Another green energy company in the red

solar-power.serendipityThumb

by NW Spotlight

The Oregonian reported this week that Portland’s troubled SoloPower is defaulting on a $10 million state loan.

SoloPower joins other troubled green energy companies in Oregon like SolarWorld in Hillsboro, with $41.9 million in tax credits, and Sanyo Solar in Salem, with $45 million in government subsidies.

The Oregonian noted that “SoloPower has also received a $20 million state tax credit, which it sold at a discount.”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:47 | Posted in Green Energy, State Taxes | 52 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • http://cascadepolicy.org/ Steve Buckstein

    Will these debacles help legislators learn the lesson that pouring other people’s money into risky ventures is a bad idea?

    • Bob Clark

      Probably not, Steve. The legislature just threw $10 million bucks to Metro to pursue the bad penny Oregon Convention Center Hotel (one public money loser deserves yet another public money loser in the perpetual pursuit to solve bad governance with more governance…but you know this all too well). The City of Portland will be asked to kick in some more, and Multnomah County, too. Yet the City of Portland in the last several years lent some $17 million (if I recall correctly) to the hotel 9s in downtown, only to have the hotel subsequently say it can only pay back the loan whenever it can afford to (which hasn’t happened as of yet). The big picture is there is a lot of excess public monies floating around, and the electorate isn’t keeping score much at all of the continual loss of public monies.
      On the positive side, there was enough gridlock in the state legislature to stop the state from being anywhere near the level of financial malfeasance of the last Mayor and council governing the City of Portland.

      • .

        Noting the term (or oxymoron) “excess public monies” – suffice to say such they belong in a rainy day fund or returned to taxpayers creating such. Of course, there’s a subsequent poster who things every spare dime ought go toward his socialist paradigms whether they make sense or snot.

        • DavidAppell

          I think polluters ought to pay for their pollution. That’s a basic principle of libertariarism. I can’t fathom how someone can think the opposite.

          • http://cascadepolicy.org/ Steve Buckstein

            David, are you suggesting that because the Chinese government may let its solar companies pollute the landscape, therefore we should try dumping enough taxpayer dollars into our solar companies to put the Chinese out of business?

          • DavidAppell

            Steve, that is a crude and awkward attack, especially for you.

            Do you think polluters should pay for the damage done by their pollution?
            If not, who should pay it?

          • .

            DA is a nitwit. That is my opinion yet likely shared by other readers of OC.

          • http://cascadepolicy.org/ Steve Buckstein

            Crude and awkward, David? What are you talking about?

            Of course I believe polluters should pay for the damage they do. The devil, of course, is in the details. The worst pollution problems occur in the “commons” where there are poorly defined property rights. Air and Water fit that bill.

          • 3H

            I’m sure a forumla could be arrived at to tax polluters based upon the volume and damage of of their pollution… those costs would be passed on to consumers who could then make a rational economic choice to buy the product or not. The money from the taxes could be used to mitigate the damage done.

            I know it wouldn’t be easy to come up with the numbers, especially since, I’m sure, industry representatives would try and convice legislators that their process or product doesn’t pollute THAT much, but it would still be better than what we have now.

            Ideally, of course, it would be even better to have industries clean up after themselves, voluntarily, and pass along the cost to their consumers. But I really don’t see that happening, do you?

          • DavidAppell

            The EPA recently raised the social cost of carbon to $36 per metric ton of CO2. It is not as much as you might think, though it would eliminate coal:

            http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-carbon-should-cost-you.html

          • http://cascadepolicy.org/ Steve Buckstein

            The fact that industries may not “clean up after themselves” may necessitate government holding them accountable for any violation of our rights stemming from their activities. I’m not the one to get into the details, and that is not the thrust of this post, so I’ll leave it to others to debate.

          • DavidAppell

            Steve: Why, then, your first comment above? Governments ought to be correcting market failures, and pollution is the king of them. Why shouldn’t governments be investing in clean companies in order to correct these market failures? Otherwise, how are they supposed to be corrected?

          • http://cascadepolicy.org/ Steve Buckstein

            I still don’t get what you think is wrong with my first comment.

            Why shouldn’t governments invest in “clean’ companies’ to correct what you see as market failures? For the same reason they shouldn’t invest in any companies, clean or not. Government should protect our rights, not make decisions for us about what energy, or anything else we should use or consume.

          • DavidAppell

            By protecting the Commons government is protecting our rights — it is protecting air, water, and climate for the health and benefit of everyone. Decisions about energy production are a big part of that, and government has the right and the duty to correct massive market failures for the protection of its citizens.

          • .

