Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy,...

Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

There are 78 comments on the www.bostonherald.com story from Aug 15, 2011, titled Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale. In it, www.bostonherald.com reports that:

Evergreen, which closed its taxpayer-supported Devens factory in March and cut 800 jobs, has been trying to rework its debt for months.

Evergreen — hurt by lower-cost competition in China and plummeting prices for solar panels — also said it will cut more jobs — 65 layoffs in the United States and Europe, mostly through the shutdown of its Midland, Mich., manufacturing facility. That would leave Evergreen with about 68 workers according to a head count listed in the bankruptcy filing. To cut costs, Evergreen shifted some of its production to Wuhan, China, last year. That joint venture will remain operating subject to financing talks with Chinese investors.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.bostonherald.com.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#63 Sep 13, 2011
NoFactNoHope wrote:
I LIKE people to disagree with me IF they have a good logic to their arguments.
Absolute garbage, you refuse to even agree on something as simple as the fact that forty isn't spelt with a U.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
I learned from some who told me I was out to lunch.
That appears to be your permanent condition.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
They were right (on the specific point).
Yes, forty isn't spelt with a U.
NoFactNoHope wrote:
Now I try to pass on what I learned to others.
Rubbish, you're not interested in learning, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
You still be believe epistemologists compile dictionaries.
That ice sheet can't calve large chunks.
You still don't understand the meaning of a PoP forecast.
Or that the equator does have season/seasons?
Or that cars cannot be charged with road collisions?
Or that vikings knew how to live in a warmer Greenland?
Or that New Moore island couldn't have been, "in the MOUTH of the several rivers?"
Or that, "Deforestations [isn't] a consequence of AGW?"
Or that, "insects and plants" actually qualify as species?
Or that, "Scientific laws" are actually science?
Or that you aren't really, "bordering on being an intellectual?"
Or that predictions aren't just for astrologers?
Or that ethanol isn't, "a very workable and effective solutuion?"
Or that America has more than two political parties?
Or that 'fruiting plants' are not especially chosen by bees for, "polination?"

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#64 Sep 13, 2011
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt VERY much that there is ANY fossil fuel plants other than Natural Gas and yes, it takes time to produce the energy infrastructure. California will probably be supplied from solar power in the SouthWest, eventually. Give it a decade or two.
<quoted text>
I agree that solar thermal is much more 'shovel ready' than PV solar which has a long ways to go still. Barring a breakthrough I expect that progress will be slow but steady as we build the necessary systems. Solar thermal cracking of CO2 to produce 'syngas' for synthesis of gasoline has been suggested but that depends on easily obtained CO2 in concentrated form. I suspect that ammonia production would be a better synthesis as it can be used as either fuel or converted to nitrogen fertilizer. The 'wild card' in all this is biofuel from algae but the sticking point there is extracting the fuel, not producing it. If a form of microalgae can be produced that excretes the oils (GM tinkering?) we might be able to produce a much more efficient and direct fuel synthesis.
That is discussing 'large scale' production. Small scale (i.e homes, businesses) I expect more PV. Wind is too obtrusive for residential regions. And I support improvements in insulation before I would even think about PV or solar hot water. Insulation has a MUCH better payback.
<quoted text>
Hdyrolysis of water is just an energy conversion. More likely there would be solar 'cracking' of water to produce hydrogen through catalysts. They have a few already but are working on conversion efficiency.
<quoted text>
The 'technology IS there'. Nobody expect the first generation of horseless carriages to produce a Bugatti Veyron. By this I mean that a lot of alternative energy sources are VIABLE as alternatives to fossil fuels. The only question is which one and where. Wind is a natural for the arctic, since wind speeds are good (I was talking to a guy in Alaska that said the winds there were class 7) while fossil fuels are horrendously expensive due to the shipping. Sure, they are also good candidates for the 'mini-nuke' micro-reactors, but few arctic cities are big enough to make megawatt installations viable.
To begin with there are thirteen coal fired power plants as of april of last year and that took less than a minute to find and confirm.

Next it matters how shovel ready either solar or wind are when they cannot support the load but at very best only assist.

ANd history seems to be a very reliable guide has shown each and every time that wind and solar faded out as time passed for the very simple fact that they are always at the mercy of the weather. Your talking aobut using it to make sygas but that needs a consistent reliable source of power. Coal, oil, natural gas, and even nuclear could fit the bill but wind and solar by thier very nature cannot.

I imagine thirty years from now I be showing a bunch of know it all left leaning people like yourself pictures of abandonded wind power farms just as I have shown you ones that were built thirty years ago. Or in other words history is repeating itself again.

http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/yes-gr...

