Battery co. with federal cash goes bankrupt

T

TexasFan81

25+ Posts
The company was supposed to become the leading home-grown supplier of lithium-ion batteries for automakers in the United States and around the world -- fueled in part by a $249 million grant from the Obama administration. Today, A123 Systems filed for bankruptcy, saying much of its assets would be sold after losing $857 million over the past several years.
The Link
 
these investments from the gov't are necessary for the advancement of technology, no matter the cost or loss of taxpayer money. at least that's what mcbrett would tell us.

rolleyes.gif
 
leftw 2 weeks ago in first debate romney pointed out that BO's choices to get taxpayer money had cost us 90 Billion
and that was before these last 2 Bo failures

I hope Romney updates the total taxpayer money wasted on these losers
 
The VA hospital in Amarillo has been installing hundreds of solar panels over the parking areas for about a year now. It's a massive program that you would have to see to believe. The costs have to be staggering, but it seems that Obama has found that the only way to sell green energy is to make the taxpayer buy it.
 
I still think developing alt energy and e-vehicles are the right long term solution. The problem is, as many have pointed out, that government should not (and probably can not) pick the winners by giving DIRECT subsidies to the companies.

The cost of energy should be tweaked to cause consumers to pursue their own & best actions.

If we use EIA estimates of 89.6 Mil BTUs per household...

The first 1/3rd would be x dollars, the second third would be (x+20%) and the last third would be (x+60%).

so the consumer could then choose...
1. use less (turn off devices etc)
2. buy new more efficient appliances
3. buy solar/wind etc to supply their own
4. say 'screw it, I like my juice and I'm willing to pay the cost"

That way the consumer could/would pursue their best solution in their area of the country and based on their lifestyle and priorities.

You don't need crazy tax credits, you don't need the govt to pick winners. You just let people pursue their own path based on trying to save themselves some money. There are hundreds of options available.

People would very quickly adjust their habits to get out of the top third and would become very mindful of their energy use.
 
well i disagree. I think the time to act is before you are backed into a corner. That 100 year estimate is pretty fuzzy as well. first it is a 'reserves' estimate and those are very fuzzy to start with. then the 100 yr estimate is based on current usage. if the idea is that this supply is going to get us energy independent then many more entities will start using this as a fuel stock which will substantially increase the average usage which will change that 100 yr number substantially. couldn't find any estimates but imagine if we start converting cars to nat gas. the energy in nat gas is significantly lower and so we'll run through it much faster.

so that 100 stuff starts looking more like 20 if nat gas starts to be widely used fuel.
 
There's nothing fuzzy about it. Based on current levels there is enough natual gas to power the country for at least 100 years given projected growth. A very good friend of mine who has worked in the industry for the last 40 years says that on top of that it is estimated we have only discovered about 50% of what's actually here. Again, not including other forms of fuel.

When projected supplies run short the public will demand alternative fuels. When that demand increases the private sector will fund cost effective research and it will happen. There's a reason this country is known for being an innovator and the private research drives most of that.

We don't need to tweak anything and force the issue now because the demand will not be there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top