Amonix is the newest Solyndra. Yet another green energy corporation received millions of taxpayer money - and failed.
![]() |
| Taken from the Amonix website. |
Amonix was having financial problems even before the CEO, Brian Robertson, died in a plane crash last December.
The Las Vegas plant laid off 200 workers in January, and let go the remaining 300 employees in May when that plant ceased operations.
Last week most of the equipment was shipped back to its headquarters in California.
The balance sheet for Amonix doesn't look good with liabilities exceeding assets by $20 million. With the current value of Amonix being 75% of its liabilities, the big question is where do the taxpayers stand when it comes time to pay debtors?
Why is the federal government in the risky game of throwing taxpayer money at startup corporations?
Typically, one would expect a start-up to go boom or bust. The startups can fall flat on their face and or actually become successful at producing a product everyone wants to buy.
What is the impact of and reasoning behind federal funding of green energy startups?
Some corporations get taxpayer money, some don't. While corporations receiving no taxpayer money can stay afloat, why is it that corporations receiving taxpayer money seem to go bust so often?
Is the fed picking the losers to invest in? Those companies without a clear vision, are too heavily into R&D and not manufacturing actual product? Let's throw money at it and try to polish a turd!
Careful analysis needs to be made of the historical operation and financial condition of each company receiving taxpayer money. If these were losers to being with - we need to fire the federal official who made the informed decision to invest in Solyndra, Amonix, etc.
I am not referring to Obama. The task to research corporations to invest taxpayer money into was probably given to the DOE, who then had to report to House/Senate energy committees on which corporations to give taxpayer money. The DOE may or may not have given an unbiased critical analysis - or Congress may have just tossed the analysis and invested based on political gain.
I have an idea.
Let the big energy providers have a program where a consumer of electricity can opt into "buying stock" in green, renewable energy. A customer can opt in to be surcharged a percentage on top of their electricity bill.Let's say an imaginary someone living in Arizona wants to "invest" 5% on top of their electric bill, into an imaginary green energy program from their electricity provider, APS. Obviously APS would choose solar, and let's pick wind as another option. This person allocates the entire 5% to the solar program. APS then takes everyone's allocations, and then funds the solar and wind project. As green energy production begins, a fraction of that energy produced is given as dividends to the program's investors, as energy credit in kWh.
Now imagine the solar program becomes a total success with the opening of its first solar plant. Energy production is 800 megawatts a day, or 72,000 megawatts per quarter. The person investing then receives his dividend on investment, say 20kWh a month (about 1% of his energy usage). And that person keeps getting dividends, which increase as he continues to invest 5% into solar.
If the person moved out of state and kept his investment in solar, the APS dividend would transfer to the consumer's new utility as energy credits. The solar energy dividend would be 'sold' on APS' grid, and those funds purchase energy from the new utility. That new utility gives the consumer the kWh credit on his bill.
Of course, these plants can eventually fail, in so dies the dividends. Hopefully the consumer over time received more energy than that consumer had paid in.
