Category Archives: solar cells

“US Energy Independent By 2035”-International Energy Agency


The International Energy Agency (IEA) released their 2012 edition of the World Energy Outlook (WEO) on Monday, 12 November 2012. The take-away from the report is:
The WEO finds that the extraordinary growth in oil and natural gas output in the United States will mean a sea-change in global energy flows. In the New Policies Scenario, the WEO’s central scenario, the United States becomes a net exporter of natural gas by 2020 and is almost self-sufficient in energy, in net terms, by 2035. North America emerges as a net oil exporter, accelerating the switch in direction of international oil trade, with almost 90% of Middle Eastern oil exports being drawn to Asia by 2035.  
 
The new oil and natural gas production in the US will not only result in lower domestic prices for gasoline, electricity and heating oil, it could result in delivering our nation from the endless traumata that are the turbulent Middle-Eastern nations.  Will we feel it necessary to defend shipping routes any more?  Will we need to provide F-16 fighter planes to Saudia Arabia? I wonder if the European or perhaps the Saudis, are becoming nervous thinking that they might have to do for themselves what we have been doing for them.  Maybe the Chinese will take up the slack.  I’m not sure that is a comforting thought.  

Will The Solar Industry Survive?


Manufacturers of Solar Panels

Since the demise of the German solar panel industry, the major solar panel manufacturers are mostly Chinese. There are others such as Sunpower (French) and First Solar (American).   Sunpower, formerly an American firm, is now owned by TOTAL, the French petroleum giant.  Sunpower, formed in 1985, had stopped producing solar cells last year.  They were nearing bankruptcy having lost some $600 million.  However, they were able to restructure when TOTAL bought 60% of the company.  While the company has survived, the market does not have much confidence in its future.  In October, 2009 Sunpower shares sold for about $32.  Those shares now sell for $5.   Across the World, the subsidies that have been doled out for solar energy projects are diminished or have vanished altogether.  As of September, none of these firms are making a profit. 

Why Are The Solar Panels Makers Not Making a Profit?

A posting by the Telegraph (UK) reports on the Chinese solar panel makers’ financials: ”China’s big five firms are all reporting disastrous trading and heavily indebted balance sheets. At the end of the first quarter, JA Solar listed debt and liabilities of $1.5 billion, Trina Solar had debts of $1.08 billion, and Yingli had debts of $3.44 billion.  Suntech, once held up as a model company, could have to pay $690m in collateral related to a possible fraud, and it also has a $541m convertible bond payment in early 2013. Its total debts are $3.58 billion.  In the first quarter, LDK lost $185.2m as sales dropped by nearly 75pc.”

The manufacturers, particularly in China are increasing their production capacity so that it far exceeds solar panel demand and ironically, at a time when demand is slowing due to reduced or eliminated US and European government subsidies given to builders of solar farms. Further acerbating the profit problem is that some of the Chinese manufacturers are reported to be selling below the cost of manufacture (this is Dumping). The US has imposed a tariff on imported Chinese solar panels. The Europeans are charging the Chinese with “Dumping” and the result will be that the Chinese will lose that market too.  

China seems to be of two minds here.  The government is supporting these expansions because the government needs new jobs to contain China’s huge, annual increase of job seekers. Many believe that they will continue to build solar farms for the same reason. The competitiveness of all this is often secondary in a government run economy. Remember that the Soviet Union did this before they went broke.  Our government is not too far off of that track themselves when it comes to “renewable energy”.

Are Solar Farms Competitive?

Solar farms are the least competitive form of renewable energy.    

The US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that solar projects provide the most expensive power.   The EIA estimated levelized cost of new generation resources coming on line in 2017 are:

Type of Generation Cost   $/megawatt-h
Natural Gas- Conventional Combined Cycle 66.1
Conventional Coal 97.7**
Advanced Nuclear 111.4
Wind-On-Shore 96.0
Solar 152.7
  **potential C tax included

                                                                                                                                  

Solar is 2.3 times more expensive than natural gas.   The only reason anyone builds solar farms is because the Federal government loans the crony capitalists the money at basically no risk to the borrowers and then the States require the utilities pass on the cost on the their customers. The consumer pays at least 50% more for this form of electricity.  

The on-line German “Focus” posted an interview with Klaus Dieter Maubach, the Technology Chairman of E.On a major German power company and Maubach said:  (This quote is a translation from the German by Google translator)  Germany’s solar industry will disappear in the next five years in the face of competition from China. Not a single worker is still working at the German solar companies, as the latter are then all broke, it cited the Bloomberg news agency.”  The English also are becoming tired of supporting renewable solar.  The Spanish and Italian governments are reducing subsidies dramatically.   My guess that no matter which man, Obama or Romney, is elected President, the US government subsidies for solar will not be renew.  

