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."
Stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that green technology is not profitable and therefore a big scam, or a modern religion if you will, with all of its guilt, shame and asking for money, let me state an opinion that might not be popular here: Maybe, just maybe, the subsidies was too low?
Ah, yes. We can make 'green technology' profitable by simply... taking more money from taxpayers and giving it to them.
That'll work.
Re: (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:No - maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
The best argument I've ever heard against subsidies for Green technology was from a VC in Silicon Valley and the interview was in Scientific American a few months ago - and I can't find the damn article.
One thing that made this nation great in its heyday was this: We didn't have a bunch of hand wringers from libertarian think tanks getting in the way of progress. If we had, this country would never have achieved anything that couldn't safely return a profit within the next two quarters.
When there was a major goal to accomplish, government and industry got together and put together the taxpayer funded handouts it took to do the job. Whether it was gifting free land to railroads, building canals in Central America, providing major subsidies for air mail, creating massive socialist highway building programs to help auto makers, or hundreds of other things., they stepped up to the plate and said: Git 'er Done.
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: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: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: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I mean pollute LESS, like I said. Oil is a very nasty business in both extraction AND use. At least solar is only messy in producing the panels, not in use (and really not messy at all when you use solar HEATING, not photovoltaic). And to say it pollutes DIFFERENTLY, is to imply they are equal pollution-wise. Finally, I hope your Chernobyl comment was sarcasm, as the only thing beneficial to the flora and fauna was that it kept people away.
Re:Stop (Score:5, Insightful)
It is what we do with every other energy source. Name one large commercially used energy source that does not get subsidies, tax breaks, government backed loans or liability protection of some form.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Stop (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what the guy SHOULD be saying, is that non-green technologies are a lot less CHEAP when you factor in the real cost of environmental degradation, negative health effects, non-renewable resource use, etc. in properly, which the MARKET does not do correctly. A Government subsidy is one way of correcting this market failure.
Or do you think it's just fine that strip-mining coal leads to destroyed lands, which then cannot store water and cause flooding onto people's towns, and also produce acid rain, widespread mercury poisoning, air pollution, climate change, NONE of the costs of which are factored into the price of coal? That's A-OK?
If that's NOT OK, how do you fix it? One way is to subsidize green tech. Another is to tax coal or whatever according to the true cost of their activities. Which do you think is more realistic politically?
What we should do is do the math and figure out how much of a subsidy is really justified, THEN talk.
--PM
Re:Stop (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the silicon they're made from? Ever heard of sand? Nothing rare about it.
No one ever said solar panels (or any technology) is perfect, environmentally speaking. But doing a little digging to build something that creates power out of sunlight for decades of service is a lot better than doing a LOT of digging for something you're just going to burn.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
It's worked for Big Oil, hasn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Yet solar still can't compete without enormous subsidies.
At the utility-scale level, solar costs about twice as much per kWh produced compared to coal right now. On the other hand, when looked at from the retail side of the equation, where end-users pay several times the actual cost of power to provide a profit margin, it competes marvelously. I can either pay the power company $.12/kWh, or make it myself for substantially less. So I am.
Re: (Score:2)
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that green technology is not profitable and therefore a big scam, or a modern religion if you will, with all of its guilt, shame and asking for money, let me state an opinion that might not be popular here: Maybe, just maybe, the subsidies was too low?
Ah, yes. We can make 'green technology' profitable by simply... taking more money from taxpayers and giving it to them.
That'll work.
It worked for the financial institutions. They got trillions, they seem to be doing OK, management are getting their huge bonuses again. Of course that may be what happened at Solyndra.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
s/green technology/fossil fuel companies/
============
are you aware that, compared to this relative pittance of $0.5B, the US government subsidizes the fossil fuel industries to the tune of upwards of $700B ... per YEAR?
how profitable would those companies be without taking THAT money from taxpayers and giving it to them?
what about if we stopped spending ($3.5Trillion+ / 10 years) for the war machine to provide us first-in-line status at the MidEast Gas Pump?
does your invisible-hand-of-the-almighty-free-mark
Re: (Score:3)
Companies go bankrupt all the time. Even a *profitable* company can go bankrupt if it can't raise cash to meet current obligations. So it's not the case that companies go bankrupt because they don't create value. Companies go bankrupt when they don't generate cash flow. And it's hard to generate cash flow if you don't have a product to sell yet, or you can't scale production enough to cover your fixed costs.
