Seeking Alpha

Evergreen Solar (ESLR -13.3%) down sharply after Massachusetts pulls tax breaks for the company...

Evergreen Solar (ESLR -13.3%) down sharply after Massachusetts pulls tax breaks for the company following the closing of a plant and elimination of 800 jobs. The state will now try to recoup some of the $58M in incentives it gave to the firm for the Devens, MA facility.
Comments (33)
  • juststarted
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    This is what happens when the government tries to pick winners and losers...........
    23 May 2011, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • dieuwer
    , contributor
    Comments (2226) | Send Message
     
    Good riddance, Evergreen! We don't need companies that live from taxpayers' money.
    23 May 2011, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7411) | Send Message
     
    Maybe this will keep the government out of private businesses.
    I hope the state loses every penny.
    23 May 2011, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5131) | Send Message
     
    LOL....what a joke...if they would have given the money to a new Oil refinery.....it still would have been there...with employees....and all investments intact....
    23 May 2011, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4225) | Send Message
     
    One more stake in the heart of the so-called green energy jobs boom.
    23 May 2011, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3339) | Send Message
     
    This won't change a thing. This story will get little ink as its not conducive to more government subsidies for this industry.
    23 May 2011, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    Very pleased that the green retards, are being unmasked to our citizens...

     

    Global Warming is a hoax, it is used to create panic.....funny that they don't mention Global Warming anymore, now is climate change...

     

    Let be real, we can't damage ourselves with a "green" technology, there is a lot of oil and natural gas, that would create jobs and price stability on the markets, we cannot spend and pillage the wealth of the taxpayers into crappy things just to get in bed with the extreme left of this Nation....enough is enough....
    23 May 2011, 12:52 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12442) | Send Message
     
    Joe:

     

    When I see some insipid corporate TV commercial promoting "green" nonsense, I try to make a point of avoiding their products.
    23 May 2011, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • catamount
    , contributor
    Comments (374) | Send Message
     
    I'm not "green" and I am not "left." My father has been involved with the energy industry since '51, and I support sustainable technologies. This is an engineering mindset. Oil and coal are subsidized at the federal level. Don't just demonize new technologies because they fail to state their long-term economic advantage.

     

    Simple conservative logic tells me:

     

    By all means, diversify the energy resources as much as possible so that no single source can wreak havoc on your economy at the whim of so few global citizens. Make sure there are no subsidies for any of the following:

     

    Coal
    Oil
    NatGas
    Solar
    Biodiesel
    Wind

     

    Let the market figure it out, but keep in mind coal and oil have significant advantage from years of subsidies that allowed for unparalleled distribution infrastructure development.
    23 May 2011, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    Tack, that's what I usually do too.
    23 May 2011, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4225) | Send Message
     
    What you failed to note is that "green" industries - solar and wind - are the most heavily subsidized industries in the US, and probably the world. In the US, wind & solar is subsidized at 27%, oil is around 2%. If you add in state and local subsidies, in some states solar and wind are over 50% subsidized.
    23 May 2011, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • catamount
    , contributor
    Comments (374) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps you missed the last comment I made referencing the incumbent industries' head start (this is an understatement). It is significant. Kill all the subsidies, is what I was trying to convey as my opinion. And, don't forget corn (as I did above).
    23 May 2011, 01:27 PM Reply Like
  • dieuwer
    , contributor
    Comments (2226) | Send Message
     
    Seems like it has "BUBBLE" written all over it.
    23 May 2011, 01:27 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4225) | Send Message
     
    I did not miss it, I was pointing out that while oil subsidies get the headlines, it is actually one of the smallest of all industries.
    23 May 2011, 01:48 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3967) | Send Message
     
    The amount of subsidies to on a $ to $ basis dwarfs anything going to renewables.

     

    Let's subsidize solar and wind to the equivalent tune of $50b a year and see where that takes us.

     

    At $100+ crude, renewables get very attractive.
    23 May 2011, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4225) | Send Message
     
    "...IEA estimated that subsidy support for renewable energy in 2009 totaled $57 billion, of which $37 billion was for renewable energy in the electric generating sector and the remainder was for biofuels..."
    23 May 2011, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3967) | Send Message
     
    Nice catch there Windsun,

     

    I did use the $50b number erroneously, but I'll refer to something a little better since you have so effectively trashed my above comment.... From the source here:

     

    www.bloomberg.com/news...

     

    [Global subsidies for fossil fuels dwarf support given to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power and biofuels, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said.

     

    Governments last year gave $43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the $557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008.]
    23 May 2011, 03:46 PM Reply Like
  • Fr33f0rm
    , contributor
    Comments (300) | Send Message
     
    Anyone familiar with Econ 101 will understand that, the product life cycle the price starts out high with only "early adopters" purchasing the product. After the company has established a market, prices go down as competition is established and so on.

     

    If there is no federal assistance to alternative energy development then development for "green technologies" would have begun when oil had increased in price enough to make the green technologies worthwhile.

     

    At the beginning of the "green energy" life cycle (with no public assistance) we would be STARTING large scale solar products when oil was already $400/barrel and we would be behind the 8-ball because the development time would put us in a "Mad Max"-like situation.
    23 May 2011, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4225) | Send Message
     
    You are comparing the amount, not the percentages. Oil/gas/coal gets the most money in total dollars because it is the largest industry. But as a percentage it is way down the list. I think the 2nd largest in total dollars is Agriculture.

