First Solar Earnings: Eight Points About the Solar Industry

First Solar's (FSLR) earnings report has hit the Street, and with it, the buzz and the volume has been cranked up on its ramifications for not just First Solar, but Solar and Renewable Energy as a viable industry. I wanted to bring some "boots-on-the-ground" perspective to the conversation, and hopefully both add some insight into the discourse, as well as debunk some truths being espoused as absolutes.

First, let's address First Solar:

1. Market Reaction to the Q3 Earnings Release - The stock plunge after the Q3 earnings release is simply common knee-jerk reaction to headlines in a real-time world. It's common, and frankly if I held a substantial position in First Solar, would inspire not much more than a yawn. Earnings and revenue are up substantially. The sell-off was due to First Solar not being able to recognize revenue attributable to a specific project until Q4. (Note: In a balance-sheet world, I would be up someone's tail if I were the CEO, a gifted CFO always ensures you don't miss earnings based on revenue recognition GAAP rules - I'm not saying I would pursue something illegal, quite the opposite, there are times GAAP simply doesn't reflect the true fiscal situation of a corporation, ESPECIALLY a fast-growing technology firm.) When examined, the project is absolutely solid, and First Solar will have to post the revenue in Q4. Nothing we tech sector veterans have not seen a million times.

2. Company Performance and Trends - Late Wednesday, the company reported a 55 percent leap in third-quarter earnings on a 38 percent increase in revenue. But sales of $480.9 million missed the average analyst estimate of $528.8 million, as measured by a Thomson Reuters survey. This is a timing issue based on revenue recognition, not a revelation of weakness within the company or the solar sector. "This is truly a timing issue," Chairman Mike Ahearn said on a conference call with analysts. "That project has been sold, the contract wasn't signed until early in the fourth quarter. We remain on track for annual guidance." First Solar has some fantastic fundamentals in a sector that is prime to explode for the macro-reasons I list later in this posting. Bottom line: First Solar should remain the low-cost industry leader for the foreseeable future and will likely gain share value in large-scale projects.

3. Market Penetration - If First Solar navigates current conditions effectively, they will still have tremendous upside with their first-to-market (FTM) leadership position in residential rooftop installations in the U.S. - in technology sectors, never discount the critical FTM factor. Many inferior models have thrived simply based on this factor alone.

Second, let's quickly take a look at the solar industry from cruise altitude, so we can factor industry trends into any analysis of solar-related investments:

1. The Truth About Germany - German feed-in tariffs and other incentives indeed spurred the acceleration of solar energy projects in that nation, and they have a large number of roof-installed solar systems. Critics are always so fast to glance at a number or article and then convey them not as opinions, but as absolutes. But I suggest to be sure you must do your due-diligence. Germany has horrid solar generation conditions, averaging only four sun-hours per day. So yes, it is not going to displace other traditional forms of energy generation. But be careful to state it has failed, because that was never the point. Germany made a strategic move in investing a lot of capital in solar energy generation - to attain industry leadership. Germany now possesses the intellectual property and the manufacturing and export capacity that is expected to make it one of the three dominant global players in an industry that will be worth tens of billion dollars a year. Even today, it already has over 50,000 employees in the solar industry.

2. Rooftop Solar Energy Generation Systems - I continually hear, "We are not going to make any dent with only rooftop installments. We will only displace a couple of coal power plants, at best." I have irrefutable evidence to the opposite - I personally have dozens of rooftop installation projects I can share with anyone, anytime, that have eliminated a homeowner's entire energy bill. These installations were in Arizona and California, primarily in desert regions, where averages of 7-8 sun-hours per day are common. So to take the above often-repeated statement-of-fact further, indeed if we extrapolated that on a much larger scale, and there are several hundred thousand homes in the Phoenix metro area with rooftop installations that are 100% offsetting their energy bills, we can displace more than a "couple of coal power plants at best." So that is indeed not an absolute fact - it's actually very much incorrect.

