More on Solyndra

[Locutus]

Documents Show Solyndra Job Losses Significantly Higher Than Initially Reported…

72% higher to be precise, 1,100 vs. 1,900.


via Zip Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » Video: Documents Show Solyndra Job Losses Significantly Higher Than Initially Reported…









ABC San Francisco: Solyndra Job Loss Revised Up - YouTube

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Since Solyndra is just a small part of the American solar scene, is this a particularly newsworthy fact?

There are now more Americans working on solar energy than in the combination of coal and stee plants.

 

[Locutus]

Since Solyndra is just a small part of the American solar scene, is this a particularly newsworthy fact?

There are now more Americans working on solar energy than in the combination of coal and stee plants.

How Did Solyndra Spend All That Money?

Sep 22 2011, 2:01 PM ET

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around just how much money Solyndra managed to spend in just two short years. By my count, Since September 2009, they borrowed $535 million from us to get their second fab up and running, raised $219 million in a private equity offering, got $175 million from issuing convertible promissory notes after their IPO was pulled, received $75 million in the last-ditch round where the DOE allowed their seniority to be subordinated, and maybe got a loan from a different bank. By the time they filed bankruptcy in August, my understanding is that they were basically out of cash.


The Washington Post's rather scathing new account, full of employees saying that post-loan, Solyndra started spending money like it was about to be discontinued, says the new facility for which we loaned them all that money cost $344 million to build. So it seems that in the space of two years, Solyndra managed to spend $344 million building a factory and $660 million . . . doing what?


more

Business - Megan McArdle - How Did Solyndra Spend All That Money? - The Atlantic

 

[Cabbagesandking]

This makes Solyndra look like a bargain. Where are the questions?

Is What’s Good for Solyndra Good for Nukes, too? Just askin’…. « Climate Denial Crock of the Week

 

[captain morgan]

This makes Solyndra look like a bargain. Where are the questions?

Not so much of a bargain for the taxpayer that got in at the start and lost their shirts. The questions you seek will revolve around how the gvt back-stopped an investment with public dollars and the money immediately began to evaporate without seeing any form of tangible return

TIs What’s Good for Solyndra Good for Nukes, too? Just askin’…. « Climate Denial Crock of the Week

The difference is; nuke is a proven tech that is presently in use throughout the States while Solyndra is in an industry that is still figuring-out if they can make an economic argument to justify the sector's existence at all.

 

[The Old Medic]

There is NO solar panel company in the US that actually makes a profit. ARCO (Atlantic Richfield Oil Company) subsidized solar development for over 30 years, and lost over 30 million dollars in the process. When BP bought ARCO, one of the first things they did was to get rid of the Solar development programs.

Solar is simply NOT competitive with conventional energy. It takes many, many years to pay off the installation costs, and begin saving money. The problem is, the solar panels also have a limited lifespan, and typically, just about the point where you begin to save money, you have to replace them. Without government subsidies, virtually none of them would be sold.

Yes, eventually there may be an efficient form of solar energy. My brother uses a solar heating system on his swimming pool, one he built himself. It cost him less than $1,000 to build, and it is powered by the existing pool pump. It helps to extend his swimming season by about 6 weeks in the spring and fall. But, it still requires a pool heater, it can't do the job by itself.

I'm all for solar energy, but let the companies develop it themselves. I do NOT want my tax money going to subsidize those companies, or the rich people that install the systems.

 

[EagleSmack]

Since Solyndra is just a small part of the American solar scene, is this a particularly newsworthy fact?

There are now more Americans working on solar energy than in the combination of coal and stee plants.

That is a scary thought. A half of a billion dollar failure, funded by the taxpayers and it is a small part? I wonder what else is out there.

I know in Massachusetts our Governor gave a company called Evergreen Solar $600K of state taxpayer money and they closed shop. The Governor said it was a good investment for the state to invest in Evergreen even after they failed here. Losing $600K is a good investment?

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Solar is a proven technology and it is now far cheaper than nuclear. It is not yet competitive with existing nuclear that has already been installed with the aid of massive subsides. It is as cheap now as any conventional source that would be built from scratch.

I think that the link I gave shows some of this.

That is not accurate, Medic. Solar installations will last far beyond the point of becoming profitable. I don't know where you got that idea from but it sounds like one of those Exxon funded denialist claims.

The point of giving the link I did was to show the vastly greater sum that is being given to a costly nuclear adventure. One that cannot be competitive with solar given the huge initial capital investments required by nuclear. It is a Republican initiative and the attitude of that Party to renewable energy is well known.

 

[captain morgan]

Solar represents a lower initial capital cost (relative to nuclear) on a 'per MW' basis, however, the medium term costs associated with operations and maintenance of solar will close that gap extremely fast. From a perspective of economics, nuclear will provide a much stronger option in the long run.

That said, nuclear is not the only option, in fact, I will suggest that it rates far down the scale when one compares it to co-generation technologies. In the face of this option (among others), solar doesn't stand much of a chance of being economically viable until such time that the tech and the efficiencies related to solar are drastically improved.

 

[Highball]

I drove by the old facility last Monday. It has signage all over advertising the fact that there is 194,000. sq ft of manufacturing space plus another 44,000 of executive office space. Just think, we the US taxpayers are now in the Real Estate business, like it or not! We paid for this folly.

 

[Locutus]