Fred W's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/47508/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/176640-how-about-a-coal-stock-for-your-stocking?source=feed#comment-791630 791630 -Santa gives you a lump of coal in your stocking as a thank you for being such a good-boy investor.
Investing in coal is a risky proposition--carbon is not the only problem...lead, NOx, SOx, just to name a few...cheap power yes...but also a long term stream of toxins for all people of the world to "enjoy".
Health care isn't free...China is the best example of the true cost of cheap power--lung disease is going to be a crippling cost to China--it will be cheaper for the Chinese to send over its sick on boats--to the U.S. of course--our new "healthcare" plans don't require proof of citizenship--great for securing the Hispanic vote, but ultimately fatal for the U.S. healthcare system.

]]> Sat, 05 Dec 2009 10:40:12 -0500 -Santa gives you a lump of coal in your stocking as a thank you for being such a good-boy investor.
Investing in coal is a risky proposition--carbon is not the only problem...lead, NOx, SOx, just to name a few...cheap power yes...but also a long term stream of toxins for all people of the world to "enjoy".
Health care isn't free...China is the best example of the true cost of cheap power--lung disease is going to be a crippling cost to China--it will be cheaper for the Chinese to send over its sick on boats--to the U.S. of course--our new "healthcare" plans don't require proof of citizenship--great for securing the Hispanic vote, but ultimately fatal for the U.S. healthcare system.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176373-energy-impoverishment-heading-back-to-coal?source=feed#comment-790215 790215 I would suggest keeping it under lock and key so you have a little time to "think about it" when those waves a negativity wash over you.
However, you do make some good points.


On Dec 03 09:47 AM Leftfield wrote:

> I recently did some traveling in the US and Canada and was struck
> by their size (of course), and endowment of resources we are still
> blessed with. Impoverishment and deficits in the face of these blessings
> almost has to be deliberate.
>
> It is the system, hijacked to be dysfunctional to real needs, to
> reward select groups, that has frozen us in our tracks. Rationally,
> sending the military around the world into the worst hornet's nests
> of trouble to secure oil is even worse than GM when it bought up
> trolley systems throughout the country and destroyed them.
>
> Americans are now used to saluting the tyrannical charlatans that
> brought us to the sorriest place this country has seen yet. Obey
> the global warming theists despite evidence that: C02 concentrations
> increase AFTER global warming; they don't cause it. And, man-made
> emissions are 3% of C02 anyway, and C02 is only 5% of greenhouse
> gasses; water vapor is most of the rest. And, where there is glacial
> shrinkage, the cause is likely less precipitation.
>
> Obey the government that has us in endless regulatory and financial
> straitjackets? That takes from the productive and subsidizes so
> much value-subtracting activity that we are now the most bankrupt
> entity the world has ever seen?
>
> Part of the scam is the atrocious government education system and
> MSM. Enough Americans have to finally see through their fog banks
> of mis-information to bring back the realistic problem solving that
> once distinguished this country above all others. Vote early and
> often.]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:07:27 -0500 I would suggest keeping it under lock and key so you have a little time to "think about it" when those waves a negativity wash over you.
However, you do make some good points.


On Dec 03 09:47 AM Leftfield wrote:

> I recently did some traveling in the US and Canada and was struck
> by their size (of course), and endowment of resources we are still
> blessed with. Impoverishment and deficits in the face of these blessings
> almost has to be deliberate.
>
> It is the system, hijacked to be dysfunctional to real needs, to
> reward select groups, that has frozen us in our tracks. Rationally,
> sending the military around the world into the worst hornet's nests
> of trouble to secure oil is even worse than GM when it bought up
> trolley systems throughout the country and destroyed them.
>
> Americans are now used to saluting the tyrannical charlatans that
> brought us to the sorriest place this country has seen yet. Obey
> the global warming theists despite evidence that: C02 concentrations
> increase AFTER global warming; they don't cause it. And, man-made
> emissions are 3% of C02 anyway, and C02 is only 5% of greenhouse
> gasses; water vapor is most of the rest. And, where there is glacial
> shrinkage, the cause is likely less precipitation.
>
> Obey the government that has us in endless regulatory and financial
> straitjackets? That takes from the productive and subsidizes so
> much value-subtracting activity that we are now the most bankrupt
> entity the world has ever seen?
>
> Part of the scam is the atrocious government education system and
> MSM. Enough Americans have to finally see through their fog banks
> of mis-information to bring back the realistic problem solving that
> once distinguished this country above all others. Vote early and
> often.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176373-energy-impoverishment-heading-back-to-coal?source=feed#comment-790207 790207

On Dec 03 03:44 PM Steve in Greensboro wrote:

> Central government planning is the path to poverty. Imagine the
> chaos and waste with "energy planning" being done by great minds
> like Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, et al. Look at the
> grinding poverty in the most heavily centrally planned economies.
> Remember that the U.S. Department of Energy was established by Jimmy
> Carter in 1977 with a charter to reduce dependence on imported oil.
> How did that work out?
>
> Innovation by individual and corporations making their own choices
> (without no government involvement) is the road to capital accumulation,
> higher wages and higher living standards. Wind and solar are not
> economical and probably never will be. If they were, they wouldn't
> need government subsidy. But let individual decision makers make
> their own choices. Get the government out of the way of nuclear
> power development and watch the plants spring up around the country.
> Electric power will become cheaper and the U.S. richer.]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:03:15 -0500

On Dec 03 03:44 PM Steve in Greensboro wrote:

> Central government planning is the path to poverty. Imagine the
> chaos and waste with "energy planning" being done by great minds
> like Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, et al. Look at the
> grinding poverty in the most heavily centrally planned economies.
> Remember that the U.S. Department of Energy was established by Jimmy
> Carter in 1977 with a charter to reduce dependence on imported oil.
> How did that work out?
>
> Innovation by individual and corporations making their own choices
> (without no government involvement) is the road to capital accumulation,
> higher wages and higher living standards. Wind and solar are not
> economical and probably never will be. If they were, they wouldn't
> need government subsidy. But let individual decision makers make
> their own choices. Get the government out of the way of nuclear
> power development and watch the plants spring up around the country.
> Electric power will become cheaper and the U.S. richer.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176373-energy-impoverishment-heading-back-to-coal?source=feed#comment-790202 790202 You conclusion seems to be based on emotion rather than reasoned thinking.
Perhaps our military should return to using black powder since it is cheaper than what current weaponry demands?
The Global Warming debate is still ongoing--only entrenched mutton heads like Al Gore (and you) appear to have ended the debate and announced victory.
You are on different sides but represent the same mentality--yes, the truth sometimes hurts.


On Dec 03 08:51 AM Tony Petroski wrote:

> Does this article come from one of your books circa 1978?
>
> You don't even mention the fraud of global warming that has been
> shoving countries into your statist solutions: Dutch windmills and
> winding rubber bands to provide power.
>
> Of course we're going back to coal. The dead end of statism always
> results in consuming yesterday's technology as well as a few billion
> people.]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:01:20 -0500 You conclusion seems to be based on emotion rather than reasoned thinking.
Perhaps our military should return to using black powder since it is cheaper than what current weaponry demands?
The Global Warming debate is still ongoing--only entrenched mutton heads like Al Gore (and you) appear to have ended the debate and announced victory.
You are on different sides but represent the same mentality--yes, the truth sometimes hurts.


On Dec 03 08:51 AM Tony Petroski wrote:

> Does this article come from one of your books circa 1978?
>
> You don't even mention the fraud of global warming that has been
> shoving countries into your statist solutions: Dutch windmills and
> winding rubber bands to provide power.
>
> Of course we're going back to coal. The dead end of statism always
> results in consuming yesterday's technology as well as a few billion
> people.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176557-the-solar-energy-market-has-bottomed?source=feed#comment-790176 790176 Answer: You don't know...and neither does the consumer. (Currently: MA $0.19/kWh and HI rates are over $0.30/kWh)
When you install solar on a house (on a net metered basis) you know how much your next 25 years of solar provided kWhs will cost and you can reasonably predict the percentage of your home's total demand that will have to be bought from the utility (appreciated by those who "budget")
As you seem very needy and ill equipped to deal with opinions that differ from your own----Is my explanation simply enough for you to grasp?


On Dec 04 07:10 AM Davewmart wrote:

> Solar is strictly a play on subsidies.
> Here are the costs now, falls in price notwithstanding - this is
> from a source which advocates solar:
> www.solarbuzz.com/Sola...
>
> At 35 cents/kwh for residential in the bet areas of the US and even
> without taking into account issues like solar intermittency etc this
> is not a business but a Government program.
> Good job the Government has plenty of money!]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 09:49:11 -0500 Answer: You don't know...and neither does the consumer. (Currently: MA $0.19/kWh and HI rates are over $0.30/kWh)
When you install solar on a house (on a net metered basis) you know how much your next 25 years of solar provided kWhs will cost and you can reasonably predict the percentage of your home's total demand that will have to be bought from the utility (appreciated by those who "budget")
As you seem very needy and ill equipped to deal with opinions that differ from your own----Is my explanation simply enough for you to grasp?


