Group items tagged

[T]he federal commitment to [oil & gas] was five times greater than the federal commitment to renewables during the first 15 years of each subsidies’ life, and it was more than 10 times greater for nuclear.

The political reaction to the Solyndra scandal has been laughably devoid of both short-term and long-term historical perspective. In an attempt to exploit a political opportunity, many House Republicans are railing against government investments in the renewable energy sector. However, those same politicians requested millions of dollars for cleantech projects in their own states just a year or two before.This bad case of amnesia stretches far beyond the last two years. Apparently, many in Congress have forgotten about the last 100 years of government investments in oil, gas and nuclear — all of which have far outpaced investments in renewable energy like solar PV, solar thermal, geothermal and wind.

A new study with terrific charts, “What Would Jefferson Do? The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies inShaping America’s ERnergy Future,” released by the venture capital firm DBL Investors, attempts to quantify and contrast those government investments. The researchers looked at the vast array of federal incentives — tax credits, land grants, tariffs, R&D, and direct investments — and found that renewables have received far less support than any other sector:

Chancellor Angela Merkel's government insists that electricity bills will only grow modestly as a result of the nuclear energy phase-out. Experts, however, disagree, with many pointing to Berlin's massive subsidies for solar power as the culprit.

A pioneering spirit has taken hold in Germany, thanks to the government's radical reworking of the country's energy policies. Hardly a week goes by without the foundation being laid someplace in the country for a new solar farm, yet another biogas plant or an even bigger wind turbine. Fesseldorf, the town in northern Bavaria which just hosted Seehofer, will soon be home to one of the largest photovoltaic plants in the state.

The German government's plan calls for increasing the share of renewables in the country's energy mix to 35 percent by 2020. It is an ambitious goal in every respect. Not only will the current renewable energy share have to be doubled within a few years, the grid expanded and new power storage facilities installed. But Chancellor Angela Merkel's government is also somehow expecting the entire energy revolution to cost virtually nothing.

That slogan in the title above is posted at the headquarters building of Enel in Rome. Enel is one of the leading European energy companies, and European Energy Review has just published an interview with CEO Fulvio Conti where he mentioned that particular fact. I like that slogan. Conti also said that investments in the energy sector need to look ahead for a long time. It can take ten years from decision to realization of some project, which will be operating for another 40 years, so in the planning stage you need to be able to look 50 years ahead.

Enel has a total production capacity of 97 GW, of which 34 GW are renewable energy. Only 22 percent of the revenue from renewable is from subsidies. As Conti said:

In renewables, we go where the natural resources offer the best returns, e.g. in Brazil or Mexico for solar and wind power. Subsidies will come and go. Our investments are for the long term. We need to be able to get a return on our investments without subsidies. With our renewable power portfolio, only 22% of our revenues came from subsidies last year. But we are moving through difficult times, with slower growth. I wonder how the natural resources of Mongolia compare to Brazil or Mexico. There seems to be some major untapped potential in the Gobi.

Germany will be redirecting its economy towards renewable energy, because of the political decision to decommission its nuclear plants, triggered by the Fukushima event in Japan and subsequent public opposition to nuclear energy. Germany's decision would make achieving its 2020 CO2 emission reduction targets more difficult.   To achieve the CO2 emissions reduction targets and replace nuclear energy, renewable energy would need to scale up from 17% in 2010 to 57% of total electricity generation of 603 TWh in 2020, according to a study by The Breakthrough Institute. As electricity generation was 603 TWh in 2010, increased energy efficiency measures will be required to flat-line electricity production during the next 9 years.   Germany has 23 nuclear reactors (21.4 GW), 8 are permanently shut down (8.2 GW) and 15 (13.2 GW) will be shut down by 2022. Germany will be adding a net of 5 GW of coal plants, 5 GW of new CCGT plants and 1.4 GW of new biomass plants in future years. The CCGT plants will reduce the shortage of quick-ramping generation capacity for accommodating variable wind and solar energy to the grid.

