Slashdot Mirror

Well, there are all the rare earths needed to make 2,900 acres worth of panels, so it's not like it's for free. In fact on a per MWhr basis I'm willing to bet that nuclear fission is still more environmentally friendly (though heat pollution of the cooling water source can be an issue depending on where the plant is sited).

What rare earths? These panels are made from a thin film of cadmium and tellurium on glass, no rare earths required. Tellurium is somewhat rare, if that's what you meant. Since it is mostly produced as a byproduct of copper production, the panels increase the total economic benefit derived from that environmental cost.

Nuclear being more environmentally friendly on per MWhr basis depends heavily on how you define "environmentally friendly".

As for water, "The project will also displace over 152,000 metric tons of water consumption annually based on the average California grid." So, not only no heat pollution, it will save water compared to other methods of producing the electricity.

Solar panels don't use/contain rare earths.

Bullshit!
First solar uses cadmium telluride cells, cadmium and telluride are two of the 17 rare earths. Don't be such a condescending ass when you are flat out wrong.

What you want is annual mean insolation at the surface of the Earth in watts per square meter - there is a map here.

Germany appears to be around 100 w/m^2. Most of CONUS is higher than that, with a large area of 200 w/m^2, and an area of 250 w/m^2 in the SouthWest.

So in most of the US, equivalent annual power from a 1 GW nuclear reactor could be replaced by a 100% efficient solar collector 2.2 km on a side , as opposed to Germany where it needs to be 3.1 km on a side.

You will be glad to know that there are three large solar plants being built in the Mojave desert:

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility 392MW solar thermal. It takes up an area equivalent to a square 4km on a side. It is about halfway complete with over 100,000 heliostats installed, see satellite images.

Mojave Solar Project 250MW concentrated solar parabolic trough plant

Antelope Valley Solar Ranch 230MW photovoltaic plant, that has been vandalized by opponents.

I find it incredibly humorous that you have the gall to refer to us as "drones" yet can't even manage to establish the veracity of the very list you mindlessly parrot.

For starters, First Solar has neither filed for bankruptcy nor is failing; granted, they did have a rather nasty Q1 2012, as they lost $449.4M (USD), which they made up for in Q2 2012, by posting a profit of $111M (USD), and likely will do the same in Q3, given their current stock price. To find out more about their history, you can peruse their official quarterly financial results that are made available to investors:

(Q2 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=587754&filekey=43642762-a08b-47d3-bc57-62ee73d6b300&filename=Q2_2012_Web_Schedule_final.pdf
(Q1 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=566130&filekey=eb2e729f-983d-466b-bf42-d09461c40ddd&filename=Q1_2012_Web_Schedule_Final_IR.pdf
(Q4 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=546601&filekey=6975fcbc-0591-43f3-8d96-89e3e3ed2a14&filename=Q4_2011_Web_Schedule_Final.pdf
(Q3 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=514964&filekey=d9532d11-f0d6-43b8-8aec-2af1d4f57991&filename=Q3_2011_Web_Schedule_Template_FINAL.pdf
(Q2 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=489149&filekey=7d51e913-c933-40b8-8cf1-57cf28583eba&filename=Key_Quarterly_Financial_Data.pdf

and the 2012 reports that they sent to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (US SEC):

(August 1, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-33&cik=1274494
(Jun 29, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-38&cik=1274494
(May 24, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-27&cik=1274494
(April 17, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1193125-12-165498&cik=1274494
(March 19, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-19&cik=1274494
(February 28, 2012)

I find it incredibly humorous that you have the gall to refer to us as "drones" yet can't even manage to establish the veracity of the very list you mindlessly parrot.

