A123 Systems lays off 125 workers at Michigan battery plants
Battery maker A123 Systems, which has been celebrated as one of Michigan's biggest alternative energy successes, laid off 125 workers at its Livonia and Romulus battery plants this week, according to a report by the Observer & Eccentric.
It was not immediately clear whether there were additional cuts at the company's research-and-development center Ann Arbor's Research Park, where the company has about 35 workers.
A123 spokesman Dan Borgasano told the Observer & Eccentric that the company expects "to be calling these people back in six months or less" and attributed the move to a reduced battery order from California electric vehicle startup Fisker Automotive.
A123 was one of Michigan's biggest winners of federal economic stimulus funding and also won major battery tax credits from the state government. In 2009, A123 received a $249 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy and more than $125 million in tax credits from the Michigan Economic Development Corp.
The Massachusetts-based company, which said earlier this year that it hired its 1,000th Michigan worker, promised in 2009 to create 5,000 Michigan jobs.
A123 also said in August that it would add jobs in Michigan after winning a contract to produce electric vehicle battery components and packs for General Motors.
Read the full Observer & Eccentric story here.
Contact AnnArbor.com's Nathan Bomey at (734) 623-2587 or nathanbomey@annarbor.com. You can also follow him on Twitter or subscribe to AnnArbor.com's newsletters.
Comments
Gordon
Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4:55 p.m.
OK, OK it's very disappointing that the companies plans haven't quite worked out so far. It's new as a mode of transportation and the public has to buy the end product. Negative comments accusing them of the behavior of another company is a cheap shot with no substance. This doesn't mean they are out of business, nor are their batteries being investigated for fires. Be a little more positive. Too, too easy to take cheap shots. The comments may OR may not become true.
shepard145
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 2:06 a.m.
Investing in century old companies like GM is far different then moronic start ups that have no real market other then in the minds of "government officials". This is just one more example of why socialism fails - NOBODY in government is as smart as they think they are. Those who do understand consumers risk everything they have, including their future, in the private sector - far different than some bureaucrat writing a check from the bank accounts of tax payers. Ironically, as someone who's never worked for a private business, obama has no respect for those who make a living in the private sector but worships the absurd wisdom he assigns to insulated academics - he is truly a prince among fools.
Dave
Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 3:36 p.m.
Until we tax gasoline and force people to NEED battery powered cars....this will continue to happen at battery companies. If gas was $6 a gallon people would want battery cars. It's simple.
shepard145
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 12:25 a.m.
Dave here touches on a major eco hysteric talking point that we see a lot. .....right up there with the democrat lie that taxing "the rich" will magically pay for trillions in obama spending even though a child can understand that is nonsense....yet we hear it from the democrat media every day. There are 10,000 Volts and 300,000,000 vehicles in the road in the US, Dave. You have no understanding of the issue and no respect for how amazing it is that oil companies are able to supply fuel to all these vehicles every day, 24/7. The bad news for the Volt is that oil is cheap and plentiful. Electric vehicles will fail because the market has no need for them. They will become direct victims of gullible automotive executives who "believe" in the great global warming fraud and the "running out of oil" lie. Unfortunately for GM and the US Taxpayers, the market has no need of the Volt and won't for a century or two. When fossil fuels actually does start to become scarce in 200 years, the price will rise and the market will then find the best, cheapest substitution. But for today, the Volt is a little slice of central planning socialism mixed up in the worlds greatest scientific fraud. ...the only reason a rational person would buy one is if he believed that in doing so, he would change the earth's weather. ...but of course no rational person would buy that nonsense...except a government fleet buyer spending our tax dollars.
Arborcomment
Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4:50 p.m.
Dave, when and if solely battery powered vehicles are capable of going past 50 miles without a push, and when you build enough power plants (gas, coal, nuclear, solar,wind, moonbeams), to handle the influx to the grid for the power to those batteries...
Hot Sam
Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 1:27 p.m.
Huron has a good point... When the "good things" that government does are pointed out, they are always related to infrastructure or military, two things which the federal government belongs in. When many "funding" points are mentioned, they are related to some kind of tax break or subsidy. We have breaks for big oil, big pharma, big med, big ed, and on and on... While I also disagree with this kind of government dabbling, this is quite different than being an investor in a start up. The folks who point these things out would probably agree that there are a lot of people and entities with the money to invest in upcoming technologies and ideas. If they aren't risking their own money, why should someone be able to risk mine? The government is NOT a venture capital fund...
Louhi
Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 5:14 p.m.
Hot Sam, "If they are risking their own money, why should somone be able to risk mine?" Excellent, excellent point!!!!!!
Huron 74
Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 3 a.m.
People have written here that the government has subsidized many great projects, like rockets to the moon, the Hoover dam etc. and I agree those were good things. But this is (was) a battery company. I'm sure there are a LOT of companies and investors who would like to make the billions available from the next greatest car-powering battery. This was political grandstanding. Personally, I believe in bio-fuels. "Feed the farmer who is feeding you" kind of thing...
Robert Erikson
Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 1:39 a.m.
Fisker got 528 million tax dollars as a "startup" loan to build 95,000 dollar luxury cars in Finnland. A123 got 250 million tax dollars to build batteries for these cars. Fisker hasn't figured out how to build their e-car yet, so they don't need any batteries. So the whole thing smells like the automotive version of Solyndra, and the taxpayer is out close to a cool billion or so. Hope and change, You bet.
Arborcomment
Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4:43 p.m.
Robert, as Dave reports, Fisker got the money for a plant in Delaware, home to our Vice President. This was after our Vice President drove around in the "Karma", the 98k version you cite. Well sort of, what he drove around was the body shell of a Karma bolted to the frame of a chevy S-10 pickup. He called it a "Ferrari", giving us a testment to both his automotive engineering knowledge and business savvy. Prior to the government handout, Fisker counted Al Gore as one of the initial investors. This no doubt helped gather further attention from otjer green investors and perhaps special attention from the government. The "Karma" is bad karma, heavy, gets about the same mileage in the battery/engine mode (required after 50 miles) as a SUV. Fisker received funding for the plant, and development of the "Nina" a cheaper version of the Karma. Given the problems with the Karma, there is a delay with the Nina - leading to investigations if the development money is actually going to the Nina or the Karma (the latter made in Finland). The delay on Karma also has slowed production, requiring less batteries, hence the A123 layoffs. Another high impact government investment.
Dave
Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 3:37 p.m.
Wrong. Fisker got that money to buy GM's plant in Delaware.
say it plain
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 7:51 p.m.
