Point / Counterpoint
A guy writes a very pro-solar energy article at an investment website and then receives 35+ comments with links and facts to why solar energy is a waste of money and a government boondoggle.
From Matthew Frankel at
Seeking Alpha:
The Hidden Impact Of Solar: Why You Should Care
I often get chastised by my readers for my love of, and belief in the solar industry. However, I completely understand that stand-alone companies (such as First Solar (FSLR)) may not turn profitable without government help for some time. Many investors are simply not willing to wait for what could be decades to see a nice return on their investment. Others simply don't believe the solar industry is viable at all.
I still adamantly believe that solar power is the energy source of the future, more so than clean coal, nuclear, wind, geothermal, and fossil fuels combined. My reasons for this are too many to list here; however, please take a look at another article of mine that provides an in-depth argument of why solar will be the next big thing in energy.
What most investors don't know is how far into the market solar energy has an impact. More major companies than the average investor is aware of are delving into solar power. There are companies that are well-positioned to capitalize on their large R&D resources, manufacturing capacities, and cash flows to create a big presence in the alternative energy industry in the years to come.
And the comments:
From
Davewmart:
Looking at the 'other article' provides no more clues on any solid grounds for your over-estimation of solar.
About the only one I could dig out there was the claim:'The sheer cost of building a nuclear plant alone is prohibitively expensive to most of the developing nations where this increased need in power is going to be.'
Really?
The cost of building a nuclear plant in China is around half of that in the US.
Here are cost comparisons for different energy sources both in terms of levelised costs and overnight by country:
http://bit.ly/YEc2A6
These cost estimates are on a plant basis, and do not include the very large costs imposed on the grid to make up for the intermittency of renewables:'The study considers six technologies in detail: nuclear, coal, gas, onshore wind, offshore wind and solar. It finds that the so-called dispatchable technologies - coal, gas and nuclear - have system costs of less than $3 per MWh, while the system costs for renewables can reach up to $40 per MWh for onshore wind, $45 per MWh for offshore wind and $80 per MWh for solar. The costs for renewables vary depending on the country, technology and penetration levels, with higher system costs for greater penetration of renewables.
Currently, the report notes, these costs tend to be unacknowledged and are absorbed by consumers through high network charges and by the producers of dispatchable energy through reduced margins and lower load factors. Failing to account for system costs is, NEA says, "adding implicit subsidies to already sizeable explicit subsidies for variable renewables." '
http://bit.ly/TBY1g6
I am all for the use of solar where it makes sense ie within around 20 degrees of the equator and in off grid situations.
I am also hopeful that eventually, and that is certainly not the case today, it will make economic sense for peak load in areas like Arizona where demand and supply coincide on an annular basis.
What is complete nonsense is the generalisation of this handy relatively minor resource into something supposedly able to substitute for nuclear power, even in areas where most demand is in the winter and there is very little sun then.
Solar pv costs are dropping, but that is panel prices, which no longer form a very major part of the costs.
And it just gets better and better. The author chimes in several times only to get whacked down with facts...
Posted by DaveH at December 2, 2012 5:23 PM