Well, let's see, perhaps that's not a very tough analysis...let me take a stab:
- Catchy name based on unique tube design.
- Good political connections to help get funding.
- product cost is higher than competitors due to goofy tube design
- product efficiency inherently low due to goofy tube design
- manufacturing in one of the highest cost and highest regulation regions in the world. Pretty rare that any major companies are building plants in CA these days, and there are presumably good reasons for that.
- manufacturing a product who's sales are driven only by govt regulation as opposed to value to customers (Germany, not exactly known for its bright sun, is ~50% of the market) creates large demand risks.
Lower cost chinese competition exposed a bad business plan. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how bad the plan was. It does take a politician to throw half a billion taxpayer dollars at it.
Very true. A place I worked for came under a raid and they dragged our CFO out and put him in jail for a few years. He was charged with some sort of fraud from a previous employer. It freaked everyone out, but then ended quietly and we all returned to normal work in just a few days – with an open req. for a new CFO. . .
We should analyze why Solyndra failed & learn from it. This is something that impact Fremont, Silicon Valley & California as a whole.
We are at risk to fall behind China in solar industry. Let's unite & help America.
1000 direct employees, but in order to comply with terms of Obama's green loan guarantees, they needed to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act. This requires highest-cost union labor for all construction. That beautiful building in Fremont wasn't cheap, and I'm sure a high percentage of costs went to construction labor.
How do you leave the politics out of this? This was a highly political company funded by the government to support a highly political initiative. If it weren't for politics, unlikely Solyndra would be an issue.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.