@Shepard145, I think you attribute *way* too much power to the particular lobbyists represented by Al Gore and the 'new money' type interests with whom he hangs out, as it were... He is *not* why America owes its financial and thusly its *very* soul to China. He is *not* why America let itself become the land of consumers buying on price only because they *had* to, and thusly handing over what little they had to corporations outsourcing all their manufacturing to China as well. He is *not* why America outsources so much of its labor to offer the best possible stockholder value to those who *actually* call all the shots, no matter the party ( but...if I were to pick one party who is worse than the other in this regard, it would clearly be the GOP!), and those are the --gasp, I don't mean to sound like those Occupy-folks, but they are essentially on about the same things that the teapartiers are if anybody could get past the soundbyte cross-hatred and biases--.small percentage of people who have access to the money that has access to the powerful! We once upon a time seemed to care about separating the two, but apparently we've all given up on that idea. Good for their continued dominance that they can keep us embroiled in a quirky little 'battle' between the one party and the other party! And good for them that when we try to expose their workings they can rile us up with their outrage machines, generating 'scandals' about this and that and the other, generating conspiracy theories on both ends of the political 'spectrum', and keeping us busy coming up with ways to diss the 'other side'. Sigh...
shepard145
Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 12:56 a.m.
Enjoyed the attempted defense of the indefensible. The Tea Party protestors and occupiers are polar opposites. One wants to work and be left alone and the other is a confusing drug fueled bucket of incomprehensible socialist garbage even they don't understand. Like Ed, you miss the point I was trying to make, which has nothing to do with any of that other then the fact that democrats have decided to use the global warming fraud as a path to more power of Americans while Republicans recognize it for what it is. ...but there are exceptions since Romney and Newt both dabbled in the lie at one time.
shepard145
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 5:44 p.m.
I don't disagree with your conclusions about government other then the error of casting the two major parties as equally damaging. Clearly democrats are bankrupting the nation and Republicans, while far from perfect, are trying to hold them in check with sound economic rationale that they can openly discuss and debate. Meanwhile democrats issue their nonsense in "press releases" to a musky, fawning press. No matter that their signature plans are virtually indefensible. Sometimes they can't hide - I hope to see Newt intellectually vivisect obama in a debate in the next year! LOL It is the American Voter's fault that none but the soon to be retired have the political courage to take on entitlements. Selfish, irrational and desperate elderly voters pay for a few years of their benefits over their lifetimes and live 20 while beating their chests with more demands. This generation deserves all of the blame for tearing down America's traditional vision of a bright future. They colluded on a perfect storm that started when an unemployed former Vice President; dark age of taxpayer financed democrat agenda "researchless science"; politicians thirsty for a reason to expand their power over us; a lazy, stupid, criminally inept media; and left wing educational system hungry for a cause. Along comes Al Gore and his eco cult infecting the world with his profit powered cancer, rotting our vision of American greatness from the inside. It will be up to this or future generations to shine the light of truth on this disaster and turn the nation back to reality. That is not to take away any of the vast accomplishments that have been made during their time on earth- Baby Boomers are not "all bad" of course, but while accomplishing much, their failures have been vast and devastating. ....including the near end to he American Nuclear Family.
shepard145
Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 3:23 p.m.
Obama's campaign platform - change we can believe in: • Increased national debt $4.2 trillion. Spending $4.2 billion every day more than we take in. • Racked up as much debt as we did in the first 79,135 days. (That's from 1776 to 1993.) • 2.2 million jobs have been lost, he added 140,000 jobs to the government payroll. • 3 million more Americans live in poverty than did before Obama took office. • Four million bankruptcies have occurred during his last 1,000 days. • 2.4 million homes have been foreclosed on. • Gas prices have risen more than 80 percent. • Health insurance premiums skyrocketing. • Cost to hire new employees: ask the government = don't hire anyone The worst and most anti-American president in history....supported by the most ignorant of our society. That's a fact, that's a fact (flapping hands, running around in circles).....
shepard145
Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 12:59 a.m.
Yea, we know he's an incompetent socialist and only anther one would consider any legislation on that list an "accomplishment". As far as cutting and running from Iran and Iraq, he needs to grovel to his base (like you), who are now running our foreign policy. The clowns at "Move On Dot Org" have more control over our national defense then those paid to keep this nation safe. That's a fact, that's a fact (flapping hands, running around in circles).....
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 3:41 a.m.
*Got the nation out of Iraq *Got the Senate to ratify a nuclear arms reduction treaty. *Saved the nation's financial system (albeit with far too few strings attached) *Saved the domestic auto industry, including all of the non-union plants in the South *Saved or created 3 million jobs with the stimulus in 2009. *Got health care reform through Congress *Got financial reform through Congress *Began the process of reducing the staggering budget deficits left to us by the Bush administration That you might not like these facts is one thing. But to say he's done nothing is a breathtakingly ignorant statement. Those darn facts just keep getting in the way. GN&GL
shepard145
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 3:07 a.m.
Must be tough having to live in the past because your hero in the White House is a miserable failure. LOL
shepard145
Thu, Dec 1, 2011 : 12:56 a.m.
Yea, talkin at you in real time would be a hoot! LOL
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 9:45 p.m.
arbor, Contact a2.com and ask them for my e-mail address. Let's continue this conversation off-line, if you like. Shep: everything that happened before this exact moment is, by definition, history. So yes, I am interested in history--otherwise known as facts. And, once again, hundreds of words in your post with nary a fact. Look up the word "blather". GN&GL
shepard145
Wed, Nov 30, 2011 : 12:09 a.m.
Who said I didn't complain when the vastly superior George W. Bush also wasted our tax dollars trying to help ungrateful seniors from going bankrupt over their medication expenses and save GM? I would have let the seniors rot and based on how they've since voted, they certainly deserve to. So you have NOTHING. You are ill-equipped to think in the present and as a result, Obama's obvious massive failures are beyond your grasp. The damaged US economy, massive political corruption, failed phony green companies owned by contributors are all realities that Kool Aid drinkers cannot face or even discuss. You watch your little democrat talking heads every night and they help you but carefully avoiding any reports that will conflict with the narrative or the week's democrat talking points. Obama is a failure but you can't see it.....which is very amusing. But again, little of this relates to the real point that you dodged, which was that the Baby Boom Generation, and especially democrats, have burned the future vision of this nation to the ground in a desperate grab for political eco power. The cost of their failure will damage at least a generation. Ignorance is bliss. Reality is much more difficult to deal with. UrrrrrrrrrP
Arborcomment
Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 4:17 p.m.
Ghost, enjoyed the research. My take: Kuppi - has potential, but dated. Long explanation of the "Rosy Scenario" which has been used by every President in budget forecasts since... It also includes debt as a percentage of GDP but ends at Bush I. Is this part of a series that has ever been updated? Stockman and the Four Deformations - (related to above). Needs to add a fifth mentioned in the closing paragraph and strangely referred to as a republican ill: "recycled Keynesianism"; that's a strange blanket. He seems to be reliving his woodshed days and trying to fit his argument into what's happening now, ignoring the rights call for balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline. US Gov Historial Debt - debt listings without percentage of GDP. Show steady increases across ALL Presidents. Reagan to Obama. Largest increases from one year to the next are: 1) 1942-1943 (I know this is not in our focus area, just curious to see what the major conflict of the last century did to the debt. 2) 2009-2010 3) 2007-2008 If 2007-2008 is what Stockman was referring to - I'd be more inboard with him, but that was not what he was writing about this year.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 1:39 p.m.