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#65 Sep 13, 2011
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Repost. Only second half of post shows up.
<quoted text>
Of course not. Denialists are those that deny the 97% of scientists that agree with AGW theory. They can provide no REASON for the denial, only a list of other denialists..
I LIKE people to disagree with me IF they have a good logic to their arguments. I learned from some who told me I was out to lunch. They were right (on the specific point). Now I try to pass on what I learned to others.
<quoted text>
Short term, obviously. Nuclear could provide a stopgap but weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels will take decades, even without the recession.Very few countrie even produce 1% of their power from alternatives yet. That does not mean they are not viable. Even a mighty oak tree starts with an acorn and the size of the acorn does not mean it is incapable of producing an oak tree.
<quoted text>
This is absoutely the WORST argument again solar and wind. Wind can 'coexist' with agriculture or it is sited in spots where no human wants to live anyway. Solar is best sited in deserts and EVERY continent has major desert areas that are large enough that a small fraction of their area could supply the entire area. Nobody suggests that we site major solar power installations in the middle of downtown Manhattan. Have you really LOOKED at a map lately? How much area is populated? LOTS of emtpy real estate and it can be 'hells stony acres' for all that. The ONLY problem here is one of transporting or converting energy from where it is produced to where it is needed. And there will be many different solutions to this, from conversion to liquid fuel/fertilizer (i.e NH3?) to energy corridors (taking power from the Sahara, for example, to supply the EU. Possibly with a superconducting buried cable.
You mean to tell me that there are less than fifty scientist in the world or that there are less than fifty climate scientist in the world. Because when you read that ninety seven percent agree with you and the actual number who agreed turns out to be thirty eight it is hard to see the massive support.

So here is the chain of reason you seem to be following, thirty eight climate scientist equals ninety seven percent support for something that was disproven by a climate scientist back in June of 2008. What is worse is the survey data was collected in 2007 and the numbers have gone down.

Go look up the research. It was conducted in the University of Illionis in Chicage.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#66 Sep 13, 2011
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course not. Denialists are those that deny the 97% of scientists that agree with AGW theory. They can provide no REASON for the denial, only a list of other denialists..
I LIKE people to disagree with me IF they have a good logic to their arguments. I learned from some who told me I was out to lunch. They were right (on the specific point). Now I try to pass on what I learned to others.
<quoted text>
Short term, obviously. Nuclear could provide a stopgap but weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels will take decades, even without the recession.Very few countrie even produce 1% of their power from alternatives yet. That does not mean they are not viable. Even a mighty oak tree starts with an acorn and the size of the acorn does not mean it is incapable of producing an oak tree.
<quoted text>
This is absoutely the WORST argument again solar and wind. Wind can 'coexist' with agriculture or it is sited in spots where no human wants to live anyway. Solar is best sited in deserts and EVERY continent has major desert areas that are large enough that a small fraction of their area could supply the entire area. Nobody suggests that we site major solar power installations in the middle of downtown Manhattan. Have you really LOOKED at a map lately? How much area is populated? LOTS of emtpy real estate and it can be 'hells stony acres' for all that. The ONLY problem here is one of transporting or converting energy from where it is produced to where it is needed. And there will be many different solutions to this, from conversion to liquid fuel/fertilizer (i.e NH3?) to energy corridors (taking power from the Sahara, for example, to supply the EU. Possibly with a superconducting buried cable.
To be as brief as possible, 97 % of scientists DON"T agree with you on this.

You said "weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels will take decades". That's My point exactly.

As for using the desert area, you must not know anything about California's struggles. Even if we could build these behemoths, we still need to transport the power. Environmentalists are against that, as well. Besides, would you cover the entire continent with solar panels and wind wills just to pacify our power needs?

Think about what you're saying.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#67 Sep 13, 2011
It's getting increasingly difficult to respond to some of the trash in here. Some people are getting long winded, as if the more pages it takes to say something the more correct it is.

