China Becomes Global Green Leader with Massive Solar Projects 27 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
During the last six months, the Chinese government has planned massive solar projects ahead of the Obama administration in the U.S. Wall Street can hardly obtain first hand information because of the communication obstacle between the east and the west as language is a major cause of the delay. Many westerners rely on the translation from media such as Tawain's DiGitimes, and JML Pacific Epoch, a research firm located in China that publishes in English.
Back in Jan 2009, the Qinghai province Haixi region rolled out the world's first 1GW solar farm project. Suntech power (STP) has been reportedly selected for the first 400MW, ReneSola (SOL) and JA Solar (JASO) are likely to win 200MW each, to reach 80% of its 1GW target (note: none of the companies have officially released any contracts yet). Many other Chinese solar companies are also competing for the rest of the 200MW - companies such as Solarfun Power Holding (SOLF), Yingli Green (YGE), Trina Solar (TSL).
Moreover, Qinghai is just one of the provinces that the central government fully supports for the nation's ambitions. Before Qinghai's 1GW solar farm, Yunnan province rolled out its first on-grid 166MW solar farm. According to the Guardian's report, both the Gangsu province and Inner Mongolia province are planning for 2GW or bigger solar farms in their regions. The other 10 provinces have also submitted solar energy projects to the central government for approval. China's target for renewable energy is to achieve 15% of total energy consumption for the nation - that will translate to roughly 30-40GW by 2020. But we should not ignore the contribution from other forms of renewable energy such as wind, geothermal, biomass, etc.
It is worth noting that , with huge solar projects on the way in China, there are only two major solar wafer providers, LDK solar (LDK) and ReneSola (SOL). ReneSola is also a vertical integration company, providing PV models.
Now let's take a look at the big solar projects in U.S. The largest one so far is the 800MW in California, to be built by Optisolar. Sunpower is going to provide 250MW PV panels to the project. We also have some small scale solar farms on schedule, such as the 75MW solar project in Charlotte County, Florida. First Solar (FSLR) is also planning a 48MW Nevada solar farm that will start generating electricity this year.
Over all, President Obama's renewable energy plan is left behind, and our competitor China is moving forward with full speed.
Disclosure: Author is long FSLR, SOL
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
Top
StockTalkers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
Cliff Wachtel
-
3
Mike Havrilla
-
4
David White
-
5
Hedged In
Top StockTalkers » -
1
We are on a first name basis with Greg Nelson as a result of attending the PNM electric irp.
This was conducted over a period of about a year with 17 essential sessions.
A 229 page final report was submitted to New Mexico Public Regulation Commission.
We are also stockholders in PNM.
Let's ask Nelson to comment on
fast neutron
Santa Fe, NM
January 12, 2009
From actual experience, wind farms produce 1.2 watts per square meter. Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic methods capture 5 to 6 watts per square meter. There is no economy of size in either technology. Dividing the watts you need by those values gives the land area in square meters needed to produce the juice. The numbers are astronomical
for stockholders and investors reasons.
www.prosefights.org/nm...
Lots of money to be made in altenergy in New Mexico.
17.9.572.6 OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this rule is to implement the Renewable Energy Act, NMSA 1978 Section 62-16-1, et seq., and to bring significant economic development and environmental benefits to New Mexico. [17.9.572.6 NMAC - Rp, 17.9.572.6 NMAC, 8-30-07]
The REA and Rule 572 established an RPS applicable to all investor owned electric utilities in New Mexico. In 2006, the RPS will be 5% of retail sales in kWh’s, reaching 10% by the year 2011. Recent legislative changes to the REA (SB418, signed March 5, 2007 by Governor Bill Richardson) have increased the RPS percentages and extended the time lines - IOU’s now must have in their portfolio as a percentage of total retail sales to New Mexico customers, renewable energy of no less than 15% (by 2015) and 20% (by 2020).
Resource Diversity and the RPS
In addition to the RPS, Rule 572 requires that IOU’s must offer a voluntary renewable energy program to their customers. In addition to and within the total portfolio percentage requirements, utilities must design their public utility procurement plans to achieve a fully diversified renewable energy portfolio no later than January 1, 2011, as follows:
Diversity requirements for IOU’s as % of total RPS requirement:
No less than 20% Wind
No less than 20% Solar
No less than 10% Other technologies
No less than 1.5% Distributed Generation (2011-2014) and 3% Distributed Generation by 2015
Above goals may be physically impossible if Fast Neutron's statements are correct.
Nonetheless, there is a lot of money to be made building the faciltities anyway.
www.prosefights.org/pn...
My 72nd birthday today!
I am Iran educated in higher algebra.
www.prosefights.org/nm...
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Iran Defense Forum" <support@irandefenc...
To: bpayne37@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 10:01:34 PM GMT -08:00 Tijuana / Baja California
Subject: Happy Birthday from Iran Defense Forum
Hello billp37,
We at Iran Defense Forum would like to wish you a happy birthday today!
en.cbichina.com/Common...
On Jun 11 11:08 AM Fred W wrote:
> You don't seem to understand China. Labor in China is actually so
> cheap that coupled with very low material costs (also available in
> China) and you find out that w/o any subsidies the installed cost
> per Watt for a gigawatt farm would be less than $3/Watt--NO fuel
> costs, absurdly low O&M, and the system will last over 20 years.
>
> The sun shines everywhere, true geothermal is only available in specific
> regions...where there are resources, GT should be developed.
On Jun 11 11:12 AM Road Runner wrote:
> ECD Fan, It makes no sense to compare defense spending against alternate
> energy spending.
