Another failed green scheme that cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars:
House Republicans are demanding White House paperwork related to a $535 million loan guarantee to a solar company that shut down this week.
The Republicans are probing the White House role in the 2009 federal loan guarantee to Solyndra Inc., a California solar panel manufacturing company that ceased operations and is filing for bankruptcy, resulting in 1,100 layoffs.
The shutdown is a bit of an embarrassment for the administration, as the company was the first selected to receive the loan guarantee under a stimulus-backed renewable energy program. President Obama visited the company just more than a year ago to tout White House green energy efforts. [The Hill]
You can read more at the link, but I think solar energy for home use is a worthy thing to promote. However, trying to pick which companies are winners and losers is not something the government should be doing. Instead of giving out money to these green companies why doesn’t the government offer greater tax incentives for consumers who install solar panels on their homes? The tax incentive would need to be enough to where it makes sense for middle class home owners to purchase the solar panels and thus create a larger demand for the technology.
By doing this instead of trying to pick winners and losers the government would create a marketplace where the solar company with the best prices and service will succeed instead of giving money to companies that were friendly to the Obama campaign, but not well run.
![[Valid RSS]](http://rokdrop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed")
5:46 pm on September 3rd, 2011 1
One of the first things I noticed when I moved to coastal city Qingdao, renowned for its clear weather, was the abundance of solar energy panels adorning rooftops of the homes of the upper middle-class and wealthy residents. Northern Chinese cities also have ordinances requiring school buildings to have windows facing south to maximize solar heating in the winter.
7:38 pm on September 3rd, 2011 2
Sonagi – Qingdao? I know some Koreans with a factory there.
8:41 pm on September 3rd, 2011 3
Drop in the bucket when you look at how much was wasted in trying to gain control of Iraqi oil.
10:19 pm on September 3rd, 2011 4
So what’s your point Teardrinker?
3:32 am on September 4th, 2011 5
#4,
My point is that someone is starting to sound like he owns an oil company.
3:49 am on September 4th, 2011 6
# 3,
“How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish” – Special flights brought in tonnes of banknotes which disappeared into the war zone(WHO WAS IN THE WAR ZONE?)…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1
Why didn’t you include your previous Anti-Solar energy post/picture of Germany on a cloudy day?
http://rokdrop.com/2011/07/08/in-germany-solar-is-green-power-literally/
Research needs to be done to improve solar panels. In about 20 years solar power will provide people on earth with most of its energy needs.
6:00 am on September 4th, 2011 7
#6,
I think it will depend on geography. With its harsh winters, geothermal and wave power would probably be more practical for Canada, as an example.
6:18 am on September 4th, 2011 8
Not surprised as there are about 10,000 South Koreans living in Qingdao, far outnumbering all other foreign citizens put together. I spoke Korean as often as I spoke Chinese because I taught at an expatriate school with a large number of Korean students.
6:21 am on September 4th, 2011 9
They are installing a bunch of solar panels at the Denver Federal Center in order to help get Excel Energy Corp. to meet its mandate passed by the State of Colorado that 10% of its energy must come from renewable sources.
So, the American taxpayer is paying for the installation and maintenance of the solar panels, saving Excel the upfront cost of installation, plus the taxpayer gets to pay for any continuing maintenance. The US Government is then turning around and sell the energy to Excel at wholesale prices, so Excel can then turn around and sell the energy for a profit to the very people that paid for it originally!
7:18 am on September 4th, 2011 10
#3 – Typical Teadrinker response, bring up Iraq on a topic about solar panels.
#6 – I don’t know why you think I am anti-solar. I am anti-wasting taxpayer money on green schemes. I am very much pro-solar for homes. Like I have already said offering tax credits that makes it affordable for middle class home owners to install solar panels is what the government should be doing instead of giving money to campaign friendly companies.
If you are ever on Hawaii the amount of solar panels being installed on homes is increasing every year. The state of Hawaii’s tax incentives, the federal tax incentives, plus the high cost of energy on Hawaii has made solar panels cost effective for at least the upper middle class to install.
With the cheaper energy on the mainland and not as many state tax incentives it does not make sense financially for many home owners in the US to install solar panels. For roughly every $18,000 spent on solar panels it will take 20 years for it to pay off. How many people will own that home for 20+ years?
I think solar panels need to come down in cost to about $10,000 or less to power your average American home before it will become a viable power source for most home owners to turn to.
9:09 am on September 4th, 2011 11
Here in California you can get solar panels for $10K or less w/ government incentives.
However I don’t think solar panels are green. Over their lifetime it’s questionable if the environmental impact is positive considering the metals and process used to create it and how inefficient they are. Also every year they lose 5% of their efficiency.
