Solar Company Folds After $0.5B In Subsidies 694
First time accepted submitter dusanv writes "Solyndra, a Silicon Valley solar energy firm, subsidized to the tune of $500 million and held as a 'gleaming example of green technology,' announced bankruptcy yesterday. 1,100 employees fired."
Re:Stop (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course it'll work.
Corporate welfare is how this country was built, and it's the engine behind today's fastest growing economies. Why change a winning formula?
Re:It should be noted... (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably because building nuclear power plant costs a LOT of money, and has the potential to damage massive portions of their surrounding areas. Moreover, the profit is probably in the relatively distant future -- an investment the government can often afford to make, but most private investors are unlikely to like.
Burned Out Solar (Score:5, Interesting)
At first, I was fairly intimidated. I was new to the Valley, and wondered if this was the pace I would be expected to keep for my employer. After a few months, though, I realized that Solyndra was the exception, not the norm, and not even the more hardcore start-ups in my field matched the hours their employees put in.
As I watched their work pattern, I wondered at the office culture that would lead to such employee behavior, as well as the pay and benefits that had to be backing it up. I could never shake the uneasy impression that Solyndra was vigorously burning the candle at both ends, with potentially disastrous consequences in store.
Steady as she goes, I guess. Even in Silicon Valley.
ABC story from the time of the loan (Score:5, Interesting)
$500 Million in Loan Guarantees (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Solar dies, RADIATION LIVES. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's too bad that Good Thoughts won't help these companies out.
They don't need 'Good Thoughts', they need a viable business plan.
Of course that's not actually possible with 'green technology' because very little of it makes any financial sense.
What do you mean, they had an awesome business plan. Talk big, attract the interest of the government who offers to guarantee your loans, max out that new credit line and transfer the funds to your board, executives, and "supplier" cronies.
On a more serious note, it seems to me that with an emerging technology like this it would make more sense for the government to put in steady orders rather than directly subsidize the company. If $500 million of guaranteed orders over a couple of years aren't enough to keep them stable and/or growing, then not much is. Plus, that would at least leave the government with the useful (if probably overpriced) products at the end, rather than having nothing (well, they may have a share of whatever equity is left in the company after creditors are paid off - which I somehow think will be very little, see baseless accusations above).
Re:Solar dies, RADIATION LIVES. (Score:2, Interesting)
> Of course that's not actually possible with 'green technology' because very little of it makes any financial sense.
This is by design. Alternative energy is like alternative music, the second it becomes popular it isn't alternative anymore. With energy the second it shows signs of being economically viable the same nutballs who wanted it subsidised and were heaping praise on it suddenly realize why it is evil.
Because when an energy source is only used small scale it is easy to ignore things, scale it up to production and suddenly the problems, which were there all along, become more obvious. Also because most greens do not actually want alternative energy, they want the world to adapt to LESS energy. Many won't believe me, but try this thought experiment. Imagine an energy source that was actually perfectly 'green.' Limitless power with no ecological side effects from it's production. How many greens do you know who would rejoice at the news? No, they would bemoan this miracle for the fact it would allow us in the 1st world to continue to consume other non-energy resources.
But lets go down the list.
1. Solar? Great when a yuppie gets his subsidy check to put panels on his roof and preen about how concerned for the environment he is. Cover deserts with arrays to generate commercial scale power and no, there are lizards out there ya know.
2. Wind? Great idea to a green. Until you put up enough that the piles of dead birds become too big to ignore. And so long as they don't go where rich environmentally aware types can actually see them.
3. Hydro? Nah, that was the green miracle tech of yesteryear. It actually produces energy at marketable prices so it kills fish and makes for 'unnatural rivers.'
4. Tidal power? They like it now, but wait for some dead fish to end that if it ever does become viable.
5. Geothermal? Causes earthquakes when you do in on a commercial scale. Another one that works great on test scale but doesn't scale up.
6. Hydrogen? Idiocy, hydrogen is just a storage medium for energy generated some other way. If we had huge fusion plants it might be worth cracking hydrogen to let cars carry that bountiful energy around.
