iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

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

GET UPDATES FROM Robert Bryce
 

Solyndra's Bankruptcy Shows the Failure of the "Green" Jobs Agenda

Posted: 09/07/11 11:12 AM ET

The recent bankruptcy of solar-panel-maker Solyndra shows, once again, that the entire concept of "green energy" jobs was bankrupt from the start.

"Green jobs" are the last refuge of the subsidy seekers. Industries that can't survive in the free market like to claim they are creating "green jobs" because that helps them justify their subsidy-dependent businesses.

In February, the Renewable Fuels Association put out a report which claimed the domestic ethanol sector directly supports 70,000 jobs. The CBO estimates that each gallon of gasoline displaced by ethanol costs taxpayers $1.78. With the ethanol sector now producing the equivalent of 9.1 billion gallons of gasoline per year, the total cost to taxpayers of the ethanol scam is therefore about $16.2 billion. That works out to $230,000 per job created by an industry that produces a product that is inferior in nearly every way when compared to conventional gasoline. And yet Congressional mandates are forcing American motorists to buy motor fuel that has been adulterated with corn ethanol.

Similar problems are evident in the subsidy-dependent wind energy business, which is constantly touting "green" jobs as a justification for yet more taxpayer subsidies. The American Wind Energy Association even has a website, careersinwind.com, which promises to provide "all the information you need to be prepared for your new wind energy job." Unfortunately, the jobs created by the wind industry are so expensive that not even Boone Pickens, the Dallas-based billionaire who a few years ago was one of the wind business's biggest boosters, could afford many of them. Last December, the Texas Comptroller estimated that each "green" job associated with wind in Texas cost the state's taxpayers $1.6 million.

And now we have the announcement that Solyndra, which got a $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, has filed for bankruptcy. What was the problem? It couldn't compete with foreign manufacturers who were able to produce solar panels at lower cost. The result: 1,100 jobs were lost and American taxpayers are now on the hook for all or part of the loan guarantee.

Last May, during a visit to the Solyndra plant in California, President Obama said that "The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra."

If that's true, then the U.S. economy is in even worse shape than we thought.

 

Follow Robert Bryce on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pwrhungry

 
 
  • Comments
  • 16
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
Marlyn
If I'm wrong, let me know.
02:55 PM on 09/15/2011
"The recent bankruptcy of solar-panel-maker Solyndra shows, once again, that the entire concept of green energy jobs was bankrupt from the start." ???

The loan guarantee given to Solyndra was approved by Bush.

Now that Solyndra is bankrupt, you say this is proof that the loan guarantee program is a failure, but Solyndra represented only 1.3% of the whole program, the rest being successful.

Sometimes businesses fail. In this case it was because Solyndra panels didn't use silicon like other approaches. Then the cost of silicon dropped and Solyndra could no longer compete.
photo
Bleedin Taxes
My micro-bio is empty... they taxed it to death
05:46 PM on 09/15/2011
Bush never approved the loan guarantee to Solyndra! The Bush administration put the Solyndra application on hold due to the improprieties and issues they found in their review. 6 days after Obama took office he ordered their application to be put on the fast track. Billionare George Kaiser helped finance Obama's election, was a major investor in Solyndra, and 6 months before Solyndra went bankrupt Solyndra's financing documents were re-prioritized naming Kaiser's Argonaunt to be repaid before The Department of Energy (American taxpayers!) http://thislandpress.com/roundups/george-kaiser-and-the-solyndra-investment-scandal/

I do however agree with you on one point... Your totally wrong about this subject!
photo
golfvue3
It's all ball bearings these days.
05:27 PM on 09/08/2011
What's even worse is the Obama administration gave these guys a very low interest rate.

Why? Perhaps it's because one of their main investors (George Kaiser) was a big contributor to Obama. What's even worse is this guy is line before the US gov't to get his money back in the bankruptcy.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/07/how-did-solyndra-get-a-sweetheart-interest-rate/
01:08 PM on 09/16/2011
Privatize the profit. Socialize the loss. that's the American way
08:13 PM on 09/07/2011
It's frustrating to see the Climate Change community turn their noble cause over to the likes of Algore, Obama or the UN's IPCC. This trio has bungled the sales job.

Americans are yawningly uninterested in global warming; fifteen years after the Kyoto treaty, the public couldn’t care less. According to a March 2010 Gallup poll, 48 percent of Americans believe that the extent of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 31 percent in 1997 when Gallup first asked the question. And that's before any taxes have been levied, any emissions have been capped, or any freedoms have been abridged. Even in Germany, the planet’s poster child for model global citizenship, opinion polls show a drastic reversal in public sentiment with only 42 percent of Germans now expressing angst uber global warming.

The solution is simple --The LMAD plan's CARBON TAX!