Reading TFA, this looks like a classic case of a company stuck between a cash rock and a cash hard pl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
With the level of income equality in the US, it would be an even greater travesty if the rich were NOT paying most of the taxes - they have MOST of the MONEY. And the concentration of wealth near the very top is unreal.
The top 1% earns about 25% of all US income, which is more than the bottom 50% and considering that the middle-class seems to be shrinking. I have nothing against honest rich people - I know more than a few. But severe income disparity can make for an overall lower standard of living.
I though
Re:Stop (Score:5, Insightful)
And what of the thievery implicit in the pollution of our air, water, and land for over a century by companies who care of nothing but profit? They stole something which we all have an inherent right to enjoy. Now that some people want to tax the polluters, to pay for what they've already taken, people start crying about thievery. The hypocrisy is disgusting.
Re: (Score:3)
The economy has worked for a long time by forcing the population as a whole to accept the externalities of pollution in exchange for profits of the companies making the stuff we want. Clearly we can't keep doing things that way, so we need to find ways to push those costs back onto the books of the producers, who will in turn pass those along to consumers. That means that some things will indeed cost more, where there is a large environmental cost associated, it does not, however mean that we will all forgo
Re:Stop (Score:4, Insightful)
Is your position then that he should go on being complicit instead of say, recognizing the errors of the western world and trying to make amends by advocating a contrary position on the internet?
But I am sure if he did that some pro corporate internet prick would come along and accuse him of being a hypocrite for *implicitly* supporting the destruction of the environment, tens or hundreds of years before he happened to be born in the same region.
You really have his number all right! we should all just sit back let corporations ruin the environment, because hey, we are using computers and computers are um.. made from the environment? How dare he voice his concerns using tools developed with modern technology! He should be screaming out the windows like I am! Hey who let that bird in here?!?
See it makes sense! Everyone is responsible so you should feel bad, keep it to yourself and do nothing! thats the sure way to a better world!
Re: (Score:3)
The current pub are trying to kill it. You know those nice satellites that gave us 36 hour notice hurricanes are coming? Don't get used to it, in two year we will no longer have that capability because all the funding has been slashed and the current sats. will be decommissioned.
That is what the current republicans are doing. It is nothing like it was 30 years ago. They have move from Fiscal conservative/social moderates to Radical religious leader who want to cut all social programs.
People wonder why other
Re: (Score:3)
Even Reagan couldn't secure the Teapublican nomination these days.
Re: (Score:3)
You might want to read up on the history and coal and oil in this country. It was heavily subsidized and backed by the government.
Hey new tech for country wide solution cost money.
Re: (Score:3)
The company could not produce a product that the consumers could afford. The initial cost of going solar is too expensive for most consumers. A typical home uses about 30 KWH/Day. ... A solar installation is not portable. When I move, it must be left behind or new expense of Permits, Installation, etc must be repeated.
I haven't read TFA, but solar doesn't really make economic sense at this time for homeowners in the USA, especially with all the foreclosures and such going on, not to mention the fact that n
Re: (Score:3)
A typical home uses about 30 KWH/Day.
That is the first problem. Ours is 2-3 kwh for the whole farm. The folks down the road from us whom we are helping set up an alternative energy system is about 9 for the whole (larger) farm. You did a sensible thing and moved into a better insulated home to reduce your needs rather than trying to replace your needs with PV. Most people are not sensible. Reducing first opens up a lot of options to provide that power with a much more modest system, in our case, an 850 watt wind turbine and a few hundred watts
Re: (Score:2)
How much of your own money are you willing to invest in a company like this?
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on if you count the government as 'my own money'. On a personal basis an airline pilot shouldn't put his retirement fund entirely in airline stock - diversity is good. If I'm only willing to invest 1% of my money on a project like this, it's never going to have enough if I invest on my own. That's why the government gave them a grand and not bill gates.
