Solar Stocks: Nine That Will Shine in a Bull Market 33 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
As the market rebounds, investors continue to reward the large cap growth leaders, and alternative energy led by solar has been one of the prime beneficiaries. The need for alternative energy continues to be a main focus for all governments as oil continues it's climb to over $110 a barrel. Solar stocks are getting the most headlines because they are farther along the commercialization continuum and they are more prevalent than their wind and alternative fuel counterparts.
Any discussion about solar companies must start with First Solar (FSLR). Clearly, the leader in the sector according to Wall Street based on its thin film technology, First Solar's stock price has resumed its climb to near record levels as investors await its Q1 earnings report.
Suntech (STP) and SunPower (SPWR) are the next two leading players based on market cap, but they primarily use silicon-based technology for their products. SunPower just released strong first quarter 2008 numbers but some analysts had some concerns about slowing sales growth for the next quarter based on a single comment during its conference call.
Additional players include LDK Solar (LDK), Trina Solar (TSL), Evergreen Solar (ESLR) and Canadian Solar (CSIQ).
There are two main questions when investing in solar stocks:
First, which technology (thin film vs. silicon) is likely to offer the best long term business model for cost and efficiency. Again, based on market cap and relative performance the market is betting that customers will prefer thin film technology led by First Solar. While I tend to agree I am certain that the market will be large enough for both technology forms to compete and provide strong sales and profits. Second, which stocks offer the best values and are likely to maintain the growth rates that investors need to drive higher market capitalizations.
The following chart analyzes the top players with the key growth rates and relative value.
You can see that Wall Street believes that First Solar will prevail based on a market cap that is three times the next largest competitor. You can also see its stock is priced for perfection. First Solar has a history of trouncing estimates and will likely do so again this quarter.
SWPR and STP are the next largest competitors with STP actually showing the largest sales estimate for Q1 2008. Both are well-positioned to lead the silicon based technology and sport reasonable valuations with forward P/E's of 27 and 18 respectively. Their PEG's (price to earnings growth) is actually very attractive and lower than most slower growing companies.
Both Canadian Solar (CSIQ) a Chinese company and LDK are interesting plays. Both are showing strong growth with below average valuations. LDK's PEG is ridiculously low vs. the other solar companies and vs. the overall market. So what's this all mean for the average investor looking to buy alternative energy and solar stocks. I believe FSLR will deliver on Q1 earnings and lead the group to new highs.
I will continue to maintain my long positions in FSLR, SPWR and STP until their valuations get too high. At that point it may be worthwhile to switch into some of the smaller names particularly LDK and CSIQ. The leaders will lead the sector up until valuations get out of hand and then others will play catch up shortly after.
FYI: I also like Cree Inc. (CREE) and Zoltek Companies Inc. (ZOLT) as additional long-term plays in the alternative energy sector.
Disclosure: The author is long FSLR, STP & SPWR.
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
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 33 comments:
Nuclear will be our answer for long term electricity production. Best of all it is very green with less waste to the environment compared to solar and bio fuels.
CW
WHAT the F***??? Nuiclear is the most hazardous technology known and available to man! Or, supershorty, could you please explain how to and where to dispose of all the nuclear waste from the power plants? The continue to radiate for the next 7.000-15.000 years. As i see it, we haven't even developed yet a material that exists that long. so the containers built today may last 100 years and then what? and where to store this deadly stuff? I mean, secure, against floods, against earthquakes - for the next 10.000 years to come.
Green? the only thing green here is your greenhorn-like approach towards nuclear.
give me break.
www.larouchepub.com/ot...
Nuclear power is probably one of the safest forms of power. Just consider that our most militaries use it to power things, dangerous things that have bombs on them and send them into harms way. Boy you should be really scared.
Solar power requires a huge amount of land for little power production. Even in the deserts, what is the environmental impact on using 640 acres to power lets say a 100,000 homes for half the day...at best? What about the rattlesnakes, scorpions, coyotes, cacti, etc?
ASTI, DSTI, ENER, SOL, also the TAN ETF is interesting...
Although hygrogen energy is an alternative, in order to obtain it, you need to use water. That is a life sustaining resource, unlike coal, oil, uranium. Just think what would happen to the price of food, given to what has happened with the use of biofuels now. That clearly is not the answer. All our use of energy comes with a price. Solar as savior is not going to happen. Has anyone looked into solar panels for your home? I did. It is over 30,000 for a minor installation, which they would give about 10K in tax breaks. For me to recoup 20K in energy "savings" even at these levels is over 15 years. Plus I still need to maintain an alternate power supply or buy massive expensive batteries that truly are toxic for the envirornment. So solar isn't looking too green for me, unless you are of course looking through your green colored glasses.
