Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Solyndra Shuts Down, and Woe Is Us

By Paula Mints, Navigant Consulting
September 1, 2011 | 31 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Bookmark

Feed

In the iconic satire Network, Howard Beale, the mad anchorman said: "Edward George Ruddy died today! Edward George Ruddy was the chairman of the board of the Union Broadcasting Systems and he died at eleven o'clock this morning of a heart condition, and woe is us! We're in a lot of trouble!"

Woe is us indeed, and woe to solar, because in today's political and economic climate any public failure of a publicly-funded solar company will cause a lot of noise and this noise will overwhelm the facts.

These facts are: investment in PV manufacturing and in the market for these technologies creates a lot of jobs. Clean energy from PV is good for the environment and offers energy independence. And, once a solar system is installed, the running costs are minimal. It still costs a hunk of change to install a system of any size, but once the system is in place energy consumers enjoy clean, reliable energy for over 20 years.

But the solar industry and all its stakeholders should mourn a bit today, because Solyndra's closure is about more than just the company, and it is not just about Department of Energy money. It is about Solyndra, Evergreen, US solar manufacturing, and most important, the jobs lost by Solyndra's closure. People are out of work in a bad economy, and woe is us. People who believed that they were at the forefront of change are out of work, and woe is us. We are indeed in a lot of trouble, in particular because the federal appetite for spending money on solar is currently at low ebb.

At its heart, this is a story about competition. The U.S. was the leader in solar manufacturing until the mid-1990s when Japan took over, offering government support to its manufacturing and its market. Once the FiT incentive gathered steam in Europe, its manufacturers enjoyed one year as the number one manufacturing region. Meanwhile, China's government invested — and heavily — in its crystalline manufacturing sector and export market, and in 2009 Chinese manufacturers began aggressively pricing product for share (a common practice, by the way). And now China's manufacturers control the market. Unfortunately, and also as a result of aggressive pricing, margins have suffered, incentive rates have plunged, and candidly, prices simply cannot go up.

Solyndra's technology was different. It was not designed to compete in large fields. It was designed to compete on large white roofs. It could not compete with inexpensive crystalline technology that is also higher in conversion efficiency. End of story.

This article was reprinted with permission from ElectroIQ as part of the PennWell Corporation Renewable Energy World Network and may not be reproduced without express written permission from the publisher.

Solar Energy

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

31 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 31

Anonymous

September 1, 2011

Nice, anything the Obama administration touches turns into a steaming pile of excrement. Of course the solar industry has a huge future in this country, but $500 million dollar government handouts aren't the way to get there.

Comment
2 of 31

BeholdersEye

September 2, 2011

Sorry, this company stinks of greed and thieves. Had 1100 employees, laid them all off at the same time? BS! They never intended to stay open when they received the US TAXPAYER Money. And allowing the crap from China to flow into America Market is an economic policy failure and sickness, Why do we have to have all things China? China wants us dead as a manufacturer and country. Too bad republicans, democrats have not done any better, do not give a crap, about American blue collar workers or solar or alternative energy sources, and hence Independents!

Comment
3 of 31

mattislavin

September 2, 2011

Regrettably I think Paula is right on the mark. While Solyndra's technology and bet on high cost silicon may have raised questions from the start, it was not an unreasonable bet at the time the loan guarantee was made. And Solyndra's bankruptcy is not the only sign of a deteriorating picture for solar industry manufacturing in the US. There's Evergreen, of course, and SpectraWatt, and don't forget that BP Solar halted manufacturing at its Fredericksburg, Maryland plant last spring. The outlook is not good here in Washington. The vendetta has already begun with House Republican's using Solyndra to launch a wider investigation into federal funding for renewables. Solar installations will continue, but you can bet that any hope the US had to be a lead solar manufacturer is heading down the drain, the latest chapter in the hollowing out of US manufacturing. With stimulus funds expiring while China pours more subsidies into clean energy, the focus upon debt reduction, creating jobs shunted to the back burner, and conservative's ongoing war upon "Big Green," you can be certain that little support from the feds will be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. Solyndra's failure will provide a cause célèbre for opponents of renewables. Whether Solyndra's technology was viable or not, its demise at this moment in time is lamentable indeed.