Remember there's a cost on the back end here too, if you *don't* invest your money (through government or on a personal basis) in this, are you go
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, you want subsidies for cold weather?
Re: (Score:2)
The most important thing is whether something is profitable or not. Everything else doesn't matter in the least.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not talk about the elephant in the room? I expect noise and fume pollution from cars and lorries to be an order of magnitude (or two) more significant to subjective air quality generally than any nuclear reactor.
Electric cars will solve both of those issues, and at least give country-like air and a strange, wonderful relative silence to busy cities. That'll be a time worth living for.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it's because the customers were all racists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly this analyst's take on the situation, from that dirty hippie magazine, Forbes:
What Solyndra's Bankruptcy Means For Silicon Valley Solar Startups [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
In a bankruptcy, someone buys the material assets...usually at bargain prices. What for who winds up with a mile long solar cell manufacturing plant, built at taxpayer expense.
Re: (Score:2)
too low? sounds like too high to me. 1100 is a lot. more time, less people, better results. their company structure wasn't viable for what it was doing.
but headcount increases managements pay, the pay works like an inverse pyramid.. and more people equals bigger subsidies. you'd think that results would equal bigger subsidies but it almost never works that way.
Re:Stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, just maybe, the subsidies was too low?
Well, that wasn't my first thought. My first thought was that if they couldn't make a go of it with five hundred million dollars of subsidies then there would be no way they could make a go of it on a level playing field. It wasn't my second thought either. My second thought was that our government is surely incapable of picking winners. Similarly, with the third. My third thought was that I sold some scrap aluminum yesterday. It appears to me that they're able to make a go of it without subsidies. Maybe scrap aluminum isn't green? Nope, it's pretty green compared with smelting bauxite. Maybe it's an unfair comparison? Nope, manufacture of solar cells produces lots of waste.
How much the fresh air is worth to you?
Well, I've got plenty right now. I suppose I could use some more, though. I might be willing to pay a penny for a cubic mile. How much do you have?
To your children?
They are in the same boat as I am.
To your children's children?
They don't have any, so they wouldn't want any. But perhaps you're speaking metaphorically? Let's see...air is cleaner now than it was fifty years ago. Presumably, there will be more clean air when the grand kids come around. I don't know? Penny for a thousand cubic miles?
And what about fresh water?
Yeah, we're pretty well set for fresh water, too. I don't know...maybe if I had more fresh water I could water the lawn. What's the going rate? Let me buy one lawn worth of fresh water. But I'm not willing to pay the going rate! If I were then I would have watered it already. How about you give me a ninety percent discount?
What about cold weather?
I wouldn't give you a plugged nickle for all the cold weather in Antarctica.
I am not saying that all of those things should be worth more than 500 billion to everyone
That brings up a good point. Why is the government taking 500 billion from everyone if it's not worth that to everyone. (I think it was actually 500 million in this one case, but I didn't want to misquote you.)
We have to ask ourselves: Why do we develop green technology? How much money are we willing to waste? What sacrifices are we willing to make? What do we expect to get in return? Those are the most important questions that we should at least try to answer.
I'm afraid you've missed some of the more important ones. Will it give me a good photo opportunity? Will it get me enough votes to get me reelected? Will this come back to bite me before I retire?
~Loyal
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is that this company could not compete with PV fabricators in China. End of story.
Re: (Score:3)
So I guess petroleum technology is not profitable, either.
The apologists are already coming out (Score:5, Insightful)
Led, of course, by Salon's Andrew Leonard [salon.com], for whom no amount of subsidy is ever enough, and no amount of state intervention can possibly suffice. The reality is far different, of course, and starts with the lousy energy density of solar; but we are dealing with a very heavily government-controlled "market" that is steadily eroding as subsidies decline. The myth of green jobs is something like promising to feed people with tasty barbecued unicorn ribs [the-americ...terest.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Canard.
When you invest, you diversify, because no matter what, some of your investments will turn out to be failures.
The government is also invested in the companies that put this one out of business.
It's hilarious to see Republicans pretending they don't understand how business works.
Re:The apologists are already coming out (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The apologists are already coming out (Score:4, Insightful)
It should be noted... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Then why does every nuclear power plant require government backed loans, insurance and legally mandated limited liability?
