bloggingstocks.com/2009/01/0 … wer-spwra/
From the article…
[quote]Solar companies will get a boost in new models for energy conservation in the home and businesses. And the question really isn’t if, but when?
"When will the catalysts be put in place, and which companies will be the biggest winners when the stimulus is triggered? The best strategy for this group is to stick with a few industry leaders, such as our top solar play, SunPower Corp.[/quote]
Hey bob, I don’t know if you saw this article on IHT but I figured I would bring it to your attention if you hadn’t.
[quote=“IHT”]
Old Man Winter, it turns out, is no friend of renewable energy.
This time of year, wind turbine blades ice up, biodiesel congeals in tanks and solar panels produce less power because there is not as much sun. And perhaps most irritating to the people who own them, the panels become covered with snow, rendering them useless even in bright winter sunshine.[/quote]
From a US perspective, the sun belt (by not having snow) will be fantastic for solar energy. The Northeast and Midwest is not. It makes me wonder how viable renewable sources are for certain climates. Dry, arid regions would be wonderful. There can’t be too much sand blowing around or it would destroy the solar panels though. That wipes out most of the Middle East and Northern Africa. A boon for Spain, Italy, Southern France, Greece, etc etc.
The other thing I’ve been wondering about is where will there be any funding for renewable energy in the next few years. With the economists in the US saying the recession will deepen in 2009, it might be another couple of years before these get off the ground.
Maybe. The republicans will likley attempt to block anything that isn’t good for the oil industry too. That will likely slow things down as well. Perhaps a better bet would be something nobody will argue about: infrastructure construction and maintenance. Hang off on SolarPower for a few months.
Here’s a link to an article on Fluor.
bloggingstocks.com/2009/01/0 … flr/print/
Here is how they are doing…
What is a price estimate? The price isn’t an “estimate”. The price is what people are willing to pay for it, no?
(…would like to caveat this entire discussion with admission that I know less about this kind of thing than anybody you will ever meet. It should be illegal to be as ignorant as I am. Ignorant or not though the market will go up or down. A lot of people seem to think it is going to go up. They are too low not to come up. Governmemts are lowering interest rates, intitiating stimlus packages…)[/quote]
The companies give an indication of their sales for the next 5 years, especially in the solar panel industry as they sign contracts for polysilicon and need to make an estimate of their demand and lock in supply which can be the limiting factor for their production. Analysts and investors will use these numbers to calculate projected earning per share and other values and devise a share price they think is reasonable or not. The share price will trade in some part to how well they are keeping up with their previous sales estimates for the next few years, considering that there next ‘five year plan’ might have been made during the oil peak and before the recession came in at full speed…they may drop the stocks like hot potatoes if it doesn’t keept to their expectations or they find another hot field to invest in. I’m no expert on this but that’s what I mean by ‘price estimate’.
Here’s a wind power ETF to throw in the mix…
finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AFAN
Together with TAN
finance.google.com/finance?q=Tan
you get “Fan and Tan,” or “Fan n Tan,” whichever you prefer (and I’m not certain I’d go with those particular companies) but by any token I’ll certainly take credit for inventing a term to describe the most positive, hopeful, massive, development model and get rich scheme the world has ever seen.
Thanks.
Some pertinent etymology for the term “bear” form the Oxford online etymology dictionary.
This would of course be incomplete without the entry for “bull” so here it is…
[quote]An uncastrated male, reared for breeding, as opposed to a bullock or steer. Extended after 1615 to males of other large animals (elephant, alligator, whale, etc.). Stock market sense is from 1714…
“eloquent and insincere rhetoric,” 1915, Amer.Eng. slang. Bull in the sense of “trivial or false statements” (1914) is usually associated with this, but it existed since M.E. in the sense of “false talk, fraud,” apparently from O.Fr. boul, and perhaps connected to modern Icel. bull “nonsense.” There also was a verb bull meaning “to mock, cheat,” which dates from 1532.