On Dec 04 07:10 AM Davewmart wrote:

> Solar is strictly a play on subsidies.
> Here are the costs now, falls in price notwithstanding - this is
> from a source which advocates solar:
> www.solarbuzz.com/Sola...
>
> At 35 cents/kwh for residential in the bet areas of the US and even
> without taking into account issues like solar intermittency etc this
> is not a business but a Government program.
> Good job the Government has plenty of money!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176169-solar-power-thin-film-developers-feel-besieged?source=feed#comment-788718 788718 Chris Beitel is severely misguided if he thinks shaving expenses on other parts of the project is the "answer":

"Currently, the average selling price for crystalline silicon panels are roughly $2 per watt, and thin films need to be 25 percent cheaper to compete, said Paula Mints, the head analyst at Navigant Consulting, at the conference.

Mints' assessment didn't convince Chris Beitel, managing director of SunFab products at Santa Clara, Calif.-based Applied Materials.

"I absolutely disagree with that," said Beitel during a panel discussion at the conference. He said panel pricing is just one factor in determining the costs of installing a solar energy system. Thin-film developers and their customers could shave expenses in labor and materials for other components in the system, Beitel said."]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:06:20 -0500 Chris Beitel is severely misguided if he thinks shaving expenses on other parts of the project is the "answer":

"Currently, the average selling price for crystalline silicon panels are roughly $2 per watt, and thin films need to be 25 percent cheaper to compete, said Paula Mints, the head analyst at Navigant Consulting, at the conference.

Mints' assessment didn't convince Chris Beitel, managing director of SunFab products at Santa Clara, Calif.-based Applied Materials.

"I absolutely disagree with that," said Beitel during a panel discussion at the conference. He said panel pricing is just one factor in determining the costs of installing a solar energy system. Thin-film developers and their customers could shave expenses in labor and materials for other components in the system, Beitel said."]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175831-electric-vehicles-vs-natural-gas-vehicles?source=feed#comment-786232 786232 I don't believe it is choice that must be made--quite simply we need both EVs and NG powered vehicles going forward. ]]> Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:26:21 -0500 I don't believe it is choice that must be made--quite simply we need both EVs and NG powered vehicles going forward. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176117-ceo-leaves-ge-funded-primestar-solar?source=feed#comment-786200 786200 Cu mining is changing and CdTe will not be part of the "extras" produced.]]> Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:15:14 -0500 Cu mining is changing and CdTe will not be part of the "extras" produced.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175877-google-to-fund-clean-power-plants?source=feed#comment-784446 784446 One study I read back then projected that Google would be using over 3% of the world's energy supply by 2015--but a much greater percentage of the US market's--exposure to volatile NG prices was seen as unacceptable to Google plan for growth. Google appears to be looking past Q1,2,3,4 of "this year" and actually operating as if it will be an ongoing concern for decades to come--sad that GM could not have done similarly.]]> Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:13:05 -0500 One study I read back then projected that Google would be using over 3% of the world's energy supply by 2015--but a much greater percentage of the US market's--exposure to volatile NG prices was seen as unacceptable to Google plan for growth. Google appears to be looking past Q1,2,3,4 of "this year" and actually operating as if it will be an ongoing concern for decades to come--sad that GM could not have done similarly.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175721-climategate-climate-science-or-pseudoscience?source=feed#comment-784424 784424 Make no mistake, this article does NOT prove that climate change is not happening or is not caused by man.
It does "prove" that the debate is still ongoing and that claiming certainty is the real BS--BOTH sides are guilty.
If you can't see this simple logic then perhaps you should admit that you are merely a pundit with an agenda and not a free thinker.]]> Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:02:20 -0500 Make no mistake, this article does NOT prove that climate change is not happening or is not caused by man.
It does "prove" that the debate is still ongoing and that claiming certainty is the real BS--BOTH sides are guilty.
If you can't see this simple logic then perhaps you should admit that you are merely a pundit with an agenda and not a free thinker.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175616-rooftop-solar-generation-ready-for-prime-time?source=feed#comment-782904 782904

On Nov 30 10:02 AM Rick Krementz wrote:

> Well, a few more clarifying points...
>
> You can't put solar on every roof. Many do not face south, have trees
> or other structures causing shade, have gables, or projections, etc.
> One study I did had only 10% of the roofs in a neighborhood suitable
> for solar.
>
> No solar technology is even close to "building breakeven". In other
> words, the energy that can be produced by a roof almost never exceeds
> the energy consumed by the occupied structure. Almost every structure
> in the Southland needs air conditioning and there is no way a roof-top
> solar system can meet that demand.
>
> The real cost of solar rooftops has little to do with the panels,
> despite all the hype. US labor costs and balance of system (wiring,
> controls, batteries) outweigh the panel costs. Labor costs are not
> going down.
>
> For off-grid and other specialized applications rooftop solar makes
> sense - my house is 100% solar (and off-grid). For mainstream use,
> it is just an uneconomic fantasy supported by massive subsidies.
> ]]> Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:29:55 -0500

On Nov 30 10:02 AM Rick Krementz wrote:

> Well, a few more clarifying points...
>
> You can't put solar on every roof. Many do not face south, have trees
> or other structures causing shade, have gables, or projections, etc.
> One study I did had only 10% of the roofs in a neighborhood suitable
> for solar.
>
> No solar technology is even close to "building breakeven". In other
> words, the energy that can be produced by a roof almost never exceeds
> the energy consumed by the occupied structure. Almost every structure
> in the Southland needs air conditioning and there is no way a roof-top
> solar system can meet that demand.
>
> The real cost of solar rooftops has little to do with the panels,
> despite all the hype. US labor costs and balance of system (wiring,
> controls, batteries) outweigh the panel costs. Labor costs are not
> going down.
>
> For off-grid and other specialized applications rooftop solar makes
> sense - my house is 100% solar (and off-grid). For mainstream use,
> it is just an uneconomic fantasy supported by massive subsidies.
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175616-rooftop-solar-generation-ready-for-prime-time?source=feed#comment-782901 782901

On Nov 30 11:20 AM biomedlives wrote:

> I would be interested in the basis for your assertion about "building
> breakeven." I have room for at least 24 Suntech panels on my southeast-facing
> roof, but I could put in only 22 on account of the ridiculous New
> Jersey rule against installing a residential system that is likely
> to generate more than 100% of the home's annual electricity use.
> ]]> Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:28:18 -0500

On Nov 30 11:20 AM biomedlives wrote:

> I would be interested in the basis for your assertion about "building
> breakeven." I have room for at least 24 Suntech panels on my southeast-facing
> roof, but I could put in only 22 on account of the ridiculous New
> Jersey rule against installing a residential system that is likely
> to generate more than 100% of the home's annual electricity use.
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175616-rooftop-solar-generation-ready-for-prime-time?source=feed#comment-782895 782895

On Nov 29 02:34 PM rooferguy wrote:

> Good article, but here are a few clarifying points.
>
> The biggest recent change is NOT the rapid rise of thin film modules
> (which have always been cheap), but the tremendous decline in price
> for crystalline modules — which are also much more efficient and
> suitable for rooftops.
>
> With cheap crystalline modules you can put solar on every sunny rooftop.
> As Troy Jensen and Black & Veatch consultants accurately point
> out, Distributed Generation solar is cheaper than central solar since
> you don’t need all that expensive (and time consuming) transmission
> and distribution infrastructure.
>
> But what’s more interesting is that the COSTS for rooftop solar are
> likely to be much lower than what I call “close-in” solar — 1MW or
> so plants in public areas around towns. Homeowner’s will be able
> to install their own rooftop systems (using plug and play AC panels
> and local electrical or HVAC contractors) for MUCH LESS MONEY than
> a town or utility will spend on a “public” system. Construction
> costs for public or utility works are always much higher than for
> residential or commercial projects.
>
> Commercial and residential owners will do their own math and decide
> that it’s much cheaper to install their own rooftop generating system
> than to buy power from their utility.
>
> Inexpensive rooftop solar is a disruptive technology for power generation
> — just like the PC was for the computer industry.]]> Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:25:17 -0500

On Nov 29 02:34 PM rooferguy wrote:

