This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
More Austerity Casualties: Solar Stock Subsidies
One of the bigger semi-bubbles over the past several years has been the "solar" space: an industry that has long held promise as an alternative replacement to oil yet which continues to struggle with low efficiencies and, thus, needs ongoing government subsidies (a premise which will likely be re-evaluated should crude surge into the triple digit area). Unfortunately, in a time of global austerity, which is slowly spreading everywhere but the US, said subsidies for solar companies (and thus cash flow bleeding stocks) may soon be at an end. Dow Jones reports that Germany: one of the bigger subsidizers of a fledgling solar industry, is set to cut solar subsidies by up to 12%, 6 months ahead of schedule.
From DJ:
Germany's planned cuts to subsidies for photovoltaic solar energy installations could take effect as early as July, people familiar with the matter have said.
Depending on the amount of newly installed power production capacity from solar facilities the cuts could be for up to 12%, the people said.
However, the government and the solar industry are is still negotiating over the extent of the cuts and about bringing forward planned subsidy reductions originally set to take effect January 2012. So far, no agreement has been reached, a spokesman for BSW-Solar, a German solar energy interest group, told Dow Jones newsletter EnergyDaily Monday.
A spokesman for the environment ministry confirmed that there are still differences between the two parties.
And since subsidy capital is suddenly hard to come by, contemplated cuts may be materially greater than previously expected:
The solar industry has lobbied for a 3% reduction if newly installed capacity exceeds 3,500 megawatts. A further 3% reduction is proposed for any additional 1,000MW in newly installed capacity. On the whole, the reduction shouldn't exceed 12%, the solar sector has said.
However, according to people familiar with the matter, the German government wants a more significant reduction to subsidies. It plans a 15% reduction for newly installed capacity exceeding 7.5 gigawatts.
Another point of controversy within the government is a proposal to cap the solar expansion. Introducing a cap would mean that newly installed facilities wouldn't receive subsidies, if the overall addition of solar output capacity exceeded a certain level.
So far this lingering topic of contention has managed to squeak by through the cracks, as China has continued to be a fervent supporter of its own domestic industry. Yet in light of recent tightening, which as we predicted would have a dire impact on the market and sure enought the SHCOMP was down another 3% last night following the latest 50 bps RRR hike, when money may suddenly get very hard to come by, is it time to start worrying about the future of this government largesse derivative?
»
- 5819 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Evergreen Solar to Shut Down U.S. Manufacturing, Move to ChinaEvergreen Solar Moves to China, Plans to Lay Off Nearly 1000 Workers
So nice to see Evergreen abscond with subsidies from U.S. taxpayers...what a joke of a government we have.
Harry Wanger is a big buyer of solars and urinal cakes on every dip.
And speaking of 'dips,' cue for stage entrance in 5......4........3....
"Cue Leo in 5...4...."
Production manager radios, "Cue Harry!"
"Wait not Leo, cue Harry cue Harry!!!!"
Leo's a big buyer of solars, too?
Wake me up when they finally stop subsides for domestic ethanol and remove the tariffs on imported ethanol.
It's now pretty clear WE NEED MORE CARBON TOXIC FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS!i!i!i!
Wake me up when they finally stop subsides for domestic ethanol and remove the tariffs on imported ethanol.
Good point. Although ethanol basically destroys engine components (talk to any competent automotive engineer), ethanol from Brazil could be imported for around $1.8 per gallon.
However, we wouldn't want any fair competition for our massively grotesque subsidies for corn farmers and the agri-lobby, would we?
And that's why we taxpayers are forced to pay 51 cents per gallon subsidies to ethanol producers, while our ultra-wise and honest Congress imposes 50 cent+ tarrifs on each and every imported gallon of Brazilian ethanol.
And then, we get kicked in the balls because corn that could have been more cheaply obtained to feed chickens, hogs and cows skyrockets, as do chicken, pork, beef and all corn products.
