Comments on: The Real Reason the Obama Administration Backed Solyndra

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 03:44:00 +0000

Sorry, Brian, but you don’t grasp the reality of creating a new car company.
You can’t start by manufacturing zillions of cheap units. You have to start with something for which deep pockets people will pay a premium. This allows you to spread your start-up/development costs over fewer units while you build your brand.

And by coming to market with a car that impressed the hell out of everyone, Tesla turned the perception of EVs on its head. Within a week of releasing the Roadster the myth of EVs being golf carts with windows vanished. The Roadster blew the doors off the competition at a bargain price.

Having made their mark Tesla was able to move into the the next level on the route to building zillions of econoboxes, the luxury sedan. They’ve produced an impressive car.

Their next big release will be a model that competes with the “nice” economy cars, the Camry-type sedan. An EV that lots of people can afford.
—

President Obama crooked? That’s just a butt-assed stupid claim.

Wise up fellow….

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 03:32:00 +0000

Who in their right mind would build a factory in likely one of the most expensive commercial zones in the nation, in an area where due to the high cost of: homes/rent, land, labor, everything else (duh!) (“Bay Area”) ? A real well-intentioned capital venture from the start! Just like Tesla, Fisker. Let’s build a car for the masses or at least the masses that have between, oh let’s say, 60 and 120K to buy a car. THAT’L really help our environment! Dumb asses. Yeah, All politicians are crooked. This time, it is Obama who is the crooked one. Get over it and get him the hell out of DC. Thanks for your time.

By: David J. Conklin

David J. Conklin — Mon, 28 May 2012 11:20:00 +0000

Where’s the proof, Pete?

By: David J. Conklin

David J. Conklin — Mon, 28 May 2012 11:18:00 +0000

>I wonder if she’d be willing to tell us what the percentage of total PV investment versus total investment in renewable energy is

Irrelevant.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:32:00 +0000

Thanks for that post, Brett.

Could you give some cost comparisons for Solyndra vs. flat plate during the period about which you report?

By: Brett Strouss

Brett Strouss — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:11:00 +0000

Two years ago when I was the president of a solar design and installation company, the Solyndra panels were the least expensive high-performance photovoltaic product available for flat-roof commercial buildings. We just couldn’t get them quickly enough, because demand was too high and there wasn’t enough manufacturing capability, and even worse, conditions were hampered because the banks were restricting financing to perfectly qualified business owners so deals fell through after long waits for the banks to think about it. The technology was brilliant, and had been developed over a period of years to maximize the output from white-roofed commercial buildings (Note: you should also read up on how switching to white roof material would significantly reduce energy costs in much of the US). But global demand didn’t meet projections for the entire PV industry, and overproduction of silicon wafers and huge investments in China’s manufacturing capabilities (investments were from Chinese, US, and European parties) cheap imported traditional panel installations soon became more cost effective than even Solyndra installations could deliver. Remember that installations consist of engineering design, panels, inverters, racking systems, wiring, permits, regulatory registration costs, etc. and a huge labor cost. If the government would try to figure out just how many times they are pushing in one direction while also pushing in the opposite direction, and realize that the Solyndra situation was partly due to their (our?) own mis-management of so many things (administrations and parties are both at fault). For instance, we offer huge tax incentives for homeowners and businesses to convert to solar, while funding US solar businesses to add jobs, but allow the people and companies buying the systems with our future tax dollars to purchase imported systems (so perhaps 30% or more of that investment leaves the country), and allow US companies to move manufacturing facilities funded with our tax dollars to foreign countries. It’s not that simple, I realize, but in the solar industry we’re exporting manufacturing equipment that is putting the rest of the US solar manufacturing industry out of business, and claiming that as an industry we have a net positive cash-flow due to the export of our manufacturing equipment and technology. There are plenty of other incentives for renewable energy, but we choose to use tax credits. Fewer tax dollars today works against us in the long term. I think the spotlight should be on how we created the mess that caused or at least allowed Solyndra to fail, and how our government continues to fuel the fire that makes us both less competitive and deeper in debt.

By: The real reason Solyndra got government subsidies

The real reason Solyndra got government subsidies — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 23:03:14 +0000

[…] (Cross-posted from our sister blog, CleanTechnica) […]

By: Think New Clean Energy Costs too Much? Oil Cost $500 a Barrel at Startup | CleanTechnica

Tue, 01 Nov 2011 22:32:20 +0000

[…] with renewable sources, that won’t impact our ability to continue our civilization. This is why the Obama administration backed VC loans to thousands of renewable energy companies around the…This lack of market forces is why we need energy policy that drives demand for renewable energy, […]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:14:00 +0000

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Same as Fox News. The supporting article for Solyndra appeared after the Waltons had invested in Solyndra.

The government’s true intentions? The administration’s intentions? To get the economy healthy once more by encouraging US manufacturing and creating jobs. To cut the amount of CO2 we pump into our atmosphere in order to reduce the probability we roast our planet.

The Democrats in Congress are on board with getting the country healthy once more. The Republicans are intentionally blocking anything which might make the country better in an attempt to make President Obama a one term president and put a friend of the wealthy in the White House.