No, my point is that people who are complaining about the budget deficit now are hypocrites for not doing so when Bush was president. He put the nation's economy on the economic equivalent of a $1.9 Trillion hit of cocaine (his last deficit). Eliminating that deficit quickly will result in an economic crash just as pulling cocaine from a cocaine addict causes them to crash, too. And you data is incorrect. The FY 2009 Budget (Oct 2008-Sept 2009) was Bush's last budget. Obama has overseen two budget years, FY '10 and FY '11, not three. Maybe, just maybe, if you had your facts right, you'd change your mind. Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Ignorance is bliss. Reality is much more difficult to deal with. GN&GL
shepard145
Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 4:24 a.m.
As usual Ed, you miss the point and run off on a tangent in pursuit of your need to Google up some that makes you think you've made some discovery. Your point is what - that everything is fine because President George W. Bush, our last qualified president, spent too much so Obama spending more and pushing the nation into bankruptcy is swell? LOL Sure President Bush spent the money to help ungrateful seniors, rebuild our national defense capability gutted by Clinton and fight two BIPARTISAN (truth hurts don't it) wars approved by Congress and what did obama do? Trillions to his wall street bank buddies and union thugs. Using numbers from the U.S. Treasury, we see that the debt during Bush's eight years in office increased from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion, or $4.9 trillion over eight years. That's basically $610 billion per year and considered too much spending by me and many others. Your need to believe that I consider the much superior George W. Bush infallible is mistaken. In the less than the first three years Obama has been in office, the debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to $14.2 trillion, a $3.6 trillion increase in about 27 months. In other words, Obama is increasing the debt by $1.6 trillion per year, three times as fast as Bush. Obama and the democrat party you so adore are epic failures by any rational measure. That was explained to them in November 2010 and God willing, will be again next year. The democrat party as it exists is a rotten husk of the Kennedy years and is unfit to run a lemonade stand. You are all better off moving the entire organization outdoors into local parks, babbling incoherently about those who do the real work.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 2:29 p.m.
Here's a website for the national debt by end of fiscal year: <a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm</a> Also worth noting this piece by David Stockman: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?ref=opinion" rel='nofollow'>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?ref=opinion</a> Stockman was the head of Reagan's OMB, and in this he outlines exactly how and why the Reagan administration purposely underestimated the size of the deficits its annual budgets would run. Also see: <a href="http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/56More.htm</a> GN&GL
Arborcomment
Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4 a.m.
ghost, could be you are on a pattern. Do not know why the white house uses the GDP. You have a pattern with Reagan inheritance, none with Bush I. Clinton inherited "it's the economy stupid" which breaks the pattern. Bush II, still a course of debate as to when the 2000-2002 downturn/mini recession started. Obama, it sure fits, just that almost 25% is no way sustainable. Would be interesting to see how each looks at 36 months in. I'll see if I can find anything.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 1:33 a.m.
Yes, arbor, but that begs the question: What kind of economy did each president inherit. A strong economy means rising revenues and much smaller payouts in entitlement programs such as Food Stamps and Welfare. A collapsing economy means collapsing revenues and vastly increased entitlement spending. Bush II inherited a powerful economy and yet increased deficits--disastrously so--every year he was in office. Obama inherited a collapsing economy and yet his first budget deficit (the FY 2010 budget was his first) was smaller than the deficit of the last Bush budget (FY 2009). Yeah, that one escaped the notice of the so-called "liberal press". GN&GL
Arborcomment
Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 1:07 a.m.
Maybe Ghost, "What really counts is not the raw debt numbers, but the size of the debt as a percentage of the gross domestic product. The GDP is the broadest measure of the national economy and directly indicates the nation's ability to service its debts. In fact, the White House budget office historical tables portray much of the data as percentage of GDP, because that is the best way to truly compare such numbers over time." So, using debt as percentage of GDP, your numbers for Presidents, beginning with Reagan are: "Reagan +14.6, Bush I +7.1, Clinton -13.4, Bush II +5.6, and Obama with less than three years in office +24.6. source: Washington Post, "the fact checker" Glenn Kessler. 10/02/11
say it plain
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:07 p.m.
And of course, as @ERMG points out in his replies above, the Bush tax cuts, never mind the Bush *wars* , have been absolutely *devastating* to our nation. They effectively convinced many Americans somehow that an estate tax on estates valued at *millions of dollars* and up should not be taxed at all, that wealthy people should essentially pay lower percentages of tax than those who have very little, etc. Plus spent trillions on war! Wow, quite the double trouble, don't you think?! That Obama and the Dems lacked the guts to end those tax breaks to the wealthy, and that Obama seems to have also decided that maybe we do need to stay battling on the ground in Afghanistan (I know the GOP loves to think that Reagan brought down the iron curtain by asking so nicely lol, but it's generally acknowledged that the soviet spending on trying to win afghanistan did more in that regard, correct?!), plus never really cracking down on the wall street shenanigans that has done more to mess with global economies than any actual 'free market' activities have (but, the problem is, we've allowed there to be casino-gambling as part of our 'free markets' and they don't gamble with their own money but ours, woohoo, so it's win-win for the banksters!), makes it clear that to some important degree, party doesn't matter. Maybe we need to move to the kind of term limits that would guarantee no re-election possibility?! And no job offers in business afterwards either?! That Newt Gingrich might actually be in the running for the GOP candidate is testimony to how little that matters lol...
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 6:57 p.m.
Note: the $600 billion/year was in the first full year of both Bush tax cuts (FY2003). As the economy began to collapse in 2007, the amount of lost revenue as declined on an annual basis, hence the $3.2 Trillion over 8 years, or an average of roughly $400 billion/year. GN&GL
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 6:32 p.m.
"Clearly democrats are bankrupting the nation and Republicans, while far from perfect, are trying to hold them in check" Yeah. Nice Story. Completely Wrong. National Debt when at the start of the 1st Reagan Budget = $997 billion National Debt at of Sept. 30, 2011 = $14.7 Trillion Total debt increase since Sept. 30, 1981 = $13.7 Trillion Of that $13.7 Trillion, $9.4 Trillion cam under Bush I, Bush II, and Reagan. Indeed, the debt increased $5.8 Trillion alone during Bush II, almost $3.2 Trillion of it ($600 billion/year) due to the Bush tax cuts. And that's a gift that keeps on giving every year. For national debt data: <a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm</a> For cost of Bush tax cuts: <a href="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-the-root-of-our-fiscal-problem/" rel='nofollow'>http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-the-root-of-our-fiscal-problem/</a> So, as is almost always true, Shep's post is a fact-free zone. good Night and Good Luck
say it plain
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 5:13 p.m.
