Slashdot Mirror


Prospects Darken For Solar Energy Companies

Hugh Pickens writes "Although global demand for solar power is still growing — about 8% more solar panels will be installed this year compared with 2010 — bankruptcies, plummeting stock prices and crushing debt loads are calling into question the viability of the solar energy industry that since the 1970s has been counted on to advance the world into a new energy age. Only a handful of manufacturers are now profitable in the face of too much capacity, which has contributed to a plunge in prices as government subsidies have been curbed. Prices for solar panels started 2011 near $1.60 per watt, but a buildup of inventory forced manufacturers into a fire sale toward the end of the second quarter that has pushed prices to near $1 per watt now. 'The prices that we're seeing today are likely not covering manufacturing costs in many cases,' says Ralph Romero. With at least seven solar-panel manufacturers filing for bankruptcy or insolvency in the last several months and six of the 10 largest publicly traded companies making solar components reporting losses in the third quarter, public-market investors are punishing the solar sector, sending shares down nearly 57% this year. Although winners are expected to emerge eventually, the question is how much more carnage there will be before that happens. 'The fact of the matter is, nobody really knows which solar companies will be pushed out of business or be forced to merge,' writes industry analyst Rodolfo Avalos. 'Nobody also knows how long it will take for the solar industry to improve even when the forecasted solar global demand for the next 5-10 years is quite promising.'"

28 of 435 comments (clear)

  1. the TFS only talks about the economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The summary does not mention the actual need for prices on solar panels to drop to make them more viable, only on the economic repercusions of the shift in the market.

    I thought to myself one day that this was one of the necessary evils or events in a free market economy, prices must shift and therefore allow more efficient companies and technologies to emerge. Any real change requires chaos.

    You wanted change? Here you've got it.

    1. Re:the TFS only talks about the economics by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      After some more research, I actually found some a little closer to the $1 per watt mark. CivicSolar has large panels running around $1.30 per watt. They have laminates, too, but for about twice the cost.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
  2. If the visible hand of government lets go by mangu · · Score: 5, Informative

    What keeps the solar power industry from taking off is not the market. It's the subsidies that keep fossil fuels artificially cheap.

    Subsidies like spending a trillion dollars to keep military control of producing countries, like fucking up the planet for the future generations, and so on.

    1. Re:If the visible hand of government lets go by ShnowDoggie · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sitations?
      It is very easy to find tax exemptions for oil and mining exploration. There are even sections in the 1040 instructions for it. I am not a tax expert, but clearly there are government subsidies for fossil fuels.

    2. Re:If the visible hand of government lets go by rmstar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Get your facts straight. Fossil fuels are never subsidized, but instead heavily taxed by the governments.

      They are both, subsidized AND taxed. Not everywhere in the same way, though. Did you know the UK subsidizes oil extraction in the north sea? The reason is of course cronyism and corruption.

    3. Re:If the visible hand of government lets go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      HAHAHAHAHA. Oh, god, I haven't laughed like that in AGES. Not subsidized... LOL. What do you call the Iraq War? Our gifts to Saudi Arabia? Our support for tin-pot dictators across oil producing regions? Our unwillingness to tax the pollution caused by fossil fuels?

      Not subsidized. Right. It'd be like saying "We're going to buy everyone a solar panel and hook it to the grid, but not we won't subsidize the sun's production of light, so no subsidies there!"

      Get a clue - fossil fuels are the most heavily subsidized product on the market. The subsidies are not as direct, but they're pretty fucking obvious from an economic standpoint.

    4. Re:If the visible hand of government lets go by DemoLiter3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Examples here in Germany:
      1. Extremely high taxes on the nuclear fuel (â145 per gram of Uranium or Plutonium). Despite them, nuclear energy stays profitable and has never received a single cent of subsidies.
      2. Extremely high taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, which currently constitute about 60% of the end price, or about 90 Eurocents per liter
      3. Taxes levied on electricity contain a special tax that goes to renewable energy subsidies. Currently this tax is about 3.5 Eurocents/kWh. About 2/3 of this tax are for solar power subsidies only, which provides about 1% of total electricity generation.