> Good article, but here are a few clarifying points.
>
> The biggest recent change is NOT the rapid rise of thin film modules
> (which have always been cheap), but the tremendous decline in price
> for crystalline modules — which are also much more efficient and
> suitable for rooftops.
>
> With cheap crystalline modules you can put solar on every sunny rooftop.
> As Troy Jensen and Black & Veatch consultants accurately point
> out, Distributed Generation solar is cheaper than central solar since
> you don’t need all that expensive (and time consuming) transmission
> and distribution infrastructure.
>
> But what’s more interesting is that the COSTS for rooftop solar are
> likely to be much lower than what I call “close-in” solar — 1MW or
> so plants in public areas around towns. Homeowner’s will be able
> to install their own rooftop systems (using plug and play AC panels
> and local electrical or HVAC contractors) for MUCH LESS MONEY than
> a town or utility will spend on a “public” system. Construction
> costs for public or utility works are always much higher than for
> residential or commercial projects.
>
> Commercial and residential owners will do their own math and decide
> that it’s much cheaper to install their own rooftop generating system
> than to buy power from their utility.
>
> Inexpensive rooftop solar is a disruptive technology for power generation
> — just like the PC was for the computer industry.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148969-analyst-boom-time-ahead-for-u-s-solar-manufacturing?source=feed#comment-782810 782810 Steve you set a new low--how's that legal trouble going?
Or did you finally settle after making such absurd comments about soooo many companies?


On Jul 16 12:39 PM Steve Pluvia wrote:

> Fred, You've hit a new record for ridiculous statements:
>
> 1. Installing Solar requires low level construction & design
> skills; there's a giant construction workforce currently unemployed;
> Designing PV system aint rocket science.
>
> 2. "Inventory Carrying costs" Huh? Clearly you don't know this
> sector. Typically plant capacity is idled rather than producing
> unsold product; over production is an economic cycle event that occurs
> between the end of a boom and beginning of a slowdown.
>
> 3. PV prices dropped because of a demand slowdown (excess inventory
> is a symptom of this, not the cause as you suggest) due to shrinking
> subsidy markets and the lack of available financing at a time when
> we went from economic boom to bust. The "inventory" excess has already
> been blown out. Don't you know how to read a balance sheet?
>
> and On Jul 16 10:02 AM Fred W wrote:]]> Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:36:59 -0500 Steve you set a new low--how's that legal trouble going?
Or did you finally settle after making such absurd comments about soooo many companies?


On Jul 16 12:39 PM Steve Pluvia wrote:

> Fred, You've hit a new record for ridiculous statements:
>
> 1. Installing Solar requires low level construction & design
> skills; there's a giant construction workforce currently unemployed;
> Designing PV system aint rocket science.
>
> 2. "Inventory Carrying costs" Huh? Clearly you don't know this
> sector. Typically plant capacity is idled rather than producing
> unsold product; over production is an economic cycle event that occurs
> between the end of a boom and beginning of a slowdown.
>
> 3. PV prices dropped because of a demand slowdown (excess inventory
> is a symptom of this, not the cause as you suggest) due to shrinking
> subsidy markets and the lack of available financing at a time when
> we went from economic boom to bust. The "inventory" excess has already
> been blown out. Don't you know how to read a balance sheet?
>
> and On Jul 16 10:02 AM Fred W wrote:]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148969-analyst-boom-time-ahead-for-u-s-solar-manufacturing?source=feed#comment-782806 782806 nothing at all.


On Jul 16 03:57 PM quick wrote:

> Fred,
>
> There isn't a great deal of skill involved with installing solar
> panels and things like that. And what skill is required is starting
> to be provided by many community colleges across the country already:
>
>
> my.hfcc.edu/si...]]> Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:35:10 -0500 nothing at all.


On Jul 16 03:57 PM quick wrote:

> Fred,
>
> There isn't a great deal of skill involved with installing solar
> panels and things like that. And what skill is required is starting
> to be provided by many community colleges across the country already:
>
>
> my.hfcc.edu/si...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175545-the-dubai-default-and-oil-prices?source=feed#comment-781673 781673 Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:31:16 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/175575-global-warming-models-out-of-order?source=feed#comment-781657 781657 Carbon might not be the monumental problem that so many have professed but the OTHER facts are clear: we cannot go on forever wantonly using natural resources for the sake of economic growth...efficiency MUST be the focus of the NEW world economy--use less to produce more, or at least the same amount--this is the sustainable economy that is achievable.
Pricing signals on energy and materials must match this concept or we will continue to increase our environmental risk profile (to argue otherwise is simply illogical). Many hidden risks are all around us--ever hear of asbestos? Greatest thing in the world (cheap fire protection) until it was linked to frightening cancer rates.
Better, safer, improved product life cycle ...BUT "cheaper" alone should not be the measuring stick of the consumer--yet capitalism requires it so risk and future burdens MUST be built into pricing.
Superfund sites are the best example of what happens when you let companies "dump" the burden on current and future generations--quite often it is their only way to make a profit--suggests that they should not be in business to begin with.


