borrowed, lest the company confront technical default.


    While not a North American company, Abegnoa has been the recipient of beaucoup Maobamabucks and it is also teetering on a very green bankruptcy...
    One of the world's biggest renewable energy firms, Spain's Abengoa, said on Monday it had been given a seven-month breathing space by its creditors for restructuring that should stave off the threat of immediate bankruptcy.

    The really cool thing about utility scale solar power is the fact that it is an economic failure under all economic conditions... The laws of thermodynamics and orbital mechanics are immune to the economic theories, don't give a rat's @$$ about Gorebal Warming and not subject to revision by [email protected] with voter registration cards.

    Bailed out to save the climate.
    Bailed out to save the taxpayer funds they have already lost.
    Allowed to fail.
    Allowed to fail with extreme prejudice.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    How green was my bankruptcy? Solar Ponzi Scheme Edition...
    Watching SunEdison’s Collapse, Solar Industry Resets

    SunEdison’s collapse and mounting losses elsewhere are causing solar developers to change course.

    by Richard Martin April 11, 2016

    Saddled with more than $11 billion in debt and facing at least one investigation by federal officials plus a lawsuit from its own subsidiary, solar giant SunEdison is lurching toward bankruptcy. The shares of other leading solar providers, including SolarCity and Sunrun, have lost more than half their value in the last four months as investors lose confidence in the no-money-down, 20-year-lease model that has fueled the explosive growth of the rooftop solar market in the last few years. Even though Congress has extended the investment tax credit, which provides credits worth 30 percent of the value of installations, that growth is expected to slow as the developers focus on improving their balance sheets rather than fueling breakneck expansion (see “Tax Credit Extension Gives Solar Industry a New Boom”).


    The reset is causing executives to rethink their business strategies and outsiders to ask: how can rooftop solar photovoltaics be turned into a viable, profitable business?

    The companies’ answer is by cutting costs.


    Still, it’s not certain that cost-cutting alone will bring these companies to profitability once the solar tax credits expire in 2022. Solar installers, which have based their business models on rapid growth through customer-friendly leasing deals that impose high up-front costs on the companies, now find themselves in a somewhat vicious cycle: to keep funding new installations they must keep raising money. And to keep raising money they must keep signing up new customers. “Once you’re on that treadmill, it doesn’t stop,” says Raj Prabhu, the CEO of Mercom Capital, which tracks financial data in the clean-energy sector.

    But at some point, they must show a profit.

    The laws of physics preclude them from ever getting off “that treadmill”...

    April 11, 2016

    The Future Of American Shale: Political & Energy Realities

    By Mark Mills

    The battle lines around energy policy in this Presidential election cycle have been drawn early and starkly. It distills simply to shale versus solar. (Wind turbines can be included in the solar category since they capture the effect of the sun’s heat on the atmosphere.)

    What a shame. America and the world will need a lot more of both. And America has a big role, and stake, in both.

    Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders have been nothing if not clear that they want to see an end to fracking -- the use of smart drilling and hydraulic fracturing to unleash oil & gas from shale rock – and instead vigorously expand solar and wind. Senator Cruz, Governor Kasich and Donald Trump are all full-throated supporters of the benefits of shale oil & gas while also supporting solar energy in various ways, if sometimes tepidly.


    The anti-shale proposition is, in essence, that we just don’t need it given the prospect for an imminent revolution in alternative energy – stimulated with a few more dollars in subsidies and incentives.

    You know there is a problem for the shale industry when an often reasonable and knowledgeable pundit like David Ignatius, the foreign affairs and political columnist for the Washington Post, appears to have bought into thesis of an imminent hydrocarbon-free revolution. In his recent column, “Quiet Energy Revolution,” Ignatius is clearly agog at the prospects for alternative energy after touring a DOE-sponsored alternative energy ‘fair’. His column provides a well-articulated summary of the widely believed propositions about America’s energy future.

    Thus, let’s briefly explore Ignatius’ observations in light of his belief that “America’s future is at stake” in this presidential election cycle.
    1.“… the Obama administration has made startling progress that could be reversed if either of the GOP front-runners becomes president.”

    David Ignatius, Quiet Energy Revolution

    When President Obama was sworn into office, America obtained slightly more than 2% of all energy from the combined total of biofuels, solar, and wind sources. That share has grown to just over 4% now. Over that period, alternative energy technologies received a startling $150 billion in cumulative federal subsidies.

    Meanwhile, over the same period shale oil & gas added 800% more to U.S. energy supply than the combined total growth from solar, wind and biofuels. That might properly be termed “startling progress” on an energy front that was unexpected and unsubsidized.


    4. “…the cost of producing large-scale solar energy has fallen 60 percent over that period; prices for wind energy and efficient batteries have declined by more than 40 percent.”

    Solar and battery costs have dropped mainly from rising production (along with subsidized capital) in China and other Asian nations – and not from either new technology or spending from DOE programs: 90% of global batteries and 70% of all solar photovoltaic modules are fabricated in Asia (with China dominant). Meanwhile, essentially all of the DOE-subsidized U.S. battery companies, as well as many of the subsidized solar companies, have failed.

    As for wind: subsidies from preferred rates to mandated utility programs have indeed stimulated the demand for and the associated development of far bigger wind turbines. (Set aside that about 50% of turbines in America are foreign built, along with 60% of those on order.) The attendant economies of scale are evolutionary and not revolutionary: the average new turbine has grown some 3-fold in size over the past two decades, thereby yielding lower per-kilowatt-hour costs. But those gains from scaling up are leveling off: now that turbines are as tall as the Washington monument, they will not be growing another 3-fold bigger.

    Meanwhile, energy technology gets better across the board not just with alternatives. The average cost to operate a shale rig was 40% lower and productivity (output per rig) was 50% higher in the past year alone. Over the last half-dozen years, EIA data shows that shale-rig productivity has improved more than 400% -- without subsidies or mandated purchasing. And gains in shale technology have just begun.

    5. “Wind energy production has tripled; production of solar energy has increased nearly 20-fold. And scientists say we’re still fairly early in the cycle of innovation and cost reduction.”

    Big growth rates are an arithmetical artifact of starting from a very small number. Put simplistically, analogized to investing; compare a 20-fold gain on $1 versus a 2-fold gain on $10,000. Thus, while oil & gas production grew ‘only’ 2-fold over the same period, the total increase in actual energy supplied was 10-fold greater than the combined total from wind and solar. And as noted in #4, while the cycle of innovation continues for all energy sources, engineers are now in sight of physics limiting future gains for solar and wind as significant as those of the past.

    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.


    • #3
      I am generally not in to bailing out non critical companies. A green power company is not critical in my opion. They dont produce enough power.
      Last edited by andrewza; 13 Apr 16, 10:19.
      you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

      CPO Mzinyati


      • #4
        Businesses are about risks, and failure is one of those risks. Taxpayer money is NOT their golden parachute.
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Businesses are about risks, and failure is one of those risks. Taxpayer money is NOT their golden parachute.
          It should not be their parachute but some times it has been such as the bailout of some of our auto company's.
          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

          you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.


          Latest Topics