Solars Should Bounce Today

Piper Jaffray is out with a Solar call saying that according to German news agency DPA, and supported by their contacts close to the Social Democrat Party [SPD], the German Government reached final agreement on feed-in tariff reduction for Solar and Wind at 02.00 AM this morning. They understand that the agreement will be incorporated in the EEG bill on Monday by which time the feed-in tariff reduction will be made public. They also understand that the bill will be voted through parliament as early as Friday next week rather than end of June.

The feed-in tariff reduction is said to be 8% for 2009 (previous 9.1%), 8% for 2010(previous 7%) and 9% for 2011 and onwards (previous 8%).

Notablecalls: Good news for Solars as most of the stocks have been getting hit lately on fears of Germany lowering support for its solar initiative. I expect the likes of STP, FSLR and SPWR retrace at least most of their yesterday's losses. Note the worst case expectations were for 30% decline in 2009. Short term actionable call.

Comments

[ace22]

wow this is good news thank you piper

[petyaczar]

Yesterday's drop was way over done. The Euorpeans will not abandon political support of solar. The European mentality is that theycannot rely upon petroleum based heat and light.


The Chinese still have a crtitical power shortage, vast space, and a poorly developed electrical distribution infrastructure. They think long term and strategically - unlike the idiots in the U.S. Congress who think short term only of their own political skins and who are generally so stupid they need to call a plumber to flush a toilet. -

IMO that means solar will continue to shine, revenues will continue to grow as will profits, margins and stock prices.

STP and ESLR will both directly benefit from the trends in Europe and China.

Expect a 70%+ retracement today and more to follow next week.
IMO

[ari5000]

short solar --- yeah that was always a smart idea.

Welcome to the Terrordome.

[Jack Yetiv]

A lot of people don't realize that Germany is actually in the process of de-commissioning ALL of its nuclear power plants, a policy that is not easily reversed.

Spain, for its part, is already generating approx. 40% of its electricity renewably, suggesting a very strong level of commitment to this path.

I believe that costs to produce solar panels will drop by 10-20% in 2009 versus 2008, so an 8% decrease in feed-in tariff will be LESS than the decrease in cost. ASP's will drop by single digits, so average margins should drop by very little (a few percent) in 2009.

I absolutely believe that other countries will INITIATE incentives--eg, Italy, Australia, maybe Greece--in 2008-2009. And don't forget China and the US. I believe both countries will become substantially bigger consumers of panels in 2009 versus 2008 (remember that both presidential candidates are in favor of this course).

Of direct relevance to the preceding paragraph, something far more amazing that the German minimal lowering of feed-in tariffs occurred today. The Bush administration--kickin... and screaming--in a scientific report it was compelled to issue, finally recognized the concept of global warming. Whether you believe there is a scientific basis for this or not (and as a scientist, I do), the fact of the matter is that this recognition is a harbinger of things to come.

This genie will NOT be put back in the bottle. The renewable energy ball is rolling down the hill--by absolute necessity, rather than design--and it is gathering speed.

High oil and gas prices--although not directly relevant to electricity generation--are only going to acclererate this process.

Jack

[West1]

Jack,

Have a link on the Bush aministration scientific report?

[West1]

Jack,

Regarding both presidential candidates being "in favor of this course", I am skeptical of McCain, who actually seems to be a doubletalker (shocker) more interested in nuclear power.

[petyaczar]

Jack, While you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

As A Scientist, I DO NOT BELIEVE there is ANY sufficient data supporting the notion of human activity as a cause of global warming.

IMO global warming is a purely political and financial scam. A power grab by the U.N. to steal America's wealth and transfer it to the "poor countries" thru an international tax. And a financial scam by the ALGORE types who are in it strictly for the $$$ - well at least their motives are pure.

IMO -as a scientist - the Earth began warming following the last ice age, and the Earth will continue warming until the next ice age.

There is no scientific consensus on this topic - podiatrists and dentists do not count as scientists, neither do social workers and politicians.

