This Week in Energy: Solyndra, Solyndra, Solyndra
For the past few months, the normal schedule on R-Squared Energy has been altered in order to ease Robert’s load so he can devote more time to writing chapters for his book on energy, slated to be published sometime next year. Instead of the customary twice-weekly essays written by Robert, we accepted guest articles once per week to keep the blog filled with fresh content while Robert published one essay (and sometimes two) of his own per week.
While we still welcome guest post submissions, our plans moving forward are to cut down on how often we publish them.
What we’re kicking off now is a weekly segment that will cover the stories of the week making headlines — and even those that aren’t — in the world of energy. Primarily, stories will be pulled from headlines that have been posted throughout the week to our Energy Ticker page. This compilation of stories will be called “This Week in Energy” … unless one of our visitors suggest a catchier name.
The purpose is to stimulate discussion on energy issues, and community members should feel free to turn these into open thread energy discussions. Suggestions and news tips are welcome. I (Sam) can be reached at editor [at] consumerenergyreport [dot] com .
——–
Solyndra
The story dominating headlines this week — and not just in the world of energy news — is the Solyndra bankruptcy. So we’ll lead off with a quick roundup of the coverage on the bankruptcy and its aftermath:
- In a Washington Post article, former Solyndra employees pointed to waste and mismanagement at the company as soon as the loan was approved. In fact, one employee practically blamed the loan guarantee for causing the company to go under: “After we got the loan guarantee, they were just spending money left and right,” said former Solyndra engineer Lindsey Eastburn. “Because we were doing well, nobody cared. Because of that infusion of money, it made people sloppy.” A comprehensive article from the Wall Street Journal (may require subscription) struck a similar tone, quoting investors that consider the loan –for various reasons– to be the company’s undoing: One Solyndra investor said that, in retrospect, “the worst thing that happened to Solyndra was the loan.”
- Pundits are pointing to Solyndra as a case study of the shakiness of subsidizing renewable energy technologies.
- Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) pledged to investigate the motivations of Obama “and his cronies” in picking winners and losers.
- The Obama administration restructured the loan in such a way that private investors — including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama — moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, according to government records.
- Solyndra executives will “plead the fifth” when they appear before a House hearing on Friday. Republican leaders are not too happy about that, especially after they originally agreed to answer questions from lawmakers.
- Despite the ongoing Solyndra saga, the DOE is set to guarantee $9.3B more in loans before the loan program expires at the end of the month. But the House Energy and Commerce committee is asking for detailed financial information on the deals and the due diligence done by the government. They also sent a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, stating that “We are concerned that another rush to meet stimulus deadlines will result in DOE closing these deals before they are ready.”
- E-mail communications between Solyndra, White House and other federal officials were released to the public [PDF link]. Articles covering the e-mails pointed to a media-fixated company and a White House worried that the possible timing of a Solyndra default would coincide with the 2012 election season heating up.
- Some GOP senators were caught playing both sides of the game: criticizing the Obama Administration for the loan program while seeking to win funds from the DOE for projects in their home states.
Energy News Roundup
Now on to the next block of stories. Global energy use, EPA, oil and gas tax breaks, ethanol mandates, and more:
- Global energy use is expected to jump 53% by the year 2035, — most of it coming from fossil fuels — according to International Energy Outlook 2011, a report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. China and India are expected to account for more than half of the growth, while energy use in OECD countries will remain relatively flat during that time (see graph at right).
- The White House threatened to veto a GOP bill aimed at blocking pollution regulations. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson recently threatened to quit after President Barack Obama pulled back proposed smog standards.
- Obama is going after oil and gas industry tax breaks to help fund his proposed deficit plan.
- Livestock producers asked Congress to weaken the government’s ethanol mandates, blaming it for pushing up the cost of feed and threatening to cause poultry farms to go out of business. The ethanol mandates are also raising the ire of car buffs. Meanwhile, the USDA projected that for the first time in history more corn will be consumed by automobiles than by livestock and poultry.
- Earlier in the week, Robert posted a link on the Energy Ticker to an interesting Barron’s piece: Why There Are Two Prices for Oil. The article explains why U.S. and European prices have diverged by record amounts, and discusses the likelihood of a return to parity in the future.
- Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla disagreed on the success of CleanTech. Thiel called it a disaster, while Khosla disputed that by pointing to his successful CleanTech IPOs. Robert Rapier asked “Who is Right?“, and ultimately concluded that by using the metric that matters, CleanTech has yet to deliver.
- The New York Times took a look at the water-energy nexus. According to the article, Sandia National Laboratories discovered that, in the U.S., “4 percent of all fresh water is consumed in the energy sector, and 3 percent of all electricity used daily goes toward water and wastewater pumping, distribution, and treatment.”
- Daniel Yergin wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal: There Will Be Oil. Robert Rapier thought James Hamilton’s response to Yergin was pretty good. Michael Levi, of the Council on Foreign Relations, reviews some of the opinions on Yergin’s piece and shares his own thoughts on the subject.
- The IEA ended its emergency release of oil from the reserves of member nations prompted by a cutoff in Libyan oil supply. Robert was against the SPR releases, and explained his reasoning here and here.
- KiOR is constructing a $200 million biofuels plant.
- Trouble is brewing in the South China Sea as the Philippines and China dispute over offshore energy. A similar story is taking shape between Turkey and Greek Cypriots in the eastern Mediterranean.
- For those who want an inside edge in the energy sector.
- Written by veteran energy analysts and insiders with a track record of accurately predicting trends.
- 100% FREE!
- And Much More...
Upcoming Events
Energy Investment Forum
June 10-11, 2013 - San Francisco, CA
A Case of Renewables versus Natural Resources
June 10-11, 2013 - San Francisco, CA
Columns
Comments
-
Hallgren et al. “Climate Impacts of a Large-scale Biofuels Expansion.” Geophysical Research Letters (2013): 1–6. doi:10.1002/grl.50352. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50352/abstract . Paper ...
By Cl1ffClav3n on Who Loses from Rising Natural Gas Prices? -
Got a link to that MIT study?
By Russ Finley on Who Loses from Rising Natural Gas Prices? -
@Donald, I agree that NGTL with a bio process fig leaf is still NGTL. Tell that to Coskata, Primus ...
By Cl1ffClav3n on Who Loses from Rising Natural Gas Prices? -
It is absurd that natural gas, like that produced from oil fields, would be classified as a renewable. It is ...
By Donald Campbell on Who Loses from Rising Natural Gas Prices? -
These are all relevant and defensible points. In contrast, let's take a quick look at what the srcibes ...
By ben on Who Loses from Rising Natural Gas Prices? -
The U.S. imports about 50% of the anhydrous ammonia, and about 70% of the urea, that we use in agriculture. ...
By TimC on Who Loses from Rising Natural Gas Prices? -
This article does a service by finally pointing out how questionable are the claims that biofouels (better named "agrifuels") are ...
By Cl1ffClav3n on Who Loses from Rising Natural Gas Prices?



Obama is at war with the energy industry but the collateral damage is anyone who uses energy.
I looked at the ‘scientific evidence’. It is pretty clear that levels of pollution at the 120 ppb level has health effects. However the curve flattens out between 60-80. Rejecting 75 ppb has nothing to do with science, it is pure politics.
The problem Obama has is that he is a brilliant amateur. Solar will get you some votes in California but bungling solar will lose lots of votes for those who are concerned with the economy. Millions of American now have higher electricity bills because of new pollution controls. For me it is about 20% higher.
That is fine until they come back two years later and say it is not enough. It would appear that it will never be enough until the economy is ruined and nobody has jobs except at the EPA in DC.
The US solar industry has created 6,735 new jobs across the country since August, 2010, a 6.8% growth rate, bringing to 100,237 the number of Americans working in the industry, according to a preview of The Solar Foundation’s “National Solar Jobs Census.” That compares to an overall nationwide job growth rate of 0.7% and a 2% decline in jobs in fossil fuel electric generation.
Creating Jobs
The US solar industry has created 6,735 new jobs across the country since August, 2010
Rufus~
Subtract from that the 1,100 that used to work at Solyndra.
I am not for Solyndra, or government subsidies.
But imagine this: Obama proposes solar industry legislation that 10 percent of the nation’s power come from solar, and moreover that power be subsidized at 3 cents per kilowatt.
The outrage! Obama is a socialist Muslim! Horrors!
Of course, I just described the nation’s ethanol program. until subsidies recently were spiked. (the mandate is still in).
