Chemical Engineer <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CSP is not radically new it has been around for 30 years awaiting > government money, only the names have changed. > > If SEGS was so profitable why did Luz go bankrupt? > I told you: it was a squeeze play. The power company and coal companies conspired to set up the conditions in a way that Luz could not make money. Everyone knew they were backed into a corner. It was "build something too small at a loss, or you will not have the opportunity to build anything." I think Luz hoped to cut a deal for a larger-scale profitable plant later, since their technology was easily scaled up, but it was not to be. As I recall the state Attorney General looked into an anti-trust charge, but dropped it. To exaggerate, it is as if you told Ford they can set up a manufacturing plant as long as they restrict it to 5,000 cars a year. They might do it, hoping a sane person will take over and let them make enough cars to make a profit. I sometimes think that energy production in California has produced more graft, corporate malfeasance and obscene profits than the rest of U.S. combined. Their laissez faire approach ended spectacularly with the Enron "burn baby burn" episodes, with billions of dollars vanishing into thin air. The lawsuits are probably continuing to the present day. As I recall, California was able to claw back a lot of the loot. - Jed
