This stupid Solyndra circus is starting to remind me of the late 1990s, when any whiff of scandal was like catnip to the media. This is 1/80th of the total price of loans made from the Energy Department’s program, none of the other companies involved have failed, and yet this is supposed to be an object lesson in how green jobs cannot compete. Never mind the $40 billion in subsidies given to oil and gas companies or the hundreds of millions in loan guarantees propping up the nuclear industry. This notion of a free market in energy is ridiculous.
In point of fact, the domestic solar industry, a net exporter last year, happens to be booming, according to Michael Grunwald.
In just the last two months, about 7,000 megawatts of new solar projects were added to the U.S. pipeline. That’s the equivalent of seven nuclear reactors, which is seven more than we’ve built in the last three decades. And that doesn’t include residential projects, like the unprecedented “Solar Strong” effort to install photovoltaic panels on 160,000 rooftops on military housing that was just announced last week. The U.S. solar market doubled last year, and it’s expected to double again this year, even though many states are reducing their subsidies. How many other industries are growing that fast in this economy?
Like every other U.S. energy source, solar is federally subsidized. The loan guarantee program has been a particularly crucial driver for unusually large or innovative projects, like Project Solar Strong or a 250-megawatt solar generation plant in the Mojave Desert that just finalized a $1.2 billion loan guarantee on Tuesday, and will provide clean renewable power for more than 50,000 homes. Last week, the Obama administration approved a $150 million loan guarantee to 1366 Technologies, a Massachusetts firm with a new manufacturing process that could cut the cost of silicon wafers 50% and make solar even more cost-competitive.
Grunwald also mentions that the Energy Department has a reserve fund in the loan guarantee program to cover the costs of loans that don’t pan out, so this Solyndra loan won’t cost taxpayers a dime.
The solar industry has several moving parts, from solar panel manufacturers like Solyndra, to installation firms (which are all domestic jobs that cannot be outsourced), to technology and innovation. The manufacturing sector has been pummeled by cheap imports from China, thanks mostly to the $30 billion infusion from the Chinese government into that industry. Has the greentech loans from DoE created the jobs that were advertised? Maybe it was oversold, but I think it’s way too early to make that definitive a statement, and anyway the jobs that a robust solar industry supports aren’t factored into the equation.
Moreover, the world is moving to solar and wind, and we can move with it or allow a bunch of conservative lawmakers funded by the dirty energy sector to hold us back. Wind employs more people than coal. Solar will be cheaper than coal in a matter of years.
Dave Johnson has the most comprehensive debunk of the Solyndra “scandal.” And this is important:
Even though Solyndra went into bankruptcy the government didn’t “lose.” The purpose of the government’s involvement was to help trigger the development of green-energy manufacturing in the United States, not to help individual companies. This was not a direct investment in a company with the expectation of a profit for the government. In the bigger picture of promoting American leadership in the emerging green-energy industry the government’s loan guarantee was a success. Even though Solyndra’s investors lost out our country retains the trained skilled employees, the intellectual property, the innovators funded, the suppliers, and the factory. As components of a national effort to trigger a key strategic industry, those are all still there and in the US.
It isn’t the government’s job to make sure the investors make money, the government’s job is to work to keep all of these components of an industry here and to grow new ones here, and this is what has been accomplished. When a VC makes an investment, a company failing just goes on the books as a loss. But our government has succeeded even if Solyndra’s investors lost money because the country as a whole benefits. All these employees are trained, all the researchers can take what they know to other solar companies, the IP is going to be sold — and it should be part of the conditions that it be sold to an American company. So while Solyndra’s for-profit investors lost money, America’s larger effort to nurture a solar-power industry continues toward its goal with assets enabled by this loan guarantee.





25 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Let’s call it a “FauxGate”. That was the term a lot of us netizens used on Salon’s Table Talk and other places to describe the many Republican-crafted phony scandals of the Clinton Era.
I believe it’s well into the tens of Billions.
This story is intended to feed the persistent “conservative” talking point that solar voltaic energy — like the electric car — is not a viable alternative to fossil fuel and that it never will be. Because those thousands of people with solar panels and/or electric or hybrid cars are receiving federal subsidies (as if fossil fuels are not being subsidized). And they will continue to argue this until half the houses in the USA have solar panels on the rooftop and thirty million people are driving electric cars.
Just like they will continue to deny global warming, right up until the day when their neighborhood burns up in a wildfire, and then they’ll be asking for a federal bailout.
I do not understand why you say that “solar will be cheaper than coal in a matter of years.” Today solar is far more expensive than either coal or natural gas. Solar-generated electricity has a much lower energy flux density (i.e. watts per square meter, or per dollar of capital invested) than coal or natural gas. The only reason we see any solar installations today (except in the case of small installations that are off the grid) is because of the substantial federal and state tax subsidies. Is there any evidence, or indeed any rational economic and scientific theory, for the notion that we can operate an industrial economy on solar power? On the contrary, one can make a sound economic argument that solar will result in drastically higher energy prices, which in turn will have profound negative effects on the productivity of our economy.