Simply stated, correct facts speak volumes, negating the need for paragraphs.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#68 Sep 13, 2011
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt VERY much that there is ANY fossil fuel plants other than Natural Gas and yes, it takes time to produce the energy infrastructure. California will probably be supplied from solar power in the SouthWest, eventually. Give it a decade or two.
<quoted text>
I agree that solar thermal is much more 'shovel ready' than PV solar which has a long ways to go still. Barring a breakthrough I expect that progress will be slow but steady as we build the necessary systems. Solar thermal cracking of CO2 to produce 'syngas' for synthesis of gasoline has been suggested but that depends on easily obtained CO2 in concentrated form. I suspect that ammonia production would be a better synthesis as it can be used as either fuel or converted to nitrogen fertilizer. The 'wild card' in all this is biofuel from algae but the sticking point there is extracting the fuel, not producing it. If a form of microalgae can be produced that excretes the oils (GM tinkering?) we might be able to produce a much more efficient and direct fuel synthesis.
That is discussing 'large scale' production. Small scale (i.e homes, businesses) I expect more PV. Wind is too obtrusive for residential regions. And I support improvements in insulation before I would even think about PV or solar hot water. Insulation has a MUCH better payback.
<quoted text>
Hdyrolysis of water is just an energy conversion. More likely there would be solar 'cracking' of water to produce hydrogen through catalysts. They have a few already but are working on conversion efficiency.
<quoted text>
The 'technology IS there'. Nobody expect the first generation of horseless carriages to produce a Bugatti Veyron. By this I mean that a lot of alternative energy sources are VIABLE as alternatives to fossil fuels. The only question is which one and where. Wind is a natural for the arctic, since wind speeds are good (I was talking to a guy in Alaska that said the winds there were class 7) while fossil fuels are horrendously expensive due to the shipping. Sure, they are also good candidates for the 'mini-nuke' micro-reactors, but few arctic cities are big enough to make megawatt installations viable.
It's obvious from you response that you haven't done the research, yourself. IDK know where to start with this.

For one, algae only grows near the surface of the water, as it needs sunlight. That creates the problem of are needed for production.

As for water hydrolysis, I'd like to know where you get your 411. A conservation of energy? How do you figure?

FYI, hydrolysis of water frees H gas from the H2O molecule. H can then be burned for energy. Emission will be H2O (steam), but like I said, the technology isn't to par yet.

You keep saying that technology is there, then in the same sentence, you say "give it a decade or two". You repeatedly refute my point with my point. It's like talking to a grade school kid.

Another thing, how much wind do you think wind mills can withstand? It's great that Alaska gets good gusts, but do you realize too heavy a wind can destroy the mill?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#69 Sep 14, 2011
Ngalungalu wrote:
Think about what you're saying.
LOL, you're asking LessFact to perform an impossible task, he's well known for his stupid posts, there's a thread almost dedicated to them here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#70 Sep 14, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>LOL, you're asking LessFact to perform an impossible task, he's well known for his stupid posts, there's a thread almost dedicated to them here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
Thanks for the heads up... it's funny stuff. Should I add his last one to it?

Kidding aside, I'm not about belittling anyone who's truly trying to learn something. Not to say this guy is, but I'm wiling to give him time to learn.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#71 Sep 14, 2011
Ngalungalu wrote:
Thanks for the heads up... it's funny stuff. Should I add his last one to it?
Why not?
Ngalungalu wrote:
Kidding aside, I'm not about belittling anyone who's truly trying to learn something. Not to say this guy is, but I'm wiling to give him time to learn.
He says he's in his 50s and:
NoFactAllHype wrote:
I am not a scientist. I am a university educated engineer, who STARTED in the science but was found wanting. I do much better in engineering trades which are a bit less 'rigorous' while still being intellectually stimulating.
That said, my background in science does give me a lot of tools to understand and evaluate what the leading scientists discover.
Unlike people who have no real science background and who are stuck like a record on trivialities like spelling which is just a game of 'popularity'. Every word in the dictionary started out being spelled differently and the spelling changes because MORE THAN HALF of the public couldn't spell it right so they changed the dictionary to match. Etymology is not a serious subject. It is a subject that is defined by the changes and their popularity among the ignorant.
Exactly the OPPOSITE of real science which is defined by the relatie stability of fact, and the indifference to popularity by the public.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#72 Sep 14, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Why not?<quoted text>He says he's in his 50s and:<quoted text>
This reminds me of a man that sat next to me on a plane. He claimed he was an engineer, so I raised a question concerning muscle cars, acceleration times and aerodynamics. He told me matter-of-factly that aerodynamics don't come into play when talking about 0-60 numbers.

He must not have known I was paying attention, but after he said he was an engineer, he said that his kids had to chip in to buy him and his wife a ticket to Hawaii(where we were flying at the time).

I couldn't say anything more. I only wondered what kind of engineer he thought he was. It occurred to me that even plumbers call themselves engineers now.

What do you wanna bet he's a plumber?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#73 Sep 14, 2011
Ngalungalu wrote:
This reminds me of a man that sat next to me on a plane. He claimed he was an engineer, so I raised a question concerning muscle cars, acceleration times and aerodynamics. He told me matter-of-factly that aerodynamics don't come into play when talking about 0-60 numbers.
He must not have known I was paying attention, but after he said he was an engineer, he said that his kids had to chip in to buy him and his wife a ticket to Hawaii(where we were flying at the time).
I couldn't say anything more. I only wondered what kind of engineer he thought he was. It occurred to me that even plumbers call themselves engineers now.
What do you wanna bet he's a plumber?
It's doubtful he has the manual dexterity to be a plumber and he admits to having fat fingers, which wouldn't help.
Ö¿Ö
I'm not sure that he's very well informed, possibly due to his upbringing in an enclosed community, a sad case:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Yes. I have always been fascinated by the complexity and synergies of the natural world. I expect that I have more contact with it than most posters here. I've cleaned stalls for horses, helped herd cows, spend seven years working in the bush for a hunting and fishing lodge, etc. Most of my early life, the 'bush' was my backyard and accessible with a few steps.

