Well, what the senses required in trading? All solars are in red anyway, only a matter of big red or small red.
Everyone are scratching their heads on what's going on LDK? HK IPO? Puff! It seems that they are getting $200-300 millions instead of originally targeted $2.5 billions. Bond sales? Puff! Bond sales will either be withdrawn (recall the last Christmas that bond sales was cancelled in US?) or higher interest payment than current 4.8%.
All solars are no longer in green. So, whatever the stock movement is pure cansinonized. I know right after this post will flow in sarcastic replies. hey! poker players.
At this moment, only YGE, CSIQ and WFR maintain some senses. With treacheous solar orders flow, only poker players know how long they can maintain these senses.
1. nuclear power - building a nuclear power plant takes normally 10 years.
when was the last nuclear power plant being built in the US ?
I would think at least 20 years ago.
from all I know they normally run for around 40 years.
so as there havent been any builds of new plants since at least 20 years and considering that a build takes 10 years, do you really think this is the energy of the future ? it seems neither utilities nor politicians see it like that.
2. coal - yes inexpensive but dirty and price climbing. will have to see.
the deeper you dig, the more expensive it gets. also china is building many, many new plants every year. I think the same is valid for many new emerging markets so coal wont get cheaper IMO.
3. nat gas - yes, finding more but at higher costs that is why the prices also climb. again - markets like china absorb alot. new pipeline from russia to china indicates this as well.
4. you dont understand what I am saying on money leaving the US or not.
example: BOS costs of $3 per watt in the US. module cost $1 - going to china.
so 33% going to china.
the story here is that there are US equipment vendors etc which sell to china as well. as stated - the exports in the solar value chain offset the imports - that for the US. so yes, you send $1 module costs to china but this is offset by selling equipment, inverters to other nations.
I also dont understand why only 10% of US households can install solar...in any case I think in the US this is more a utility story as you have sufficient space which we dont have in e.g. germany.
what I see is the US looking backward instead of forward - electric cars are only a matter of time. china is actually leading that trend - together with europe.
due to that backward mentality companies like GM went almost bancrupt I fear...in the meantime many western car producers were highly profitable. I see many hybrid cars already on the road here. this has just begun.
key problem for me remains is to pick the solar winners - that is unpredictable and the main risks.
if solar can produce at same prices like wind I dont see a reason why wind can sell 37 GW per year (wind installs in 2010) and solar not. solar is neither loud nor needs alot of space...it is even more predictable than wind.
I am a pragmatist. If you are looking at making a buck and potentially identifying the next large emerging market then great but saving the world is not on my agenda.
Near term atleast in the US, solar is not cost competative no matter how you spin it unless it is subsidized.
Those subsidies for Solar is also looked at as a way to create jobs and an economy.
But if that economy shifts 50 cents on the dollar to China from 1 cent on the dollar for the other types of energy today and winds up employing 5 times more people over there than here, forget it.
Slap a 100% import fee to discourage the practices China has done in emerging markets, allowed by our removal of laws or can all subsidies.
What makes Solar so much better than say coal? I mean coal we dig miles of tunnels and level mountains to get at the resouce.
What do you think will happen if solar was a primary energy source and where do they dig to get all the sand and metals to make the wafers, the frames the glass? Let alone manufacture and the disposal of all the chemicals that are a byproduct. Donlt think electric cars won't have issues. Imagine all that toxic battery acid.
I am surprised Snake that you are not believing in solar energy. One thing is not able to produce energy cheaply have large costs, but to negate the entire concept? Solar is progress, like car, oil was 100 or more so years ago. It took 100 years to drain this resource. Solar will be cheaper and will be truly the alternative. The human progress has so many things for us in area of solar that we are at the first 5 minutes of the movie which is at least 2 hours long.
I find that all the critics of solar energy look at half or maybe year ahead. Nobody looks any further. event analysts. Who invests on half a year span?
Item 1: Texas in Rick Perry's backyard as he ignored all his advisors and built a large storage facility right over the main water aquifer for the region.
2: Coal - yes highly abundent and very inexpensive and mined in the US
3: Nat Gas, like oil, they keep finding more and more when they really look for it. But is is in limited supply which explains the cost runups over the past decade.