Why put money in solar? Because solar technology is on its way to provide us cheap, clean electricity.

Get rid of our energy distribution system? Nope. Does not make sense. Very few people are going to be willing or able to operate their own utility system. And we need to put wind turbines where the wind blows, solar panels in sunny places, steam turbines where we find hot rocks and underground streams to feed those turbines. Then we need to distribute that power to where we want to use it.

By: euroflycars

euroflycars — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:10:00 +0000

Sorry, I just posted as a comment what should have been a reply to Bob Wallace — yet let me take the opportunity to add a preamble:

Bob Wallace seems to surf on the presumably quite strong impact of my first comment on this forum, to focus attention on the content of his very long reply…

Now, here’s my (slightly amended) reply to his reply:

“…you would realize that you’ve been fed a massive does of BS.”

I’m picking up information very selectively, searching for the missing pieces to complete my already well advanced puzzle deemed to illustrate recent history — whereby the masterpiece in our case is the photographic picture of Solyndra PV panels, together with key pieces like the million versus billion understatement which I see as Mrs Kraemer’s trick to divert the readers’ attention from the true dimension of the government’s bad faith…

Another of her cover-up tricks is by omission as she writes: “Solyndra was only 1.4% of all the renewable energy we invested in.”

I wonder if she’d be willing to tell us what the percentage of total PV investment versus total investment in renewable energy is — and I wouldn’t be surprised to see this ratio giving us one more clue about the government’s true intentions.

“There were major supporting articles in publications such as the Wall Street Journal. The right-leaning Walton (Walmart) family were major investors.”

Isn’t the Wall Street Journal an integral part of the real versus the official government? And don’t you think that therefore the WSJ, through its biaised major supporting article, “sold” the flawed deal to the Walton family in order to flout their speculation on selling very cheap PV panels in their department stores?

Because, let me stress it again: mass-produced and therefore cheap PV panels are threatening the government-coveted energy lobbies who just love the idea of going on forever keeping us hostages at the outlets of their distribution networks!

By: euroflycars

euroflycars — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:51:00 +0000

“…you would realize that you’ve been fed a massive does of BS.”

Nobody is feeding me with whatsoever small doses of BS: I’m picking up information very selectively, searching for the missing pieces to complete my puzzle — whereby the masterpiece in our case is the photographic picture of Solyndra PV panels, together with key pieces like the million versus billion understatement which I see as Mrs Kraemer’s trick to divert the readers’ attention from the true dimension of the government’s bad faith…

Another of her cover-up tricks is by omission as she writes: “Solyndra was only 1.4% of all the renewable energy we invested in.”

“There were major supporting articles in publications such as the Wall Street Journal. The right-leaning Walton (Walmart) family were major investors.”

Because, let me stress it again: mass-produced and therefore cheap PV panels are threatening the government-coveted energy lobbies who just love the idea of going on for ever keeping us hostages at the outlets of their distribution networks!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:50:00 +0000

Well, we have over 5,000 solar companies employing over 100,000 Americans in every state in the U.S. now. Several factories employing a lot of people.
Good labor. Near important resources and demand. Good policies supporting that.

It is happening.

But it’s in clean energy.
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/20/texas-solar-energy-hitting-state-in-1-month-all-energy-texas-oil-gas-industry-has-ever-produced/
The wind industry looks very similar to solar in these regards

By: Go figure

Go figure — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:33:00 +0000

Why would private industry invest in the United States of America? When was the last time a private industry opened up a manufacturing plant in your state? The Government did not and has not stopped private industry from opening a plant in your state. They don’t want to because they may have to pay a reasonable wage!

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:41:00 +0000

Yeah, if wind were cheap, etc, would be more accurate. You’re right.

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:40:00 +0000

I’ve worked in solar estimates in California and installation is indeed 40%-50% of the cost of rooftop (what Solyndra made) solar, just as the US Department of Energy says in the study I cite in the article.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 10:31:00 +0000

while you may have some valid points here, i don’t think Obama would have gone around doing press conferences at Solyndra and drawing attention to the fact that the DOE supported it if he thought the company was going to fail.
that would be political masochism.

By: Solarpete

Solarpete — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 09:07:00 +0000

Installation is not 40% to 50% of the cost of solar! Installation including mounting equipment and labor makes up at the very most 1/6th to 1/10th of the total! Light weight frames? Trackers? Reduce costs? Don’t drink the kool aid!

By: Max

Max — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 06:41:00 +0000

“If solar were cheap, we could be energy independent and avoid climate change.”

Your article is well written. Thank you for laying out the ideas coherently. I thought you went a little far with this sentence, though.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 04:37:00 +0000

Actually one of the largest owners was not one of President Obama’s largest political financial contributors to his campaign.

George Kaiser, to whom you refer, did not have any private money invested in this operation. He stood to make zero money from Solyndra.

A nonprofit run by Kaiser’s family did have money invested but none of the potential earnings would have flowed to Kaiser or his relatives.

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 04:25:00 +0000

Solyndra was 1.4% of the renewable investment by this administration. So are the other 98.6% of them all his good buddies too?

Link to 1.4% facts:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/21/obama-doe-picked-more-energy-winners-than-silicon-valley-vcs/