    5. Re:If the visible hand of government lets go by copponex · · Score: 5, Informative

      Governments last year gave $43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the $557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008.

      Source.

      You were saying?

    6. Re:If the visible hand of government lets go by ShnowDoggie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All good examples. I was thinking US and not Europe. Europe tends to tax fuel much more than the US. The US taxes fuel too, but it also subsidies fuel at several stages. I do agree that government subsidies can alter the landscape in a negative way. But, in the US at least, ALL forms of energy are subsidized at some point.

      I would also point out that nuclear plants have a very high decommission cost and risk. Even with very high taxes nuclear can be a net cost to governments.

      So I think the energy picture is complicated and interwoven with many issues. There is not a single solution. And it is wise to put our eggs in many baskets.

  3. Re:Invisible hand of the free market by nharmon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Only if we allow it to. Right now it can not, because the prices are being manipulated by government subsidy. Not just the solar energy prices, but those of coal, nuclear, and wind as well.

    It is a lesson we continually fail to learn: Industries built on government subsidy suffer when those subsidies begin to go away, even if the product itself is sound.

  4. Just wait until Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz by BigTimOBrien · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yesterday Iran threatened to stop the flow of oil in response to new sanctions being floated by the US. Who wants to predict how that would affect solar? Also, what effect is the explosion of shale oil operations in the US having on technologies like solar?

    --
    ------ Tim O'Brien
  5. Subsidies in the wrong place. by Gotung · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why you subsidize research, not production.

  6. It is the customer base stupid. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 4, Insightful

    China flooding the market, specifically to destroy the competition IMHO, is just half the story. How are people supposed to buy solar panels for the house when they are not even able to make the house payments. Small business owners aren't going to throw up panels any time soon. They rent. Renters aren't going to put up solar panels, their customers are going out of business left and right. Manufacturers with large plants are too busy deciding if they are going to relocate. China needs to learn to let other people make money. A customer base requires someone has an income.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  7. Re:Invisible hand of the free market by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't worry, I'm sure the invisible hand of the free market will step in and all will be OK.

    That would be true if there weren't actors like China distorting prices in the market by dumping government-subsidized-manufacturing-produced solar panels on the market at below-cost rates in order to destroy foreign competition.

    Free markets only work where there is a fair market. When governments step in to "tip the scales" in order to influence the market, there is no "free market". Same thing applies with Capitalism. As can be seen with the US, when the government steps in to prop up certain businesses and tear down others in an effort to engineer certain outcomes and societal directions, the result is not Capitalism, it's "Crony Capitalism", and that hasn't worked out so well for US citizens.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  8. Visible hand of state corruption by RoLi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The sad thing is that everytime I bring up this massive scandal of enormeous proportions, I only get a shrug or something like "it's always been that way" as a response.

    But in fact, Richard Nixon was impeached for far less and while certainly there was corruption before it seems to have gotten out of hand with the Bush/Obama bailouts.

    1. Re:Visible hand of state corruption by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People have gotten used to the idea that wealthy corporations and individuals own the U.S. government (and plenty of other governments as well). They shrug it off because there is no viable alternative to turn to.

      With both major political parties completely in the pockets of the rich and powerful, where is there to turn? Even those Occupy protestors couldn't answer that when they were asked. Their whole deluded movement seems predicated on the idea that if they make enough noise, suddenly all the politicians are going to turn away from their bread-and-butter and become honorable men and women. It's quite an epic pipe dream.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Visible hand of state corruption by DuckDodgers · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nixon was impeached for trying to illegally interfere with an election. As bad as political nepotism is, it's not as serious as fucking with the election process. If Nixon hadn't been pardoned, you could argue that he should have been prosecuted for treason.

