This thread is failing, but a few remarks on Solyndra.
1. Their thin-film technology works. One example is the "House of Light" at the Univ. of Tennessee.
2. Costs are high when compared with conventional panel technology.
3. In addition to the $535 million U.S. loan, private investors (including Kaiser) put in $198 million.
4. Bankruptcy declared soon after the loans were received. Question- were company officials aware that their technology was not economically viable before they received and used the loan money?
5. Government policy is to support clean energy research that has promise. There is no guarantee that reasearch will pay off economically.
6. The Solyndra case- The method works, but did the government scientific advisors have an inadequate grasp of the economical downside of the method, and did company officials take the money while being aware that the product was not economically viable? No real answer yet.

----------------------------New topic--------------------

Toxicity of solar panels. Manufacture and disposal.

These panels contain cadmium, selenium, and sulfur hexachloride (potent greenhouse gas) and other toxic and carcinogenic substances.
Their useful life is about 20 years.

There is no program for the safe recycling and disposal of these materials. Moreover, their manufacture entails the waste production of cadmium and other toxic materials that must receive special disposal sites.
At present, unwanted and waste electronic and similar materials are shipped to developing countries, where their disassembly puts toxins into soil and water. The people are exposed to cancer-causing toxins.

I do not bemoan the loss of solar panel production to China. The materials used in their manufacture can contaminate land, air and water, and their disposal requires special sites (think Hanford). Perhaps Bobert would like disposal to take place on his property.


Condemning the Obama administration for supporting research is short-sighted. No research guarantees economic viability of the results.

Solar panel energy is at best a limited (and dangerous) option. Large-scale generation is needed to significantly lower use of fossil fuels in industry and transportation and the technology is in its infancy.