Analyst sees second gold rush in solar

9/24/2010 3:12 PM EDT

And here comes...AGAIN...the speculations and opinions about investments in greens and clean energy. I have been listening and reading about these huge efforts and investments by countries to make cleaner energy accessible at lower prices. How long will this trend continue? For how long will we think that our government will support such subsidies? Its a good new for semiconductor industry though, 20% gross margin for polysilicon makers...not bad!

9/24/2010 4:51 PM EDT

Whoever catch the technology for the next generation energy will earn the future of mankind. I don't have a doubt that so many nations are jumping into the ballpark with tons of subsidies. Like Himanshu, I am very interested in knowing the Obama's plan of future energies. I as well would like to know which institute or nation are leading the technology.

9/24/2010 6:35 PM EDT

The future structure of civilization depends on which competing industry wins:
Personal Energy (you power your house, your car, your life) or
Central Power Monopoly (we sell you power for $10 and $90 to deliver it.)

9/24/2010 7:03 PM EDT

Makes Intel's Nexant investment look rather smart. [I tend to associate broad successful deployment of solar with deployment of "smart grid" elements]

"Intel invests in cleantech firm"

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4208675/Intel-invests-in-cleantech-firm-semiconductor

9/25/2010 1:37 AM EDT

Rather than relying on govt subsidies serious effort should be made to reduced the manufacturing cost. Once the volumes increases then automatically it should aid prices go down.

9/25/2010 10:09 AM EDT

The Chinese are heavily investing in renewable energy by subsidizing domestic projects (see "http://new.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4208619/China-gains-ground-in-solar" and associated comments). IF such investments allow manufacturers to build expertise and economies of scale then the efforts can help build a more successful and lower cost industry which benefits consumers in the future. IF the vendor cannot reduce costs and remains dependent upon these subsidies, then as soon as the temporary government subsidy is lifted, the vendor fails. The challenge to governments is to be able to tell which path a technology is following.

9/26/2010 7:28 AM EDT

If we count the number of Govt offices, premises , buildings, apartments, towers, highways in any country , it can turn out to be a sizable consumer of Electric and Thermal power. If the governments decide to use 100% solar energy , this itself will become a huge opportunity for the Solar industry to bring their products to economies of scale. No subsidies are required then. The private consumers will then automatically be lured to use this technology.

9/26/2010 4:06 PM EDT

Will solar be cost competitive without subsidies at some point--an if so, when?

9/26/2010 5:55 PM EDT

"Will solar be cost competitive without subsidies at some point--an if so, when? "

Good question; Panel prices have been falling quite rapidly, but system prices seem to have some serious lag. Factory Panel costs are now well under $1/W, and trending down, and Inverters are under 40c/W, and yet we see:

"Specifically, subsidies will range from $7.85 per Watt in the Czech Republic to $10.28/Watt in Canada. That far exceeds the subsidies of $7.36/W in Spain and $4.56 in Germany."

Wow. That's a lot of extra $ between the factory item prices, and systems - has someone duped the politicians ?

9/26/2010 6:27 PM EDT

Industries that receive subsidies, tend to focus more on receiving more subsidies, and not producing what they received the funding for, else the funds disappear. The laws of economic greed will always end with the same result. How cheap is any product if we have to tax every one into poverty to afford it? (Remember the U.S.S.R.). Subsidies bring on more subsidies, then more subsidies, followed by more subsidies. Businesses create jobs, the government cannot create jobs unless they take your money and mine and waste 90% of that money on more high paying government jobs, which only produce more dependence on more funding (Remember the U.S.S.R.). Keynesian economics will only bring back the stagflation of the 1970s not a utopia of sun-powered paradise of free energy, free food, free fun and good times for all. According to the WTO Boeing received about $US20 billion ($21.3bn) in cross-subsidies from the Pentagon and NASA and a further $US4bn from Washington State.

9/27/2010 12:30 PM EDT

I agree that the adoption of PV on a broad scale is not sustainable with government subsidies. However, until the playing field is level between renewable energy and fossil fuels which receive a lot more subsidies, I think the solar business needs all the support it can get. As the beneficiary of an incentive for installing solar on my home, I would be a hypocrite to criticize any rebates. I believe that they are important in building critical mass and generating demand, until we have policies that drive the market.

9/27/2010 2:36 PM EDT

In countries like India, there is acute shortage of land is there and if we talk about solar power stations producing MW of Power, how much land that will acquire?

9/27/2010 7:12 PM EDT

Obama is your solar man. In his era, this business will do well. However, it may not work out for investors as they will think. He can basically use regulations to shield the US from the international solar competition. The deal is know where you are investing. But generally, it will be home run for solar and other energy sources.

9/28/2010 11:25 PM EDT

Unless R&D in universities and companies come up with highly efficient solar cells this business of solar power is not going to be viable in the long run. The quantity of power generated and the price it demands taking into account the land and material cost is too high compared to conventional energy. Unless a breakthrough happens on the better materials for solar conversion it is better for the govt to support basic research and instead use the funds to make conventional energy more cleaner to produce.

9/29/2010 12:38 AM EDT

I agree that the future of clean energy is a "mixed technology" plan. One source will not provide all of the needs in all circumstances for all people. But the potential for new and more efficient clean energy resources will be due to private investment dollars, not public. And until private investors can find a way of making money on solar, wind, etc. future widespread utilization is unlikely.

Fossil fuels are limited and only present in certain locations of the planet, so their utilization can be controlled. The sun and wind are present everywhere, and cannot be controlled by anyone. The technology that allows the wind and sun to be harnessed for widespread energy delivery is where future investments dollars will be. There has to be a way of making a profit to have a marketable product, and technology has only a short-term profit margin before someone else comes out with something better and your profit disappears.

How do you convince someone to spend billions of dollars to build a solar or wind energy field for generating power when they could be outdated in 2 years?

9/30/2010 6:17 AM EDT

@Rick, I am surprised to see the UK in the list of countries that are going to subsidise solar. Solar does not make much sense, in Northern UK at least, and the Government's buzz in this part of the world is around wave and wind energy , rather than solar.

I agree that Government subsidies are the only way to give renewable energy any chance of competing with fossil fuel. The real question is: are we willing to pay for it? Are we prepared to alter our lifestyles to fit with the new realities? I am not sure we are to be honest. That is why I am more excited about hybrid technologies as a smoother way out of fossil fuel dependency.