Obama's Energy Sec is either an IDIOT or a LIAR

Forums: Politics, Energy, Idiot-Liar
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

Taking responsibility for the loss of $535 million in taxpayer money in a loan to Solyndra, the California solar company that went bankrupt last September, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a House committee Thursday the loss was “extremely unfortunate,” but was due neither to incompetence by his department, nor to a politically-motivated decision to grant the loan.
Instead, Chu said, the reason Solyndra went bankrupt was an unexpected change in market conditions that blindsided his department.
“The price of solar modules plummeted” due to a drop in demand and the global market became saturated with subsidized products from China and other countries.
“The price of solar panels dropped precipitously … In a single year, it dropped by 40 percent,” he told Rep. Diana DeGette, D- Colo. “There was a large production ramping up, namely in China and secondly, there was a softening in Europe – a lot of (government) subsidies were decreasing and demand was softening.”
Later in the hearing, he told Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Rep. Fred Upton, R- Mich., that “when the bottom of a market falls out, and the price of solar (panels) decreases by 70 percent in two-and-a-half years, that was totally unexpected … This company and several others got caught in a very bad tsunami.”

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/17/8857477-chu-solyndra-demise-due-to-totally-unexpected-change-in-market

Cost of Solar Panels Expected To Plummet

Written by Jozef Winter 03/06/08

Quote:

Solar photovoltaics have their challenges, from shortages of silicon to the sheer cost of purchasing and installing solar panels, but a new report from the Prometheus Institute says that both these problems will be addressed over the next few years, leading to cheaper solar and an abundance of capacity to produce.

Based on their research, Travis Bradford, president of the Institute, says that prices for traditional silicon-based panels should fall from $3.66 per watt (2007 figures) to $2.14 per watt in 2010, and more impressively, thin-film PV should go to $1.81 per watt from $2.96. When coal, currently the least expensive source of power, is around $2.10 per watt to generate*, the expected drop in price for solar will make it far more competitive.

Any news that solar is becoming more affordable is great as it will encourage more individuals to install them at home, and businesses to do likewise, either to offset their electricity consumption or installing them in a for-profit initiative. The report, however, also highlights an interesting figure - and companies who are currently building silicon-producing facilities that will come online in the next couple of years, should pay attention: The current global production capacity for silicon and thin-film panels is around 3.14 gigawatts, but will hit 12.36 gigawatts in 2010. That's an increase of just under 400%, an enormous amount that is sure to be welcomed by the environmental community.The demand, however, is only expected to be 6.76 gigawatts, up from 2.94 gigawatts in 2007, leaving over 5 gigawatts of unused capacity. Hopefully this will drive prices further down, resulting in greater demand, but this may have already been reflected in the statistics.

http://www.ecogeek.org/solar-power/1704

It has been reported else where that Solyndra was never close to a cost of production that would have allowed for profits. Secretary Chu is attempting a snow job here, as I take it on faith that Obama would not appoint an idiot.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 2,182 • Replies: 21

Quote:

Prices of solar panels are falling so fast that by 2013 they will be half of what they cost in 2009, according to a report from Ernst & Young that argues solar electricity could play "an important role" in meeting the UK's renewable energy targets.

The average one-off installation cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels has already dropped from more than $2 (£1.23) per unit of generating capacity in 2009 to about $1.50 in 2011. Based on broker reports and industry analysis, the report forecasts that those rates of decline will continue, with prices falling close to the $1 mark in 2013

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/20/solar-panel-price-drop

Now compare the price drop in solar to the price drops we see all the time in electronics as production and consumption ramp up and then tell me that a 70% drop between 2005 and 2011 could not have been predicted. Hell, take a look at the price drop of digital TV's over just the last two years....tv makers would love to the pricing power that solar panel makers have.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

You do realize Chu wasn't the Energy Sec in 2005, don't you?

Or is your history as bad as your math?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

You do realize Chu wasn't the Energy Sec in 2005, don't you?