Ah, @Tom Joad, interesting that you'd mention Google, because *that* company, or its founder anyway, as part of his private Venture Capital escapades only perhaps, is mentioned as one of the *investors* in this sort of electric car tech that A123Systems is into, d'oh! Do I think this is a 'liberal' versus ''conservative" issue?! No, only in terms of the specific sources of the windfall...oil/coal/gas versus green/solar/electric.... *Both* parties are bought and paid for right now, and this Solyndra/Fisker/next-one-coming subsidizing of corporate and VC interests comes for the Dems....the other ones comes for the GOP...same story, different players is all. Here's a fun little link, seeming to come from the conservative end of things, showing how the players who like to hang at one set of social-events make out on *some* tax-payer subsidies... <a href="http://darlingblog.dailymail.co.uk/2011/10/president-obama-is-a-venture-socialist-and-crony-capitalist.html" rel='nofollow'>http://darlingblog.dailymail.co.uk/2011/10/president-obama-is-a-venture-socialist-and-crony-capitalist.html</a> I'm sure we can come up with a whole bunch of scenarios for the "other" social-events ;-) Indeed, the whole Iraq War/Cheney-crony/oil-interest scene has already been detailed many places, look there first ;-)
say it plain
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 5:35 p.m.
And also to add the notion that the *big* consideration here, for all of this, is to allow the connected and powerful to avoid having any risk to their wealth--which is *exactly* what we peons have had to absorb, in so many aspects of our lives! They're telling us we have to accept the risks 'inherent' to the wonderful freedom-oriented systems we have in place, but really, the risk is *all* on our backs, while those who have the inside track will take *no* real risk. Those who argue that "true" venture capitalists would never spend money on these technologies aren't "truly' considering the various scenarios modern-day venture capitalists who know how to play the game *really* get access to! These aren't the kinds of VC most of we normal citizens get to play with, Jim Cramer won't be telling you about these plays folks... But he definitely benefits from making you believe you have access to it, as do his corporate masters ;-)
say it plain
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 5:26 p.m.
And since I linked to a highly 'rightwing' little blog, wherein Obama is referred to a "venture socialist" as well as a "crony capitalist", let me also make clear that I believe it is also *totally obvious* that Bush was and the GOP is still *also* guilty of "venture socialism", with their subsidies and monetary favors to their special friends in the corporate and finance worlds...there is no real distinction to be made, despite the gasp! 'socialist' label :-) ... Except maybe that it is old-money (oil and war machine stuff) versus new-money (novel technologies and 'green') when you consider how the GOPers versus the Dems fund their campaigns and fill their social-calendars ...
Tom Joad
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:16 p.m.
Even Google, champion of green energy, has begun cancelling their alternative/solar energy investing as it's quite simply not profitable.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 5:15 p.m.
@bragg: It is precisely those practices and others (e.g., currency manipulation) that makes it cheaper to make solar panels in China than in the US. The cost of solar panels is dropping 7% per year and has been doing so for more than a decade. It is becoming more and more affordable. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/solar-is-getting-cheaper-but-how-far-can-it-go/2011/11/07/gIQAuXXuvM_blog.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/solar-is-getting-cheaper-but-how-far-can-it-go/2011/11/07/gIQAuXXuvM_blog.html</a> So, yes, if being "liberal" means employing facts, I guess I'm a liberal. And if being conservative means spouting meaningless blather . . . . GN&GL
braggslaw
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:48 p.m.
ERMG you are so wrong on so many levels concerning china. Obfuscated accounting, under the table subsidies.... Stick to what you know.... liberal dogma
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:43 p.m.
It's not profitable in the US. Plenty of money being made in China. GN&GL
clownfish
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:46 p.m.
Tax payer subsidies for "free market" energy production: <a href="http://www.citizen.org/cmep/article_redirect.cfm?ID=13980" rel='nofollow'>http://www.citizen.org/cmep/article_redirect.cfm?ID=13980</a>
DennisP
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:37 p.m.
Shepard145 I understand your frustration but I don't know as I agree with your post. JohnQ is correct, the problem isn't with any generation. As a person who grew up with the space age, the innovations that we have today are incredible. We type these comments on a computer across a communications interlink that is more revolutionary than the telegraph, the telephone, radio and TV. It took countless of young innovators of whom Gates and Jobs are only the most famous to bring sophisticated technology to the masses. We have medical interventions using micrsurgical tools and incisions under an inch along with CT, ultrasound, MRI, that simply amaze. And there's so much more. The problem isn't with a lack of dreamers and vision in the nation or world. The problem is with our government has lost its way--at all levels. It has become a haven for scoundrels and manipulators from the local level to the highest. It has also become the haven of buffoons and fools as well as those who think they are too bright for the rest of us. Are there good people in government? I believe so. I think there are people who really want to do good but it's impossible so long as a) the government has unbridled power and it falls in the hands of those who would abuse it; b) we ignore the fundamental rights of life, liberty and property which--all 3--deserve the highest honor and deference; c) we don't clarify, define and limit the proper role of government--at all levels; d) we don't learn from history and allow the good actions of the past to be undone. We do need government at all levels to prohibit fraud, to give weight to contracts, to develop infrastructure and--even--to manage bankruptcies. We do need laws to protect citizens from crime and disorder and to protect our shores. There is a role for government--but not in everything. We need to stop looking at our politicians as leaders but as servants and demand they serve and stop trying to control us.
Huron 74
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:34 p.m.
Funny how people who get elected start thinking they know everything. If there was money to be made, somebody who knows what they are doing would have stepped in.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 12:07 a.m.
Panama Canal? Nope. Soo Locks? Nope. Nuclear power? Not without massive gov't funded research. But I'll give private business this: it's real good at running Black Friday specials. GN&GL
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 11:49 p.m.
Yeah, because that's why the transcontinental RRs were built w/o gov't involvement. No, wait, the government subsidized them. The Hoover Dam? Nope. The dams on the Columbia River system? Nope. Interstate Highway System? Nope. Roads, in general? Nope. Airports? Nope. Until the 1960s airlines were heavily subsidized. Farmers and the oil industry continue to be heavily subsidized. Don't think private businesses ever were going to put man on the moon, but that project, I gigantic government subsidy for all sorts of businesses, led to the creation of thousands of pieces of technology that likely would not have happened but for government involvement. Only ignorance or ideology could justify the fairy tale belief that businesses will voluntarily do things such as these, and others. Good Night and Good Luck
clownfish
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:10 p.m.
Sept 2009- In the first day of trading yesterday, A123 Systems rose more than 50 percent to as high as $21.14 before closing at $20.29. The company raised about $380 million, well above its original estimate of a minimum of $250 million.
InsideTheHall
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:26 p.m.
Really Nathan??????? "Battery maker A123 Systems, which has been celebrated as one of Michigan's biggest alternative energy successes, laid off 125 workers at its Livonia and Romulus battery plants this week." Celebrated by whom?????????? The Occupy Ann Arbor crowd????? The battery plants being built in Michigan are being subsidized with Obama Monopoly Money. They cannot turn a profit and recent reports of issues with over heating will eventually doom the battery debacle. We have plenty of oil in the tars sands of Canada and oil shale in the Dakotas. Why are we wasting TAX dollars on technology boondogles that have ZERO benefit for the "good of the people?"
