Slashdot Mirror
Solar Company Folds After $0.5B In Subsidies
First time accepted submitter dusanv writes "Solyndra, a Silicon Valley solar energy firm, subsidized to the tune of $500 million and held as a 'gleaming example of green technology,' announced bankruptcy yesterday. 1,100 employees fired."
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that green technology is not profitable and therefore a big scam, or a modern religion if you will, with all of its guilt, shame and asking for money, let me state an opinion that might not be popular here: Maybe, just maybe, the subsidies was too low? I know what you think but let me play an evil's advocate for a second. How much the fresh air is worth to you? To your children? To your children's children? To your children's children's grandchildren? Well, you get the idea. And what about fresh water? What about cold weather? I am not saying that all of those things should be worth more than 500 billion to everyone but I suggest that we have to account for them in the business plans of companies developing green technology. We have to ask ourselves: Why do we develop green technology? How much money are we willing to waste? What sacrifices are we willing to make? What do we expect to get in return? Those are the most important questions that we should at least try to answer.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
Led, of course, by Salon's Andrew Leonard, for whom no amount of subsidy is ever enough, and no amount of state intervention can possibly suffice. The reality is far different, of course, and starts with the lousy energy density of solar; but we are dealing with a very heavily government-controlled "market" that is steadily eroding as subsidies decline. The myth of green jobs is something like promising to feed people with tasty barbecued unicorn ribs.
Dog is my co-pilot.
An experimental business in an emergent technology fails to establish itself in a collapsing economy. Read all about it...
Give me a break folks, them and a whole bunch of other companies both old and new... Stop trying to make.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Actually, no.
China's solar companies are doing well because they get *tremendous* subsidies, as is always the case for nascent, high tech industry.
if it weren't for massive government subsidies - paying for R&D costs directly, and providing a huge protected market mainly through the defense department - then the computer revolution which drove the 1990s boom WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
All you free market fantasists need to get that into your thick skulls - or, you could go love on Ayn Rand's island! Please do, so that we can run our country like sane people. In 10 years, when solar power is viable, it will be the Chinese who are reaping the benefits because free market fanatics in the US aren't willing to make the basic investments required.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
And this is a prime example of why government subsidies of production are a bad idea. I haven't firmly settled on a position with regards to federal funding for R&D (although certain examples, like sick shrimp running on treadmills, should be an obvious choice for budget cuts...), but trying to force adoption through subsidies only distorts the market, without adding any value.
In this case, the US Government effectively forced every US citizen to invest $1.60 in a company that had never been profitable and showed no prospects for profitability. The investment was not for development of technology that would make solar power economically viable, but rather it was for purchasing capital equipment for existing, uneconomic technology. The results were perfectly predictable. If no private investors see the value in the company, we should be thinking awful hard about whether it's a good idea to force them to invest in it anyway.
I would love to see solar power prove profitable, but such a goal will come as a result of research and development, not as a result of government subsidies for production of inefficient technology.
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
So your argument is this:
Even though this company was given a substantial advantage in the free market (some might say an unfair advantage), it was rejected. Other green companies were able to produce better results with fewer resources, and produced products at lower costs to consumers. The free market directed its support to those better, cheaper alternatives, effectively killing the company in the article. But to you that rejection is evidence that people are too stupid to buy what you think they should buy. Therefore the free market system failed, governement should fully finance companies like the one from the article and require the populace to consume it's products, while giving consumers no chance to support the better, cheaper alternatives....
Yeah, that's a very compelling argument against libertarianism and the free market....
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
The best argument I've ever heard against subsidies for Green technology was from a VC in Silicon Valley and the interview was in Scientific American a few months ago - and I can't find the damn article.
One thing that made this nation great in its heyday was this: We didn't have a bunch of hand wringers from libertarian think tanks getting in the way of progress. If we had, this country would never have achieved anything that couldn't safely return a profit within the next two quarters.
When there was a major goal to accomplish, government and industry got together and put together the taxpayer funded handouts it took to do the job. Whether it was gifting free land to railroads, building canals in Central America, providing major subsidies for air mail, creating massive socialist highway building programs to help auto makers, or hundreds of other things., they stepped up to the plate and said: Git 'er Done.