“Sais christ to ypocrites … yee ar … all ful with wickednes, tresun and bull.” [“Cursor Mundi,” c.1300] [/quote]
[quote=“ajax”]I would say Sunpower, SPWRA, is probably a good long-term play. they are best positioned to sell to big utilities making solar power stations in the US, the utilities have lots of cash and need to go green over a 10 to 20 year period. spwra might have a slow q1 but when credit conditions improve in Q2, or Q3 they should do well.
:discodance:[/quote]
finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ASPWRA
“Interesting” innit?
[quote=“bob”][quote=“ajax”]I would say Sunpower, SPWRA, is probably a good long-term play. they are best positioned to sell to big utilities making solar power stations in the US, the utilities have lots of cash and need to go green over a 10 to 20 year period. spwra might have a slow q1 but when credit conditions improve in Q2, or Q3 they should do well.
:discodance:[/quote]
finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ASPWRA
“Interesting” innit?[/quote]
Yeah so is the fact that they are back at their 2006 stock price. Any idea what happened to them between Dec 28, 2007 and Jan 18, 2008? They fell from 131 down to 74 in a matter of weeks.
That being said, it’s good to see them regaining some of their value from when they slid at a high of 45 only a few weeks ago. The related companies thing that Google shows below the stock tracker is pretty cool. They also link some interesting articles to the right.
SunPower Reports Record Fourth-Quarter and Fiscal Year 2008 Results
This may have a little to do with their rally 
I wonder if it was the increase in income on YTD, the two multi-year agreements or the new CFO that did the most good.
I’ll agree it looks like a very promising stock but I’m a little too risk adverse to see 5% changes (either way) in a day.
Thanks for that. What will the stock price do on Monday do you predict? I am guessing there will be a sizable profit grab and the price will drop for a day till all the people who are waiting for it to drop jump in and then it’ll pop back up again. It’ll bob up and down but maintain a generally upward trend over the next decade.
I would second that expectation, with the following example 
:
I think come Monday the stock price will head upwards and then Tuesday something will people get spooked and try to take their profits now and then it comes back down, then Wednesday it goes back up on a hot stock tip that President Obama is very close to drafting a bill about alternative energy investment, Thursday it will go back down because the bill isn’t as close to being drafted as people thought (or war breaks out in the Gaza strip again, or Iran does something silly like test fires a longer range anti-ship missile, or another oil tanker gets taken by Somali pirates) and come Friday something else happens and the price goes back up.
I have to do a little more reading on this company, but I would agree that they look pretty strong and can weather recent events. They have good cash flow, signed some long term contracts and have decent cash on hand. The only issue is that I’m not sure how their residential sector will do in the upcoming months. It’s hard to install electricity generating solar cells if you have just lost your job, and last I checked the installations were still over 10k US.
Now, if President Obama gets something going on an alternative energy tax credit (like you mentioned in another thread) that could really get their stock price to jump. Even if he only pushes for more investment and incentives in research you’ll see the stock price increase. They need to get the cost of residential units down if they really want to make money. I think it takes an average of 17 years to recoup your investment on solar panels if they cost over 10k for a residential unit.
That is a sobering statistic. Do solar panels even last that long? Honest question.
That is a sobering statistic. Do solar panels even last that long? Honest question.[/quote]
I’m found some quick links from a google search. The part on how long they last is at the end.
How Many Solar Cells do I need for My House
[quote=“How Stuff Works”]For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that a panel can generate 70 milliwatts per square inch.
Let’s say that all your electric needs average out to 600 watts on average. Over the course of 24 hours, you need 600 watts * 24 hours = 14,400 watt-hours per day.
From our calculations and assumptions above, we know that a solar panel can generate 70 milliwatts per square inch * 5 hours = 350 milliwatt hours per day. Therefore you need about 41,000 square inches of solar panel for the house. That’s a solar panel that measures about 285 square feet (about 26 square meters). That would cost around $16,000 right now. Then, because the sun only shines part of the time, you would need to purchase a battery bank, an inverter, etc., and that often doubles the cost of the installation. [/quote]
At 10 dollars per watt installed, it doesn’t make much sense for a home owner unless they are adamant about going off the grid. As the technology increases though, you could see far better yields at the same price. If it was less than say a 10 year investment I might make it, but even then, how many people live in one house for 10 years unless they have kids? That’s the biggest issue as I see it. There are a lot of claims about the increase in property value of solar panels, but not much data to back that up. I wouldn’t want to invest in something that wouldn’t increase my property value and not give me a return on my investment. Also, there seems to be much placed on the government’s subsidies to make this cost effective. Without those, in these troubled times, fewer will be able to purchase this.