BUT we are in agreement that solar is one of the answers to our driving need for energy.

PS IMO if there is general material statistically significant global warming -doubtful at best - THEN the most likely cause is a change -increase - in solar radiation.

[supershort]

Jack,

As far as the european mentality that solar is the way to go, you are dead wrong. There is minimum free space in Italy and the "Forrestal" levies severe penalties for clearing land. I know because I have realatives there and my parent's land was cleared, (they live here) by thieves and the government had a big investigation to make sure we weren't involved. They have always had to deal with high prices, both for food and energy. That is nothing new. The Euro is holding strong so they haven't felt the increase in gas as much as the US.

As a matter of fact, Italy is considering new Nuclear power plants, information just released on May 23. Also, German chancellor Merkel said that "Germany will be the laughing stock of Europe by abandoning nuclear power in it's own country only to import it from the other countries."

Solar in it's present form will not be the answer. If we can ramp up the power obtainable then it will be useful. The present forms are just too ineffiecent for what the world demands now.

[nakedjaybird]

petyaczar - I'm with you re. global warming.

Have you any data on how low the oceans were during the last few ice ages? No one ever seems to talk about that - just how high they're going to be when the current ice melts. There must be some real facts and science out there somewhere that agrees with you and me. That's all we need: concensus. Concensus appears to be the best argurment [for some, that is].

[nakedjaybird]

PS: petyaczar - I'm also with you on solar.

There must be a reason (bad and greed and selfish ignorance are synonomous in this case) for looking and digging for coal, oil, gas and uranium; processing it, transporting it, "burning" it, cleaning up the mining messes and effluents not to mention downstream waste processing, maintaining those corroding facilities with all the moving parts not to mention all it took to design and construct the mines and all those conversion facilites with concrete, steel, miners and steelworkers, etc, nor to mention the siting requirements and regulations and regulators for earthquakes and enviornmental, etc., and LASTLY PAYING FOR ALL THE FUEL.........

whereas, SOLAR FUEL IS FREE; any efficiency is a gain; AND SIMPLE! Solar has no moving parts lest one track the sun; none to low maintenance for tilted billboards as stationary PV farms and/or boxtop roofs; no significant concrete, rebar, involved design and construction efforts, few mining and processing disturbances; some possible cooling of the earth and reduction in weed growth; and no final waste and effluent issues vis-a-vis those mentioned above.

I don't know, solar seems to complicated.......espe... for Washington DC and the greedy-not-for-the-peo...

What we need is a push to go solar - like going for the moon; or like putting in place (design and construction and operation) a nuclear power plant in the middle of the desert at Hanford in the 1940's, IN 18 MONTHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW THAT WAS REAL LEADERSHIP!!!!!!!

[Jack Yetiv]

I really wasn't trying to get into a debate about global warming. My real point was that whether you agree with it or not, society has finalled warmed up (pun intended) to the idea. Whether it is scientifically correct or not, people are finally convinced that it is.

I don't think anyone can see the changes in the world in the last year and not agree with that.

And if that if true, alternative energy is going to do very well.

Jack

[West1]

"As A Scientist, I DO NOT BELIEVE there is ANY sufficient data supporting the notion of human activity as a cause of global warming. "

petyaczar,

If you're a scientist, maybe you'd care to state your actual name?

You sound like just another mentally unbalanced right wing idiot to me.

[sawgill]

I'm a mathematician, but I also have enough common sense to realize that I am not an expert on all things mathematical. I'm expert in my area of specialization. Same with any field-for instance, science. Just because you're a scientist, it does not make you an expert in everything scientific! You are only an expert in the area of your specialization. It is a common fallacy among those with advanced degrees (MD's are notorious for this) to assume you are an expert in anything you choose to think about. The big ego is a problem. no?

The big plus for solar is that it can be small and local. The power grid is very inefficient in transporting electricity over long distances. Having many solar sites feeding the grid is very efficient since it tends to decentralize the source.