3. End-User Return-on-Investment - As far as overall return-on-investment, we have a program in place with realtors and have executed several successful case studies in Phoenix and Palm Springs that are clear in showing it has a significant ROI on a homeowners capital investment - better returns than most places you could deploy that capital in this economy. When you combine government subsidies that help offset a significant portion of the homeowners out-of-pocket up-front costs with the lift on property values in this real estate market (with 20-year warranties on the balance-of-systems, you are selling a home that does not have an electricity bill attached to it - a powerful hedge against future energy and inflation cost increases), the resultant ROI is powerfully conclusive in these markets that residential solar installations are absolutely viable.

4. Long-Term Outlook for Solar - The longer-term outlook is cloudier, but trends positive. Government funding, as well as funding from the private sector, has been flowing strong into the solar industry. That is a leading indicator - "follow the flow,", as we say in Silicon Valley. But that isn't sustainable long-term - the key metric to follow is the LCOE (Levelized Cost-of-Energy), or LEC (Levelized Energy Cost), two different names for the exact same thing. It is an economic assessment of the cost the energy-generating system including all the costs over its lifetime: initial investment, operations and maintenance, cost of fuel, cost of capital. A net present value calculation is performed and solved in such a way that for the value of the LEC chosen, the project's net present value becomes zero. Typically LECs are calculated over 20 year lifetimes, and are given in the units of currency per kilowatt-hour, for example USD/kWh or EUR/kWh or per megawatt-hour. Solar's LEC must come down to the level of other, traditional energy generation sources for it to truly gain critical mass and the accelerated investment and deployment that comes with it.

5. The Green Culture Cannot be Discounted - Another powerful force isn't a quantifiable metric but must be factored when forecasting the solar industry, which is the cultural and societal push to renewable Energy, both domestic and internationally. The United States has been effectively put in the position of either taking over the leadership of the GreenTech sector, and the climate debate, as only the U.S. can do, or find ourselves behind Europe and Asia in a technology sector absolutely critical to the economy. And effectively there is no choice - whether you believe in global warming or Renewable Energy, we are jumping on the train because we must.

6. The Smart Grid Impact - The Smart Grid's evolution and the corresponding innovations will have a dramatic effect on Solar's LEC. The Smart Grid is in its infancy, so we will see its impact on Renewable Energy sources and their net efficiencies over the next 5-10 years start to be realized. I cannot stress enough how critical a factor the Smart Grid will have on the entire energy industry, and the result of its impact simply cannot be forecasted yet - by the Smart Grid's very nature, there are too many variables to accurately analyze and draw a clear conclusion.

7. Solar Component Oversupply Issue - The oversupply of solar panel units does indeed have an impact on First Solar, but it is a net-positive for the industry as a whole for obvious reasons. Case-in-point, China's Solar production capacity has increased substantially (both qualitative and quantitative, I have seen impressive bench test results from very low costs panels as compared to expensive established brands, and the build quality is impressive), and the impact of a downward pressure of solar panel components will continue to effect LEC in a positive manner for the solar industry as a whole.

8. The Federal Government Impact - Finally, at least in the near-term, we have an Administration and Congressional body that, right, wrong or indifferent, is dedicated to continue investment substantial sums into the GreenTech industry, solar very much included. And the investment is coming both directly and in the form of subsidies and tax-credits. It's stunningly substantial when I can eliminate 75% of a homeowner's out-of-pocket initial costs of a rooftop solar energy system. That cannot be discounted, again in the near-term.

Just some insights to consider when you look at the solar landscape from a macro-level. I hope it is helpful!

Disclosure: No holdings in any of the companies referenced in this article.

Comments

[Fred W:]

NE Florida utilities don't generally have a base rate of $0.15/kWh and you 30 year "LEC" is way off unless you are dealing with a 4 kW system that has ALL rebates and tax benefits rolling in. Use of a 20 year model is much more valuable to the average home owner--very few people stay in a home more than 10 years let alone 30...toooooo many unreliable assumptions need to be made to model the cost of electricity over 2 decades out.
The author of the article makes some good points but is all over the map.