Germany is planning a $14 billion build-out of transmission systems for onshore and future offshore wind energy in northern Germany and for augmented transmission with France for CO2-free hydro and nuclear energy imports to avoid any shortages.    Germany had fallen behind on transmission system construction in the north because of public opposition and is using the nuclear plant shutdown as leverage to reduce public opposition. Not only do people have to look at a multitude of 450-ft tall wind turbines, but also at thousands of 80 to 135 ft high steel structures and wires of the transmission facilities.   The $14 billion is just a minor down payment on the major grid reorganization required due to the decommissioning of the nuclear plants and the widely-dispersed build-outs of renewables. The exisitng grid is mostly large-central-plant based. 

This article includes the estimated capital costs of shutting down Germany's nuclear plants, reorganizing the grids of Germany and its neighbors, and building out renewables to replace the nuclear energy.    Germany’s Renewable Energy Act (EEG) in 2000, guarantees investors above-market fees for solar power for 20 years from the point of installation. In 2010, German investments in  renewables was about $41.2 billion, of which about $36.1 billion in 7,400 MW of solar systems ($4,878/kW). In 2010, German incentives for all renewables was about $17.9 billion, of which about half was for solar systems.   The average subsidy in 2010 was about ($9 billion x 1 euro/1.4 $)/12 TWh = 53.6 eurocents/kWh; no wonder solar energy is so popular in Germany. These subsidies are rolled into electric rates as fees or taxes, and will ultimately make Germany less competitive in world markets.   http://thebreakthrough.org/blog//2011/06/analysis_germanys_plan_to_phas-print.html http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-31/merkel-faces-achilles-heel-in-grids-to-unplug-german-nuclear.html http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/829664/revealed_how_your_country_compares_on_renewable_investment.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany  

...Nor would any new reactors be built in the U.S. today, according to a comprehensive new report written by Doug Koplow of Earth Track for the Union of Concerned Scientists: "Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies." Ironically, the report's major public unveiling took place on Capitol Hill on March 11 -- the very day the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe began. Since then, one of the lead new reactor proposals in the U.S. -- two new reactors targeted at the South Texas Project, next in line for a multi-billion dollar nuclear loan guarantee and loan backed by U.S. federal taxpayers -- has largely gone belly up: its major partners included Tokyo Electric Power Company (owner and operator of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant) and Hitachi (merged with General Electric, designer of the catastrophically failed Mark 1 Boiling Water Reactor), as well as Toshiba (Japanese owner of Westinghouse) and the Japan federal government's Bank for International Cooperation. The U.S. partner, NRG Energy of Princeton, NJ, has announced it will put no more money into the project, given the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe. Koplow's report is very likely the single most comprehensive accounting yet of more than half a century of lavish taxpayer and ratepayer subsidization of the nuclear power industry in the U.S. -- often without the public's knowledge, let alone consent. Koplow has concluded that “After 50 years, the nuclear industry needs to move away from government patronage to a model based on real economic viability. The considerable operational and construction risks of this power source need to be reflected in the delivered price of power rather than dumped onto taxpayers.”

Without much going on recently that hasn’t been covered by other blog posts, I’d like to explore a topic not specifically tied to nuclear power or to activities currently going on in Washington, D.C. It involves an idea I have about a possible alternative means of having the electricity market account for the public health and environmental costs of various energy sources, and encouraging the development and use of cleaner sources (including nuclear) without requiring legislation. Given the failure of Congress to take action on global warming, as well as environmental issues in general, non-legislative approaches to accomplishing environmental goals may be necessary. The Problem

One may say that the best response would be to significantly tighten pollution regulations, perhaps to the point where no sources have significant external costs. There are problems with this approach, however, above and beyond the fact that the energy industry has (and will?) successfully blocked the legislation that would be required. Significant tightening of regulations raises issues such as how expensive compliance will be, and whether or not viable alternative (cleaner) sources would be available. The beauty of simply placing a cost (or tax) on pollution that reflects its costs to public health and the environment is that those issues need not be addressed. The market just decides between sources based on the true, overall cost of each, resulting in the minimum overall (economic + environmental) cost-generation portfolio

The above reasoning is what led to policies like cap-and-trade or a CO2 emissions tax being proposed as a solution for the global warming problem. This has not flown politically, however. Policies that attempt to have external costs included in the market cost of energy have been labeled a “tax increase.” This is particularly true given that the associated pollution taxes (or emissions credit costs) would have largely gone to the government.

