Posted on 12/15/2005 7:58:47 PM PST by NormsRevenge
Yep... Wachter... that would be the one. Watch your wallet.
In addition to Wachter, here were a few more names reported that went on the trade mission that might raise eyebrows: F. Warren Hellman, venture capitalist; William Edwards, venture capitalist; Rockefeller Group Development Corp., New Jersey; other New York "financiers"... and of course, the ever-present Alan Zaremberg.
Gotta push those California products to China, right?
That's the problem! There's a giant trade deficit with china. We buy all their good and they buy non of ours. Remenber these chips are being made over there for us to buy back off them.
Most of the money is going their direction and all we get are some crappy chips "Made in China"
I have met Mr. Pearce and you can bet it was Arnold.
Hmmm... Doerr is also the guy voicing support for the Global Warming "cap and trade" program. I guess these VC's found out that getting money from government (and its fine taxpayers) is easier than actually finding other business investments to pursue.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1534730/posts?page=2#2
Both! lol. Their company structure is very convoluted. For a company that has had very few sales and been able to run up a $58 million deficit, one wonders why they need these complications (if not to simply confuse).
From the links I posted earlier, you can go to the SEC filings. I probably pulled most of my info from the Prospectus for their IPO. The highlights that I posted earlier, based on reviewing those files:
"They have only one solar cell production line in operation, located in the Philippines. Their assembly functions are conducted by third-party subcontractors in China.... It has subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. "Also, IIRC, the Red Herring was founded and run by Tony Perkins, the son of Kleiner Perkins principle.
Well, with the help of unwitting and/or willing voters, the gubamint we see entrenched in every business to some degree today, regulation wise etc, has made gubamint a big business in and of itself.
Ya got to go where the money is, yaknow. ;-)
You're right. None of it makes any sense if you look under the covers. Unfortunately, our "journalists" forgot how to report and there seem to be plenty of willing participants in these schemes that keep the powerful and political elite living in grand style (and in control of our taxpayer dollars).
A more frightening development than their pell mell rush to empower our enemies and screw the people who made them rich for an even bigger buck.
If you look carefully, the people behind solar cells ARE the major investors in fossil fuels. That's because solar cells consume more energy than they produce.
Hence biomass and nuclear.
Correction: principal
TOO Big!
What is the ratio on that?
Ooops. I forgot that I was told by SW that he was "ping dependent"
(and the fogger will have my hide if I forget them again, lol)
Ping.
I won't take any hide, just leave a bald spot. LOL.
That should come as no surprise. The Chinese have always made most of their money on take-out. :-)
The link you provided actually disputes what you stated above.
And by the way, the link to the article you provided is over 2 years old, and there seems to be no links for the source.
Not if you understood my sketchy comment as intended. ;-)
By the time you count ALL the factor inputs that go into solar electricity (including those Boot Hill mentions that are not in his calculations), including the energy to produce them, reduced output from overheating, dirt, damage, common shade factors (particularly important in winter) such as hills, trees, and other buildings, orientation problems with existing construction, downtime, maintenance, repairs, and (a biggie) disposal costs when they go bad, they don't produce as much energy as they consume. I can't wait to see people using LimeAway on their panel glass to clean off the calcium deposits from rinsing off dirt, only to have the acid eat the aluminum housing.
Nor have I seen even once, in any article touting the blessings of solar cells on domestic housing, the cost of interest taken into account. Then there's the cost of lost opportunity when considering what the same capital could have produced when invested in a more efficient source of electrical power. Did I mention earthquake loading on existing construction? How about the marginal cost of roof repair with a set of panels installed?
Then there are the costs of solar on a large scale that aren't even in the picture now. Consider the reflections off a hillside of panels in an urban area. It won't be pleasant.
There may be sound reasons to install solar cells on new houses in remote areas, particularly if we could back them up with stationary fuel cells running on propane at night to eliminate the need for batteries, but as a primary source of electricity they suck compared to nuclear and biomass (the latter of which we have to do something about anyway).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.