Prospects Darken For Solar Energy Companies 435
Hugh Pickens writes "Although global demand for solar power is still growing — about 8% more solar panels will be installed this year compared with 2010 — bankruptcies, plummeting stock prices and crushing debt loads are calling into question the viability of the solar energy industry that since the 1970s has been counted on to advance the world into a new energy age. Only a handful of manufacturers are now profitable in the face of too much capacity, which has contributed to a plunge in prices as government subsidies have been curbed. Prices for solar panels started 2011 near $1.60 per watt, but a buildup of inventory forced manufacturers into a fire sale toward the end of the second quarter that has pushed prices to near $1 per watt now. 'The prices that we're seeing today are likely not covering manufacturing costs in many cases,' says Ralph Romero. With at least seven solar-panel manufacturers filing for bankruptcy or insolvency in the last several months and six of the 10 largest publicly traded companies making solar components reporting losses in the third quarter, public-market investors are punishing the solar sector, sending shares down nearly 57% this year. Although winners are expected to emerge eventually, the question is how much more carnage there will be before that happens. 'The fact of the matter is, nobody really knows which solar companies will be pushed out of business or be forced to merge,' writes industry analyst Rodolfo Avalos. 'Nobody also knows how long it will take for the solar industry to improve even when the forecasted solar global demand for the next 5-10 years is quite promising.'"
Re:Just wait until Iran blocks the Strait of Hormu (Score:4, Interesting)
PV isn't the only Solar (Score:2, Interesting)
Its important to remember that photovoltaic technology is not the the sum total of solar energy. In many ways concentrated solar much more applicable to the industry when discussing competition between solar, natural gas, coal, and nuclear. These power plants exist and are being built in the western US as we speak, although some subsidies are still required to make it competitive with coal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power (wiki)
Re:The Market Has Spoken (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Just wait until Iran blocks the Strait of Hormu (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, gas and coal do not power UPS/fedex/USPO/semi-trailer trucks, or pacific ocean container ships. Both for the end user delivery and delivering raw-ish materials to the manufacturers.
Try going to a solar panel distributor and ordering a bunch of panels, made in the US or china doesn't matter, the shipping cost of sending a truck out to you full of delicate glass is really quite high.
I'm told that on islands almost all electricity is generated from stationary diesels. In the continental US it doesn't matter, but I could imagine the price of diesel has a big effect on sales on the Hawaiian Islands, which coincidentally probably get a lot more sunlight than seattle anyway.
If oil spiked, the demand for installed panels would be extremely high, but the UPS cost of delivery would probably rise to a multiple of the cost of the panels, its very unclear if this would improve or destroy overall system economic budget numbers. The explosive inflation rate that results would also modify the cost of competitive energy sources... If the coal miners literally cannot afford to drive to work unless you triple their pay, then coals going up in price (probably by a bit less than triple, but...)
Shale oil is a great way to burn nine barrels of high grade crude to produce around ten, plus or minus five, barrels of low grade crude. The EROEI is not that awesome. Its right up there with turning diesel oil into corn into corn oil into biodiesel, or the corn ethanol cycle, lots of arguments about it being microscopically net positive or microscopically net negative cycle, but everyone agrees its right around 1:1 so its pretty irrelevant in the big picture. Also Shale oil needs a lot of water to process, and it seems stereotypically to be located right where there is no water available, changing it from a lack of oil problem to a lack of water problem. If only there were shale oil deposits in the great lakes, or new orleans, then it would be all good, but it always seems to be in a desert or under a glacier or something, almost like a supernatural being put it there just to frustrate us. (yeah I know a glacier has plenty of water, but being a glacier, the water in the plant wants to freeze in the pipes, so its a big problem...)
Re:The Market Has Spoken (Score:4, Interesting)
Because with Percent increase for a small market we should expect a large percentage increase. for a large market smaller percentage increase expected.
8% increase for solar panels isn't a good sign that people are really jumping on this technology. Solar Panels are a small market. 8% increase is probably more closely to people who wanted it but now are in an economic position where they can get it now. Get above 15% then you have some demand.
But for a larger business an 8% increase is a good number because there are so many customers right now that 8% means a lot of extra people are jumping in.
The Percent really summarizes data down to a level that really isn't that useful unless you see it in full context. And you are comparing Apples to Apples, Actually it would be comparing Granny Smiths with Granny Smiths to really make them useful.
Re:Okay, this is pretty simple IMO! (Score:4, Interesting)
You're looking at it wrongly. I recently had solar power installed because - long term - it pays off.
Let's say your numbers are correct. $30k to install. $150/month saved. That's similar to my situation in the UK.
Your payback period is about 17 years (although potentially longer if you had to take out a loan to pay for them).
Most solar panels are guaranteed for 25 years (or, rather, their operating performance won't drop by more than a certain percentage per year).
So, for the remaining 8 years, you're earning $150 per month - that's $14k. That's not a terrible ROI.
However! What if there's an energy crisis? All of a sudden, you're saving $300 per month. Or, depending on where you live, you can sell your excess electricity back into the grid for a profit.
Worse case scenario, the cost of electricity plummets and you're left with an overprices UPS on your roof.
I say go for it!
Re:The Market Has Spoken (Score:4, Interesting)
People *want* solar, they just can't *afford* it. I'm FAR from some environmental hippie, but even I looked into getting solar panels for my roof. In the end, it was going to cost me something like $25,000-$30,000 and save me about 50%-75% on my electric bill. At that rate it would take decades to pay itself off, and that's assuming that said panels will even last that long and require no maintenance (and I don't buy that for a SECOND). There was just no way in hell I could afford the upfront costs. Aside from a relatively wealthy few and a few clever do-it-yourselfers, solar is simply out of reach for the vast majority of the population.
Re:Visible hand of state corruption (Score:5, Interesting)
Haliburton, which Cheney used to run, got 7 billion dollars in a no-bids contract for part of the Iraq reconstruction. When people complained, the government put the same contract up for bid and then manipulated the process so that only Haliburton could win. That's every bit as bad as the Solyndra scandal - and bank bailout bullshit at the end of Bush's term in office was every bit as ludicrous as bank bailout bullshit after Obama took over. They're all bad.
I take it as a given that anyone with enough resources to play in US politics at the national level is corrupt, in both major US political parties. I still vote according to the lesser of two evils philosophy - I view Obama as the pickpocket that still gets things right occasionally and his Republican opponents as a gang of devil worshipers conspiring to eviscerate any American who isn't hideously wealthy and sell his organs for a few pennies. Given that kind of choice, I'm going to go with the pickpocket every time.
Re:the TFS only talks about the economics (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
A year ago it was the 6% efficient panels that were approaching $1/watt. Then they dropped off the market and now the 18% efficient ones are approaching the mark.
Re:the TFS only talks about the economics (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.sunelec.com/blog/ [sunelec.com]
$0.59 laminates and $.78 panels.
oops, forgot to sign in before posting.