http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/03/democratic-donor-warned-white-house-on-solyndra-trip-in-2010-email-shows/

Above is a link to the latest on the Solyndra debacle (aks, "Solyndragate" or "Solargate").  While some may carp that the article from Fox News, there are plenty of similar stories from other media outlets.

The fundamental problem with Solyndra is that its technology is not economically viable.  So far, other than solar hot water heaters, there are almost no solar technologies (specifically solar-to-electricity) that are economically viable.  The cost per KWH as compared to other sources is simply too high.

If the government is to play in the energy markets than it should fund basic RESEARCH into breakthrough technologies.  Solyndra is not that.  It is a slight improvement on a technology that is uneconomical.  Until a fundamental solar-to-electric breakthrough is achieved, solare energy is going to be a marginal play.

Republicans are outraged about...whaaat?

It's like Jeffrey Dahmer criticizing you cooking.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/sabber2.gif

Republicans are outraged about...whaaat?

It's like Jeffrey Dahmer criticizing you cooking.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/sabber2.gif


Republicans are outraged by ANYTHING Obama does

Yup-this story won't go away like Obama's birth certificate.



Cat

Yup-this story won't go away like Obama's birth certificate.



Cat


Well O'bama's birth cert did not cost the people of the United States $500MM on a technology that was destined to fail.

Well O'bama's birth cert did not cost the people of the United States $500MM on a technology that was destined to fail.


How much taxpayer $$$$ did we sink into the nuke industry?  Nuclear power still can't survive on the free market and it generates yearly I-don't-know-how-many kilotons of radioactive waste deadly for centuries to come which people will have to guard as long as there are people.  Solar energy works.  It doesn't give the same kind of bang for the buck as fossil fuels, but it works.  I'd rather see the government invest in solar than in nukes, even at a short-term loss, because it could prove to be quite a wise investment in a hundred years. 

How much taxpayer $$$$ did we sink into the nuke industry?  Nuclear power still can't survive on the free market and it generates yearly I-don't-know-how-many kilotons of radioactive waste deadly for centuries to come which people will have to guard as long as there are people.  Solar energy works.  It doesn't give the same kind of bang for the buck as fossil fuels, but it works.  I'd rather see the government invest in solar than in nukes, even at a short-term loss, because it could prove to be quite a wise investment in a hundred years. 


As I have posted a few times before, I have no problem with a government investment that will lead to breakthrough research to come up with an economical solar-to-electric technology.  But Solyndra was not that.  While a Solyndra module was marginally more efficient than a flat panel, its economics were terrible.  Worse than nuclear.  Worse than wind.

Solyndra was a play on the production of an uneconomical solar technology.  I'd have no problem plunking down $500MM on basic research into the light-to-electirity cycle.

As to "kilotons per year of waste" currently in the USA there are 2,000 tons of spent fuel put into storage each year.  France manages to recycle 97% of their spent fuel ina process that by itself creates more energy and reduces waste volume.

How much taxpayer $$$$ did we sink into the nuke industry?  Nuclear power still can't survive on the free market and it generates yearly I-don't-know-how-many kilotons of radioactive waste deadly for centuries to come which people will have to guard as long as there are people.  Solar energy works.  It doesn't give the same kind of bang for the buck as fossil fuels, but it works.  I'd rather see the government invest in solar than in nukes, even at a short-term loss, because it could prove to be quite a wise investment in a hundred years.  


We could use it, but we decided to leave it in its present form for reasons dealing with proliferation risks.  Carter made a questionable call with the information he had available to him, but it turns out he was wrong.  The right move was to reprocess it and burn it up in breeder reactors.  

Solyndra's an interesting case.  The tech was a nice idea at the time, but what nobody envisioned (or wanted to envision!) was the possibility that the Chinese would be able to radically undercut their production costs when it came to cranking out of the silicon.  Bucket of politifail on that one.  

But if it's any consolation, it's bipartisan and doesn't care whether the technology's "green" or not.  I recently ate a pretty hefty loss by betting the other way on a Bush-II era nuke project that strung itself waiting for a loan guarantee that -- after five years -- never came.

The one consistent thing between these two cases is that if your business really needs a loan guarantee from the government, by the time you lobby hard enough, and by the time the government actually gives you the loan guarantee, your technology is obsolete, your competitors are in full production mode, and your company is toast.  

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/hyphen.jpg

tl;dr: if a company needs a loan guarantee, both shareholders and employees should prepare themselves to be on the receiving end of the big ass-cylinder :)

Well O'bama's birth cert did not cost the people of the United States $500MM on a technology that was destined to fail.




How much taxpayer $$$$ did we sink into the nuke industry?  Nuclear power still can't survive on the free market and it generates yearly I-don't-know-how-many kilotons of radioactive waste deadly for centuries to come which people will have to guard as long as there are people.  Solar energy works.  It doesn't give the same kind of bang for the buck as fossil fuels, but it works.  I'd rather see the government invest in solar than in nukes, even at a short-term loss, because it could prove to be quite a wise investment in a hundred years. 



Or you can argue how much of taxpayers $$$$$$$$$ go to the oil industry-and the results of that leads to almost $4 a gallon. So we get it from both end.



Cat