Such amazing and talented legislators in that noble body that is the U.S. Congress.
Not to mention that corn requires more water and fertilizer to grow.
Exactly.
Also, I meant to say $1.08 per gallon above, and not $1.80.
Also not to mention that in order to work up, plant, fertilize, spray, harvest and ship the corn, you use..... wait for it.... DIESEL. (Although some parts of that is done with pivots in some areas) I would love for a farmer to tell us how many gallons of fuel he averages to an acre of corn, from fall tillage to the following years harvest to get that ballpark 200 bushels. Then I would love for somebody to HONESTLY tell us what the bushel/gallon ratio is.
The entire process is so intellectually bankrupt it boggles the mind.
Indeed, whereas in Brazil, sugar cane literally grows in the wild, like a weed, requiring literally no fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and little water.
GREEN SHOOTS BITCHEZ!!!!
Tyler for ZH...
About Solars...
https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SNA70640.pdf
European solar stocks are far from being included into an investors preferred list. Few institutional investors have any meaningful position in the space given the uncertainty we have over demand/ margins for 2011. I feel we may actually see a little of a squeeze on the solar stocks today.
There has been some thoughts at Government level try an limit the impact of the renewable premium on consumer’s bills - which reached €13bn in 2010 – possibly putting a cap on annual installations in Germany.
We believe a hard cap has not been discussed at this stage. The industry body has however proposed to the German Government a voluntary further maximum cut of c12% to be implemented from July 1st 2011 should the run rate of installations from March to May reach 6.5Gw (on an annualized base). This is on top the 13% cut implemented from Jan 1st 2011. https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SNA70640.pdf
We should see a final decision being taken over the next days/ weeks. My conviction on the sector which has been to not be involved unless you have to has not changed, but I see the possibility of a short term rebound on stocks like SMA (Benson – BUY), Wacker (Benson – SELL) on the back of confirmation of this news.
SMA actually has lost 7% in the last week alone following uncertainties on German tariff cuts and concerns on poor numbers for Q4 2010 (due to inventory build ups). Without getting into the details of Q4 2010, short interest has increased to c4.5m shares or c25%. The interesting part of this is that the cost of the short has also increase to c 5-5.5% - the news on an agreement of tariff cuts (which were expected by the market) could actually prompt a short term squeeze on the name.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/2
SRI Specialist Sales Commentary
What would you do if you had a company that has a good competitive position in a global market, but facing increased competition??? Nope… the selling has been done!!!!
Investors love to hate SMA right now given the significant uncertainty on demand, and margins for 2011… a 25% short interest speaks by itself.
SMA has fine tuned its expectations for 2010:
- Sales close to the upper end of €1.7-1.9bn guidance/ Ebit margin closer to the low end of 26.5% to 28.5%
The numbers are in line with consensus, and this should put to rest concerns for the Q4 performance (inventory build). Full results will be given on March 31st.
The company is also confirming their 2011 guidance:
- Sales €1.7-1.9bn / Ebit margin 21-25%
Citi is at €1.7bn for 2011 and assuming margin of 25%. Consensus is looking for an EPS of c€8/share, which should be c24% Ebit margin on the low end of sales.
With a quick back of the envelope calculation on the €1.7bn sales for 2011 (low end guidance) we get:
@ 21% margin – Ebit of €357m – and an Eps of c€7/share (all else being equal)
@ 23% margin - Ebit of €391m – and an Eps of c€7.6/share (all else being equal)
@ 25% margin – Ebit of €425m – and an Eps of c€8.3/share (all else being equal)
This would put SMA on a P/E for 2011 between 7.5x and 8.9x on this range vs 12.9x for the Sector. Generally the company is pretty conservative in guiding at the beginning of the year (this time I believe more rightly than in the past), however the P/E multiples seem to be too aggressive for a company that has been able to grow to an >50% market share globally in inverters.