For starters, First Solar has neither filed for bankruptcy nor is failing; granted, they did have a rather nasty Q1 2012, as they lost $449.4M (USD), which they made up for in Q2 2012, by posting a profit of $111M (USD), and likely will do the same in Q3, given their current stock price. To find out more about their history, you can peruse their official quarterly financial results that are made available to investors:

(Q2 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=587754&filekey=43642762-a08b-47d3-bc57-62ee73d6b300&filename=Q2_2012_Web_Schedule_final.pdf
(Q1 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=566130&filekey=eb2e729f-983d-466b-bf42-d09461c40ddd&filename=Q1_2012_Web_Schedule_Final_IR.pdf
(Q4 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=546601&filekey=6975fcbc-0591-43f3-8d96-89e3e3ed2a14&filename=Q4_2011_Web_Schedule_Final.pdf
(Q3 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=514964&filekey=d9532d11-f0d6-43b8-8aec-2af1d4f57991&filename=Q3_2011_Web_Schedule_Template_FINAL.pdf
(Q2 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=489149&filekey=7d51e913-c933-40b8-8cf1-57cf28583eba&filename=Key_Quarterly_Financial_Data.pdf

and the 2012 reports that they sent to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (US SEC):

(August 1, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-33&cik=1274494
(Jun 29, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-38&cik=1274494
(May 24, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-27&cik=1274494
(April 17, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1193125-12-165498&cik=1274494
(March 19, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-19&cik=1274494
(February 28, 2012)

I find it incredibly humorous that you have the gall to refer to us as "drones" yet can't even manage to establish the veracity of the very list you mindlessly parrot.

For starters, First Solar has neither filed for bankruptcy nor is failing; granted, they did have a rather nasty Q1 2012, as they lost $449.4M (USD), which they made up for in Q2 2012, by posting a profit of $111M (USD), and likely will do the same in Q3, given their current stock price. To find out more about their history, you can peruse their official quarterly financial results that are made available to investors:

(Q2 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=587754&filekey=43642762-a08b-47d3-bc57-62ee73d6b300&filename=Q2_2012_Web_Schedule_final.pdf
(Q1 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=566130&filekey=eb2e729f-983d-466b-bf42-d09461c40ddd&filename=Q1_2012_Web_Schedule_Final_IR.pdf
(Q4 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=546601&filekey=6975fcbc-0591-43f3-8d96-89e3e3ed2a14&filename=Q4_2011_Web_Schedule_Final.pdf
(Q3 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=514964&filekey=d9532d11-f0d6-43b8-8aec-2af1d4f57991&filename=Q3_2011_Web_Schedule_Template_FINAL.pdf
(Q2 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=489149&filekey=7d51e913-c933-40b8-8cf1-57cf28583eba&filename=Key_Quarterly_Financial_Data.pdf

and the 2012 reports that they sent to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (US SEC):

(August 1, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-33&cik=1274494
(Jun 29, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-38&cik=1274494
(May 24, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-27&cik=1274494
(April 17, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1193125-12-165498&cik=1274494
(March 19, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-19&cik=1274494
(February 28, 2012)

I find it incredibly humorous that you have the gall to refer to us as "drones" yet can't even manage to establish the veracity of the very list you mindlessly parrot.

For starters, First Solar has neither filed for bankruptcy nor is failing; granted, they did have a rather nasty Q1 2012, as they lost $449.4M (USD), which they made up for in Q2 2012, by posting a profit of $111M (USD), and likely will do the same in Q3, given their current stock price. To find out more about their history, you can peruse their official quarterly financial results that are made available to investors:

(Q2 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=587754&filekey=43642762-a08b-47d3-bc57-62ee73d6b300&filename=Q2_2012_Web_Schedule_final.pdf
(Q1 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=566130&filekey=eb2e729f-983d-466b-bf42-d09461c40ddd&filename=Q1_2012_Web_Schedule_Final_IR.pdf
(Q4 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=546601&filekey=6975fcbc-0591-43f3-8d96-89e3e3ed2a14&filename=Q4_2011_Web_Schedule_Final.pdf
(Q3 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=514964&filekey=d9532d11-f0d6-43b8-8aec-2af1d4f57991&filename=Q3_2011_Web_Schedule_Template_FINAL.pdf
(Q2 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=489149&filekey=7d51e913-c933-40b8-8cf1-57cf28583eba&filename=Key_Quarterly_Financial_Data.pdf

and the 2012 reports that they sent to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (US SEC):

(August 1, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-33&cik=1274494
(Jun 29, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-38&cik=1274494
(May 24, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-27&cik=1274494
(April 17, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1193125-12-165498&cik=1274494
(March 19, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-19&cik=1274494
(February 28, 2012)

I find it incredibly humorous that you have the gall to refer to us as "drones" yet can't even manage to establish the veracity of the very list you mindlessly parrot.