Despite the fact that its proposed new reactor projects are beset by ongoing major safety risks, schedule delays, cost overruns, and other economic and radiological pitfalls, the nuclear power industry continues to seek massive taxpayer bailouts, not only in the U.S. but even overseas. The environmental movement has responded by urging the Japanese government not to risk its own taxpayers’ funds on the risky South Texas Project twin reactor expansion. A coalition of more than 170 organizations, including Beyond Nuclear, recently sent a letter to the Japanese prime minister, and issued an accompanying media release. (Last August, Beyond Nuclear’s Kevin Kamps, along with Japanese allies from Green Action, Citizens Nuclear Information Center, Friends of the Earth, and other groups met with the Japanese Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and the federal Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) to deliver just such a message.) The nuclear industry's attempted money grab in the U.S. has now shifted -- yet again -- to the U.S. Senate, which is considering funding measures for the current and next fiscal year. Right now is a critical time to stave off this latest attempt to risk additional billions of taxpayer dollars on proposed new atomic boondoggles. Call your two U.S. Senators via the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            (202) 224-3121      end_of_the_skype_highlighting, or look up their fax numbers and websites for writing in via their webforms, or to find their in-state offices nearest you. Urge them to not only reject additional nuclear power loan guarantees, but also to roll back the entire nuclear loan guarantee program, as 57% of Americans polled by the Wall Street Journal/NBC have indicated ("When it comes to reducing spending, the most popular targets were subsidies to build nuclear power plants...")! After more than half a century of heavy subsidization by American taxpayers and ratepayers, it's high time for the nuclear power industry to stand on its own two feet in the marketplace, or go away for good!

A poll by the Wall Street Journal and NBC has found that 57% of Americans polled supported the elimination of subsidies for the construction of new atomic reactors as a budget trimming measure in these hard financial times for the U.S. Treasury. The Wall Street Journal reported that "When it comes to reducing spending, the most popular targets were subsidies to build nuclear power plants..."

Yes, sadly, our politicians are downright hypocrites, especially those on a certain side of the aisle. What they say versus what they vote for (and ask for) are completely opposite in many instances. After joining in the loan guarantee flogging after Solyndra, for example,  House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has gone and supported a $2 billion loan guarantee for an Ohio nuclear power plant (yes, that would be his home state of Ohio). He’s even gone so far as to say not backing the loan guarantee would “betray” Ohio workers.Last I heard, loan guarantees for nuclear power plants have a financial failure rate of over 50%. Umm…Going back to Boehner’s September opinion on loan guarantees: “for the federal government to be out there picking one company over another, one type of energy source over another, I think is wrong.”

“Boehner is far from the only Republican using Solyndra to score political points while asking for loan guarantees at the same time,” Think Progress reports. “In fact, Republican House members host $11.8 billion in loan guarantees in their districts.”

This year’s World Energy Outlook report has been published by the International Energy Agency, and says wealthy and industrializing countries are stuck on policies that threaten to lock in “an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy system.”You can read worldwide coverage of the report here. Fiona Harvey of the Guardian has a piece on the report that focuses on the inexorable trajectories for carbon dioxide, driven by soaring energy demand in Asia.A variety of graphs and slides can be reviewed here:

According to the report, Russia will long remain the world’s leading producer of natural gas, but exploitation of shale deposits in the United States, and increasingly in China, will greatly boost production in those countries (which will be in second and third place for gas production in 2035).Last month, in an interview with James Kanter of The Times and International Herald Tribune, the new head of the energy agency, Maria van der Hoeven, discussed one point made in the report today — that concerns raised by the damage to the Fukushima Daiichi power plant could continue to dampen expansion of nuclear power and add to the challenge of avoiding a big accumulation of carbon dioxide, saying: “Such a reduction would certainly make it more difficult for the world to meet the goal of stabilizing the rise in temperature to 2 degrees Centigrade.”

