Solyndra

I went to a pretty exciting conference last week. One that pushed past the guessing game of a “Carbon Constrained Future” we’ve had for the past fifteen years. The features of that future have begun to take shape through regulation and permit limits. The conference was focused on maneuvering within that future and still providing electricity reliably. 

It tackled the nuts and bolts of carbon sequestration and cleaner coal paradigms, and I also got to listen in on presentations about biomass systems, methane generators, and compressed-air energy storage systems.

It was hard to grab a coffee at break or make small talk with your conference table neighbor without the word Solyndra popping up. The conference occurred at the same time that Secretary of Energy Steven Chu was summoned to the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations subcommittee to explain the details behind the $535 million in loan guarantees to the now bankrupt solar panel manufacturer Solyndra.

Clean energy technologies are more of an emerging market by comparison to the fossil fuel and coal plant technologies. Testing of these innovative clean energy systems is supported by Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantees. The DOE supports 38 clean energy project through this type of loan program, which are expected to employ more than 60,000 Americans, generate enough clean electricity to power nearly 3 million homes, and displace the use of more than 300 million gallons of gasoline annually.

And that's the bright shiny future of clean energy the loan guarantee program propels. However, with Solyndra out of business and American taxpayers out of $535 million, the House Subcommittee held the unenviable task of figuring out what went wrong. The question of what happened is the jumping off point for a pretty hefty blame game. 

House Republicans were hoping to paint the administration with careless misuse of money. Secretary Chu and some of the clean energy supporters were careful to point out that Congress approved the loan guarantee program that benefitted Solyandra under the Bush administration, and that $10 billion was even set aside to cover losses.

The testimony certainly provided high points for partisans on both sides of the political spectrum. Each side of this issue have their own message and captive audience with whom their stance resonates. The National Review, for example, chortled when Chu said that the only solar power he personally used was a solar powered flashlight. The left leaning Guardian applauded Chu for being “unflappable” in his testimony. 

In my opinion, the Solyndra bankruptcy inspires nobody to change their opinion of clean energy projects. The people who support renewable energy will see this as an isolated, unfortunate, and costly event – a bump in the road to a better future. On the other side of the coin, supporters of the current energy mix will see this $535 million loss as an inexcusable error never to be repeated. 

With venture capital perennially shy of investing in clean energy and the Obama administration standing by its resolve to promote fossil fuel alternatives, the clean energy field is put into a precarious position. 

Regulation and permit limits are bringing the features of a “Carbon Constrained Future” into focus. But that’s the side that tells us what we can’t use – the alternatives or paradigms that are only acceptable within some kind of constraints. Without loan guarantees or some cash to fuel the possibilities, we have created an energy policy that says “no” to all of the available technologies without providing any alternatives. Without fuelling the possibilities. 

We’ll bring Secretary Chu in for a House Subcommittee grilling, and he’ll be resolute in his stance and everybody will cheer for their side of the aisle and boo at the other side. But nobody addresses what would fuel innovation if DOE loan guarantees fall out of favor. 

With private investors perennially shy of clean energy investments, where would cash-starved project developers go for funding? Without DOE loan guarantees I don’t see how the United States gets from our current energy mix to a cleaner future.