For starters, First Solar has neither filed for bankruptcy nor is failing; granted, they did have a rather nasty Q1 2012, as they lost $449.4M (USD), which they made up for in Q2 2012, by posting a profit of $111M (USD), and likely will do the same in Q3, given their current stock price. To find out more about their history, you can peruse their official quarterly financial results that are made available to investors:

(Q2 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=587754&filekey=43642762-a08b-47d3-bc57-62ee73d6b300&filename=Q2_2012_Web_Schedule_final.pdf
(Q1 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=566130&filekey=eb2e729f-983d-466b-bf42-d09461c40ddd&filename=Q1_2012_Web_Schedule_Final_IR.pdf
(Q4 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=546601&filekey=6975fcbc-0591-43f3-8d96-89e3e3ed2a14&filename=Q4_2011_Web_Schedule_Final.pdf
(Q3 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=514964&filekey=d9532d11-f0d6-43b8-8aec-2af1d4f57991&filename=Q3_2011_Web_Schedule_Template_FINAL.pdf
(Q2 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=489149&filekey=7d51e913-c933-40b8-8cf1-57cf28583eba&filename=Key_Quarterly_Financial_Data.pdf

and the 2012 reports that they sent to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (US SEC):

(August 1, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-33&cik=1274494
(Jun 29, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-38&cik=1274494
(May 24, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-27&cik=1274494
(April 17, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1193125-12-165498&cik=1274494
(March 19, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-19&cik=1274494
(February 28, 2012)

I find it incredibly humorous that you have the gall to refer to us as "drones" yet can't even manage to establish the veracity of the very list you mindlessly parrot.

For starters, First Solar has neither filed for bankruptcy nor is failing; granted, they did have a rather nasty Q1 2012, as they lost $449.4M (USD), which they made up for in Q2 2012, by posting a profit of $111M (USD), and likely will do the same in Q3, given their current stock price. To find out more about their history, you can peruse their official quarterly financial results that are made available to investors:

(Q2 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=587754&filekey=43642762-a08b-47d3-bc57-62ee73d6b300&filename=Q2_2012_Web_Schedule_final.pdf
(Q1 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=566130&filekey=eb2e729f-983d-466b-bf42-d09461c40ddd&filename=Q1_2012_Web_Schedule_Final_IR.pdf
(Q4 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=546601&filekey=6975fcbc-0591-43f3-8d96-89e3e3ed2a14&filename=Q4_2011_Web_Schedule_Final.pdf
(Q3 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=514964&filekey=d9532d11-f0d6-43b8-8aec-2af1d4f57991&filename=Q3_2011_Web_Schedule_Template_FINAL.pdf
(Q2 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=489149&filekey=7d51e913-c933-40b8-8cf1-57cf28583eba&filename=Key_Quarterly_Financial_Data.pdf

and the 2012 reports that they sent to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (US SEC):

(August 1, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-33&cik=1274494
(Jun 29, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-38&cik=1274494
(May 24, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-27&cik=1274494
(April 17, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1193125-12-165498&cik=1274494
(March 19, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-19&cik=1274494
(February 28, 2012)

I find it incredibly humorous that you have the gall to refer to us as "drones" yet can't even manage to establish the veracity of the very list you mindlessly parrot.