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 10:17 p.m.
;-) GN&GL
Arborcomment
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 9:54 p.m.
Genuine chuckles here ghost! The six wives thing does explain a lot.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 9:21 p.m.
Not to worry, arbor. The 25 children I've sired with my six wives--I'm not Mormon, just sexy--will more than account for your progeny. GN&GL
Arborcomment
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 9:19 p.m.
Excellent, please keep using it.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:55 p.m.
I have a laptop nuclear powerplant. It doubles as a good birth control device, as well. GN&GL
Arborcomment
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:35 p.m.
Ghost, your first "source" is a Tesla sales ad dressed up as a scientific report that uses natural gas as the basis for comparisons and energy efficiency. That is not reality in the US (as I mentioned before). Your second source is on plug ins and is not germaine to the topic of A123 and their layoffs because of the Fisker down order for an extended range electric with a gas engine (which according to the Forbes article gets the same milage as a SUV - how does that work out for you). You are correct Ghost, it's a basic law of thermodynamics, an electric motor is more efficient than a gas or diesel - once power is delivered to it. That's where it gets complicated. And my "narrow world" (why so much ansgt ghost?) includes sitting here on the sunny east coast, using an iPad that was charged from 26 solar panels (6.11kw) and two hot water solar panels on my roof. What's on yours?
Arborcomment
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:31 p.m.
Ghost, your first "source" is a Tesla sales ad dressed up as a scientific report that uses natural gas as the basis for comparisons and energy efficiency. That is not reality in the US (as I mentioned before). Your second source is on plug ins and is not germaine to the topic of A123 and their layoffs because of the Fisker down order for an extended range electric with a gas engine (which according to the Forbes article gets the same milage as a SUV - how does that work out for you). You are correct Ghost, it's a basic law of thermodynamics, an electric motor is more efficient than a gas or diesel - once power is delivered to it. That's where it gets complicated. And my "narrow world" (why so much ansgt ghost?) includes sitting here on the sunny east coast, using an iPad that was charged from 26 solar panels (6.11kw) and two hot water solar panels on my roof. What's on yours?
Arborcomment
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 8:28 p.m.
Ghost, your first "source" is a Tesla sales ad dressed up as a scientific report that uses natural gas as the basis for comparisons and energy efficiency. That is not reality in the US (as I mentioned before). Your second source is on plug ins and is not germaine to the topic of A123 and their layoffs because of the Fisker down order for an extended range electric with a gas engine (which according to the Forbes article gets the same milage as a SUV - how does that work out for you). You are correct Ghost, it's a basic law of thermodynamics, an electric motor is more efficient than a gas or diesel - once power is delivered to it. That's where it gets complicated. And my "narrow world" (why so much ansgt ghost?) includes sitting here on the sunny east coast, using an iPad that was charged from 26 solar panels (6.11kw) and two hot water solar panels on my roof. What's on yours?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 7:36 p.m.
Criticize the source rather than the data. Good one, arbor. What, exactly, don't you like about the data? I'm betting the answer its conclusions don't fit into your narrow view of the world. As far as plug ins v. hybrid, so what? The point you and others are making as a way to shoot down electric cars is that the power needs to be generated elsewhere. Yes, it does. And, looking at purely electric plug-in cars, they use far less energy per mile than does a gasoline or diesel-powered car. So thanks for confirming the message in my links! GN&GL
Arborcomment
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 6:35 p.m.
Greetings Ghost, Your first source, while listed from Stanford, is actually from Tesla Motors. In order to pump up the efficientcy and tout their product, they use natural gas to electricity (the most efficient) for well to wheel equations. The US produces the bulk of our electricity via coal, not natural gas. Your second source concentrates more on lower CO2 emissions than efficientcy and cost. Lower C02 is a laudable goal. But energy in well to wheel, and cost are not so clear. From the second article you cited: "So, here plug in vehicles are a clear economic winner, right? Not so fast. This rosy calculation doesn't incorporate the additional cost of the plug in vehicle, which is heavily influenced by the cost of the lithium batteries. If you factor in the cost of the batteries - assuming you can sell them after their useful life in the car - the total cost per mile of a plug in rises to a comparable 10-13 cents per mile. Your second source analyzes plug in vehicles, not hybrids of extended electrics. Which brings us back to A123 and Fisker. Fisker is not making a plug in, they are making an extended range electric that uses a gas engine. For an interesting article on that issue, see: <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/10/20/update-fisker-karma-electric-car-gets-worse-mileage-than-an-suv/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/10/20/update-fisker-karma-electric-car-gets-worse-mileage-than-an-suv/</a> Still ending in snark I see, oh well.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 5:03 p.m.
Yes, it takes electricity to power electric cars. There's a shock. But it takes less energy per mile to power an electric car than it does a gasoline-powered car. <a href="http://www.plugincars.com/measuring-efficiency-battery-powered-car.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.plugincars.com/measuring-efficiency-battery-powered-car.html</a> <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf</a> Less energy = less resources expended = less carbon emissions to generate said energy. Really a simple concept unless one wants to keep one's head in the sand. Good Night and Good Luck
clownfish
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:08 p.m.
Sorry, ARBORCOMMENT< I thought this was a blog in which we were whining about the govt choosing winners and losers, and how the govt should not subsidize private companies. THE problem with battery tech is that they NEED TO BE CHARGED! But, as private equity companies and vulture capitalists are flocking to invest in the tech, it must be good, right? It would be my choice to invest in technology that produces electricity with as little environmental damage as possible. The wind almost always blows, the sun almost always shines. Either we develop the tech, or we buy it from Communist China or socialist Europe.
Arborcomment
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:52 p.m.
Clownfish, looks like oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries are all working towards your goal of providing the energy to charge your batteries. Is there a problem with that?
clownfish
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:44 p.m.
Section 1307 Provides $1.612 billion in tax credits to invest in new coal power plants. Section 1309 Provides $1.147 billion in tax breaks for owners of coal power plants to install pollution control equipment. Section 401 Authorizes the appropriation of $1.8 billion of taxpayer money to help build a new fleet of coal power plants. Section 421 Authorizes the appropriation of $3 billion of taxpayer money to help build a new fleet of coal power plants. Section 962 Authorizes activities that will cost $1.137 billion of taxpayer money to help make coal power a cost-competitive source of power generation. Section 963 Authorizes the appropriation of $90 million to research ways to sequester carbon dioxide emitted from coal power plants. Section 964 Authorizes activities that will cost $75 million to help develop new coal mining technologies. Title XVII Authorizes spending of hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees to build new coal and nuclear power plants. The Senate voted on June 23 by a vote of 76 to 21 to keep this section in the bill.
clownfish
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:43 p.m.
