vitamin_j

Five Top Solar Power Stocks

I would strongly second aquaculture. This article is full of flat-out wrong information.

Evergreen Solar, for example, is not a thin-film solar company. They have a "string ribbon" technology for working w silicon, but it has nothing to do w thin film deposition, nothing at all.

China is definitely not the world's second biggest market - I don't know where that comes from. Spain was probably number two last year - since the Spanish subsidy change, no one knows who's number two this year. It could be the US. But it's not China. They're just getting started with their market.

Also, anyone who knows anything about installations would mention the role an inverter plays, rather than a "control system." (Why not just say "thingamajig"?)

The conversion efficiencies described are way off too. First Solar's thin film panels regularly convert 10% today. Commercially sold silicon panels today are more like 14-15%. Top lab-tested panels are at least in the high 20s, perhaps even more. These numbers make a difference.

The list goes on...

Solyndra Chief Scientist Markus Beck Defects to First Solar

Note typo "arleady" in 2nd to last line.

From Long Shots to Big Shots: Small Cap Renewable Energy Stocks

"Photovoltaic methods capture 5 to 6 watts per square meter."

How can this statement be true when you have PV efficiencies that range from 6% (thin film) to 22% (best crystalline panels)?

Such low quality info suggests that the poster is very poorly informed, has an unstated agenda, or both.

I would also dicker with the article's contention that "Akeena stock recently took a dip after it announced plans to sell up to $30 million in a mixed shelf securities offering."

Akeena's share price took a dip because of a little thing called the global financial crisis/credit crunch/massive recession. It declined along with the shares of just about everyone else. The shelf filing occurred fairly recently, and prices have actually improved since then. However, I won't try to claim a causal relationship, since trying to correspond all but the most obvious blips and bumps in a share price to events is really a fool's game.

Analyst: First Solar Reaches Grid-Parity Milestone

I agree with above two comments. While it is in the interest of individual companies and investors in those companies to claim their own measures of "grid parity," it is in the interest of the solar industry in general to come up with a uniform, accepted standard for describing total cost of a solar kwh and comparing that to the cost of grid power in a given region.

Three Things Obama Will Do to Advance Alternative Energy

I want to see an initiative to put solar on government buildings as much as the next guy, but I think it's premature to say it's "clear" such an initiative will occur. I for one have heard nothing definite on solar from Obama. The only energy "source" he has mentioned as a specific initiative in his transition is efficiency, specifically in schools. If he's made an actual statement that he's going to do something involving solar, I'd appreciate a reference. Otherwise, nothing is "clear" when politics are involved.

"Companies who have domestic production should benefit, including FSLR, STP SPWR, ENER." - Factual error. STP does not have domestic US production (if that's what the vague phrase "domestic production" meant). They have a US sales office, and now a US based installation venture, but no production. They've talked about building a US factory, but haven't yet bc of the credit crisis.

"Wind energy has been proven cheaper than solar and has achieved grid parity to some extent." - This shows a lack of understanding of what "grid parity" means. In California, Hawaii, Italy, and other markets, the annualized cost (over 20-25 years) of installing solar on a large home and the cost of buying grid power at current rates is equivalent. Tiered rates and peak power make a big difference. In places like Alabama, where electricity retails for 7c/kwh, solar's a long way off.

So to compare wind and solar in terms of an abstract "grid parity" is really not meaningful.

With Thin Film, U.S. Might Take the Lead in Solar Market

I would like to hear more discussion of these products in terms of "balance of system" costs. Greentech Media has put out good articles on this recently.

While I don't consider it an "either/or" proposition, I'm still skeptical about thin film because of its low efficiencies. If, in a rough comparison, you need two thin film panels for every one crystalline silicon panel, that's twice as many mounts, and twice as much space used per installation. Those two factors add to costs and limit thin film's advantage.

I'm interested to see how some of the new non-panel technologies look - Nanosolar claims to offer a skin you can just unroll on a rooftop, for example. They also claim higher efficiencies. Then again, they are famous for claims, not yet famous for results.

