Obama Defends Solyndra And Clean Energy Loan Program

Speaking at the White House Thursday about the economy and jobs, President Obama said loan guarantees for the clean energy sector are needed to help U.S. companies compete with China and prevent them from relocating offshore.

Defending the $528 million loan guarantee for Solyndra, Obama claimed that support for clean energy has been historically bipartisan and is "pretty straightforward," the Associated Press reports. Obama explained, "If we are going to be able to compete in the 21st century, then we’ve got to dominate cutting-edge technologies ... [and] cutting-edge manufacturing."

He added, "Clean energy is part of that package of technologies of the future that have to be based here in the United States if we’re going to be able to succeed," according to a White House press release.

Obama said his administration knew from the outset that the loan guarantee program was going to "entail some risk, by definition." But, he believes the program has been successful, citing job creation and the emergence of advanced battery manufacturing in the U.S.

He added, "There were going to be some companies that did not work out; Solyndra was one of them."

The president also remained optimistic that the U.S. can overcome China's leads in technology. Referring to the comments made by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) that the U.S. "can't compete with China to make solar panels and wind turbines," Obama said, "I don't buy that."

Concluding his discussion of Solyndra and clean energy loans, Obama said the U.S. has to "keep on pushing hard" to ensure clean energy jobs and technologies remain in the country. "There are going to be times where it doesn’t work out, but I’m not going to cave to the competition when they are heavily subsidizing all these industries."

Obama's statements at Thursday's press conference reinforce earlier White House comments. This week, the White House said using Solyndra as a reason to abandon solar and other clean energy loans is "counterproductive defeatism."

The President spoke Thursday primarily to promote his $447 billion jobs bill and challenge Republican opposition. His plan is expected to be debated in the Senate next week.

Comments

[Gurinder Dhillon]

09:19 PM on 10/16/2011

The only loans that Republicans recognize are ones to the defense industry.

[juswishen]

12:34 PM on 10/14/2011

This Pres put investors interests ahead of taxpayers...that's just plain wrong. Not surprising. But Wrong.

[markkocaldo]

12:21 AM on 10/08/2011

Much better this petition

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/educate-public-regarding-nuclear-power/096bfqpw?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

[WonderingNThinking]

10:05 PM on 10/07/2011

Did you all sign the petition at whitehouse.gov to "End taxpayer subsidies for new nuclear reactors"?

It's available under "We the People". Please sign and the whitehouse will review and send it through the proper administrative channels.

[energydem]

11:02 AM on 10/09/2011

I am posting this information every time I see reference to energy subsidies.

There is always subsidy misinformation on these posts.

Ethanol is the largest recipient of federal subsidies and it is a tax incentive, not R&D.
Renewables also receive production tax credits and loan guarantees. Tax subsidies, 2010, renewables received over $8.2B, coal, oil gas, nuclear COMBINED $4.1B, efficiency $4 B. Of the $8.2B for renewable, $5.7 B went to ethanol, $1.5B to a production tax credit. Over the history of the DOE, nuclear is the largest recipient of R&D funds BY FAR, followed by coal and efficiency, renewables then O&G at a very distant last.

Federal subsidies per unit of energy produces ($ per megawatt hour):

Gas $0.64
Coal $0.64
Nuclear $3.14
Geothermal $12.85
Wind $56.29
Solar $775.64

I make no value judgments on these distributions and think that immature technologies should receive the lion's share of subsidies, mature technologies should only receive subsidies where they cannot be relied on to meet clear public goods. This does not explain nuclear or even wind which is relatively mature. However, if we continue to propagate the myth that renewables do not have larger market share because of the huge subsidies for the incumbents, we will continue solve the wrong problems.

[pyrroho]

11:40 AM on 10/07/2011

" we’ve got to dominate cutting-edge technologies ...."

Solar is not a cutting edge technology. It is mature technology. Both crystalline PV and thin film technologies date back to the 70's. If you look at the solar cost of energy curve from 1980 to 2010 it looks just like any other mature industry curve with very high slope cost reduction from 1980 -1987 and a continuously flattening curve after that period.

The only thing that makes solar attractive as an investment vehicle is that advances come from materials science so one need only produce a small sample and show some potential gain . Problem is the energy resource is very diffuse and while incremental solar improvement might be great for VC deal flow it is decidedly not great for solving the issues that face us both environmentally and economically.

cannot get my head around how throwing $8 billion at project finance to install economically uncompetitive already developed technologies somehow makes us more technologically competitive or creates long term jobs. Once panels are in the ground the money is gone with no long-term effect other than to reduce the global rate of growth in GHG by .01%.

government should not be investing these dollars in current solar tech. it should be investing in pioneering a cheap clean energy dense generation method.

if this is and remains our cutting-edge we are well and truly...

must say mr. president .... expected better of Chu and yourself.

[serz4u]

02:41 PM on 10/08/2011

But haven't panel prices dropped pretty precipitously over the past 2-3 years as production has ramped up? Also, doesn't it matter that this technology is on the brink of grid parity in many places? And aside from eliminating GHG, energy generation using solar will eventually reduce our dependence on burning of coal, which has pretty significant health costs in the aggregate.

[pyrroho]

01:19 PM on 10/13/2011

Agreed it would be nice to reduce GHG and reduce dependence on coal but the numbers really do not work here. The amount of solar that would need to be installed to make a dent in GHG emissions is staggering.

Solar is at peak price grid parity in expensive electricity markets where there are substantial subsidies to mitigate the cost and there is net metering so storage is unnecessary. Solar is not even close to grid parity with an avg. price which is around $.12 per KWh.

Current GHG levels are produced by what is in the ground right now which is roughly 750 GW of generation of which the vast majority is coal and natural gas. In order for solar to displace that it would need to be in the $.03-$.04 range so that is not going to happen and therefore there is no reduction in GHG from solar under any scenario in the near term. Installation of solar will be restricted to new capacity (plants that are added to the current mix) where with the subsidies the economics become more attractive. Let's say solar takes a 25% share of new capacity additions. Up front capital cost would be around $200 billion and would then reduce the rate of GHG emission increase (not emissions, just the rate of increase in emissions).

[pyrroho]

01:27 PM on 10/13/2011

on the panel price drop.

if you plot a 50% cost reduction per annum (larger than solar's over the last 2 years) over 20 years you get an increasing flat curve as you near the 20 year mark. Technologies that are in the flatter portion of the curve, as wind and solar are, are generally considered to mature technologies vs. "learning" technologies which are at the beginning of that curve.

Mature technologies tend to improve at an incremental rate. In order to solve both the GHG and economic problems we are facing in the next 20 years we need a step change technology.

The $8 billion in this program is 1/2 the price tag of the National Ignition Facility for fusion research. I find it hard to believe that if that $8 billion were applied to research that we would not see both GHG and economic gains from the results the same way we saw gains and the creation of new markets from the space race investment.

As it is the $8 billion was spent on capital equipment which will need to be replaced in 20 years and we gain nothing.

[knkdnsr]

07:34 AM on 10/07/2011

Obama should keep quiet about this problem. Yes he should support the green energy loan program but when it comes to talking about Solyndra he should change the subject. The investigation on how this company got its loan approved and how the tax payers and now out 535 million will lead right to the front door of the White House. So far they are only talking about the Congressional investigation. Nothing is being said about the FBI investigation. All the high level management that had to testify before congress took the 5th by orders of their lawyers. They are not saying anything until they find out what criminal charges come out of the FBI investigation. If that happens then watch the finger pointing.

[serz4u]

02:43 PM on 10/08/2011

And you know this how?

[knkdnsr]

04:17 AM on 10/10/2011

It is all over the news and you can google it for information. CNN has been giving this story the full press treatment.

[juswishen]

12:35 PM on 10/14/2011

You are right; the Pres did the wrong thing with my tax dollars...he should be quiet because there is no excuse he can cite that will get me off the hook...

[John Di Saia]

11:35 PM on 10/06/2011

That's no excuse for flushing $500 plus million dollars of taxpayer money down the toilet to feed your hungry campaign supporters. Sorry.

[oneeasyrider]

12:32 AM on 10/07/2011

Don't be sorry, but do look at the bigger picture -- the much larger government investment in GM is a terrific success -- with hundreds of thousands still working.

[John Di Saia]

09:28 AM on 10/07/2011

Using public money for a private company is still wrong.

[Kassandra]

06:48 PM on 10/06/2011

Apparently China joined the WTO back in 2001 but isn't playing fair...again:

U.S. to Investigate China’s Clean Energy Aid
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/business/16wind.html

So, Obama isn't off base in supporting clean energy at all.

[Gwendolyn Rouse]

06:35 PM on 10/06/2011

This is going not where and it is nothing compared to Bush killing over 4, 000 troops on lies.

[knkdnsr]

07:37 AM on 10/07/2011

So what does Bush have to do with this. Why are you changing the topic? Bush is no longer in office. If that was the case of bringing up history then lets throw Nixon and Watergate and Clinton with the Monica thing into the pile.

[serz4u]

02:48 PM on 10/08/2011

The Iraq and Afghanistan botched wars will end up costing this country 4 trillion. That's 8,000 times the cost of Solyndra, and at least that many lives. Perspective.

[Jim Giammattei]

03:06 PM on 10/09/2011

Squirrel! Why the change in subject? Besides a BJ is not a sexual relation. Yea right.

[markkocaldo]

06:23 PM on 10/06/2011

Solar is not at this a viable technology for deployment depending completely on subsidies. Every dime spent is a stupid waste of time and treasure in the AGW battle.

Obama, who couldn't even decide to change a tire much less know how to do it, refuses to listen to Energy Sec Chu on this, instead deferring to low information Greenie's in his administration.

As Chu suggests all solar money should be spent on R&D until some breakthrough changes the economics.

[oneeasyrider]

12:38 AM on 10/07/2011

Not accurate. Every solar field capable of generating power to 60, 70, 80K houses for the next 35-40 yrs. is a one time expense -- less expensive than building a new coal-generating plant with the endless coal required for production -- eliminating massive CO2 emissions in the process.

Same is true for on point roof top solar installation -- one time expense -- 35-40 yrs. power production.

[knkdnsr]

07:41 AM on 10/07/2011

I agree but the main problem is not everyone can take advantage of solar panels on their property due to where they live and local building codes. Also they would not be cost effective in the northern part of our country during winter.

[markkocaldo]

11:56 PM on 10/07/2011

Nope levelized cost of solar PV without subsidy and spewing enormous amounts of GHG's and air pollution with the required gas backup and 5 times sized transmission structure costs 50 to 70 cents a kwh over its lifetime. When the filthy gas backup is replaced with green storage the cost soars to over a buck and a half kwh.

Clean and green zero environmental footprint nuclear costs less than 3 cents a kwh over its lifetime.

[noknrc]

05:41 PM on 10/06/2011

The main issue they are investigating is was the decision to fast track this deal politically motivated . One of the main investors for this company was also one of the heavy campaign contributors for Obama's 2008 campaign. This deal was suspended back in the Bush years waiting for more documentation from the company that would show it had a better chance of working. From the info they received from as far back as 2005 when the program was first approved showed this company was a high risk deal. They determined it could not compete in a global market and would more then likely fail in a domestic market. Solyndra was one of the first companies to apply for this green government loan program.

[Athelstane]

05:04 PM on 10/06/2011

Obama will not take responsibility for any mistake. He blames everyone and every thing other than himself for anything that goes wrong.

[blackwind]

05:21 PM on 10/06/2011

Just what mistake did Obama make concerning this that he should take personal responsibility for?

[noknrc]

05:34 PM on 10/06/2011

Let's let the investigation play out for that answer. I am willing to bet his hands have some dirt on them . This deal took a fast track for approval after he took office this deal was on suspension from the Bush term waiting for more solid info. they did not want to give this loan based on what they had since it looked like it would fail before it got out of the gate.

[Gwendolyn Rouse]

06:34 PM on 10/06/2011

He will when Bush does.

[kshadow]

04:52 PM on 10/06/2011

Just like his presidency. Talk about entailing some risk.

[Bogeyis90]

04:01 PM on 10/06/2011

"the loan guarantee program was going to "entail some risk, by definition." Perhaps, but when your advisers tell you it's not a good idea, don't forge ahead because it fits your agenda. Why take unnecessary risk?