Ignorance is bliss. You call me and others "morons" and yet fail to back up your position with any substantial content.
What is often forgotten by nuclear advocates is that water is needed on a continual basis for nuclear plants, as the AP article cited below states: ". . . the drought could choke off the billions of gallons of water that pass through the region's reactors every day to cool used steam." What with the periodic (yet unpredictable) weather, drought conditions are making it more difficult for nuclear plants to operate in some areas -- and given the increasingly erratic weather, this problem could easily become worse over time. Depending on nuclear to curb greenhouse gases could thus become a tragic mistake!
This Associated Press story makes it clear that nuclear power and drought do not mix well:
biz.yahoo.com/ap/08012...
In addition, nuclear plants, because of their inherent dangerous nature, require enormous time to license and build, often 15-20 years.
Yet, that is still only part of the picture. Nuclear gets, and has always gotten, far more subsidies than wind and solar, even today. The costs of nuclear storage, the reprocessing of spent fuel rods, the liability (insurance) costs, and the decommissioning of nuclear plants are but a few of the many ways in which the taxpayer foots most or all of these costs. Those who cite the "low" cost of nuclear wouldn't be anywhere as cavalier about its alleged economic advantage were these costs calculated into the picture.
Lastly, the "problem" of storage for wind and solar power is not really a problem. Last month, Scientific American's cover story was about the use of empty underground aquifers and abandoned mine shafts that could be used to store compressed air from surplus energy production from wind and solar -- one of the most efficient methods of storing energy there is. In addition, more efficient batteries are already being manufactured by NGK to store wind power. "NGK, a Japanese industrial ceramics manufacturer, just began selling nontoxic sodium-sulfur batteries with 4.3 times the capacity of their highly toxic lead-acid counterparts." says Stephanie Grimmett, at:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Nukes have so many problems, it's not even funny.
1. They need billions of gallons of water to cool them.
Nuclear Power is hydro power" by Lou at
www.grinzo.com/energy/.../
Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns:
"Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate."
“Water is the nuclear industry’s Achilles’ heel,” said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. “You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants.” He added: “This is becoming a crisis.”
"An Associated Press analysis of the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors found that 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants’ turbines."
2. They are not safe from terrorist attacks. The Argonne National Lab says that an airplane crashing into a nuclear power plant could cause a complete meltdown, even if the containment building isn't compromised.
3. They take years to build. solar and wind are much quicker to get up and running.
4. They are expensive to build four times the cost of wind power per kilowattt
5. They cost about $500 million each to dismantle when they are beyond their useful lifespan.
6. The waste is not only dangerous but expensive to store and move to Yucca Mtn. in Nevada. Wisconsin alone has spent $600 million for their contribution to Yucca Mtn.
7. Nuclear companies aren't held responsible in the case of a nuclear accident, they have passed that on to the taxpayer
8 Nuclear will not make us energy independent. We import 95% of our uranium, with future imports planned from Russia.
9. They are also heavily subsidized
"David Fleming, creator of the concept of Tradeable Energy Quotas and author of the forthcoming and rather wonderful “Lean Logic”, has just published The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy, which is a thorough demolition of the case for nuclear power being a solution to peak oil. and climate change. You can down load the pdf. for free here or you can order printed copies here. Like much of David’s writing, it patiently yet assertively builds its arguments, backed up by exhaustive research, to build a case against nuclear power that looks pretty much bulletproof to me."
www.grinzo.com/energy/.../
transitionculture.org/.../
Link to The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy"
www.eoearth.org/articl...
2006 from www.earthtrack.net/ear...
"Federal subsidies to new nuclear power plants are likely between 4 and 8 cents per kWh (levelized), and could well be the determining factor driving the construction of new nuclear power plants. $9 billion per year in the U.S."
www.cleanwisconsin.org...
The United States and Russia signed a deal that will boost Russian uranium imports to supply the U.S. nuclear industry, the Commerce Department said Friday…."
"The new agreement permits Russia to supply 20 percent of US reactor fuel until 2020 and to supply the fuel for new reactors quota-free."
So if, under a President McCain, we build a bunch of new nuclear reactors -- they could be fueled 100 percent by Russia.
I can almost hear Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin saying, "Excellent." "
from: gristmill.grist.org/st...