For starters, First Solar has neither filed for bankruptcy nor is failing; granted, they did have a rather nasty Q1 2012, as they lost $449.4M (USD), which they made up for in Q2 2012, by posting a profit of $111M (USD), and likely will do the same in Q3, given their current stock price. To find out more about their history, you can peruse their official quarterly financial results that are made available to investors:

(Q2 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=587754&filekey=43642762-a08b-47d3-bc57-62ee73d6b300&filename=Q2_2012_Web_Schedule_final.pdf
(Q1 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=566130&filekey=eb2e729f-983d-466b-bf42-d09461c40ddd&filename=Q1_2012_Web_Schedule_Final_IR.pdf
(Q4 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=546601&filekey=6975fcbc-0591-43f3-8d96-89e3e3ed2a14&filename=Q4_2011_Web_Schedule_Final.pdf
(Q3 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=514964&filekey=d9532d11-f0d6-43b8-8aec-2af1d4f57991&filename=Q3_2011_Web_Schedule_Template_FINAL.pdf
(Q2 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=489149&filekey=7d51e913-c933-40b8-8cf1-57cf28583eba&filename=Key_Quarterly_Financial_Data.pdf

and the 2012 reports that they sent to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (US SEC):

(August 1, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-33&cik=1274494
(Jun 29, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-38&cik=1274494
(May 24, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-27&cik=1274494
(April 17, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1193125-12-165498&cik=1274494
(March 19, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-19&cik=1274494
(February 28, 2012)

I find it incredibly humorous that you have the gall to refer to us as "drones" yet can't even manage to establish the veracity of the very list you mindlessly parrot.

For starters, First Solar has neither filed for bankruptcy nor is failing; granted, they did have a rather nasty Q1 2012, as they lost $449.4M (USD), which they made up for in Q2 2012, by posting a profit of $111M (USD), and likely will do the same in Q3, given their current stock price. To find out more about their history, you can peruse their official quarterly financial results that are made available to investors:

(Q2 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=587754&filekey=43642762-a08b-47d3-bc57-62ee73d6b300&filename=Q2_2012_Web_Schedule_final.pdf
(Q1 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=566130&filekey=eb2e729f-983d-466b-bf42-d09461c40ddd&filename=Q1_2012_Web_Schedule_Final_IR.pdf
(Q4 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=546601&filekey=6975fcbc-0591-43f3-8d96-89e3e3ed2a14&filename=Q4_2011_Web_Schedule_Final.pdf
(Q3 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=514964&filekey=d9532d11-f0d6-43b8-8aec-2af1d4f57991&filename=Q3_2011_Web_Schedule_Template_FINAL.pdf
(Q2 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=489149&filekey=7d51e913-c933-40b8-8cf1-57cf28583eba&filename=Key_Quarterly_Financial_Data.pdf

and the 2012 reports that they sent to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (US SEC):

(August 1, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-33&cik=1274494
(Jun 29, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-38&cik=1274494
(May 24, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-27&cik=1274494
(April 17, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1193125-12-165498&cik=1274494
(March 19, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-19&cik=1274494
(February 28, 2012)

I find it incredibly humorous that you have the gall to refer to us as "drones" yet can't even manage to establish the veracity of the very list you mindlessly parrot.

For starters, First Solar has neither filed for bankruptcy nor is failing; granted, they did have a rather nasty Q1 2012, as they lost $449.4M (USD), which they made up for in Q2 2012, by posting a profit of $111M (USD), and likely will do the same in Q3, given their current stock price. To find out more about their history, you can peruse their official quarterly financial results that are made available to investors:

(Q2 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=587754&filekey=43642762-a08b-47d3-bc57-62ee73d6b300&filename=Q2_2012_Web_Schedule_final.pdf
(Q1 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=566130&filekey=eb2e729f-983d-466b-bf42-d09461c40ddd&filename=Q1_2012_Web_Schedule_Final_IR.pdf
(Q4 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=546601&filekey=6975fcbc-0591-43f3-8d96-89e3e3ed2a14&filename=Q4_2011_Web_Schedule_Final.pdf
(Q3 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=514964&filekey=d9532d11-f0d6-43b8-8aec-2af1d4f57991&filename=Q3_2011_Web_Schedule_Template_FINAL.pdf
(Q2 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=489149&filekey=7d51e913-c933-40b8-8cf1-57cf28583eba&filename=Key_Quarterly_Financial_Data.pdf

and the 2012 reports that they sent to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (US SEC):

(August 1, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-33&cik=1274494
(Jun 29, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-38&cik=1274494
(May 24, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-27&cik=1274494
(April 17, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1193125-12-165498&cik=1274494
(March 19, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-19&cik=1274494
(February 28, 2012)

I find it incredibly humorous that you have the gall to refer to us as "drones" yet can't even manage to establish the veracity of the very list you mindlessly parrot.