Comment
4 of 31

Anonymous

September 2, 2011

Sad story indeed, a lot of folks now will be looking for work in an already terrible California jobs market. Somehow we need to "leapfrog" the technology beyond the current systems and get it to market quickly. We have the brainpower to do such things, but the lethargic mass of obtaining patents, licensure, testing, capital investment turn remarkable ideas into slow setting concrete, while our foreign competition exercises the "Wild West" capability in getting a refined product to market. We need to declare a goal, such as: Solar power generated by a coating material like paint or an epoxy. Get the industry leaders together and using a "skunkworks" approach declare a timeframe and get the job done.

Comment
5 of 31

phoenix-woman-63139

September 2, 2011

I see that the professional, barely-literate right-wing trolls that infest every news site have now appeared to befoul the comments thread. They never read the article, or they'd see that Solyndra failed for the same reason that Japan and now China have long since surpassed the US in solar manufacture: Their governments aren't owned by Big Oil, so they're not afraid to invest in solar and wind power.

The conservatives' hero Reagan, seeking to suck up to his Texas oilmen buddies, undid the brilliant start Jimmy Carter had made with supporting solar development. If Carter's programs had continued past his presidency, solar likely would have dropped below the magic coal-parity threshold by the late '90s if not earlier, and China wouldn't even be a blip on the radar screen.

Comment
6 of 31

Johna65

September 6, 2011

One can not compete with a slave labor economy that utilizes state power to steal the intellectual assets of its competitors. The solution is to impose an immediate 30% import duty on all Chines goods and a 50% duty on Chinese alternative energy products.

Comment
7 of 31

srlahousse

September 6, 2011

I see the analogies to computers and PCs in the 80s and 90s. Yes some companies run by some very smart people guess wrong on the technology or market direction and go bankrupt. This scenario will repeat often over the next 10-15 years as this industry grows and matures. The important point to take from all of this is that the number of people in this industry is increasing and every installation is a step towards the energy future. If China wants to send us inexpensive solar products, we should buy them and use them to insulate our economy from the volatile prices and pollution of fossil fuel energy. Trade barriers to lower total cost energy is not the answer.

As far as the politics, macro trends (China's energy appetite) and fossil fuel capacities are on the side of renewables. Don't be so worried that this is an option that will only survive with political support.

Comment
8 of 31

rich-barbarics-33637

September 6, 2011

Solyndra could not generate the watts/sq ft needed to compete in a rooftop market where space is the constraint. The big advantage of ease of install on horizontal roofs was compromised by efforts of crystalline manufacturers who discovered simpler ways for mounting. The tube approach was 'novel' but practicalities rule in true markets.

Comment
9 of 31

jb1010

September 6, 2011

What should be mourned in the Solyndra case is the understanding of basic optics. Putting a solar cell inside a tube is probably one of the silliest things ever done in PV, as it will ensure that at least 1/3rd of the light at any given time is reflected by the curvature of the glass. Had they encapsulated the cell in a flat glass package the company would have been much more competitive - and would probably even still be around.

How the investor community missed this in their due dill is beyond me. Monkeys playing darts, perhaps?

Comment
10 of 31

WRDS

September 6, 2011

Solyndra was an internal mess ! I liked the product and for those of you who never had the chance to observe it in action, stop being Monday morning quarterbacks.
IT WAS AN AMERICAN PRODUCT ! It employed AMERICANS ! The chinese and japanese want us dead, or third world at best.
I worked for the japanese and they want us under their thumb. Buy American before it's to late if not already. Go ahead and save a few bucks but don't whine when you have no income.
If you continue to purchase chinese junk and don't complain to the seller about not carrying AMERICAN PRODUCTS we all lose.

Comment
11 of 31

coolsolarguy

September 6, 2011

The US has a huge PV market, and with the 30% federal tax credit, along with commercial tax depreciation, and a few energy efficiency measures there is certainly a bright future and green jobs. We need more jobs though and to promote green manufacturing jobs in the US we should limit the tax credits to US manufactured goods, and then foreign companies will open US plants.

Comment
12 of 31

Bradsolar

September 6, 2011

The product never stood a chance. It could not compete when it came out with mono/poly prices up and with the clear knowledge prices were going to go down it was a failure waiting to happen. How they can get that kind of capital from the government with this information being common knowledge is the scariest part of the whole situation.

Comment
13 of 31

larryofgalaxy

September 6, 2011

"Putting a solar cell inside a tube is probably one of the silliest things ever done in PV, as it will ensure that at least 1/3rd of the light at any given time is reflected by the curvature of the glass."