The Energy Blog Jan 2 08
"A new company has entered the thermal solar field. Per their press release:"
"Hamilton Sundstrand, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. [NYSE: UTX], and US Renewables Group have formed a new entity, SolarReserve, to commercialize the concentrated solar power tower technology and corresponding molten salt storage system developed by Rocketdyne. This renewable technology will enable utility-scale solar power generation. It is designed to meet a utility's needs with a single installation capable of producing up to 500 MW of peak power."
"Due to the unique ability of the product to store the energy it captures, this system will function like a conventional hydroelectric power plant, but with several advantages. We will have the capability to store the sun's energy and release it on demand. This product is more predictable than water reserves, the supply is free and inexhaustible, and the environmental impact is essentially zero."
Lee Bailey, managing director of US Renewables Group (USRG)
"The technology was originally demonstrated in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Energy at the Solar Two facility in Barstow, Calif. The unique component of the HS Rocketdyne power tower is the central receiver. This high heat flux hardware represents a unique combination of liquid rocket engine heat transfer technology and molten salt handling expertise."
From the WSJ (link only good for 7 days):
"Hamilton Sundstrand's Rocketdyne segment will provide heat-resistant pumps and other equipment, as well as the expertise in handling and storing salt that has been heated to more than 1,050 degrees Fahrenheit. . . .
According to the company, molten salt loses only about 1% of its heat during a day, making it possible to store energy for long periods of time. The salt is a mixture of sodium and potassium nitrate."
From CNET:
"The technology is expected to be available within three or four years. A representative said the company expects to realize revenue of more than $1 billion in the next 10 years.
Hamilton Standard recently to receive two contracts from DOE to help develop this process. Under one contract Hamilton Sundstrand will validate the manufacturability of a large molten salt receiver panel and confirm its operation in prototypic solar flux to reduce the cost of CSP power tower technology through economies of scale. DOE will provide up to $320,000 of the $400,000 project.
In the second project it will design, build, and test a long-shafted, molten salt pump that will enable large scale thermal storage system of commercial-scale CSP parabolic trough plants. DOE will provide up to $362,000 of this $452,000 project.
A brief explanation of solar power tower technology, see earlier post:
Solar power towers consist of a large field of sun-tracking mirrors, called heliostats, which focus solar energy on a receiver atop a centrally located tower. The energy, coming from the sun rays, concentrated at one point (the tower in the middle), produces temperatures of approx. 550°C to 1500°C. The gained thermal energy can be used for heating water or molten salt, which saves the energy for later use.
Heated water is converted to steam, which is used to drive the turbine-generator converting the thermal energy into electricity.
Several parabolic trough power plants under development
in Spain plan to use molten salt energy storage.
A 400 MW solar tower project, based on LUZ II technology, which uses water rather than salt for energy storage, was announced in November.
Thermal solar is currently the lowest cost solar technology, $0.08-$0.14 per kWh, for producing solar power and it is good to see another player, with hopefully some new technology, enter the field."
www.renewableenergywor...
And REC of Norway?
The most expensive cost of nuclear - the one that makes it prohibitive - is the cost of the lawsuits. Go read Public Citizen.
Without the lawsuits it is as cheap or cheaper than coal plants.
Good point that coal has uranium in it and does release a very small amount of radioactivity. (GEE! We are all going to die from years of radioactive exposure from coal plants! lmao!) The other pollutants form coal, like mercury, are much more dangerous.
Have a problem with water? Why not put the plant near the ocean, which is also where most of the population lives and where most of electricity is consumed.
"I'm a big fan of clean nuclear power...we have our nuclear reactor exactly where we want it, 93 Million miles away."
Solar Energy IS the solution. Efficiencies of Solar panels continue to grow. Like the computer industry at it's infancy no one knew that within 15 years we would all have a PC on our desk. Solar is the same. 15 yrs. from now all rooftops will have clean efficient Solar panels on their rooftops. There will be large Solar farms producing energy for communities. Large Scale Solar Farms will be the immediate push. As efficiencies continue to increase more feasible uses for homes will come into play. The argument over whether thin film or Silicon will prevail is at best academic for the time being. Only 1% of the US market has been tapped for Solar. There is room for both.
Let's clear some things up. Coal plants are currently pumping out more radioactive material than nuclear plants are, and that's going straight into the atmosphere. See this EPA report: www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t...
Modern nuclear plants are safe. Note the word "modern". Due to the populace's lack of understanding and knee jerk reactionaries from decades ago, nuclear power become so NIMBYed and cost prohibitive that the stations we have now our decades out of date. France is currently running about 70% nuclear.
