(12-04-2016 09:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 09:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 08:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Solyndra got $500 million in government loans and employed a maximum of 1100 people. Where did the money--both government loan and private equity--go?

Well, a quick Google search sent me to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

With a really minimal amount of research I found that the loan was used to help fund a $733 million fabrication facility which was expected to produce 610 megawatts of solar panels by 2013 (should things have gone as planned).

Turns out, what doomed Solyndra was a drop in the price of polysilicon from '09-'11 which was the key ingredient in competing technologies, which meant that Solyndra was unable to compete with the new prices. So despite Solyndra having a novel approach to the solar problem (using tubes to collect energy), the free market killed them when raw material prices changed (very similar to what we're seeing with the O&G sector right now).

Now, some of the loan went to some pretty extravagant expenditures at the plant (including spa showers), but I imagine that the vast majority of the $733 million spent on the facility went to things like production robotics.

Spa showers aren't a good description. And the descriptions of the other "extravagances" that I have seen have been dodgy ones at best. But that is the fun with reporting with political agendas.....

For example with the "spa showers", the issue is that that showers had digital controls associated with them. The long and short is that in the building process, you spend x dollars for showers that broadly define hot, warm, and cold. You spend about 1.35 x for digital fine control. No more than 7k was spent on this.

Tort law requires that when you are working with bad chemicals that require specific temperatures for flushing, that a fab that has these chemicals cannot justify spending the lesser amount at the expense of worker safety.

The fab cost involved not just "the fab", but all aspects from the ground up" purchasing the plot, design, construction, and outfitting with highly unique machinery. Solyndra not only had highly unusual approach in the tubes, but developing a process for those surfaces was the first time it was done. And the tubes were 4.2 feet long. And the material was a material that had never been made in commercial quantities before.

All in all it was a *****.

And the final cost of Fab 2 was closer to 780 million from finding the parcel to panels rolling out.

Thanks for the explanation. I knew very little about the specifics of Solyndra until I dug into that Wikipedia article and a few others due to this exchange. The only thing I was pretty confident of was that this was a strange conservative boogeyman topic that likely was not nearly as big of a deal as it was made out to be. And that was because of my experience with DOE and other federal research funding funding. The government does not really give research funding away without expecting to get some good information/research/technology back.

(12-04-2016 09:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 09:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 09:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 08:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Solyndra got $500 million in government loans and employed a maximum of 1100 people. Where did the money--both government loan and private equity--go?

Well, a quick Google search sent me to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

With a really minimal amount of research I found that the loan was used to help fund a $733 million fabrication facility which was expected to produce 610 megawatts of solar panels by 2013 (should things have gone as planned).

Turns out, what doomed Solyndra was a drop in the price of polysilicon from '09-'11 which was the key ingredient in competing technologies, which meant that Solyndra was unable to compete with the new prices. So despite Solyndra having a novel approach to the solar problem (using tubes to collect energy), the free market killed them when raw material prices changed (very similar to what we're seeing with the O&G sector right now).

Now, some of the loan went to some pretty extravagant expenditures at the plant (including spa showers), but I imagine that the vast majority of the $733 million spent on the facility went to things like production robotics.

Spa showers aren't a good description. And the descriptions of the other "extravagances" that I have seen have been dodgy ones at best. But that is the fun with reporting with political agendas.....

For example with the "spa showers", the issue is that that showers had digital controls associated with them. The long and short is that in the building process, you spend x dollars for showers that broadly define hot, warm, and cold. You spend about 1.35 x for digital fine control. No more than 7k was spent on this.

Tort law requires that when you are working with bad chemicals that require specific temperatures for flushing, that a fab that has these chemicals cannot justify spending the lesser amount at the expense of worker safety.

The fab cost involved not just "the fab", but all aspects from the ground up" purchasing the plot, design, construction, and outfitting with highly unique machinery. Solyndra not only had highly unusual approach in the tubes, but developing a process for those surfaces was the first time it was done. And the tubes were 4.2 feet long. And the material was a material that had never been made in commercial quantities before.