      Haliburton, which Cheney used to run, got 7 billion dollars in a no-bids contract for part of the Iraq reconstruction. When people complained, the government put the same contract up for bid and then manipulated the process so that only Haliburton could win. That's every bit as bad as the Solyndra scandal - and bank bailout bullshit at the end of Bush's term in office was every bit as ludicrous as bank bailout bullshit after Obama took over. They're all bad.

      I take it as a given that anyone with enough resources to play in US politics at the national level is corrupt, in both major US political parties. I still vote according to the lesser of two evils philosophy - I view Obama as the pickpocket that still gets things right occasionally and his Republican opponents as a gang of devil worshipers conspiring to eviscerate any American who isn't hideously wealthy and sell his organs for a few pennies. Given that kind of choice, I'm going to go with the pickpocket every time.

    3. Re:Visible hand of state corruption by anagama · · Score: 4, Informative

      I still vote according to the lesser of two evils philosophy

      The problem with this philosophy is that it can have the opposite effect and lead ironically to greater evil (*). Take for instance civil liberties. Obama has pushed forward every single civil liberty violating policy of the Bush administration. Yet because he is a democrat, there has been no push back at all. As a result, the radical usurpation of power by the Executive branch under Bush, has become the new normal under Obama.

      As an example of the democrats' cynical nature, Marty Lederman once excoriated the Bush administration for using secret legal memos to justify due process free detention. Now that he is part of Obama's legal team, he is writing secret legal memos justifying due process free execution. The sad fact is, if there was a GOP president doing what Obama is doing, the democrats would pretend to care about civil liberties and at least put on a show of resistance. Instead, violating civil rights just became standard practice, a result far more evil than having the practice but also having some hope that opposition would change it.

      http://www.salon.com/2011/10/09/the_awlaki_memo_and_marty_lederman/

      Vote for a third party candidate. No they won't win, but if enough people abandon the mono-party with the dem/GOP faces, it will inject issues into the discussion as dem/GOP politicians try to figure out how to pander to the disaffected. It certainly is not a waste of a vote to refuse to choose between A) being raped to death at night by the Democrats or B) being raped to death by day by the GOP. You can't win that so don't play.

      (*) While Obama did not appear to be a "lesser evil" candidate in 08, he clearly will be in 2012 given his wholehearted embrace of neocon philosophy.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  9. Okay, this is pretty simple IMO! by BLKMGK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, I WANT solar power on my home. I have a good location South facing, near full time sun during the day, am tech oriented, and I'm not dirt poor! I get HomePower magazine, I track the technology, I'm a buyer looking to do this.

    So why don't I have it? Because my home like so many others is upside down and the cost of a solar install of decent size is looking like $30K or more which will be saving me something like $150 a month on my electric bill. How exactly does THAT make sense? Prices are down per watt? You could've fooled me! The price of raw cells on the wholesale market may have dropped some but the installed price is in the stratosphere IF you can even find a company local to you willing to do it.

    There's a company near me advertising solar LEASING like crazy. They install and maintain the system and you pay them a monthly fee that's lower than your existing electric bill. Now this sounded possibly interesting despite my trepidation about anything that says "lease". I tried to sign up for an estimate - they don't service my area! Say what?! These guys are putting out printed ads and radio like mad here and then won't take my money? Kripes it's like trying to get high speed internet all over again! SolarCity -> asshats!

    Now I know that my area isn't big on subsidies and it's also not someplace like Fla. where the sun roasts anything not moving but there's good potential in my site just no damned affordable way to do it no matter how much these guys claim to have reduced cost. Certainly installing solar makes huge sense in many ways but if the pricing is going to be $30K per house in a market where people are $40K upside down or more with a payoff measured in decades I think the reasons why few are buying are pretty damned clear! The local and federal Govt subsidies need to crank up, this is infrastructure we're talking about and it needs to be supported IMO. This is the technology that can take loads off our grid, why isn't there any incentive to go for it?