The current share price is discounting an 8-9% operating margin in perpetuity which to me seems too harsh, even considered the increase in competition from potential Asian players.
Andrew Benson remains a BUYER of SMA, and although I acknowledge the difficulties of increased competition and uncertainties on the 2011 outlook it feels that SMA is just too cheap at the current price.… any thoughts are more than welcome.
Source and special thanks to: Citigroup,
Uh oh Leo!
Blowtorched! Er...Monkey Hammered!
I made this statement to Leo last year..."what happens when the government runs out of subsidy money and the solars have to stand on their own weak legs?"
If oil continues to go ballistic no subsidies will be needed. The subsidies will have to go to food.
Drill baby drill, do it all. Do it now.
One of the most coherent people I ever heard speak on the "all of the above" option on energy is Anne Korin of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. Her speeches leave me nodding my head.
http://www.iags.org/about.htm
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/280270-3
I never realized how erotic that slogan was until you said it. Do you think Sarah likes tools and chains?
Clearly the idea was to move some solar action into India. Massive subsidies on Solar Anything. Plastering the earth with squaremiles of plastic crap.
Crap! Human's do not understand energy or efficiency.
ORI
http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/machine-strong-human-weak/
The solar constant is 1300 watts per square meter, folks, at the top of the atmosphere. On Earth's surface, a good working number that happens to be a round number is 1000 watts/square meter.
So 1 square meter gets you 1000 watts incoming solar "power". No conversion efficiencies, no voltage up or down conversion losses. Pure sunshine: 1000 watts/square meter.
1000 watts is 3412 BTUs per hour.
A barrel of oil contains 5,800,000 BTUs. That's 1.7 MegaWatt-hrs.
It's absurd. Completely absurd. You'll need 1,000 square meters of 100% conversion efficiency (20% is about as good as it gets) surface area to equate to a barrel of oil.
A barrel of oil is the ultimate solar battery. It stores up energy from more or less solar powered micro-organisms that might have covered square MILES of surface area millions of years ago. Yes, you can think of it that way. A barrel of oil is square MILES of solar power collection done millions of years ago.
It will never, ever work. End the subsidies. They are silly.
Cosine of theta is a bitch. Solar technologies are the greatest destroyer of wealth ever devised by man. In Leo's past thread, many of us predicted the removal of these subsidies and the destruction of his portfolio..
Solar panels will never, ever, replace oil and the math to prove it is quite simple.
Physical solar is ok... given the spikes in wind? hydro is my personal fav though. all physical of course.
solar water heaters, southern facing warming rooms, well placed wind,surrounding your house with deciduous trees, all make sense...
bro I just sourced and sited all this good hydro info for you... TYLER!!!! or I.T.!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be179b8TyfU
trust me this is the best way.. if you have running water..
can you see me asking the army corps for permission to have a turbine in the intracostal?
http://www.canyonhydro.com/
there is a little FL firm that produces what looks like a mini jet engine fan... which they attach to a dc / ac generator... looks kool, but a lil smaller than what you are talking about... but in all cases water flows and is steady for peak and off peak production.
This one is their micro version:
http://www.canyonhydro.com/micro/index.html
Spot on, Hulk.
i own physical solar bitchez's...not that paper shit
Thermodynamics bitches.
A hot day in July TX uses about 64,000 MW. After covering an area the size of Indiana with wind turbines, how much wind power was added to the grid on that day? 700 MW, or just about 1%. What a friggin waste.
Nice way to put it. I think bio-anything is better than solar. Biotech can produce gas, liquids and solids that have considerable stored energy. Compare that to solar/battery systems that cost as much as a car, and every 10 years you replace the batteries.
Wood pellets can heat your house, solar-electric can only run a few small fans.
On demand micro-bio-electric could be the hit and miss engine of our time.
Crash; A few points regarding your comments.