Suntech Power: Now a Takeover Target

That 50% thing appeared on the STP chat board last week and may have come from an article in China with potentially questionable translation. Anyone who wants to appear credible on solar can't just throw out such a figure without better citation or explanation. It's like saying, "Yes, and their plans for cheap cold fusion should also help them grow revenue." Huh?

Of course, this author doesn't seem very credible. Anyone who says

"As the top two solar companies, Suntech Power (STP) and First Solar (FSLR) dominate the European and U.S. markets respectively."

not only hasn't done their homework, they haven't even cracked the book. First Solar has sold almost exclusively in Europe, almost exclusively in Germany, and is just now moving into the US. Suntech is a similar story, though they also have some Asian sales. I'll take my information from someone who actually follows the companies, listens to cc's, thank you.

Finally, I would question whether anyone could just acquire Suntech without some intervention from the Chinese government. My sense is that they wouldn't just let their flagship solar company be sold off to the Japanese or the Americans without raising some barriers - similar to when the Chinese wanted to buy that oil company of ours.

Solar Grid Parity: The Great $1 Myth

Thank you for a very informative article.

Obama's Green Obsession: More Harm Than Good?

What a poorly reasoned article. Yes, if we just understood the "real scientists" we'd see that smoking doesn't cause cancer - we should really do some more studies - and that we really should do a few more decades of research to see exactly what all this manmade CO2 is doing to our atmosphere before we sound any alarms. Really, this is just Exxon or Tobacco level reasoning, where you throw a few isolated "scientific" facts/statistics in to give credibility (yes, with a few stats in paragraph XI you've really exposed the hidden lies behind a whole industry).

Once I got past the windy and in this case unnecessary theoretical discussion (mostly ornamental, dressing up a weak argument in fancy terms), you seem to argue that Obama should not try to jump start an alt energy industry because coal and gas have already reached economies of scale. Basically, we wouldn't want to alter the status quo; after all it's already so well established.

This ignores the fact that some pretty modest government support has already brought solar within sight of becoming an economy of scale, with all the same advantages that supposedly can only exist with coal and gas. And that future support is intended to get them to the point of being self-sufficient economies of scale. That's with today's technology mind - that's not mentioning efficiency or manufacturing improvements, or recent advances like the discovery at MIT of a better catalyzed hydrogen production that could work with solar power. Finally, talking about any form of energy generation as if it exists without massive government incentives and direct or indirect support is just naive. The coal, gas, nuclear, and oil industries are already just as supported by government as your supposed anti-free market green sources would be.

You also seem to think that building alt energy generation, at least in the timeframe Obama discusses, means massively decommissioning coal and gas plants and immediately eliminating those industries. This is just not the case, and nobody serious is saying it will be anything but a very phased process. It just serves your argument that Obama's plan will kill jobs, which is the standard entrenched corporate interest argument against doing anything. You give a hysterical, straw man version of the plan so you can easily knock it down.

Finally, your article has no mention of carbon costs. They probably don't exist to you, but the Pentagon and the CIA are already planning for the security ramifications of global warming, insurers are already adjusting actuarial tables for it, and investment banks are already growing leery of financing coal plant building. Though I would argue that the equation is already in alt energy's favor, it really really becomes in alt energy's favor once you factor in the previously externalized cost of carbon.

Really, I could go on, but I'd like to get a sandwich. Very poor. You should read Neal Dikeman on cleantechblog. He's also a skeptic of the Obama plan, but at least he can write.

Four Reasons to Expect a Solar Boom

Look, I own STP and think the company's real good. However, your assertion

"Companies like First Solar and Suntech Power are self-funded companies that have been making money all the time, and these two companies have sufficient funds to expand their businesses."

is not true. Suntech has been partially funding its Capex through debt issues, most recently this past March. First Solar does indeed fund its expansion entirely through free cash flow. This makes it almost singular among solars. Suntech is one of the best of the silicon-based companies, and unlike most goes in and out of positive free cash flow. Also unlike most other Chinese solars, it is sitting on quite a money pile at the moment, which should give investors greater confidence for near-term headwinds. However, to imply that it funds itself solely through retained earnings like First Solar is misleading.