Global warning: I would prefer to err on the side of caution. It is actually cost efficient and a moneymaking venture to take steps to reduce green house gases and other polluting practices mentioned above. I'd rather take precautions, make a profit doing so, and then not worry that if I was arrogant-and wrong-that I would not have to say to my grandchildren "oops, my bad."

[petyaczar]

West1 = Why so ludittes like you can try and stalk me?

I state a righteous assertion founded in documented fact.
For you to say otherwise is merely a liberal perversio of the truth.

Left wing liberal wackos = just cause they "feel" it is so, don't make it true. Just cause they happen to agree in the madness of their pc crowd, don't make it true.

My scientific credentials are in the areas of Chemistry,Physics, and computer Science (modeling)


Jack, My response to you, is part of a personal commitment to NEVER again allow anyone to state that the science is concluded, and consensus exists among scientists that man made global warming is a fact. It is a myth, til proven. You know anecdotes do not a hypothesis make.

My contention, and that of many other scientists is "MAN MADE global warming has not been proven, there is no credible scientifically valid support for the hypothesis.

Like I say I respoect your right to your own opinion, but please don't go around misstating a myth that "Scientific consensus on man made global warming has been reached" IT HAS NOT.

I'll bet you that within 20-30 years the notion of Global Warming will go the way of inclusion in " Madness and the Delusion of Crowds"

Just as the "ICE AGE IS COMING, the ICE AGE is coming" scientific (sic) sacre of the mid 1970's 75/76 went by the boards and disappeared as a false notion some researcher wrote into a grant application - Boy! that 1976 ICE AGE was a quick one!!!

We share a common belief in the emergence of solar. In one month (24hoursx30) = enough solar radiation (energy) pours onto the Earth to (measured in standard definition ERGS) equal to ALL OF of the energy employed by mankind in since the DAWN of time -pun intended.

Solar -the future is bright, and the U.S. can once again grasp a technological lead, shift the energy paradigm, and re emerge as the world leading competitive power.

PS ALGORE thinks Global warming is real because he spend too much time around Tipper Gore - SHE IS HOT!!!!

[nakedjaybird]

right on, petyaczar - start broadcasting the truth because sooner or later after hearing it enough, people may start to believe it. That's what the liberal left myth makers have done for way too long. So be a myth-buster.

[nakedjaybird]

PS - and truth-stater.

[canbyte]

Like petyaczar says, GW is not man-made, only it seems that solar warming is speeding up, perhaps because of a tipping point. Only hubristic humans think we can stop it, better to make London=Venice. My worry is that our blindness about this will damage our economies so badly that any Sensible response will not be possible or undertaken in time (what do you do with Florida or Bangladesh, both very low areas, not to mention Holland, already underwater.

Solar geeks may be making money on stocks but its at taxpayers expense, essentially your poorer neighbour. Nakedjaybird i'm sure has wants me to pay for his collector but having built a few economical designs, I would prefer to keep his hands out of my pockets.

[West1]

petyaczar,

I asked about your real name only because if you're going to make statements such as,

"As A Scientist, I DO NOT BELIEVE there is ANY sufficient data supporting the notion of human activity as a cause of global warming."

I think you ought to be willing to put your name to it, especially since a quick google search is all it takes to make any unbiased thinking person have serious doubts about the likelihood of anything coming out of your mouth being anything other than prejudiced nonsense.

"I state a righteous assertion founded in documented fact."

Uh huh. Zero for two buddy.

How about you just explain this sentence:

"IMO global warming is a purely political and financial scam. A power grab by the U.N. to steal America's wealth and transfer it to the "poor countries" thru an international tax."

I think you may be on to something. The powerful third world lobby cooked up this global warming thing to try and grab money from rich countries like the United States. Then the scientists all just fell in line:

www.sciencemag.org/cgi...

www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/.../

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6.../

www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO.../

[petyaczar]

West1

Yes, I agree "As A Scientist, I DO NOT BELIEVE there is ANY sufficient data supporting the notion of human activity as a cause of global warming." And many preeminent scientists and climatologists are in agreement with me.