On Nov 01 09:51 AM Solar Guy wrote:

> Troy,
>
> You make some excellent points, except your LEC math is inaccurate
> on point number 4.
>
> As a complimentary service, we provide all our customers a 30-year
> system life analysis to determine their IRR, Net Present Value, and
> Payback Period on their solar systems. Almost all of the solar panel
> manufacturers now offer a 25-year warranty and the panels will actually
> perform for 30+ years. So the LEC analysis should be based on 30
> years lifetime, not 20 years as you stated.
>
> Reference your final comment - "Solar's LEC must come down to the
> level of other, traditional energy generation sources for it to truly
> gain critical mass and the accelerated investment and deployment
> that comes with it." On every analysis I've provided to our customers
> here in Northwest Florida, the fixed solar rate equivalent cost for
> 30 years has been in the $0.03 - $0.08 / kWh range based on the size
> of the system versus the local utility provider's grid-based rate
> of $0.15 / kWh. In reality, we're already at or below "grid parity".
>
>
> Even if you take away the current subsidies and tax credits for the
> unsubsidized, TRUE cost of energy from all energy sources (solar
> versus coal, natural gas, and nuclear) in the US, decentralized electricity
> generation from solar panels on a rooftop with no associated grid
> transmission costs or non-competing, utility company monopoly dependence
> is still much less expensive for the next 30 years.

Nov 01 10:22 AM

[jerrydd:]

I agree 20 yr is a far better measure for costs but the chances of utility costs going down are very slim. Facts are fossil fuels are going up fast while PV, other RE is dropping just as fast.

If FS can get their panels out at $1.50/wt they will take over the by far larger home, building rooftop market. This market world or US wide is 5x's the solar farm market. In fact because homeowners have no land, transmission line, overhead or stockholder costs and generally pay 2x's what utilities pay, they are 2-3x's as cost effective as a solar farm with as much shorter payback.

Already retail has hit $2.38/wt for panels and once they are under $2/wt in a plug and play package of panels, inverter and mounting for under $3/wt, the market just in the US is around $60B for homeowner units. The one doing this first will be a big winner.

Don't forget solar happens in most places during peak demand so far more valuable that constant power, unlike many have tried to say. Storage is only $100/kw and using it and the solar for on peak power either for use or better, selling it and buying off peak from the grid for the rest and charging the batteries, one can make a nice profit from Solar in under 4 yrs payback with almost pure profit for 20+ yrs after that.

So yes solar PV can be a great source of energy, cheaper than coal. And as the price of electric rises as it will, it just gets better. A better investment than many on the stock market might.

Nov 01 11:33 AM

[Jigar Shah:]

1. Market Reaction to the Q3 Earnings Release - The sell off has come because they were able to keep prices at $1.74/Wdc. Since both CSI and Trina are selling crystalline at this level, the rebates will have to go up substantially next year and they may push off new mfg capacity additions. This was why the stock sold off as a little expensive.

2. Company Performance and Trends - integration of the downstream has led to this uncertainty and it will only get worse because they are pursuing big Bechtel like projects instead of small distributed generation projects. Not a criticism but this will keep happening

3. Market Penetration - Now that crystalline panels have fallen so far in price, FSLR's penetration into rooftops markets will be much slower.

1. The Truth About Germany - [The German government is taking steps to prevent much future growth because it is costing them way too much. They will stay at maybe 2,000 MWs per year, but not go up to 5,000 MWs per year as they could because of what you say and they simply don't need that much incremental electricity]

2. Rooftop Solar Energy Generation Systems - [I couldn't agree with you more. I wouldn't worry about it too much. It will take over 10 years to solve our transmission woes and in that time people will be force to look for distributed solutions such as solar, cogen, smart grid etc]

3. End-User Return-on-Investment - [The refundable 30% tax credit is the big deal here. Today, doctors and lawyers can avoid the active/passive rules now because of this. investment in distributed solar (less than 50kW) by private citizens will skyrocket in 2010]

4. Long-Term Outlook for Solar - [Here you are right about solar and wrong about LCOE. LCOE is causing high cost coal and nuclear to win over the lowest system cost solutions like DG, smart grid, ice storage, and energy efficiency. This will change next year as States in the US and globally are tired of solutions that say they have low LCOE but then suddenly require a 9% rate increase to pay for them. The DG, smart grid, energy efficiency, and storage solution only requires a 1% rate increase to keep the grid reliable. 1/9th the price even with a higher LCOE on a per unit basis will win every time]