So, while everyone is frothing about Solyndra, it is but a mouse next to the Elephant Ethanol program.
Rufus said:
“The US solar industry has created 6,735 new jobs across the country since August, 2010, a 6.8% growth rate, bringing to 100,237 the number of Americans working in the industry,”
Wendell said:
“Subtract from that the 1,100 that used to work at Solyndra.”
I did.
That still leaves appx 100,00 solar jobs, the vast majority of which did not exist 10 years ago.
The KiOR plant in MS is intriguing. Does anyone know anything about this? The KiOR website gives some sketchy info on their catalytic cracking process, but leaves most substantial questions unanswered, such as:
>KiOR’s process includes hydrotreatment of the crude renewable oil. How much H2 is used, and where does the H2 come from? If the H2 comes from natural gas, is the oil product really renewable?
>Oil at $100/bbl is about $700/ton, or about the same price as low grades of paper. Paper mills are closing all over North America. How will KiOR make money converting wood chips to a $700/ton product, when paper mills are losing money doing the same thing?
Solyndra
Thank Goodness !!! We finally got a “Solar Scandal”. It was about time. We have had scandals in virtually every other area of business. Why not a ‘solar scandal’ ? It was long overdue………
The problem is that Solyndra was a company that failed primarily because it was no longer competitive, and not because of some pre-meditated, well-thought out conspiracy to scam the government.
Here’s a stock market view from a Motley Fool analyst concerning the precarious situation for western solar companies vis-a-vis China. Many other analysts also see a big shakeout for solar in the next two or three years.
Solar Companies Face Headwinds
By Keki Fatakia |
September 22, 2011
Solar companies in America and Europe have been facing sunstroke of late, due to numerous factors. Competition from heavily subsidized panel makers in China, coupled with a global mountain of inventory, has sent solar panel prices tumbling by 70% in the past 24 months. Let’s take a Foolish look at what this means for solar energy companies.
Some bad news
Three solar panel makers in the U.S. have filed for bankruptcy protection. California-based Solyndra, which had received more than $500 million in federal loan guarantees, is the latest. Earlier in August, SpectraWatt, an Intel spinoff, and Massachusetts-based Evergreen Solar filed for bankruptcy protection, citing too much competition from Chinese panel makers.
Solyndra and Evergreen Solar had, in fact, invented unique technologies that allowed them to make solar panels using less polysilicon, which is the main ingredient of any photovoltaic cell. But polysilicon prices have fallen like a rock, making Solyndra and Evergreen’s manufacturing processes less cost effective.
China heats things up
Chinese competitors are fast outpacing U.S. and European companies in the solar energy race, thanks to cheap credit being offered by Chinese banks and government support in the form of free land. These incentives add to the economies of scale and price competitiveness of these companies.
One key difference between subsidies in the U.S. and China is the way they are given out. In China, subsidies are offered to manufacturers, while in the U.S., buyers of renewable energy are subsidized for their purchase (irrespective of who the producer is). Thus, the Chinese get an extra edge here.
Inventory and input costs
At present, the solar energy market is bogged down because of subsidy cuts in Europe and a buildup of inventories, caused by overproduction from Chinese players. Unfortunately, according to analysts, this extra stockpile is likely to stay until 2013.
When supply exceeds demand, market prices are bound to go down. This phenomenon works in favor of low-cost Chinese producers and kills off those that produce at higher costs.
Polysilicon, the stuff inside solar cells that makes electricity out of the sun’s light, forms a higher percentage of costs for Chinese firms such as JinkoSolar (NYSE: JKS ) , Trina Solar (NYSE: TSL ) , and Yingli Green Energy (NYSE: YGE ) . So falling prices have increased their competitiveness as they mostly buy this essential material at spot prices.
The numbers
Solar companies have seen a general trend of declining margins and rising costs, with a few exceptions.
For instance, Suntech Power Holdings (NYSE: STP ) has seen its second-quarter revenue expand from $25.1 million to $30 million. But despite this, its net losses widened to $259.5 million from $174.9 million in the year-ago quarter due to inventory writedowns and other one-time charges related to cancelation of a wafer supply agreement with MEMC (NYSE: WFR ) .