On Jun 11 11:15 AM Johnps wrote:
> ECD Fan: The initial installation costs for solar energy are higher
> than for conventional power plants, but solar equipment costs are
> coming down rapidly and are expected to compete with conventional
> power plant costs within a few years. However, once installed, the
> solar units have big advantages. Sunlight will always be free, but
> coal, oil, and natural gas will probably always be increasing in
> cost with time. Solar and wind energy will probably soon be cheaper
> than conventional methods for power production. You are right, the
> Chinese are not stupid, and now they have plenty of cash to pay for
> the solar installations.
If we simply stick to the stock aspect of it, it seems overdone to me. Why? I live in CA, and although we have set our sights on 'a million roofs', financially speaking, we don't have the money. The CSI budget is over $3 billion. We are now cutting off welfare spending for children. There may be a certain ethical dilemma here. Regardless, the state is broke, and no one has a fix. I don't know, could have a bearing on FSLR. We have rallied hugely, and on low volume for some kind of crappy stocks.
If the market rolls over, this thing could head down smartly.
On the other side, this is an ALTERNATIVE energy company. At some point, there are other factors here than simply financial ones. When we use the term alternative, we really mean, alternative to oil. This is sort of a misnomer, as it is made, almost completely with hydrocarbons. If they were not available, at a reasonable price and quantity, this would not even be a discussion. At the moment, there really are no 'alternatives' to oil. Nuclear power does not lead to more nuclear power, solar panels do not create more solar panels. I have fiddled with solar since throwing my own array on my roof in 96. It works, as long as you size your life style appropriately. To make it power the american dream...well, I want to see the math on that one, not
conjecture. Quite frankly, I don't have kids, and so the energy balance doesn't have to work out for me to be happy. It is simply a company making solar panels, but for those with a more vested interest...
sorry, somedays I can collect my thoughts better than others, this was not one of them!
GCHK deals with Hydrogen cell etc etc.
And expanding into Europe too.
But in the USA, nobody talks about Hydrogen fuel.
Politics put a country backward and fall behind others !!
What we need is affordable ways of transporting energy and sticking it into a tank, not generating it. Right now people are doing all they can to block transporting hydrogren when in fact tons of much more dangerous chemicals go sloshing around on trucks and in train cars daily.
Anyway, I commend China or any other country for using alternative power. It is hard to imagine how hot it would get if all the people in China rode around in the type of cars GM makes and use as much electricity as us. Venus might start looking quite temperate.
This is similar to when many countries went straight to wireless telecommunication rather than putting in expensive copper infrastructure. China isn't trying to replace existing power with solar - it is trying to address a current vacumn. And China is using plenty of other traditional sources to ensure there are no baseload issues. Unlike the decisions we see happening in the U.S.
I think winelover has made a couple of reasonable points here. Solar PV power in general, and specifically in non-utility scale, has some draw backs. Effeciency can be reduced by too much heat retention, dust, shading and backflow. Power storage is always an issue - I am assuming you want electricity at night? There are also losses from stepping, and from AC/DC conversion.
Finally, at current cost, with at most a 25 year life span on components, plus ongoing maintenance, you can't currently justify the installation in all states with electric prices at this level without the tax credits (and maybe even with the tax credits).
winelover has experience, and recognizes some of the trade-offs. Solar is not that widely installed, so MOST PEOPLE DON'T.
Bulking it to utility scale can help address some of the issues discussed here, but not all of them. Solar Thermal may be better, but it is unproven.
And yes, I have experience with PV solar
On Jun 11 12:40 PM Steve Pluvia wrote:
> ECD Fan:
>
> 1. Your are a solar IDIOT;
> 2. You know NOTHING re Solar LCOE, solar installed costs or grid
> parity.
>
> FSLR is installing commercial power plants with lower cap-ex, operating
> costs & power production cost than any new U.S. coal & gas
> fired power plants.
>
> seekingalpha.com/artic...
On Jun 11 03:27 PM winelover wrote:
> Hmmm, I have to ask if anyone posting comments here actually has
> any solar? You all realize that solar(and wind, nuclear, heck take
> your pick) are all derivatives of oil? I find it interesting to
> read solar comments by people who don't use it. Sort of like getting
> workout advice from a fat person...
Perhaps that is why US productivity still leads the world- and why Chinese solar plants will probably still be much less efficient than US solar plants 30 years from now.
I have sources, none of which can be published, that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that sometimes you have no idea what you are talking about and can't control your mouth.
Show us detailed calculations, or stop spreading misinformation! Cost of manufacturting, ASPs, and even all-in system costs for (certain) FSLR projects are well-disclosed, indeed. But they do not appear to be at grid parity, based on my calculations. Yet. So I want to see your calculations - maybe you (and your sources) have made some mistakes in the calculations and/or assumptions?
Yes, I am a "fan" of ECD. But did you check my profile and the blog I reference there, namely ecdfan.blogspot.com ? After you do, I suspect you will admit that your ability to do due diligence has been severely impaired recently, for some unknown reason.
On Jun 12 04:20 PM Steve Pluvia wrote:
> ECD Moron:
>
> We have sources, none of which can be published. Every FSLR project
> has different numbers, so your question is idiotic to from the start.
> That said, anyone with PV experience can do the rough math. The
> U.S. based projects FSLR is doing in-house have cost advantages not
> available from anyone else, namely their production costs per watt
> are LESS than $.93/watt, their design costs are MUCH lower, and the
> end user doe not have to pay a middle man mark-up for panels.
>
> One other point. If you're a fan of ECD the PV company, say no more.
> That company is a bankruptcy waiting to happen which is obvious to
> anyone who knows pv and can use a calculator.Their production costs
> are so hi they have cannot make a profit. Thus everything they produce
> will be at a loss. From today until forever. Word.