Here’s the summary of the main points, released today by the agency: “Growth, prosperity and rising population will inevitably push up energy needs over the coming decades. But we cannot continue to rely on insecure and environmentally unsustainable uses of energy,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven. “Governments need to introduce stronger measures to drive investment in efficient and low-carbon technologies. The Fukushima nuclear accident, the turmoil in parts of the Middle East and North Africa and a sharp rebound in energy demand in 2010 which pushed CO2 emissions to a record high, highlight the urgency and the scale of the challenge.”

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) plans to build 16 nuclear reactors over the next 20 years spending an estimated $7 billion on each plant. The $112 billion investment, which includes capacity to become a regional exporter of electricity, will provide one-fifth of the Kingdom’s electricity for industrial and residential use and, critically, for desalinization of sea water.

dom’s electricity for industrial and residential use and, critically, for desalinization of sea water.

This past April, the Saudi government announced the development of a nuclear city to train and house the technical workforce that will be needed to achieve these ambitions. It is clear that KSA’s plans for spending its sovereign wealth fund will be mostly focused on the home front. At the same time, a former Saudi ambassador to the United States , Prince Turki al-Faisal (served 2005-2006), has warned that a regional nuclear arms race could start if Iran does not curb its nuclear efforts. He told the Wall Street Journal on July 20, “It is in our interest that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, for their doing so would compel Saudi Arabia … to pursue policies that could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences.”

In recent weeks I have been excited to witness several genuine grassroots efforts in support of nuclear energy emerging on the scene. Several have already been covered on this forum, like the Rally for Vermont Yankee and the Webinar collaboration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the American Nuclear Society. Both of these efforts proved to be very successful in bringing together nuclear supporters and gaining attention from the mainstream media.

I’d like to share some information about another opportunity to actively show your support for nuclear. The White House recently launched a petition program called “We the People.” Here is the description of how it works: This tool provides you with a new way to petition the Obama administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response. One of the first and most popular petitions on the website is a call to end subsidies and loan guarantees for nuclear energy by 2013. As I write this, it is only about a thousand signatures away from reaching the White House. In response to this petition, Ray Wallman, a young nuclear supporter and filmmaker, wrote a counter petition called “Educate the Public Regarding Nuclear Power.” It needs 4,500 more signatures before October 23 in order to get a formal response, and reads as follows:

Due to the manufactured controversy that is the nuclear reactor meltdown in Fukushima, Japan, perpetuated by a scientifically illiterate news media, the public is unnecessarily hostile to nuclear power as an energy source. To date nobody has died from the accident and Fukushima, and nuclear power has the lowest per Terra-watt hour death toll of any energy source known to man: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html The Obama administration should take better strides to educate the public regarding this important energy source.

Britain is still paying for nuclear-generated electricity consumed a generation ago because of the hidden costs of an industry reared on the expectation of public subsidies, the Energy Secretary Chris Huhne said yesterday. He told the Royal Society in London that the nuclear industry and the Government should show that they have learned from their past mistakes if they are to retain public support for a renaissance in nuclear power. “And some of those mistakes are not small,” he said in a keynote address. “Nuclear policy is a runner to be the most expensive failure of post-war British policy-making, and I am aware that this is a crowded and highly contested field.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/chris-huhne-nuclear-power-a-costly-failure-2370340.html

Collectively, Texas eats more energy than any other state, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. We’re fifth in the country when it comes to our per-capita energy intake — about 532 million British Thermal Units per year. A British Thermal Unit, or Btu, is like a little “bite” of energy. Imagine a wooden match burning and you’ve got a Btu on a stick. Of course, the consumption is with reason. Texas, home to a quarter of the U.S. domestic oil reserves, is also bulging with the second-highest population and a serious petrochemical industry. In recent years, we managed to turn ourselves into the country’s top producer of wind energy. Despite all the chest-thumping that goes on in these parts about those West Texas wind farms (hoist that foam finger!), we are still among the worst in how we use that energy. Though not technically “Southern,” Texans guzzle energy like true rednecks. Each of our homes use, on average, about 14,400 kilowatt hours per year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. It doesn’t all have to do with the A/C, either. Arizonans, generally agreed to be sharing the heat, typically use about 12,000 kWh a year; New Mexicans cruise in at an annual 7,200 kWh. Don’t even get me started on California’s mere 6,000 kWh/year figure.