On Nov 28 07:07 AM coolsoupy wrote:

> Our politicians are bankrupting us!
>
> Our infrastructure is falling apart!
>
> We are fighting wars we can't afford for no reason!
>
> And you are worried about global warming?
>
> Anyone remember reading about the fall of Rome?]]> Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:16:56 -0500 Carbon might not be the monumental problem that so many have professed but the OTHER facts are clear: we cannot go on forever wantonly using natural resources for the sake of economic growth...efficiency MUST be the focus of the NEW world economy--use less to produce more, or at least the same amount--this is the sustainable economy that is achievable.
Pricing signals on energy and materials must match this concept or we will continue to increase our environmental risk profile (to argue otherwise is simply illogical). Many hidden risks are all around us--ever hear of asbestos? Greatest thing in the world (cheap fire protection) until it was linked to frightening cancer rates.
Better, safer, improved product life cycle ...BUT "cheaper" alone should not be the measuring stick of the consumer--yet capitalism requires it so risk and future burdens MUST be built into pricing.
Superfund sites are the best example of what happens when you let companies "dump" the burden on current and future generations--quite often it is their only way to make a profit--suggests that they should not be in business to begin with.


On Nov 28 07:07 AM coolsoupy wrote:

> Our politicians are bankrupting us!
>
> Our infrastructure is falling apart!
>
> We are fighting wars we can't afford for no reason!
>
> And you are worried about global warming?
>
> Anyone remember reading about the fall of Rome?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175414-david-rosenberg-the-u-s-is-in-a-form-of-depression?source=feed#comment-778529 778529 Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:51:11 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/174498-canadian-solar-a-hot-stock-for-an-options-trade?source=feed#comment-769091 769091 AND CSIQ is moving large amounts of product--current margins are very slim but these (generally 3-12 month supply) contracts will only get better looking as manufacturing costs continue to decrease.
Efficiency is impressive for the newest line of modules--especially at the price point.


On Nov 20 09:48 AM ECONOMICS 101 wrote:

> Cosmo Mannella of LIUNA is very keen on Canadian Solar companies
> as a whole.
> He believes the sector will blossom and create new high paying jobs
> for the Canadian market.
> The stock market business of Solar aside let's hope is correct and
> support his vision.
> We all need to get to work!!!]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:48:26 -0500 AND CSIQ is moving large amounts of product--current margins are very slim but these (generally 3-12 month supply) contracts will only get better looking as manufacturing costs continue to decrease.
Efficiency is impressive for the newest line of modules--especially at the price point.


On Nov 20 09:48 AM ECONOMICS 101 wrote:

> Cosmo Mannella of LIUNA is very keen on Canadian Solar companies
> as a whole.
> He believes the sector will blossom and create new high paying jobs
> for the Canadian market.
> The stock market business of Solar aside let's hope is correct and
> support his vision.
> We all need to get to work!!!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174028-marc-farber-gold-will-never-fall-below-1-000-again?source=feed#comment-767369 767369 Just watch a few "shows" on sports betting...generally on Sat/Sun mornings...same type of "analysis" being presented by Marc.
Generally called a sales pitch, some would call it a snow job. ]]> Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:15:23 -0500 Just watch a few "shows" on sports betting...generally on Sat/Sun mornings...same type of "analysis" being presented by Marc.
Generally called a sales pitch, some would call it a snow job. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/173919-sunpower-accounting-mistakes-could-lead-to-financial-restatement?source=feed#comment-767259 767259 Just look at Conergy...installed over 10% of the world's PV and they are a legal judgment away from bankruptcy--all stemming from a bad contract signed with MEMC in 2007.
SPWR is has holes in its game and those holes are becoming all too obvious.


On Nov 19 09:53 AM Road Runner wrote:

> Another thing. You make it sound like this accounting issue is a
> permanent thing - like SunPower is headed the way of AOL. At worse,
> this could turn out to be the tip of the iceberg for other accounting
> issues that could mean that SunPower is a much less profitable company
> than they led us to believe. Even in this worst case scenario, SunPower
> will still be one of the powerhouse solar companies. They will still
> have the best product on the market with a well established, strong
> distribution network. They are not going away.]]> Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:23:43 -0500 Just look at Conergy...installed over 10% of the world's PV and they are a legal judgment away from bankruptcy--all stemming from a bad contract signed with MEMC in 2007.
SPWR is has holes in its game and those holes are becoming all too obvious.


