President Obama inspecting solar panels

There is no question that the Solydnra debacle had some questionable political and financial implications. When political and financially questionable activities abound we tend to call it a scandal. But the existence of any criminality in the solyndra breakdown, is as questionable as the choices that lead to the breakdown itself.

The viewpoints on this affair are diametric and mostly politically charged which clouds the issue with rhetoric and political posturing.

Solyndra was a cutting edge solar technology company based in California. Their product (solar panels mostly) was uniquely high-tech with a very complex design. This made the prices of their products somewhat uncompetitive, but the promise of their innovative design strategies drew attention and support from high places.

Specifically, the United States and California state government. Support from the government for Solyndra came in the form of hundred million dollar loans prior to its closure in 2010, and tax breaks favoring green technology companies. The Obama administration was ardent about supporting Solyndra publicly and financially, as part of the administrations efforts to support, incubate, and master green technology.

Dramatic shifts in the solar energy market made Solyndra’s already pricey products significantly less competitive, and eventually Solyndra found itself unable to cover production costs, and without a means of injecting capitcal.

So, Solyndra went down, and took with it hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars along with thousands of US jobs.

Detractors of the government support are calling the Solyndra deal “Chicago style scandal” , a not-so-subtle jab at the president and his administration. Opponents of the deal are suggesting that the deal was merely political and financial backscratching under the guise of green energy. Some have suggested that President Obama simply wanted to tout Solyndra as an example of his administrations environmentalism without forethought to the consequences of injecting huge amounts of taxpayer money into a risky company.

Others have countered by pointing out that ANY government support of promising green technology is inherently risky. The risks are necessary to gain rewards, and risks MUST be taken to displace industries like coal in any way shape or form.

In the comments section I hope you will offer your opinion on this issue, the risks v. rewards, the role of politics in green energy research, and whether you think there was foul play in the Solyndra breakdown.

Thanks !

tim main