Another "green" energy company bites the dust

[brenthutch 444]

SunEdison files chapter 11. I guess 1.5 billion tax payer loan guarantees and grants could not save it from economic reality.

[kallend 2,106]

Meanwhile at least 67 U.S. oil and natural gas companies filed for bankruptcy in 2015, according to consulting firm Gavin/Solmonese.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

With 1.5 billion in tax payer subsidies?

[gowlerk 2,249]

brenthutch

With 1.5 billion in tax payer subsidies?

It will cost the taxpayer several times that amount to clean up the mess they left behind.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[RMK 3]

I don't understand the purpose of your posts. It's like back at the onset of the internal combustion engine, someone pedantically pointing out any slight problem in their developement and saying we shoud just stick with horse & buggies.

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[brenthutch 444]

RMK

I don't understand the purpose of your posts. It's like back at the onset of the internal combustion engine, someone pedantically pointing out any slight problem in their developement

The internal combustion engine did not get 1.5 billion taxpayer dollars and fail.
Also, it might be worth noting that BOTH solar cells and the internal combustion engine were invented in the 1800s. The one that works is powering the world the one that doesn't, is a government subsidized fantasy.

[gowlerk 2,249]

brenthutch

***I don't understand the purpose of your posts. It's like back at the onset of the internal combustion engine, someone pedantically pointing out any slight problem in their developement

The internal combustion engine did not get 1.5 billion taxpayer dollars and fail.
Also, it might be worth noting that BOTH solar cells and the internal combustion engine were invented in the 1800s. The one that works is powering the world the one that doesn't, is a government subsidized fantasy.


It looks like the company failed because solar cells are now so successful that their price has dropped too much to support their business model. I don't see any reference to the 1.5 billion you speak of, but even if it's true it was money well spent.

This is just another sign of the energy revolution and the winding down of older dirtier technologies. Deadenders will delight as are fooled into thinking they are right. Meantime the world marches by, leaving them so far behind they get confused.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 444]

The company failed because it was so successful.....

Got it.

[Elisha 1]

gowlerk

******I don't understand the purpose of your posts. It's like back at the onset of the internal combustion engine, someone pedantically pointing out any slight problem in their developement

The internal combustion engine did not get 1.5 billion taxpayer dollars and fail.
Also, it might be worth noting that BOTH solar cells and the internal combustion engine were invented in the 1800s. The one that works is powering the world the one that doesn't, is a government subsidized fantasy.


It looks like the company failed because solar cells are now so successful that their price has dropped too much to support their business model. I don't see any reference to the 1.5 billion you speak of, but even if it's true it was money well spent.

This is just another sign of the energy revolution and the winding down of older dirtier technologies. Deadenders will delight as are fooled into thinking they are right. Meantime the world marches by, leaving them so far behind they get confused.

Shame on those people who are able to live off the grid and deny PG&E it's rightful revenue!

[billvon 3,070]

>The internal combustion engine did not get 1.5 billion taxpayer dollars and fail.

Car companies got tens of millions in taxpayer dollars (billions in today's dollars) and still - Tucker, Willys AND Studebaker failed miserably.

By your standards, automobiles are a complete failure.

>Also, it might be worth noting that BOTH solar cells and the internal combustion engine
>were invented in the 1800s.

Well, close. The first working solar cell was invented in 1954 by Bell Labs. (Off by only 100 years.)

>The one that works is powering the world the one that
>doesn't, is a government subsidized fantasy.

Both are government subsidized. Both work. Sorry.

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>The internal combustion engine did not get 1.5 billion taxpayer dollars and fail.

Car companies got tens of millions in taxpayer dollars (billions in today's dollars) and still - Tucker, Willys AND Studebaker failed miserably.

By your standards, automobiles are a complete failure.

>Also, it might be worth noting that BOTH solar cells and the internal combustion engine
>were invented in the 1800s.

Well, close. The first working solar cell was invented in 1954 by Bell Labs. (Off by only 100 years.)
.

"Charles Fritts (1850 – 1903[1]) was the American inventor credited with creating the first working Selenium Cell in 1883."

You can have your own opinions but not your own facts.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

brenthutch

***>The internal combustion engine did not get 1.5 billion taxpayer dollars and fail.

Car companies got tens of millions in taxpayer dollars (billions in today's dollars) and still - Tucker, Willys AND Studebaker failed miserably.

By your standards, automobiles are a complete failure.

>Also, it might be worth noting that BOTH solar cells and the internal combustion engine
>were invented in the 1800s.

Well, close. The first working solar cell was invented in 1954 by Bell Labs. (Off by only 100 years.)
.

"Charles Fritts (1850 – 1903[1]) was the American inventor credited with creating the first working Selenium Cell in 1883."

You can have your own opinions but not your own facts.

You are both right. Rest is a semantics argument. The current version of the solar cell has much more in common with the Bell Labs version than the Charles Fritts version.

Like trying to establish who the inventor of the internal combustion engine is.

[billvon 3,070]

>Charles Fritts (1850 – 1903[1]) was the American inventor credited with creating the
>first working Selenium Cell in 1883."

Yep. And selenium cells are still used today in things like cameras and photometers. You can go back further than that on the general topic of photovoltaics - the first scientist to demonstrate the photoelectric effect was Becquerel in 1839.

Meanwhile, solar cells (the things that convert sunlight into usable amounts of power) were invented in 1954 by Bell Labs.