            David Appell, you seethe so much an asshole s/’much a dildo bard – albeit a condolence to your inherent aperture: Wry not you post your delirium extremism elsewhere, e.g., urinals of yellow jounalism where you bong-ditty bong, bong! you, IMO, pissoir!!!

          • .

            U R such a d’oh bawl such as Steve Buckstein retorts, next, on your jackasinine abli-tease

  • DavidAppell

    When its competitors are allowed to dump their wastes for free, naturally the cleaner industry can’t compete. This isn’t rocket science.

    But Americans would rather suffer suffer worse health, bigger medical bills, and many millenia of climate change than make polluters pay the cost of their pollution. Very short-sighted.

    • Ballistic45

      Typical Liberal BS, the outcome justifies the means? Oh, Really, and what GOOD did pouring Millions into these “Green Companies” do? HOW MUCH Pollution did we stop with this WAISTED funding? And stop with the Climate Change BS.. You are such a Lemming David..

      • DavidAppell

        The social price of carbon is now about $36/t CO2. You can do the math from there, I’m sure.

        Fossil fuels cause at least $120 B/yr in damages to health and ecosystems — and that’s before climate change is factored in, which lasts for many, many millennia.

        Dirty air and mercury pollution affect health. (Ask the Chinese.) Polluters should be paying those bills. Then clean technologies could compete on a level playing field.

  • Ballistic45

    It would be VERY Interesting to investigate how much of these public funds given to these “Green Companies” filters back into the Liberal coffers…. Could it be that it is nothing more than a money laundering scam for Liberal Agenda funding? Just asking, to many of these Over sold Companies are defaulting.. Seems liberal consumers alone could support them if they bought their products with the same zeal that they sell the idea of publicly funding them… So why the failures? It isn’t because of the lack of public funding…

    • DavidAppell

      No more than all that military spending ends up in the hands of right-wing crazies….

      • Ballistic45

        And you are against the military? You are the one shouting that two wrongs don’t make a right? You are against tracking where all that money went in ALL the ‘Green’ Companies that have failed? You are the one who wants to give up energy independence for a pie in the sky resolution that can’t even get off the ground even with Public funding? You are the one ignoring that in the last 15 years the earth temperature rise has slowed markedly from the previous 20 years, even with ever increasing CO2 in the atmosphere? Scientist are starting to question their Computer models? And if the Greenie Companies have all the answers, how much did you support them by buying their products? Sense Liberals claim a majority, then their private and businesses energy needs should be able to keep these ‘Green’ companies solvent by their patronage…

        • DavidAppell

          Am I against the military? For the most part, yes.

          The Earth’s surface has warmed 0.22 F in the last 15 years. The ocean cycles now have much of the extra heat going into the ocean, which have warmed more strongly in the last 15 years than in the previous 15 years. The heat will not stay there. Ice continues to melt, and sea level continues to rise, and the oceans continue to acidify. There has been no slowdown at all in human-caused climate change.

          • Ballistic45

            Read Larry Bell’s Article: Climate consensus cracking under weight of evidence.. Just ONE of MANY POINTS; Scientists at Russia’s prestigious Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg have stated that solar activity is waning to such an extent that the global average yearly temperature will begin to decline into a very cold and protracted climate phase.

            Observatory head Habibullo Abdussamatov, one of the world’s leading solar scientists, member of the Russian Academy of Science, and director of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, points out that over the last 1,000 years deep cold periods have occurred five times. Each is correlated with declines in solar irradiance much like we are experiencing now with no human influence. “A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions. The common view of Man’s industrial activity as a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect.”

            Read more at NetRightDaily.com: http://netrightdaily.com/2013/07/climate-consensus-cracking-under-weight-of-evidence/#ixzz2YwQE3Joq

          • DavidAppell

            Abdussamatov’s extreme prediction shows absolutely no sign of coming true — you can look at the daily satellite data of solar irradiance here:
            http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm#plots

            Nor is there any “crack” in the consensus that CO2 is causing warming, and will cause a difficult amount of it if its emissions continue.

            Any more junk science you have to peddle? Just because some scientist said it doesn’t make it true.

          • Ballistic45

            What’s the use talking with David? Keep drinkin the Kool aid David…

          • DavidAppell

            Kool Aid? I’m not the one reading NetRightDaily for scientific news, and believing every piece of trash they publish.

          • .

            Down, you left dingaling ploy!