All in all it was a *****.

And the final cost of Fab 2 was closer to 780 million from finding the parcel to panels rolling out.

Thanks for the explanation. I knew very little about the specifics of Solyndra until I dug into that Wikipedia article and a few others due to this exchange. The only thing I was pretty confident of was that this was a strange conservative boogeyman topic that likely was not nearly as big of a deal as it was made out to be. And that was because of my experience with DOE and other federal research funding funding. The government does not really give research funding away without expecting to get some good information/research/technology back.

Failing to come through on 500+ million loan guarantee is a big thing. Cant whitewash that. And that in and of itself is deserving of a "big thing".

It is the added "misappropriation", "political largesse", "extravagance" etc.... that (imo) is not very accurate. But it is those things that are far better to generate eyeball lands, especially when writing to capture a set of political eyeballs. And to their credit, those that tend to write are "very" careful of what they write -- this was stunning first hand example for me of how powerful the tool of saying one (truthful) item without background lends itself to awesome implications.

The showers issue is a perfect example. Another was the "robotic carts playing Disney songs" -- sounds excessive. Solyndra had to move the semiconductor modules from one area to the framing area at the other side of the complex -- robotic carts were employed to run along predefined paths carrying these loads. Safety laws require that these carts have a sound associated with them so pedestrians are aware of the presence. The manufacturers of these do not employ simple beeps -- they employ other audio signals. One of the standard choices, the one Solyndra chsoe, was the one that played "It's a Small World". So the term "robotic carts playing Disney tunes" *is* accurate and reeks of excess. But the background cuts against that implication, and was not reported. Saw scores of examples like this in the reporting.......

It is that misdirection that, when revealed, cuts away from what should itself be a "big thing".

(12-04-2016 11:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The showers issue is a perfect example. Another was the "robotic carts playing Disney songs" -- sounds excessive. Solyndra had to move the semiconductor modules from one area to the framing area at the other side of the complex -- robotic carts were employed to run along predefined paths carrying these loads. Safety laws require that these carts have a sound associated with them so pedestrians are aware of the presence. The manufacturers of these do not employ simple beeps -- they employ other audio signals. One of the standard choices, the one Solyndra chsoe, was the one that played "It's a Small World". So the term "robotic carts playing Disney tunes" *is* accurate and reeks of excess. But the background cuts against that implication, and was not reported. Saw scores of examples like this in the reporting.......

It is that misdirection that, when revealed, cuts away from what should itself be a "big thing".

This has been an interesting digression. The only opinion I feel qualified to add (based on taking my kid to Disney World several times) is that I can't imagine a more effective way to keep people away from those dangerous carts than having them play "It's a Small World" all effing day. That's safety innovation at its finest, not excess!

Took thanksgiving off from internet politics discussion, and enjoyed it so much, I extended the break another week.

Still trying to figure out what happened this election. Don't think I posted this one before, but it's Nate Silver making the point that if just one in a hundred voters had switched to Clinton from Trump, we would be talking about a Clinton landslide.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what...nts-makes/

And of course, if Clinton had won, Silver could have then written the inverse article about how close Trump actually was to winning.

And to change the electoral college outcome, you would need to change only about 100k votes across three states. (Or would that be 50K?)

Point being, the election was so close that everyone's pet theory about why Trump won is correct.

It may have been the "deplorables" comment (there's some data to support that, apparently), Comey's last minute letter, or something else.

I guess the thing both parties need to figure out is was this a black swan election, or a realignment? I don't really, know, but I think the argument that we are increasingly divided along urban/rural, or rather urban/close-in suburban vs exurban/rural lines seems to be the most powerful to me:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p..._them.html

Of course, that tends to be co-linear with race. Rural and exurban areas tend to be a lot whiter. On one hand, I've heard some Republicans worry that they will learn the wrong lesson - that doubling down on white working class resentment is a way to keep winning despite demographic trends. On the other, I've heard the argument made that, maybe so, but they can keep squeaking by in the electoral college (and Congress) for a few more cycles and by then we'll be living in Paul Ryan's Randian utopia (supplemented by a McKinleyesque tariff)...

