Posts Tagged by Solyndra
Clean Energy Is Good, Exploiting It Isn’t
| November 18, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Business |
At the risk of stating the obvious, there have been huge mistakes made in governments’ promotion of renewables. But who should be surprised by that? Just because clean energy is a good thing doesn’t mean that there won’t be bad (greedy, corrupt) means taken to extract profit while screwing it up.
This article in The Economist gets at this central point, and concludes with some wisdom:
There is much that governments can do to encourage such progress in the future without repeating the mistakes of the past. … They should remove subsidies for technologies that compete with solar. … Above all they must fix a price of carbon that gives innovators the confidence that competing with fossil fuels for the long term will be a rewarding, and perhaps hugely profitable, undertaking. If politics prevent them from setting a substantial carbon price, they might consider requiring utilities to have a carbon-free component to their generating portfolios, as happens in many American states. But that needs to be open to all carbon-free technologies, not just the ones that the politicians like, so that the most efficient can prosper.
Hybrid of Public/Private Financing for Renewables
| March 8, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Business |
I wrote not too long ago about the huge, long-term role that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), as part of the Department of Energy, plays in supporting the development of clean energy technologies. Their work with solar energy leader Solyndra is a perfect example of a case in which this public support made it possible for a private company to raise critically important addition capital, by preventing their initial private investors from getting scared away. At a certain point, new (very large) rounds of cash were required to get the company to its next level. As I recall, NREL supported this effort to the tune of over $700 million — and this robust commitment showed investors that they weren’t alone in their belief that the company was on the right track.
But not every company that asks for money receives any at all — let alone $700 million. So exactly how does this process work? How fair is it? What criteria are most important? What types of companies are favored over others, and why? Are more mature renewables technologies, like photovoltaics (in which Solyndra plays), favored over newer ideas? (Solyndra has a very well proven breakthrough in deployment of CIGS (copper indium gallium (di) selenide), generating a significant leap in PV efficiencies and reduction in costs).
Unfortunately, it’s not clear. I suppose it’s not supposed to be. Take solar thermal/CSP (concentrated solar power) as an example of a new technology. Technologies like PV and wind have a several-decade head-start over CSP. When I interviewed industry leader Ausra‘s founder Dr. David Mills for my book on renewables, he told me that Ausra had gotten to the second round in one of these mega-contests in which the DoE selects its favorites to back, but that they didn’t make the finals. When I asked if he resented their decision, he — perhaps simply out of good sportsmanship and professional courtesy — said that he didn’t, and told me that he’ll simply try again another time.
I can’t count all the people who have asked us for our insights at 2GreenEnergy on this matter — and I regret that all I can turn up are anecdotal incidents like these. I ask readers to share their own experiences with this process so that all my learn. Thanks.
An Engineer Comments on "Renewable Energy and Basic Physics"
| November 21, 2009 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
![](http://i708.photobucket.com/albums/ww83/craigshields/Parabolic_trough_solar_thermal_elec.jpg "An Engineer Comments on "Renewable Energy and Basic Physics"")
My friend Geoffrey Nicholson comments my post “Renewable Energy and Basic Physics”:
Craig, I couldn’t agree more.
Other than geothermal energy, all the other sources of energy available to us originally came from solar energy and with a rather lossy process. Petrochemical from solar growing primordial goo. Hydrokenetic from solar driven convection. Wind from solar convection with a bit of coriolis effect. Water from lightning from solar convection. Wood and alcohol from solar energized green growy things.
Gas turbines can be around 50% efficient burning fuel but, again, how efficient is the production and transportation of the fuel?
Steam turbines a bit more efficient.
Gasoline engines about half as efficient as turbines with Diesels a bit more efficient that gasoline.
Stirling engines are quite efficient but pound for pound don’t produce much work.
Interestingly, hydrogen fueled aircraft could be more efficient than kerosine since the specific weight of hydrogen is less than gas but the design of the aircraft would have to change dramatically since the specific volume of hydrogen is greater. Fat planes would result that would probably fly slower than today’s aircraft. Again, how would the hydrogen be produced?
The idea of collecting solar energy from the upper surfaces of already constructed buildings seems like the least intrusive and most efficient method to utilized light, in my opinion. It doesn’t shade the natural ecosystem and collects/distributes the energy where humans need it.
What do you think?”
To which I respond:
Thanks, Geoff. Everything you write here is true, as far as I understand. PV on rooftops makes a great deal of sense. The costs and coming down, the efficiencies are going up, and the overall engineering is getting increasing clever. See my post on California-based Solyndra as an example.
The only piece you’re missing, I feel, is solar thermal / concentrated solar power (CSP) as described at the bottom of the post.
Thanks for writing!
Solyndra – Renewable Energy Cinderella Story
| September 16, 2009 | Posted by Craig Shields under Photo-voltaics |
Dr. Kelly Truman was good enough to update me on what I have to call a textbook success of the business he started with his partner CEO Chris Gronot. Solyndra, a venture-capitalized photo-voltaics company, is based in Fremont, CA — and seems to have done essentially everything right. And that starts with the company’s proprietary PV technology, using cylindrically shaped elements coated with the semiconductor copper indium gallium (di)selenide (or CIGS), which is perfect for large, low-slope roofs, and is targeted mainly to commercial buildings.
There are several features of this technology and its implementation that have come together to form a highly differentiated product that is making a real name for itself around the world in a period of time that is, relative to other similar ventures, unbelievably short. First, because wind blowing through the elements tends to hold the installation on the roof (rather than blow it way) the system can be put in place very easily, quickly, and inexpensively with no penetration of the rooftop itself. Also, CIGS deployed in cylindrical elements results in 25% to 100% more power than conventional thin-film technology installed onto equivalent roofs.
As a business consultant, I’ve lived through dozens of stories of venture-capitalized start-ups, and I have to say that Kelly’s narration of the company’s history makes it sound – to me at least — like one of the smoothest in VC history. The company received its initial venture funding in 2005 and went about the business of building prototypes, working with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) which provided the equipment and technology for deposition. Soon the technology was demonstrated, the technical milestones were reached, beta customer feedback was positive – and actually serendipitously helpful; customers would often provide constructive input that none of the principles had thought of — e.g., “Do you realize that this could be used for — (some new application)?”
But the good news goes on: Solyndra took over a facility that Seagate (the hard disk-drive manufacturer) had abandoned when they took their operations overseas, and smoothly completed its third-party testing, validating not only the energy efficiency of its products, but also their seismic and wind readiness. By mid-2008 the first volume customer shipments were coming off the loading docks, and the company has grown in revenue in every subsequent quarter.
Looking for some plot twist or at least some conflict to make this story more interesting, I asked if investors getting antsy for a liquidity event, like an IPO on an acquisition by a publicly traded company. “No,” Kelly says, “They’re wonderfully patient. They know we’re in this to make a real difference against the reality of global warming, and that will require some time for growth. To give you an idea of their patience, we received a nine-figure from the DoE which required us to put up 27%. Even in this financial climate, our investors made sure this happened.”
Kelly Truman and I don’t know one another outside of this one-time encounter, and so I didn’t feel it was my place to ask anything else. When the interview was over, I politely thanked him and hung up. But I have to admit that I was wondering: Do his kids have naturally straight teeth? Are they headed for Ivy League colleges on full academic scholarships? I somehow feel that I want to hang out with Kelly, as he’s obviously doing a great number of things right.
I’m kidding here, of course. What I really mean is this: congratulations.