The "waste" everyone sites is only a problem if you don't allow reprocessing of spent fuel. You see, in our antiquated reactors only so much fuel can be "burned". After it gets to a certain point, the rod no longer produces enough energy to be useful. However, there is still plenty of fissile material left. If the US would use breeder reactors (like France), a spent fuel rod can be reprocessed several times, greatly increasing energy yields and greatly decreasing wastes.
Next up, the limited supply of Uranium. Even with reprocessing (and better tech like pebble bed reactors) there is only a centuries left at current consumption. The better choice is thorium, of which we have thousands of years worth. Thorium reactors are impossible to melt down; they require a neutron pump for a reaction. No pump, no reaction. The by products are also much less troublesome to deal with.
But even sticking with uranium, with reprocessing the amount of waste drops significantly and is far less than the crap pumped out by coal plants.
Ideally, solar would be the answer. But there are still some problems. First, cell yields need to increase. Efficiency in the teens isn't going to cut it for the global grid. Some lab cells have gotten higher and special cells used for satellites perform better as well, but at $100k per KW that's a little much. Second, costs need to come down. I've been waiting for some time for solar to become affordable, but it is still out of reach.
Nuclear will get us there in the short term. Long term, solar and biofuels.
~X~
We need to put vast resources, money, and scientific energy into clean, renewable energy and the task of making it safe, without noxious side effects, etc. We simply have to succeed.
Remember Three Mile Island? According to the official study, it was either due to design error, operation/material error (I've forgotten the exact words for this one), or human error.
In other words, they narrowed everything conceivable or possible down to -- everything possible or conceivable. I was so reassured.
It's always possible to overlook something, no matter how thorough the preparation. Next to this, even the very serious problem of nuclear waste becomes relatively unimportant.
The panalties for even one failure being what they could be -- nuclear's just too dangerous.
Safe (or easily made-safe, or even penalties-for-failure-... technologies just cannot be "too expensive" -- we're talking survival, minimization of climate change -- really, our grandchildren's lives.
sorry, i digress!
but don't worry, accidents never happen in the U.S.A.! not like air force planes recently flew over the US with, oops, nuclear weapons on board . good thing they weren't american airlines planes! nope, i'm sure with 'modern' nuclear technologies and reactors everything will always and forever be hunky-dory.
and jeez it's not like if muhammad ata et al had flown their airliners into the indian point reactor north of new york city there wouldn't be any city left. we'd all just glow a little more. and our children could have extra limbs maybe, or be missing organs, or have other interesting human variations. how cool!
nuclear power. definitely safer and smarter - and now greener, because all the shills say so - than all you dummies who want wind and solar.
oh and by the way, everything on fox news is absolutely true. totally 100%. and i have a few bridges to sell you too.
ps- yes sir sid those bad bad arabs are all terrorists, aren't they? i mean the US helped kill half a million iraqis through the sanctions regime in the 1990s - many children who weren't even born when iraq invaded kuwait, but tough love, right? we certainly meant well! and that was before george w. bush had the benficence to give them the gift of american-made freedom! now look at how good that place looks. it's a portrait of paradise! all paved with our good intentions!
but those darn bad bad arabs. they never learn and just mess up the party. and how did our oil get under their lands? that is just so messed up. it's a good thing the US had the foresight to partner itself with the most progressive regimes in the arab and muslim worlds in the gulf and egypt for all these decades! what smart geostrategy! just like using religious fighters as a proxy force to 'bleed' the (now former) soviet union in afghanistan! another gem of brilliant planning that clearly was based on a far-sighted assessment of all the potential repercussions! plus we got to help make afghanistan one of the most heavily mined countries in the world. giving the gift of limbless children to afghans. what another honor.
but don't worry. they are the terrorists. we are for freedom. and we don't ever make mistakes or do things from ill-intention. and if you think otherwise, find yourself another country buddy. because the U.S. of A. is only for freedom-lovers!
pps - i still have those bridges for sale, now with clean nuclear plants included!
1.) First Solar uses Cadmium which is being banned for any use in many European countries.
2.) Evergreen Solar is operating in the red and has yet to turn a profit.
Solar power is a great idea, but in it's present state, it will not and probably never replace our present fossil fuels. It is not always on. It presently requires huge areas of land for these plants which has a tremendous EPA impact, even if they are in the desert. They are very expensive, as a cost per killowatt.
Now the fundamentals: Most of these companies trade at incredible multiples. They are heavily shorted and are increasingly being "pumped up." The insiders are all selling. Their executives dump more every day.
When people become emotional about a company or stock because they feel that if they own it, it will make them and the world better. That is not investing.
www.jbs.org/node/3481
new-fed.com/other/2007...