Solar will never replace the energy content potential of oil or uranium. Nor should it try. Because solar is viable only when its use is coupled with energy effeicincies beyond what our existing system of energy waste (consumption) has progressed into. Our system is based on waste and inefficiency for corporate profit. Not one of addressing what minimum level of power is really needed to support society, or our creature comforts.
The only sustainable use of energy in a closed system (the earth) is from the sun. Either manifested in sunlight or wind. Energy stored in oil is finite. It will run out. But more importantly this economic oil advantage should be used to prepare for the decline of oil or coal.
Oil as you have presented in comparison to solar omits many things. Namely, transportation, refining, delivery and conversion. Solar does not need to be transported or converted into electricity, beyond what the panel does it self (although a controller is generally used).
The question is not solar versus oil, it is how much energy do you really need to live? 1000 Watts is a lot of power if used correctly.
The problem facing people on planet earth is the long term (infrustructure) efficient use of energy, not the relatively short period of cheap oil.
Oil is as you described, condensed sunlight. It is a beneficial energy source, but it will, at some point, run out.
----------
A break through in solar panel design lets say 2x conversion efficiency from what we have today, would be a huge "nobel prize" winning accomplishment. If the US was smart, it would back solar with huge subsidies and trade protection. Solar "Technology" must be perfected in the US. We will need solar to become energy independent. Our energy future depends on it.
Mark Beck
...an industry that has long held promise as an alternative replacement to oil...
I remember reading how the new era of solar powering everything was just around the corner... back in the 70s.
Reminds me of fusion.
It is really basic physics. Guys in the solar industry act like it is a transistor and that you can shrink it, apply Moore's Law, and voila, it becomes economical.
You are right. I had a pv cell in my 1972 Heathkit. I got EE degree 10 years later. PV is staggeringly uneconomical and inefficient. It is physics. Energy sources are all around us. Solar sounds great, but it is really expensive and always has been.
We can put current nuclear technology plants on the grid for about $5k per house. The rest of the world can go from concept to nuclear electricity generation in 4 years. We take 8 to 10 due to lawyers, politicians, and zealous hippies. But we can put $40k of solar equivalent on your house and subsidize it with $30k of taxpayer money. We are idiots.
It is not coincidental that Spain is the largest economic failure and also the largest solar subsidizer.....
But nuclear can't do it all either. If the world adopted what you wrote above, we would very quickly run into uranium shortages.
There is considerable evidence that there are thousands of years of fuel left for nuclear. This assumes recycling and advances in recycling.
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.aspx
What is your assumption based on?
Nuclear has many enemies that love to spout fictional info. Coal industry and environmentalist "no nukes at any costs" are the primary offenders. It is geology and physics not emotion and politics.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of building nukes and always have been. I think it's ridiculous that France has been running many of them successfully for decades and yet somehow many in this country think they're "too risky".
According to Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-ur...
We have 200 years supply at current rates of use. That's the key phrase. If we increase the number of reactors by a factor of 5 then we have 40 years supply. If we increase by a factor of 10, then we have 20 years supply. But the way markets work, uranium will get really expensive long before supplies are exhausted.
Breeder reactors, bitchez
Sorry, got carried away. But seriously, thorium reactors could take up the slack and would be a lot safer in terms of little (or no) radioactive waste and no threat of terrorists stealing the materials for a bomb...
amen. Our government gave Solyndra, a now nearly defunct solar startup $535 million loan guarantees (grant). In the latest energy bill they carved out $38 million (not 40) for next gen nuclear research. Calling our lawmakers F-tards is insulting to Barney Frank. Seriously. WTF? We should have the pedal to the metal on nuclear research and become the world's leader in nuclear innovation.
+1
Three interesting posts here---Crash, MarkBeck, and yours---that appear to come from people who know.
Perhaps you'll each consider an article for submission with a more detailed presentation of your arguments...the limits of solar, a reasonable level of energy use, how nuclear might meet those reasonable needs, etc.
The reason for the cuts in the subsidies IS VERY LOGICAL!!