5. The Green Culture Cannot be Discounted - [This is crap and the longer we perpetuate it the worse off we will be. Solar is winning because it is the only thing that building owners can do on a consistent basis to tell the utility companies to screw off. People hate the 5% per year rate increases since 2000 and are not going to take it anymore]

6. The Smart Grid Impact - [Solar will pull smart grid along as it has solar hot water heating, energy efficiency, and other programs]

7. Solar Component Oversupply Issue - [Absolutely, prices will stay low, going lower for another 18 months, this recent uptick this month is temporary and will go away in 30 days]

8. The Federal Government Impact - [Agree, but their messing with the private markets on project finance will cause problems for the renewables industry in 2011]

Nov 01 11:33 AM

[Solar Guy:]

To Fred W: "NE Florida utilities don't generally have a base rate of $0.15/kWh" Have you checked your utility bill lately? The base rate has nothing to do with the true cost. It's the same obfuscation tactic that cell phone companies use to hide the true cost. Divide the total amount due at the bottom by the monthly usage of kWh for the "true " cost. All those taxes, service/demand charges, and fuel adjustment charges in addition to base rate is the true cost of electricity.

We have a proprietary model that builds in the economic assumptions, discount rate, annual escalation rate, etc. that we're constantly updating. Since September 1, 2008, our two local utility companies rates have increased 20.3% and 30% respectively in NW Florida. You can throw out all the historical data on annual rate increases in the pre-carbon tax and pre-grid upgrade era. Just wait until 2010 - consumers and businesses are about to get hammered with all these pass-through costs for grid-based electricity in the next year, making distributed solar energy on the rooftop an even more compelling value proposition.

It's actually irrelevant how many years a person stays in the home as it's the LEC of the energy producing system that you're analyzing. The increased value of the home with renewable energy and a lower utility bill is passed on to the next homeowner. People don't live in their homes for 30 years, but they budget for them that way typically with 30-year fixed mortgages. Why? Lower monthly payment.

Nov 01 11:58 AM

[User 96264:]

Hi Jerry,

I believe that the current 'street' belief that Solar does save the typical homeowner $, and can not believe a 4 'year payback' without seeing your $'s.

But I really do want to believe, and would appreciate seeing details on a financial analysis. They will help me in convincing my better half to take the plung. I am interesting in installing a rooftop system on my house, but need all the assistance I can get in putting together a cost benefit analysis to show that this is not a boondoggle. I would like to be on the leading edge of what I see as a huge future market. Any advice on inputs to my cash flow model to show the true costs and benefits?

On Nov 01 11:33 AM jerrydd wrote:

>
> I agree 20 yr is a far better measure for costs but the chances of
> utility costs going down are very slim. Facts are fossil fuels are
> going up fast while PV, other RE is dropping just as fast.
>
> If FS can get their panels out at $1.50/wt they will take over the
> by far larger home, building rooftop market. This market world or
> US wide is 5x's the solar farm market. In fact because homeowners
> have no land, transmission line, overhead or stockholder costs and
> generally pay 2x's what utilities pay, they are 2-3x's as cost effective
> as a solar farm with as much shorter payback.
>
> Already retail has hit $2.38/wt for panels and once they are under
> $2/wt in a plug and play package of panels, inverter and mounting
> for under $3/wt, the market just in the US is around $60B for homeowner
> units. The one doing this first will be a big winner.
>
> Don't forget solar happens in most places during peak demand so far
> more valuable that constant power, unlike many have tried to say.
> Storage is only $100/kw and using it and the solar for on peak power
> either for use or better, selling it and buying off peak from the
> grid for the rest and charging the batteries, one can make a nice
> profit from Solar in under 4 yrs payback with almost pure profit
> for 20+ yrs after that.
>
> So yes solar PV can be a great source of energy, cheaper than coal.
> And as the price of electric rises as it will, it just gets better.
> A better investment than many on the stock market might.

Nov 01 12:28 PM

[Windsun33:]

Some things NOT noted in the above posts, are details like while prices of solar panels have dropped, prices of all the associated equipment, such as inverters and mounting systems have gone up 15-25%, and the permitting process can now be a nightmare- what used to take days and cost $200 or so now takes months and costs anywhere from $500 to $2500 - or even more.