OK I will, for the rational people on this board.

How about you just explain this sentence:

"IMO global warming is a purely political and financial scam. A power grab by the U.N. to steal America's wealth and transfer it to the "poor countries" thru an international tax."

I think you may be on to something. The powerful third world lobby cooked up this global warming thing to try and grab money from rich countries like the United States. Then (some) scientists (not all) just fell into (the party) line:


My reply:

1)Yes we agree the UN is the powerful lobby AGAINST the U.S. and in favor of wealth transfer from the U.S. into the 3rd and 4th world. No doubt about it, just look at the histroy of UN resolutions
2)The Global Warming treaty (KYOTO) EXEMPTS most of the 3rd and 4th world from compliance with its CO2 production limits
3)Kyoto treaty EXEMPTS the largest and fastest growing polluters = China and India = from its compliance limits
4)Co2 production limits are essentiall a "TAX" that puts additional cost burden on those who produce. Since the U.S. has by far the largest GDP/GNP and produces far more goods/services than any other country in the world. The U.S. economy would be overburdened by the additional costs as compared to 3rd and 4th world economies that would incur no such additional cost burden.
5)This additional $$$$ incurred by the U.S. producers would end up in the coffers of the U.N. = more largesse to distribute to the 3rd and 4th world for the so called leaders of the 3rd and 4th world = politicians,generals, dictators to buy even more mercedes benz, rolexes and other assorted crap to prove they are our equals. (sic)
6)The U.S. is already the world's most productive user of energy, as our use of energy (energy consumption) as a percent of the world's total energy consumption is far less than our GDP/GNP produced as a percent of the world's total GDP/GNP production

The U.S. produces more goods and services than anyother country, AND in doing so the U.S. obviously must consume more energy to produce the goods. BUT our energy consumption per unit of production is less than that of most other countries.

ERGO Global Warming (sic) -including the so called cap and trade methodology is merely and essentially a TAX on the most productive = U.S. = and as we all know, TAXES don't sit in a hole, the TAX $$ gets spent by the politicians, and so the $$ gets transferred from the productive to the less productive,, all the while excluding China and INDIA = because they said "NO Fxxxx Way"

These are commonly called "externalities&qu... in economic terms. And in this case Global Warming imposes an additional tax burden and thereby increases the cost of production in the U.S. = thereby slowing economic growth and making us less productive. While imposing no such additional cost burdens on 3rd 4th world AND transferring our money (by way of the tax) to those least productive sectors.

That's a fact Jack! Like it or not. to say otherwise would merel be another liberal perversion of the truth. Hope you finally get it!

IMO

Now P/O A/O

[West1]

petyaczar,

Although you have made a lot of statements, I continue to notice that you have not "documented" any of them. On the other hand, I provided links containing information obviously at odds with your theories on global warming. Conspicuously, you ignored these.

Even if I were to accept your theory at face value that the U.N. is in favor of wealth transfer into the 3rd and 4th world, the first question that comes to my mind is: so? Is 'wealth transfer' of any kind an inherently bad thing?

The second question that comes to my mind is, how do you make the leap from this assumption to the conclusion that human activity is not a significant factor in global warming? I suspect it has more to do with the likes of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh than with scientific fact.

Big Daddy,

Regarding the fallacy of the "liberal media", here is a good place to start repairing your misinformation:

www.salon.com/opinion/.../

[petyaczar]

West1, It IS NOT my responsibility to prove something is NOT the cause of something else = ie human activity is the cause of global warming.

It IS the responsibilty of those proponents of a sepcific theory to PROVE their specific theory = especially as regards causality.

The Scientific Method does not accept anecdotes as evidence.

You citing ridiculous points of reference such as salon.com and wikipedia, it laughable. And it points out your liberal point of view.


