Slashdot Mirror


A Twisted Clean-Tech Tale: How A123 Wound Up In Bankruptcy

curtwoodward writes "Advanced battery maker A123 Systems was supposed to be one of the marquee names of the U.S. cleantech manufacturing scene — it won hundreds of millions in federal grants, had operations around the globe, and supplied the luxury Fisker electric car. In 2009, as the economy sputtered, A123 registered the country's biggest IPO. Today, it's in bankruptcy court, with possible buyers submitting bids for its parts and pieces. How'd A123 fall so far, so fast? As losses mounted, its reliance on just two big customers came back to haunt the company — and a series of screwups at a Michigan plant delivered the final blow."

43 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Michigan by willie3204 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh perhaps the deal didnt go through just yet See here

  2. Just another cautionary tale by Revotron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing good has ever come from the commander-in-chief tossing government money back to his buddies (and campaign donors) in industry. My statement applies to this president just as much as it does to those before him.

    1. Re:Just another cautionary tale by mspohr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government has been tossing taxpayer money to the oil industry, big agriculture, banks and everyone else who could buy themselves a politician or two since the beginning of time.
      This particular failure sounds like a combination of bad management plus the fact that developing and scaling new technology is hard.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re:Just another cautionary tale by LehiNephi · · Score: 3, Informative

      For perspective, the tax breaks given to oil companies amounts to about $2.4 billion/year (in the form tax breaks which are similar to the same tax breaks that every other industry gets for investing in expansion). Loan guarantees like the one A123 got totalled $90 billion in the "stimulus" bill passed in 2009.

      Government sticking its thumb on the scales of the economy is always a bad idea--whether it be bailing out banks or perpetual ethanol subsidies + ethanol mandates + import tariffs.

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
    3. Re:Just another cautionary tale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you think the government is not doing enough, feel free to donate your money. No need to force your wealth transfer religion on others.

    4. Re:Just another cautionary tale by mspohr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just a few clarifications to your post.
      Loan guarantees are not grants.
      A123 received a $250 million loan guarantee, not $90 billion.
      Government has a vital role to play in keeping the economy moving. This is done through tax incentives, loans, stimulus programs and grants.
      The problem is that the wrong corporations capture these incentives. Obsolete industries and industries which are doing fine without incentives tend to capture most of them... (i.e. General Electric receives enough government incentives that they pay no taxes but they are a perfectly viable business to stand on their own.)

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    5. Re:Just another cautionary tale by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The wealth transfer religion is that of the demagogs insisting that the unregulated market cures all ills. And it is a transfer of wealth from the productive working members of society to the non-working class of the plutocrats, those wealthy enough to grow their wealth by leaching off the labor of others without contributing any real labor in return. It is a religion that is destroying America as a power and will ultimately lead to the annihilation of our liberties and way of life, a return to absolute despotism at the hands of a noble class that feels entitled to everything their serfs can produce.

    6. Re:Just another cautionary tale by Endovior · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Loan guarantees like the one A123 got totalled $90 billion in the "stimulus" bill passed in 2009. Government sticking its thumb on the scales of the economy is always a bad idea--whether it be bailing out banks or perpetual ethanol subsidies + ethanol mandates + import tariffs.

      Just a few clarifications to your post. Loan guarantees are not grants. A123 received a $250 million loan guarantee, not $90 billion. Government has a vital role to play in keeping the economy moving. This is done through tax incentives, loans, stimulus programs and grants. The problem is that the wrong corporations capture these incentives. Obsolete industries and industries which are doing fine without incentives tend to capture most of them... (i.e. General Electric receives enough government incentives that they pay no taxes but they are a perfectly viable business to stand on their own.)

      Read post more carefully before refuting, parent was quoting the total amount of 'stimulus' loan guarantees in that year, not the money given to A123 specifically. Now, you could argue that it'd work fine if it weren't for the 'wrong' corporations getting the money, but really... are there 'right' corporations that could be getting money? Someone has to pay the taxes in the first place, after all... and since when has robbing Peter to pay Paul ever resulted in net gains?