Nov 01 12:52 PM

[HChang:]

Not forgetting that when oil price elevate from next year onwards, polysilicon price move up, etc, all these will make solar a more economical source of power. There is a leadtime to build and have all the infrastructure in place, those guys know that. That's why some governments, e.g. China, are already or had invested in solar. I'm a buyer of FSLR at current price, considering the biggest solar farm in the world to be build. The potential is good.

Nov 01 10:18 PM

[Solar Guy:]

Good point Windsun33. Just remember that the total cost of a solar PV installation is only 1/3 equipment, 2/3 labor. Agree on permitting process - a nightmare as you obviously know from experience.

Nov 01 10:25 PM

[Idiotbuster:]

Roof top solar installments is slow and costly with too many trips back and forth to complete each installation as contrary to megawatt solar installations. Megawatt installations has its own problems as well , because new powerlines will be needed to string over NIMBY property owners and "shoot in feet" environmentalists who sought to protect the pristine land from the unsightly powerlines. We didnt seem to have the same problems with wind turbines which is a bit odd, probably it was too late then . I am eyeing to local municipalies and small towns out in the boonies that already have powerlines nearby oten less than one mile away. All they need to do is install own power substations to hook up to the high voltage powerlines. During daytime, we can shut down oil, coal and gas powerplants altogether. Voters can be asked to approve municipal bonds to finance local megawatt projects to keep local jobs around.. I still maintain that rooftop solar will displace a couple of coal powerplants at most for the time being until solar comes down much further in price toward something like a dime a watt. We have a long way to go ... We are still charging $2-5 a watt with government's deficit in blessings...It is still not realistic to start drumming up for more rooftop solar until we establish a big enough solar industry that can build dozens of gigawatt worth of modules annually. We are not even there yet.. We are still dragging our feet and still listening to analysts and pundits downgrading solar stocks..

Nov 02 02:49 PM

[Idiotbuster:]

I am a strong advocate of solar photovoltaic primarily for megawatt installations not rooftop installations. Rooftop installations is not ready for prime time... Solar modules is still not a commodity yet. Solar modules is still too expensive and cloaked with governmental deifict spending... Government is cutting other programs to spend on roof top solar that benefit the wealthy alone. Solar prices had come down enough to make it affordable for local municipal installations with cooperation with local utilites. We need to act fast to head off ever higher fossil fuel prices unless we are content to stop our economy growth in order to avoid increasing demand on fossil fuels. Our demand has not fallen down enough even in the face of slow economy. We are still paralyzed and unwilling to kick start our economy out of fear of inflating oil prices much sooner than past cycles. I consider solar rooftops as a luxury that the wealthy can afford themselves without any government assistance. I just dont understand why towns of 1000 to 100.000 in population cannot adopt their own mutlimegawatt solar projects themselves with bond financings and modest government assistance. Bond financings is the way to go to help the solar industry succeed in the first phase of many phases of growth in the future. We can only cross fingers and hope that we will be able to attain a dime a watt cost structures in the future. First Solar is the first to attain below a dollar a watt cost which is remarkable. Many other competitors will do the same. We have to watch labor costs for now and make the biggest bang out of every buck by going megawatt installations first and center of all!! This is the first phase to go.. now! We will have rooftop solar much later not now! They dont have to move out in the desert to install megawatts there... Local municipals can do the jobs themselves for their own keep.. Lets put a solar roof over every town for all not the weatlhy alone..

Nov 02 03:04 PM

[Idiotbuster:]

I have suspicions of the wealthy . I suspect that the wealthy want to hold on fossil fuel stocks like Exxon and Peabody coal at the same time going slow on solar stocks with rooftop installations and draining the coffers of the government... The weatlhy is still not ready to give up oil and coal stocks.. They want secure investments and will do all they can to keep oil and coal stocks going for as long as possible .. I stop listening to experts a long time ago... I am thinking for myself so why cannot you, too.. Ignore the experts!! They are speaking for the benefits of the wealthy not you...