Google "LMADster"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimtodd
Unrepentant child of '60s
12:56 PM on 09/07/2011
As long as the cost of destroying the environment is not considered, fossil fuels have the advantage. However, if all costs of fossil fuels, including environmental degradation, were included in the comparison, most green energy sources would prove to have substantial cost advantages. The only reason fossil fuels appear relatively cheap is because of the dishonest, deliberate false accounting that maintains the illusion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheTXI
Uninvited guest. Came in through the back door.
11:27 AM on 09/07/2011
I love how subsidizing green energy is a bad thing to get it off the ground, but it's perfectly reasonable to continue subsidizing the most highly profitable business in world history (fossil fuels).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:07 AM on 09/16/2011
Who thinks that? Don't most people think subsidizing neither would be good? What this calls to mind for me is that the 'hope/change' crowd actually believed that their guys didn't have their own list of favorites (algore, etc) who were going to get help. What would be interesting would be scale. I know the oil industry is many times larger than the solar industry, but are the subsidies they get correspondingly bigger, or is this solyndra thing much much larger? Do you have any facts about this?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheTXI
Uninvited guest. Came in through the back door.
10:48 AM on 09/16/2011
Solyndra received a $500+ million loan. Whether it was politically motivated or if there was shady connections between the company and the Administration really isn't important to me in regards to my initial post.

"While the US was not included among the 37 countries analyzed by IEA, it too has traditionally given more incentives to fossil fuels than renewable energy. The US allotted $72 billion to fossil fuels from 2002–2008, but only $29 billion to renewable energy over the same period, according to the Environmental Law Institute."

From http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/12/oil-and-renewables-slicing-up-the-subsidy-pie

I imagine the number for renewable subsidies may have gone up since 2008 to correspond with the Administration's push for more investment in the area, but I doubt it comes anywhere close to the amount the oil and natural gas and coal industries continue to receive, even though they remain some of the most profitable companies in the history of mankind.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheTXI
Uninvited guest. Came in through the back door.
10:49 AM on 09/16/2011
Energy production has always been a big endeavor. The federal government has been either at the forefront of it or giving financial aid for it Since at least the 1900s. Large projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Hoover Dam would have never been done had it not been for federal government. It should be in everyone's best interest to support some type of government assistance or direct government tie-in to developing green technology. The upfront costs of the industry (any industry that deals with energy production) are monumental and the margins will remain slim to none until costs of production go down. And those costs aren't going to go down until the industry can actually get some legs underneath it and begin to walk.

Solyndra is just one company out of many that are/were entering into the green energy industry. It is not a surprise that a company will go under right now. With so many companies entering into the field, it only makes sense that the weakest will begin to drop off. Economic natural selection. The problem right now is that Solyndra received the big loan and now there are concerns about government favoritism and corruption, and unfortunately that story is the one that is sticking.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheTXI
Uninvited guest. Came in through the back door.
10:49 AM on 09/16/2011
What's worse, however, is that instead of this acting as a cautionary tale against said corruption and shady backroom deals and politics playing a role in it, a large segment of conservatives and fossil fuel industry connected are using the Solyndra failure as some sort of case study that green tech is just destined to fail. That's the big problem there. We are using the failure of a single company to paint an entire industry as worthless and incapable of succeeding.

An apt analogy would be the automobile industry back when it was first coming around. There were literally dozens of different car companies out there. If we looked at the automobile industry the same way we look at green tech now, we would have someone hemming and hawing and saying that the automobile will never catch on or will never supplant the horse and buggy simply because a few companies failed. Meanwhile the Fords, the Chevrolets, the Chryslers, etc. were continuing to chug away.
10:54 AM on 09/17/2011
I don't agree with any federal "white collar welfare" handouts. That is what banks are for. That is what stocks are for.

Anyway...you are wrong. Evergreen Solar has also failed.....but hey, they only got $68 million.

Now, if the Feds want to BUY solar panels from these companies and install them on Federal buildings...I wouldn't have problem with that.

Does the White House have solar panels on it's roof?

Exactly.

Oh...guess what...neither does Gore's house.
photo
Scholastica8
RINOS & Bull-Mooses UNITE! People Matter!
10:41 AM on 09/07/2011
I can only compare the drive for green technology to the Manhattan project or the Space race. If we feared China as we should (they are not our friends.... we are currently in a symbiotic relationship, which China will cease to end ASAP), then "green" would be taken seriously and be fully government funded... not left to companies who might sell patents or otherwise give information to the opposition. Green technology and technology in other industries, as well as manufacturing ability is a matter of National Defense. If we cannot manufacture, if we cannot maintain a lead in know-how, then we're goners.... not just in a world of violence and political upheaval, but in facing whatever nature may throw at us.