On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed into the law the energy bill Section 1329 Allows "geological and geophysical" costs associated with oil exploration to be written off faster than present law, costing taxpayers over $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. The provision claims to raise $292 million from 2005-06, and cost taxpayers $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. Sections 1325-6 This tax break allows natural gas companies to save $1.035 billion by depreciating their property at a much faster rate. This tax break makes no economic sense, as natural gas prices remain at record high levels, and these high prices—not tax breaks—should be all the incentive the industry needs to invest in gathering and distribution lines. Section 342 Allows oil companies drilling on public land to pay taxpayers in oil rather than in cash.
clownfish
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:37 p.m.
OWS is OPPOSED to corporate welfare, just FYI.
clownfish
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.
This type of lay-off would never happen in the pure "private sector". 11/15/11- In a bid to save $5.5 million annually, Capella Education, a private higher education company, announced Tuesday it will lay off 65 non-faculty workers in the face of declining revenues this year. How about the newest CEO president wannabe? Bain Capital- In 1992, the firm acquired American Pad & Paper. By 1999, the year Romney left Bain, two American plants were closed, 385 jobs had been cut and the company was $392 million in debt. The next year, Ampad was forced into bankruptcy. Bain Capital and Goldman Sachs bought Dade International for about $450 million in 1994. The firm quickly fired or relocated at least 900 workers. Over the next several years, it sunk increasingly into debt and laid off 1,000 workers. In 2002 — after Romney had left Bain — it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. – A 1997 buyout of LIVE Entertainment for $150 million resulted in 40 layoffs, roughly one in four of the company's 166 workers. The job cuts affected all aspects of the company, from production and acquisition to legal and public relations. In 1997, Bain bought a stake in DDI Corp., a maker of electronic circuit boards. Three years later, Bain took the company public and collected a $36 million payout. But by August 2003, the company filed for bankruptcy protection, laying off more than 2,100 workers. 22 percent of the money Bain Capital raised from 1987 to 1995 was invested in five businesses — Stage Stores, American Pad & Paper, GS Indusries, Dade, and Details. These five made Bain $578 million in profit, even as all five eventually went bankrupt.
clownfish
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:20 p.m.
My point is that many companies lay off workers, private companies are bought and sold and the workers are let go. When Bain capital laid off 2100 people, I don't recall the Whiners whining about the failure of capitalism. What I think I do know is that Bain made $578,000,000, laid off thousands of people, but if we raise capital gains tax job growth will be harmed...??
outdoor6709
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:46 p.m.
Your point is what? Vote for Obama because he spends taxpayer dollars vs spending private sector dollars.
clownfish
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:10 p.m.
So much whining, Where were all of the Whiners when , literally, pallets of money were disappearing in Iraq? Many of the Whiners were CHEERING the picking of winners and losers of other countries! Many of the Whiners want more nuclear power, allegedly to wean us off of "fur'in oil". "Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists." - <a href="http://tinyurl.com/4kmrbk4" rel='nofollow'>http://tinyurl.com/4kmrbk4</a> Where was the Tea Party when Georgia Pacific started getting US tax payer subsidies to build roads on tax payer owned land? Where were they when Matador Cattle started receiving tax payer subsidies for grazing cattle on tax payer owned land, a remainder of a New Deal program? Where were the Whiners when Koch Industries applied for federal money to prop up a failing Alaskan refinery? Where were the Whiners when Reagan and the US taxpayers bailed out Neil Bush and the S&L companies back in the '80's? Where were the Whiners when ENRON was getting tax payer subsidies, Whining about "leftists" that hate American energy companies? All politics. If "their side" does it they clap, if "the other side" does it they whine and cry. If OWS decries govt corporate welfare they whine about OWS, if the nuclear industry gets subsidies they sit quietly, if GM gets a bailout (and pays it back), they whine, if Colorado Savings and loan gets bailed out they re-vote Reagan in. Remember, your Whining on-line was made possible by government intervention in the free market, spurred by NSF funding around 1984, when a certain "anti-gubment" president ran the purse strings.
Louhi
Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 4:57 p.m.
Many of those "Whiners" voted to go to war with Iraq.....Lets stop pointing fingers, and get movingon solutions ;)
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:30 p.m.
welfare for average Americans who cannot find jobs = bad welfare for American capitalists who make tens of millions of dollars every year = good. See the difference, clownfish? Good Night and Good Luck
outdoor6709
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:06 p.m.
Although clean energy is a nobale goal, affordable energy is more important. everyone should look at Spain's venture into the promised land of "green Jobs". <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0" rel='nofollow'>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0</a>
Sparty
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:04 p.m.
Like investments in health, science and NASA, new business is bound to come with some risk - whether its solar panels or hybrid batteries. Do we fail to invest and let the Chinese do all new research, new business startups, and build such a lead that we can never catch up? Is that the goal? I thought the USA was an innovator? It's sounds like most of you want to stay with the oldest of fossil fuels that will eventually run out or complete the global warming and toxicity of our air and water, that the republicans pretend aren't issues. Let's stay dependent on the Middle East, we see how well that's working for us.
braggslaw
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 1:36 p.m.
This is what happens when left wing pseudo-intellectuals try to pick winners and losers. They don't understand markets or technology. Trying to fund (with tax dollars) and then shoving supply of x product into the market when there is no demand will always create failure. This is symptomatic of the Obama administrations and their energy policies. Companies like Ford and GM no longer take money from the dept or energy because of the strings that are attached. Companies with no hope of every making a profit, like Fisker and Tesla will continue to be black holes for public money.
Wolf's Bane
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 1:06 p.m.
It was only a matter of time. Fuel cell technology, not battery (electric) technology is the wave of the future. Get with it Michhiggggggannnnn.
braggslaw
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 1:50 p.m.
Fuel cell will never be viable in the next twenty years. -not enought platinum in the world needed for the scale of the automotive industry the catalyst needed for the membrane uses orders of magnitude more platinum than a three way catalyst today. -hydrogen comes from cracking methane or water electrolysis. Both are equally as bad (possibly worse) for CO2 generation. - hydrogen needs to be frozen transported etc No country will invest in the infrastructure when there is an electric plug in every garage. -I don't want a pressure vessel in my vehicle - Fuel cells have enormous problems in below freezing temperatures. I am not saying that fuel cells will not be a part of America's future, just not in my lifetime.
Ming Bucibei
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 10:56 a.m.
OBAMA: I'LL MAKE ENERGY PRICES "SKYROCKET!" Ming Bucibei
clownfish
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 1:48 p.m.
When did he say that? Were you Whining when gas prices hit $4.39/gal in 2007?
shepard145
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:28 a.m.
