A bit of that exploration is happening in the coverage of Solyndra’s collapse. In another piece for The Bay Citizen Glantz highlighted the fact that demand for clean energy has waned during recent economic turmoil, and that:
China’s low wages and generous subsidies for the solar industry have helped drive the price for solar cells down by 42 percent since January. According to a Department of Energy report released Wednesday, the US share of solar panel manufacturing fell from a peak of 43 percent in 1995 to just 7 percent last year.
[Update, 10:15 a.m.: On Friday, the Times had an article on the front of its Business section headlined, “China Benefits as U.S. Solar Industry Withers.” It went into greater depth on the trade rivalry between the two countries, presenting a number of interesting perspectives. For example, American solar companies “still have a technological edge over Chinese rivals, but seldom a cost advantage, according to industry analysts.” And some American energy companies feel that “it is cheap capital, not cheap labor, that gives Chinese companies the main competitive advantage.”
For a different perspective, one need only turn back to the Times’s Business section on Monday. There, another article reported that, “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.”]
A Tuesday New York Times article by Matthew Wald reported that there also were more basic technological concerns:
Solyndra’s design avoids the use of silicon, a commodity that was selling at very high prices in 2009 when the loan guarantee was approved but that has crashed since then.
The design also sought to cut costs with an innovative cylindrical design that reduced the labor required for installation. As the sun moves across the sky, the light hits a different facet of the cylinder. But the capital costs for manufacturing were high.
Regardless of the particular confluence of circumstances and choices that brought down Solyndra, the Obama administration is apparently staying the course. A number of articles quoted a blog post at the Department of Energy, which read:
We have always recognized that not every one of the innovative companies supported by our loans and loan guarantees would succeed, but we can’t stop investing in game-changing technologies that are key to America’s leadership in the global economy.
Likewise, White House spokesman Eric Schultz e-mailed the following comment to Bloomberg News: “While we are disappointed by this particular outcome, we continue to believe the clean-energy jobs race is one that America can, must and will win.”
It’ll be hard slog, to be sure and journalists should be skeptical of such anodyne statements. The question that Schultz should be answering is what the administration is going to do to realize its goals. Clearly, something needs to change.
To help the White House, and the public, figure out what that is, the media should keep hammering away at the green-jobs story. In addition to trumpeting the fact that there aren’t enough, however, reporters must investigate why. It’s the difference between covering a challenge and a pipe dream.
[Update, 10:15 a.m.: On August 26, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that the Department of Energy finalized a partial guarantee for an $852 million loan to support the development a 250 megawatt concentrating solar power facility in California that “will increase the nation’s currently installed CSP capacity by about 50 percent.” The solar thermal technology it uses is completely different from the photovoltaic panels manufactured by Solyndra. The relative merits of home efficiency projects versus utility-scale projects yet another angle for journalists to explore.]
Don't you guys understand -- THE UNITED STATES IS BANKRUPT!?!?
We have to get our finances in order first before we can afford "clean energy." Until then, it will be coal and oil and natural gas.
#1 Posted by Mike Robbins, CJR on Sat 3 Sep 2011 at 04:05 PM
NEWSFLASH: Nobody wants solar panels.
When you go to Walmart... You know what you don't see out front with the lawn mowers and new release Blu-rays? Solar panels.
Nobody wants electric cars. Not even with the gubmint doling out thousands of dollars in bribes to convince people to buy them. Nobody wants a car that takes hours to charge and goes 25 miles on 10 degree day (with no heat). Maybe that's why GM is selling less than 3500 Volts a year, huh?
Nobody really believes the global warming silliness, not even most of its proponents. Al Gore just bought an oceanfront home, for example. The meltwater from the polar caps isn't inundating Central Park. The ski resorts aren't going out of business.
The reason the solar companies are going under is simple - the misguided commie/liberal notion that meddling with free markets works to increase market efficiency. And now the taxpayers are on the hook for the utterly predictable failure of this stupidity.
From a scientific perspective, I think Curtis should be investigating the "greenness" of solar technology. How about all the rare metals that go into solar cell production? What does it cost the environment to extract, refine and ultimately dispose of these metals? What about the nasty acids that go into solar cells production? How much CO2 and SO2 gets released into the atmosphere? What about storage? Solar technology obviously requires huge storage facilities to deal with overnight and overcast conditions. Currently these storage technologies rely on lead acid batteries. How much does it cost the environment to produce lead? Or sulfuric acid? These batteries have limited lives. How much does it cost the environment to dispose of these batteries?
WHO says solar technology is "green" (besides commie/liberals)? HUH?
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 3 Sep 2011 at 09:48 PM
Just to let the respondents in on a secret: Mr Brainard's CJR column is about reporting accuracy and journalistic approaches and validity. If you have some issue about solar, walmart or US solvency, try some other location to do your whining and preaching. And btw, China seems to be doing really well with alt energy approaches due to low production costs, by way of US technology. Eventually they will have the brain trust needed to bypass the US entirely. So hang on to your coal, gas& oil. And no, lead acid energy storage is completely outmoded.
el Garee~
#3 Posted by el Garee~, CJR on Wed 7 Sep 2011 at 11:33 PM
Speaking of "journalistic approaches and validity", as I wrote previously, Curtis' readers would benefit for an investigation (from a scientific) perspective of "green" technology in general.
How much energy is expended in locating, extracting, refining, processing and ultimately disposing of the heavy metals and rare earths that go into "green" products?
How much CO2, SO2 and SO3 are released into the atmosphere producing the huge amount of acid required to process the electronic components used in solar cells and other "green" products?
As for storage systems, what about the lead acid storage systems? What happens to the lead after its ripped from mines and spent in storage batteries? What about lithium ion batteries? What's the cost to the environment of producing and ultimately disposing of these batteries? Or Ni/Cad batteries?
What about all the radioactive material released into the atmosphere by mines and refineries? What about the nickel smelters that denude vast swaths of land in Canada and Russia?
It was recently claimed by "Top Gear" that a study proved that the Prius contributes more pollution to the environment than a Land Rover does. True? Where's the story on this?
The readers would benefit from some actual reporting on this issue.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 07:26 AM