Jack Yetiv

Solar Power Will Be Transformational in the Next Decade

Drugal,

Congrats! Total cost is about $6.50/watt, just about right. Net cost to you is about $3/watt, excellent.

What panels and inverter did you go with? How manu strings running at what voltages?

I'm running 4 strings of 9 panels each, pushing 550 volts DC when the sun is strong and the temp is low.

Jack

Solar Power Will Be Transformational in the Next Decade

I completely disagree with you, Jeff. My article is FORWARD-looking, not backward looking like the DOE, which under the current administration has been negative on renewable energy, and has been awful at predicting oil and gas prices.

In other words, in my article, I was NOT comparing present solar to present conventional power that does not take environmental costs into account.

I am looking at the question of, What kind of power plant do we PLAN today to produce future power, which is the ONLY logical way to look at it because what is already built does not require decision-making.

You also misunderstand my environmental perspective. I said NOTHING about MY beliefs about CO2 or global warming, nor about nuclear, coal or nat gas--although you can certainly guess what my own views are. I did not express MY views because what Jack Yetiv thinks is irrelevant to a utility that is trying to decide what to build. The utility needs to look realistically at the costs and political climate for various alternatives.

And I believe that utilities are quickly realizing that old-style polluting and carbon-belching coal plants (on which DOE bases its useless cost numbers) ARE SIMPLY NOT GOING TO GET BUILT IN ANY MEANINGFUL QUANTITY IN THIS COUNTRY, and the same probably will apply to nuke plants. Whether you think it should be this way is irrelevant--I believe it is clear that this is the way IT IS.

Nat gas plants (DOE cost on those is probably based on gas at $6.50/MCF, while gas is now trading at almost $11/MCF) are also problematic because they are going to be very expensive to run--and still have the CO2-production political problem.

My article was meant to be revolutionary to our thought processes going forward, so what DOE says or what disclaimers are published by analysts don't mean much.

Jack

Solar Power Will Be Transformational in the Next Decade

Jack K,

I certainly agree with your comments re: FSLR or even SPWR.

But buying at a PE of 12 a company like TSL--that is expected to more than double its earnings this year--geez, that seems to me to be VALUE investing, not momentum investing.

Jack

Solar Power Will Be Transformational in the Next Decade

Zawy, I am NOW paying 13 cents. I rechecked prices yesterday (powertochoose.org) and the mean is closer to 15 cents. One poster said he was paying 22 cents. Of course, nobody in Europe pays under 20 cents.

And I GUARANTEE you that given where coal and nat gas prices are going, and the need to build clean plants, EVERYONE in the US will be paying 15 cents within 3 years. And what about in 5 years? 10? 20?

Using 15 cents is very much PRO your side. The more realistic number over the next 20 years in probably over 20 cents.

Jack

Solar Power Will Be Transformational in the Next Decade

Re AKNS:

Unfortunately, it has not made enough money to establish a track record, putting it in an entire different category than companies that will sell near a billion dollars of product in 2008 and make dollars per share earnings.

Companies like AKNS often fail to make anything. Whether AKNS is one of the minority that will give its investors a good return--your guess is as good as mine.

There may well be a lot of money to be made in solar installation, and maybe Andalay is truly the be-all and end-all. I haven't studied it enough to give a valid opinion about it, but my question is this:

If I were IPO'ing a plumbing company, would it be worth a lot? plumbers charge $50-100 per hour, and solar installers probably don't charge more. So it comes down to, Does Andalay really present such an advantage? And will nobody be able to easily improve on that design?

Since I don't know the answer to those questions, I cannot intelligently evaluate AKNS.

Jack

Solar Power Will Be Transformational in the Next Decade

To Ramgolfer:

I lent out my crystal ball and it was not returned, so I cannot say if my pick (TSL) will turn out likie TMA. If you find someone who can give you guarantees in the stock market, you certainly don't need to waste your time reading my stuff. Of course, TSL could turn out like my recommendation of CSIQ (up 41% in less than 3 months) or HTE (up about 15%, plus about 5% in dividends from where I recomended it a couple of months ago). Including my TMA recommendation, I have broken about even in the past 5 months in the stock market. I would bet that is in the upper 10% of all professional money managers in the US.