One of the unique advantages the United States has enjoyed for decades is our optimistic view of "the future". In THE FUTURE we travel in space, fly cars to work, live in gleaming cities and cancer is cured. Disney World created naïve but wonderful caricatures of what the United States might be like in "the future". This was an advantage because we passed that vision on to our children as one more reason why they should work hard, become educated and make their place in that future….they could be anything. But then comes the Baby Boom Generation, the ME GENERATION who all but burns that vision to the ground and with it, crushes a major part of the American Dream. What has replaced gleaming cities and space travel? Al Gore's sour "vision" of a world in decline, sickened by those how built this nation. …all doom while lining his pockets with tens of millions in carbon credit profits, leaving only miserable confusion for the aware and mindless eco jihad for the naïve. A dead end. A123 has an impossible mission in a market economy: their reason for existence is to help replace a fuel that is cheap, plentiful, dependable and thriving in it's market. We discover more oil reserves all the time – world wide – and global warming is the biggest fraud in modern history. We don't need A123 and we may not for centuries. So this is our future – a world of fairy tail crisis with no beginning, no truth and no end…. only more wasted money, wasted intellectual resources an economy burdened by nonsensical eco hysteria, irrational innovation pursuing inventions with no practical value while China steams full speed ahead. The Baby Boom Generation has lead us to a dead end and the only hope there is a better generation behind you to clean up the mess.
shepard145
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 4:11 a.m.
Way to miss the point entirely.
John Q
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:54 a.m.
I'm not a baby boomer but I'm pretty sure that the Boomers have generated more wealth and prosperity than any other American generation. Henry Ford couldn't touch the wealth created by Bill Gates.
snapshot
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:21 a.m.
From these posts, it seems that the Obama administration and the Snyder administration are responsible for all business failures........Have we forgotten about the auto industry and their failure................and who saved them? GM still owes taxpayers 26 BILLION and they're giving out bonuses and making union concessions again before paying their debt off.........Compared to GM, these other company defaults are of no consequence. Folks are screaming about nothing while ignoring the big bucks going out the door.
snapshot
Mon, Nov 28, 2011 : 1:05 a.m.
Exactly, and the Obama administration saved their irresponsible butts and now they are starting the process all over again BEFORE they've paid back the last bailout.
braggslaw
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 1:40 p.m.
The auto companies went bankrupt because of 200 billion in debts to the UAW. 100's of billions in the VEBA and billions borrowed from bond holders to fund the pension. It is that simple. Unions supported by the democratic party created monumental debt that could never ever ever be paid by any corporation in the world. .
Arborcomment
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:35 a.m.
Dennis, my apologies on the Fiskar/Fisker. Both make my spell check uncomfortable. However, it turns out that BOTH are of Finnish roots. Fisker US, is Headquatered in California as you noted. The only vehicle they are marketing right now is the $98k "Karma". It is made in Finland. If and when they make anything in the US, the cheaper version is supposed to be made in Delaware. Makes sense, that's where Biden came from. Source:<a href="http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/delaware/item/28681-tactics-of-delaware-carmaker-fisker-questioned-by-abc-news" rel='nofollow'>http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/delaware/item/28681-tactics-of-delaware-carmaker-fisker-questioned-by-abc-news</a>
DennisP
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:04 p.m.
Hah! Small world when it comes to corporate welfare! Finland seems to be reaping benefits all the same. My apologies too for not learning about the origin of the "Karma". There's irony in that name as it seems it is a bad karma. In either case, we both agree that this kind of government support isn't driven by market forces but is politically driven by political drivel and dreams...
DennisP
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:16 a.m.
Note to Arborcomment: FiskAr is a company in Finland that makes scissors and garden tools. FiskEr Automotive is a California electric vehicle start-up company. That doesn't change facts that US gov't funding of companies and industries largely because it looks good politically is imprudent and fallacious, but you need to keep your facts straight if you seek credibility. Politicians are politicians largely because they cannot run anything successfully. You can fail in government and still get re-elected so long as your opponent is a bigger loser than you.
smokeblwr
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 2:04 a.m.
Sounds like another SCAM JOB to take tax payer's monies. George Bush would have never allowed this to happen.
clownfish
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 1:46 p.m.
certainly not! We know for a fact that there was no graft, waste or loss of taxpayer funds in the Iraq war. Where were the fiscal Whiners then? <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1" rel='nofollow'>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1</a>
EyeHeartA2
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 1:52 a.m.
"A123 was one of Michigan's biggest winners of federal economic stimulus funding" ...and it appears the taxpayers were the losers. Greece, Italy, Spain.....USA
tommy_t
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 12:57 a.m.
Another blast of hot air. Gas bags can sell anything.
Arborcomment
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 12:02 a.m.
The "reduced battery order" for Fiskar supposedly causing the layoffs at A123 will also lead you to another shining example of green/graft government. Fiskar received government funding to build a less expensive version of their electric vehicle (currently going at over 98k before government subsides). The new version was to be built in the States. This has been delayed while the money wasn't. So, there will be another investigation, now to see if government funds were mingled at Fiskar to support automobile production in, get this, FINLAND.
Mike
Sat, Nov 26, 2011 : 11:18 p.m.
But but.. without batteries how can we transition to a coal fired transportation sector.. I mean zero emission electrical-energy. Oh wait, and Obama is shutting down coal fired electrical plants too. I gotta think about this some more. Primary effect thinking is the hallmark of the liberal mind. Ever mindless of second order effects they create chaos, poverty and violence. And then they blame conservatives.
Arborcomment
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:26 a.m.
Nice post Mike, here's a link to a great article that covers that subject with a chuckle or two. <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/10/20/update-fisker-karma-electric-car-gets-worse-mileage-than-an-suv/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/10/20/update-fisker-karma-electric-car-gets-worse-mileage-than-an-suv/</a>
JimB
Sat, Nov 26, 2011 : 11:06 p.m.
as the full article states that the problem is only a 'blip' caused by supply and demand confussion, then why are people laid off to be placed on the state's unemployment rolls. Should this company be allowed to shift its payroll obligations to the people after receiving monies from federal, state and local governments? If this is only a temporary situation, then the company should take the hit. Sounds like it might not be such a 'temporary' situation and more serious than reported.
Arborcomment
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:20 a.m.
Jim, the "blip" on supply and demand was caused by a reduction in the orders for batteries by Fisker (from 7,000 vehicles to just 1,500). But fear not, Fisker says they are "on track" to produce 15,000 vehicles in 2012. Also fear not, Al Gore was an early investor in Fisker, Joe Biden led the fight for a Fisker plant in Delaware (State of Delaware chipped in $9 million) that has yet to produce a single vehicle, and the US government did a green grant for a couple hundred million more, and Leonardo DiCaprio owns one of the $98k versions (made in Finland).
clara
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 1:30 a.m.
and the businesses have to raise their prices and lay off more employees to afford the ever increasing unemployment insurance rates they have to pay.
Sparty
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 12:41 a.m.
State Unemployment is funded by a tax paid by employers, if you were unaware.
L. C. Burgundy
Sat, Nov 26, 2011 : 9:46 p.m.
