The scandal of Solyndra, a California based solar panal manufacturer came about when this company declared bankruptcy even after a $528 million in federal loan grants, laid off 1,100 workers, and was suspected of fraud by the FBI.  This scandal caused, according to the New York Times, “a highly partisan debate in Washington over the benefits or failings of Mr. Obama’s stimulus program and the wisdom of clean energy subsidies in general.”

The failure of Solyndra can be based off of a plethora of issues.  Although the design of the solar panels sought to cut cost with new cylindrical design that, while being innovative, also reduced the labor that was required for installation, the capital costs for manufacturing was still high along with the product and its success looking much better in the beginning design stages rather than when it hit the market.

What bothered the public most of all in the midst of this scandal was the governments involvement in it.  The loan guarantee of $535 million was the Obama administration’s first loan guarantee. “The administration, seeking to forge a “clean energy” economy and provide jobs in the face of a growing recession, picked the project partly because it was what government officials were then fond of calling “shovel ready” according to the New York Times.  Due to this blind faith in Solyndra the government allowed them to borrow from the Federal Financing Bank which is part of the Treasury Department.  So Solyndra was actually getting money directly from the government, which they collected $528 million of the $535 million promised before filing bankruptcy.

Although the end result for Solyndra was bad and damaged the public’s opinion of clean energy subsidies, it shouldn’t completely shift the public opinion of clean energy subsidies, not all are doomed to failure. As we have learned in extensive research we do need to find new forms of renewable energy for our world to last but since we are finding them that means that there will be “challenges of scaling up new technologies in tumultuous, unforgiving global markets,” according to the Huffington Post. As Mark Muro reported “it would be a serious mistake to over interpret regarding the Solyndra crack up, whether to generalize about the solar industry and cleantech or to broadly indict particular technology and development policies.”

Although pressure should be on the government to fully research and develop a plan with the company in question before giving out loans, our economy needs to be considered in these times as well, we should not forget the strides that have been made in clean energy thanks to subsidies from the government.  According to The Washington Post, “solar, wind, plug in vehicles- they’ve all benefited from billions of dollars in subsidies from Congress…as a result, many industries, like solar, have taken lengthy strides.” We cannot give up on funding clean energy altogether, perhaps we just need a better plan.

But according to a report from April 2012, clean energy subsidies are disappearing, possibly due to significant and public failures such as Solyndra.  By 2014 the subsides will shrink to $11.1 billion instead of the $44.3 billion they received in 2009, showing that clean energy subsidies are at a serious risk of disappearing almost all together. But thankfully people are not giving up on clean energy altogether and instead are looking for ways to fund them that don’t present such a potential damage to the economy, such as “feed in tariffs”, as seen in Germany’s green energy policy, in which the money given decreases over time which forces technology to keep improving in order to stay profitable.

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/clean-energy-subsidies-are-vanishing-what-should-replace-them/2012/04/18/gIQApCUYQT_blog.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-muro/solyndra-solar-bankruptcy-solar-power-_b_947046.html

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/solyndra/index.html

For our first lab experiment we were paired in groups, I ended up working in a group of three, to build a basic two-motor NXT car.  As someone who did not play with Lego’s too much as a child this seemed like a very daunting task.  But with the detailed instructions and two enthusiastic lab partners, this lab ended up turning up into a very enjoyable time.

To build our car we were given a kit and instructions to build a 2 motor car, with no light or touch sensors.  There were 17 required pieces, some pieces required different quantities though, so there was a lot to work with.  We were given a big box filled with a plethora of pieces and had to find all of the individual pieces required for the type of car we needed.  The first step was to put the battery into the NXT which was just a simple stick in procedure.  Using the double black connector pegs attached to the NXT we connected the motors on both sides.  Originally we attached the motors backwards so although it worked and was able to be mobile, once we realized and corrected our mistake it worked much better.  We then attached the support motors and the wheels.  Next were the front wheel assembly base and attachment.  When working with the little pieces, like the L beams, it was easy to get confused by the sizes but we were given a cheat sheet with a picture (with the correct measurements) so we could match up what was found in the box to the paper and then know exactly what the piece was. We then connected cables from ports A and C on the NXT to the motors and then connected the entire car to the computer with a USB cable.

On the computer we used the LabView program to operate the car.  This involved inputting different functions and commands to make the car perform different actions.  Once we completed the program, we saved LabView and sent the program directly to the NXT, so that the program could be executed without having the USB attached to it.  We were able to have our NXT drive in a circle with a 2 foot radius and then reverse the direction.  With LabView we were able to run the motor forwards, backwards, and even in a circle using different power levels.  It was very simple to change the program and the settings, with just a click of a button we were able to lower the power of one motor while increasing the other, the difficult part was hitting the orange button on the NXT once it started going!

