"The solar power business is bracing itself for a collapse in prices"

[bananas]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b7c6972-303d-11dd-86cc-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

Silver lining in solar power storm clouds

By Fiona Harvey in London and Richard Waters in San,Francisco

Published: June 2 2008 03:00 | Last updated: June 2 2008 03:00

The solar power business is bracing itself for a collapse in prices that could lead to a shake-out in one of the most promising areas of the renewable energy sector.

<snip>

According to Dean Cooper, analyst at Ambrian, the global capacity for production of photovoltaic equipment - the biggest section of solar power technology which converts sunlight directly into electricity - is set to increase "dramatically", from 3 gigawatts last year to 15 to 20 gigawatts of production in 2010. Much of the growth is coming from China.

Prices for solar components would drop from about $3.80 per watt to about $1.40 a watt by 2010, he said. That could prompt consolidation in the sector within the next six months, with smaller players falling prey to longer established companies.

<snip>

[Deja Q]

1. Sweet

[WWolf]

2. See? Business isn't always bad.

I wish the US would get off its keister and start competing with the chinese in this matter. We're getting killed.

[jberryhill]

3. Can we put the production plants near you?

Because groundwater contamination seems to occur near every semiconductor manufacturing operation.

[Recursion]

4. Memristors may make semis obsolete soon

If HP is right that MOSFET-free ICs are within striking range, semi production becomes much less of an issue for embedded systems like solar arrays.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Yes, you can put it next to me

If proper controls are in place, and modern production techniques are used no groundwater contamination should result.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

22. Preferable to nuclear waste.

[NNadir]

5. Where have I heard this before. Let me think... um...

Oh wait, I remember.

I've heard it in every fucking "solar will save us" post here for the last 7 years.

Most of them have been accompanied by illiterate confusion between the meaning of "watt" and "joule."

Let's see how much energy 15 to 20 "gigawatts" of PEAK power actually is, even if the fundie "solar prices are set to fall" fantasy ever is accompanied by more than pathetic soothsaying.

Solar power is LUCKY to have 25% capacity utilization. It rarely does, but let's assume that it does just for argument's sake.

20 "gigawatts" for a continuous system at 365.25 days a year, 86400 seconds per day, amounts to - assuming that the sun never goes down (which apparently is true in fundie land despite the observation of rational people that the sun does, in fact, go down each night) amounts to 0.6 exajoules of energy.

But, again - except in the denial of fundie land - solar power is only available 25% of the rated (and fraudulent) peak rating.

Thus the real value is 0.16 exajoules out of the 500 exajoules humanity now uses.

This works out to the equivalent in continuous average power of five 1000 watt gas plants.

As a practical matter, the number of gas plants that will be closed is zero. This solar capacity wouldn't even match the spinning reserve of California, never mind the entire United States, Europe and Asia.

When exactly, in fundie land, is dangerous fossil fuel waste dumping supposed to become a serious problem?

Never?

I thought so.

Noting that as usual, it's simply a prediction, it's pretty fucking pathetic, given that two years represents about 60 billion tons of dangerous fossil fuel waste dumping.

It's great, however, that the production will be coming from China, especially because the waste is all going to be electronic waste of the type yuppie fundies types have been dumping in China continuously for years.

Welcome to 400 ppm fundies. Heckuva job, fundies, heckuva job!

[smiley_glad_hands]

6. Fundies? You may have the wrong website. eom

[NNadir]

7. It think I know where I am. My post count is about 5 times as large as yours.

Fundementalism consists entirely upon insisting on dogma no matter how much scientific (or other type) of data is presented to conflict with it.

I know exactly what I'm talking about.

[ladjf]

8. We all know "exactly what you are talking about".

[smiley_glad_hands]

12. I could care less about your post count. lol

Proves nothing.

[NNadir]

15. Whatever. The last President from Illinois had a relevant comment for fundies though.

It went like this:

"Of all God's creatures, the hen is the wisest. It cackles only after it lays an egg."