On Nov 19 09:53 AM Road Runner wrote:

> Another thing. You make it sound like this accounting issue is a
> permanent thing - like SunPower is headed the way of AOL. At worse,
> this could turn out to be the tip of the iceberg for other accounting
> issues that could mean that SunPower is a much less profitable company
> than they led us to believe. Even in this worst case scenario, SunPower
> will still be one of the powerhouse solar companies. They will still
> have the best product on the market with a well established, strong
> distribution network. They are not going away.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174032-sunpower-clings-to-march-lows?source=feed#comment-767249 767249 Risk/reward at this point just doesn't favor this entry point.


On Nov 18 01:01 PM robdoc wrote:

> This certainly could be a good entry point for SPWRA...it depends
> upon the magnitude of the errors in accounting.
> What are your thoughts on the overall integrity of the company?]]> Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:19:04 -0500 Risk/reward at this point just doesn't favor this entry point.


On Nov 18 01:01 PM robdoc wrote:

> This certainly could be a good entry point for SPWRA...it depends
> upon the magnitude of the errors in accounting.
> What are your thoughts on the overall integrity of the company?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/173844-accounting-irregularities-eclipse-sunpower?source=feed#comment-765354 765354 Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:27:02 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/173919-sunpower-accounting-mistakes-could-lead-to-financial-restatement?source=feed#comment-765330 765330 If you did, and you weren't a Fortune 500, you got the shaft. Generally SunPower is run by opportunists with little regard for ethics--even SPWR's public relations people were openly arrogant at functions--even ones as low key as the 2007 Solar Decathlon.
Beyond this, SPWR made strong arming installers/integrators part of its business model.
You made a lot of enemies while on top SPWR...many us are enjoying your fall.]]> Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:11:53 -0500 If you did, and you weren't a Fortune 500, you got the shaft. Generally SunPower is run by opportunists with little regard for ethics--even SPWR's public relations people were openly arrogant at functions--even ones as low key as the 2007 Solar Decathlon.
Beyond this, SPWR made strong arming installers/integrators part of its business model.
You made a lot of enemies while on top SPWR...many us are enjoying your fall.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172174-ge-to-close-its-only-u-s-solar-panel-factory?source=feed#comment-752323 752323 We are spiraling down at the same time the market goes up--the bubble is being re-inflated. ]]> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:10:03 -0500 We are spiraling down at the same time the market goes up--the bubble is being re-inflated. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/171090-america-is-creating-green-energy-jobs-in-china?source=feed#comment-744194 744194 Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:52:26 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/170354-first-solar-earnings-eight-points-about-the-solar-industry?source=feed#comment-739147 739147 The author of the article makes some good points but is all over the map.


On Nov 01 09:51 AM Solar Guy wrote:

> Troy,
>
> You make some excellent points, except your LEC math is inaccurate
> on point number 4.
>
> As a complimentary service, we provide all our customers a 30-year
> system life analysis to determine their IRR, Net Present Value, and
> Payback Period on their solar systems. Almost all of the solar panel
> manufacturers now offer a 25-year warranty and the panels will actually
> perform for 30+ years. So the LEC analysis should be based on 30
> years lifetime, not 20 years as you stated.
>
> Reference your final comment - "Solar's LEC must come down to the
> level of other, traditional energy generation sources for it to truly
> gain critical mass and the accelerated investment and deployment
> that comes with it." On every analysis I've provided to our customers
> here in Northwest Florida, the fixed solar rate equivalent cost for
> 30 years has been in the $0.03 - $0.08 / kWh range based on the size
> of the system versus the local utility provider's grid-based rate
> of $0.15 / kWh. In reality, we're already at or below "grid parity".
>
>
> Even if you take away the current subsidies and tax credits for the
> unsubsidized, TRUE cost of energy from all energy sources (solar
> versus coal, natural gas, and nuclear) in the US, decentralized electricity
> generation from solar panels on a rooftop with no associated grid
> transmission costs or non-competing, utility company monopoly dependence
> is still much less expensive for the next 30 years.]]> Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:22:39 -0500 The author of the article makes some good points but is all over the map.