Trina Solar’s second-quarter revenues rose from $371 million to $560 million, but soaring costs and operating expenses ate up everything, leading to a big drop in net income from $38 million to just $11.8 million this quarter.
First Solar’s second-quarter revenues declined slightly to $532 million from $588 million in the year-ago quarter. Rising costs and expenses did not spare this company, either. Second-quarter net income dropped from $159 million to just $61 million in the quarter.
On the sunnier side of things, Chinese manufacturer Yingli’s second-quarter revenues climbed from $2.7 billion to $4.3 billion. However, the company’s gross profits remained relatively flat due to a sharp rise in cost of goods sold, from $1.7 billion to $3.4 billion. Despite this, Yingli managed to post an impressive increase in second-quarter net income, from $217 million to $375 million.
JinkoSolar has seen its second-quarter revenues swell from $900 million to $2.2 billion. Its net income for the quarter has also risen, from $180 million to $235 million.
The sun will rise
Demand for renewable sources of energy such as solar energy is expected to go up, primarily on the back of future increases in oil prices and due to waning global support for nuclear power. For now, consolidation in this sector will probably kill many companies that don’t keep costs at rock bottom. The future is bright for the sector as a whole, but panel producers would love to find ways of protecting their bottom lines from the scorching competition.
Interesting that too much fast money drove them to ruin.
Interesting there are some don’t take advantage of the money.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/…..deadline1/
mac said:
I don’t know where the author came up with this. The sorts of loan guarantees and grants that some U.S. solar companies have gotten are direct subsidies to specific producers. That’s what the controversy is all about.
RR
“I don’t know where the author came up with this. The sorts of loan
guarantees and grants that some U.S. solar companies have gotten are
direct subsidies to specific producers. That’s what the controversy is
all about.”
RR
I don’t know where the Motley Fool author came up with that either.
Perhaps, the author sees the Chinese loading up the front end (manufacturing) with subsidies, free land for solar plants, perks etc. to make Chinese panels competitive on the world market, while on the other hand he sees the U.S. as busy mostlly subsidising the consumer or retail side of solar in the form of tax credits to the end purchaser.
The Chinese approach apparently makes their panels more competitive on the world market.
On the other hand, consumer based subsidies in the form of installation tax credits in the U.S. make the actual purchase of solar panels more attractive. What happens, of course, is that everybody soon begins importing and installing the heavily subsidised, cheaper Chinese panels and all the U.S. domestic solar panel manufacturers are eventually driven out of business. (Similar to what happened with cameras, sewing machines, textile manufacturing, etc.)
How about this ? You cannot get the $7,500 dollar solar tax credit unless you buy domestically manufactured solar panels ? As it now stands, the U.S. solar tax credit will ultimately end up stimulating Chinese solar panel companies, not U.S. panel makers.
You don’t like solar subsidies for U.S. manufacturers ?
Tell, the Chinese about it. They don’t like U.S. solar subsidies going to American manufacturers either.
So, why do we have a Trade “Surplus” with China in Solar PV Panels?
Rufus said:
“So, why do we have a Trade “Surplus” with China in Solar PV Panels?”
—————————————————————————————————
Rufus, I think the trade surplus is in sales of raw materials and factory equipment to make the panels. This NYT article explains it better.
U.S. Posted a Trade Surplus in Solar Technologies, Study Finds
By KEITH BRADSHER
Published: August 29, 2011
HONG KONG — A study sponsored by the solar power industry has concluded that the United States ran a trade surplus of $1.88 billion in solar technologies last year, as exports of raw material and factory equipment for the solar sector outpaced imports of finished solar panels.
The report is clearly aimed at addressing worries about the rapid rise of Chinese solar panel manufacturers, who now represent 58 percent of the world’s solar panel manufacturing capacity.
American solar panel makers have been struggling, including Evergreen Solar, which filed for bankruptcy this month and had already moved early this year to shut down most of its production in the United States. (article continues ……..)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08…..finds.html
Or another article…..
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/…..r-america/
It shouldn’t be surprising that there is a huge amount of hypocrisy in Congress, but to me that’s the primary take-home message of the Solyndra affair. To hear the GOP house members express their indignation is laughable. It’s no secret that from 2005-2008 the Bush DoE (and Congress during that time, both R’s and D’s) were huge proponents of advanced biofuels. Andrew Karsner, the DoE’s top boss for alt energy 2006-2008) was himself a venture capitalist and for his entire tenure was promoting DoE as VC for alt energy. For example, see his March 2008 speech – here’s an excerpt: “We must stop bailing out the agents of incumbency,” he railed. Instead, we need to unleash “the power of good ideas. The “beef” in Karsner’s speech was his announcement of a new “Entrepreneur-in-Residence” program in which real live entrepreneurs with track records and direct ties to venture capital firms will evaluate and nurture new technologies at three different DOE laboratories until the technologies are ready for investors.” That clearly has been DoE EERE’s main mission for the last 5 years, and the Chu DoE has just continued that policy. Even top tier VC’s are used to ‘success’ rates of only 10-25%, and I’m doubtful that a federal bureaucracy’s VC successes would match those of the private sector. So we’ll see more Solyndra’s, and Congress should not be surprised. Congress has had plenty of times to alter DoE’s mission whenever Karsner testified to various congressional committees, which he did often during his term (as have his successors). It’s fine to look carefully at these kinds of failures, especially when such huge $$ are involved, but it’s irritating to see Congress taking its usual pious tone and blaming the most convenient victim instead of looking in the mirror. It would be nice to see the media put some proper perspective on this. I’m not sure the loan guarantee program is the best use of DoE alt energy funding, but it’s pretty obvious that there was widespread consensus in Congress and Bush and Obama administrations that LGs were something worth trying.
That is because loan guarantees is a good program. For example, when DOE approved a LG for a new nuke plant in Georgia; Obama was in a control room of nuke plant taking credit for the Bush program. Southern company has spent about a billion dollars so far and has put a couple thousand people to work but no LG money has been issued yet because the NRC has not yet issued a COL. The state of Georgia has approved the project.
The DOE did detailed due diligence, Nobody thinks Southern Company will default. The project will result in 2200 MWe of new capacity reducing the demand for NG benefiting all Americans. There are also a lot of American engineers work in Pittsburgh and Charlotte, NC working on the 4 new reactors of the same design we sold to China. Many of the ‘safety related’ components for the Chinese nuke plants will be manufactured in the US by companies with an ‘N’ stamp.
Many wind and solar farms have also been funded. I suspect that the people of Georgia will end with an asset that provides lower cost electricity for 60 years and the people of California will get more expensive and less reliable power but those were local choices.
The political problem for Obama is that neither he or DOE did due diligence on Solyndra. If you are going to personally endorse something, it is not hypocrisy when failure is used for political gain. It is politics.
The biggest fault that Obama has is that he is driven by agenda and is not focusing on the issues at hand. Even if you think solar is the greatest thing since sliced bread it is not an important issue in troubled economic times.
Poet Closes on Loan; Starts Construction.
http://www.consumerenergyrepor…..om/ticker/
First Abengoa; now Poet
The News is getting better.
coming into an election year I predict an increased number of mis-management allegations against the current administration et al. Solar is at critical mass and shouldnt require $.5B injections from the government to survive. In fact, had solyndra achieved what they were attempting we would have China dominating the manufacture of the new technology in 5 years and Solyndra would go then. Basically the government made a bet that solyndra would develop a new technology which would maybe benefit the cause but would inevitably be lost. I think tax dollar should be going to advances in health sciences, etc. and not to established industries for the sake of political gain.
See dustin they are not allegations when it comes to energy and the environment. Obama’s base had a bad case of BHS or Bush hatred syndrome. Bush made AGW a priority but knew that legislation for things like the Kyoto treaty were a lost cause. Obama is at war with the fossil industry but the people in the administration only have the mindset to be fight against energy without the skills to promote better choices.
Opps, here is an example how Silicon Valley can get money…crystal clear!
Mr Spinner, an energy investor and high-tech consultant, raised at least $500,000 for the President’s campaign before he was given a crucial job helping to oversee the energy loan guarantee program, it has been reported.
According to ABC News, Spinner wrote in emails made public yesterday: ‘How hard is this? What is he waiting for?
‘I have OVP [Office for the Vice President] and WH [White House] breathing down my neck on this.’
It has emerged that many of the emails were written days after Spinner pledged in an ethics agreement that he would ‘not participate in any discussion regarding any application involving [his wife's law firm] Wilson [Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati].’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..antee.html