Oh noes, solar power incident results in ..... burnt tower. This is why solar power is the solution to everything.
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > Oops, Default > > Oops, Fire > > > http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/ivanpah-solar-plant-catches-fire-but-taxpayers-get-burned/ > > Oops > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I wrote: >> >> >>> The taxpayers will get their money back eventually. The power companies >>> are not going to stop buying electricity from this installation. They may >>> renegotiate the price . . . >>> >> >> Source: >> >> I think I read this at Renewable Energy World, but I cannot find the >> article. Anyway, that is the usual arrangement. Since the machine is up and >> running, and making a profit on current operations, the taxpayers should be >> reimbursed. The owners may face bankruptcy. >> >> http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index.html >> >> The article went on to say this is quite different from the situation at >> Solyndra. There was no revenue stream when Solyndra went bankrupt. They did >> not have anything up and running. >> >> When a company goes bankrupt, if there are parts of the company which are >> making a current profit, the courts are careful to keep those parts in >> business. They try not to sell off assets or do anything else which will >> disrupt those parts and stop the flow of income. They try not to cause more >> unemployment than necessary. On the other hand, they direct the current >> profit flow to the creditors, and away from stockholders. When Uncle Sam is >> among the creditors or unpaid vendors, he always goes to the front of the >> line. That's how it works. >> >> The Solyndra bankruptcy has been called a scandal. It is not a scandal. >> Any investment can go south. Many governments supported ventures have >> failed. In this case, the Solyndra portion of the fund failed but overall >> the fund did exceptionally well and made a ton of money for the taxpayers. >> You might argue that the Federal government should not be investing in >> technology. That might appeal to purists who think the government should >> play no role in the economy, but as I have often pointed out, the >> government has played a leading role since the construction of the Erie >> Canal, and in ever major technology since then. If it had not, I expect the >> U.S. would have lost the Civil War, WWI and WWII. >> >> Since most Federal money goes to conventional technology such as coal and >> oil, I do not think the industry should complain. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