For starters, First Solar has neither filed for bankruptcy nor is failing; granted, they did have a rather nasty Q1 2012, as they lost $449.4M (USD), which they made up for in Q2 2012, by posting a profit of $111M (USD), and likely will do the same in Q3, given their current stock price. To find out more about their history, you can peruse their official quarterly financial results that are made available to investors:

(Q2 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=587754&filekey=43642762-a08b-47d3-bc57-62ee73d6b300&filename=Q2_2012_Web_Schedule_final.pdf
(Q1 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=566130&filekey=eb2e729f-983d-466b-bf42-d09461c40ddd&filename=Q1_2012_Web_Schedule_Final_IR.pdf
(Q4 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=546601&filekey=6975fcbc-0591-43f3-8d96-89e3e3ed2a14&filename=Q4_2011_Web_Schedule_Final.pdf
(Q3 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=514964&filekey=d9532d11-f0d6-43b8-8aec-2af1d4f57991&filename=Q3_2011_Web_Schedule_Template_FINAL.pdf
(Q2 2011) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fileid=489149&filekey=7d51e913-c933-40b8-8cf1-57cf28583eba&filename=Key_Quarterly_Financial_Data.pdf

and the 2012 reports that they sent to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (US SEC):

(August 1, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-33&cik=1274494
(Jun 29, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-38&cik=1274494
(May 24, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-27&cik=1274494
(April 17, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1193125-12-165498&cik=1274494
(March 19, 2012) http://investor.firstsolar.com/common/download/sec.cfm?companyid=FSLR&fid=1274494-12-19&cik=1274494
(February 28, 2012)

the subject seems to imply that there's a panel manufacturing problem. In reality, there's a "new economic policy" problem: practically all the demand is government issued, and the private sector has been sucked up in the maelstrom. As in the original plan, I expect a full nationalization will ensue, on economic grounds

Here in Italy, solar has been heavily pushed via two mechanisms: one is that via tax rebates, building a solar plant is incentivized. the second is that ALL the energy produced is retired by the grid at a heavily increased price, and the increased price is then passed on to the consumers via the electricity bill. Private use is incentivised even more, since there's a counter at thee production level: a user/producer gets paid the higher price on all production, and pays his consumption at the lower general level. It goes without saying that this is a much bigger incentive than using a "net" mechanism, by which only the excess energy produced over consumption gets paid.
The necessary build of conventional energy plants to guarantee continous production is done by the general electric utilities, and spread on the bills accordingly. The construction boom has been huge.

The rationale behind my saying that this will all end up in public hands is that most of the "industrial" establishment of solar plant has been funded by banks, with little money coming out of the equity investors' purse. An uncontrolled shrinkage of the incentive schemes would cause a big banking problem; helping the banks is not considered the thing now; and taxing Joe Public to give money to people who could convince banks to sink millions into a tax haven is a problem too, so nothing like a giant nationalization of the existing plants would work.
Would it help the First Solars of the world? nooooo, because as much as public servants love to spend other people's money, many other investments are more profitable even on a CO2 standpoint. in less than 10 years, the city where I live has become the first in district heating in Europe; the local utility built, in less than three years, a combined gas and steam plant that by selling surplus heat in winter reaches an efficiency of 85%.

The reliability tests that are used to certify panels today are the result of 30 years of study and testing of panels in the field. They are the best ways we know to test reliability to ensure the rated lifetime. Its fine to be skeptical, but go study the science and at least be an informed skeptic. One good place to start would be this History of Accelerated and Qualification Testing of Terrestrial Photovoltaic Modules: A Literature Review(pdf).

The fact that I have personally seen old panels still working is not an anecdote. Especially as it's used to illustrate the point that there is existence proof that at least some panels can last that long. The facility I visited is called PVUSA in Davis CA, it was built in 1986. Its well worth a tour to see how solar technology has evolved over the last 25 odd years often in response to the reliability issues discovered there.