Not true. Check the aperture efficiency of any glass on glass or poly encapsulated CIG and compare to Solyndra. They are both pretty much equal. Your argument does not hold water.

"Solyndra could not generate the watts/sq ft needed to compete in a rooftop market where space is the constraint."

Wrong! Solyndra provided the only product that could be installed on many thousands of flat roofs that could not sustain point loads of dead weight and wind uplifts and snow drifting that constrains the installation of standard PV modules. Solyndra could not compete on a cost per watt with highly subsidized Chinese modules but it still was not the "big turkey" the uninformed nay sayers would have us believe.

Comment
14 of 31

jb1010

September 6, 2011

larryofgalaxy,

It is not my "argument", this is the law of physics. Not even overhyped silicon valley companies can put those aside... It is a simple optical principle which is even the foundation for fiber optics - TIR (Total Internal Reflection). When the angle is higher than 45 degrees (glass/air) the light will not penetrate - that is exactly a third of the horizontal distance of the tube.

I prefer to trust the laws of physics over some Solyndra fanboi... But thanks for proving that the understanding of even basic optics is completely lacking in the case of Solyndra.

Comment
15 of 31

susannrivera

September 6, 2011

The things I would question about Solyndra are of accountability. They were given a huge grant by the Feds and who was watching how they spent it? Checks and balances, is what I am talking about. With millions of available square feet of office and manufacturing, why were they allowed to build their own building?
Using grant money to build a temple to themselves? That was ridiculous. It was a start-up! In it's infancy.Sure it looked promising and intriguing---but what a waste.

Comment
16 of 31

EIS

September 6, 2011

I design, build and bid solar.

I ONLY use American Made products.

I have bid several projects with Solyndra over the past few years.

Solyndra was not cost effective. Thier production projections were very weak, meaning I dont believe them. They relied somewhat on a 'lie' about how the roof replacement could be included in the 30% tax credit if you used Solyndra. The IRS has issued us statements that contradict this claim. They have poor distribution chanels. They have a poor pricepoint.

When compared with SolarWorld panels, another American Made panel, they could not reach the cost/W or come close to the estimated output of a more traditional solar panel array.

Bottom line, poorly run company with a poor product failed. It is as it should be.

The Chinese are trying to kill the US Market, but Solyndra killed themselves.

Comment
17 of 31

Anonymous

September 6, 2011

Another current example of a few individuals lining their pockets, to the detriment of the many.
This sad story says volumes about what has happened to American Integrity.
If there are no real consequences (like jail) it will continue.

Comment
18 of 31

larryofgalaxy

September 6, 2011

Are you aware of the tubes being filled with silicone cil

I am no optics expert but I was told the silicone acts as a lens that refracts and redirects the light. I also suspect it is there to act as a moisture barrier

Ans as you describe it all evacuated tubes should then perform very poorly as they never get but 1/3 of the light.

Somehow I just don't see it

Comment
19 of 31

jb1010

September 6, 2011

Most evacuated tube collectors use mirrors behind to compensate for the light reflection and can absorb this light on the back side. But Solyndra does not have this, rather they use a light colored surface to reflect that light. They do gain some of it back this way, but still it would be much better just to encase the cells in a flat package. The other issue is how closely they space the tubes since some of the reflected light could make it into the adjacent tubes, however this effect would only apply at noon and not in the mornings/evenings.

The reflection happens on the outside of the glass so filling the tube with silicone or other materials would not help.

Comment
20 of 31

jb1010

September 6, 2011

And yet another reason why tubes are a bad idea is the fact that they need much more glass - 3.14 times more. And with flat encapsulation you can use other materials than glass which may be more cost effective, easier to transport/handle and have much less breakage. Flat encapsulation has lower transportation costs as well, since they can be packed more densely. Bottom line - I can not see any reasons for using cylinders, but several reasons why it directly contributed to their demise.

Comment
21 of 31

mattislavin

September 6, 2011

OK - So Solyndra failed in part or full because 1) faulty tube tech; 2) overestimating poly costs; 3) mountings that were not as superior as promoted; 4) poor management; 5) crummy customer service; 6) corrupt government lending; 7) China's subsidies. Anyone got an idea what's the next step in ramping up US competitiveness in solar manufacturing?