     

    On a strict ratio basis, Solar got about 1/10th of the subsidy, but produced less than 1/10,000th of the energy.
    23 May 2011, 10:52 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4225) | Send Message
     
    We have been selling solar since 1979. It is hardly a new industry.
    23 May 2011, 10:53 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3967) | Send Message
     
    Certainly it is not the same product since 1979, the quality of components, cost, and in particular battery storage technology has improved vastly. Since lithium-ion batteries become prevalent, and since Tesla made a business case for EVs using them, merely in this last decade, cost for batteries has dropped like a rock and the viability of EVs is such that consumer level EVs are now available, and indeed viable.

     

    Even formula one is transitioning to hybrid technology (using mechanical energy storage instead of batteries - quite the innovation). These are new developments, and change the market drastically.
    24 May 2011, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3967) | Send Message
     
    I am indeed comparing the amounts not the percentages, but the business case for utility grade renewable energy is not going to be made by me but by projects by companies like Brightsource and GE.

     

    The biggest difference between subsidizing renewables and subsidizing fossil fuels, is that fossils get exported, and are subject to international pricing. What additional cost goes to subsidizing renewables today, is offset by its long term productivity generation in the economy.
    24 May 2011, 09:36 AM Reply Like
  • Fr33f0rm
    , contributor
    Comments (300) | Send Message
     
    Exactly, it's like the space program. There is no real immediate need or benefit for man to go into space but the amount of technological progress that has come out of the space program is unmistakable.
    24 May 2011, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4225) | Send Message
     
    "..What additional cost goes to subsidizing renewables today, is offset by its long term productivity generation in the economy..."

     

    Is only partly true. The problem is most apparent in wind, where because of massive subsidies windmills are being put in places far less than optimal. Spain did the same thing, and now has a huge amount of generation capacity it cannot sell. In some cases - such as in or near oceans - the maintenance costs end up being the most expensive part.

     

    IMO, I think that long term solar thermal will end up being the large scale winner as it is easier to store excess heat for later use than it is to store electrical energy.
    24 May 2011, 02:07 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4225) | Send Message
     
    Actually battery technology has not improved that much in 100 years. There are better batteries, but they are also much more expensive. And though some are more efficient, not all are. And the cost/KWH of storage is often more than the cost to generate it.

     

    EV's will never be more than 20-30% of the market at best. They are not much of a solution when you need to go more than 100 miles or so, and the laws of physics will probably prevent ever extending that range to any large amount. Even if you come up with a battery that could hold enough for 1000 miles, then you would have some real problems charging them up in a reasonable time.

     

    Electric cars are probably ideal for local transportation and short to medium commutes, but that only amounts to about 1/4th of the total fossile fuel usage.
    24 May 2011, 02:24 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3967) | Send Message
     
    I like your comments Windsun but I do think that your feelings on EVs as poor solution are ignoring the latest developments in the space, such as 80% rapid recharge in minutes, or the Better Place solution of replacing battery trays much like refueling a gas powered car.

     

    More interesting however, is Tesla founder Elon Musk's visualizations of capacitors as the future of EV technology (gigaom.com/cleantech/t.../), as charging can be instantaneous. This is technology being worked on and developed today, not 30 years ago, because it has become more viable based on current technology.

     

    I'd hesitate to make such predictions as those in your comment with entrepreneurs of Musk's caliber in the game.
    24 May 2011, 02:36 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4225) | Send Message
     
    Rapid recharge of high capacity battries is precisely the problem. Very few, if any, household circuits can handle the load. If battery capacity doubles, then so does the amperage required to recharge it in the same amount of time.

     

    To charge a typical currently available 5KWH battery in one hour would require around 45 amps @ 115 volts AC. The typical limit of most household circuits is 20 amps, 30 amps/230 Volt for electric dryer/stove outlets.

     

    If battery size is upped 4x, to get a 300 mile range, then you would need 4x the power (plus around 15%) to recharge it.
    24 May 2011, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Morgan
    , contributor
    Comments (1500) | Send Message
     
    Windsun, another point is that we don't have money to spend reckless...there is a big deficit and we should cut all the green subsidies...
    23 May 2011, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4225) | Send Message
     
    I think we should cut ALL subsidies and special tax breaks, and over the next 5-8 years eliminate them 100%. In all it's decades of trying, no government has been successful in picking winners.
    23 May 2011, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7411) | Send Message
     
    Windsun.. Agree totally that ALL subsidies should be eliminated. For too many years the politicians have handed out money in the form of subsidies and tax preferences to those who in turn buy those politicians with campaign funds.
    If the mob did the same thing they would be prosecuted as it would be called kickbacks.
    23 May 2011, 03:46 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3967) | Send Message
     
    Mass is doing well on renewable projects anyway

     

    www.capewind.org/

     

    Evergreen is rightly being punished for exporting US jobs to China as far as I am concerned. Especially when there are US companies investing here.

     

    Should sue them and prohibit them from doing business in the US to boot.
    23 May 2011, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4225) | Send Message
     
    Not really, that will probably never get off the ground. "One of the reasons that Cape Wind was not on the list of the projects that will continue to move forward is the not surprising fact that the project developers have not been successful in finding customers for the 50% of the projected output that remains to be sold..."

     

    Google "cape wind finances".
    23 May 2011, 10:57 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3967) | Send Message
     
    I'm not convinced it will tank, although you are correct that it needs to find a buyer for the other 50% of its projected output. The simplest solution could be reducing the size of the project, but neither of us are likely privy to the business decisions being made.
    24 May 2011, 09:28 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)