Fundies - most of them illiterate about the problem of, say, electronic waste - have been here for a long time predicting falling solar prices.

Unlike the proverbial hen, they have been cackling without laying an egg.

They have certainly been here since 2002 telling us that solar energy was "poised for affordability" blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

Here is what the solar industry says about solar prices:

http://solarbuzz.com/

Once again, a fundementalist is a person whose dogma is unchanged no matter how much data is presented that conflicts with it.

I note that the OP consisted of an argument that consists of the claim, essentially, that 0.16 = 500.

To matter in 2008, a form of energy needs to be on a ten exajoule scale, at least.

Denial is denial is denial is denial is denial whether it comes from James Inhofe or from someone who nominally claims to be a Democrat.

[bananas]

16. Here's what the nuclear industry says about nuclear prices:

"Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators — NRG Energy Inc., Progress Energy Inc., Exelon Corp., Southern Co. and FPL Group Inc. — “have blown by our highest estimate” of costs computed just eight months ago, said Jim Hempstead, a senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York."
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman

"Interestingly, when Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding was released, the nuclear industry press chose to either focus on other aspects – in particular the ‘finding’ that nuclear is a viable option for dealing with climate change – or ignore the report altogether. Considering the number of organisations involved in the nuclear industry that backed the report, this low level of coverage is anomalous, and suggests a certain amount of discomfort with the findings.
However, prohibitively high though it may at first appear to be, even the figure for new build costs in The Keystone Center report is considered too low by some observers."
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2047917


NIRS Statement on Cancellation of Idaho Nuclear Reactor

TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND - January 28 - Today, MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Company announced that it is cancelling its plans to build a new nuclear reactor in Payette County, Idaho.

The company cited the poor economics of nuclear power for its decision, saying that its “due diligence process has led to the conclusion that it does not make economic sense to pursue the project at this time.”

MidAmerican was planning on Warren Buffett’s Berkshire/Hathaway company to provide major financing for the project. Buffett is a major owner of MidAmerican.

Which leads NIRS to the obvious conclusion: if Warren Buffett cannot figure out how to make money from a new nuclear reactor, who can?

“This cancellation is the first of the new nuclear era,” said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, “but it won’t be the last. Even before any new nuclear construction has begun in the U.S., cost estimates have skyrocketed and are now 300-400% higher than the industry was saying just two or three years ago.”

“The extraordinary costs of nuclear power, coupled with its irresolvable safety and radioactive waste problems, killed the first generation of reactors, and are going to end this second generation as well. But it would be tragedy if the U.S. wasted any money on new reactors, when resources are so desperately needed to implement the safer, cheaper, faster, and sustainable energy sources needed to address the climate crisis,” Mariotte added.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0128-09.htm

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

25. Nuclear power was economically stillborn

It only survives on the extremely high priced life support of massive government subsidies.

[NNadir]

26. Right fundie. Still born. Dangerous fossil fuels have no subsidy.

All the dumb fundies coming around here and crying when their fellow yuppies can't get brazillions of dollars of tax breaks and still not produce an exajoule prove that solar and wind are the greatestistic fabulousancious stupendalicious form of energy ever.

There is NOT ONE dumb fundie who can produce these alleged "subsidies," but no matter. Nuclear energy is the only scalable exajoule scale form of energy that has been proved to operate on an exajoule scale without loss of life.

Government funding for nuclear energy has paid off for humanity on a scale of hundreds of exajoules produced.

Do you know how much energy a hundred exajoules represents fundie?

No?

Why am I not surprised?

I favor a ten trillion dollar immediate subsidy by world wide governments for nuclear power, since it works.

The fact that you elevate dumb fantasies over reality and so seek to dump dangerous fossil fuel waste into my lungs and my family's lungs implies that I should have nothing but contempt.

Got it?

Ignorance kills.

Ignorance is murder.

I couldn't care less about dumb fundie claims that 0.69 > 0.70. Solar energy is, despite 50 years of dumb fundie fantasies, a trivial form of energy. It's all cackling and no egg.