4: I ignored nothing. I looked at it as a drain of US dollars leaving the US since 1/2 the cost is oversees and for the most part within 1 to 2 years, all the parts will be made oversees. 1/2 the cost will be kept in the US. Since it offsets 100% internal US production from Coal etc, that is a drain.
By the way, energy used to create Solar modules amounts close to 1/4 the total costs. If you had to use energy sources other than coal like say solar to make solar, you would add an additional 20-25 cents to the cost of the product. That would take the around $0.16 cost with interest for a system based on $2 and drive it up by 12.5%.
I do not deny there are markets for Solar, but without subsidies, there is far less markets. I would not have put solar on 2 homes I have owned if not for a near 40% discount from price quotes. Then again, even with subsidies these quotes are 30% higher than you have shown in Germany but that market area is getting saturated.
In the US at 100M households 10% or 10M homes are likely suitable to install solar. If you get a 25% penetration, you have 2.5M homes at 4KW avg. That is a total home ownership able to support at best 10GW of modules if they could afford it, not justify it. That is basically 1/3 to 1.4 a years supply of Chinese capacity if the recent comments of 30-40GW in China is accurate.
1. nuclear - potentially the most expensive of all energies IMO. where do you store that stuff for 10.000 years ? what is the bill to pay this ?
this is definitely more expensive than solar and wind.
the advantage of nuclear power is base load but for now peak power demand is that high that there is alot of room for renewables IMO.
2. coal - ok. fine with that. unless someone cares about CO2 and pollution.
clean coal is considerable more expensive than dirty coal. I am not sure what new coal plants are build in the US - potentially more old tech I would think.
3. gas. well. let us look at 2008 data
you can translate or use english wikipedia.
the US consumed 657 billion cubic meters of gas in 2008.
they have reserves of 6700 billion cubic meters - so 10 years to go.
import of gas in 2010 was 114 billion cubic meters so not 100% US either.
4. you also ignore the fact that the US exports more products in the solar value chain today than they import. so even though the modules come from china there is still profit at the bottomline for the US and as BOS costs are potentially 60%+ of total install costs the majority of the money being made is staying in the US in any case.
The following website assumes a little over 1.6 kWh per year for each kW installed, after degradation and losses were factored in, in contrast to your estimate of 1 for 1. Of course, the website uses Arizona conditions. One would think there would be some cost inflation over your proposed 20-year period, which could negate most if not all of your assumed interest cost impact.
Thanks for the details. I can see Si dropping to 5 grams or less in 2012 for many companies as they rebrand and upgrade ingot sizes. It is quite possible that by sometime in 2013 Si consumption is under 4 grams/watt.
I also do not believe any numbers LDK states. 21 cent processing suddenly a decline of 5 or 6 cents while utilization rates drop without adding any real equipment and inventory drain is minimal?
Their claimed internal costs of $0.89 for modules does not line up with their processing costs as stated since this place Si at $0.21 cents. LDK has documented 5.6 grams per watt which puts internal proudction at $37.5/kg ad not the claime near $30/kg in the conference call.
Remember Xing Tong I believe was put in charge after Sarno resigned. In the Q3 2009 ER he stated train 2 was mechanical complete and starting to ramp(read SA transcript). 6 months later they PR'd train 2 was complete and starting to ramp.
As for solar in general, unlike some others, I do not see any significant earnings for 2012 for any of the companies. In fact most tend to justify a lower price point than they have. I am not certain demand is going to increase substantially to offset the average declines either.
I look at BOS and where costs need to be with interest for unsubsidized energy and the price point is not $2 installed. It is much closer to $1 needed if you factor in 80% fincancing over 20 years as that adds 66% in cost.
Example a watt gerates on average 20Kwhr over 20 years when factoring in degredation inverter drop tolerance in actual power vs market power and power drop in cabling. That puts a cost of 10 cents per watt. With interest your at 16 to 17 cents per watt.
If one thinks retail parity is the holey grail, they are sadly mistaken and their is limited retail customers willing to fork over the downpayments.