1. Everybody who puts solars on his roof gets a subsidy. Thanks to that, the panels are paid off in 3 to 4 years and after that they actually make money. Make money : the state buys the energy from the panels at 400% of the price of normal energy from the grid.
2. Industrials are all placing massive amounts of panels on the roofs of their warehouses and make millions of money because of it.
3. There are a lot of people living in appartments who can't place solars, yet they have to pay the taxes that subsidize the solar panels.
FAIR? ECOFRIENDLY?
HAHAHAHAHA!!! ONLY 1 BIG SCAM!!!
IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN USED TO SUBSIDIZE THE INDUSTRY WHICH WAS FORBIDDEN BY THE EU!!!
Maybe they should wait until these sucklers of Leviathan have covered the entire country with solar panels... and then pay market price.
And even if oil goes triple-digit, there's still coal, and shedloads of NatGas.
Unless they come up with new manufacturing processes or massively improved efficiency, solar's day is still a long way off for most of us not living in sunny countries.
Hence, further ending additional efforts towards any sort of sustainable energy infrastructure. Awesome.
Don't kid yourself. Solars are a scam, there is plenty of oil for at least another 200 years.
You'll be dead soon, so I won't spend much time on this.
Oil will last longer than 200 yrs. It will last 1000s of years, because what's left can't be accessed and will stay where it is. 180 million years in the making, it won't care about a few more 1000s.
You will. So will your kids. Maybe not your grandkids. There may not be any of those.
You mean I should have more kids?
Maybe if I had multiple woman...
I'll think about it :)
Have all you want. It's not going to matter.
"plenty" is relative, it isn't about the quantity of oil remaining but the rate of extration and the cost.... and the concept of energy return on energy invested..... go read some of the articles at The Oil Drum.
Gail has a great analysis on German FITS and why they are not cost effective.. the posts picking her numbers apart are a good read.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7053
Subsidies produce strange results:
April 12 (Bloomberg) -- A Spanish trade group called on authorities to investigate possible fraud among solar-power generators after a news report said that some were getting paid for producing power at night.
ASIF wants the “identification, charges and rigorous application of the law” applied to any power producer guilty of such practices, the Madrid-based association for Spain’s photovoltaic-panel industry said today in a statement.
An audit of solar-power generation from November 2009 to January 2010 found that some panel operators were paid for doing the “impossible” -- producing electricity from sunlight during the night, El Mundo reported today, citing a letter from Secretary of State for Energy Pedro Marin.
snip
Preliminary evidence shows some solar stations may have run diesel-burning generators and sold the output as solar power, which earns several times more than electricity from fossil fuels, El Mundo said, citing unidentified people from the energy industry. The power grid received 4,500 megawatt-hours of power from midnight to 7 a.m. in the months audited, El Mundo said.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-12/spanish-solar-panel-trade-group-calls-for-fraud-investigation.html
OOPS! LOL.
If you put a generator between the powerlines from the solar and the grid and switch the poles, and let the generator work, the electric counter also goes backward and "generates energy". Even at night.
Ask any engineer and he'll confirm. There's a law against it, but I've never seen a checkup on these kinds of things.
So what is the cost of the energy source for the generator? Selling the power that "your neighbor purchased" back to the utiltity at the subsidy rate? Easy for TPTB to audit you by comparing your account output to the rated output of your equipment....
Electric meters are POWER meters. They are not volt meters they are not amp meters they are power meters. AC has resistive loads that induce current perfectly with voltage, inductive loads that induce current leading voltage and capacitive loads that induce current lagging voltage. You're mix of loads on your line go to make your power factor. Purely resitive loads are always 100 percent efficient on the transmission equipment. Capacitive loads such as computers are about 85 percent efficient with newer power supplies. Depending on your equipment. If you have a 600 watt power supply with active power correction and your local load mix is decent you can get upwards of 90ish percent efficiency. But since your power is a power meter and not a seperate voltage and current meter that calculates power. You can set up mixes of inductive loads on it to bring the entire system 90 degrees out of phase and stop your meter. You need a very complicated bunch of equipment to do it for all loads but you can bring all your purely resistive loads out of phase rather easily with basic engineering knowledge.