Or is your history as bad as your math?

Nothing I said assumes or states that he was. Are you lost?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Obama's Energy Sec is either an IDIOT or a LIAR

Since he wasn't the Energy Sec in 2005 and the loan wasn't given in 2005 then you are doing what by bringing up 2005?

Or should we rename the thread "hawkeye10 is an IDIOT or a LIAR".

You have presented no evidence that anyone predicted a 70% drop in 2-1/2 years. Instead you present evidence of one man that predicted a 40% drop over that time period. That doesn't make the Energy Sec a liar.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Obama's Energy Sec is either an IDIOT or a LIAR

Since he wasn't the Energy Sec in 2005 and the loan wasn't given in 2005 then you are doing what by bringing up 2005?

Or should we rename the thread "hawkeye10 is an IDIOT or a LIAR".

You have presented no evidence that anyone predicted a 70% drop in 2-1/2 years. Instead you present evidence of one man that predicted a 40% drop over that time period. That doesn't make the Energy Sec a liar.

The loan was march 2009....your bitch ought to be with CHU for trying to claim that the lowering of solar panel prices between 2005 and 2011 gets the Obama administration off the hook for a bad loan made in 2009. It was very obvious by 2009 what was happening with prices, and that this firm could not compete because of their production costs, we should be able to expect better from an Obama Cabinet Secretary than the old throwing sand in the eyes dodge.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

..you bitch ought to be with CHU for trying to claim that the lowering of solar panel prices between 2005 and 2011 gets the Obama administration off the hook for a bad loan made in 2009.

When did I make that claim?

What a load of crock hawkeye.

Prices do NOT move in one direction only. The drop previously doesn't mean the price will always go down.
Look at your claims about the price of gold if you don't believe me.
Look at the price of gas for f*** sake.

The 40% drop in one year wasn't predicted.

0 Replies

Price drops in electronics are irrelevant to anything except electronics. For example, has the price of cars dropped similarly in the last six years, even though cars use increasing quantities of electronics? No, of course not. Nor has anything else. Electical power generation isn't subject to the same technological constraints that elecronics are--solar has been decreasing SLOWLY for years, but it hasn't been rapid, and eveyone has known that. The Chinese government, I might add, has in fact made unprecedented really huge investments in the field, buying up some of the largest producers and ramping up their maufacturing capacity and subsidizing their companies in an attempt to dominate the world market in what they see as a dominant industry in world energy production during the rest of this century. Chu is right about that--that wasn't predictable and it's had an effect on non-Chinese companies, including ours.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Secretary Chu is attempting a snow job here, as I take it on faith that Obama would not appoint an idiot.

Well, the Nobel Prize committee didn't think Chu was an idiot, that's for sure.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Price drops in electronics are irrelevant to anything except electronics.

Solar panels use many of the same materials and production methods as electronics, it is logical to assume that we will see the same efficiencies in production as volume increases as we see with electronics.

Quote:

The Chinese government, I might add, has in fact made unprecedented really huge investments in the field,

Which we knew about before the loan was made..the Chinese factories were not online at that point but we knew that they were coming. Solyndra was not price competitive before the Chinese ramped up, so they certainly were not going to be after. Solyndra has a unigue technology which I am sure looked great on PowerPoint, but they never had a business model that worked, because costs were too high. This is a big thing to overlook when one is handing out $500 + million loans.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Solar panels use many of the same materials and production methods as electronics, it is logical to assume that we will see the same efficiencies in production as volume increases as we see with electronics.

That shows how little you know about electronics or solar energy.

Electronics create efficiencies by requiring fewer materials to make more transistors. They use less energy as they get smaller.

Solar panels can't take in more energy when they get smaller. They are restricted by the amount of sunlight per square inch. They can not become more than 100% efficient. You can never reduce a solar panel by half and get as much energy as a larger one once you hit a certain efficiency. The other problem you have is that when you make a panel more energy efficient you have to INCREASE the amount of copper used because more amps requires larger wires for carrying that increased electricity.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Electronics create efficiencies by requiring fewer materials to make more transistors.