          • Ballistic45

            Typical, you use Liberal sites to show your arguments, but deny any I have do, to who publishes them.. You didn’t even read it did ya? Or you would have found more than just “Abdussamatov’s extreme prediction”.. Hee Haw, HEE, HAWW, HEEEE, HAWWW

          • DavidAppell

            Actually, I read Abdussamatov’s paper many months ago. It is not very convincing, with no solar physics at all, and with no support (historical or otherwise) for the kind of changes in solar irradiance he predicts — upwards of 6 Watts per square meter. (In fact, his prediction was that solar iradiance would already be decreasing, which according to LASP data it is not.) By contrast, the TSI difference during the Maunder Minimum was only 1.5 W/m2 lower than today, and the Dalton Minimum about 1.0 W/m2. A study by Stefan Rahmstorf has shown that increases in greenhouse gas forcing will easily overwhelm any of the latter-type changes in the Sun.

            So, no, I didn’t read the political article you suggested, and wouldn’t believe anything they wrote anyway. But some people will fall for anything if it agrees with what they want to hear.

          • .

            You obviously credit Chuck Weise with little or nothing. You should…but your brain is already so starved of common sense, little hope for your recovery bodes,DA.

          • DavidAppell

            ‘Common sense’ says the Sun is heading for a nearly unprecedented decrease in its irradiance??

            How does that work, exactly?

          • DavidAppell

            With what should Chuck Wiese be credited — telling some radio station what its listeners are desperate to hear? He’s not a climate scientist, does no work in the field, and has unscientific views.

          • .

            Oh, pleeze, cull your jets blue bull blarney-horney!!

  • Ed

    Shouldn’t we just take the loss from the paychecks and pensions of those who voted for this debacle over the next two years and move on to the next sure thing.

    • DavidAppell

      All of society has a stake in cleaner energy.

      • Ballistic45

        Where is it written that to progress from horse to cars we have to shoot our horses?

        • DavidAppell

          When the horses are causing huge problems, both to health, ecosystems, and climate. It’s insane to keep using (let along building) coal-fired power plants when their mercury emissions are dangerous and their carbon emissions change the climate for 100,000 years or more. We are a wealthy enough society to pay for our pollution and pay for the R&D to provide cleaner energy. Not every one of those R&D efforts will pan out — that’s the nature of R&D — but the failure of a few is no reason to stop investing.

          • Ballistic45

            And who was it over 30 years ago who vilified the Nuclear Power Plants, Liberals… Who was it that sold America on the idea of CLEAN Coal-fired power plants, Liberals… So we built HUNDREDS of them and haven’t built a Nuclear power plant in all these years.. NOW, Liberals are toying with the idea that just maybe Nuclear plants Could be an answer… Just because you SUSPECT your horse is shitting on the ground instead of in an ECO friendly toilet, you don’t shoot him out from under you until you have something VIABLE to replace him with.. It may stop the piles of horse shit but it leaves you high and dry, no way to work, maybe even loose your job because your work depends on horses and everyone is tired of the horse shit and everyone shot their horses out from under them too… NOW What.. We cleaned up the shit but now we have no jobs, no transportation, no cloths on our back, no food on the table, hey but we have cleaned up the shit… Why is it liberals cannot get their mind around doing two things at once.. Why can’t we use our own natural resources to keep us strong, employed and not pay foreign countries at the prices they demand WHILE we continue R&D on alternatives.. This country succeeded in fighting a two front war while supplying our allies, I’m sure we can develop our bountiful natural resources to keep our economy strong AND do R&D of alternatives AT THE SAME TIME.. What a novel concept… And without the job losses, we can AFFORD to put more money into R&D of new sources of energy…..

          • DavidAppell

            Of course, no one is suggesting anyone go without energy, or jobs, or toilets — but that they be provided in a sustainable way that doesn’t trash the environment and climate for many millennia. Many other people have to live here, after all, and a clean environment is far more important than if you save 20 cents on a gallon of gas. There are plenty of ways to provide clean energy at not a lot of additional expense, and building such an infrastructure would be a great job generator, too.

            PS: It has been the coal industry pushing “clean coal” — to no effect at all so far. The phrase is an oxymoron. We should stop using coal even without considering its carbon pollution.

          • DavidAppell

            I’m sure we can develop our bountiful natural resources to keep our economy strong AND do R&D of alternatives AT THE SAME TIME..

            The government is funding R&D (not enough, though) — but when they do, and some of the projects don’t pan out (as they invariably will), people like you whinge about it. You don’t seem to know what you really want.

          • .

            Mark another down vote to this nee jerk’ed, aka, Deranged Appell cede!

  • Pingback: google.co.uk is a great Search Engine()

  • Pingback: google.de is a nice Search Engine()

  • Pingback: Bing is a gread Search Engine()

  • Pingback: Yahoo is a great Search Engine()

  • Pingback: Bing is a gread Search Engine()

  • Pingback: Yahoo is a great Search Engine()

  • Pingback: Bing is a gread Search Engine()

  • Pingback: test paternite()

  • Pingback: Jody Kriss()

  • Pingback: Serrurier sur deauville()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)