Perhaps more money should be directed toward the development of Thorium reactors. We need to talk about these reactors in a posting.

cbdakota

Another Solar Energy Company To File For Bankruptcy


Abound Solar, one of four solar energy companies provided loans by the Department of Energy is expected to file for bankruptcy protection the first week in July.  The company received $70 million in federal loans.  The company employs 125.  Solyndra was one of the four receiving loans, and as you probably know, it has gone bankrupt, too.

Slate.com posts “Why No One Should Be Surprised That Another Obama-Backed Solar Startup Is Going Bust.”  The tone of their posting is that Conservatives will be gleeful about this company going bust.  Conservatives do not get off on failures of companies and lost jobs.  In fact the people planning on causing people to loose jobs are those in the current administration doing their best to put all the people employed in the coal industry out of jobs.  If that objective is realized, as directed by President Obama,  it will make 125 jobs lost look insignificant.

Conservatives want R&D monies to be expended on solar cell research.  Not for the government to be picking and choosing businesses for which their record in one of failure.  The Administrations efforts to strong-arm wind and solar has so far yielded little to be proud of.  These operations are only valuable to their cronies that take little to no risk all at the expense of the taxpayer and specifically the ratepayers that have to absorb the vastly overpriced product .  The Energy Information Agency of the US Department of Energy categorizes wind and solar as Non-Dispatchable TechnologiesThat means their delivery is too unreliable for the grids to be useable.   These technologies are not ready for PRIME TIME.   Wind and Solar will remain non-viable until such time that low cost,  large-scale energy storage is developed.

Yes, we know as Slate tells us,  the Chinese have dropped the prices of solar cells to a point where our domestic companies can not compete.  But even the cheaper solar cells don’t make solar farms viable.

cbdakota

Solar Panels Don’t Work


Ray Burgess, the President & CEO at Solar Power Technologies Inc posted on the Aol Energy website, “Solar Panels Don’t Work. And No One Knows.” That is a provocative title.  Burgess said: “Solar panels do not work that well. Often far below expectations.  And few know it. Not the owners who depend on power. Not the bankers who finance it. Not the brokers who insure it.”

The economic models that are used to finance, insure and subsidize solar farms assume the solar panels degrade about 0.5% per year. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) says that they can degrade as much as 4.5% a year or more.

At this point you may be wondering who or what is the NREL.  According to Wikipedia they are: “The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), located in Golden, Colorado is the United States primary laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency, research and development. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is a government-owned, contractor-operated facility; it is funded through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).”   This is not an organization that opposes renewable energy.”

Burgess adds: The latest issue of the leading industry trade journal Photovoltaics International, asks the question: “What is the real quality of the products I am buying?”  Short answer: Nobody knows. In Italy last year, “they discovered that after one year in the field, over 90% of the (solar panels) from a one megawatt project began to delaminate and ended up on the ground.”   “Delaminate: Scientific talk for falling apart. And these panels had all the standard certifications.”

Burgess’ company sells systems that monitor performance of solar farms.  The company’s systems presumably can detect individual problem that are causing substandard performance.  He lists below, some of the performance inhibitors.

“Solar production in the field can go bad for dozens and dozens of reasons: An errant golf ball. A passing flock of geese. Bullets. Leaves. Shadows. Dirt. If a leaf or bird dropping prevents the sun from hitting part of your solar array, that knocks out solar production in an area 36 times the obstruction.”

Now I don’t know how that multiplier works, but I will take him at his word.

The above along with the problem of the inability to schedule energy production due to variability of the Sun, makes this form of energy less appealing.

cbdakota

California’s Global Warming Solutions Act”—Part 2.


The Democratic polling firm of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates at the request of the “Vote Solar Initiative” organization polled some 400 Los Angles residents and found according to an Aol Energy blog posting:

“The vast majority of Los Angeles residents are demanding more renewable energy, especially solar power, according to a new survey. Around 87 percent of voters want solar energy to generate more electricity and 79 percent welcome more wind power. Around three out of four voters (76 percent) say the solar power should be generated from rooftop panels.”

