http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hou...ther-stimulus-funded-green-company-bankruptcy
House Republican Says ‘Three Is A Trend’ in Another Stimulus-Funded Green Company Bankruptcy
By Fred Lucas
January 27, 2012
The third federally subsidized green energy company to declare bankruptcy seems to indicate a pattern, said Rep. Cliff Stearns, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations.
“One bankruptcy may be a fluke, two could be coincidence, but three is a trend,” Stearns said in a written statement. “Our investigation continues, and we are working to ensure taxpayers never are never again stuck paying hundreds of millions of dollars because of the administration’s risky bets.”
‘Three Is A Trend’ in Another Stimulus-Funded Green Company Bankruptcy
Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by carpro, Jan 29, 2012.
-
-
Could it possibly be something as simple as any industry that requires a government subsidy to begin with isn't a viable business proposition?
-
There currently IS NO GREEN ENERGY PRODUCER that is both sustainable and cost effective. Obama is not wrong in attempting to apply government grant money to research in the field, but he is UTTERLY INCORRECT when he preaches to the American people that we WILL have a sustainable and affordable green energy source that can replace petroleum.
He has cost taxpayers billions in his effort to be THE POTUS who figured out green energy, just like Algore figured out the internet... :wavey:
We cannot "grow" our way into sustainable green energy by robbing crop land that is needed to produce food.
We cannot "build" our way into sustainable green energy by subsidizing at great cost efficient energy-producing equipment that often fails at the REAL task it is called to do.
We cannot even "buy" our way into sustainable green energy for at the end of the day the things needed to actually produce that sustainable green energy are in themselves non-sustainable.
Take the Chevy Volt and other electric cars for instance. Initial cost is almost double that of a standard vehicle. Range is very short. There is a weight penalty -- and the more things weigh the more money it takes to produce them and the worse mileage they get. Then, there is that pesky little issue of fueling them. In essence, these cars burn COAL for that is what produces the elctricity that allows them to plug in, so in this one simple effort to produce a sustainable green and and efficient vehicle we have ended up with a high cost, high weight, resource robbing, ineficcient, short duration, high maintenance, and high background cost very small vehicle that cannot actually get anywhere and do anything of consequence because of all the very large, fuel gobbling trucks and mining equipment required to sustain the venture.
:tonofbricks::tonofbricks: -
It's look like a sure way opportunity to make some serious money though...
Just short the stock of any company that Obama backs with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. :laugh: -
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Solyndra-glass-parts-destroyed/2012/01/20/id/424922
HankD