Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Investing in new energy? Not so easy...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Investing in new energy? Not so easy...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/bu...for-china.html

    China Benefits as U.S. Solar Industry Withers

    Workers install solar panels at a power station in Hami in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China.
    By KEITH BRADSHER
    Published: September 1, 2011

    HONG KONG — The bankruptcies of three American solar power companies in the last month, including Solyndra of California on Wednesday, have left China’s industry with a dominant sales position — almost three-fifths of the world’s production capacity — and rapidly declining costs.

    Solar panel inspection at a factory in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province. Chinese companies' cost advantages overwhelm any lags in technology, analysts say.

    Some American, Japanese and European solar companies still have a technological edge over Chinese rivals, but seldom a cost advantage, according to industry analysts.

    Loans at very low rates from state-owned banks in Beijing, cheap or free land from local and provincial governments across China, huge economies of scale and other cost advantages have transformed China from a minor player in the solar power industry just a few years ago into the main producer of an increasingly competitive source of electricity.

    “The top-tier Chinese firms are kind of the benchmark now,” said Shayle Kann, a managing director of solar power studies at GTM Research, a renewable energy market analysis firm based in Boston. Pricing of solar equipment is determined by the Chinese industry, he said, “and everyone else prices at a premium or discount to them.”

    Besides Solyndra, the other two American manufacturers that filed for bankruptcy in August were Evergreen Solar, of Massachusetts, and SpectraWatt, a New York company. Another company, BP Solar, halted manufacturing at its complex in Frederick, Md., last spring.

    Those bankruptcies and closings represent almost one-fifth of the solar panel manufacturing capacity in the United States, according to GTM Research.

    Solyndra and Evergreen in particular suffered because they pursued unusual technologies whose competitiveness depended on their using less polysilicon, the main material for solar panels. That has become less important because polysilicon prices have tumbled more than 80 percent in the last three years as output has caught up with demand.

    Analysts say that two American companies remain strongly placed. One is First Solar, the largest American manufacturer, which uses a different technology but has its biggest factory in Malaysia. The other, SunPower, is much smaller but is an industry leader in the efficiency with which its panels convert sunlight into electricity, so that they sell at a premium to Chinese panels.

    But with Beijing heavily supporting its industry, the Chinese companies are forging ahead.

    “There is no question that renewable energy companies in the United States feel pressure from China,” said David B. Sandalow, the assistant secretary for policy and international affairs at the United States Energy Department. “Many of them say it is cheap capital, not cheap labor, that gives Chinese companies the main competitive advantage.”

    China’s three biggest solar power companies — Suntech Power, Yingli Green Energy and Trina Solar — have all in the last two weeks announced second-quarter sales increases of 33 to 63 percent from a year earlier.

    Yingli and Trina were also profitable in the quarter. Suntech posted a loss, mostly because it broke a longstanding agreement to buy solar wafers — critical components in the manufacturing process — from a Singapore affiliate of MEMC Electronic Materials of Missouri. Suntech aims to make more wafers itself.

    Shares in large and small Chinese solar power companies have mostly rallied in the last two weeks on the New York and Hong Kong stock markets, as investors have welcomed their strong quarterly results and the prospect of dwindling competition from Western rivals. Besides the bankruptcies in the United States, solar power companies in Germany, another big producer, have been laying off workers and retrenching.

    The recent strength of Chinese stocks “truly reflects the low cost base of the Chinese solar manufacturers, and it is great to see their positioning, particularly relative to their American and European counterparts,” said K. K. Chan, the chief executive of Nature Elements Capital, a Chinese clean energy investment company based in Beijing.

    He attributed the Chinese industry’s low costs not to inexpensive labor in China — high-technology solar panel manufacturing is not labor-intensive — but rather to free or subsidized land from local governments, extensive tax breaks and other state assistance.

    Solar panel prices have plunged by 30 to 42 percent per kilowatt-hour in the last year as manufacturers have sharply increased capacity, particularly in China. Meanwhile, demand has been somewhat weak in the main markets in the United States and Europe.