Comment
22 of 31

jb1010

September 6, 2011

Mattislavin, I think the US should look at converting idle existing manufacturing assets (automotive etc.) into CSP/CPV/wind/biomass systems and just let the Chinese have the silicon business. Greenfield factories demand too much investment in a poor economic climate, but repurposing existing assets can be done on the cheap, and much faster.

The US demonstrated amazing industrial flexibility during the WWII in shifting their industrial output to planes and tanks in a matter of months if not weeks. Why is this flexibility lacking today?

Comment
23 of 31

EIS

September 6, 2011

1: All govt subsidy must use US made products or have a scaling subsidy which significantly increases if you use US mfg products.
1a: Calification of what is US MFG. Not like Patriot Solar who only relables Chinese goods and not like Enphase who gets the stamp because they are the only market choice. They need to be substantially mfg in us. Make companies build factories here to sell here.

2: Tarriff on countries like China who subsidize their exported product costs to unfairly sell in the US. They did the same thing with steel in the Clinton era.

3: US SREC program that compliments the state programs but adds that panels and BOS must be US MFG. This is to drive demand.
3A: Cap system size to 250kW or 100% of existing facility consumption to encourage distributed generation.

4: No more direct US Grants or Loans to any companies. Instead take the budget and offer loan guarantees and interest rate buydowns to existing lenders/venture capitalists to help mitigate the risk. Exisitng lenders would then use good common sense underwriting of projects and companies because they would have skin in the game. They could still take some risks on new ventures like Solyndra since they have mitigated risk through loan guarnatees and the cost of capital will be lower due to rate subisdization.
4a: Any US taxpayer monies involved then mfg must begin and stay in US until 100% repaid. No more Al Gore and Jeff Immelt funding companies with US funds and shipping jobs overseas.
4B: US takes an upside on the stock of any US tax payer funded endeavor. Not only does principle and interest have to be repaid but a dividend must be paid on future company value just like any venture capitial would receive. US takes the risk then it should get the reward. This reward then becomes a revolving loan fund to perpetuate the program for future reinvestment into US mfg companies.

Comment
24 of 31

billp37

September 7, 2011

Shill operation for

We thank the following sponsors for their generous support of this year's Solar Fiesta: Consolidated Solar Technologies, Positive Energy Solar, PNM Resources, Solar Ranch, Sacred Power Corp, Green Fire Times, Schott Solar, Array Technologies, Sandia National Laboratory, Lexus of Albuquerque and the Girl Scouts of New Mexico Trails.

evidence against New Mexico Solar Energy Association accumulates.

http://www.prosefights.org/nmsea08232011/nmsea08232011.htm

Comment
25 of 31

mattislavin

September 8, 2011

As I wrote earlier, this is not going to reflect well upon the US solar industry, any way you look at it:

FREMONT, Calif. (AP) — FBI agents executed search warrants on Thursday at the headquarters of California solar firm Solyndra, which received a $535 million loan from the federal government before filing for bankruptcy last week.

Agents executed multiple search warrants at the company's headquarters in Fremont as part of an investigation with the Department of Energy's Office of Inspector General, according to FBI spokesman Peter Lee. Lee said he could not provide details about the investigation.

Solyndrais a solar-panel manufacturer once touted by President Barack Obama as a beneficiary of his administration's economic policies. It announced last week that it was laying off 1,100 workers and filing for bankruptcy.

The company was held up as the model for government investment in green technology. In addition to the $535 million loan guarantee, it received visits from the president and other state and federal officials.

It filed bankruptcy amid hard times in the nation's solar industry. The price for solar panels has tanked, in part because of heavy competition from Chinese companies, dropping by about 42 percent this year.

In a blog posting, Energy Department spokesman Dan Leistikow said Solyndra was a once promising company that had increased sales revenue by 2,000 percent in the past three years. The $535 million loan guarantee was sought by both the Bush and Obama administrations, he said, and private investors also put more than $1 billion into Solyndra.

Republicans have been looking into the Solyndra loan for months. The House Energy and Commerce Committee subpoenaed documents relating to the loan from the White House Office of Management and Budget.

The company is also being sued by workers who were abruptly laid off after last week's announcement.

A Solyndra spokesman did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Comment
26 of 31

billp37

September 8, 2011

Business roof-mount solar panel mounted on generate heat.

Additional air condtioning is required to remove this heat.