    P.S. My neighbors just had to cut down all of their trees that used to shade the front of my home during parts of the day. It was awful but I now have no obstructions and full exposure but cannot take advantage of it. This sucks!

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    1. Re:Okay, this is pretty simple IMO! by silas_moeckel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When looking into the real cost of solar I found that my homeowners insurance premiums would skyrocket. This ate into the payback significantly. Secondly all these rebates etc require professional installation the installers know it and have jacked up there prices to match the panels are 18-27k (90 $200-300 panels 100 watts each, and I can get them much cheaper) the installers all quote in the 50-60k range all the incentives and rebates knock it back down to 20-30k so effectively the installers are pocketing the rebates. I've seen this before whenever the rebates require professional installation.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
  10. Re:The Market Has Spoken by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, it says that the projected increase is 8% for next year... wouldn't that be a sign of people wanting these thingamalings?

    The company-killer is every player in the industry wearing very rose covered glasses thinking they individually will be the sole supplier for the entire markets growth.

    The overall market is growing 10%? OK we'll borrow money to expand production by 10% of the world wide market. Later ... Oh sales only went up 10% yoy? Whoops, well I got my golden parachute, bye guys.

    Assuming its not that bad, the finances kill them anyway. So, we need to expand production this year by 10% to keep up with demand and the other players. No problemo I'll ring up the bank... Bank says F-off because they make more money borrowing from the fed at 0% and issuing credit card debt at 29.99%. Well OK then we'll sell stock.... Whoops finance says forget that because the market is totally crooked and scheming so no one wants to buy a "real" investment, and due to SOX etc costs we actually cannot raise the money. Well then we'll self invest, raise our current prices so we clear enough additional profit to grow next year.. Whoops that killed our sales because the Chinese will govt finance at 0% and our higher prices killed our sales.

    Fundamentally it comes down to
    1) People are notoriously bad at making sensible investments during a strong growth phase
    2) Corrupt and/or failing financial systems both here and abroad mean we can't get the dough to expand, no matter how much we want or how profitable it would be.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  11. Hardly surprising... by kenh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be great if the Solar Panel industry was able to succeed or fail based on the merits and the value of thier products, not be tossed about by the whims of politicians who shovel money into anything that looks "green" wihen they are up for re-election? The politicians, desperate to curry favor with certain constituant groups tosses obscene amounts of money into companies with trivial advancements.

    The Government builds up manufacturing capacity with grants and low-cost, gov't backed loans, then they subsidise the purchase of solar panels by end-users to create demand for the panels, then they force utilities to pay well above market rates for whatever power the solar panel owner pumps into the electric grid, without allowing the utility the ability to manage the flow of electricity onto their grid.

    And what is the argument for investing ever more money into the solar panel industry? We have to keep up with "threat" of China's investments in their solar panel industry. Here's the problem - first off, solar panels are on their way to being a commodity, and China excells in that space (manufacturing commodity items), second, China has the money to invest in these projects we don't (we perversely are borrowing the money fo fuel our "green initiatives" from China!).

    Solyndra was in the $3/watt solar panel business when the industry was going from $2.50 -> $1.60 -> as low as $1/watt solar panels now - Gov't shouldn't be in the business of investing in businesses it subsidies and regulates - it has the ability to create a false market, subject to the political needs of elected officials, not and real demand on the part of the consumer.

    --
    Ken
    1. Re:Hardly surprising... by Idou · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure, but no different from nuclear, fossil fuel production, etc . . . How can solar ever move to mainstream with out at least receiving similar subsidizes to the more established forms of electricity production industries?

      How about removing the subsidies from the other industries first?

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    2. Re:Hardly surprising... by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Gov't shouldn't be in the business of investing in businesses it subsidies and regulates - it has the ability to create a false market, subject to the political needs of elected officials, not and real demand on the part of the consumer.

