Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 5 / 5
Kinnar
User Rank
CEO
re: Solyndra: Its technology and why it failed
Kinnar   11/24/2011 10:17:20 AM
NO RATINGS
What everyone is saying here is correct, but simultaneously it is also correct that a new invention will always be costing higher, so in this kind of cases the government should not let the company die with the technology, but instead they can transfer the technology to some of the university and they can work on making the technology acceptable price and performance wise.

ibm221
User Rank
Rookie
re: Solyndra: Its technology and why it failed
ibm221   11/24/2011 5:13:34 AM
NO RATINGS
there are plenty other beast out there. this one is a good reflection of Obama's inexperience and rashness.

ibm221
User Rank
Rookie
re: Solyndra: Its technology and why it failed
ibm221   11/24/2011 5:05:51 AM
NO RATINGS
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%)

goafrit
User Rank
Manager
re: Solyndra: Its technology and why it failed
goafrit   11/24/2011 4:50:02 AM
NO RATINGS
I wish this company never got registered. It is the only beast that will cost us next election. Obama could lose for this mess.

chanj0
User Rank
CEO
re: Solyndra: Its technology and why it failed
chanj0   11/24/2011 12:13:09 AM
NO RATINGS
Instead of using fancy mechanical design to improve "efficiency", shall the focus be on finding ways to improve energy harvesting? Thin film solar is at 20% efficiency. If a technology can double or even triple the efficiency of today's technology, I believe it will benefit us more, driving down the cost per watt.

sharps_eng
User Rank
Rookie
re: Solyndra: Its technology and why it failed
sharps_eng   11/23/2011 7:11:00 PM
NO RATINGS
They mess things up for those who come afterwards. In Britain a failed monorail project blighted government-backed projects for decades. It's not wrong for the govt. To have the odd punt but they do go overboard, don't they?

BLinder
User Rank
Rookie
re: Solyndra: Its technology and why it failed
BLinder   11/23/2011 7:07:02 PM
NO RATINGS
Gee, let think through this, the solar guys decided the right thing to do was to drive to price parity with the golden spot of one dollar per watt. So if you have any business sense the solar market moved from a premium price point to a commodity position which means lower gross margin that is only recovered with methods to provide high volume manufacturing. Now everyone is viewing the demise of solar as it has reached price parity, but a lot of over priced providers are going belly-up. I think a first year economics student could have seen this coming!

wilber_xbox
User Rank
Manager
re: Solyndra: Its technology and why it failed
wilber_xbox   11/23/2011 6:38:05 PM
NO RATINGS
what i read was that their strategy to subsidize the solar panels so that they could popularize their product did not pay off. But this is quite a detailed article about what went wrong. Its true that Solyndra's elegant design provided some increased efficiency but when comparing it with the low cost power production by First Solar and others then Solyndra loses out by a lot.

Bob Lacovara
User Rank
Rookie
re: Solyndra: Its technology and why it failed
Bob Lacovara   11/23/2011 6:02:59 PM
NO RATINGS
"If you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door." Well: sometimes. But for sure, if you don't have a better mousetrap, you won't be run down standing in your front yard. Solyndra's design was certainly clever, but it sounds like it just didn't have enough advantage over more conventional approaches. Space between elements? You can space any elements if you'd like with ordinary solar panels. The gaps are just differently distributed. Collected reflected light? If you didn't have gaps between elements, you wouldn't care, plus, you now have two surfaces to worry about getting dirty. At three times the cost of a US-built competitor, this was a gold-plated mousetrap, and steel does just as well. The real crime is that the Obama administration provided loan guarantees for this thing. It's not that they could possibly understand the market (who expects a community organizer or his academic advisors to understand markets?) but that administration members were skeptical enough to be wary. But the taxpayers didn't get a vote on this one... Oh, well. A half billion here, a half billion there, just chump change, right? At least the executives paid themselves bonuses before it all came crashing down. None of this situation makes good reading: the technical, business, or political aspects.

<<   <   Page 5 / 5


Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Want to Present a Paper at ESC Boston 2015?
Max Maxfield
8 comments
I tell you, I need more hours in each day. If I was having any more fun, there would have to be two of me to handle it all. For example, I just heard that I'm going to be both a speaker ...

Martin Rowe

No 2014 Punkin Chunkin, What Will You Do?
Martin Rowe
Post a comment
American Thanksgiving is next week, and while some people watch (American) football all day, the real competition on TV has become Punkin Chunkin. But there will be no Punkin Chunkin on TV ...

Rich Quinnell

Making the Grade in Industrial Design
Rich Quinnell
12 comments
As every developer knows, there are the paper specifications for a product design, and then there are the real requirements. The paper specs are dry, bland, and rigidly numeric, making ...

Martin Rowe

Book Review: Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design
Martin Rowe
1 Comment
Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design, Third Edition, by Michel Mardiguian. Contributions by Donald L. Sweeney and Roger Swanberg. List price: $89.99 (e-book), $119 (hardcover).