PS Are there any rational, knowledgeable people out there who actually dispute the UN record of constantly attempting to transfer wealth from the First world =especially the U.S., to the 3rd and 4th world. I cite the actual UN record of UN resolutions as my source for that assertion. You cite the liberal wackos on MSNBC as - your (gag) "authoritative sources.

Your suspicions are also ill founded and without merit.

Frankly you are a typical liberal, don't know your A from a hole in the ground, and when you find youself stepping into a hole, you just keep digging deeper and harder.

I am reminded of the words of Will Rogers, and Mark Twain.

Will said "There is nothing dumber than a fool, except for the time a wise man spends trying to talk with a fool" = therefore this conversation is over, and I shall no longer respond to your liberal dribble and nonsense.

Oh Yeah Mark Twain said "Its better for a fool to keep his mouth shut and keep people guessing, than to speak and thereby erase all doubt" = That IMO would be you!

P/O A/O = I'm done with you, you have nothing of any consequence to say on this matter.

[petyaczar]

PS West1 = to your question "Is the transfer of wealth so bad."

MY answer would be a resounding YES = The transfer of wealth from the more productive to the less productive sectors of the planet IS ALWAYS A BAD THING in so far as it is forced, and its inevitable result is the lowering of overall productivity thru misallocation of resources = Read some economics.

that's it, I'm thru with you.

[Piggybank]

I got bored reading all the comments. In the end it's all irrelevant. The point Jack makes is clear enough, US goverment now accepts the idea of climate change too. Wel ladiladilaa, after all the BS, "poof" we accept climate change. Germany will continue to subsidize alternative energy, and they already did so for years. Energy resources like coal, uranium, gas and oil are all increasing in price, and energy demand itself is fastly increasing along with globalization. And we are all dependant for a large part on foreign country's to supply us with energy resources. World energy demand is hughe, there is just such an hughe space for alternative energy to grow in.

Some people identify alternative energy as a "bubble", others as the next bubble. It is not and it won't be a bubble neither, but it will sure look like one if you will see the stellar growth the alternative energy sector will have the next decade. Go read some income statements of established solar and wind energy company's, the average year to year growth is just ammazing.

Many people identify alternative energy as "the next big thing". Psycholigy is a large part of investing, and here you have a wide basis of people who are convinced of the potential of alternative energy. So am i, and IMO, rightly so. It strikes me that an fairly irrelevant 2008'ish little crisis has sown so many doubt among alternative energy investors, i do not doubt the long term potential of my stocks just because their stock has a few bad weeks.

The future is great for alternative energy, and noone needs some Wall street idiots to tell them otherwise and play some manipulation games. Wall street aint the center of the earth, and it has made HUGHE mistakes before. Atleast Germany has now an alternative energy sector creating ample new jobs, the USA on the other hand has a lot of empty houses. The antics of some of the SA editors here are just hilarious, i visit this site to have a good laugh for the most part. The amount of irony to spot is just excessive.

The devide in mentality across the pond clearly is quite deep. But Europe is in a far better shape these days, heck investors these days look to US based company's with a strong foot in Europe for revenue growth. It's utterly remarkable how much the world has changed in the last years, and especially so for the USA in relation to the rest of the world.Reality shows these days that a hughe amount of presumptions ingrained in the US mentality on various issue's have proven to be utterly wrong and shortminded, and it becomes time that the USA gets a new perspective on modern issue's like climate change and energy needs wich most other modern nations of this world have already accepted long before the USA. These issue's now form a large part of the political agenda of current presidential candidate's.

But what really needs to change is the mentality of certain groups withing US society. The Bush administration has been utterly ruining for the USA, but it remains so that it was a large part of USA society that supported Bush in ellection, in his actions and in his warmongering. It's ironic that so many US people now complain so much about Bush, in large part due to the war and the ramifications, while more than 95% supported for the Bush administration in the runup towards the Iraq war in a surge of Patriotism. Clearly, US society is gullible for lies and propaganda, and you cannot blame Fox media more than their watchers. Some people just don't know what they should believe in.