Did you say the Republicans were investigating poor financial decisions?
The oil money that was supposed to pay for the war?
Um, the “industrial economy” and industrial infrastructure has been appropriated to the US war machine. Why do we need that?
This is not a serious question, right? We do not need a US war machine, but the only way the world can support billions of people with decent standards of living is to have an industrial economy. Would you de-industrialize the world economy? This would lead to genocide of billions of people. You cannot be serious.
“Grunwald also mentions that the Energy Department has a reserve fund in the loan guarantee program to cover the costs of loans that don’t pan out, so this Solyndra loan won’t cost taxpayers a dime.’
Yeah, that’s right, because the “reserve fund” was paid for by Santa Claus.
You haven’t addressed the “elephant in the room” within your argument.
“I Just Found 29 Million Jobs” (by David Swanson, Sept. 2, 2011)
“Us or the War Machine” (by David Swanson, Aug. 31, 2011)
Lots of good, strong solar industry in Ohio-Toledo. Could build solar panals along both sides of the Ohio Turnpike instead of Kasuck leasing turnpike to foreign unknown factors. Leasing turnpike for Kasuck to obtain during his administration alone one lump sum payment for the 99 year lease is not sustainable for future generations. Would let Kasuck steal all future governors’ and generations’ income from Ohio Turnpike for the next 99 years. Not sustainable income for anyone. And, build solar panels instead of dangerous crude pipeline with potential unknown dispersing chemicals over 1700 miles of natural aquifers and America.
Not to mention the cost of site clean up when de-commissioning and nuclear waste storage while operating.
I asked about the article’s contention that solar power will be cost competitive with coal in a matter of years… what is the basis for this statement?
And I asked whether we can have a world industrial economy supported by solar power, instead of by nuclear, coal, and gas? Does anyone think this is remotely achievable, and if so, why do you believe this?
Jobs? Turn all those paying contractor jobs that pay ten times what our military troops earn doing the same work into funds to hire public sector jobs here.
OT but big deal–In MailOnline–”Fed bails out falteing Eurozone as world’s banks join forces to shore up economy.” Here we go again. I don’t pay taxes to Europe. They can fail rather than take away more of my future infrastructure. By law and threat, little people in America must pay taxes. In Greece, they aren’t compelled to pay taxes. So, we pay taxes for them. Bernanke needs to step down–needs to get the hell out of my pockets for Europe. He can move there and pay his own money to Europe. America did not buy into the Euro. Ours is still the dollar. Here we go again to our gun to our heads personal money to foreign banks. Let them fail. It would be nice to travel to Europe and have cheap meals and lodging for once, rather than paying through the nose with a lower dollar. The Fed love them some foreign places more than America. Dump the Fed. Get an American oversighted institution instead.
Give me the military and DHS secret cash inflow of tax payer buck$ and the evidence of their real expenditures (Kevin Gosztola, Sept. 7, 2011) so a real cost comparison can be done. Right now that’s all a huge secret. Also if the stranglehold of the banksta/Petro/Nuclear/Chemical/PhRma cartel is broken, the stifled and locked-box projects and innovations for lower energy consuming systems can be used to transition the present US infrastructure.
If the Energy Department behaved like banksters they could have made a profit on the failure.
Missed opportunity there that proves the superiority of the free market. ;)
I kid.
Arguments that solar power can never ever ever ever ever in any way “compete” with coal, fossil fuels & nuclear power make no sense. Solar, at the end of the day, is pretty much infinite unless the sun blows up, which, if it does… well…
Coal and fossil fuels are finite resources, which humans will, some day, use up completely, if we don’t kill ourselves off in the process first. Yes, yes, solar is often inferior – at this time – to the cost-effectiveness and/or cost-benefit analysis of fossil fuels & coal today. Yet often those analysis conveniently *ignore* all the tax incentives/loopholes/no taxes that these industries currently enjoy.
But still… solar, wind power, etc. Yes, not truly competitive with some alternatives, I quite agree. That said, does this mean that we simply give up the ghost and *ignore* solar energy, wind energy?? If so, why? IMO, we’ve got to start somewhere, and even BigOil is investing in alternatives to fossil fuels. There’s a reason for that, and it’s because fossil fuels are a finite resource. Eventually the party ends. Then What?
Nuclear? Ok, fine. Have a Nuclear plant in YOUR backyard and wait for the next big earthquake. There’s too many issues with nuclear to bring it casually into the equation as if it’s really a viable alternative, but if you’re so set on it, then live next door to the plant.
Agree with someone up above, who said something to the effect that the rightwing/conservative meme is that all alternative energy is totally not viable and never will be. This ad brought to you by BigOil, who wants you addicted to fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
BTW, it’s our Imperialistic War, Inc that’s eating up most of the remaining fossil fuels at a dumbfounding rate daily… all in the name of killing dusky-hued folks to make us whities here in the USA “safer” (albeit, really just to make Dick Cheney & Henry Kissinger even richer).
