A Cloudy Outlook for First Solar

Interesting article this month in Kiplinger's Magazine on difficulties faced by one of our leaders in renewable energy.  Here's part of it:

An alternative-energy leader comes under pressure as government subsidies shrink.

By Kathy Kristof, Contributing Editor, Kiplinger's Personal Finance

t was once one of the brightest lights in alternative energy. But the future has dimmed for First Solar (symbol FSLR), the nation’s largest producer of photovoltaic equipment.

The once-hot stock, which traded for as much as $317 a share in May 2008, fetched just $35 on January 6. Its descent accelerated in 2011 after the Tempe, Ariz., company ousted its CEO and started cutting earnings forecasts late in the year. It now sees a profit of $3.75 to $4.25 per share this year—roughly half of what it was expected to have made in 2011. The stock (which we recommended in our June 2009 issue at $142) now trades at just 9 times the midpoint of the forecasted-earnings range.

Yet even at this seemingly bargain-basement price, few analysts are bullish. There are just too many uncertainties facing the industry and the company, says Citi Investment Research analyst Timothy Arcuri, who rates the stock a “hold.”

“Developing solar projects is very capital-intensive, and the payback is a little unclear,” he says..."

Read more: http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/picks/archive/first-solar-FSLR-stock-alternative-energy-photovoltaic-equipment.html#ixzz1mVByVK51

And, so , we face the end of government subsidies.  Many would say that is a good thing, the industry should stand on its own.  But, I'm not sure I agree.  We know, long-term, renewable energy helps us in many ways, economic, bringing money back home from reduced imports, to cleaner air.  Isn't that worth subsidizing? 

Why should the oil companies and other traditional energy companies continue to get propped up the government with tax credits, grants for R & D, legal limits and protection?  Should we stand by while they risk our environmental future by digging aggressively into sands and rock while clean energy companies fade away?

No, we should not.  To do so is folly. 

Read more »

Are gas prices going to sink the recovery?/WARL show today 12-1p

Take a look at the video we posted last night and send us your comments.

Don't forget to listen in to our radio show today on WARL 1320 AM, 12-1p, EST.

More later.

Read more »

Thanks to Mark Learn

For another great article and for being a major contributor to Renewable Now:

Concentrated Solar Startup Sets a New Efficiency Record

Semprius makes solar modules using tiny cells that need less cooling

"Semprius, a startup that makes miniscule solar cells capable of capturing concentrated sunlight without costly cooling systems, announced this week that it had made the world's most efficient solar panel.

The company's solar panels use tiny solar cells made of gallium arsenide—the record-breaking solar module contains hundreds of such solar cells, each about the width of a line drawn by a ball-point pen, arranged under lenses that concentrate sunlight 1,100 times.

Gallium arsenide is far better at absorbing sunlight than silicon, the material used in most solar cells, but it's also more expensive. Furthermore, although concentrated solar modules use less semiconducting material, they usually require expensive optics, cooling systems, and tracking systems to keep them aimed at the sun. Semprius's microscaled solar cells are inherently much better at dissipating heat, making them cheaper..."

There's plenty more--here's the link:  http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/39624/page1/

Solar prices, as you probably know, have plummeted.  Yet, their production continues to spiral.  We just commissioned our 175kw solar array, and the energy produced, in the middle of winter on the East Coast of the US, has been terrific.  Our ROI is already ahead of schedule.

Imagine what is possible with solar cells that concentrate sunlight 1100 times and don't need expensive cooling systems to maintain their high production.  We we will get is amazing levels of energy at bargain prices.

Kudos to Semprius and other great innovators of the world.

Read more »

Our newest sponsor. Thank you

 

Rhode Island College Speaker Series

Read more »

New show this weekend on ABC 6

Read more »

Love this article

Here is the essence, looking at the consumer side, of the business side of green...the investment and return of branding green.

This from Environmental Leader:

Will Customers Pay More for ‘Green?’

"Will people pay to go green? That’s a key question – maybe the question – for any company committed to sustainability. At Walmart, we’ve learned that the answer is a bit nuanced: Basically, usually not – but it depends.

Some customers will pay more for certain products that are better for the environment, and their top purchases include chicken, milk, fruits and vegetables, household cleaners and laundry/dish care. The environmentally responsible products they are less likely to pay more for? TVs, cell phones, computers, beer, pork, mops and sponges and printers.

The economy remains a far more pressing concern. More than 70 percent of consumers say they worry more about price than whether a product is good for the environment or socially responsible, according to an October 2010 study by the Harrison Group.

What does that mean for us? Our approach to sustainability must be nuanced as well.

We’ve found that there is a group of shoppers who are fans of items such as free-range eggs and green cleaning products like Seventh Generation and Mrs. Meyer’s. We stock a full offering of those products in many of our stores. They can be more expensive but some people will pay more because they feel good about them.

But many shoppers cannot or will not pay more. That’s where we are getting creative and using our size and scale – and partnerships with suppliers – to drive down prices. We can do a lot of good by helping to make the products people are already buying more sustainable so they don’t have to make changes to what they buy to make a difference.

For instance: televisions, lettuce and laundry detergent.

Flat-panel TVs can use a lot of energy, but this is a category where many people don’t want to pay a premium for a more sustainable option. We committed to stocking only more energy-efficient panels, and because of our scale, the cost of the technology came down as did the prices for our customers..."

Here's the link for the rest: http://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/02/07/will-customers-pay-more-for-green/

Our company has worked to brand as the greenest moving company in the world, and it has brought us new business, no doubt. However, we live it, breath it and invest heavily to make sure it is true.

The bottom line is passion for what you do, what goods or services you deliver, and giving customers, regardless of whether your product or service is green, the very best value they can fine.

With that, you will get a very good ROI on your investment in being a sustainable company.

Read more »

Wisconsin lawmakers weary of wind setback issue

From an article by Dan Haugen on Midwest Energy News:

Wisconsin’s politically contested wind-turbine siting rules would quietly go back on the books if the state’s legislature doesn’t take up the issue this session.

While it’s premature for wind energy supporters to declare victory, the rules’ opponents appear to have little appetite for reopening the controversy, according to observers.

“This is an issue they don’t want to have anything to do with right now,” says Michael Vickerman, director of Renew Wisconsin, a renewable energy advocacy group. “It’s kind of reached the radioactive phase.”
The first-in-the-nation rules were aimed at streamlining the messy, often shifting patchwork of local setback rules, which govern the distance wind developers need to leave between turbines and adjacent homes. A 2009 law instructed regulators to comes up with a statewide setback policy. After two years of hearings and debate, they issued rules restricting turbines from within 1,250 feet of neighboring residences.

On the day the rules were to take effect last March, however, a Republican-controlled legislative committee voted along party lines to suspend the statewide rules. Gov. Scott Walker instead proposed an 1,800-foot setback from the nearest property line, which the American Wind Energy Association said would essentially shut down the state’s wind industry.

Since then, wind developers have cited regulatory uncertainty in suspending or canceling five major developments totaling $1.6 billion in economic investment. Vickerman says wind energy supporters have successfully highlighted the economic consequences of Walker’s action, which is why party leadership seems to have lost interest in the fight.

“These guys are afraid because the issue has boomeranged on them,” says Vickerman. “Scott Walker does not really want to be known as someone who has killed jobs by basically shutting down the commercial wind industry in Wisconsin, and neither do the legislative leaders.”

Read more »