Guest Commentary: What If Solyndra Solar Had Been Made in China?

August 21, 2012 :

By Yann Brandt

Governor Mitt Romney visited the former headquarters of Solyndra. For so many of us in the solar industry, Solyndra has become the topic we never want to hear about again. But if we let politicians and solar deniers sidestep the truth or ignore the facts then we as the solar industry are letting them win.

To me Solyndra exemplifies something different — not so much a story of technological innovation that moved past the commodity pricing of silicon but moreso the innovation of the rooftop solar energy system.  As an installer, Solyndra changed the way rooftop solar was estimated, designed and installed.  The racking was a part of the system, the wiring was basically integrated, and it took advantage of the rooftop environment.

Labor costs were cut in half and BOS product needs were reduced.  Because of Solyndra products, high-performance roof systems were elevated to a new level. The folks at WalMart can attest that just prior to the demise of Solyndra in mid-2011, RFPs were submitted to WalMart that were very competitive at well below $3/watt.

So the purpose of the post is to ask a simple question. What if Solyndra were made in China? The U.S. government issues loan guarantees of $535 million to Solyndra in addition to more than $1 billion of venture capital investment.  In the end, Solyndra was not able to make it work and had to file for bankruptcy.  It was a disappointment for so many of us that applaud innovation and advancements in the solar industry.  It was also a loss for many of my solar friends that were employed by Solyndra.  It has been almost a year since the bankruptcy announcement and the question remains, could the United States have done more, or would it have been a net negative for the taxpayer?

I have often thought that the founders of Solyndra would have been better off and the solar industry would have been better off if Solyndra had been founded in China.  Put into context of this spring’s announcement of tariffs placed on Chinese solar companies, I am no longer in doubt of that thought.  Solyndra would have most likely benefitted by much more access to capital than it did in the United States.  This graph courtesy of Climate Progress was published shortly after the Solyndra announcement.

Image

The U.S. political system likes the talking points of domestic energy production but remains infatuated with the manufacturing aspects of energy production.  Why does our solar industry focus have to be on manufacturing? The majority of U.S. solar jobs are not in manufacturing but in sales, development and support functions that bring the long term benefits of solar energy to consumers all over the Country.

In retrospect, imagine if the timeline would have been different and Solyndra was founded in China.  The graph above would most likely include Chinese Development Capital for Solyndra and last week’s tariffs would have been levied on Solyndra, made in China, as well.  The contrast would be extraordinary if my theory is right.  In the end, the question I ask you is this: Would the solar industry have been better off if Solyndra had been made in China?

Brandt is the president and chief executive officer of Braya Solar, a consulting and project management firm which continues to lower the project costs while representing the PV system owner.  Ensuring the needs for risk, bankability, longevity, schedule and budget of the project are met, Braya’s leadership delivers customized project solutions to developers and investors. 

  • PFR

    This article is a great example of how salespeople can imbue a product with false attributes in order to pitch it effectively. It is clear to anyone who understands the mechanics and the intrinsic production feasibility requirements that are used to determine solar project viability, that using a less effective product (Solyndria) that costs less to install per square foot (very debatable) does not mean that it will be preferable. These systems did not require less Balance Of Systems equipment. per delivered watt of AC. They do not require less installation time per watt of delivered AC. They require significantly more square footage of array, per delivered watt of AC. They require significantly more infrastructure materials, per watt of delivered AC. These are the only important requirements.
    If Solyndra collectors (or any other brand) were cheap enough, they could have been competitive. But to sell below cost, in order to gain market share, and in hopes that manufacturing cost will go down eventually, is a very risky capital venture. That is what new ventures often do. It was not a good concept, IMHO. I’m a professional Solar Builder.

    Jim in Seattle is very misguided in his analysis. Sticking to Constitutional mandated expenses would mean no interstate, no hospitals, no schools, no medical research, and especially, no energy policy. That kind of moronic drivel is for Republicans, evidently. The fact is that Policy is created by Congress. Vote for policy the next time you vote. You will find that neither Republicans or Democrats want to get off the teat. The military industrial complex has controlled the lions share of the tax revenue base for the last 50 years, and shows no signs of letting go. The political machine that produces foreign policy is intact, whether directed by Democratics or Republicans. So don’t hate the government, Jim. That’s just not productive. Vote for change. Vote for a politician who builds our countries infrastructure, not sends soldiers to occupy a desert were most of the citizens hate us, and the money it takes to run that operation makes millionares by the thousands. Who is that politician? I don’t see one running for president.

  • Jim in Seattle

    Get Federal funding out of private enterprise altogether. Too many “nice to have” things to spend money on in this world, but there’s not enough of it to fund them all. Stick to essential Constitution-mandated expenses and cut the Solyndras and GMs off of the govt teat.
    A side note: many of this nation’s poor would be quite eager to know the connection of how Obama could funnel over 1/2 Billion to his donors in Solyndra. Or is the article just exaggerating this number? Just where did all that money go? 1/2 Billion divided by 1000 workers would give them all a $535,000 apiece. I’m sure THAT didn’t happen. So what DID happen? HMMM?

  • Cliff, Solar Man

    First of all, I think the Solyndra concept was very valid at the time they started, and investing in the technology was a sound decision. Basically, the price of silicon was very high at the time (early 2000″s) and solar panels cost a lot per watt. A fundamental issue was that the tube concept eliminated the extensive sub-structure needed to support a panelized solar system which was expensive, or restrictive, or made solar simply not feasible on a given building or site. The Solyndra system was simply placed on the roof with minimal attachments. There was nothing for the wind to get under. Having installed or designed close to 300 systems, many large, the benefit was immediately obvious. Further, If we, the USA were to implement solar in a large way, (i.e. the million rooftops initiative)the Solyndra solution was very attractive.
    The falling from grace for Solyndra started when the price of raw silicon dropped dramatically. Coupled with dramatic Chinese incentives for their manufacturers, the price for “slab” solar panels dropped by 50% between 2004 and 2010. Solyndra struggeled with yield problems, manufacturing problems, and probably some self induced problems, but I believe the concept of thin-film tubes solving the wind uplift and structural problems with installations was sound. Regardless of the Republican mantra of a failed investment, the concept was not a failure. Further, I think the concept will resurface. Further, when I compare a failed $500M investment with a continued $5B subsidy for oil companies, who is kidding whom?
    The idea that China may of been better than the US for production is questionable. The production process, when perfected, will be highly automated so manual labor should not, in my opinion be a big price driver. The idea that Chinese investment might of been better for Solyndra is definitely the discussion point. As the article makes clear, China has fully supported their solar industry, with Billions invested. But I still ask, why not in the US, once a leader in Solar, now largely relegated to “left behind” in this growing and necessary field? The answer is self evident: with no Energy Policy, no Transportation policy, underfunded education, and the climate deniers holding the government hostage, of course we cannot start to address the real issues of jobs, education, energy, and heaven forbid, global climate change.