The bottom line is--I write an article citing facts, and then I connect the dots. NOBODY has yet pointed out a wrong FACT in my articles. As to connecting the dots--everybody needs to do it on their own. I simply provide leads.

To Supershort:

I spend a lot of time very carefully crafting my articles. I did NOT recommend SPWR, nor did I say that there are "companies offering solar out of the box" TODAY. You correctly note I do not have a crystal ball--although I suspect every reader knows that, but without ANY factual or logical basis, you state,

"most of your future predictions are highly hopefull dreams."

Those kind of unsubstantiated comments help no one. I have made a case--please make yours using other facts or other analysis.

As to doing stuff for the environment, read my articles and bio to see what I have done. I hope you have done the same.

The problem for wind is two-fold: (1) the distributed model won't work due to NIMBYism and inefficient small-turbine production metrics, and (2) need for distribution. However, wind will be used where there is a good wind resource. Solar where the solar resource is best, until solar becomes so cheap it will sporint ahead of wind almost everywhere.

To zawy:

My article MOST DEFINITELY takes upfront costs into account.

2KW system, $10,000 installed ($5/watt; SCE is paying $3.50 for its 275 MW). Makes 360 KW/month (6 hrs per day of sun in best areas), 4320 KW per year. At 15 cents per KWH, $648/year saved.

Interest cost on $10,000--loan rates today, under 6%. Call it 6%--interest is $600/yr. Add in principal on a 30-year mortgage--just about equal to $648. And do you think electric will be 15 cents in 10 years? 20 years?

So, contrary to your statement, I DO NOT assume 0% loans.

Agree with your energy storage comments. We're not there yet.

But we don't have to be yet. Lots of need for peak-load power sources today, and solar fits that bill.

Jack

Solar Power Will Be Transformational in the Next Decade

To Mr. Stinson:

You say:

I think I agree that solar has not yet achieved parity with fossil fuels for electricity generation, except possibly for large installations of mirrors focused on a boiler,

Can you tell me the basis for this? What facts in my article are faulty, or where is my analysis incorrect?

To Aurora:

CSIQ was my favorite 3 months ago (see article I wrote on SA I think Feb. 4). I like TSL better now. My article tomorrow will explain why in some detail.

As to EMKR and ASTI, those plays are speculative, and thus offer a lot more risk for not that much more upside, IMO. It's too hard to tell how likely any of these technologies are to make money.

I believe TSL easily offers a 50-100% upside this year with relatively low (20-30%) downside risk.

Jack

Solar Power Will Be Transformational in the Next Decade

To Captain:

Always good to get perspective from inside the industry. A couple of questions:

1) Are you suggesting by your post that SCE will recover a better rate based on the source of the power--ie, it will get paid more because it went solar for these 275 MW? If so, do you know this to be? It would be news to me, but I am always into learning.

2) To my knowledge, the CSI in Calif does not speak to utility tariffs or recovery rates. Am I incorrect?

3) If SCE is already at 17%, do you think meeting the RPS goal would be a major determinant in SCE's decision to go solar?

To Mr. Stinson:

Wonderful comments!

Recall that much of the distributed production will be used in the same building or very close to to the source generation. therefore, not only will VAR be reduced but line losses, which can run as much as 10% or more, would be quite small. In essence, thios distributedn power production effectively REMOVES these loads from the grid when the sun is shining and lightens the need to run expensive peak-demand-generation facilities (especially as nat gas is closing on $11/MCF, up from $7 a year ago).

Finally, many people do not appreciate that PV panels CONTINUE to generate power if its cloudy, albeit at a lower rate (my panels seem to produce at 1/3 rated capacity when it is overcast)--and my panels are nearly 4 years old. Much research is going into making panels whose performance during cloudy times is better than just 1/3 of rated capacity.