The appeal of solar panels is only for people who consume a lot of energy because of tiered pricing. If you are using a lot of energy then your rate is much higher so then it makes sense to get a solar panel.
However the point of tiered pricing was to spur people to use less energy, not to go buy solar panels.
I seriously considered buying panels but I realized it was more green to just use less energy and also financially smarter.
I think if you want government not to pick winners and losers maybe it’d be better if government stopped trying to pick which green solution is the best in the first place. What’s different between loaning money to a company that promotes one solution as opposed to giving money to homeowners to get solar panels? Maybe wind is better. Maybe neither is good and the green solution is really coal. I’m not saying it is but I think your arguments are inconsistent.
Still I love your blog.
11:17 am on September 4th, 2011 12
Frank, according to this site after tax rebates the average cost in CA is $14,280 for solar panels to power 595kWh of electricity a monthly, or about a $130/month electric bill. This is still too expensive for most people and something else to remember with tax incentives you have to front the initial cost before getting a tax deduction.
Solar panels need to get below $10,000 to power the average American home before they become practical for most people. A major problem with CA is the home ownership situation. If you have people struggling to keep their homes they are not going to be able to afford solar even it was $10,000. This whole economic crisis needs to be resolved before alternative energy will ever become practical.
Of course the “greeness” of solar is hyped just like most other alternative energy sources. That is why I do not preach the global warming aspects of solar panels for homes. I believe getting people an independent power source for their homes that reduces the US’s need for fossil fuels from countries that do not like us is in my opinion something the government should be promoting. A tax incentive to consumers is a better option to promote this than giving money to politically connected companies that waste it. At least when the government gives a consumer a tax break that person has already purchased the product and thus increasing the demand for the alternative energy source the government is trying to promote. Once there is a big enough market for the product the prices will come down naturally and the tax breaks will no longer be needed.
12:24 pm on September 4th, 2011 13
The $10K I mentioned was what I believe I was quoted when I considered getting solar panels. I’m sure the number of $14,280 is more accurate but I think it also proves my point about how solar panels are somewhat counter-productive since they are targeted at high end energy consumers when what we should really be doing is encouraging people to lower their energy consumption.
Rewarding people for energy consumption by providing tax incentives to purchase technology that is not necessarily green is not in my opinion sound government policy.
And in general I think government should not be picking winners. And by giving money to solar energy the government is saying purchasing solar panels for homes is the winner.
I am now purchasing all renewable power from my utility company at an added cost. The government is not giving me any money for that though one could argue this is much more feasible and better for the environment.
4:30 pm on September 4th, 2011 14
I’m impressed with most of the comments on this matter. I am thinking of purchasing a home within the next year or so and was also thinking about solar panels as a cost lowering option. But the more I look into it, the more I can’t afford it. And if it’s true efficiency drops as the panels age, why would I buy? Our country needs to figure out a way to stop buying oil from the middle east… mostly for national security reasons. We need to explore all alternati es for fuels without taking fossil fuels off the table like some would argue… we simply can’t anyway. Unfortunately, the more I find out about some green technologies, it appears the hype is far more than the substance. As mentioned, some of the costs and consequences of making and disposing of green products is high… perhaps more en ronmentally damaging as anything some would cliam fossil fuels are adding. And unintended consequences, such as with the production of ethanol, hurt in two areas… the wasted resources used making a fuel that doesn’t produce as much energy as fossil fuels, but more importantly, taking a lot of corn off the market that would be used for people to eat and thus making corn food products more costly.
5:00 pm on September 4th, 2011 15
Another failure for the federal government. Just like Amtrak and the postal system, these things are better left to the free market or the states to decide. A one-size-fits-all solution is rarely the answer. Each state can and should decide for itself what they’d like to tax or regulate.
I also see a moral dilemma here. How fair is it to take tax monies from people in Alaska in order to subsidize solar panels for people in California? I’m sure the people in Alaska can decide if they’d like to invest in solar power instead of having regulations and mandates, created thousands of miles away by unscrupulous politicians, forced down their throats.
This is similar to cash-for-clunkers. Other people are forced to partially pay for somebody else’s new car. Did this really save our nation by getting people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles? I’d like to see some data on the before and after of aggregate fuel consumption of the US. I’d bet there wasn’t any change. What I bet did change was the amount of debt that people accrued. Before, a person had a car, probably paid off. Now they go and buy a new car, partially paid by the taxpayers, and end up with car payments they didn’t have before. But hey, it’s more fuel efficient…yeay.