    7. Re:Just another cautionary tale by jythie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Eh, it is an old debated topic. However, in general, a government doing some tipping is better then an economy left completely to its own devices. The general problem is, businesses do what is best for them and worst for everyone else.. when everyone is doing this things end up in pretty bad shape. You need a counter force in there that can look at the big picture and do what is best for the economy as a whole. I will not pretend governments are fantastic at it, but a sub par job still results in more stability and growth then none at all... or the more likely outcome is a cabal of businesses usually end up banding together and they end up preforming that role instead. While it can be argued the fed is in buisness's pocket, the election mechanism and institutional balance still provide some counter to what would otherwise be a purely business driven scale tipping.

    8. Re:Just another cautionary tale by khallow · · Score: 2

      The wealth transfer religion is that of the demagogs insisting that the unregulated market cures all ills.

      What evidence do you have for this assertion? Let us keep in mind that there is no "unregulated market" aside from a few toy markets and in a sense the black markets (where if you trade on them, you already risk going to jail and other punishments, so they aren't going to be pretty). So there just isn't a whole lot of evidence for this assertion that unregulated markets transfer wealth to plutocrats.

      Instead, I think the simple explanation is that the value of labor has declined in recent decades due to a vast expansion of the global pool of labor. And the value of capital has not declined. This already favors those who own capital over those who work. So what has the US done in response? It has made US labor more expensive to hire and punished businesses for hiring people (such as the regulation and cost surges employers experience at both the first employee hired and the 50th employee hired). This is insane.

      But sure, let's do a two minute hate for the nonexistent, unregulated market which is the source of all our self-inflicted woes.

    9. Re:Just another cautionary tale by Fast+Thick+Pants · · Score: 5, Informative

      For perspective, the tax breaks given to oil companies amounts to about $2.4 billion/year (in the form tax breaks which are similar to the same tax breaks that every other industry gets for investing in expansion). Loan guarantees like the one A123 got totalled $90 billion in the "stimulus" bill passed in 2009.

      Where's this $90 billion number from? $88 billion over ten years was the total for titles II, IV, V, and VIII of the ARRA bill. Loan guarantees are only part of this.

      Wikipedia puts the total green-energy loan guarantees at $6 billion. There might be some other loan guarantees hiding in other categories, but your total is suspect, and comparing an annual number to a ten-year number is deceptive regardless.

    10. Re:Just another cautionary tale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh god that's such bullshit.

      If you can't get your fucking "winning business idea" funded, then your idea is not a "winning business idea."

      Oil companies are not the only companies out there. If you have an amazing idea for clean energy, there are literally THOUSANDS of other investors you could court with pockets deep enough to help you realize your dream. Stop whining about "fat cats refusing to fund my ideas," and start coming up with ACTUAL WORKABLE BUSINESS MODELS.

    11. Re:Just another cautionary tale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What part of simply not taking their money away is the government "favoring" business? If the government is favoring anyone, it's the people who they give handouts to.

      Yes, big business also gets handouts. Those are wrong too. However, just because you're rich doesn't mean you got it from a government hand out, and it certainly doesn't mean that the government is "favoring" you by staying out of your way. That's like a mobster who isn't "protecting" you from anyone other than himself and his own thugs.

    12. Re:Just another cautionary tale by DudeTheMath · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you need evidence of wealth transfer to plutocrats, simply Google "ratio of ceo pay to worker pay" to find some. The second hit is to The Economist ("Are They Worth It?"), which shows the change in ratio from about 20 in the '70s to well over 200 today, and the fourth to WSJ discussing a Dodd-Frank provision that could cap that ratio. That WSJ piece refers to a recent study showing productivity drops as that ratio increases.

      --
      You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
    13. Re:Just another cautionary tale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Loan guarantees are not grants.

      When you hand them to companies in businesses that are too risky to actually obtain private financing, they might as well be grants.

      Government has a vital role to play in keeping the economy moving.

      That is an opinion. And an opinion that could quite possibly why we have the sort of problems we do. Big government breeds big business. Government bureaucracy and regulations are an added cost drag on the business of actually producing and selling products, and they force businesses into having to be larger in order to offset the massive overhead of accounting and regulatory compliance required by a government.

      Think I am full of crap? Try as a small business to obtain a government contract outside of very, very small items if you don't have inside contacts. You'll double the size of your company overnight just hiring people to fill out paperwork.

    14. Re:Just another cautionary tale by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Government has a vital role to play in keeping the economy moving. This is done through tax incentives, loans, stimulus programs and grants.

      That's their claim, but it's hogwash. Every dollar 'given' as stimulus has been taken from other people, either directly through taxes, or by devaluation of capital through inflation.