    Costs for electricity generated by utility-scale solar installations now approach costs for natural gas in some markets, like California’s, when subsidies of as much as 30 percent of the price are included. However, costs remain well above the cost of electricity from coal.

    The United States and the European Union have tried to build demand for solar power by subsidizing the buyers of solar panels. But increasingly those subsidies are being used to buy solar panels from China.

    The Chinese government has pursued a different policy course. Instead of subsidizing the purchase and use of solar power, China has focused on building the competitiveness of the country’s manufacturers. As a result, China exports 95 percent of the solar panels it produces. The United Steelworkers union filed a legal complaint a year ago with the United States government, asking the Obama administration to investigate China’s clean energy subsidies and other policies and to bring cases against them at the World Trade Organization. The organization’s rules strictly prohibit export subsidies, to prevent countries from buying market share in foreign markets for their producers.

    The administration did challenge one Chinese government practice: giving subsidy grants of $6.7 million and $22.5 million to Chinese wind turbine manufacturers that agreed not to buy imported components.

    China agreed in June to discontinue the practice, but by then it had already built the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturing industry over the last five years and now has highly competitive Chinese producers for almost every component.

    Nkenge L. Harmon, a spokeswoman for the United States trade representative’s office, said on Thursday that the agency’s investigation continued into whether other Chinese green energy policies might violate W.T.O. rules.

  • #2
    Re: Investing in new energy? Not so easy...

    Solar power and wind power are more about SELLING, HYPE, and GOVN'T SUBSIDIES than about producing anything in the way of electricity during periods of high demand.

    "The tell" in this is that the Govn't of China is interested in selling green-power infrastructure to the rest of the world, but the Govn't of China is not interesting in encouraging green-power solutions in the domestic Chinese market.

    If you live in Wyoming or eastern Colorado, get a windmill. If you live in the Sahara Desert, get a solar water-heater. If you live anywhere else, you go nuclear, nat. gas, hydro-electric, or filthy coal... Maybe in Iceland, you go geo-thermal....... End of story.... If you want to re-make the laws of physics and reverse the laws of economics, go talk to God.

    Now that solar-power companies are going bankrupt, maybe they might be born again selling lightning-rods to farmers.
    Last edited by Starving Steve; September 06, 2011, 10:38 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Investing in new energy? Not so easy...

      Dear SS,

      As to this part you wrote:
      "Now that solar-power companies are going bankrupt, maybe they might be born again selling lightning-rods to farmers." Those farmers may have had the last laugh. For the past decade, those old rod assemblies could be sold as antiques for excellent prices, especially if the decorative glass globes were intact. Meanwhile, the grounding wire (as well as the rod assembly) was 1/2" diameter braided copper, and likely kept up with general copper prices. In all, it was probably a decent investment. ...Not that it ever did anything about lightning.....
      I always enjoy your posts. Thanks. Stetts

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Investing in new energy? Not so easy...

        Dear SS,
        ..
        I always enjoy your posts. Thanks
        +1
        and we're still waiting on him to weigh in on the PBR 'controversy' over at:
        http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...lar-reactor-(-)
        (not the cultural icon/beer)

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Investing in new energy? Not so easy...

          another reason to be questioning - as mr c1ue is advising - BIG/targeted gov subsidies?