Aside from a pro-solar organization hiring a liberal Democrat polling organization to fashion a poll to get them the answers they wanted, the poll results show how far removed from reality are the LA citizens.  They are clamoring for more government intervention which is what has given California the 3rd highest unemployment rate in the country,  the 9th highest electricity rate and the 3rd highest gasoline cost. It’s the poorer people that are suffering the most.  This will be made even worse as the price of electricity continues its climb as they force in more uneconomical solar based production and drive out much lower cost fossil fuel production. This conclusion is also dawning on the Germans according to the Global Warming Policy Foundation: “The current funding of Germany’s green energy transition is anti-social, according to a new report by the Institute of the German Economy. The economic burden due to the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) is up to 10 times higher for low-income households than for high-income households.”

The preliminary 2012 Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) estimates for levelized costs per kilowatt-hour in 2017 are 15.7 cents for a photovoltaic solar plant and 25.1 cents for a thermal solar plant.  That is far more expensive than the 6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour for conventional combined cycle natural gas and the 10 cents per kilowatt-hour for conventional coal in those same EIA estimates.  Also,  the EIA inflates the cost of coal by the equivalent of $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted to represent the difficulty of obtaining financing for coal plants. Further, it does not appear that the EIA levelized cost for conventional combined cycle natural gas plant is getting credited for the lower price of natural gas resulting from fracking shale.

The survey also said that:

“Most voters believe Los Angeles should create 1,200 megawatts of power from the sun, which is LADWP’s percentage of the state goal of 12,000 megawatts of local clean power by 2020.”  

And they inform us that 1200megawatts is enough to power 260,000 homes.  The calculation for number of homes powered  is suspect as it is varies from solar power promoter to promoter.  Without power storage, some other source of electricity most likely from a fossil fuel powered source is necessary because the lights would go out on these homes at night when the sun is no longer shining.  So much for reducing carbon emissions.  I wonder if California Air Resources Board (CARB) has put that in their solar energy calculations?

More on Solar cell reliability, etc. in my next posting on this topic.

cbdakota

$141M Solar Plant Has 5 Full Time Employees.This is a Success?


The Nevada Copper Mountain Solar 1 plant is being visited today, 21 March by President Obama where he will deliver remarks on his Administration’s focus on diversifying our energy portfolio.   Solar 1 is the US’s largest photovoltaic power plant.  It cost $141 million to build.  According to the Nevada Journal: “Funding included $42 million in federal-government tax credits and $12 million in tax-rebate commitments from the state of Nevada.”  It has 5 full-time employees.  About $10 M of incentives per green job.  Apparently the President considers this a success.

President Obama’s visit to the Solar 1 Facility in Boulder City is the perfect illustration of why the president’s economic policies are such a failure,” said Andy Matthews, president of Nevada Policy Research Institute, (NPRI). “The government has spent over $50 million to ‘create’ five permanent jobs and build a plant producing a product — expensive solar energy — that no one would purchase without a government mandate.

“That’s not a path to a vibrant economy; it’s the road to serfdom. This mindset — of government attempting to pick winners and losers in the economy through subsidies and regulation — is a major reason why the national unemployment rate is at 8.3 percent, Nevada’s unemployment rate is 12.7 percent and the national debt is over $15.5 trillion.”

Kyle Gillis, a reporter for the Nevada Journal, the source of much of this posting, adds: “Solar plants aren’t the only government-funded energy projects in Nevada that haven’t lived up to their proponents’ promises. The Reno Gazette-Journal recently reported that seven local windmills that cost taxpayers $1 million to install have only saved the City of Reno $2,785 in electricity costs over their 18 months of existence”.

The Solar 1 plant is associated with Bolder City, NV but the power generated is being sent to Southern California.  California mandate’s power must be 20% renewable by 2010, 33% renewable by 2020. They did not achieve the 2010 level of 20%.  If the California Utilities supplying the energy do not comply, they risk being fined.  Californians seem to want to drive business from their state with many environmental policies that businesses just can’t afford.  California’s electricity price is 9th highest in the nation only surpassed by Hawaii, and group of Northeastern states such as Connecticut, and New York. By the way, hydroelectric power is not considered renewable under this California mandate.

Obama used his “luddite” and “straw man” speech today. I cannot recall a President in my lifetime that has been so incautious with what he says.   I guess it goes with the territory of being on a constant campaign.  I would think the appropriate name for the President is “fabulist”—and of course I am saying that politely.

I want to leave you with a chart that shows the hill that solar and wind have to climb to reach the heights that the President and his sycophants have set.   As you look at the chart below, think of Matt Ridley’s words: “To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero.

 WORLD ENERGY USE 

This chart is from Wikipedia.   The data is 2006 but it things wont have changed much by 2011 in terms of percentages.

cbdakota