And I've watched that area (hunting and fishing) stripped by logging interests (it is now nearly a wasteland even decades after the trees were removed). I have seen the lake I used to swim in declared off limits from the yearly 'overturning' bringing up balls of slime. I VALUE the natural ecosystem, and suspect that most who post here have never been outside of the city or to a zoo. It takes talent to be that indifferent.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#74 Sep 14, 2011
Ngalungalu wrote:
<quoted text>
This reminds me of a man that sat next to me on a plane. He claimed he was an engineer, so I raised a question concerning muscle cars, acceleration times and aerodynamics. He told me matter-of-factly that aerodynamics don't come into play when talking about 0-60 numbers.
He must not have known I was paying attention, but after he said he was an engineer, he said that his kids had to chip in to buy him and his wife a ticket to Hawaii(where we were flying at the time).
I couldn't say anything more. I only wondered what kind of engineer he thought he was. It occurred to me that even plumbers call themselves engineers now.
What do you wanna bet he's a plumber?
More like an enviromental or climate engineer. All you have to know how to do is talk. I doubt he is a plumber since they would not need the kids to chip on on ticket to Hawaii.

Speaking of which did you get to Maui. The Hilton has all you can drink Mai Tai's. I was lucky when the ship I was on had to go to Hawaii to use the missile range for anti-ballistic missile tests.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#75 Sep 14, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>It's doubtful he has the manual dexterity to be a plumber and he admits to having fat fingers, which wouldn't help.
Ö¿Ö
I'm not sure that he's very well informed, possibly due to his upbringing in an enclosed community, a sad case:<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
It's quite obvious he's not well informed. I didn't know he was as old as you say he is, which is unfortunate. Many people don't learn anything new after a certain age.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#76 Sep 15, 2011
Funny how we are talking about one solar plant that closed and the news is talking about another one called Solyndra closing as well.

So much for all those promised green jobs. And if California is going to be supplied with solar power then they are going to have to import them from China. The end result is a carbon footprint the same size per kwh as a coal fired power plant.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#77 Sep 15, 2011
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
More like an enviromental or climate engineer. All you have to know how to do is talk. I doubt he is a plumber since they would not need the kids to chip on on ticket to Hawaii.
Speaking of which did you get to Maui. The Hilton has all you can drink Mai Tai's. I was lucky when the ship I was on had to go to Hawaii to use the missile range for anti-ballistic missile tests.
An environmental or a climate engineer, I hope, would have known what he was talking about. I just think he's talking about of his posterior crevasse.

I wasn't talking about Maui, but when I go THERE I usually stay with family. My uncle owns the largest nursery there.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#78 Sep 15, 2011
Ngalungalu wrote:
<quoted text>
An environmental or a climate engineer, I hope, would have known what he was talking about. I just think he's talking about of his posterior crevasse.
I wasn't talking about Maui, but when I go THERE I usually stay with family. My uncle owns the largest nursery there.
I surprised you ever leave. If there was a place to be homeless that would be the place.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#79 Sep 15, 2011
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
I surprised you ever leave. If there was a place to be homeless that would be the place.
No argument from Me on that one. It's a nice area.
harry bailey

Philadelphia, PA

#80 Feb 20, 2013
Since oil conglomerates will use their power to preserve the status quo, the earth be damned, it is incumbent upon the public, the government to create green energy markets. We can't wait until the last drop of oil is pumped before we turn to solar and wind. This investment creates private sector jobs, not public jobs. We investment hundreds of billions of dollars in warfare, but you don't have a problem with that waste.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Devens Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Be very afraid of small town law enforcement (Dec '15) Dec '15 Lets end corruption 1
News Medford officer on leave after video shows him ... (Jul '15) Jul '15 Resident 1
News Summer heat came early at Leominster meeting (Jun '15) Jun '15 Jtn 2
News Female veterans battling PTSD from sexual traum... (Dec '14) Dec '14 My Thought 4
News Museum audience awed by Bulge tale (Nov '14) Nov '14 RighteousRobert 1
News New group to work (Jul '14) Jul '14 Reside 1
News JBOS group to work on proposed Devens zoning ch... (Jul '14) Jul '14 Reside 1

Devens Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Devens Mortgages