For businesses, or communities even, this looks like it could be good though. Getting the cost per watt of generating electricity down to 2 dollars and we’ll reduce the demand on coal. That would be where I expect the biggest growth to be for solar. Businesses and communities will bring down the cost per unit price to somewhere more affordable for residential units.
Good stuff. Thank you.
Yesterday I was yacking away about this stuff with my wife and I struck on the idea that what “they” could do is use solar and wind power to pump water back up into hydro-electric power stations where it could be saved and consumed using the mechanisms already in place: the damns, the power grids, the household wiring systems etc.
It seemed like one of those so easy concepts there must be something fundementally wrong with it but according to her there is a project in the middle east somewhere that is doing exactly what I was talking about. She saw a television program about it some time ago.
I tried to google and find a link but didn’t come up with anything.
I’m sorry but I don’t understand this. The sources of energy are completely different. You can produce a watt of power from coal for USD2.10. Easy enough. You dig up the coal, you burn it, you get a watt of power. But if you invest USD 3.66 into photo voltaic cells (I realize this would be impossible, just using the 3.66 figure for the sake of discussion) you get power out of that cell for thirty years, presumably more than a watt. Am I missing something?
[quote=“bob”]Good stuff. Thank you.
Yesterday I was yacking away about this stuff with my wife and I struck on the idea that what “they” could do is use solar and wind power to pump water back up into hydro-electric power stations where it could be saved and consumed using the mechanisms already in place: the damns, the power grids, the household wiring systems etc.
It seemed like one of those so easy concepts there must be something fundementally wrong with it but according to her there is a project in the middle east somewhere that is doing exactly what I was talking about. She saw a television program about it some time ago.
I tried to google and find a link but didn’t come up with anything.[/quote]
At first I thought you were describing some kind of perpetual motion ideas to in machine form, that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Thinking about it a little more, since the method to power the pumps is solar or wind derived it wouldn’t violate the 2nd law. However, I don’t think it will be a very effective use of energy.
Given that you have one system of hydroelectric power and a known height, you are creating electricity by turning the waterwheel attached to a motor. The second system you want to make is a pump at the bottom to push water back up to the top to run through the first system (and is powered by solar or wind energy).
Here is my thinking. It would be better not to deal with running a pumping system to move water back up and here is why. You have a certain amount of electricity that comes from the water flowing from high to low. Now for your pump you’ll need to expend electricity to run it, and you pointed out the solar or wind system. You move the water up a certain height. Then the “moved” water goes through the turbine and make electricity.
Based on the laws of thermodynamics, you can’t make more energy than you put in, you can only change its form. If you run the pump via outside source you can move the water up at a net loss. It’s a net loss because it costs more energy (electricity) to move the water up than you gain by running it through the waterwheel. If it was even, no gain or loss, it would be pointless. If it was a gain, you would have created a perpetual motion machine. Because you incur a loss of energy by running the pumps, it doesn’t make much sense to do so. You would gain more electricity by connecting the solar and wind power to the grid. Does that make sense?
I’m sorry but I don’t understand this. The sources of energy are completely different. You can produce a watt of power from coal for USD2.10. Easy enough. You dig up the coal, you burn it, you get a watt of power. But if you invest USD 2.10 into photo voltaic cells (I realize this would be impossible, just using the 2.10 figure for the sake of discussion) you get power out of that cell for thirty years. Am I missing something?[/quote]
The sources of energy are actually the same (in a manner of speaking). Coal is biodegraded plant matter and plant matter grew via photosynthesis. Photosynthesis as you know is deriving power from sunlight. The thing is one is renewable and the other isn’t. That’s why they are different, but they are the same source of energy (originally).
