« Tit for Tat, or, the Governor's Dilemma | Tom Wright's Blog | How Can One Talk To A Conservative? »
Solar Meets Its Goal
One dollar per watt of generating capacity was considered the benchmark to reach, which would ensure its competitiveness. First Solar has announced it is now selling photovoltaic panels at that price, thanks to a 50-fold increase in production capacity and sales.
Solar could reduce the need for so much wind farm, and also avoids the desperate need for more electrical grid. First Solar is showing us that the obvious is often true---production cost reduces with scale, and subsidizing orders yields the expected savings.
My understanding is that German shares in renewable-energy ventures pay fast dividends since they see quick income. It takes little time to install turbines or PV panels, not like a nuclear plant or coal burner.First Solar's chief executive, Mike Ahearn, tipped his hat to countries like Germany that have offered generous tariffs to producers of solar electricity.
"Without forward-looking government programs supporting solar electricity, we would not have been able to invest in the capacity expansion which gives us the scale to bring costs down," Mr. Ahearn
said in the statement.
"The Company's long-term financial model suggests manufacturing cost targets of 65 cents to 70 cents by 2012 and it believes reductions below these levels are possible over time," Mr. Ahearn said.Not so very long a time to wait. Subsidizing solar for a few more years and we have systems cheap enough to capture that 1,000 times our energy demand that falls as sunlight. T. Boone Pickens has a panic-based program to replace imported oil by replacing its power-plant use by wind, and its transport use by natural gas. But that will mean continuing to pump a fair amount of CO2, and also it would mean buying Danish wind turbines from Vestas. It would also mean using Pickens' land to install those turbines and to build the needed grid.
Solar could reduce the need for so much wind farm, and also avoids the desperate need for more electrical grid. First Solar is showing us that the obvious is often true---production cost reduces with scale, and subsidizing orders yields the expected savings.
Advertisement
And the stock is getting punished after hours because the CEO made some cautious comments about near term visibility. No good deed goes unpunished on Wall Street.
(FSLR)
After Hours: 119.80 Down 17.88 (12.99%) 6:27PM ET
February 24, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're saying buy now while the stock is low cause it's got such a bright future?
February 25, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pun intended.
February 25, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So little good news out there. Thank you
February 24, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom,
Thats great news thanks for posting. I posted this link on the Berkely FIRST plan in your previous blog (achievable solar), but I think the thread had died. I want to repost it here. I too share your promotion of distributive energy.
The program is just starting, but the city gives homeowners an initial low interest loan that is paid back over 20 years through a special property tax. The loan stays with the title of the house so it is transferable, and the city is protected from default with the ability to lien. After 20 years the homeowner then owns the system outright. Hopefully the lowered energy bill offsets the extra tax.
A model like this seem to address many of the concerns raised in the previous thread.
February 24, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like it.
February 24, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Individual solar is the future. An energy field with a million points of light is so much more safe and reliable and democratic that a single vulnerable source and a myriad of vulnerable connections. For every logical reason every dime spent to advance individual solar is a buying a smart prosperous future. These guys are my heros!
February 25, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
It occured to me how we have to waste resources to connect everyone with the traditional electric grid. Pickens needs the power lines to get from his land to the consumers. Solar needs to get from the panel to the house with nothing in between.
But what about all those batteries?
February 25, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although as a generalization your assumption isn't far off the mark, there are private wind turbines as well as solar farms (where you seem to be assuming only wind turbine farms and private solar panels).
Regardless, I think your analysis of trade-offs is apt: farms require electrical grids to get the power to the rest of us, and private sources probably require more batteries (although farms would also require batteries).
Still, I'd never think to make this a battle between solar and wind. In some places solar makes more sense, in others wind does. There's enough need for both to make sizable contributions.
February 26, 2009 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Evergreen(ESLR) is an American based solar equipment provider. They're stock is in the crapper for various reasons, but Obama's jobs here, jobs now, attitude might be good for Evergreen. Evergreen needs to ramp up production capacity though. I wish Obama would have the military use more solar installations, and require they be produced in the US.
February 25, 2009 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Their not they're duh....
February 25, 2009 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remember Barry Commoner arguing, in the 70s, that substantial government orders for solar panels would be worth it for remote installations, and would boost production to viability. I like to think about covering the Pentagon and its parking lot. Its 3 square kilometers would yield roughly 600 megawatts of peak output, and would cost half a billion, or 0.1% of the Defense budget.
February 25, 2009 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
On day 1 Regan removed cater's solar panels from the White House.
February 25, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is, Jimmy Carter, not cater.
February 25, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm also assuming you mean Ronald Reagan and not Donald Regan, as it'd be odd for the Secretary of the Treasury to remove solar panels from the White House. ;)
February 25, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
More oopses!
Here's a link to someone who can actually write:
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2008/11/jimmy-carters-solar-panels/
February 25, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
An excellent article. Thanks for sharing, GZ. (And thanks to Tom, too.)
February 25, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are very welcome! :-{)>
February 25, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great find, Tom. I agree with all above (and below presumably) that individual energy production and distributed storage networks is what our future will look like.
I saw this Discovery program that spoke of solar panels using frenel lenses to pump up the sunlight they can capture by as much as 50%. It won't be too long before such a set-up is available for the home panel. Combine that with a new high capacity battery system and plug-in electric vehicles, and I can see a totally new paradigm emerging in a very short time period.
Obama is certainly on the right track with his focused plan for the executive budget. Can't wait to see what that actually looks like, because I always believed it was the key to fixing government at the behest of one man.
Kind of like the movie Dave.
February 25, 2009 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dumb question - does gathering the energy from the sun in solar panels increase the temperatue around the panels? Do the panels remain cool, or do they heat up?
I've wondered if it would be like the concrete in cities and density of construction that causes a city to be warmer than rural areas.
February 25, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does mean less waste heat, but it's not a big effect. Relatively efficient PV yields 20%, so 80% of sunlight will be either reflected or trapped as heat, to be re-radiated as IR. It would be cooler than normal roofing, but not as cool as green roofs. One can do both, since grass doesn't need direct sun, and if the panels are suspended above the roof they act as a shield for sun heating.
In northern climes, we can use the heating, and would perhaps be better off with urban-friendly wind turbines. We can use groundwater as heat source to reduce the energy demand.
February 25, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's IR? Could only find iridium and Inland Revenue on google.
Also, might there be untended consequences, especially if you concentrate PV panels on a farm like PG&E apparently has done?
February 25, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Infrared.
Hard to see any major downside to a big farm, if they were suspended above the ground somewhat, because sun light would still get to the ground underneath, as would rainwater. Way less an issue than normal buildings or roads. If floating on the ocean they would shade it and lower temperatures allowing more CO2 absorption. Then again, that's a mixed blessing because it acidifies the ocean.
Best use, I think, is covering things already covered. every parking lot could sell power to your plugin while you work. Look down from an airplane near a large city and you see square miles of warehouse roof, roadway, and parking lots. And then there are all those houses and apartments.
February 25, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much power do those electricity generating exercise bikes generate? Enough to put unemployed people on them and create 6 bucks an hour?
Maybe prisoners could have the option of doing it for 3 or 4 dollars an hour...
I'll look into it.
February 25, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think they generate much, maybe 50 cents an hour or less:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/fashion/25gym.html?_r=1&ref=health&oref=slogin
Maybe rainy cities like Seatle can have small hydro power units in the sewers to make use of the falling rainwater...
February 25, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink