Solyndra: Its technology and why it failed

11/30/2011 7:53 PM EST

The unfortunate thing is that in seeking to be different they unfortunately forgot to be better. A better product that costs more still has a chance, an inferior product that cots more needs a miracle marketer or it is doomed. This one had no miracle marketer.

11/24/2011 12:05 AM EST

lol, you think this is as easy as talking?
those politicians are as naive as you to make such kind of mistakes.

doubling solarcell efficiency ..uh .. should be more difficult than you imagined.

AMAT shut down it's thin film R&D since it efficiency can't pass (i can't remember 10or 12%)

11/24/2011 12:13 AM EST

there are plenty other beast out there.

this one is a good reflection of Obama's inexperience and rashness.

11/28/2011 10:02 AM EST

What a pity... this global leader, winner of a Nobel prize for, um, something, leader and defender of Fast and Furious, defender of illegal aliens against the state of Arizona, this monarch among men, will lose an election just because of a little mistake on a solar power company? There's just no justice in this world.

12/12/2011 4:40 PM EST

Based upon the options I'm seeing on the other side of the aisle.... Obama is beginning to look like a genius..

11/28/2011 10:06 AM EST

Since when does every new invention require the support of the government to be developed? If an idea cannot support itself, why should you and I support it? Is this what it has come to? A new product doesn't have to attract investors, it just has to have enough friends in the government to warrant spending taxpayer's money. As a result, the market no longer determines what is valuable and what is dross: some ignorant civil servant picks winners on the basis of what he hears on television, or what his boss tells him to back. Remember that the originator of the weed whacker (string trimmer) couldn't get a patent because some dolt of a judge decided that the string trimmer idea was "obvious". So much for government insight into technology.

11/30/2011 9:17 AM EST

Thank you Bob.

11/30/2011 11:43 AM EST

I am replying to myself to mention that the inventor of the string trimmer, George Ballas, died this June. He was one of those guys who kept charging after new ideas: I had the pleasure of exchanging e-mail with him some years ago. I wish I had come up with one of those "simple, effective, and useful" ideas, like his for the string trimmer.

11/30/2011 9:16 AM EST

Government is not competent to select winning companies or products, that is why they should not do it.
If they must spend my money this way (contrary to popular belief, the government has no money of their own, they are spending my money), how do you expect these people, who's biggest accomplishment in life is winning a popularity contest, to select the "right" companies to enrich?
Only the free market can competently select the right companies.

11/28/2011 10:10 AM EST

Clearly, the idea isn't obviously good. To decide if it's good isn't a matter of inspection, either. If you'd like to decide whether or not this is such a great idea, replace the cylindrical cross section of the Solyndra design with either a flat plate of the same diameter, or if you like, an surface with an angle of perhaps 120 degrees. Then point this surface towards noon, and calculate the effective surface area compared to a cylindrical surface. Then you can decide whether or not the cylinder is a good idea. I haven't done this calculation, but perhaps I will.

11/30/2011 9:18 AM EST

What part of this dumb design do you think is good?

11/24/2011 7:11 PM EST

LOL, you 'd better look carefully.
Those solar design in china generate hot water instead of electricity.

but Solyndra could have draw inspiration from them.

11/28/2011 10:16 AM EST

Bert, your observations on human nature are pretty much the same as mine. People will do a thing as long as it has some obvious benefit: economic or emotional or some other perceived value. If the trouble is too great, they pass. Personally, I don't care if the world runs out of gasoline anytime at all after roughly 2050: it just doesn't matter to me. Nevertheless, I don't pour it out on the ground, and if the mileage of one of my cars starts to drop, I find out why. The engineer in me, who says "you'll be dead by 2050" tells me not to worry about gas for people who aren't even alive yet: the same engineer tells me not to waste a resource for no good reason. Most people won't agree with this, but that's ok: I don't insist that they agree. ;-) But your point is quite right: no one is going to do the "green" thing in the long haul unless it provides some sort of benefit.

11/29/2011 12:54 PM EST

Totally agree with Bob. There has to be a good enough reason for change. Till the time the ownership and maintenance is going to rest eventually with the user, Solar is not going to succeed. There are too many lines of thought which pull one away from sacrificing something for a green tomorrow - Who knows if the earth is really running out of fossil fuels anytime soon? While, this may be a bit preposterous, I think any shift away from the conventional sources of energy would not be possible till the big oil/gas companies feel they've milked their oil investments enough. There is just too much money invested in Oil for any technological breakthrough to make them obsolete. Don't see this happening for next fifty years at least.

11/29/2011 3:52 PM EST

I wouldn't necessarily go that far. My position is that people won't go back to chopping wood for their heating system, and using a septic tank instead of the sewer system. Federating the utilities that way is not what I would consider a smart way of going green.

On the other hand, that's not to say that the utilities, and our personal transportation, can't evolve. They can. In some cases, such as sensible electric cars (not relying on just a battery for energy source), the consumer would even benefit with simpler mechanical systems to worry over.

11/30/2011 10:20 AM EST

There is an even bigger obstacle to the "average Joe" adopting "green energy" technologies...the HOA. I see articles in the paper all the time about a particular energy-efficient house design, or add-on tech...from PV to simple passive aspects which require almost cost-less overhangs, orientation, etc. I look at this stuff and the engineer in me says, "Neat! Clear benefit. Let's do it." Then I think about the HOA and the builder. Builder is not going to allow that to be built in this neighborhood (or any other they are workin on...they are a production line, and will only build a few designs in any given neighborhood). If for an existing house, the HOA is not going to approve it - because it looks a little different. Lord save us from the cookie cutters...

11/30/2011 9:23 AM EST

I don't see any solar power at the link.

11/30/2011 9:24 AM EST

As well he should.

11/30/2011 4:09 PM EST

Actually, we are afraid to have our money thrown down the toilet. You can't make valid business decisions, when your bread and butter comes from creating catchy slogans and saying what the masses want to hear.

On the other hand, if everyone would just contribute a mere 50 cents a year to me, which is hardly noticeable to them, I would be most appreciative. I promise. I will think up great things of you do this.

12/1/2011 11:01 AM EST

Dear "IFindNickNamesAnnoying": yep, me too. That's why I use my name. I am a professional, addressing other professionals, and under those circumstances, I use my name. You may or may not, as you please.


"We" aren't afraid of spending money to make money. There's an institution to help us do that, it's called the "stock market". You pick a likely company, ante up money, and as long as they are successful, they pay you a dividend, and maybe the price of the stock increases. All is well. Winners are rewarded, losers get to try again.

No one asked me if I wanted to invest $1.78 in Solyndra. I didn't. And since it was taken from me by threat of force, it's theft, pure and simple. Worse still, even if Solyndra had made money, I would not have realized a return. So, the mantra seems to need to change to "you have to spend other people's money to make money." Of course, that's nonsense. Only a parasite, like a government official, thinks he can take your money for his own profit, and that of his friends.


Lastly, I don't care what China does with its money. China is a totalitarian regime, not a free-market capitalistic environment. They are not in any way, shape, or form a good model for anything that takes place in the US economy. China will eventually reap the rewards to which it is entitled.

12/2/2011 8:21 PM EST

Your "spend other peoples money" comment is disingenius. That is precisely how the wealthy operate/invest/live -with someone else's money. It is the basic premise of wealth in America.

12/2/2011 8:45 PM EST

Bob's statement was far from disingenuous. One thing is for an investor to freely put money on some project or other, knowing he is taking a risk.

Quite another is to have our money taken from us, no questions asked, and then "invested" in something we never would have invested in, if left to our own devices.

I'll grant you that most government spending is done this way. But that's why government should only spend our money to do things we legitimately task them to do. It mitigates this sort of risk.