Have any plant owners ever paid for a decommissioning themselves without even more government support?
I like nuclear power, but for the free market it seems to be a non-starter.
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.
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: (Score:2)
If we don't investigate all of the alternatives now, and determine that Solar really never will be better than Nuclear, then we won't know which really is the better choice.
And Nuclear, at least fission, isn't as unlimited as it seems. And comes with high environmental risks and political dogma.
The only problem with Solar is that it's not a magical panacaea with a 99% conversion efficiency. But it will be all we have left in the 35th Century, unless we learn how to make fusion reactors that turn garbage a
Re: (Score:2)
We gave them a half-billion dollars! How is that not supporting them?!?
You're right about this being a symbol of how well this administration's policies are working out, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of Greece's debt and the Eurozone bailing them out: "They're losing enormous amounts of money so we should lend/give them more!". No matter how many subsidies you get, if you depend on them your business model is shaky.
If it's a question of when, not if, your company or country fails it's best to fail early. Bankruptcy is painful but it gives everyone involved a fresh start. Delaying the
Extra, extra! (Score:5, Insightful)
An experimental business in an emergent technology fails to establish itself in a collapsing economy. Read all about it...
Give me a break folks, them and a whole bunch of other companies both old and new... Stop trying to make.
Re:Extra, extra! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it succeeded in establishing itself. But it was outrun by its competition and there was no way to make it run faster. Rather than attempt to continue in a race it can't win, it abandoned.
The assets and goodwill will be sold, and the creditors, including the government, will get back a portion of their investment. Business as usual.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Incremental change is the domain of business,
Because a businessman worth his salt knows that you don't bet $500,000,000 on unproven technology.
Re: (Score:3)
In an economy where venture capitalists are interested in the sector, you'd be right.
But this particular sector is dominated by players who, because they're pumping oil right onto strippers' boobs, get all the attention.
The government is attempting to govern here. By supporting alternative energy, it is avoiding the massive shock we're going to get when the straw at the bottom of the world's oil supply begins to gurgle.
The VC's won't be in a position to help you get to work when that happens, and the gover
Undercut and destroy (Score:2)
Meanwhile China continues to invest is loss incurring businesses and technologies to under-cut and eradicate the competition.
You can't legislate success. (Score:2, Insightful)
Dear Princess Obama:
Today I learned that you can't use legislation to force technology or change principles of chemistry and physics, no matter how heavy the subsidy, or from whom the subsidy money is coerced, or how many people who didn't vote for you which you blame. I also learned that economic practicality will trump blind idealism every time, as one is grounded in reality and the other in denial of reality. When a technology is ready and feasible, marketplace forces will ensure its rapid adoption if
Re:You can't legislate success. (Score:4, Funny)
Dear Queen Caerdwyn:
Today I learned that people would rather breathe toxic fumes from coal fired power plants than spend $3 extra per year to have clean air. I also learned that some people would rather see a well-meaning company fail and have 1100 people out of work than see their political opponent succeed.
Your faithful screw-the-rest-of-the-world-as-long-as-I-get-mine crotchety-conservative Billybob,
Chevron Texaco
Re: (Score:3)
I noticed you didn't refute a single point raised.
As for your own education and social skills... YouTube troll, self-styled Something Awful "goon", or XBox360 Halo chat?
Can I write this loss off in my taxes? (Score:2)
Funding production != funding development (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, the US Government effectively forced every US citizen to invest $1.60 in a company that had never been profitable and showed no prospects for profitability. The investment was not for development of technology that would make solar power economically viable, but rather it was for purchasing capital equipment for existing, uneconomic technology. The results were perfectly predictable. If no private investors see the value in the company, we should be thinking awful hard about whether it's a good idea to force them to invest in it anyway.
I would love to see solar power prove profitable, but such a goal will come as a result of research and development, not as a result of government subsidies for production of inefficient technology.
Re:Funding production != funding development (Score:5, Informative)
although certain examples, like sick shrimp running on treadmills, should be an obvious choice for budget cuts...
