Update 1, Solyndra under investigation by FBI. It appears to have been sinking government support money and defaulted without informing the lenders.
Of course liberals and libertarians jump right up to dondemn support for businesses, especially Ron Paul, supported by oil and the Pentagon. The scam is created, and then the blame is shifted on the victim.
Solyndra, a company making tubular thin film photovoltaic collectors, is bankrupt. The company had puzzled many for years, as their product had clear problems as well as possibilities. I presonally asked for quotes on several occasions and never got anywhere, so I concluded the company had another function (Not to sell PV installations!). You may say ‘They did!’, but the question is whether it was ever planned to be a financial succes, or just a way to crash two concepts and stealing ~500 mln of cash from the taxpayer/investors in the process.
Using reflective light is nice, but if you need space between tubes to get the refelction it starts to look a bit contrived.
Why did Solyndra fail?
The official reason: "Solyndra could not achieve full-scale operations rapidly enough to compete in the near term with the resources of larger foreign manufacturers," (bron)
Really? So this unique patented product could not match the production speeds and volumes of the ‘competition’ (common flat PV). Of course that would be impossible and unreasonable to expect.
Reason Nr. 1
The most important invention that needed to be locked up is the tubular photovoltaic device. Why? Because although PV cells have reduced efficiency when hot (dropping by 0,49% per degree celsius (see this post)), one could easily heat water in a tubular PV device and still produce significant energy. This is also usefull because 85% of the heat absorbed by PV is turned into heat! So a parabolic trough PV device could heat water and generate electricity, a hybrid device. The combination of PV and a parabolic trough concentrator is an awsome idea which has nonetheless been implemented by two companies. But imagine the Solyndra tube in the focal point of an ordinary parabolic trough. You won’t have to if you check out the picture on the right.
Two parabolic/PV hybrids (Absolicon and Cogenra) , both without tubular PV. Parabolic mirror with tube in focal point.
Reason Nr. 2
To make the CIGS process fail. CIGS stands for Copper-Indium-Gallium-Selenide, it’s a mix of metals that creates a photovolaic cell. I have several CIGS cells that behave like ‘amorphous’ cells. For years people have claimed that these cells can’t be made in high volume, have production problems and what not. But they are available, and work well as the picture of the larges CIGS array below will show. CIGS is discredited by the claim it is less efficient than silicon PV per m2. It’s 13% versus 15% for silicon solar. But the cell type is cheaper to make, less energy intensive, and guess what:
Higher efficiencies (around 30%) can be obtained by using optics to concentrate the incident light. CIGS are perfect for concentrated solar power systems.
This particular array in Arizona is a 750-kilowatt system that can generate 1.1 million kilowatt-hours per year. (bron)
Boondogle?
So the CIGS tubular PV module was a perfect component of a highly efficient hybrid solar concetration device. With a parabolic mirror giving 6 sun you will have not only more power, but also more efficiency than is possible with silicon. For less money with less pollution (although mining the metals is probably not a clean operation). So was Solyndra a boondogle? From following the company for some years I would say yes. Destined to fail, but sucessfull in it’s purpose.
A way to bleed the concept and lock up the patents. I still would like to get one of these tubes for testing it with my parabolic mirror..