          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...tter-view.html
          Solar Company Failure Shows Less Federal Aid Works Better: View


          The worst and best of U.S. government policy on solar energy has been on display lately. In a cringe-worthy failure, California solar-panel maker Solyndra filed for bankruptcy this week, just two years after winning $535 million of federal loan guarantees.
          Solyndra’s rapid rise and fall should have played out entirely in the private sector. Silicon Valley is thick with venture capitalists willing to finance risky, iconoclastic startups.
          Indeed, Solyndra raised a staggering $1.1 billion from private sources since its founding in 2005. The extra federal support ended up having the well-intentioned but unfortunate effect of allowing the company to ramp up manufacturing quickly, even as evidence was emerging that it had badly misread the changing economics of the solar-panel market.
          A few years ago, prices for the silicon wafers used in most flat-panel solar systems were soaring. Solyndra proposed building an entirely different panel, using tubes coated with thin films of copper-indium-gallium-selenide that would pick up light from any direction.
          Solyndra predicted that its tubes would be far cheaper than the silicon alternative. No such luck. Silicon prices have plunged nearly 90 percent from their peak in 2008, making conventional panels the better bargains.
          Solyndra now blames its cost disadvantage on the Chinese government’s willingness to subsidize its solar-panel industry. So have two other U.S. solar companies that went belly up in recent weeks, Evergreen Solar Inc. (ESLR) and SpectraWatt Inc. Such complaints sound petulant, given that all three companies benefited from Washington’s support. The truth, as Anthony Kim of Bloomberg New Energy Finance puts it, is that “the technology did not work as well or as cheaply as hoped.”
          A day after Solyndra’s failure, it was heartening to see the Department of Energy award a total of $145 million to 69 solar energy projects taking place inside universities, government research labs and major corporations. Many of those grants are for as little as $750,000 apiece, and none is larger than $13 million. Each targets a current impediment to cheaper solar power -- and then provides initial support for a dozen or more different ideas that might lead to breakthroughs.
          Steering small amounts of money to many early-stage researchers is the best way for government to operate. Misfires don’t cost much. Successes can be huge. Private-financing alternatives are patchy at best, because these researchers’ ideas might not pay off for a decade or more. The benefits of this sort of pioneering government support can be seen in the Defense Department’s early work on computer networks, which helped make the Internet possible.
          Solyndra’s stumbles, on the other hand, underscore how poorly governments fare when they try too hard to pick industrial winners.
          To contact the Bloomberg View editorial board: view@bloomberg.net.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Investing in new energy? Not so easy...

            Originally posted by lektrode View Post
            +1
            and we're still waiting on him to weigh in on the PBR 'controversy' over at:
            http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php/20349-The-demise-of-the-pebble-bed-modular-reactor-(-)
            (not the cultural icon/beer)
            I am just a geographer/city planner/coin dealer/substitute teacher/social-democrat/and an official moron according to Victoria General Hospital in British Columbia. So, I am un-qualified to comment on the engineering viability of the pebble bed reactors. I would think that China's approach of starting with a 700 C. maximum operating temperature makes the most sense, but I would think that they could go to a much larger reactor system than one that produces 200 megawatts. The old General Electric Co. Valecitos reactor near Fremont, Cal. ( built around 1957 ) provided something like 500 mega-watts, so I would think that any reactor system ( i.e, a grouping of reactors all working together at a single power plant ) to-day could provide thousands of mega-watts, including the new pebble-bed design.

            I like the idea of going to thorium because thorium is more plentiful than Uranium-238 on Earth, and thorium can not be used to produce atomic bombs if it is stolen, also thorium does not require enrichment so that means a lower cost fuel, and thorium has less waste or no waste. In fact, I think thorium can be produced in U-238 reactors, so that is a plus. So, maybe pebble-bed thorium fuel reactors are the future of nuclear power. At least, I hope so.

            I hope my engineering comments above are approximately correct. Again, I am only a geographer and not an atomic engineer. I read Dr. Stephen Hawking's comments about the advantages of thorium fuel decades ago in his book, A Brief History of Time and Space, so I probably have gotten some of the thorium advantages here in error. Also, Dr. Edward Teller ( of UC Berkeley's Lawrence Radiation Lab ) has comments published about thorium in salt beds in a reactor as a fuel. I think Dr. Teller also has a book about atomic energy to be read by common people, but I don't recall its name.
            Last edited by Starving Steve; September 08, 2011, 01:34 PM.

            Comment

            Working...
            X