Evergreen Solar: Why This Overlooked Company Is a Good Investment

In the spirit of being truly anal (while not having legal expertise):

I would say that "Evergreen is a partner IN EverQ" would probably be the most accurate statement. I would say that it's germane to this discussion because Evergreen shares in EverQ losses as well as providing it financing. Perhaps this is what Honeycutt is trying to tell me.

Under German law:

German Regulatory Authorities Approve EverQ Partnership Agreements
21/12/2006 - 22:04

Evergreen Solar, Inc. (Nasdaq: ESLR), Q-Cells AG (FSE: QCE) and Renewable Energy Corporation ASA (OSEAX: REC.OL) (REC) today announced that regulatory authorities in Germany have approved previously announced partnership agreements that make the companies equal partners in EverQ, which manufactures solar modules in Thalheim, Germany. Effective December 19, 2006, all three partners will share equally in the net income generated by EverQ.

From the June 28 10-Q:

The Company is currently a one-third owner of EverQ GmbH (“EverQ”), a joint venture with Q-Cells AG (“Q-Cells”) and Renewable Energy Corporation ASA (“REC”), and licenses to EverQ its wafer manufacturing technology used to manufacture solar panels. The Company accounts for its ownership interest in EverQ using the equity method of accounting in accordance with APB 18 “Equity Method of Accounting for Investments in Common Stock.” Under the equity method of accounting, the Company reports its one-third share of EverQ’s net income or loss as a single line item in its condensed consolidated income statement and its investment in EverQ as a single line item in its condensed consolidated balance sheet.

EverQ Debt Guarantee
On April 30, 2007, the Company, Q-Cells and REC entered into a Guarantee and Undertaking Agreement in connection with EverQ entering into a loan agreement with a syndicate of lenders led by Deutsche Bank AG (the “Guarantee”). The loan agreement provides EverQ with aggregate borrowing availability of up to 142.0 million Euros. Pursuant to the Guarantee, the Company, Q-Cells and REC each agreed to guarantee a one-third portion of the loan outstanding, up to 30.0 million Euros of EverQ’s repayment obligations under the loan agreement.

Evergreen Solar: Why This Overlooked Company Is a Good Investment

I think you miss several boats:
-EverQ is a legal, not a figurative partnership. You don't get licensing revenue from a figurative partnership. EverQ is a joint venture between Evergreen, Q-Cells, and the Norwegian company REC. There's talk of making EverQ a separate company (could be a good IPO), but it hasn't happened yet.
- You don't mention Evergreen's involvement in Lehman's collapse. Lehman had borrowed 30 million ESLR shares as part of a hedging agreement. When Lehman went BK, suddenly it became possible that these shares might be sold off, not recovered by ESLR, and dilute the price. That's why the price lost 2-3 dollars recently. Lawsuit's in progress.
- You should take a closer look at world silicon supply. The more silicon supply comes on line, the cheaper regular panels get, the closer to a commodity they become, and the less compelling the ESLR technology becomes.

Solar Stocks Are Now Attractive Again

This author doesn't seem to understand that FSLR, STP, and LDK are very different businesses within the solar industry. Factors that will lead one to succeed may not do so for the other.

A stock screener can tell me who has a low forward P/E and other various pretty numbers. If I'm going to decide on a company's value, I better understand their business and what variables will affect it in the future. This writer doesn't help much there.

Dikeman Skeptical of 'Game Changing' New Energy Technologies

At least with solar, the price of coal means almost nothing. The only cost that matters is how much per kWh the end customer has to pay for peak power, vs. how much per kWh a solar installation would deliver over its 25 year life. In many places, those two figures are rapidly converging.

Solar Generation Costs on Track to Achieve Grid Parity

There's also the fact that soon our economy will stop externalizing the carbon costs associated with fossil fuels. This is already hitting coal - many major banks now see investments in coal plants as undesirable and risky, and are pulling out. Dirty power generators will have to start buying carbon credits from, among others, solar system owners and operators. Sorry to those who hate the global warming cause (not!); cap and trade happens under either Obama or McCain.