My apologies for getting on my soapbox like this. Look, if the people want these forms of welfare programs (defined as products or services given out by the government, such as the military (national protection) and social security(financial safety net)), that’s fine with me. I’ll go along with it even if it raises questions about how Constitutional some of it may be. Just give me the option to opt out. I won’t force my morals or financial obligations on anyone, but please give me the same courtesy.
8:18 pm on September 4th, 2011 16
Some Truths That Relate Here
Photoelectric panels aren’t ready for widespread consumer use. They need to be cheaper, last longer, and be more efficient. This is coming… but it is not here. Government money should be invested for further R&D to create capable products rather than wasted in building factories with bloated management structures which produce overpriced and incapable intermediate-technology products. It is likely the government spent more on this scam than they have invested in quality photoelectric research over the last decade… or ever.
“Tax breaks” to encourage the use of borderline worthless solar panels, which require incredible amounts of dirty energy to produce, is just going through the motions to speak of job creation and environmental concern.
People don’t think in ten or twenty-year payoffs. People will buy a fancy car that gives immediate gratification on a 5 or 6 year payment plan… but even that gets old before the car is paid off. They will not buy something that shows absolutely no benefit for 10+ years… and, in fact, takes away money from immediate wants and needs for a decade or two.
Expensive corn is good. As an export, it brings in more money to American farmers… or, more commonly, vaguely-American multinational agribusiness megacorporations. Regardless, in the spirit of advancing American interests, it still keeps poor nations down by forcing them to spend more on food. Fat-arsed Americans don’t need more and cheaper corn.
Importing oil is the right thing to do… ESPECIALLY from nations that are unfriendly to America… which generally squander that wealth with few long-term plans. When their supply runs low/out, America still has its oil for important uses from pesticides to plastics.
Different issues are better handled at federal, state, and local levels. Wise government decides which level can best address an issue. In this case, investment in research is best done at a federal level where it can be granted to a wide assortment of institutions and proposed projects… but, due to varying conditions of climate or latitude, installation incentives are best done at a state or local level. Unwise federal government thinks it needs to control everything all the time to implement theoretical plans designed by academics a step or two removed from local reality.
No matter how much wishful thinking and unicorn sparkles are added to the mix, most people don’t have enough land to power their car with solar panels… even if they were perfectly efficient. Math trumps Hope and Change every time.
Much of the talk of green energy is only talk if it doesn’t consider the entire situation. A change in lifestyle will save far more energy than all of the poking around at current renewable energy options. Promoting a smaller car culture, providing quality public transportation, building partially-underground and passive solar-designed houses, restructuring cities and suburbs to encourage local supply of necessities and shorter commutes, a population shift to places with more mild climates, etc., are some places to start. These are generational changes and must be started NOW.
Forcing a lifestyle change on the population is the wrong thing to do. Being lectured to by limousine liberals while they flaunt their massive carbon footprints is counterproductive and should be condemned by anyone sincerely interested in the issue. Like handbags and hairstyles, a lifestyle change has to be marketed to an eager-to-embrace-the-latest-trend public. This would require the loudest proponents, most popular celebrities, and much of the ruling elite, to lead by example and adopt the lifestyle they preach… making it look like a stylish aspirational goal. Good luck with that.
I think I could go on and on… but I gotta run.
9:06 pm on September 4th, 2011 17
#10,
We all know you’re of the stream of though which argued for cutting NPR’s million dollar government subsidies while ignoring the largest source of waste, which is the defense budget and the insanity of fighting three simultaneous wars.
11:11 pm on September 4th, 2011 18
The money isn’t “lost”; it’s in someone’s pockets.
7:20 am on September 5th, 2011 19
Atwork, I argued for cutting NPR? I don’t even remember having a discussion about NPR on this blog?
As far as defense cuts I have actually advocated for steep cuts because of the amount of waste that has been documented over the years. You might want to get your facts straight before leaving a comment.
12:09 pm on September 5th, 2011 20
What I never understood was that whole “You /must/ cut that or this but not both!”
Yes, Defense certainly could use quite a few cuts in the right place. Now that stream of though/t/ is mentioned though, NPR does deserve to be cut as well.
Did I just divide the political zero by saying that?
I’ve been a long time lurker on this website, always been a fan of the articles. Keep up the good work!
3:12 am on September 21st, 2011 21
Here’s some background on the Solyndra situation:
“the Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year process that the Bush Administration launched in 2007.
You’d never know from the media coverage that:
1. The Bush team tried to conditionally approve the Solyndra loan just before President Obama took office.
2. The company’s backers included private investors who had diverse political interests.
3.The loan comprises just 1.3% of DOE’s overall loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.”
The whole report is by Stephen Lacey and Richard Caperton at ThinkProgress.
In newer news, the Solyndra executives plan to take the Fifth. Carl Franzen reports at TalkingPointsMemo.
