You've probably heard--the solar company Solyndra declared bankruptcy two years after the U.S. Department of Energy gave them a loan guarantee for $535 million. The first I heard of this was a cartoon in the Chicago Tribune showing a gravestone marked "Solar Energy". The Republicans are making a lot of noise about this failure, both to take shots at President Obama, and to deride solar power. Here are three points to consider:
1. The reason Solyndra failed is that the price of solar power is dropping faster than the company could compete. According to the SF Chronicle 9/18/11 "Solyndra had production costs of about $4 per watt in late 2009, while its competitors could make cells at $1.25 a watt." The article also adds "In the first eight months of this year, solar cell prices fell another 42 percent, by the Energy Department's estimate." So I would read this as great news for solar energy--the price of solar is already competitive with fossil fuels and is poised to dive right past. I'm hoping that in a few years there will be no reason not to install solar on every home.
2. While Republicans may deride the Obama administrations funding of Solyndra, it is really the Republican policy of blocking effective action that led to this. Rather than subsidizing any particular firm, it would be far wiser to put a cap or a tax on greenhouse gases and let market forces pick the best way to go. Right now we are doing the opposite--subsidizing fossil fuels so their price is much lower than it should be, even without counting all the environmental costs. It is the Republicans who have blocked every attempt to end subsidies for big oil and coal, and even modest cap and trade proposals. This led Obama to the risky course of trying to pick a promising technology and subsidizing it.
3. An opinion piece in the Oakland Tribune on September 10 by County Supervisor Keith Carson and Karen Engel of the East Bay Economic Development Alliance points out that the East Bay has dozens of "not only solar companies, but biofuel producers, battery manufacturers, fuel-cell developers, electric vehicles, grid management, green builidng, and recycling enterprises." This is a dynamic and robust industry. As such there are bound to be many more firms that fail than those that succeed, but the forward direction of these green, sustainable technologies is unmistakable.
1. The reason Solyndra failed is that the price of solar power is dropping faster than the company could compete. According to the SF Chronicle 9/18/11 "Solyndra had production costs of about $4 per watt in late 2009, while its competitors could make cells at $1.25 a watt." The article also adds "In the first eight months of this year, solar cell prices fell another 42 percent, by the Energy Department's estimate." So I would read this as great news for solar energy--the price of solar is already competitive with fossil fuels and is poised to dive right past. I'm hoping that in a few years there will be no reason not to install solar on every home.
2. While Republicans may deride the Obama administrations funding of Solyndra, it is really the Republican policy of blocking effective action that led to this. Rather than subsidizing any particular firm, it would be far wiser to put a cap or a tax on greenhouse gases and let market forces pick the best way to go. Right now we are doing the opposite--subsidizing fossil fuels so their price is much lower than it should be, even without counting all the environmental costs. It is the Republicans who have blocked every attempt to end subsidies for big oil and coal, and even modest cap and trade proposals. This led Obama to the risky course of trying to pick a promising technology and subsidizing it.
3. An opinion piece in the Oakland Tribune on September 10 by County Supervisor Keith Carson and Karen Engel of the East Bay Economic Development Alliance points out that the East Bay has dozens of "not only solar companies, but biofuel producers, battery manufacturers, fuel-cell developers, electric vehicles, grid management, green builidng, and recycling enterprises." This is a dynamic and robust industry. As such there are bound to be many more firms that fail than those that succeed, but the forward direction of these green, sustainable technologies is unmistakable.
No comments:
Post a Comment