Nov 02 03:07 PM

[Idiotbuster:]

If we are too slow with solar installations through roof tops, then oil prices is certain to go up again much sooner.. I am so appaled to find no sense of urgency about keeping fossiil fuel prices down.. I am still not impressed with weekly reports of oiil inventories as such.. I am still not impressed with dozens of full oil tankers with nowhere to unload ... It doesnt take much of an economical pickup to soak them up all. Laid off workers are paying the price while we sit on economy and waiting for the oil to fill up ... and focusing too narrowly on solar rooftops alone.. There had been too few megawatt announcements here and there. Dont we understand that we really need TERAWATTS NOT GIGAWATTS OR MEGAWATTS OF SOLAR.. I say this again...TERAWATTS THAT IS IN TRILLIONS OF WATTS NOT MILLIONS OR BILLIONS... YES, TRILLLLIONS OF WATTS!! It is no joke here.. Again, to the "Aflac" crowd out there..."TERAWATTS!!!'

Nov 02 03:13 PM

[Idiotbuster:]

Our government spent billions on affordable housing and what we get?? Toxic assets! Our government is not interested in cost and productivity. I am not saying that our government ought to stay out of the housing business, but our government has more important obligations than to artificially lowering the true costs of doing business. For solar industry, our govenment has to be much more patient with solar rooftops that can wait.. I rather see our government forge ahead with more megawatt installations first until the cost of a solar watt comes down close to a dime a watt. I think it is far more important to keep oil prices from going up much sooner than to create jobs just for the sake of creating jobs at any cost. Oil prices is too dangerous to play politics with voters who want rooftop installations.. Way toooo dangerous!! As of now only the wealthy benefits from solar rooftops... Not the laid off workers who had nothing to do with energy issues.. We need more energy sources FAST!!! TO RESTORE ECONOMICAL RECOVERY FOR ALL WORKERS NOT THE RICH ROOFTOPPERS...

Nov 02 03:24 PM

[Idiotbuster:]

First Solar is still making only a gigawatt worth of solar modules a year in several factories yet it is the biggest solar player . Altogether, the solar industry is still managing only five or so gigawatts a year which is still a drop in the bucket... There is still no announcements of new solar factories for months ... Too much posturing and waiting for stock options to expire and traders losing money before going ahead.. What kind of a game are they playing??

Nov 02 03:27 PM

[Idiotbuster:]

I built my own array of solar heliostats made of aluminium foil glued on masonite boards mounted on posts to reflect sunlight back to the northern sides of my house. As you should know that practically all of the northern sides of houses in the Northern Hemisphere never saw the Sun because the Sun is always in the southern sky even in the high noon during wintertime. I cut my utiility bills with my crudely built array of solar heliostats.. I posted it on Youtube.com. It has to catch on but only a few thousands viewers so far.. General Electric can mass produce better versions of my solar heliostats, but GE prefer to make energy guzzling turbines of all sorts to appease the fossil fuel industry. We have yet to make a sizable dent in our demand of fossil fuels like down 50% outright.. We are down only a few percent points mostly thanks to the slow economy. We made energy conservation sound big with CFC bulbs and Energy Star postings on new appliciances to kee the public feel good about themselves..

Nov 02 03:35 PM

[Idiotbuster:]

Our govenment is adding too much unnecessary liabilities that they are already used to the famed "Third Rail " shocks... We are getting so numbed from repeated electric shocks from failing to keep our promises any longer. Our governemntr is laying off workers, too. Not only the businesses... Our liablilites are way over our heads, yet we continue to finance the war in the Afghanistan and financing rooftop solar installations to the hilt... I compare this to shrinking cereal boxes as Andy Rooney like to call it in "Sixty Minutes" . Candy bars are shrinking, etc.. I wonder about milk gallon jugs shrinking by a few ounces in the future?? Our government is using evasive political practices nowadays. at the same time chasing the latest sexy politcal issues like rooftop installations that will not make any dent at most... only a couple of coal powerplants at cost of billions of dollars..

Nov 02 03:41 PM

[Idiotbuster:]

Many people have no concept of what a watt of electricity means... They dont know how many watts a HDTV consumes.. or a central air condtioning system... or a stereo system or a power tool or even a night light.... They are not interested in knowing the boring facts or the fun facts as David Letterman like to fool around with... It seems that they are afraid of possibly getting an electical shock if they read the back of an applicance for the boring data on the label...