On Nov 01 09:51 AM Solar Guy wrote:

> Troy,
>
> You make some excellent points, except your LEC math is inaccurate
> on point number 4.
>
> As a complimentary service, we provide all our customers a 30-year
> system life analysis to determine their IRR, Net Present Value, and
> Payback Period on their solar systems. Almost all of the solar panel
> manufacturers now offer a 25-year warranty and the panels will actually
> perform for 30+ years. So the LEC analysis should be based on 30
> years lifetime, not 20 years as you stated.
>
> Reference your final comment - "Solar's LEC must come down to the
> level of other, traditional energy generation sources for it to truly
> gain critical mass and the accelerated investment and deployment
> that comes with it." On every analysis I've provided to our customers
> here in Northwest Florida, the fixed solar rate equivalent cost for
> 30 years has been in the $0.03 - $0.08 / kWh range based on the size
> of the system versus the local utility provider's grid-based rate
> of $0.15 / kWh. In reality, we're already at or below "grid parity".
>
>
> Even if you take away the current subsidies and tax credits for the
> unsubsidized, TRUE cost of energy from all energy sources (solar
> versus coal, natural gas, and nuclear) in the US, decentralized electricity
> generation from solar panels on a rooftop with no associated grid
> transmission costs or non-competing, utility company monopoly dependence
> is still much less expensive for the next 30 years.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/173432-michael-fitzsimmons/33793-it-s-going-to-get-ugly?source=feed#comment-738567 738567

On Oct 31 12:11 PM anarchist wrote:

> Fitz, I couldn't agree with you more and have been saying the same
> things over and over and lost a few friends because of it. "Homeland
> security" sounds like something Goebbels would have come-up with
> along with the oxymoron "Patriot Act" but of course oxymoron labels
> were the Bush administration's specialty, no child left behind, forest
> preservation act, etc. The Government no longer responds to the
> need of the citizens only to the campaign contributors, the pinnacle
> being reached when Enron virtually wrote Bush's so called "energy
> policy".
> But still the public is not offended by their loss civil rights,
> the breakdown of separation of church (Christian of course) and state,
> being lead down the road of Fascism-I just don't get it. I am sure
> there are plenty here at SA that will set me straight.]]> Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:32:36 -0400

On Oct 31 12:11 PM anarchist wrote:

> Fitz, I couldn't agree with you more and have been saying the same
> things over and over and lost a few friends because of it. "Homeland
> security" sounds like something Goebbels would have come-up with
> along with the oxymoron "Patriot Act" but of course oxymoron labels
> were the Bush administration's specialty, no child left behind, forest
> preservation act, etc. The Government no longer responds to the
> need of the citizens only to the campaign contributors, the pinnacle
> being reached when Enron virtually wrote Bush's so called "energy
> policy".
> But still the public is not offended by their loss civil rights,
> the breakdown of separation of church (Christian of course) and state,
> being lead down the road of Fascism-I just don't get it. I am sure
> there are plenty here at SA that will set me straight.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/33958?source=feed#comment-738563 738563

On Oct 30 07:56 PM anarchist wrote:

> I love it when there is an article by Krugman. All the anti-novel
> laureates come out of their right wing caves to spew their hatred
> for socialist (which is code word for liberals or Obama Democrats)
> and froth at the mouth trying to put down the "ignorant" Princeton
> economic Prof. because they in their infinite wisdom know more than
> he.]]> Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:30:49 -0400

On Oct 30 07:56 PM anarchist wrote:

> I love it when there is an article by Krugman. All the anti-novel
> laureates come out of their right wing caves to spew their hatred
> for socialist (which is code word for liberals or Obama Democrats)
> and froth at the mouth trying to put down the "ignorant" Princeton
> economic Prof. because they in their infinite wisdom know more than
> he.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169731-california-entering-inflationary-depression?source=feed#comment-738556 738556 Answer = NOTHING
Stick to the topic and leave out the politics if you want to be taken seriously here--otherwise there are plenty of Yahoo message boards out there that would better fit your agenda

On Oct 29 10:47 AM anarchist wrote:

> So what do you think that McCain would have done that would have
> made things better?]]> Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:27:38 -0400 Answer = NOTHING
Stick to the topic and leave out the politics if you want to be taken seriously here--otherwise there are plenty of Yahoo message boards out there that would better fit your agenda

On Oct 29 10:47 AM anarchist wrote:

> So what do you think that McCain would have done that would have
> made things better?]]>