We respect to recycling, First Solar offers a recycling program today. This is mainly to address the issues of the Cadmium in the panels escaping into the environment if the panels were dumped. However it is very reasonable to assume that the precious metals in a solar panels can be recovered using methods that exist today to recycle old electronics. The materials used are very similar (glass, Silicon, Aluminum, Copper, Silver, numerous organic resins & some polymers). Whether it will be economic or not remains to be seen.

Here's the plan for recycling these (at least, First Solar's) puppies

First Solar has this covered (for their own CIGS panels)

A better use of tax money would be for the government to give it back to the people they took it from in the first place. Why should I be forced to "invest" (if you can even call it that given the track record of government spending) my hard-earned money in battery research through taxes? Has anyone else ever noticed that very often these sorts of "investments" are the very same ones that the private sector won't touch with a ten foot pole?

The private sector tends to ignore anything that won't yield a short term profit. It certainly ignores anything where the benefits are for the public instead of making the company rich. So now and then, it takes some tax money to get things underway that would happen too little too late otherwise.

Take renewable energy for instance. I happen to agree with the people who claim that global Peak Oil cannot be far off anymore. So we need something else, and we better have a lot of it when the next oil crisis arrives. Think summer 2008 again or worse.

In that case, Germany and to a lesser degree Spain have taken the lead by subsidizing various renewable energies, thus creating a market and making investments lucrative. As a result, the technology is a lot more mature than it would be without subsidies. Some companies even claim being close to the point where their PV cells can compete without the subsidies. In particular http://www.firstsolar.com/ and http://www.nanosolar.com/. Both are US companies so the money will not stay in Germany. But I still think it is a good idea, even being one of those Germans who pay for it.

BTW and slightly off topic:
A real and much greater waste of money recently happened with the bank bailout. For THAT, I'm really pissed with our current government.

Surprise, there are already companies that are producing thin-film solar panels for less than $1/watt.

The problem is that demand is so high for these inexpensive cells that at least for Nanosolar, you can't even buy them unless you are buying tons and tons of them. That leaves First Solar and those panels get significantly marked up because of the lack of competition at the low end of the market.

That said, wholesale prices of traditional silicon panels are around $3/watt and as an end user you can get them for slightly above that if you shop around.

But once the system is installed you're looking at a minimum of $6/watt currently. So while the panels are still the most expensive part of the system, pretty soon the other components (inverter, mounting hardware, wiring, labor) will exceed the cost of the panels.

We're getting very close to the point where solar systems make financial sense for just about everyone. It already makes sense for any high electricity users who pay a premium for electricity. We'll probably see solar system pricing continue to drop over the next couple years as manufacturing capacity continues to come online.

Companies have been manufacturing and selling thin-film, flexible printed to roll solar panels since at least a year ago.

For example, check http://www.uni-solar.com/ and http://www.firstsolar.com/

The things to keep in mind with this technology:
- Cheaper manufacturing, partly because the print to roll technology is much more scalable that the processes used to manufacture traditional solar cells, but also because of high silicon prices (traditional solar-cells use a silicon substract just like integrated circuits and thus compete for the same raw materials: before the recession silicon production was insufficient for both needs, so silicon prices where making traditional solar cells more expensive).
- Lower efficiency (around 9%) versus traditional solar cells (around 15%). Note that some recent advances are likely to increase the efficiency of traditional solar cells even further.
- Better at generating energy under low light conditions (e.g. in the shadow) than traditional solar cells.
- There are some questions about the long term viability of some thin-film solar cell technologies since they use rare elements: their price might go higher as production increases since that will also increase the demand for said rare raw materials.

I'm looking at an upgrade - installing a heat pump system this summer, assuming I can get good price information and ordering ability on line. Last time they were 'out of stock'. That might be your best option, as well. 3X the heating ability per kwh, even over tankless.

