A geothermal energy company with a $98.5 million loan guarantee from the Obama administration for an alternative energy project in Nevada — which received hearty endorsements from Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — faces financial problems, and the company’s auditors have questioned whether it can stay in business.
Much like Solyndra LLC, a California solar-panel manufacturer with a $535 million federal loan guarantee that went bankrupt, Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP) has incurred $98 million in net losses over the past several years, has substantial debts and does not generate enough cash from its current operations after debt-service costs, an internal audit said.
“The company’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on its available cash and its ability to continue to raise funds to support corporate operations and the development of other properties,” NGP auditors said in a financial statement for the period ending March 31.
“Consequently, material uncertainties exist which cast significant doubt upon the company’s ability to continue as a going concern,” the statement said.
Mr. Reid, a Nevada Democrat who led passage of the $814 billion stimulus bill and worked to include the loan guarantee program to help finance clean-energy projects, predicted in 2010 that NGP would “put Nevadans to work” and declared that Nevada was the “Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy.”
Mr. Chu celebrated NGP’s potential in his June 2010 announcement of the loan guarantee, saying the federal government’s support of the company demonstrated its commitment to geothermal power to achieve the nation’s clean-energy goals.
But Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on regulatory affairs, stimulus oversight and government spending, is concerned about NGP’s finances and the timing of the loan guarantee
I had read on another site that the Pelosi family was tied into this. Am I wrong?
@Old Guy:
According to the Washington Free Beacon, “Seven solar companies received fast-tracked approval by the Department of the Interior to lease federal lands in a no-bid process: Abengoa Solar, BrightSource Energy, First Solar, Nevada Geothermal Power, NextEra Energy Resources, Ormat Nevada, and SolarReserve.” Each of these seven companies received billions of DOE funds under the 1705 loan program as well as renewable energy grants from the Treasury Department—despite “junk bond” status.
Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP) holds leasehold interests in six geothermal projects located in the Western United States. They hold a BB+ rating and received a $78.8 million loan, guaranteed by the DOE, in September of 2011. Executives from NGP contributed heavily in 2008 to Harry Reid’s campaign.
The other 6 are shredded here:
http://freebeacon.com/interior-motives/
and here:
http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2012/06/obama-%E2%80%9Cthank-you-for-donating-to-my-campaign%E2%80%A6%E2%80%9D/
Although the ultra-conservative right-wing has nothing good to say about green energy, many of the best known corporation in the world see evidence of its value:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/green-new-black.asp#axzz1zrAWuVQ8
But without expensive experimentation with various business models, these successes wouldn’t be possible—ask Babe Ruth.
Just a thought, and kind of off-topic, but related to geo-thermal energy in general, and alternative energy specifically.
Have there been any studies done on the impact of these alternative energy sources to the environment, specifically, the taking away of nature’s own energy?
For example, geothermal energy is the use of water heated from earth’s own hot core, used to create steam on the surface to spin turbines. In many cases the spent water is injected back into the earth’s core to be heated again and again, continuing the cycle. So, the question is, does this removal of heat from earth’s core cause any ill, or negative, effects on, say, the movement, or possible movement, of the plates themselves?
Another example: Wind energy uses wind to spin turbines. In so doing, the turbines take away kinetic energy from the earth’s atmosphere, converting it to electrical energy. So, the question is, does this removal of kinetic energy from the earth’s atmosphere hamper nature’s ability to use wind in scrubbing the surface of the earth, in providing currents in waterways necessary for the health of the waterways, or in, say, directing the flight of birds?
And similar questions could be asked about all of these “alternative” energy sources, these “renewable” energy sources the greenies are so fond of. Does solar cells remove energy from sun rays that may be necessary for the health of vegetation, or animal life, on the surface? Do hydro-electric plants along the coasts affect the ability of the oceans to scrub clean the coastlines?
Crazy questions? Maybe. However, one has to think, given the theory of relativity stating that “energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, only altered in form”, that by taking away natural energy, we are affecting the natural ability of nature to maintain a healthy planet.
It is questions like these that the “greenies” won’t ask, nor even think about. They declare one type of energy source evil and cry about the use of it affecting nature, yet don’t even begin to question how their own preferred source affects anything, even the making of the equipment used in harnessing that source of energy.
@johngalt:
Great questions johngalt.
I do know that wind turbines rob so much wind out of their paths that no other wind turbines can be set up anywhere near them….they must be spaced out quite a lot.
The green projects here in CA had to get emergency waivers so they could ignore the destruction of the tortise habitat. They also waived all of the destruction of ancient Indian sacred grounds. They also waived the destruction of the habitat for desert hares, lizards, birds and bats. The problem remains that they create such strong updrafts from their super-heated air that small planes coming into land nearby can be crashed by simply flying through these invisible up-drafts.
But, hey! It’s ”for the planet!”
/ <— sarcasm tag
@Nan G:
They are serious questions, too. I mean, what if, by removing heat from beneath the earth’s crust that otherwise wouldn’t have been removed, the earth’s crust becomes thicker, with less movement, or freedom of movement, among the plates, resulting in larger and more devastating earthquakes? Maybe it’s a stretch, and maybe it’s not. After all, we humans apparently greatly affect the atmosphere by running our cars and trucks down the road. Why couldn’t we affect the earth’s surface as well?