So there you have my definitive answer. The Dems need to completely rebuild from the ground up, unless it turns out they don't need to change anything and just nominate a stronger candidate next time.

Also, Solyndra is people! It's people!

I'll give you two other things that probably swayed the election:

1. The Dems were totally out of touch with political shifts within certain states. For example, they took Wisconsin for granted. As someone who has lived in Wisconsin and has ties there going back generations, I could see the change taking place as far back as 1990. What, do the Dems not hire anyone from Wisconsin from outside their little ivory tower intern program? Do these people not know how to do ground work? FFS, the state produced Scott Walker and Paul Ryan. How could they possibly have not seen the Wisconsin loss coming?!?

2. We liberal-leaning independents have always looked askance at the major parties, and Clinton and her hubristic political machine were certainly not going to strong-arm us into voting for her, particularly when her main opposition within the party was essentially bullied into marginalization. Ostensibly demanding compliance is absolute suicide when you're trying to court independents in key states.

I might have broken with my habit of voting for third-party candidates if almost any Democrat other than Clinton would have been allowed to take on Trump. Emphasis on "allowed," because that is basically what it amounted to.

A good editorial by Evan McMullin:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinio...ution.html

(12-06-2016 12:07 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  A good editorial by Evan McMullin:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinio...ution.html

That was where my write-in vote went!

(12-06-2016 01:29 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 12:07 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  A good editorial by Evan McMullin:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinio...ution.html

That was where my write-in vote went!

Into the darkness?

(12-03-2016 09:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 10:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Carrier, better than zero
Taiwan, grow up China

The whole idea that we simply wouldn't acknowledge talking on the phone with a leader of a country so as to not piss off China... while importing and exporting billions of dollars of goods to them is just ludicrous.

On China, I think Trump is trying to show that he is truly a wild card and that China and other foreign leaders aren't going to be dealing with the same kind of President they have for 40+ years. I do wish, however, he at least spoke to the State Department about this, because initial reports indicate that there was no word sent to them. I'd like to have a President who at least recognizes when some people know more about a topic, especially our foreign relations with a Super Power, than they do and that those people can be a valuable resource. We'll see what comes of it.

I was going to come on here and snark that Trump wasn't trying to show anything, that he just accidentally stepped in something because he's completely out of his depth and we'd better get used to more of the same. However, you were right: Trump's Taiwan phone call was long planned. And while perhaps not coordinated with the current State Department, there apparently was plenty of input from GOP foreign policy experts (who likely have held and will again be holding positions in Foggy Bottom).

(12-06-2016 02:06 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 10:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Carrier, better than zero
Taiwan, grow up China

The whole idea that we simply wouldn't acknowledge talking on the phone with a leader of a country so as to not piss off China... while importing and exporting billions of dollars of goods to them is just ludicrous.

On China, I think Trump is trying to show that he is truly a wild card and that China and other foreign leaders aren't going to be dealing with the same kind of President they have for 40+ years. I do wish, however, he at least spoke to the State Department about this, because initial reports indicate that there was no word sent to them. I'd like to have a President who at least recognizes when some people know more about a topic, especially our foreign relations with a Super Power, than they do and that those people can be a valuable resource. We'll see what comes of it.

I was going to come on here and snark that Trump wasn't trying to show anything, that he just accidentally stepped in something because he's completely out of his depth and we'd better get used to more of the same. However, you were right: Trump's Taiwan phone call was long planned. And while perhaps not coordinated with the current State Department, there apparently was plenty of input from GOP foreign policy experts (who likely have held and will again be holding positions in Foggy Bottom).