      That capital is thus no longer available to its original (proper) owners, and so cannot be invested by them. The only remaining question is whether the government is more careful with how it invests other people's money than they are themselves.

      To illustrate the point, may I present: A123 Systems.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    15. Re:Just another cautionary tale by khallow · · Score: 2

      When Peter had billions in cash flow going unused except to pad the bank accounts of those already mega-rich, and Paul had a winning business idea but no funding since he wasn't part of the good old boy network. You may be too young to know the dangers of vast wealth accumulation, but pick up a history book some time and you will find out all about it. An economy that favors the big over the small never wins in the long run.

      So to fix this alleged problem, you suggest government action? Here's a few of the problems I spot right now. First, the US government has no particular expertise in this area. The private market simply is far better for funding this sort of thing. Second, the mega-rich good old boys play this political game far better than Paul ever could. Third, the US government has driven wealth accumulation in numerous ways, such as regulations and bureaucratic mazes that favor big, established players, a huge revenue stream that can and is suborned by that good old boy network, and discouraging the use of US labor (by driving up the cost of it).

    16. Re:Just another cautionary tale by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Informative

      Loan guarantees like the one A123 got totalled $90 billion in the "stimulus" bill passed in 2009.

      Not quite. A123's loan guarantee (totaling only $17 million, with an "m") came from the Department Of Energy, not directly through the stimulus bill. The DoE has extended about $34 billion in loan guarantees (of which only a small amount is actually expected to be paid out). A thorough analysis of the program is quite an interesting read.

      The best source I can find for the quoted $90 billion is the total cost ($88 billion) for "purchases of goods and services" which included a number of other programs as well as funding the DoE loan guarantees. Note that the entirety of A123's loan, had the guarantee been paid, is about 1% of the rounding error.

      Government sticking its thumb on the scales of the economy is always a bad idea--whether it be bailing out banks or perpetual ethanol subsidies + ethanol mandates + import tariffs.

      That's the whole point of government, though. As I've said before, humans suck. We're terribly biased and selfish. Left to our own devices, we'll kill each other over trivial matters, because we really don't care about anything beyond our local community. That's just how our brains have evolved. Sure, philosophically we can consider the notion of loving everybody and being nice, but that's not our instinct. We have to work for it.

      That's where government comes in. Government is an abstraction that gives us an excuse to make policies based in philosophy, rather than just what we want at the time. If a politician thinks a big farming industry is really good in the long run, they'll support a subsidy, even if that means higher taxes right now. Since the policies are just abstract ideas to the politicians, rather than actual food disappearing from their dinner table, the politicians' human brains can make a less-biased decision based on the information they're given.

      Of course, now it's that information that can be tainted by need and greed. Each politician thinks they're doing what's best, and voting for what will most help their constituents. This is why it's important to communicate with your representatives about issues you're knowledgeable about, and double-check your facts. Of course, since all humans are biased to believe that their opinions are objectively right, the burden's on you to provide enough proof to make a convincing argument.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    17. Re:Just another cautionary tale by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wow. You are missing the whole concept of Risk and Return on Investment.

      Simple example is a SBA loan for a small company to buy a building for their operations (or other capital investment). The bank would normally require 30% down payment to mitigate risks; the SBA loan basically provides a 40% guarantee so the business only needs to put down 10%. The SBA provides that guarantee to help small businesses grow in ways that would otherwise be impractical at best. In return, the small business (hopefully) can grow, hiring people and stimulating the economy. Risk for the SBA loan is first taken by the business, then the government, and then the lender. SBA loans have interest rates about 0.75% above what a well qualified homeowner could get, rather than the 7-10% that might otherwise be required.

      The bank is going to need that 7-10% interest to absorb the risk of a 90% loan, which simply takes money away from the small business and their growth opportunities.

    18. Re:Just another cautionary tale by tacokill · · Score: 2

      WTF? The link that YOU provided clearly shows it's at least $27bil. Or did you not count "investments" in electric vehicles?
      I suppose you can define "green" however the hell you want to but outside of the spin machine, normal people can see - exactly - what is going on. Solyndra. A123. etc....

      Go look at the pinnacle of the new green economy: Greensburg, KS. Remember that place? Yea, we don't either because we all knew it was a big joke.