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>Charles Fritts (1850 – 1903[1]) was the American inventor credited with creating the
>first working Selenium Cell in 1883."

Yep. And selenium cells are still used today in things like cameras and photometers. You can go back further than that on the general topic of photovoltaics - the first scientist to demonstrate the photoelectric effect was Becquerel in 1839.

Meanwhile, solar cells (the things that convert sunlight into usable amounts of power) were invented in 1954 by Bell Labs.

Equivocate all you want, I was right and you were demonstrably wrong. According to your soft logic the first computer was not developed until the advent of the integrated chip in 1959!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

brenthutch

***>Charles Fritts (1850 – 1903[1]) was the American inventor credited with creating the
>first working Selenium Cell in 1883."

Yep. And selenium cells are still used today in things like cameras and photometers. You can go back further than that on the general topic of photovoltaics - the first scientist to demonstrate the photoelectric effect was Becquerel in 1839.

Meanwhile, solar cells (the things that convert sunlight into usable amounts of power) were invented in 1954 by Bell Labs.

Equivocate all you want, I was right and you were demonstrably wrong.

If you want to hang up on semantics like that, then no you were not right.

You claimed that the internal combustion engine was invented in the 18th century, where in fact Huygens did that in the 17th century and the concept was explored as early as the 16th century.

Now of course the Huygens engine with gunpowder as fuel is a little different than what Otto came up with. But then it is pretty comparable to the Fritts Vs. Bell Labs debate.

So, if you want to be right in that conversation, then you were wrong on the internal combustion engine.

If you want to be right on the date of the Internal Combustion Engine, then you are wrong on the Fritts vs Bell Labs one.

[brenthutch 444]

Fine I will concede the IC engine is an older concept.

[jcd11235 0]

brenthutch

Fine I will concede the IC engine is an older concept.

Yet its use is still heavily subsidized.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Coreeece 2]

***someone pedantically pointing out any slight problem in their developement and saying we shoud just stick with horse & buggies.

Damn greenies. . .

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[billvon 3,070]

>Equivocate all you want, I was right and you were demonstrably wrong.

If you think that, then let's get some dates out there -

1680 - Huygens builds the first working internal combustion engine
1807 - First practical IC engine; first use of internal combustion engine in boat by Niepce
1807 - Second practical IC engine; first use in car by Rivaz
1876 - First practical Otto 4 stroke internal combustion engine

1839 - Bequerel builds the first working photovoltaic device
1883 - Fritts develops the first selenium cell
1954 - First practical solar cell developed by Bell
1958 - First use of solar power on Vanguard 1 satellite
1979 - First volume production of residential quality PV panels

So if you want to compare like to like, you could claim that the IC engine was invented in 1680 and the solar cell was invented in 1839. Or you could claim that the first practical IC engine was invented in 1807 and the first practical solar cell was invented in 1954. Either way, your claim that they've both been around as long is just plain wrong.

I first started working with solar around 1985. Back then solar was about $10 a watt ($22 in today's dollars.) The first grid tie inverters had been developed back around 1980, and a few pioneers were starting to install grid connected solar. So from that perspective the consumer solar industry is about 35 years old, while the consumer automotive industry is around 130 years old.

Solar power hit "critical mass" about five years ago when demand for solar started driving efficiencies of scale bringing the cost of raw PV down to about $2/watt. It is still dropping; it is now at about 80 cents a watt and likely headed towards 50. This, in turn, is driving more rapid adoption.

In other words, the solar industry is where the car industry was back in 1913, five years after Ford started selling the first really affordable car, the Model T. And it is growing about as fast; the amount of solar-PV power installed is doubling every two years. This will likely continue until solar supplies about 25% of our electrical energy in sunny areas, at which point it will hit fundamental limits to growth and will slow as new technologies are developed to deal with those limits. It will probably plateau around 50-60%, at which point it will simply keep pace with our further increases in power demand.

[speedy 0]

Quote

It will probably plateau around 50-60%, at which point it will simply keep pace with our further increases in power demand.

Why are you so pessimistic? I can see solar providing 100% within 60 years. If Saudi Arabia covered a substantial part of their desert with PV they could use the power to make synthetic liquid fuels.

It's only a question of EROEI. As long a that is positive it's doable.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[rushmc 23]

gowlerk

***With 1.5 billion in tax payer subsidies?

It will cost the taxpayer several times that amount to clean up the mess they left behind.

I love these no facts claims!!!

funny as hell

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

I love these no facts claims!!!

funny as hell

That explains why you make such claims so regularly.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 23]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

I love these no facts claims!!!

funny as hell

That explains why you make such claims so regularly.

Don

LOL

Even more delusion

Love it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,070]

>Why are you so pessimistic? I can see solar providing 100% within 60 years.

I think it will take longer than that.

We can get to 25% with no real changes in technology. At 25%, we would be generating all our peak power with solar (i.e. during peak solar hours all our energy comes from solar.) The rest of the time we'd rely on other sources (wind, nuclear, natural gas etc.)

With technology changes (ramp rate control, peak shaving/peak shifting, thermal storage) we could get that to 50-60% by basically matching load to generation. That means we'd be generating all our daytime power with solar and shifting much of our nighttime load to the day to take advantage of the cheaper power available during that time.

To get beyond that we will need storage and lots of it. And the petawatt-hours of storage we would need isn't something we will see in 50 years IMO.

[brenthutch 444]

In fifty years the grid will be powered by nuclear fusion. Solar will be relegated to off grid and mobile applications.