I argued vehemently with some friends over dinner that held the same position as you and they just wouldn't believe me. They ended up sending me the exact same article when it was posted a day later.

Trump may be a policy idiot (or he may not be), but he is not surrounded by idiots or people who don't understand foreign policy. Couple his ability to be influenced storngly by those in the circle he has built and his desire to be the alpha-male and exert his influence through a position of strength and dominance, and it became apparent (to me at least) that this move was planned.

I still contend that he should have discussed this with the State Department, because they could have at least provided him the other side of the argument about the possible ramifications of the move. At least then he would have been informed about it.

Going back to the issue of post election harassment and violence, just saw this shared about another racist attack (in this case arson) in the name of Trump:

https://www.gofundme.com/swandoui

This one is two degrees of separation. The video of the the guy on the plane yelling at "Hillary B****es" and the racist woman in Illinois calling black employees "animals" and yelling "I voted for Trump" have gone viral, but closer to home, I've heard three one-degree of separation incidents in Austin where a mom and her kid(s) got out of their Clinton bumper stickered car only to be approached and taunted in an aggressive way by a male Trump supporter. WTF? Who does that to a mom and her kids?

Obviously these people who take it this far are the exception, but I don't recall a situation before where supporters of the losing candidate were this widely subjected to this stuff. I mentioned before the friends whose mixed race kid was bullied at school about "Trump" but thankfully there hasn't been anything else at the school. Having said that, AISD has felt the need to redistribute and emphasize their anti-bullying policy, which prohibits harassment on the basis of race, religion, and sexual orientation. Sad! as our dear leader would say...

(12-06-2016 02:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 02:06 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 09:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 10:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Carrier, better than zero
Taiwan, grow up China

The whole idea that we simply wouldn't acknowledge talking on the phone with a leader of a country so as to not piss off China... while importing and exporting billions of dollars of goods to them is just ludicrous.

On China, I think Trump is trying to show that he is truly a wild card and that China and other foreign leaders aren't going to be dealing with the same kind of President they have for 40+ years. I do wish, however, he at least spoke to the State Department about this, because initial reports indicate that there was no word sent to them. I'd like to have a President who at least recognizes when some people know more about a topic, especially our foreign relations with a Super Power, than they do and that those people can be a valuable resource. We'll see what comes of it.

I was going to come on here and snark that Trump wasn't trying to show anything, that he just accidentally stepped in something because he's completely out of his depth and we'd better get used to more of the same. However, you were right: Trump's Taiwan phone call was long planned. And while perhaps not coordinated with the current State Department, there apparently was plenty of input from GOP foreign policy experts (who likely have held and will again be holding positions in Foggy Bottom).

I argued vehemently with some friends over dinner that held the same position as you and they just wouldn't believe me. They ended up sending me the exact same article when it was posted a day later.

Trump may be a policy idiot (or he may not be), but he is not surrounded by idiots or people who don't understand foreign policy. Couple his ability to be influenced storngly by those in the circle he has built and his desire to be the alpha-male and exert his influence through a position of strength and dominance, and it became apparent (to me at least) that this move was planned.

I still contend that he should have discussed this with the State Department, because they could have at least provided him the other side of the argument about the possible ramifications of the move. At least then he would have been informed about it.

I'm not sure which worries me more - that the Taiwan thing happened out of cluelessness or that it was intentional. (Or that 142 year old Bob Dole is pulling his strings.) International relations is all about subtle signalling, the well placed word, etc. If Trump doesn't realize and understand that, he's going to get us into a lot of trouble.

But if it was well executed and planned (I'm still skeptical) what was the purpose and goal? There are very real tensions and conflicts with China right now. Whey start trying to antagonize them right off the bat? The most cynical interpretation is that Crooked Donny wants to make sure his proposed projects in Taiwan get approved. But I suspect it's more a "look, I'm being tough!" act for his supporters. I'd feel better if I had any confidence it was part of a thought out plan with the long term interests of the United States in mind, even if I disagreed with it...