    19. Re:Just another cautionary tale by operagost · · Score: 3

      I assume your first argument is the standard "appeal to tradition" and the second one is a special pleading for the "green energy" industry, that it's "hard". It's "hard" to safely and effectively survey new oil and gas deposits, drill wells, pump it out, ship it, refine it, and distribute it without breaking any government regulations. I won't even go into what is required to build coal or nuclear power plants.

      The fact is that government should not be talking about "investing" and other words that refer to free market capitalism, which is anathema to government. Government is supposed to spend money on things that are in the public interest, not necessarily those things that would make a profit. But when we see them throw money down a hole like this, it looks a lot more like crony capitalism.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    20. Re:Just another cautionary tale by curtwoodward · · Score: 2

      Well, there are a couple little strings - at least in the government's opinion! It filed paperwork letting the bankruptcy judge know that, because of the federal financing, the government will have a say of some sort in who gets to buy the facilities it underwrote. That's generally thought to be code for "we will have more to say if a Chinese firm submits the winning bid." More here: http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Bankruptcy/News/2012/11_-_November/U_S__says_A123_sale_requires_its_consent/

    21. Re:Just another cautionary tale by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every dollar 'given' as stimulus has been taken from other people, either directly through taxes, or by devaluation of capital through inflation.
      That capital is thus no longer available to its original (proper) owners, and so cannot be invested by them. The only remaining question is whether the government is more careful with how it invests other people's money than they are themselves.

      Every dollar 'given' as a stimulus to keep up the law has been taken from other people, either directly through taxes, or by devaluation of capital through inflation. That capital is thus no longer available to its original (proper) owners, and so cannot be invested by them. The only remaining question is whether the government is more careful with how it protects other people than they are themselves.
      You see? With the same hogwash argument you could argue that we should abolish all police, judges and the army, and let people decide how they protect themselves. Some will invest in a private army of their own, other will just keep some bodyguards, other will bound together and form some corporation with group of leaders which then organise the protection of their members. We should also encourage competition by having at least two local providers of security where you can pay your protection money to.
      And suddenly we are inmidst of tribal warfare, with local warlords feuding each other for territory -- pardon: marketshare. Local businesses will bloom marketing services to the local private armies. Lets call those businesses thus "marketenders".
      But we had a big historical experiment: Which countries did thrive? Those whose libertarian society gave large tax breaks to the wealthy, even extempting the most wealthy from all taxes, gave the protection business into private hands as fiefdoms, and encouraged everyone to found their own territory, unregulated, with their own standards? And then let the war -- pardon, the market -- decide whose country -- pardon, business -- will survive and conquer -- pardon, buy -- the others? Or those, who had a strong government with an efficient administration, setting general laws everyone had to comply with, a good state education system open to everyone, a well organised army and police force and a system of judges and courts paid enough to decide fair and according to the law?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  3. Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A123's 'success' was built on DOE funded research dollars that went to MIT. This money was used to develop key patents that were then 'auctioned off' to A123. A123 just happened to be a company set up by the head researcher whose name appears on the MIT patents. Of course, he was only a minority shareholder as it was the cigar-smokers who get to be the majority shareholders. None of these cronies know anything about actually running a company, but they can certainly sell shares, which is what they did. I tried to find out how to get in on these patent auctions and the process is so guarded that an outsider can't even find out how it goes down. When I tried to inquire about it, I was immediately sent to an MIT public relations officer who would only give me long sermons about all these studies that have demonstrated that since Congress passed the laws to create patents and grant exclusive licenses on technologies developed with public monies it's been nothing but unicorns and rainbows. I finally had to hang up on the guy when he wouldn't even respond to any question I tried to ask him. He just kept spewing his propaganda like a fucking robot.

    1. Re:Bullshit. by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Funny

      He was a robot. MIT patented a Turing PR bot. That patent is going to auction next week actually, but I'm not going to tell you the details...

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  4. Re:Private enterprise... by LehiNephi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is that it wasn't exactly a private free enterprise. They received a $17.1m loan guarantee from the federal government, without which their plant would not have been built. Investors saw them as a bad risk, and appropriately declined to invest in them.

    --
    Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
  5. Rhetorical? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    Question:

    How'd A123 fall so far, so fast?

    Three words later...

    its reliance on just two big customers

    Answered

  6. Re:Private enterprise... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    The whole point of private free enterprise ...

    Except that it wasn't "private free enterprise". A123 Systems received hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

    Government funding of basic scientific research makes sense. Government funding of manufacturing is idiotic. If private investors are unwilling to put up their own money to build the factory, that is a good sign that the factory is not going to be economically viable.