But since the power meters work the way they do they have a weighting adjustment tool on them for spin rate. To adjust to the power factor. This is completely and utterly abused by power companies as they employ the powers that be philosphy of cheating some and being honest to others. They will set up neighborhoods and give them true meters. They will set up neighborhoods and grid sections and fill them will lying ass meters. Usually poor or under a guise of were just hedging our risk areas with some problems with payment. So they start off that way cheating the whole of an area to get back losses from a few of the area. Then they go on to cheat more and more as they take thier hedge to crazy ville. Well we overcharged a bunch of poor people couldn't pay so the "bad guys" owe us more so they spin the meters up more.
Know your powers that be. Know how they justify and then take it to crazy levels.
Could solar be the greatest short since New Century Financial? Think about it. Huge overhead built on the promise of the govt gravy train keepin' on rollin'. The rug gets pulled, all those customers disappear, and these companies are left with expensive, soon to be obsolete factories. Not half, not down 75%. Short and never cover stuff...Their charts all look very subpar, especially considering the last 5 months of rally time. Hmmmm
and with the promise of a 15 year garanty. 15 YEARS!!!!
IT ARE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS!!! OUTSIDE IN THE ELEMENTS!!!!
Even my phones don't last a year.
I purchase and installed 6 Siemans solar panels on my offshore sailboat in 1994, 16 years ago, I have since sailed that boat in excess of 30,000 offshore miles, these panels have had the proverbial shit beat out of them!!! All six panels still have a very high output, just about nameplate. I replaced the inverter 7 years ago, because I added a wind turbine and 4 large glasmat batteries. This equipment is very rugged and dependable (with the exception of the wind turbine which is a pain in the ass, but nice to have when it's operating).
I'm pretty sure that's the entire health care field, but solars is a good start...
Bloomberg Markets wrote in it's November 2010 issue abt the Spanish "solar gold rush". According to the article Spanish PM Zapatero's government pushed through a law in 2007 which guaranteed producers "solar tariff" of as much as 44 cents per kilowatt-hour for 25 years. That was more than 10 times the 2007 average wholesale price paid to mainstram energy producers. Of course things got out of hands and malinvestment followed resulting with at least 126 bn worth of obligations on the government shoulders. According to the article spanish govt is seeking to cut the subsidies in order to lighten the burden on govt coffers. Too bad the "solar tariff" was written into law so i guess it's not that easy to reverse.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/largest_solar_p.php
Why do you think you get installation like this in the country side?
Half of the energy gets lost by transport to the cities alone.
That's not even the worst of it. Many of those producers were small farms that had plowed under farm land and orchards that were centuries/decades old to put up the subsidized solar farms. Now without the subsidy they literally have nothing. Central Planning baby!
Indeed, many individuals took loans to invest into the panels and those loans are probably backed by their farms etc. Wonder how many of those "investments" are basically dead if the subsidy will be taken away from them. One example in the article was a guy who took a loan of more than EUR 400K against his apartment and family savings to cover the investment.
If you don't take advantage of the subsidies now before they vanish then you are an idiot. I recently installed a 3kw system on my roof and my electric bill is now only $60 ranther than $250-$300 per month and I live on an island with the most expensive electricity rates in the USA. With the subsidies my system is paid off in 5 years at current electric rates.
This is my tax break for all of the years I paid the max. I paid $22,000 for the system and will get about $12000 in tax credits along with a $200+ lower electric bill. I guess I could have invested in the market and that $22000 might be worth double in a few years or it could be worthless. I went with the sure thing.
You forgot the $10,000 repair bills coming every 2-3 yrs.