Nov 02 03:45 PM

[Idiotbuster:]

I find it interesting that an utility from San Diego is still locked in horns with property owners and environmentalists over the powerline issue that will go about 160 miles to San Diego from the solar megawatt farm.. It is not going to work , yet they are fighting just for the sake of fighting.. San Diego can install more and much smaller solar farms all over the local towns where the powerline is much closer and easier to hook up. San Diego can do deals with towns like Barstow , Needles, and Yuma for instance to do their own local megawatts installations , instead.. Time is of essence.. We are wasting time and money on lawyers... Seek the least resistance first and worrying about the bigger dreams for later... what are we waiting for.. Why cannot we go between the biggest solar farms and the rooftop solars?? Why are we going to the exrtremes of the issue only but never down the middle roads?? There are many choices to make. We chose to work on unworkable choices and ignoring the middle of the road choices that is mostly likey to succeed. We dont want solar as long as I see and understand it.. We want to see oil prices going up to $200, $300 a barrel.. We are not even serious about putting Big Oil & Gas in a can permanently.. Big Oil and Gas had cost us millions of jobs that no longer exist because of insufficient supplies of oil and gas in the better times.. We have to move to different sources of energy like solar in a big way and fast... not next year.. I mean now this minute!!

Nov 02 03:55 PM

[Idiotbuster:]

First Solar may sound overpriced but it is worth only ten billion in stock while Exxon Mobil is worth $300 billion. Sure, First Solar is much smaller than Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Conoco, British Petroleum, Dutch Royal Shell, and many others worth over trillions of dollars altogehter.. Yet analysts had the gall to downgrade First Solar while time is of utter importance.. We cannot afford to wait another minute or hour... The rich and powerful are watching solar traders and act against them in bids to wipe them out so that they can have it all to themselves in their own tier of economy.. If the solar traders wait, the rich will move in fast and price them out... The SEC ought to know that ...

Nov 02 04:22 PM

[Idiotbuster:]

I am a little suspicious of those alternate energy advocates espeically here in America. They are not going fast enough to my own liking. What it is telling me over my shoulder is that those alternate energy advocates are also tipping toes in fossil fuel investments as well. What I mean is that they are attempting to manipulate the prices of oil and gas by "slowing or dumbing down" the progress of alternate energy growth so to keep oil and gas prices as high longer as possible. I had heard arguments about the needs to keep oil and gas prices high in order to keep alternate energy competitive. I thought who is kidding whom... Who wants high oil prices at all and why we really need the questionable principles of capitalism that deal with supply and demand pricing equilbrum. I thought to myself that oil and gas is actually finite unlike hogs and coffee that can be grown over and over under the Sun. As for metals, they can be recycled over and over again. Unlike those above, oil , gas , and coal is called wasting assets which mean that once they are used, they are gone !! So , I thought myself that we gotta be fooling ourselves into thinking that we should adhere to the proven principles of capitalism as guidelines for pricing oil and gas versus alternate energy.. I need not to remind you that alternate energy is not a wasting asset becuase they can be renewed by the Sun or Wind. What I mean is that our government can be free to print money to finance as much as terawatts worth of alternate energy in order to silence the crazy oil trading pits in general. The media is doing us a great disservice by parroting the blame game on financial industries for messing up our ecnomy which was always patently false to this day.. It is and will always be Big Oil & Gas that will keep on messing up our economy at every economic cycle with soaring prices briefly before resettling down to ever higher plateus like today's $75 per barrel down from $145 at the pinnacle recently. It looks much like bait and switch con game to me. What I cannot understand is why we cannot have our government start shutting our oil & gas industry down with massive financings of alternate energy projects until we achieve a very stable energy supply for many years to come. Sure, oil and gas and coal will remain to play roles in our energy picture but to much less dominant ones. I am not satisfied with general remarks about hoping to achieve toward a mere 20% of the electricity based on alternate energy. I am talking about toward 100% during daytime hours and leaving the night hours to the traditional electricity generation capacity from coal, gas, and oil. Hydropower and nuclear usually operate 99% of the time. Please do not limit our imagination and ability to achieve total alternate energy during the daytime hours... Please do not allow the puzzles of storing energy hinder our progress toward 100% daytime alternate energy generation.

Dec 10 05:52 PM