  7. Having worked for a corporation that bet big on .. by boethius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... so-called "green/cleantech" I can say unreservedly it was about 99% hype and 1% reality. They dropped at least $2B in their attempt to diversify their portfolio into greentech and acquired a number of companies - including the one I worked for - to buy their credibility in the solar panel marketplace.

    As it turned out, said marketplace - and greentech in general - was and is a bust. Rich yuppies are basically the only ones that can afford to purchase, install, and maintain solar panels even with massive State and Federal government subsidies both in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere. Given the very poor efficiency of solar panels and their very long term ROI, those yuppies are the only ones with more money than good sense.

    For all Al Gore's, the UN, and pro-globalists' hand-wringing over AGW (and I'm not here to get into THAT debate), the reality is that most people and therefore most businesses aren't particularly concerned about climate change. When the economy tanked in the 2008-ish time frame, the corporation I worked for - the world's largest semiconductor equipment company - said they had, in their 30+ years in business, NEVER see demand drop off a cliff the way it did. Consumer demand for electronic gadgets quite literally disappeared and did so almost overnight. It was a stunning hit to the solar plexus of that industry. Needless to say, a year on I was laid off.

    Greentech far from saved them - and, thankfully, at least it was mostly THEIR OWN dollars they spent on greentech investments -- and it turns out the vast majority of the dollars they dumped into those investments turned out to be giant loss. It was nearly all hype and very little reality.

    On a mundane level I don't have a huge problem with the Federal government taking big bets on cutting-edge technology that private industry typically can't afford. Note: NASA, the Military in general (from whom we have GPS among many other military-to-private sector innovations to thank for), and of course DARPA from whom we may not have this little thing called the Internet.

    Even if there was no real skepticism around climate change I don't believe it would matter. The money the UN wants from the major nations to "fix" climate change would end up being a giant slush fund for lavish UN diplomat expenses. I'd bet big money not a dime would go to any good or positive net effect to supposedly fix or even seriously address climate change issues beyond expensive committees filing expensive 500-page reports and jet-setting between Dubai and New York and London and Tokyo to confab with like-minded global elitists. Climate change isn't something that will be fixed on a macro scale. That, among many other reasons (i.e., the general massive corruption and ultimate pointlessness of the UN), is why so many nations are resisting funding this cluster. Many people are struggling to merely survive in this world - in fact, the vast majority of the global population is in that bind - and concern over how many hydrocarbons they're pumping into the environment is of zero to less-than-zero concern.

  8. Re:Fisker Karma fires? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes. Any similar batteries are just as likely to catch fire if flooded with salt water, however.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  9. Re:Private enterprise... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    it's extremely irresponsible of ANY government to invest in a company without doing the normal work that say an 'Angel Investor' would do.

    The problem with your scenario is that the private investors already looked at it and declined to invest. Any company that comes to the government for capital, is almost by definition a bad investment.

    ... or just get out of business entirely.

    Ding ding ding!

  10. Re:Private enterprise... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

    So we should never build any nuclear power plants?

    All of those are built with government backed loans and are insured by the government as well.

  11. Not at all better by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    in general, a government doing some tipping is better then an economy left completely to its own devices

    Totally false.

    A123 being propped up by the government meant that other companies developing battery technology were less likely to work on similar problems because they had to get real money, which would have been also less easy to come by with A123 funded in that space.

    Private investors are way more careful to invest in things that might work. They are obviously smarter at this because they are using real money, with real consequences for loss. Neither is true of government funds. The government stinks on ice at picking out winners in the market and in the end most of the money they give out is essentially a laundering operation to campaign donors.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not at all better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You completely neglect the market forces at work in the 1800's before the trust busting days of the US government. The only force powerful enough to dislodge the rabidly growing trusts was the US government - and then it was only a matter of time. Free markets break down when there are monopolies, monopolies form and grow if allowed to, and monopolies eventually become inherently destructive. If it wasn't for the government, there wouldn't have been a Microsoft monopoly, because US Steel or Standard Oil or AT&T or one of the railroads would have owned them or shut them down.

      To declare that a government has no place in the markets is just unicorn shit pie.

    2. Re:Not at all better by khallow · · Score: 2

      You completely neglect the market forces at work in the 1800's before the trust busting days of the US government.