To produce a watt of power from coal you need to buy the land, buy the digger, hire someone to run the digger, dig the coal up, separate the coal by grade (how much sulfur is in it), hire a driver to transport it, transport it to the power plant, hire someone to shovel it it, hire a supervisor to watch the shovelers, hire a manager to watch the supervisor (while eating donuts and drinking coffee) and finally produce electricity.
To produce a watt of power from solar cells (industrial, not residential or business) you need to buy the land, buy the solar cells, run them during the hours that you have the best source of sunlight and then transport the power via the grid.
The low sulfur coal that the US uses is a big improvement over what China uses, but it’s still coal. The catch is that you can run a coal power plant 24/7. You can only get solar panels to max out the energy they collect for 6 or 8 hours out of the day, depending on location. Then they get marginal amounts for a few hours then none for 8 -10 hours. So coal, overall, can run at their peak efficiency all day every day. Solar can only do it when the sun is bright and out. If its overcast you get 60%, rainy is worse than that. When you factor in the amount of watts produced in 24 hours for coal vs say 14 for solar, you can see that even if solar is more efficient, its downside is that 1/3rd of the time it is off. That 1/3rd of the time you’ll still need something going to power the grid.
Right now if you invested 2.10 into a photo voltaic cell you would get 2.10 back in electricity but the length of time is the question. If it takes you 30 years to get it back, then it’s not very efficient and more of a fad. The How Stuff Works article I posted says that 41,000 sq inches would cost 16,000 US. That comes out to about 2.56 sq inches per dollar. For $2.10 you could get 5.3 sq inches of photovoltaic cell which would make generate 371 milliwatts per hour (5.3 X 70 milliwatts per square inch). The How Stuff Works people also said you could only generate for 5 hours a day but I factored in 1/3 for easier calculations. You saw in the Solar FAQ that the high cost of installation drives up the per watt cost for residential users. It’s the same for industrial producers. Coal plants are already built, whereas solar arrays aren’t. To build them requires some serious funds since you also have to have large batteries to store the solar power that is collected. That’s where the cost doubles and makes coal still more affordable.
I dunno. Probably. It would depend I imagine on how efficient the pumps were.
If USD2.10 worth of cells will produce 371 milliwatts per hour and a milliwatt is a thousandth of a watt then in a little under three hours you would get a watt and after that be producing energy for free (not including installation costs etc). No?
Hey bob, I’d watch out about investing in green energy companies for a while.
[quote]Wind and solar power have been growing at a blistering pace in recent years, and that growth seemed likely to accelerate under the green-minded Obama administration. But because of the credit crisis and the broader economic downturn, the opposite is happening: installation of wind and solar power is plummeting.
Factories building parts for these industries have announced a wave of layoffs in recent weeks, and trade groups are projecting 30 to 50 percent declines this year in installation of new equipment, barring more help from the government.
…
Much of the problem stems from the credit crisis that has left Wall Street banks reeling. Once, as many as 18 big banks and financial institutions were willing to help finance installation of wind turbines and solar arrays, taking advantage of generous U.S. government tax incentives. But with the banks in so much trouble, that number has dropped to four, according to Keith Martin, a tax and project finance specialist with the law firm Chadbourne & Parke.
Wind and solar developers have been left starved for capital. “It’s absolutely frozen,” said Craig Mataczynski, president of Renewable Energy Systems Americas, a wind developer. He projected his company would build just under half as much this year as it did last year.
[/quote]
That’s not good for these companies as they look to be much more fragile than previously thought. That and the market for green energy is less solid than it appeared as little as a year ago. Without heavy government incentives and extensive financing, these projects aren’t financially viable. While the financing issues affects everyone, the government incentives worry me. As far as industrial clients, there isn’t a huge issue. All sorts of businesses get credits and incentives to open in different locations. It’s the residential angle that I have concerns about.
With current government incentives there aren’t all that many people installing it. Without government incentives, there will be even fewer; it will continue to be the cause celebs and eco obsessed who install it. However, I don’t know that increasing government incentives will get private homeowners to install it if it takes a decade to pay itself off. In fact, I would say that subsidizing individual residential properties is a waste of money. That same amount of money could better be served subsidizing producers who can provide cheaper, most cost effective, clean electricity.