Electrcity produced by the panels is insufficient to power the air conditioners, an electrical engineer commented on September 3, 2011.

Weight of residential roof-mount solar panels appears to be a possible problem.

39 * 66 = 2574 sq in
12 * 12 = 144 sq in/ft
2574/144 = 17.875 sq ft
6 * 17.875 = 107.26 lbs
8 * 17.875 = 143 lbs
Min weight of 7 panels 107.6 * 7 = 753.2 lbs
Max weight of 7 panels 143 * 7 = 1001 lbs
Min weight of 8 panels 107.6 * 8 = 860.8 lbs
Max weight of 8 panels 143 * 8 = 1144 lbs

http://www.prosefights.org/nmsea08232011/nmsea08232011.htm#nate

Comment
27 of 31

EIS

September 8, 2011

billp37 you have some incorrect information.

Solar panels REDUCE heat loading on buildings. Not increase. The panel takes the sunlight about 6 inches above the roof. Air moves around the panel and cools the panel, disipating this heat before it ever hits the roof.

There was a study released about three months ago showing the actual numbers of reduced AC cost due to solar panels on roofs.

This summer, a turkey farm we power with solar had about 2000 turkeys die due to overheating. The barn the solar is on had 1/10th the number of dead turkeys since it remained cooler.

The weight on a roof is measured in two ways. Dead load and point load. The dead load on a composite shingle roof is about 2.5 lbs/sqft. This is less than a layer of shingles. the point loads are about 12 lbs/sq ft. A ballast mounted system on a flat roof is the heaviest system you can put on a roof and only weighs 5 lb/sqft.

These are nominal numbers where roofs are concerned. The only roof type I have ever seen have an issue is preengineered metal buildings that are engineered to basically support themselves only. this is why they are so cheap to build...

Comment
28 of 31

billp37

September 8, 2011

billp37 you have some incorrect information.

Thanks for informing me. I was told, not first-hand information

I will try to check this out.

Is there a problem here?

Weight of residential roof-mount solar panels appears to be a possible problem.

39 * 66 = 2574 sq in
12 * 12 = 144 sq in/ft
2574/144 = 17.875 sq ft
6 * 17.875 = 107.26 lbs
8 * 17.875 = 143 lbs
Min weight of 7 panels 107.6 * 7 = 753.2 lbs
Max weight of 7 panels 143 * 7 = 1001 lbs
Min weight of 8 panels 107.6 * 8 = 860.8 lbs
Max weight of 8 panels 143 * 8 = 1144 lbs

http://www.prosefights.org/nmsea08232011/nmsea08232011.htm#nate

Comment
29 of 31

billp37

September 8, 2011

'The weight on a roof is measured in two ways. Dead load and point load. The dead load on a composite shingle roof is about 2.5 lbs/sqft. This is less than a layer of shingles. the point loads are about 12 lbs/sq ft. A ballast mounted system on a flat roof is the heaviest system you can put on a roof and only weighs 5 lb/sqft.'

How much total weight?

Comment
30 of 31

EIS

September 8, 2011

Depends on system size. Our typical is about 2100 lbs spread over 850 sq ft.

That is about the same weight that an additional layer of shingles would be over the same area.

Overall weight is a consideration but dead and point loads determine feasibility of a roof. When you break it down to these levels, it is a nominal load.

Comment
31 of 31

billp37

September 9, 2011

Heat Rate does not apply to photovoltaic, CSP or wind generation of electricity according to PNM foil.

This has been confirmed by PNM CSP engineer Mr Greg Nelson and Commonweath Associates PE Mr Frank Currie.

Solar Thoughts Dominate

"Having looked at multi-MW CSP plants in the past, yes, the fuel is free, but there's a 20-25 year mortgage on the mirrors, so you'd better believe heat rate is important. Simple cycle CT heat rate is on the order of 10,000 BTU/kWh, CSP parabolic trough with multiple feedwater heaters and wet cooling can get down to ~8,500 BTU/kWh, and a modern combined cycle CT plant is on the order of 6,400 BTU/kWh if you believe GE's marketing material. CSP power tower should have a lower, and therefore better, heat rate than CSP parabolic trough given the higher TH afforded by molten salt as a working fluid compared to Dowtherm A / Therminol VP-1."

http://www.prosefights.org/nmsea08232011/nmsea08232011.htm#zelicoff

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!