Finally, storage will be absolutely CRITICAL a decade down the line. But right now, in sunny, hot locales, solar matches very well to peak loads because the hotter it is, the higher the AC load--and usually, the higher the PV production.

Jack Yetiv

Solar Power Will Be Transformational in the Next Decade

To Jimbo:

Thanks for your kind comments, with which I agree. Let me highlight that solar water heating is cost-effective TODAY, with paybacks ranging from 4 years to 10 years, depending on locale and your current cost of water-heating.

Residential PV is not cost-effective today in most places (but probably is if your utility will pay you for KWH generated at peak rates.

To Tim P:

A VERY good point, which I looked at before writing my article but it was too fine a point to discuss. The question you raise is--did SCE do this to comply with the Calif RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standards) of 20% by 2010? My thought is I doubt it, given that SCE is already at 17%, and they still have two years to go.

Thanks, Jack Yetiv

Solar Power Will Be Transformational in the Next Decade

To RDmill:

More discussion about which stocks are the best, IMO, in an article tomorrow. In short, I like STP better than SPWR because I believe that Chinese manufacturing gives STP a leg up over SPWR. Also, SPWR's supposed advantage is high efficiency (19.3% in their latest offerings), but STP is achieving 18-19% with their Pluto system, so SPWR's advantage is relatively minor. Also, STP will make much greater inroads in Australia than SPWR.

To Supershort:

I don't know where to begin in correcting your misimpressions. First, see my comments above and on my previous article regarding the need for load-balancing and therefore, why solar plants do NOt need to produce 24/7.

Second, there is VERY LITTLE plastic is solar panels. If you know otherwise, please provide me the source.

Your question about homeowners affording the system--I thought my article addressed that pretty well. Per my prediction, a homeowner won't have to "afford" a penny--electric savings will cover the marginal loan payment.

You comment about surges, etc, would suggest that you are unfamiliar with NEC (National Electrical Code) requirements for intertie inverters, which are designed NOT to backfeed into the system unless they see correct voltage FROM the grid.

PE ratios? See my article tomorrow.

To curious cat: I was neither "touting" TMA nor am I "touting" solar. I call them as I see them. Sometimes I am right, sometimes I am wrong. I was wrong on TMA. I may or may not be wrong on the solar space. This is a discussion site for stocks. I have submitted ideas for discussion.

To analyst:

With all due respect, a full price quote of $15/watt ($30,000 for 2KW) is absurd. SCE will install 275 megatts at $3.50 per watt.

I installed my system for about $9/watt gross, about $5/watt after incentives. Besides, remember my article was forward-lloking--I was making a prediction for 2009 to 2010, not today. I believe in 2010, you will be able to buy a system at a cost of $5/watt, installed.

I agree with the rest of your comments.

More thoughts in my next post.

jack

Solar Power Will Be Transformational in the Next Decade

To Pickings:

For most of the next decade, the fact that solar doesn't produce at night won't be much of an issue because utilities are not short on night production--they are short on peak power production. That's what solar provides in the right locales.

Electricity storage will become absolutely critical in order to grow solar in the subsequent 10 years--but those technologies are still in their infancy, and I am not well informed on them. Storage of compressed air and molten salt are two things I have read about, but really haven't evaluated them in the detail that I am accustomed to. Therefore, I cannot make any intelligent comments about them.

Jack Yetiv

ack

Solar Power Will Be Transformational in the Next Decade

Thanks for the kind comments. I believe that Saudi Arabia may be "capping" what it ain't got--as you comments suggest, Solar Guy.

I am not familiar with Travis Bradford but will have to look him up when time permits.

To Donald Ray--again, thanks for kind comments. I think "politics" proper is a race to the bottom, a race I won't be involved in. But I have founded a think tank, which I will launch actively in late 2009. One of its focuses will be energy. I believe I will achieve far greater good through a think tank than I ever would as a politician.

For example, Ralph Nader, Al Gore and Mothers Against Drunk Drivers all have achieved much greater good than just about any politician I can think of.

Jack