The energy problem is actually pretty simple. Unless you like handing Sagans of cash to people who want to kill us we have to get off oil. Yes we could 'Drill Baby Drill" here and get more, but probably not enough. We do however have a lot of natural gas. So run our cars on that while we look for something better. And build the crap out of modern safer nuke plants, if for no other reason that that without replacements the existing stock of nuke plants will stay online... and they ain't nearly as safe as a modern one. But that solution goes nowhere because it only solves the stated problem. The unstated problem is always how to make America live more in harmony with nature, i..e poorer, when stating that openly is a career limiting decision for an elected official.
Re:The apologists are already coming out (Score:5, Interesting)
It's sad that posts like this, that *dare* to question the mantra that solar are wind are going to SAVE THE WORLD!!!, are inevitably modded flamebait and troll. This is supposed to be a place where smart people engage in reasoned debate. Most often, it's more like a place where immature jackoffs engage in /. groupthink and petty sniping of anyone who dares question the consensus.
Re:It should be noted... (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the main reasons nuclear power plants in the United States cost so much money to build is that each one of them is independently designed and built.
Want to see a shining example of cost control (and an ironic one at that)? Look to the US Navy where plants are designed once and used multiple times.
This is the way nuclear power plants in the US should be built.
Wit ha standardized design that is both modular and updateable within the basic design for future discoveries.
Instead, each is a hodgepodge of known ideas that are decided upon and implemented without thought to cost control.
Re:Stop (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with Solyndra is that the green market was too active. That is those who made things cheaper in China using old technology drove the prices down. Solyndra was developing newer technology and could not compete. The new technology is not dead though but it may be some time before it emerges. People want simple solar panels today at low cost rather than waiting a decade for low cost advanced panels.
I don't necessarily think that subsidies are going to help matters though. It just seems that a good investment went sour from unforeseen market shifts. It's always a bad idea to invest in one single company, but that does not mean it is not a good idea to invest in a wide variety of green companies.
Re:No - maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
This.
I mean, the OP couldn't have been bothered to put any context in? And by the way, a one line/link post makes it to FP? Smells like freeping to me.
The DoE never expected 100% of the companies taking out loan guarantees to make it. It's like farming. Not every seed sprouts, but you throw them all out in the field anyway.
Oh, and this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x123885 [democratic...ground.com]
Now, if anyone can point to a company that didn't get finance from the DoE but had an obviously better prospective, or golf junkets with Solyndra Lobbyists, THEN there's something to wail about.
Re:No - maybe (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean pollutes /differenly/. Every type of energy we've found produces some environmental impact (pollution). Whether it's waterwheels chewing up trout and salmon or solar panels made with highly poisonous chemicals -- killing the environment is kind of how we play the game.
It sucks, but that's why I'm pro nuclear -- at least Chyrnobyl teaches us that the radiation zones those leave behind are good for the environment.
-GiH
Re:No - maybe (Score:4, Interesting)
And the highways weren't socialist. The Interstate Freeway System was designed as a Department of Defense project.
That's the biggest load of bull ever foisted on dimwitted "fiscal conservatives". Of course they said it's "for the military". We have to support the troops!
Bunk. You know full well that the entire reason they built those freeways was because the American public wanted to drive fast in big cars.
If all they wanted was to was move military convoys, they could have paved a right-of-way no wider than a single railroad track, at orders of magnitude less cost.
BTW, the US Department of Defense is one of the biggest socialist programs on this planet.
Re:Stop (Score:4, Interesting)
So, where do you think all that Rare Earth Metals and stuff the solar panels comes from? Where do you think the energy to make them comes from? Unicorns and Leprechauns?
The answer is, of course: it depends.
There are various materials [wikipedia.org] that solar cells may be made from, and the environmental impact is bound to differ based on the materials used.
As for the energy required to make the panels, I think we all know that there are various ways to generate electricity. You can get the environmental impact arbitrarily low by using more environmentally friendly sources.
One study [acs.org] found that, using 2004-2006 technology for manufacturing solar cells and the then current mix of energy sources, solar panels reduce harmful air emissions by 89% compared to the current energy mix.
So, to run with that data point (and I know I'm oversimplifying here), if we were to stop doing any more research into better options, and simply convert everything to solar power using technology that is already deployed on a commercial scale, we will kill 89% less unicorns and leprechauns. Yes, we would still harm the environment. But doesn't a reduction by almost a factor 10 sound worth it?