Turns out having the central planning committee pick the winners really WAS a bad idea. Surprise surprise surprise.
trespass
Sat, Nov 26, 2011 : 9:27 p.m.
A123 systems Chinese employees are stealing them blind of all their intellectual property. Here we are making a huge public investment in technologies of the future but then we let Chinese spys steal it all and give it to China. Read more at <a href="http://www.china-threat.com/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.china-threat.com/</a>
a2cents
Sat, Nov 26, 2011 : 10:06 p.m.
Now I'll have to clean & disinfect my computer... such crud.
clara
Sat, Nov 26, 2011 : 9:03 p.m.
President Obama called them September 13, 2010 to congratulate them on opening the nation's first manufacturing facility to mass-produce electric vehicle batteries. The plant opening was made possible by a $249 million Recovery Act advanced battery grant. "I met with David and some of the A123 team here at the White House back in April, and it's incredibly exciting to see how far you guys have come since we announced these grants just over a year ago" Governor Granholm also loved em. Boy, just like Solyndra, another bad investment by this administration.
Usual Suspect
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 4:06 a.m.
Right, John Q, because those actually pay of in the form of useable energy and returns on the investment. With these "green" scams all we get is stuck holding an empty money bag.
John Q
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:50 a.m.
Funny, the rightwingers never complained about the billions in loan guarantees that have gone to nuclear power plants or the government money poured into "clean coal" technology.
clara
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 1:28 a.m.
No but we should not have the government deciding who will get government hand outs and who should not. It should be the free market. If you want to put money into the battery plant great but do not have the government take my money and decide which crony capitalist to give money too. It is not the governments role to pick winners and losers nor do they have the ability to do so.
Sparty
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 12:39 a.m.
So we just abandon the hybrid electric battery business to China entirely then rather than invest in building it up in the US?
Mike
Sat, Nov 26, 2011 : 9:01 p.m.
The problem is we just don't think big enough. A $249 million grant and $125 million in tax abatements just isn't enough! Raise taxes on the 1% and give them more money. If that's not enough hit the top 10% of the greedy citizens with higher taxes, er investments. This green energy has to work no matter what it costs because it is our future. Right? We just haven't shut down enough coal mines and oil wells yet so that the only option will be battery powered cars run off of (fill in the black) fired electricity plants....can't be coal(dirty), nuclear (dangerous), wind (kills birds), solar (takes up too much space and is ugly). There must be something to get us energy independent besides using the resources we have in our country.
Wolf's Bane
Tue, Nov 29, 2011 : 8:31 p.m.
As to being enlightened. Lobbyists drive Politicians to create and give grants to whomever they support. This is sometimes the most rational of choices nor is it in the best interest to the tax payer that funds these "experiments". Furthermore, scientists, engineers, and others have all pointed to fuel cell technology being the only alternative, yet Michigan keep s babbling about electric this or that? Meanwhile the Chinese have made the greatest leaps forward regarding R&D and we're still sitting on our hands watching the price of crude. Michigan, like most of the US, is incapable of producing anything of value because we're are being lead by a bunch of short sighted, corrupt politicians. How's that for enlightened!!!
Hot Sam
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.
@myland Could you please enlighten us?
clownfish
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 1:43 p.m.
Well, we could all be more CONSERVE-ative with our resources. ! nah, oil is forever! It will never run out.
Wolf's Bane
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 1:07 p.m.
Mike, you have no idea of what you speak.
say it plain
Sat, Nov 26, 2011 : 9:19 p.m.
Right @clara... there are many many people in the developing economies of Asia and S. America that are now wanting cars and need to produce things made of petrochemicals! Globalization has caused energy needs to push forward faster than anyone might have considered maybe? And since the right-wingers have convinced people they should be skeptical about climate-change and we in the 'developed world' are more worried about recessions and stockmarket crashes than we are about planetary ones as it were, there is no appetite for *true* energy-use restrictions and changes... fossil fuels are all the rage again, then, woohoo, drill frack and pipe it out, baby, now! :-)
clara
Sat, Nov 26, 2011 : 9:06 p.m.
and the WSJ said today: "So President Obama was right all along. Domestic energy production really is a path to prosperity and new job creation. His mistake was predicting that those new jobs would be "green," when the real employment boom is taking place in oil and gas. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported recently that the U.S. jobless rate remains a dreadful 9%. But look more closely at the data and you can see which industries are bucking the jobless trend. One is oil and gas production, which now employs some 440,000 workers, an 80% increase, or 200,000 more jobs, since 2003. Oil and gas jobs account for more than one in five of all net new private jobs in that period."
say it plain
Sat, Nov 26, 2011 : 9:05 p.m.
No, we have to *save* those resources to sell to China, to whom we owe so much money for fighting the war against terror ;-)
say it plain
Sat, Nov 26, 2011 : 8:57 p.m.
Hmm, so surprising that details about this wundercompany's revised job outlook, lauded as part of the renaissance of MI jobs lol and recipient of sooo much of the money being taken from other places, like our schools and infrastructure for instance via diversion of tax revenue, are currently 'sketchy' lol... They will sell themselves as saviours til the money gets tight, then blame whomever and whatever they need to, maintaining their bottomline profitability for as long as possible, and waiting until all the 'invested' find their parachutes to their next nice income while the jobs dry up or become the kind that doesn't guarantee a mortgage payment every month. Expect this more and more 'round here, especially when we try and lure businesses away from wherever they *really* are, like MA or CA or somesuch ;-) And if we keep voting in venture capitalists we can expect no less of it in the future...
say it plain
Sun, Nov 27, 2011 : 12:52 a.m.
that's so very interesting @Mike, I can see you have your opinions well-formed and concerns in the right places ;-) You can argue that it might have been a company Granholm thought was fine and dandy, but my point was that this was claimed by Snyder and GOP-in-general supporters as a 'victory' achieved by their boys, and I surely would expect more such if-y 'victories' for MI under them, was my other point.
Mike
Sat, Nov 26, 2011 : 11:25 p.m.
Anyone who has been paying attention knows that this was a Granholm hand picked company. Having seen her up close I have to add.. that mole is really really big. And there's a big black hair coming out of it. I think she trims it.
say it plain
Sat, Nov 26, 2011 : 9:13 p.m.
But they *did*, they helped to bring the tax credits to the company...at least according to the people commenting on the last installment of this story, when it was announced that A123 Systems were bringing *more* jobs to the area because of the fantastic work of GOPers like Ouimet and Snyder?! Some of that money was federal money of course, no question, but some of that was and continues to be state money, no? I guess Snyder would have considered it wrong to offer specific tax incentives like that? Or is he still doing so, or at least willing to rearrange so much of MI's state 'income' for the sake of providing reduced taxes to businesses in hopes-pretty-please-will-ya-huh?! that they will actually bring decent jobs to the state?
Mike
Sat, Nov 26, 2011 : 9:02 p.m.
This had little to do with venture capitalists; they would never make such a poor investment