In europe we don't need some meddling Wall street schmucks. We have the largest alternative energy company's in the world and damn were quite happy with them too. Alternative energy will grow for decade in Europe with the mentality at wich we work on it. In the end it's inevitable, do or "die", and the more America pospone's it, the more they will fall behind.

[West1]

petyaczar,

Just a few comments and then I am content to let our respective words stand for themselves.

"You citing ridiculous points of reference such as salon.com and wikipedia, it laughable. And it points out your liberal point of view."

If by liberal, you mean not motivated by greed, fear and hatred, and interested in exposing the endless stream of fabrications and distortions from the current administration and it's tentacles in the media, then yes, feel free to call me "liberal". Speaking of fabrications and distortions, perhaps you can show me where I cited wikipedia. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that.

"West1, It IS NOT my responsibility to prove something is NOT the cause of something else = ie human activity is the cause of global warming.

It IS the responsibilty of those proponents of a sepcific theory to PROVE their specific theory = especially as regards causality.

The Scientific Method does not accept anecdotes as evidence."

I just spent a few minutes doing some more digging, started watching (haven't finished) this video:

www.youtube.com/watch?...

by Naomi Oreskes:

www.washingtonpost.com...

and then read about the Keeling Curve

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (now you can claim that I have referenced wikipedia)

and Benny Peiser

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

for whom Wikipedia is a useful place to start - where you go from there is up to you.

In any case, whether or not you believe that anthropogenic (caused by human activities) global warming is proven or not, clearly it is not a position supported by just "anecdotes".

[West1]

Btw, the second half of that youtube video does an excellent job of elucidating the method by which the right wing and their "think tanks" obfuscate truth through the media on so many issues.

One more link for you:

www.logicalscience.com/

[supershort]

"PS ALGORE thinks Global warming is real because he spend too much time around Tipper Gore - SHE IS HOT!!!!"

I was with you until this.....????????

[supershort]

"The future is great for alternative energy, and noone needs some Wall street idiots to tell them otherwise and play some manipulation games. Wall street aint the center of the earth, and it has made HUGHE mistakes before. Atleast Germany has now an alternative energy sector creating ample new jobs, the USA on the other hand has a lot of empty houses. The antics of some of the SA editors here are just hilarious, i visit this site to have a good laugh for the most part. The amount of irony to spot is just excessive"

And Germany hasn't made HUGE mistakes in it's past.

You speak with an air of authority and wish to demean America. Your dissatisfaction is aimed at the wrong places. India, China, South America and the rest of the third world is now becoming more civilized. Where is your contempt for those countries and their policies? If anyone is contributing to "man made global warming" it is those countries. So at what price does the US have to subsidise their economic growth. By people like you spewing nonsense about an administration that wishes to protect our interests. That is what they are elected to do.

All you pseudo scientists don't wish to admit that the Earth has been getting warmer since the last ice age. With the eruption of Krakatoa, it helped to cool the earth some but the ball has been rolling since that asteriod hit the earth and wiped out the dinosaurs. Accept it that we have little controll over this, unless we can somehow effectively cause another controlled ice age or cooling period.

As far as solar power being free. It is not. There is energy expended to make the equipment. The panels are outside, in the elements and will degrade. Even a roof needs to be repaired or replaced every 10-15 years, and that is something simple, not panels that have very sensitive technological components. Also the amount of land/ surface area that is used is a tremendous hinderance. It will not support the "economic expansion" that these developing countries need.

These solar plays as of now are a huge bubble. Your self rightousness by being "green" will not make you "super hiolier than thou greenie" by pumping these stocks. Solar China stocks are a total oxymoron. SPWR, FSLR are trading at absurd P/E ratios. and they are down 40-50% of their highs. That is trying to catch a falling knife.

[petyaczar]

Supershort : Tipper Gore comment was a joke! an attempt at degrading humor to belittle a luddite -ALGORE.