Why exactly is that obvious? Because it sounds silly? Apparently it didn't actually cost $500k
"The treadmills were just a small part of it, a way to measure how shrimp respond to changes in water quality. Burnett says the first treadmill was built by a colleague from scraps and was basically free, and the second was fancier and cost about $1,000. The senator's report was misleading, says Burnett, "and it suggests that much money was spent on seeing how long a shrimp can run on a treadmill, which was totally out of context." http://www.npr.org/2011/08/23/139852035/shrimp-on-a-treadmill-the-politics-of-silly-studies [npr.org]
Re: (Score:3)
One of the things that annoys me about this kind of example, is that much larger amounts of money are wasted on moronic military R&D projects, but for some reason those examples are rarely used in recent years. Part of the problem is that most of the worst programs are secret, so most people don't know about most of them. But its still strange that people who believe that government is inherently wasteful, and consequently should be minimized, seem to exempt such a large part of federal spending from
Fine toothed comb (Score:2)
It's what I'd like to see the Feds use to go over the CxO compensation records and reports. I'm all for advancing technology and helping out, but if they guys at the top managed to walk away with more than $150-200k/year in total compensation, I would like to see them brought up on fraud charges for accelerating the demise of a company which used federal guarantee dollars.
Now, if it was all on the up and up, and they suffered with the masses, I'd be inclined to be more lenient. CxOs of start-ups should get
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: (Score:3)
That doesn't necessarily mean a subsidy. If the company went broke and never got the loans no government money was spent.
Strictly speaking you're correct; however, from one of the links of the linked article...
The company has borrowed $527 million of the $535 million covered by the Energy Department loan guarantee, Damien LaVera, a department spokesman, said in an e-mail.
~Loyal
Was this seen as coming? (Score:4, Insightful)
Reading through the Solyndra web site, there's the following announcement of the departure of their Founder and CEO
http://www.solyndra.com/2011/08/chris-gronet-takes-on-advisory-role-for-solyndra/ [solyndra.com]
from August 18th, about 2 weeks ago. Coincidence? Founder / CEOs don't normally leave after the first 5 years of a startup. Is there more to the bankruptcy story than what's in the OP's article?
what isn't being said (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
We got into the WTO and I seriously doubt we are going to get out anytime soon. It absolutely forbids such "national tariffs" and the last time we tried it with steel the WTO sanctioned retaliation against the US if we didn't stop it.
Of course for some reason China, Japan and a whole bunch of other places are permitted to block US imports with rules that exclude the introduction of US goods. There is no balance with this "free trade" nonsense, but it certainly appears we are stuck with it.
I suspect a move
2 things (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really a $535MM subsidy loss (Score:5, Informative)
It's worth noting (Score:3)
That plenty of Green Businesses here in the Bay Area are doing very well, primarily Petersen Dean, though others include SunWize, RPS Solar and REC Solar to name a few. Of course they are all private sector businesses that our current government wouldn't concern themselves with because they only want to give handouts to corporate america and green start-ups that have no legitimate plan for growth or success.
Glassdoor.com was right about this one... Again. (Score:3)
So, really not that surprising how it went down...
Re: (Score:2)
Ask any reputable Chiropractor about how radiation causes serious subluxations due to DNA malformation.
I lol'd
Re:Solar dies, RADIATION LIVES. (Score:4, Funny)
Ask any reputable Chiropractor
I LOL'd
Re:Solar dies, RADIATION LIVES. (Score:5, Informative)
This is so much BS - what killed off Solyndra was competition from off-shore competitors. Even with 0.5B infusion from the DOE - they couldn't build a factory that was cost competitive. Oh - I live in the town where the factory was built - they wasted huge amounts of money building a second fab when they had one two blocks down the street of similar size and capacity. There is nothing magical here - it is simple economic forces that killed them off. Get over your Evil Big Oil conspiracy theories.
It also proves that the government does a lousy job of picking economic winners and losers. That is a game the government should stay out of.
Re: (Score:2)
Off-shore competitors and a significant drop in the price of silicon which made panels with thicker applications of it more price competitive.
Re: (Score:3)
Oxymoron.
"Ask any reputable Chiropractor about how radiation causes serious subluxations due to DNA malformation."
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chirosub.html
Re: (Score:3)
Bob is a troll.