      Nuclear power would disappear overnight if the Government ended its practice of backstopping their insurance.
      Nobody would make vaccines without the Government shielding pharmaceuticals from liability.
      Shipping costs would be rediculously higher without a government subsidized system of roadways.
      The dairy industry would be fucked without the Government's price support program.

      You call those things subsidies, I call them good public policy.
      The free market does not always make the best choices for everyone.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  12. Re:Invisible hand of the free market by skids · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, the lesson we refuse to learn is not that "gubment subsidy baaad mmmkayy!" It is that government subsidy needs to be A) predictable over the next decade and B) taper off gradually.

    To the extent that the nations have done so, the intended stimulation of the solar industry has worked. Where they have pulled the rug out fast and early, they've caused uncertainty in the investment market. Sometimes intentionally, I would conjecture, given the rhetoric many of those responsible for policy are spouting and the incestuous relationships with established energy sectors many of them have.

    Note, though, that a bunch of companies going bankrupt when a sector transitions from its initial phase to the established industry phase is well recognized by economists to be normal, with or without government subsidies. There really is basically nothing unusual to see here, just some trade rag journalists trying to keep their readers subscribed through exaggeration.

  13. Re:Invisible hand of the free market by Angst+Badger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is a lesson we continually fail to learn: Industries built on government subsidy suffer when those subsidies begin to go away, even if the product itself is sound.

    The lesson "we" continually fail to learn is that not everything is a vindication of one's favorite economic-religious theory. Every time there is an increase in demand for something, investments pour into the relevant industries far in excess of that demand, and most of those ventures fail before a handful of them succeed and become the dominant players. There's nothing magical about either the market or subsidies. Subsidies are just market forces, like weather influencing crop prices or international trade policy influencing imports and exports. The theoretical free market in which prices are not "manipulated" does not and cannot exist in the real world because it is ultimately based on human beings, and humans manipulate everything they can. It doesn't matter whether the influx of cash comes from subsidies or sales: companies benefit while the cash flows in, and they suffer when it stops flowing. Money is money.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  14. Yes, if you double-check your numbers by rubeng · · Score: 4, Informative

    Something went seriously wrong in your figuring to come up with $500 million per person. It should be under $5000 per person or $34.5 billion total - if your run the numbers like I did below in Python (assuming these panels only produce for 8 hours per day, which is a number I just pulled out of the my hat).

    Throw in extra for installation costs. It would be interesting to know what the total area is of NYC rooftops that have good sun exposure.

    ny_area_sqmi = 302.6
    ny_population = 8175133.0
    ny_demand_watt_hours_per_year = 64500 * 10**9
    panel_watt_hours_per_year = 230 * 8 * 365
    panels_needed = ny_demand_watt_hours_per_year / panel_watt_hours_per_year
    panel_cost = 360.0
    panel_area_sqft = 17.6
    total_cost = panels_needed * panel_cost
    total_area_sqmi = (panels_needed * panel_area_sqft) / (5280**2)

    print 'panels needed', panels_needed
    print 'total cost $ %.2f' % total_cost
    print 'cost per person $ %.2f' % (total_cost / ny_population)
    print 'square miles %.2f' % total_area_sqmi
    print 'percent area of nyc %.2f%%' % ((total_area_sqmi / ny_area_sqmi) * 100)
    ------

    panels needed 96039309
    total cost $ 34574151240.00
    cost per person $ 4229.19
    square miles 60.63
    percent area of nyc 20.04%

  15. How about finishing the quote? by alispguru · · Score: 4, Informative

    The next two lines in TFA:

    Granted, these raw totals obscure a few things (if you looked at dollars per unit of energy delivered, oil and coal subsidies would be smaller than wind and solar). But the overall disparity is stunning, given everything we know about the harm fossil fuels are doing.

    For some reason, they didn't look at subsidies in $/kwh. It's not like they're hard to find on the web. That source puts fossil fuel subsidies at 0.8 cents/kwh and "renewables" (non-nuclear, non-hydropower) at 5 cents/kwh.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.