For a 3kw system, what was the total expense, no subsidies included? How long will it last? What are the battery replacement costs?
Thanks!
I am on net metering. No batteries yet.
I find your numbers somewhat questionable. It has been a few years since I have designed and installed one of these systems (last one I did was for myself on my boat). So I will use rough industry averages per Mr. Google, a nominal 3 kw system will produce about 495 kwh/month (and yes I am well aware that this number dependents on many things) so if your bill was average $250 to $300 per month and you are now paying about $60 per month your total average usage is about 610kwh/month (495+(60/250)*495) that means you are paying approx. $300/610 or about about 50cents/kwh...... The highest rates in the United States per EIA is Hawaii at 29cent/kwh. You should be ashamed of yourself... posting bullshit numbers like this on ZH....lol!!
Current pay back period for solar installation with a grid tie and no battery back up is over 15 to 20 years and this includes Federal and State tax breaks in a very expensive state. Priced an off the grid system for myself this fall. From a current investment point of view they are DOGGSSSS..... bow wow... but that could quickly change with fuel costs, or grid failure... (gloom and doom we sooo love to read about on ZH)
If you go with no batteries (if grid fails your screwed)/straight grid tie, maintenance costs (so long as you are not a complete moron) on these systems is minimal.
Call Rising Sun Solar and get a quote. Located in Hawaii.
A indigenous solar Industry in Germany is beyond absurd - as anybody who spent a winter there is all too aware, at least if they were a rational person.
Much of the country is above 50 degree latitude for God sake.
Meanwhile they have stopped the development of their nuclear industry and have become dependent on Russian gas which has deep geopolitical affects which is now being felt throughout Europe.
I sometimes think the Stasi has not gone away.
Even in desert countrys solar panels are inefficient although parabolic reflectors may be of some use for high energy operations that are not time specific and therefore independent of sunset or perhaps in areas of high air conditioning use.
o
Well put Dork, there is good reason why the western world is bankrupt...
$250 to $300 per MONTH electricity bills?
Where do you live? Fuckuintheasstan?
If that shit was here, or in about 90% of the U.S. mainland, add it to the anger we're starting to see about...well, everything, and I now know why I may change my mind about the sheeple and whether they'll wake up and do something.
The what they do, and how and why they come to the what, is more of the issue.
Your bills reflect how much electricity you use. At various times in my life I have lived "off-grid" (several years on a offshore sailboat and summer living on a island without electricity). You become very aware of your electrial usage and how much of it is wasted on "vampire loads" etc and you learn how to manage them. It really isn't that hard, but it requires some thought.
I pay about 300/375 euro in electric bills each month. I did get a fine because I have floor heating, and if the electricty gets out, I can't even use the water tab.
Energy in Europe is more expensive then in the US. Just look at our oil prices.
We are conservative users of electricity and are only a couple. My friends with children pay $450 in the winter and up to $600 in the summer and we are talking a 2000sf 3b/2b home with A/C.
There's no fucking way. They are being ripped off.
The German Feed-in Tariff Rates are designed such that each month the amount of money paid to the "solar producer" (the subsidy or subsidy rate) is billed to the non-industrial electrical user. (For example if 10% of the total electrical generation was from solar generation for the month, 10% of the cost of your electric bill (the generation portion) that you used, would be at the "subsidy rate" for the solar generators. That payment goes directly to the solar generators account, it is cash flow neutral, pay as you go.
There is no "subsidy capital", as in "upfront capital to be invested by the German government or rate payers", in this rate structure that I am aware of. It is a pass through cost, directly to the consumer on a month to month basis, seen as a higher overall electric generation rate to the consumer.
Investment into the generation capacity comes directly from the homeowner, who owns the solar system at his residence or business.