      And the markets. Those trusts were bleeding market share. It probably wouldn't have been fast enough for you since the process was happening over decades.

      But let's suppose you are right. That still doesn't justify the vast majority of what the US does. A need to prevent monopolies doesn't lead to the government regulating so much of US society or shoveling so much money around.

    3. Re:Not at all better by jythie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      *smirk* you actually think private investors are more careful? Or that they are generally working with their own money? Wow.....

      The government is generally not trying to pick individual winners or losers, it is trying to steer an economy, the two are not the same thing. As for A123 being 'propped up'.. in case you have not noticed, the battery market has almost completely left the US at this point. Countries that have solid government investment in research and incubators have pretty much taken that market. Private firms in the US currently do not stand a chance, esp since the private equity market generally will not take risks on them because they do not care about the over all economy, only which individual companies can return a profit. We again encounter the old game theory problem.. the individual players do not have an incentive for a strong general economy, the government does.

  12. Well by jameshofo · · Score: 2

    From the story it looks like it could be tied to bad management, failing to do the due diligence and ensuring that the product was correct before you sold and shipped millions then trying to keep it under wraps? Seriously stand up and admit your wrong so you can fix them and survive to live another day.

    --
    Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
  13. Re:Having worked for a corporation that bet big on by ETEQ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For all Al Gore's, the UN, and pro-globalists' hand-wringing over AGW (and I'm not here to get into THAT debate), the reality is that most people and therefore most businesses aren't particularly concerned about climate change

    Lets be a bit more honest here: you don't have to be a "pro-globalist" to be worried about Climate Change. The science is the same regardless of the politics (even if political pre-conceptions make people want to ignore it). And I think it's not reasonable to say that if most people were concerned the businesses would be as well. They all have a vested interest in the status quo and hence will nearly always be behind the direction the people (or scientific results) are going. It's only in the ideal free market fantasy that this isn't true.

    Climate change isn't something that will be fixed on a macro scale.

    This is a pretty close-minded attitude, and this sort of thinking is most likely the main thing that may indeed prevent it from being fixed this way (or at all). Just because some greentech doesn't work, that doesn't mean none of it will. Hydroelectric power requires massive funds that are almost always public sector, and it's enormously successful (and profitable in many cases if you consider the net benefits). It's just conveniently ignored by those who decry "wasted" greentech money.

    While the laws of physics are deterministic (at least at this scale), the laws of human behavior are not. Plenty of macro-scale activities have profound effects on our micro-scale behavior.

    Many people are struggling to merely survive in this world - in fact, the vast majority of the global population is in that bind - and concern over how many hydrocarbons they're pumping into the environment is of zero to less-than-zero concern.

    This is a very good point. But if Climate Change is real, the vast majority of the future global population's lives depend on us solving it. So we should be expending enormous resources to convince them that they should be concerned (or better yet, help lift them out of desperation).

  14. EXCUSE ME? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Government has a vital role to play in keeping the economy moving. This is done through tax incentives, loans, stimulus programs and grants.

    Yeah, by ripping off people by creating an A123 Systems, Solyndra, you NAME it, they keep the economy going! You know, the guys who just chew up money, give it to their buddies, and run off having raped everyone with a corporate scam. And by keeping the economy going, I mean inflating and taxing the US economy into asphyxiation to where PEOPLE HAVE NO MONEY TO BUY because they are paying for this corporate welfare garbage. Except that they aren't because the debt is GROWING AT ABOUT FOUR BILLION DOLLARS PER DAY.

    FREE markets which are markets free from government meddling (this includes corporate welfare and tax breaks for the big businesses) allow the economy to work AS IT SHOULD. Consumer demand drives supply chains. Consumer demand is WHAT PEOPLE WANT. When people get what they want, you have a healthy economy.

    You can put financial regulations and environmental protections in place against businesses all day long, but as soon as you try to force the market to do something, it will adapt. For instance, there is an anti-tobacco subsidy where the government pays you to not plant tobacco. You plant one acre to prove that you can plant tobacco, and the government gives you FREE MONEY to not plant tobacco on the rest of the land. It doesn't take but five seconds of thought to understand how not only does this increase the growth of tobacco but drains the coffers at the same time. This is one of the simplest examples. You end up with your controls both fostering corruption (great way to pay yourself or your buddies) and creating inefficiencies in the economy which will be bypassed as there is still demand for whatever the government was trying to kill and which will be abused because there is an artificial free supply of government-issued "incentive."

  15. Re:Michigan by curtwoodward · · Score: 2

    Yeah, they're actually in the "auction" part of the bankruptcy today. JCI is the opening bidder - the "stalking horse" as it's colorfully named. Unsure when the other bids etc will be made public, but there is a hearing scheduled in court on Dec. 11.

  16. Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think I get where you're going with the "environmental regulations" argument though that can somewhat be argued the same way. If there is a way around a regulation, you'd better be sure the market will find it!

    Look at it this way. We have a population of ~270 million "entities of self interest." They're all chipping away at whatever they can get a piece of. If the government is spending half the GDP on the weapons of war, well, where do you think all the jobs are going to be? Yeah. So everyone's getting a job with a government contractor making UAVs, analytics software for intercepted comms, etc. which have no use in the consumer market. Of course, since the tech is there, someone will make money now selling the equipment which ends up turning the police agencies para-military. Instead of this, couldn't have we just NOT gone into so much debt with these military contractors and let the economy do its thing? The guys running the NSA spy/data centers could have been employed by NVIDIA to design an even better GPU since the capital would have been free for your average Joe to buy more of their video cards. From there, your Lockheed guy might as well have been at a startup designing a new AI that could make use of all that power and actually contribute something progressive to mankind like autonomously surveying the canyons of Mars for mineral deposits or an asteroid for mining potential.

    To add to the loan/subsidy issue, I will bring up student debt. A generation ago, no one had substantial student debt. If you wanted to work your way through university in the states, you actually could. Now with the government cramming Stafford and Parent Plus loans down everyone's throats, you're typically stuck with either taking the loan or going to work in the food service and paid nothing. When the students get this "free money" (money printed for free by the bankers and given to their friends so that they can charge you 9% interest) and have NO idea how much, say, $20k/semester actually means, they'll just take the loan! When the student isn't qualified for a loan, there is a "Parent Plus" loan which must be taken out in the parent's name despite the student of course being completely independent from his parents. (My dad was dead and I was not a taxable dependent as I was actually working while in school, and Georgia Tech still crammed this down my mom's throat in '08.) When this kind of thuggery happens, yeah, schools can charge WHATEVER THEY WANT, and those fees will be paid.

    That's what happened in my case when I was in school.

    And yep, I work for a government leech doing UAV stuff now. But it gets the student loans paid, so I can't complain. ;)

  17. I think I know what the bottleneck was by LoRdTAW · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know A123 is still doing business, we got an RFQ from them the other day.

    About a year ago we were working with them on their new battery technology. The challenge was to weld the battery electrolyte fill port in a moisture and oxygen free environment. We have a glove box but the big problem was to leak test the cell before it left the environment and that was the hard part. The glove box environment is 90% argon and 10% helium which is used as a trace gas for helium mass spectrometer leak testing. The part goes into a vacuum oven antechamber and held under vacuum (and baked if necessary, usually to get rid of vapors from glues and moisture) until its safe to open the door in the glove box chamber. Once you hermetically seal a part you need the trace gas to already be inside the part and that is why there is a 10% helium mix. The sealed parts are put into a bell-jar on the leak detector and the leak rate is measured in atm-cc/sec, around 5x10^-5 is when liquid water begins to leak. Below that is where you want to be in the 10^-8/10^-9 range or better. The problem is If your environment is already contaminated with helium how do you test a part for leaking helium? There are other methods we use for parts but that requires the part to be removed from the glove box. If the battery is not sealed 100% it will be ruined if any moisture or oxygen gets into the battery. If we catch the leak inside the box then we can repair it.

      I believe that was the major bottleneck in the process, welding shut the battery electrolyte fill port and checking the seal without introducing the battery to air. They could have two glove boxes with a vacuum antechamber joining them, one filled with the trace gas mixed in, the other without trace gas but helium is a pain in the ass to pump out. you would have to do a gas purge and then vacuum it out and possibly another purge then leak check the part.

    We did the development on the job and I don't know what happened after we gave them our solutions.

  18. Re:Ooh ooh ooh! Me Obongo! by budgenator · · Score: 2

    Solyndra is in California, General Motors is headquartered in Detroit, but has 156 facilities on six continents, Chrysler Group LLC is headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan, and has 23 plants in 3 countries; so you'll have to be more specific. The Auto companies at least paid the government back.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds