More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Carl Pope

GET UPDATES FROM Carl Pope

Drawing the Wrong Lessons -- as Usual -- for Labor Day

Posted: 09/03/11 07:56 PM ET

Washington, D.C. -- So one of the Department of Energy's big clean-energy bets -- Solyndra -- didn't make it. But this city is wrangling over which wrong conclusion to draw. The Tea Party Republicans, of course, see this as proof that America can't expect to compete -- and that clean-tech advocates and environmentalists were silly for thinking we could. The Republican National Committee turned Solyndra's bankruptcy into an example of the one modern innovation for which America's preeminence is unchallenged -- the campaign attack ad.

Mainstream media, like the New York Times, pointed out that Solyndra failed not because it wasn't able to make electricity -- this was no "cold fusion" chimera -- but because cheap Chinese solar panels that use more conventional technologies beat its price point. How did the Chinese get so cheap? Not through innovation -- they lag behind the U.S. in solar tech. Not through labor costs, which are insignificant in making solar panels. No, the Chinese got cheaper loans, faster permits and more support from their government for their exports.

The Tea Party storyline ignores the fact that the global solar market is expanding fast -- and global solar costs are dropping equally fast. Solar really is the 21st-century equivalent of the previous century's automotive industry -- yet the Tea Party is willing to let America be left behind with coal and oil.

But the other D.C. solar storyline is equally lame. It's the "we tried to go too fast story," and the most spectacular example was Friday's Obama administration decision to postpone issuing new air-quality standards for ozone. But the ozone standard that is being "postponed" wouldn't have required a single factory to buy a single piece of new equipment for years. What it would have done is signal to markets that America is ready to move from being the global laggard to the middle of the pack in implementing innovation. But that was way too fast for today's Washington -- on either side of the aisle.

So what should our nation's leaders do? If China is gaining control of the solar panel space with cheap credit, why not set up a national clean-energy bank that can make loans cheaply? Not every 1930s rural electrification co-op made it, but rural America got electricity -- and America led the world. (Disclosure -- My father worked for the Rural Electrification Administration his whole life -- so I grew up hearing how FDR electrified rural America.) President Obama and the congressional Democrats have floated this idea -- but they've never gone to the mat for it. We'll probably hear about it again next week. But we won't make it happen until something changes.

And if it's outright subsidies that get Chinese solar panels into the U.S. (which evidence suggests is at least part of the story), then why not enforce our trade laws? (I know, law and order is so... Nineties.) But the reality is that solar power is not a failed or failing business -- it's the future. If the U.S. wants to be part of that future, then we need to make solar panels here in the USA, and we need to create the markets for panels with public policies like renewable-electricity standards and feed-in tariffs.

And if China is taking away market share, it is most definitely not evidence that we are doing too much or moving too fast. Nor does it mean that U.S. companies (as per the Tea Party) have no business innovating. It's simply proof that neither timid nor bought-and-sold politics will cut the mustard in the 21st century.

Don't weep for Solyndra. Weep for the American dream.

 
 
 

Follow Carl Pope on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CarlPope

Washington, D.C. -- So one of the Department of Energy's big clean-energy bets -- Solyndra -- didn't make it. But this city is wrangling over which wrong conclusion to draw. The Tea Party Republicans,...
Washington, D.C. -- So one of the Department of Energy's big clean-energy bets -- Solyndra -- didn't make it. But this city is wrangling over which wrong conclusion to draw. The Tea Party Republicans,...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 21
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
09:54 AM on 09/08/2011
Cold fusion is not a chimera. I suggest you read the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report on cold fusion: "Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance" DIA-08-0911-003, 13 November 2009:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf
03:01 PM on 09/06/2011
Translation - we need more regulation and more spending. Yeah, because both of those will make everything better.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
12:17 PM on 09/06/2011
Carl I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion why China is dominating solar cell manufacturing of silica based solar cells. --------------- You are correct it is not labor, but it was not cheaper loans or faster permitting either. You are correct it was government support - subsidized electricity in the form of coal based energy won the day for the Chinese manufactures. Making solar cells by melting sand in electric arch furnaces is very energy intensive! You have cheap dirty coal generating electricity at about $0.03/kwh you can chase the Americans and the Germans right out of the market. The Germans saw this coming and sold them the manufacturing equipment.

That's the lesson we should take from this if we want a part of a manufacturing business - subsidize it and protect it with tariffs - the loans and fast permits were just icing on the cake!
12:30 PM on 09/06/2011
I noticed the Chinese persuaded that recent US Solar manufacturer to relo to China, ans what was left here has filed for bankruptcy.
THe Chinese have an interesting set of action items; they're aggresively buying rights to oil, cornering solar, urgently building coal pwr plants. Quite a consolidation of energy sources.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lenguss
02:02 AM on 09/06/2011
Another giant brain heard from. Yes, let us take money from taxpayers and lend it at below interest rates to enterprises which by definition can not make it on their own. Surely this will accomplish some good! (see Solyndra). And note by the way the millions of homeowners seduced into buying houses with mortgages they could not afford by this very same policy and very same thinking(sic). Lending money at these rates will cause businesses to borrow that never stand a chance and they will fail as all government supported enterprises fail.
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
04:05 PM on 09/05/2011
Funny stuff from the new Green/Red sierra club! Social/Economic/Ecological justice for all fellow travelers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aresponse2dotcom
Let truth prevail over "stuff"
03:17 PM on 09/05/2011
I think we already subsidized this to the price tag of some 550 billion dollars on a loan for just one of these fiascos.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
05:47 PM on 09/05/2011
nope. 500M maybe. Nothing compared to nuke and fossil subsides.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gurinder Dhillon
Republicans thrive on false equivalencies.
01:30 AM on 09/05/2011
Solar energy simply isn't more readily embraced because of the exorbitant one time cost associated with installation of the panels. However, what people don't understand is what makes solar panels so darn expensive, if you listen to a debate on the subject on CNN or Fox News some pundit or energy industry insider will tell you that "market forces" won't allow solar energy to be profitable except for either over long durations of time or if purchased in mass quantity which isn't conventional at a consumer level, only on a massive government infrastructure upheaval mandate. When they say "market forces" they just gloss over the almighty market forces as if everyone has a stake in the planets future energy and its this big collective pot of energy futures, and it isn't its simple Exxon, Chevron, Valero, Shell, and BP, that are pricing solar panels. Think about it solar panels aren't made of any precious commodity that forever propels its price upwards as other energy sources dwindle, these energy leviathans are pricing solar panels out of competition and one of their greatest misinformation campaigns they have of many is the ant-solar campaign. We are quite literally awash in energy and aren't being allowed to harness it, we have more than enough solar energy, the oil industry won't prioritize solar energy until every profitable drop of oil is extracted from Earth, they won't stop their either, they'll hydrolically frack the Northeast into a wasteland.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
05:48 PM on 09/05/2011
This company failed because Solar is too cheap, not because it is too expensive.
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/10/solar-power-graphs-to-make-you-smile/

Great chart of energy source amounts: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/

Solar energy payback 1-3 years:http://www.motherearthnews.com/energy-matters/dispelling-the-myths-of-solar-electricity-energy-payback.aspx
http://www.solar-photovoltaic.info/payback/siemens-solar-panels-energy-payback-time-is-one-to-three-years/

Wind 6 months energy payback: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/wind_turbine_lca.php
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/EnergyBalanceofWindTurbines.html 3 months

panels lasting longer and better than predicted http://solar.gwu.edu/Research/EnergyPolicy_Zweibel2010.pdf Great article about price of solar now 3$/W installed. last 100 years, 1-2 cents pwer KWH after the first 20 years and the loan is paid off.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Herz
01:24 AM on 09/05/2011
The real problem is that big Saudi oil is one of the biggest players in Washington. And big Texas oil, and big Canadian oil. Oil, oil, oil. They won't even let Obama keep one of his many broken promises: To restore the PV collectors on the White House torn down by President Reagan.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
05:05 PM on 09/04/2011
Solar panels are already cheaper than anything Solyndra could possibly supply. Even American solar panels companies totally out shined them. Their design was too fragile and expensive. Failed experiments are par for the market, new market even more so.

50% of nukes default, that's significant.

Don't worry, Solar is already cheaper than nukes, clean coal, and oil wars or sands.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/10/solar-power-graphs-to-make-you-smile/

Great chart of energy source amounts: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sino53
04:42 PM on 09/04/2011
Anyone who wants to put solar panels on their roofs can do so. TODAY.

The U.S. should have figured out by now that it cannot hope to compete with China on price. It's not just the cheap labor. It's the fact that China is flush with cash, its economy is growing at 9% per year, and they've got plenty of money to throw at high-risk schemes.

We don't.
We're broke.
And our labor costs will always be higher than theirs.

We cannot compete with China on price.
What's wrong with just buying cheap solar panels from China, if they can make quality products cheaply?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
12:29 PM on 09/04/2011
Carl,

You left out several important elements in your recommendation to the President and Congress. If a Clean Tech National Lending Program is going to be successful, it needs to include all levels of government to have access to the program as well as all business and residential property owners. It should including money for LED lighting, geothermal heating and cooling, energy star appliances, vampire energy eliminating devices, thermal windows, insulation, and weatherization. The alternative energy investment tax credit should be converted to an energy efficiency investment tax credit to help accelerate the payback. All energy savings should be used to repay the loans and handled by the utilities who have the means to collect utility bills and track the saving through historical use.

In addition, it does little good for energy efficiency to have the investor owned utility model that robs people of their energy efficiency gains through rate increase as a result of a utility not earning its guaranteed rate of return. Therefore, the Investor Owned Utility model should be replaced with a modified version of the California ISO. The ISO would be required to pay market rates for excess capacity sold into the grid by all business, residential and government producers of clean energy.

Last, once a property has undergone a complete energy efficiency retrofit, it would then become eligible for the alternative energy investment tax credit. To provide this credit before a retrofit defeats the purpose of wise energy use.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:18 AM on 09/04/2011
The REA is the reason we have so many coal burners now.

The Chinese are pursuing our innovations, Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR)s.

The Molten Salt Reactor technology, Dr Alvin Weinberg, developed at Oak Ridge from 1954 to

1973, When he was dismissed as Director for being overly concerned with safety issues of the

Light Water Reactor (LWR)[the type of reactors at TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima]. Dr Weinberg

the patent holder of the LWR describe the decision to use LWR for civilian electric power

generation as a "FAUSTIAN BARGAIN".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOoBTufkEog

In an interview with CAS Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics

Xu Hongjie

Said as follows; {my slant on the google translation}”

As the world's next generation of nuclear reactors still under development, so our own research and development of thorium-based molten salt reactor{LFTR Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor}, may be all intellectual property rights. This will enable China to firmly grasp the lifeline of energy in their own hands.

Let the {word} "nuclear" no longer {be threatening}.

In the past, people always talk about {disastrous} "nuclear" {events} . Atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant explosion, is like a lingering nightmare to stay in human history. But a new generation of nuclear power {LFTR} will be a green, {path to} peace {for all} mankind into a new era.”

{The Thorium Age}

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://whb.news365.com.cn/yw/201101/t20110126_2944856.htm
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
09:07 AM on 09/05/2011
You have a funny way of saying a technology is green. At best, it is a less poisonous poison factory. Therefore, it is in no way green.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:07 PM on 09/05/2011
Email Mr. Xu Hongjie he is most qualified to clear up your concerns.

LFTRs are beyond green because they are cheaper than dirty coal now.

LFTRs can ZERO carbon and MERCURY by 2058 Solar can not

LFTRs consume nuclear waste Solar can not

http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/
photo
Cyn63
Every day I wake up is a great one
08:02 AM on 09/04/2011
I tend to look at going green as the modern day "space race". We can and should be gearing up as a country to improve the many renewable energy sources available so that they are economically feasible and easy to implement. We did these things before, we can do it again. For the life of me I can't understand people like the Tea Party wanting to hold back this innovation. I can only imagine what people like them must have been saying in the sixties - why go to space or the moon, if god wanted us there, he would have put us there instead of earth or some other such nonsense.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbdel
06:31 AM on 09/04/2011
This article is a good introduction for those unfamiliar with this situation. I think a detailed explanation of the financing of the project would be helpful (perhaps just a citation to a good article). Also, a detailed comparison of costs of solar panels from various sources (again, perhaps a citation to an article). And, finally, a look at who, if anybody, came out ahead financially and who (e.g., taxpayers/the federal government?) lost money. More information/citations would be appreciated. Thanks!
08:30 PM on 09/03/2011
Hi Carl. Would you consider a review of the structuring of the money being spent? I would think an agreement to purchase actual panels, perhaps the first ten thousand made, for installation on government buildings would be a better approach.

Low interest loans for the corporate entities may be necessary too, but we the people would at least get tangible and useful cost saving products instead of just aid to our economy and competitiveness with cash on delivery purchases. Having a buyer lined up is quite a motivator for getting to actual production and business viability too.

I get that if solar companies win, we all win. It just seems the direct benefits are being skewed to those taking risks with our money. Loans being repaid is not the same.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
09:11 AM on 09/05/2011
Why would you promote solar over energy efficiency? Don't get me wrong. I support all alternative energy sources, but not on any structure before it has received an energy efficiency retrofit. Otherwise, we will be trowing dollars into the wind. Do the math and determine what your solar pv system would cost without a retrofit and what are you really accomplishing by skipping part a and going directly to part b?