German Feed-in Tariff Rates were structured with a max solar generation capacity in the rate structure. (View it as a basket pool of generation to diversify fuel risk, oil, coal, wind, solar, hydro, NG). The program has been so successful that they reached the solar electrical generation goals in a faster time frame than was envisioned, hence the "roll back" on price paid per electricity generated to the solar producer. The installed cost for solar generation has dropped substantially since the implementation of the FIT, also another reason for lowering the subsidy/buyback rate. And this is as it should be, the German Solar Industry has been given it's "incubation period".
Another benefit that came from this program was an easing of transmission constraints, due to dispersement/decentralization of generation capacity.
It will be interesting to see how this experiment fares with time.
Thats all very interesting and I am sure it keeps many people employed but nowhere in your analysis have you displayed the total energy produced and if much energy is produced what is the level of spending on redundant energy plants for when the sun is obscured or after sunset and before sunrise.
We should have a contest on which country has the dumbest socialists.
I am pretty sure that is what is going on. Thanks for naming it.
Well is Leo going to defend his favorite investment or fold?
In winter times, his solar panels don't provide him enough electricity to charge his laptop.
He'll be back arround june/july :)
HA
I don't know. I took about a month and a half break from zerohedge and when I came back he was gone. I just assumed you guys broke him and turned him into a vegetable who drools on himself in the corner.
Many of us backed down. Watching him average down was like watching a high speed crash, have to turn your head away at the moment of impact...
The problem with solar equities is that the whole point of solar energy is tapping into a free, unlimited power source. There's no longterm "growth" prospects to such a business.
That said, anyone can personally benefit from solar technology without investing in those crap equities. For starters, you can have permanent, free transportation via a solar powered scooter/motorcycle. See here:
http://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/PV/pvscooter.htm
If you want to grow your savings, build one of those things, and then put the money you used to spend on gas or bus fare every month into silver bullion.
Leo? Leo?
Buehler? Buehler?
So what you're saying is "Banksters" aren't good for R&D.........? Decline of the Civilization is at hand.
Nuclear is even a bigger joke. You get trains, people, to go to your factory crap job if you're "lucky". Go look at Larouche's "paradise" of central planning. Nuclear certainly has nothing to do with self-determination, as in a functioning middle class.
The finanical blogger community in general is woefully uninformed about the renewable energy industry and particulary the solar industry.The subsidies being given to solar energy today are quite inadequate compared what the fossil fuel industry gets even today despite the great difference in maturity.Fossil Fuel industry gets $550 billion in subsidies globally which makes it harder for solar,wind .Despite this solar has grown exponentially in recent times.Germany has been a pathbreaker,as subsidies have gone down from around Euro 50c/Kwh to around 27c/Kwh in 2011 and will reach retail prices in 2012.Solar industry has managed to cuts costs by 50% as FIT has come down,while fossil fuel and electricity prices see drastic increases everywhere.
I though ZH would be sufficiently entitled to promote solar energy industry but this is not so.I would be happy to argue with you on the merits/demerits of the renewable energy industry and subsidies given to this industry.
Referering to solar as a semi bubble makes no sense as solar stock valuations are trading in low to middle single digit P/Es.I hold ZH to higher standards than to report unsubstantiated facts.
http://greenworldinvestor.com
To this I would add that this meme started making the rounds in Q3/Q4 at HFs. Someone already noted - the stocks have underperformed for quite a while.
However, to suggest the solar industry has no future is near-sighted.
1. Subsidies for the industry are much smaller than for the oil/gas old guard. Makes me wonder what those numbers would look like if normalized by energy content...?
2. What's the value of energy independence? How do you include that in the calculus?
3. Prices on panels are crashing, marginal producers are literally going out of business (ie everyone other than the Chinese). Panel prices going down means that grid parity gets closer and closer, the need for subsidies gets smaller and smaller. Yet somehow, people complain about both - "they're too expensive and aren't economical" and "they getting cheaper so there are no margins".
4. Just like many industries / microeconomies, the true economic nature of the system is being obscured by government interference. Show me a market where that ISN'T true these days.