4:09 am on September 21st, 2011 22
It is amazing the depths that Democrats will go to blame Bush. Of course your assertion that this is all Bush’s fault is nonsense. The Bush administration actually shelved the loan. You shouldn’t get your info from a propaganda outfit like Think Progress:
You can read more at the link about the e-mails that Obama White House officials sent warning about approving this loan, but it got approved any way.
4:05 am on September 22nd, 2011 23
Your assertion that I asserted that it’s all Bush’s fault is false.
7:06 am on September 22nd, 2011 24
If you weren’t trying to deflect blame on Bush then why did you leave the link from Think Progress? ABC News has clearly shown that the Dept. of Energy under the Bush administration shelved the loan. The loan was then approved under the Obama administration despite e-mails from administration officials critical of the approval.
The left has been busy trying to deflect blame on Bush because it is pretty clear this loan was rushed to approval under the Obama administration to try and create “green jobs”.
4:19 am on September 23rd, 2011 25
I was giving some background on the Solyndra situation. Climate Progress says their timeline was verified by DOE officials. Here’s one point on that timeline:
January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE “without prejudice” because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment.
9:55 am on September 23rd, 2011 26
NPR ought to be eliminated because NBC is already state-sponsored media. And they are at least entertaining.
There are a lot of places that need to be cut before we start going after people willing to take a bullet for us.
I’d start with eliminating every government agency that pays people not to work. “Charity” need to come from the heart, not be forced at gunpoint.
Then I’d fire everyone who even knew anyone who sold guns to cartels under Operation Fast and Furious.
I’d make all non-uniformed members of government buy the same healthcare we have. No more “special benefits for life” for Congress or President.
And I’d start actually enforcing 18 USC Chapter 115…
9:57 am on September 23rd, 2011 27
We need “term limits” for Civil Service jobs, too…
2:18 pm on September 25th, 2011 28
Here’s more background on Solyndra. It explains the failure as a result of the falling price of high-quality silicon used in competing conventional panels, but it doesn’t say what Solyndra used instead of silicon. Ken Bensinger, Stuart Pfeifer and Neela Banerjee have the story at LaTimes.
2:58 pm on September 25th, 2011 29
Glans, it’s interesting indeed that there is another side to this story, although at the end of the day, the Obama administration needs to take responsibility for making a bet that didn’t pan out the way they’d hoped.
Still, the fact that Solyndra and its half a billion loss get so much attention in the media while the hundred-times-greater loss of $31 to $60 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan is nearly completely forgotten past the 24-hour news cycle in which it appeared, is very, very telling.
3:02 pm on September 25th, 2011 30
setnaffa (#26), who would you start bringing up on charges of sedition and treason?
4:41 pm on September 25th, 2011 31
Something else to remember, many of the components inside solar panels require quite a bit of rare earth materials. The worlds largest source of rare earth materials is guess who, China.
Now the USA has it’s own supply, but the mining process required to extract and refine those materials is ~VERY~ environmentally unfriendly and damaging to the local area. You simply can’t not extract the quantity we need without damaging the environment or making it cost prohibitive. The Chinese just strip mine and call it a day.
Also the USA holds the worlds largest known oil supply. It is currently an untouchable political issue, especially with the liberals running things. Hydrolic fracturing technology combined with horizontal drilling technology has lead to techniques that allow us to extract this oil at prices that are economical at $70~80 USD a barrel. Companies are now working on methods that could get it down to $50 or less, lefties go absolutely ape sh!t with the idea of us producing our own oil. You’d figure they would be happy as it solves the “foreign oil dependency” issue they like to bring up alot.
11:15 pm on October 18th, 2011 32
While the Chinese support their solar industry, we refuse to support ours.
5:47 pm on March 28th, 2012 33
‘From Rep. Darrell Issa, cairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on the Solyndra investigation he’s been flogging for the past six months:
“Is there a criminal activity? Perhaps not. Is there a political influence and connections? Perhaps not. Did they bend the rules for an agenda, an agenda not covered within the statute? Absolutely.”
They bent the rules! Translation: The Obama administration really wanted the domestic solar industry to succeed, so they might have given Solyndra slightly more support than it deserved. That’s the big scandal. Yeesh.’
That was Kevin Drum’s comment at MotherJones. Go there for his link to Darren Samuelsohn’s report at Politico.
2:07 pm on May 12th, 2012 34
JP Morgan recently lost much more than Solyndra. Will the Republican congress investigate JP Morgan? Banking operates in an environment of taxpayer-funded guarantees, “explicit on deposits, implicit through the general aspect of too-big-to-fail,” as Paul Krugman points out.