Sorry if you didn't like it, others did.

Solar power cleearly rquires a capital investment to set up.
So does ALL OTHER POWER
Operationally: Solar power is essentially expense free compared to the alternatives. No mechanical moving parts, no mechanical or thermal energy conversion. only photovoltaic.

One of solars other major competitive advantages is that it is essentially decentralized - no grid required in many applications AND solar is a perfect way to turn fixed energy production sites into mobile energy -read electric and hybrid vehicles.

Remember even the highly touted hydrogen conversion requires energy to "make it happen" ie generate pure hydrogen. Also windpower and nuclear have their own ongoing maintenance investment and drawbacks.

Generally speaking mechanical systems of energy production are operationally less efficient in that they require more maintenance and have more disposal problems.

kudos to capitalists like Boone Pickens and his wind farm initiative. It is individuals like him, looking out for their own profit motive, that will provide the creative solutions to our current energy problems which or the most part are brought on by the idiots in the U.S. Congress and the misguided liberals and tree huggers.

PS want to sequester CO2 naturally? -go plant some trees. Else forget about it!

IMO -lets go drill in ANWR and off all our coasts -lets build nuclear and wind and solar - the energy demand is there and growing - More power to you.

Good luck to you.

[supershort]

petyaczar,

No, actually, the Tipper comment I made was that I agree that she is not much to look at.

Now as to the solar solution. There currently isn't enough power capability to be harnessed by solar panels, batteries etc to power a vehicle. That technology is a long way off. Solar is not free as you say. I have purchased many solar powered lights for my yard, yearly. Why, because they don't last. The power producing capabilities degrade. A "consensus" I found is that they degrade 20-30% after 10 years. That is just from "normal sun exposure." Not to mention the wear and tear from the rain, changing seasons and thermal, wind, dust animals, etc. So it is not free. Do we need renewables, yes of course we do. But these panels and technology are not even close.

[petyaczar]

PS supershort, She's a 3 AM girl!!!

My comment re solar to mobile was = Use solar panels at your house to charge up a battery (capacitor) which you then use during to plug into your hybrid and recharge.. not drive around on solar panels on your car.

I suggest the panel losing power issue is primarily 2 fold, the collector glass gets dirty and clouded, AND the cheap rechargeable batteries they put into those lights degrade their recharge ability quite quickly, The remainder is loss of solarefficiency thru the panel itself.

Remember, not even the "first Apple" was perfect.

Solar efficiency will continue to increase by at least 15% per year. Leading me to Petyaczar's corollary to Moore's Law "Solar panels will double in power generating capacity and reduce in cost every 4-5 years into the foreseeable future." - meantime all other power generating methods will increase in cost. The cost lines cross very near into the future - 3-5 years. Less time than it will take to bring ANWR oil onto the market-although we must do this.

Good luck to you, remember investing is not about the past, it is a little bit about the present, but mostly it is about the future.

[supershort]

petyaczar,

"My comment re solar to mobile was = Use solar panels at your house to charge up a battery (capacitor) which you then use during to plug into your hybrid and recharge.. not drive around on solar panels on your car."

Just how much power do you think you can get out of these panael? They are not very efficient and the systems are ridiculously expensive. Talk about gauging. I went to the SPWR website and requested a setup for my home. Over 100K and even with 38K in "government subsidy" it does not make sense. I have issue with the government subsidy on these panels anyway. Subsidies are holding the price of these systems up. Get rid of the subsidies, the prices will drop. American taxpayers are getting hammered in all directions with taxes.

As far as efficiency increases.....solar has been around for some time. The first bubble was in the 70's. The gains have not been all that great. I do not believe anyone is "holding the technology back" as some ignorant liberal rabble rousers would have you believe. If it was possible, don't you think Exxon Mobile, the biggest and most profitable company in the world would see it and start to develope the technology, or GE, Tyco, or any other company? We are a long way off from this . Conservation, more efficient motors and government policy will be the answer in the near term.