(12-08-2016 10:56 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  The most cynical interpretation is that Crooked Donny wants to make sure his proposed projects in Taiwan get approved. But I suspect it's more a "look, I'm being tough!" act for his supporters. I'd feel better if I had any confidence it was part of a thought out plan with the long term interests of the United States in mind, even if I disagreed with it...

Crooked Donny?
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.


No idea if it was was part of a plan, much less a well thought out plan. But it definitely is not "business as usual", and I think that this is the message that all the world needs to hear. No longer are we as predictable, and not as predictable means not as easy to manipulate. The trained bear may not dance on command anymore.

(12-08-2016 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Crooked Donny?
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Just noting the irony. :-)

(12-08-2016 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No idea if it was was part of a plan, much less a well thought out plan. But it definitely is not "business as usual", and I think that this is the message that all the world needs to hear. No longer are we as predictable, and not as predictable means not as easy to manipulate. The trained bear may not dance on command anymore.

That is a strategy that countries use in IR - but it's usually weaker countries trying to punch above their weight: Iran, North Korea, and, increasingly, Russia. We are a superpower.

As weird as it is to say it, I hope Romney gets State. He may bring back some of the Scowcroft/Powell/Baker camp.

(12-04-2016 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 03:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually the economics of pretty much all the domestic solar plays was not so much as to "replace WV and Detroit" as to keep the bulwark of solar production a US concern as opposed to a German one (a feared player-to-be at the time) or a Chinese one (the major player now due to massive govt intervention, and the reason why Solyndra currently exists i.e. to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit)
Your attempt to make the domestic solar industry a boogeyman really isnt the best vehicle for the point you want to make.

So solar is a basket case without massive government intervention. Maybe that's not where we should be putting our money.

I'm late to the party, as usual. But, this exchange highlights one of the reasons that I think many - if not most - subsidies are misguided and counter-productive. That is that they are reactionary, done out of fear if not wild speculation, and disregard or devalue the idea of whether it really makes sense to spend the money on a project, of its own merits. This tendency of our public sphere dovetails nicely with regulations that follow similar decision-making, and the end-result is that we back losers and regulate more sensible technologies out of the marketplace.

What is the compelling reason to have producers of ineffective technologies here rather than Germany?

(12-08-2016 05:41 PM)I45owl Wrote:  What is the compelling reason to have producers of ineffective technologies here rather than Germany?

It's a tough sell to classify PV as ineffective technology.

(12-08-2016 12:45 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Crooked Donny?
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Just noting the irony. :-)

(12-08-2016 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No idea if it was was part of a plan, much less a well thought out plan. But it definitely is not "business as usual", and I think that this is the message that all the world needs to hear. No longer are we as predictable, and not as predictable means not as easy to manipulate. The trained bear may not dance on command anymore.

That is a strategy that countries use in IR - but it's usually weaker countries trying to punch above their weight: Iran, North Korea, and, increasingly, Russia. We are a superpower.

As weird as it is to say it, I hope Romney gets State. He may bring back some of the Scowcroft/Powell/Baker camp.

Romney would be acceptable to me. Some of the others on the "short" list, not so much.

At last, a point of agreement!!!! :-)

Have to say I'd be dead set against Petraeus. The handling of the classified information in the manner ala Hillary Clinton should be sufficient to keep him out in my book.

If he was the choice, there would have be some world class issue dancing to differentiate his behavior, especially in light of how Trump used that type of behavior for his "Crooked Hillary" vein of attack.

(12-08-2016 06:25 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Have to say I'd be dead set against Petraeus. The handling of the classified information in the manner ala Hillary Clinton should be sufficient to keep him out in my book.
If he was the choice, there would have be some world class issue dancing to differentiate his behavior, especially in light of how Trump used that type of behavior for his "Crooked Hillary" vein of attack.

I think it can be differentiated quite easily, but I don't think it's worth the political risk to go there. I really like Huntsman.