We weren’t just playing with robot cars though, this experiment also showed us how to measure the distance the wheels traveled and the speed at which the car traveled. Then given a formula in class we were able to calculate our percent of error, all of our tests fell on or below the 20% limit that was given so overall our experiment was a success! These were our results:

Results of test 1: (1 sec run time)

Distance measured by ruler – 23/24 cm

Distance measured by program – 23 cm

Total rotations – 1.48

Velocity – .23 m/s

1% error

Results of test 2: (.5 seconds of run time)

Distance by ruler – 13cm

Distance by program – 11cm

Total rotations – .70

Velocity – .22 m/s

16% error

Results of Test 3: (.75 seconds)

Distance by ruler – 21 cm

Distance by program – 18cm

Rotations – 1.15

Velocity – .24 m/s

20% error

Results of Test 4: (1.25 seconds)

Distance by ruler – 33cm

Distance by program – 30cm

Rotations – 1.9

Velocity – .24 m/s

9% error

“U.S. automakers have until 2025 to raise the fuel economy on their cars and trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon…or face government fines.”  Jeff Green, writer for Business Week online, illustrates the difficult but necessary challenge facing the American auto industry.  With not only rising gas prices due to always increasing consumption but also air pollution, there is no doubt that new standards will benefit all of us.

It is thanks to President Obama’s new standards for the auto industry that brought about “the largest increase in mileage requirements since the government began regulating consumption of gasoline by cars in the 1970’s” (The New York Times). A few years past, when higher fuel economy standards were brought up, the executives of the industry went down to Washington to protest.  But as Mindy Lubber illustrated, “in 2008, while automakers plodded along with the same old gas-guzzling models as the price at the pump hit record highs, American consumers scrambled for more fuel efficient vehicles.”  As the auto industry saw how fuel efficiency was becoming more and more important in the mind of the consumer, they saw the benefits of fuel efficiency standards. Now the industry is standing beside the new standards and working together with the government in hopes of its success.

U.S. automakers are “already offering buyers a wider selection of more fuel efficient vehicles than ever before”, according to a 2012 article on Think Progress.  Auto companies have already discovered the popularity of smaller cars that are more fuel efficient and are now working more with gas electric hybrids and advancements in battery technology to provide buyers with the most fuel efficient vehicles.  According to the NY Times “these proposed standards can be met using well known technologies such as better engines, lower cost hybrids, and electric cars.”

Help with research and development for lower gas mileage is also coming from a surprising source; the Pentagon.  According to Business Week, “government researches at a new $60 million laboratory are road testing dozens of alternative fuel technologies for fighting vehicles, from converting body heat into electricity to perfecting fuel cells that transform hydrogen into power.”  The lab opened in April of 2012 in Warren, Michigan.  Once these experiments are perfected, they have no issue with sharing them with U.S. automakers in support of raising the fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.  To do this they are researching and working with parts of automobiles that drain energy like mufflers or radiators.  They also hope to take the engine power that’s wasted as exhaust heat, recapture it and use it to recharge batteries or run internal computers.

Not only will these new standards and developments in gas mileage help cut consumer expenses at the pump, reduce oil consumption, and help reduce air pollution but according the Think Progress new fuel mileage standards will create almost 700,000 new jobs.  The way that this works out is as follows as shown on Think Progress :

• Ford is accelerating development of its hybrid and electric vehicles by bringing the design and production of key components in-house, a $135 million investment.
• Ford has already doubled the size of its team working on forward-looking energy technologies – over 1,000 engineers and technicians – and plans to double size of that team again by 2015.
• Honda plans to hire 300 more workers next year at its Greensburg, Ind., plant, which is slated to start producing the Civic Hybrid.
• Volkswagen is adding a third shift at its Tenn., plant, to boost production of its fuel-efficient Passat.
• Continental, a supplier of fuel-efficient turbo chargers to Ford’s 2014 Focus, is steadily pursuing electrification technologies and sees them as a “long-term investment.”

As US News illustrates, “so far, the new mileage rules have generated tangible benefits for consumers, with few of the downsides opponents have predicted.” It is due to advanced transmissions, lighter components, advanced power trains, gas electric hybrids, advances in battery technology, better engines, alternative fuel models, and electric cars  that, “since 2007, the average fuel economy of cars purchased has risen from 20.1 miles per gallon to 23.6 mpg” (US NEWS).  Based off of all of this research it seems clear that the new standards in increased gas mileage is a win-win for everyone that seems to be running smoothly so far.

Sources:

Green, Jeff. “Better Gas Mileage, Thanks to Pentagon.” Business Week. 17 May, 2012.

Lubber, Mindy. “Why Fuel Mileage Standards Will Benefit The Auto Industry and Create Nearly 700,000 New Jobs.” Think Progress. 27 August 2012.

Newman, Rick. “Tough Government Gas Mileage Rules Good for Drivers, Auto Industry.” US News. 27 August 2012.

Vlasic, Bill. “Carmakers Back Strict New Rules for Gas Mileage.” The New York Times. 28 July 2011.