No one hired the politicians to be our venture capitalists. They aren't remotely qualified to do that job.

12/5/2011 8:59 AM EST

derF, sir: not at all. That is not at all how the wealthy operate, or, at least, the important part of what they do. The "wealthy" become that way by evaluating opportunity and risk. They are good at it. True, they sometimes convince other people to put their money into the pot: if you are smart, you do so, and you get a share of the action. We call this "the stock market". I cannot do what many successful businessmen do: so I let them do it with my money. This is called "division of labor". I have no problem with it: I am a worker bee in the hive of capitalism, not a member of a herd of cattle in the socialist state.


Bert has stated my objection to the government's "investing" programs perfectly well. (Thanks, Bert.) It is disquieting that within the civil service halls, they talk about their "business model" and their "customers". This shows the fundamental disconnect between what a government agency is, and what they think they are, which is definitely not a business.

12/1/2011 11:04 AM EST

Allananthony, you cannot repeat that refrain enough. Strangely, it's not a difficult concept, but many people don't get it. Most of those people work for the government.

12/5/2011 4:17 PM EST

And the government does this all the time, for programs that it legitimately runs. NASA, DoD, and all the other departments, do this on a daily basis.

However, no one has tasked the government to become our National Venture Capitalist. There is no government agency set up to do this, and the Solyndra case is a text book example of how taking on this new responsibility can fall flat on its face.

You cannot do the job of a VC by running on politically motivated slogans and hype. Just because some lawyer claims that what Solyndra was doing was the future, it doesn't make it so. Venture capitalism is very risky, and the people successful at have to be dispassionate, and they take personal responibility in making tough calls. Throwing tax payers' money left and right, with abandon, using nice sounding slogans, is certainly not the way to manage risk.

If a real world VC had blown that much money, he would likely be out of a job right about now, if not in prison. Who do you see in government, involved in this case, that is sending out resumés?

12/5/2011 4:19 PM EST

Jongleur, can you point out to me anywhere in the Constitution where offering carrots for development is encouraged by the writers? Who asked the government to do this? But more importantly, what makes you think the government could ever be more efficient than ordinary competition in the market? Paying for results has two major drawbacks: (1) no one can guarantee results on cutting edge projects and (2) if some civil service group wishes to pay for an attempt, let them pay with their own funds. If I wish to fund a research effort, there's always the stock market and similar investment vehicles. It just isn't the federal government's job to be a venture capitalist.

12/12/2011 3:48 PM EST

I honestly fail to see the "nobility" in incompetent waste of taxpayer's money.

This sound to me a bit like saying that the previous administration made a "noble" attempt at ridding Iraq of a despot.

In both cases, the administration overstepped its bounds, went beyong its area of knowledge and expertise, and the result was a predictable flop.

It is not the administration's job to be the country's venture capitalist. It is not the administration's job to single-handedly, unilaterally, enforce UN resolutions either.

12/16/2011 1:54 PM EST

DrWattsOn, first off, your comment isn't off-topic, to my mind. Secondly, don't be too upset with the accusation of "thinking like an engineer". ;-) My wife tells me that sometimes, and trust me, it's not always an encomium. But I digress. Your evaluation of the Solyndra disaster is very pessimistic, but that doesn't disqualify it. In short, you seem to allege a fraud in the Solyndra business. Now, let's see: is this the first time any such fraud might have occurred? Um, no. Are the sums of money such that the risk of fraud are tenable to the players? Um, people have been killed for $500M. So: they had the means (control of the company, and the ear of upper-level administrative types), motive (serious money); how about opportunity? Of course, they ran the company and their friends run the government. I don't know if it was fraudulent from the get-go or not, but it is certainly possible. I'd like to think that these people merely plannned to use their influence with the administration to try to insure their company's success, but maybe it was just old-fashioned theft. You aren't crazy, and I think you are thinking like an engineer.