vitamin_j

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.

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.

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.

Everything They Tell You About Solar Is Wrong - Travis Bradford

His book, if I'm thinking of the right one, is pretty substantive, though I haven't read all of it.

I'd say the stuff about grid parity and how to consider solar cost is not fluff. Though the overall tone of the piece swerves between the informative and the out and out promotional.

Chinese Solar Stocks Present Compelling Value

I'm not hugely against Eric's thesis - he may indeed turn out to be right.

However, one thing about his "undervalued" argument (and I think Jack Yetiv's as well) is the question of when exactly the market is supposed to correctly value TSL et al. Investors in this bear market tend to overvalue bad news (share dilution, cash flow concerns, growing pains, margin compression), while undervaluing good news (example: a nice bump, sure, on today's TSL announcement, but not the 15% - 20% spike from last year's solar boom).

So there's some risk that these companies might continue with booming earning announcements, solar fundamentals keep looking great, the story is there, but that investors (especially large institutions worried about risk, credit, leverage, etc.) might steer clear of growth stocks in a highly speculative industry in an emerging market (China) as a rule. That might keep these companies undervalued until the broader market gets its legs back, I believe.

That's not to say that the thesis is void - Trina could very well be that great company ignored by the market - just that it may be years not months for it to pay. And that gets into the territory where Jack Yetiv fears to tread (right, Jack?): past the one-year horizon where industry-wide changes in technology might really shake up the game. So, if you're confident that TSL will survive and thrive for years to come, now is probably a great time to get some discounted shares. I'm more skeptical about investing for months vs. years. That might just go sideways or down further.

Also, my more skeptical case could be mitigated some by better news on subsidies and new solar markets. I personally believe that "green recovery/stimulus" is in the air here in America, but won't begin to be seriously enacted by the US government until the middle of next year.

With a one-year-plus horizon, I am long Suntech (STP) and Akeena Solar (AKNS).

Chinese Solar Stocks Present Compelling Value

Dicki - I'll admit I could have clearer re Trina's silicon supply. I am not intimately familiar with the company - I neither love nor hate it. Trina's silicon problems are more in the short term, and I have heard elsewhere about the built-in price decline you mention for next year. So we're both right, but I could have been clearer.

My main point wasn't to bash Trina, but to call out what I felt was a fatuous comparison with MEMC in the article.

Chinese Solar Stocks Present Compelling Value

I have to agree with rana. He or she is spot on - what will make WFR's price soar (continued high silicon price/demand) will make TSL's price dip (concern about silicon supply is a major factor driving recent Trina price drop), and vice versa.

Plus, WFR isn't even a pure-play solar company. Much of their revenue comes from supplying other, more traditional semi-conductor needs.

Investors be warned; comparing these two companies as the author does is just wrong.