[kristopher]

27. 3 mode: false logic, insults, false statements.

That's all ya got, dud. (If you don't count your worthless stock in nuclear)

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

34. Looking in the mirror again?

"Look. George W. Bush repeats the same untruths endlessly. He's worthy of no more than insult."

3 modes: false logic, insults, false statements.

That's all ya got, dud. (If you don't count your worthless stock in nuclear)

You don't even merit a detailed reply.

[Doug.Goodall]

46. Okay, I'll bite.

I keep seeing you throw around the term "exajoule".

Go ahead, just for my edification, define the word "exajoule".

What are its conversion factors to BTUs, kilo calories, and how many exajoules are equivalent in energy to a liter of 100 octane gasoline.

[kristopher]

18. Truer words were never spoken. You must have been looking in a mirror.

"Fundementalism (sic) consists entirely upon insisting on dogma no matter how much scientific (or other type) of data is presented to conflict with it.

I know exactly what I'm talking about."

[bananas]

19. LOL! nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. FWIW: "Fundamentalism"

The term "Fundamentalism" comes from a movement by some "Protestant" Christians in the late 19th and 20th centuries (CE) to identify certain "fundamental" beliefs which they felt were core and essential to their faith.

Someone who believed (for example) that the US Government's first priority should be adherence to the US Constitution might be called a "fundamentalist."


For some, "fundamentalist" simply means "someone I can't bully into agreeing with me."

[kristopher]

21. The later describes it well for our good friend

He intends it as a reference to someone possessing a rigid belief structure that disregards conflicting evidence and who is intolerant of contrary viewpoints; and that would accurately reflect his commentary.

[kestrel91316]

43. A bully ranting about "fundies"? LOL

I can guess who you are talking about: the freak I have on IGNORE.

[Javaman]

40. Kicking ass and taking names!

I saw you smack down nnadir once before.

However, your wit this time around was priceless. :)

Cheers!

[losthills]

38. You don't know shit.

[HughMoran]

9. Any opinion on the printable ink solar cells being developed down the street from me?

It's the first time I've been somewhat interested in solar.

What's your view of this technology?

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Which company are you talking about? (Nanosolar perhaps?)

If so, their technology is an exciting advance.

[HughMoran]

17. Yep, Konarka was the company featured on the Science Channel, but there are many now

I think this is going to be an exciting technology when it goes mainstream.

[tinrobot]

10. I just got an estimate for solar today.

At today's prices, I can't afford to use solar energy to take my house completely off the grid.

If prices drop by as much as the article indicates, I can afford it.

You can talk all you want about who does and doesn't know a watt from a joule, all most people care about are dollars. I know when it becomes affordable to me, I will jump at the chance to go solar. I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way and will do the same thing.

[roody]

23. My solar array (only 9 panels)

cost less than half of what my car cost.

[tinrobot]

28. I probably need to keep shopping

My estimate was for $35,000. I'm sure there are cheaper options.

[roody]

30. I paid a contractor 15,000---7 yrs ago.

Then I got over 5,000 in tax credits and rebates. When I add on and change my roof, I am going to do a lot of the work myself then call in a professional to do the hookup. A lot of the cost is labor, and it is simple carpentry and installation.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

31. Our 20 panels cost $20,000 installed

And the State of California paid for half of that.

Best investment I have made. It produces more in value than we use, considering time of use costs.

Where are you located and how much power do you use?

[tinrobot]

36. California....

I'm not sure exactly how much power I use... they calculated it based on my bill.

Like I said, I think I need to shop some more. If I can get it down to $10-12K after rebates, it would work for me.

[bananas]

14. Cargo cult Uranus worshippers can't face reality

First, in 2010, they'll be manufacturing 15-20GW of PV cells each year; after 10 years there will be 150-200GW of PV cells from just those plants.
Second, the number of manufacturing plants is growing exponentially.
By the time nuclear resolves its FOAK problems, it won't be able to compete.

"Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators — NRG Energy Inc., Progress Energy Inc., Exelon Corp., Southern Co. and FPL Group Inc. — “have blown by our highest estimate” of costs computed just eight months ago, said Jim Hempstead, a senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York."
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/

"Interestingly, when Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding was released, the nuclear industry press chose to either focus on other aspects – in particular the ‘finding’ that nuclear is a viable option for dealing with climate change – or ignore the report altogether. Considering the number of organisations involved in the nuclear industry that backed the report, this low level of coverage is anomalous, and suggests a certain amount of discomfort with the findings.
However, prohibitively high though it may at first appear to be, even the figure for new build costs in The Keystone Center report is considered too low by some observers."
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2047917


NIRS Statement on Cancellation of Idaho Nuclear Reactor

TAKOMA PARK, MARYLAND - January 28 - Today, MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Company announced that it is cancelling its plans to build a new nuclear reactor in Payette County, Idaho.

The company cited the poor economics of nuclear power for its decision, saying that its “due diligence process has led to the conclusion that it does not make economic sense to pursue the project at this time.”

MidAmerican was planning on Warren Buffett’s Berkshire/Hathaway company to provide major financing for the project. Buffett is a major owner of MidAmerican.

Which leads NIRS to the obvious conclusion: if Warren Buffett cannot figure out how to make money from a new nuclear reactor, who can?

“This cancellation is the first of the new nuclear era,” said Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, “but it won’t be the last. Even before any new nuclear construction has begun in the U.S., cost estimates have skyrocketed and are now 300-400% higher than the industry was saying just two or three years ago.”

“The extraordinary costs of nuclear power, coupled with its irresolvable safety and radioactive waste problems, killed the first generation of reactors, and are going to end this second generation as well. But it would be tragedy if the U.S. wasted any money on new reactors, when resources are so desperately needed to implement the safer, cheaper, faster, and sustainable energy sources needed to address the climate crisis,” Mariotte added.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0128-09.htm

[lynnertic]

29. but you're not bitter, no.

[ElectricGrid]

39. Thanks for wasting my time.

[conscious evolution]

41. I am starting to beleive you are right

about the drawbacks of solar power.
I spent this weekend playing with some solar panels in order to comput how much actual generation and storage capacity will be needed to run a well pump.
I have to say I was disappointed with the numbers.
We have two panels rated at 150 watts each.On a clear sunny day we were only getting about 80-90 watts per panel and that was in direct sunlight.Whenever a cloud passed over that dropped down to about 10 watts per panel.Even the smallest clouds that we could see the sun through caused a decline.

That said,while I do not think that solar alone will help us overcome our oil dependency,it could make differance if it is teamed with other alternative forms of energy.
The best scenario would be to reduce demand for power rather than having to come up with new ways of generating it.While our nation uses a lot less power than we did thirty years ago we still have a long way to go.

[jpak]

44. Solar Nirvana by 2010!!!111

OOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!!!

:rofl:

[MashupPublius]

32. I thought that this was the plan all along

Drive down the price of solar until it is cheaper than coal, than demand will skyrocket

[bananas]

35. Yes, and the plan is working

The next phase is called "shake-out and consolidation",
where companies compete on price in a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest effect.
It can be very hazardous for investors and employees,
so business papers like the Financial Times report on it with fear and loathing,
even though it is a good thing for consumers and for the industry.

[kristopher]

37. You need to factor in storage.

The changes wrought by cheap lithium batteries aren't going to be limited to transport. They are the key to distributed generation too. Economy of scale in manufacturing PV panels and batteries = an easy to achieve 30-40kWh in home storage.

[phantom power]

42. Consolidations.... The beginning of Big Solar?

[Subdivisions]

45. Great news. Especially since I make my sole living from

solar power. My job is to keep our solar products website competitive in the search engines. We are currently one of the highest ranked sites for solar panels and solar power system components on the Internet. I hope I can reap the rewards of such a boom for solar power.