Even more by requiring fewer man hours per unit to produce.

Quote:

They use less energy as they get smaller.

Which is competely irrelevant to production costs... why do you look so desperate when trying to make your case?

Quote:

Solar panels can't take in more energy when they get smaller

They have gotten much smaller, use much less material now, which you can measure by putting on the scale some new panels and some old panels.

Quote:

when you make a panel more energy efficient you have to INCREASE the amount of copper used because more amps requires larger wires for carrying that increased electricity.

Solar panel production costs are measured in cost per watt produced, as such the copper required to transmit the power is exactly the same, because in both cases the unit being transmitted is 1 watt. Here again you look desperate, because you have felt the need to resort to throwing sand.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Even more by requiring fewer man hours per unit to produce.

ROFLMAO.. It's been several generations of chips that have been made by machines. More transistors on chip means less to assemble by machine later.

Quote:

Which is competely irrelevant to production costs... why do you look so desperate when trying to make your case?

It's completely relevant because solar panels do the OPPOSITE.

Quote:

They have gotten much smaller, use much less material now, which you can measure by putting on the scale some new panels and some old panels.

Of course they have gotten smaller. But there are very real limits. Just as there are limits to how small they can make transistors on chips. The difference is chips are limited by how energy efficient you can make them. Solar panels are limited by the total energy per sq inch from the sun. The limit for solar panels is the required wire size to carry the energy. You have to increase that as you increase efficiency and then you reach the limit of the energy produced by the sun. You can't make the chips smaller in area on solar panels. You can only make them thinner but that is quickly restricted because of the connections you have to make. You can't make the electrical pathways smaller because THAT reduces efficiency.

Quote:

Solar panel production costs are measured in cost per watt produced, as such the copper required to transmit the power is exactly the same, because in both cases the unit being transmitted is 1 watt.

Yeah? And? The panel itself has to move the electricity. You can't reduce wire size and move more electricity. The only one throwing sand is you hawkeye. And the silicone you are throwing doesn't matter much when it comes to moving electricity because you can't throw away the copper.

1 Reply

@parados,

why are you arguing with an idiot?

1 Reply

@kuvasz,

kuvasz wrote:

why are you arguing with an idiot?

Calling the messenger an idiot does not make the facts go away, jsyk...

0 Replies

You're not just a messenger--you're interpreting a message which is rather selective in what it presents. It's your interpretation that people think sucks.
And I might add, people have been expecting the cost of solar electricity to plummet soon for at least the last thirty years that I know of, and making similar predictions to the one youcite. And over those thirty years it has just dropped slowly. This is the first time there has actually been such a sharp drop. So it was not something really foreseeable.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You're not just a messenger--you're interpreting a message which is rather selective in what it presents. It's your interpretation that people think sucks.

The upset over this loan has had legs, it would behove you to listen to guys like me who have some understanding as to why this has been the case.

0 Replies

You mean guys who will use any weak reason they can find, no matter how flimsy, to try to get at Obama?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You mean guys who will use any weak reason they can find, no matter how flimsy, to try to get at Obama?

feel free to attempt to come up with a fact based argument for these attempts of the government to play energy venture capitalist that does not end up painting Obama as a damn fool at best, and a liar at worst.

0 Replies

We already have. And I might add China already has been doing itand it worked well for them (for example, China gov. venture capital ;pretty much dominates the market for the next generation of cleaner, more efficient coal power, super ultracritica; plants (that's the name,silly though it is). They've built working plants cheaper than we can build ordingary coal plants, while Bush-subsidized American energy companies still don't even have proof-of-concept plants going) Government's just like private industry doing it, sometimes you break even, sometimes you win big, sometimes you lose

0 Replies

Obama's Energy Sec is either an IDIOT or a LIAR

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know