Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Potential Energy


Kevin Bullis is Technology Review’s energy editor.

Recent Posts

Blog Topics

Recent Comments

  • DJTal : ........ Apparently the people of Dubai don't get the Flintstones humour .......... but the...
  • gabrielg01 : easy answer: both are immoral.
  • skingw : in your link of logic, one missing part is the people who happily uses one or two nice SUV  while...
  • ... : This measure would only be needed while there were still combustion engine vehicles on the roads....
  • gabrielg01 : This seems very unfair. Most hybrid vehicles on the road today, when moving at low speeds use...
  • gabrielg01 : So, Masdar the zero emission project will be ok, because Abu Dhabi's oil money can finance the...
  • jrd1415 : Quiet is good, don't screw it up.  Profquatermass got it right, with just the sort of creative...
  • dmm : I have never understood why EVERY car horn doesn't have a "hey you" mode, to be used to politely...
  • Cheetahman : A new open standard is needed. This standard should allow cars to share information with cars...
  • mthomason : Just imagine you're in bumper-to-bumper traffic on the freeway and everyone's EV was...
Advertisement
Monday, March 23, 2009

DOE Finally Issues Solar Loan Guarantee

The guarantee could help Solyndra, a solar cell company, scale-up production.
By Kevin Bullis

The Department of Energy has finally offered a renewable-energy company one of its long awaited loan guarantees. On Friday, the DOE offered Solyndra, a company that makes cylindrical solar cells for commercial rooftops, a loan guarantee of $535 million, designed to allow the company to raise money to build a factory.

Congress approved loan guarantees for energy companies in 2005 and the DOE is only now getting around to offering them. The guarantee for Solyndra is supported by this year's stimulus bill, and is part of the new Energy Secretary Steven Chu's effort to speed things up.

Many experts consider loan guarantees important for getting new technologies from the prototype and pilot stage into mass production. Especially for energy companies, which require large amounts of capital, getting the first commercial-scale production facility built can be a challenge. Few financiers are willing to hand out large amounts of money for an unproven technology, and the loan guarantees can take away that risk.

Others are concerned that the loan guarantees involve relying on the government to pick winning technologies. The government has often chosen poorly, perhaps most famously with a scheme to produce synthetic fuel after oil crises in the 1970s.

What do you think? Are the DOE loan guarantees a good move?

Comments

  • Loans and grants
    Loaning, granting, or whatever the flavor of the day term is, money has always been dolled out for research.  Especially when the end result can have a military and strategic application.  This one may even put a few people back to work.  And who knows, the DOE may be looking down the road, thinking oil politics and energy independence. 
    Rate this comment: 12345

    lasertekk
    03/23/2009
    Posts:78
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Million, not Billion
    I think it is $535 million. May be it is just a typo or may be I am wrong.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    gp011
    03/23/2009
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: Million, not Billion
      Clearly you are correct. I thought the same thing. Then I checked the overall amount of loan guarantees in the program. There is not room for this number to be of the order of magnitude claimed (most likely claimed erroneously through typo rather than erroneously through false belief)
      Rate this comment: 12345

      cripdyke
      03/23/2009
      Posts:17
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
    • Re: Million, not Billion
      It's been corrected. It was a typo.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Kevin Bullis
      03/23/2009
      Posts:92
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Govt notoriously bad at picking winners; Ethanol from corn - never ending subsidies
    Governments (politicians) are notoriously poor at picking winners.

    What's worse, once a group has its snout in the taxpayers pocket, they are extraordinarily difficult to terminate.  They develop lobbying efforts to maintain their perk(s).

    Just look at the ongoing absurdity of Ethanol from Corn.
    Higher food prices
    Higher gasoline prices
    Higher taxes / deficits
    Lower MPG
    Ethanol into gasoline mandates
    Tariffs on Ethanol imports

    Economically indefensible.

    Yet, it goes on.
    Corn state Senators.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    nekote
    03/24/2009
    Posts:139
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Alternative approach
    Instead of funding the solar plant with grant money, the feds should have built their own poly-sil plant and manufactured high quality ingots that could be wholesaled out to solar cell manufacturers. That way they can flood the market with the raw components for cell manufacturing. If a solar cell firm decided to build their own, it's done at their expense and risk - not the taxpayers. In the meantime, the ingots could be stored and sold later of there are no takers or any new business which wants ot get into the solar cell field could buy these from the US to keep startup costs cheap till such time they're self sufficient.

    Finally - there should also be some type of recycling service established up front so old solar systems can be recycled and new ingot materials collected for refurbishment.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    mkogrady
    03/25/2009
    Posts:206
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Govt. not good at choosing
    All governments have a terrible record at choosing winners.  Solar technology will be no different.

    I recommend we give the money to home owners who install solar solutions in the next two years.  To start the discussion how about a tax refund of $4 per installed, demonstrated, peak watt output installed and attached to the grid in the next 24 months claimable on your income tax with a proof of performance from an independent energy auditor or payment from the utility that accepts the electricity.

    One advantage of this approach is you would get all tax payers talking about the alternatives.  Another is that these home owners would employ construction workers installing all this stuff.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    georgeheintz...
    03/25/2009
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • Go Steve Chu
    If Dr. Steve Chu is picking the winners, they probably really will be winners. First I've heard of this company though.

    Amazing that the Bush Gang managed to delay this from 2005, staving off competition with beloved Peabody Coal.

    Apparently the law that you have to flunk math to be a reporter even applies to MIT-TR. If you're having trouble with Millions vs Billions, spend some time playing quiz games at Gadzillion.org.
    Hint: A million is $0.003 per American. A billion is $3.33 per American. So this investment amounts to about $1.50 per American- small change for a technology that very likely will make your electricity cheaper, and substantially reduce the cost of adapting to climate change.

    This will have more impact than hiring a few people- it will very likely start producing energy supply cheaper than coal-- and that get a trillion dollar market rolling. But the main savings, if we make renewables cheaper than coal, is in cities. We have lots of coastal cities left after New Orleans, but they are all at risk, and will be very expensive to replace. You don't get much infrastructure for $500 million...
    Rate this comment: 12345

    cypherpunk
    03/25/2009
    Posts:3
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
Advertisement

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
•  Subscribe
Save 36%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
» Gift Subscription
» Digital Subscription
» Reprints, Back Issues
» Subscribe
» Table of Contents
» MIT News

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.