Countries that use Nuclear energy:
world-nuclear.org/info...
Most of Europe uses Nuclear power for electricity, and for a very long time. Most of those countries are like a larger state of the US. They are in close proximity to major populations. Most of the military uses nuclear power to propell their ships and they go into harms way and they carry bombs. The military wouldn't use the technology if they thought they would lose a multi billion dollar piece of equipment and lives if it "could be blown up by a terrorist."
Now for the big oil falsehood. When oil goes up it will bring grid parity for solar. This could not be further from the truth. Very little of the world's electrictity is produced from oil. over 75% is from coal and natural gas. Both of these thankfully for now are readilly available and not controlled by people who don't have an agenda against the US.
This is a bubble friends. A huge pump job. If they were at resonable P/E's I would be the first to go long. Anyone long at these levels or saying that "If FSLR breaks 300, then the the sky is the limit" by an author on this site Andrew Ling is one of the reasns I am here to give people a dose of reality. This reminds me when there were year price targets of 350 for APPL, and over 1000 for GOOG and BIDU. Needless to say, those were huge pump jobs and I made a ton of money shorting these. I believe the main reason is these anylists that pull people into these stocks through emotion and not the reason you buy stocks long. A good fundamental base, dividend, cash flow and type of industry. Solar will play a part in our energy picture but if you beive that it will replace everything else, It is you who has just bought the Brooklyn Bridge but you just don't know it.
Also I do like LDK for valuation. You have to play momentum..SOL is up SO much I think I have to short it down to 16 and buy again ...if solar holds up this year it will be at $23 at some point
just like it's leftist nonsense to know anything serious about US foreign policy. i mean the story always works so much better when we are the blameless faultless heroes! so why know anything! just wave the flag and dismiss anyone who raises questions, or god forbid, opposes US policy.
on energy, isn't it the same little game of cost efficiency that kind of helped get the US and the wider global economy stuck on dirty fossil fuels? oh, wait, i forgot, actually oil was run as a cartel, first of anglo-american companies, then nationalized companies in conjunction with the western companies. and nuclear has received zillions of dollars in subsidies - something you keep fogetting to address. so much for your cost-efficiency ratios and 'free' market models.
solar and other technologies are generally improving every year. it might cost a little more for now per Kw/h, and nothing is perfect, but solar farms and wind farms are not going to ever experience radioactive meltdowns, intentional or accidental. i'd rather bet on those technologies anyday than believe the fairytale that nuclear energy is safe or green. given that the P/Es and all are nuts on FSLR and other real alt energy companies, and that they trade in technologies that aren't contributing to greenhouse gas production and global warming, i'd say other people are also making that general bet, regardless of the fundamentals.
Just imagine World War II with Germany, France, Britain, Russia, Japan and the US 'loaded' with nuclear facilities and bombers and missiles flying back and forth targeting those facilities.
Or try to imagine Iran and Iraq at war with each other while 'loaded' with nuclear power plants.
Done imagining? Then you realize spreading nuclear power implies spreading nuclear warfare capability around the world.
With a nuclear facility in your backyard you give any potential enemy the option to explode a nuclear bomb in your backyard.
That's a bit too scary for my taste!
Oh, no, that's not Lyndon Larouche's website is it?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have to admit there seems to be a lot of flaming and irrational responses on this page, but I do add to the voices that say we're having trouble enough disposing of the nuclear waste we're already generating, and nobody wants it buried "in their backyard".
Nor has supershort yet responded to the obvious lack of compatibility between drought and nuclear power plants. And insofar as the "free-market," it is truly mind-numbing how so many of those on the so-called "conservative" or "free-market" side of things are themselves the absolute worst at voting for subsidies (welfare for the rich), sweetheart tax breaks, and these absurd "pie in the sky" ideas for our grand, glorious, clean "future" with . . . nuclear power running everything! :-) It just never ends . . .
frflyer, thank you for adding to the issue of drought vs. nukes, and putting a little more detail into it than I did. And thanks for the inspiring news about molten salt as a storage medium. I seem to remember reading something about that before, but not until now did I realize how quickly the various methods of storing surplus wind/solar power are evolving.
The molten salt method sounds like the winner, but then again, with NGK's salt and sulfur batteries -- and with the possibilities regarding compressed air -- it would be difficult right now to assess which one (if any) will ultimately be the best at storing electricity.
With all human endeavors, it is only ignorance and stupidity that prevent humane and safe methods of producing all the energy we need, and to grow all the food we need etc. etc.