Solyndra Panels

ANOTHER UPDATE: “You will be shocked to learn that Solyndra’s majority owner, Oklahoma billionaire George Kaiser, was a major fundraiser for the 2008 ******** campaign.” Like I said, follow the money.
What’s amazing about the ****** Administration isn’t the corruption, which we’ve seen before. It’s the crudity and obviousness of the corruption.
Coupled with ineptitude. Reader Patrick Kelly writes:

I read the WaPo article on Solyndra. This quote from Solyndra’s CEO really stood out:

“This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate,” Solyndra chief executive Brian Harrison said in a statement. “Regulatory and policy uncertainties” made it impossible to raise capital to quickly rescue the operation, he said.

I guess that’s what you get when you dance with the devil. The same government that can take other people’s money to make your company work can also regulate your company to the point where you can’t raise capital from any other source.

Oft evil will shall evil mar.

... that it planned to close one of its older factories and planned to lay-off 135 temporary or contract workers and 40 full-time employees. A closer look at the company shows it has never turned a profit since it was founded in 2005, according to its Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings.
And Solyndra’s auditor declared that “the company has suffered recurring losses, negative cash flows since inception and has a net stockholders’ deficit that, among other factors, [that] raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a growing concern” in a March 2010 amendment to its SEC registration statement.
“While we understand the purpose of the Loan Guarantee Program is to help private companies engaging in clean energy products to obtain financing by providing loan guarantees, subsequent events raise questions about Solyndra was the right candidate to receive a loan guarantee in excess of half a billion dollars,” Upton and Stearns wrote.

monoloco wrote: »

This is a sad commentary about government waste, but not nearly as wasteful as the ethanol subsidy. Putting a tariff on foreign made panels would probably be a much more effective way to prop up domestic production.

California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard would place a much lower carbon value on sugarcane ethanol than corn ethanol, providing refiners with an incentive to use more of the Brazilian fuel.
The federal renewable fuel mandate also classifies sugarcane ethanol as an advanced biofuel. With production of cellulosic ethanol, another form of advanced biofuels, unlikely to meet the federal targets in the near future, Brazilian ethanol could fill that gap, the EIA said.
"In this context, it is not hard to envision a scenario in which the United States continues to export corn-based ethanol to Brazil while at the same time importing sugarcane ethanol from Brazil to comply with California LCFS and Federal RFS requirements," the EIA said.