Let’s break down that kilowatt-hour thing. A watt is the energy of one candle burning down. (You didn’t put those matches away, did you?) A kilowatt is a thousand burnin’ candles. And a kilowatt hour? I think you can take it from there. We’re wide about the middle in Bexar, too. The average CPS customer used 1,538 kilowatt hours this June when the state average was 1,149 kWh, according to ERCOT. Compare that with Austin residents’ 1,175 kWh and San Marcos residents’ 1,130 kWh, and you start to see something is wrong. So, we’re wasteful. So what? For one, we can’t afford to be. Maybe back when James Dean was lusting under a fountain of crude we had if not reason, an excuse. But in the 1990s Texas became a net importer of energy for the first time. It’s become a habit, putting us behind the curve when it comes to preparing for that tightening energy crush. We all know what happens when growing demand meets an increasingly scarce resource … costs go up. As the pressure drop hits San Anto, there are exactly two ways forward. One is to build another massively expensive power plant. The other is to transform the whole frickin’ city into a de-facto power plant, where energy is used as efficiently as possible and blackouts simply don’t occur.

Consider, South Texas Project Plants 1&2, which send us almost 40 percent of our power, were supposed to cost $974 million. The final cost on that pair ended up at $5.5 billion. If the planned STP expansion follows the same inflationary trajectory, the price tag would wind up over $30 billion. Applications for the Matagorda County plants were first filed with the Atomic Energy Commission in 1974. Building began two years later. However, in 1983 there was still no plant, and Austin, a minority partner in the project, sued Houston Power & Lighting for mismanagement in an attempt to get out of the deal. (Though they tried to sell their share several years ago, the city of Austin remains a 16-percent partner, though they have chosen not to commit to current expansion plans).

In the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan, many wondered what the event’s impact would be on the nuclear renaissance in the United States. Those who follow the nuclear industry didn’t need eight months of hindsight to give an answer: what nuclear renaissance? The outlook for U.S. nuclear power has worsened considerably in the past five years. Where once there were plans for new reactors at more than 30 different sites, today there are only five, and even those planned reactors might disappear. Only one is actually under construction, and to credit the industry with breaking ground on a new reactor is overstating its prospects. However, none of this gloom is the result of Japan’s tsunami. On the eve of the Tohoku earthquake, U.S. nuclear power looked just as moribund as it is today. The cause of this decline is not renewed concerns about safety, or even that old red herring, waste disposal — instead, it is simple economics. Other technologies, particularly natural gas, offer much cheaper power than nuclear both today and in the foreseeable future.

In 2009, the MIT Future of Nuclear Power study released an update to its 2003 estimate of the costs of nuclear power. Estimating a capital cost of $4,000/kW and a fuel cost of $0.67/MMBtu, the study’s authors projected a cost of new nuclear power of 6.6 cents/kWh. Using the same modeling approach, the cost of electricity from a natural gas plant with capital costs of $850/kW and fuel costs of $5.16/MMBtu would be 4.4 cents/kWh. What’s worse, the estimate of 6.6 cents/kWh assumes that nuclear power is able to secure financing at the same interest rate as natural gas plants. In reality, credit markets assign a significant risk premium to nuclear power, bringing its total levelized cost of electricity to 8.4 cents/kWh, nearly twice the cost of natural gas power. Unless the capital costs of new nuclear power plants turn out to be significantly less than what experts expect, or natural gas prices rise considerably in the near future, there is little reason to believe that any new nuclear plants will be built without significant subsidies. This is not to say that nuclear power could not make a comeback within the next 10 to 20 years. But before nuclear can once again be considered a credible competitor to fossil fuels, four changes must happen.