Also by that metric neither does nuclear. I am a huge fan of it, but not a one has been built in the USA without a government backed loan and the Priceâ"Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act means that liability is very limited and your rights to sue are as well.
No power source in the USA is free from subsidies and typical corporatist protection.
Someone (Score:4, Insightful)
Made out like a bandit.
There's a rich man or two, after this "Solyndra" scam was used by insiders to funnel 500Mil. Mark my words.
You live in a Kleptocracy. The "foreign competitiveness" front sound very plausible. That's why the whole "green technology boondoggle/buble exists. Not that it might not be needed - but any affair involving billionaires will be used for private extraction. We live in the "post-economic" era, where the pretense of an economy is used to commit outrageous crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
They need to be able to compete on an even playing field, not on one where the major competitors are heavily subsidized.
Re: (Score:3)
Therein lies the challenge of power production. It's cheaper to produce energy than store it (in a battery for example), and the source technology doesn't effect the end product. Green energy is, to the end consumer, indistinguishable from that produced by slave labour. In other technology fields new technology does something different, so you can charge a premium for it, and a handful of customers will keep you afloat until you can bring costs down.
Green tech necessarily relies on lossy investments (usu
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: (Score:3)
Another wish for mod points..
people look at the public works of the great depression - we got something out of that money.. yes the government was paying for labor.. but that labor was going to work, and you only got it if you worked..
This handing out money and letting failed groups fail again is just stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
As for creating demand, the most effective way of creating demand is to lower the price
Glad to see you were awake for the first day of econ 101. If you had bothered to attend the rest of the course you would have learned that reducing the price will only increase demand if price is the demand constraint.
Or do you think if buggy whip manufacturers reduced their price to $0.10 per whip that demand would spike again?
Also, you are making the grandious assumption that by reducing the COST of producing/marketing/selling an item or service, that the savings is passed on to consumers. Yet as we have
Re: (Score:3)
However, as we're seeing the ever increasing costs of fossil fuel continue skyward there will come a time when green will be cheaper. (Just as the tar sands up in Canada were once so expensive they weren't viable, now, because if $4/gallon gas they are becoming viable)
Sure you can just wait till then, but what if the damage to the environment is beyond repair at that point
Re: (Score:3)
I think I can shorten your argument. The folks pushing alternative energy want "green" energy. The current options for "green" energy are simply "greenER" energy.
Every form of alternative energy has some negative impact. We can get very close to zero impact, but we will always have some impact on the environment if we extract energy from it. Its important to be honest about that. If you aren't honest about it, most people will catch on and you'll turn them off because they feel lied to. If you are honest ab
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up. This is the story.
Re:China (Score:4, Insightful)
China's solar companies are doing well because they get *tremendous* subsidies, as is always the case for nascent, high tech industry.
if it weren't for massive government subsidies - paying for R&D costs directly, and providing a huge protected market mainly through the defense department - then the computer revolution which drove the 1990s boom WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
All you free market fantasists need to get that into your thick skulls - or, you could go love on Ayn Rand's island! Please do, so that we can run our country like sane people. In 10 years, when solar power is viable, it will be the Chinese who are reaping the benefits because free market fanatics in the US aren't willing to make the basic investments required.
IOW, the subsidy wasn't big enough (Score:3)
China is subsidizing their solar panel industry so that when solar finally gets traction, they will be in the driver's seat. Of course, it helps that they're less concerned about dumping waste and paying western-level wages.
It sounds, though, that this particular process was doomed to failure from the beginning, since the manufacturing process turned out not to be "scalable".
Re:This is the flaw with libertarian arguments (Score:5, Insightful)
Even though this company was given a substantial advantage in the free market (some might say an unfair advantage), it was rejected. Other green companies were able to produce better results with fewer resources, and produced products at lower costs to consumers. The free market directed its support to those better, cheaper alternatives, effectively killing the company in the article. But to you that rejection is evidence that people are too stupid to buy what you think they should buy. Therefore the free market system failed, governement should fully finance companies like the one from the article and require the populace to consume it's products, while giving consumers no chance to support the better, cheaper alternatives....
Yeah, that's a very compelling argument against libertarianism and the free market....