There’s simply no better time to investigate and invest in alternative energy. That one company’s product didn’t make it: oh well. How often does this happen in every single other industry nearly every day? The world is littered with a huge variety of “inventions” that looked good on the drawing board but didn’t quite make it. Them’s the breaks.
More bogus b.s. from the corp-owned rightwing-funded media.
Would you argue that India, China and other populous countries with low per capita incomes should not invest in the construction of new fossil fuel electricity plants? Today this is by far the most cost effective way to deliver electricity to people who need it. Those who would impose carbon taxes on third world economies are advocating a policy that will cause tens of millions of people to suffer. Of course most of those advocating such policies are wealthy first world environmentalists.
Of course, that’s your point, isn’t it? That all environmentalists are “wealthy” and live in the first world.
In that you’d be wrong, and I believe that there are a number of very poor environmentalists in a variety of third world countries who would argue against the rather specious point that you are making.
But whatever. You have your position, and I have mine. Mine being mainly (as I stated in my originating comment, which you really did not respond to) that we, in Team USA, need to start somewhere with alternatives to fossil fuels. I am not in the best position to comment on what third world countries should or should not do, and that was not the content of my commentary.
You might want to try reading again what I said and respond to that, rather than hurling accusations at me. I’m not wealthy. Are you?
I did not mean to offend. I am not wealthy, but I would wager that both of us are wealthy compared to the overwhelming majority of poor people in the world, many millions of whom have no electricity at all.
I guess I thought your comment “More bogus b.s. from the corp-owned rightwing-funded media” was directed at me because you were replying to my comment.
By all means, let the government support R&D to lower the excessively high costs of solar power. But I would argue that long term, the human race has no alternative but to develop advanced fission and ultimately fusion reactors. Even if the efficiency of solar electric power conversion can be dramatically increased, it will always be constrained by the low energy flux density of this energy source. There are a number of advanced nuclear technologies that other countries are developing (pebble bed reactors, the thorium fuel cycle, etc.) which are inherently much safer than pressurized water reactors. It is a shame that the USA has decided to completely turn away from R&D of this sort.
And to go back to the first questions I asked, which no one has addressed, why does the author of this article think that solar will compete with coal in a matter of years? And why does anyone think we can have an industrial civilization based on solar and wind power?
My originating comment was not a “reply” to any of your comments, so you read into it what you wanted to see… which was not my intention.
You ask some good questions, which I cannot answer because I don’t know.
At least you posit that it’s a good thing for the USA (and other nations, etc) to pursue alternative eneregy sources that don’t involve fission and fusion. You may be correct in your speculations about that, and you may not be. I am not educated enough in this area to know for sure.
I agree that, most likely you and I are much better off than many in most or all third world countries at this time. I have lived for some periods of time (of at least six months to 2 years) in several, including India and Indonesia, to name just two. So I am very personally aware of the standards of living of many in third world countries.
That said, like the USA (which I posit is rapidly dwindling to third world status) there is usually a LOT of money in third world countries that should, like in the USA, be put to some use in developing alternative energy solutions. It is happening today. Whether it will be fast enough to provide reliable solutions as they are needed remains to be seen.
Thanks for a more gracious and thoughtful response.
A couple who live less than a mile from me had a garden plant sale so I stopped by and noticed they had massive solar panels. I talked politics and such with him for a couple hours, turned out he was a Glennbeckian which I found quite fascinating considering he had made such a massive investment in solar. I know, I guess I am a lil prejudiced toward beck-nation. Anyway, he spent 50k, something I only wish I could do. He had a very large house and had been running a hospice care business there as well.
I suppose he could have considered building a coal or nuclear plant on his roof as well but I didn’t ask.
Average people would need very low cost loans and some favorable terms with the electric utility to sell back excess or at times there was excess. My understanding is that Germany has just such a program and wiser led governments are following their example.
The coal, oil and nuclear are all massively subsidized, right? You acknowledge this, no? Next question, countries go to war for resources, that should figure in as an added cost, yes? Then there is all the cost to destroying watersheds, mountains, dirty air that actually kills many tens of thousands each year, right? Those are costs no? And then there is the problem with how to dispose of all that solar radiation, hmmm? Whoops, yeah, that’s right, that’s a cost the others have to extend?
MY POINT is you said: excessively high costs – the problem is so many of the costs are, what’s the word, externalized, put off on others, that even riding my bike seems more expensive. You may think I am joking but I am not but please don’t make me explain.
I’m a sales person for a local solar panel installer. Haven’t sold shit yet in 2 mos. If the biz is booming you’d have fooled me.
I think everyone missed the point of this whole story, CEO of Solyndra gave Obama and Democrats a lot of money, and Obama rewarded him with a contract…..even thou he was told the company will run out of money by Sep 2011.
Of all the subsidies to coal, oil and nuclear, that amount to theft, bribery, and more death this is hardly a drop in the bucket in terms of what kind of corruption or second guessing opportunities that are available.
I suppose if one has given up going after the big boys, minnows must look mighty tasty.