The second problem facing nuclear power is its high borrowing costs. To some extent, this problem is a natural consequence of nuclear power plants taking a longer time to build than natural gas plants and having a much higher construction risk (the capital cost of natural gas plants is well-established relative to that of nuclear power). And likewise, to some extent, this problem might resolve itself over time, both as the completion of nuclear plants helps nail down the true capital cost of nuclear power, and as vendors add smaller, modular reactor designs to their list of offerings. But much of the reason behind the high interest rates on loans to nuclear construction is that the industry is scoring an own-goal. In the current relationship between utilities and reactor vendors, utilities are asked to absorb all of the costs of a vendor’s overruns — if a reactor ends up costing a couple billion dollars more than the vendor quotes, it’s the utility that is expected to make up the difference.

The day after the Obama administration rejected a proposal for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline -- a move widely, if cautiously, applauded by environmental groups and advocates of renewable energy -- a new report highlights the destructive impact of fossil fuel consumption in the United States. The report, called Fueling Extinction: How Dirty Energy Drives Wildlife to the Brink, highlights the top 10 US species whose survival is most threatened by the development, extraction, transportation, and consumption of fossil fuels.

The report itself does not shy away from pointing its finger directly at the profit-driven aspect of the fossil fuel industry, nor its dependence on taxpayer-funded subsidies:

The animals (and one plant) highlighted by the group range from the relatively unknown and small Tan Riffleshell, a freshwater mussel found in only five rivers in the eastern US, to the large and majestic Bowhead Whale, believed to be among the oldest mammals on earth and the only whale that lives exclusively in arctic waters.  The other eight species examined in the report include: the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard, the Graham’s Penstemon (a wildflower), the Greater Sage Grouse, the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle, the Kentucky Arrow Darter, the Spectacled Eider, the Whooping Crane, and the Wyoming Pocket Gopher. Receiving the 'activist's choice award' from the voting members was the Polar Bear, chosen because it was "the species they were most concerned about."

, Dan Hansen from Repower Australia, concluded that Australia will only be able to support a maximum of three or four turbine manufacturers in the years to come. Hansen spoke to Climate Spectator about the aggressive and cut throat competition in Australian market. A challenge which has evolved due to competitors bidding for contracts, which are to be awarded within the coming few months after being set back for a good two years. Hansen’s statements follow Suzlon’s announcement of operating in Australia under its newly acquired German subsidiary’s name, Repower.

In spite of reports of more than 15 wind turbine makers and more than 30 developers of wind farms actively functioning in Australia, Hansen believes that only the toughest ones would survive and do well. It will be hard for smaller wind turbine makers to survive in such a tough competition.

Even when considering a scenario where the existing trend of market of renewable-energy certificates continues up to 2014/15, if the certificates are to be delivered by, then, it would be necessary for the projects to be commissioned within the coming six to twelve months. This leads Hansen to hope that regulation of the projects would begin. He says that currently power deals cost around 90 USD per MWh. If they are to give rise to comfortable ROIs, most of the projects need to be sold for more than 100 USD per MWh.

Wind energy now supplies about 5% of California’s total electricity needs, or enough to power more than 400,000 households.That’s the word from the California Wind Energy Assn., which said that California put up more new turbines than any state last year, with 921.3 megawatts installed. Most of that activity occurred in the Tehachapi area of Kern County, with some big projects in Solano, Contra Costa and Riverside counties as well.

The total amount of wind energy installations in 2011 created a banner year for wind generation in California and is helping to drive California closer to reaching its goal of 33% renewable energy,” said Nancy Rader, executive director of the California Wind Energy Assn.  Wind capacity in the Golden State has doubled since 2002. With a total of nearly 4,000 megawatts installed, California now ranks third nationwide, behind Texas and Iowa.

To keep the wind at their backs, industry proponents are stumping in Congress for an extension of federal production tax credits to keep the turbines coming. Those credits expire at the end of this year. The industry’s pitch: Wind is clean and abundant, reduces U.S. dependence on foreign oil and creates American jobs.But it remains to be seen how enthusiastic lawmakers are about extending the breaks. Pressure is growing in Congress to cut the deficit and trim subsidies. The controversy over Solyndra didn’t help either. The Fremont, Calif., solar panel maker filed for bankruptcy protection last year after receiving more than a half-billion dollars in federal loan guarantees. That has soured some pols on renewables.