Unfortunately I don't have such a choice now, I rent an apartment.

if you put a carbon tax in coal gets slaughtered. Even clean coal

If carbon emissions were taxed alternative energy wouldn't look as expensive. And there are no clean coal plants in commercial production, what plants there are are for research. Even then though I doubt nuclear power would be profitable without subsidies.

Hmm, also disagrees with the cost for clean coal

I agree too, coal can not be clean. Sure emissions can be cleaned up but mining is far from being clean. A lot of coal is mined by mountain top removal. Google as some good photos of what it looks like.

So the tech isn't ready. To reduce the waste that's already there I may agree to reprocess it so it can be used in power plants that have already been built but I don't think I could agree to building more nuclear power plants.

Engineering always needs to be done. Basically, we're putting solar, wind, and other experimental electricity generation systems up left and right.

Yes, engineering always needs to be done but they are not being subsidized at the same amount as coal or nuclear. They may have but I doubt either First Solar or Nanosolar received subsidies directly. You could say Germany's Nanosolar order is one, and it might be, but I don't think of it so much as a subsidy anymore than first adopters subsidize research and development.

Falcon

I'm looking at an upgrade - installing a heat pump system this summer, assuming I can get good price information and ordering ability on line. Last time they were 'out of stock'. That might be your best option, as well. 3X the heating ability per kwh, even over tankless.

Unfortunately I don't have such a choice now, I rent an apartment.

if you put a carbon tax in coal gets slaughtered. Even clean coal

If carbon emissions were taxed alternative energy wouldn't look as expensive. And there are no clean coal plants in commercial production, what plants there are are for research. Even then though I doubt nuclear power would be profitable without subsidies.

Hmm, also disagrees with the cost for clean coal

I agree too, coal can not be clean. Sure emissions can be cleaned up but mining is far from being clean. A lot of coal is mined by mountain top removal. Google as some good photos of what it looks like.

So the tech isn't ready. To reduce the waste that's already there I may agree to reprocess it so it can be used in power plants that have already been built but I don't think I could agree to building more nuclear power plants.

Engineering always needs to be done. Basically, we're putting solar, wind, and other experimental electricity generation systems up left and right.

Yes, engineering always needs to be done but they are not being subsidized at the same amount as coal or nuclear. They may have but I doubt either First Solar or Nanosolar received subsidies directly. You could say Germany's Nanosolar order is one, and it might be, but I don't think of it so much as a subsidy anymore than first adopters subsidize research and development.

Falcon

It seems that the subsidies in some countries, especially Germany, are keeping prices for photovoltaics panels up. Companies like Nanosolar can sell their panels for way more than manufacturing costs, because the subsidies are designed to make more conventional and expensive panels economically viable. There is a yearly degression built into the legislation, but so far it does not keep up with improvements in manufacturing.

I expect this situation to change drastically once the German market reaches saturation. At that point, real competition will kick in and panel prices will drop to a price where they will be attractive without subsidies. And Nanosolar are not alone in developing cheaper panels.

For instance, there is First Solar: http://www.firstsolar.com/

FirstSolar uses CdTe http://www.firstsolar.com/environment_cdte.php and the durability of the panels remains an issue, but one they are addressing. Their aim is to demonstrate 20 year performance above 80% of the initial efficiency. The trick is to do this in less time than 20 years and they are getting help from NREL to pull this off. Their cost of production is $1.19/Watt and headed down.
--
Rent solar power for your home and save: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users-selling-solar.html

Not all Solar is as toxic as you make it out to be. Significant strides are being made to manufacture panels as cleanly as possible.

Evergreen Solar is one company with a cleaner manufacturing process.

First Solar uses a thin film technology that is more easily recycled than traditional panels. Their manufacaturing plant includes recycling technology. It is a serious concern of their engineers.

Astropower used to manufacture their product from recycled silicon from the semiconductor industry. It isn't clear they still do so since being sold to GE, but they represent another attempt to reduce the environmental impact of the panel manufacture.

Lastly, the US Department of Energy remains optimistic that by the time the contemporary solar modules have reached end of life, recycling technology will have vastly improved in efficiency. Certainly we'll have a better chance of recycling solar modules than we will of spent uranium.