Renewable Energy Business Consulting and Investment Services

Continuing my discussion of solar energy from yesterday ….

The intermittent nature of solar energy also raises questions on its feasibility in certain geographies. The Mojave Desert may get a lot of sun, but the same is not true for other parts of the country. Besides, most solar panels convert only 22 percent of the radiations they capture into electric energy. This means that a typical solar farm has to cover a big area to produce electricity in meaningful amounts, such as the one proposed by BrightSource Energy Inc. in Mojave.

The 600,000 acre solar farm never materialized as environmentalists opposed the idea of generating energy inside a national monument.
Even after much research, solar energy cannot solve energy problems singlehandedly. It is necessary to have continuous power supply which in turn means having to store excess energy. Many advances in solar thermal energy technologies are still unable to provide the required supply of strength.

Notwithstanding these issues, supporters claim that the issues aren’t with the technology but the implementation of the solar policies. Lack of a unified national policy is one of them. US has a piecemeal approach for the solar panel installations including different, local incentives on state level. An aggressive stance taken by the Spanish government last year caused a glut in the market. Companies lined up to take advantage of the generous government subsidies in Spain adding 2 GW of electric capacity in just 12 months. However, when the government announced to reduce the subsidies in September 2008, the move caused massive job losses and an eventual bust.

Quite opposite, US hasn’t implemented a unified, central policy. Experts claim that the lack of such a policy isn’t desirable. Instead, a cautious national approach such as the one taken by Germany is the best way to go about the solar equation. The German law requires utility companies to buy energy from solar plants at higher rates and to feed the energy into their grids, ensuring buying guarantees for solar plants. In US, California is one of the states with such a law. The state approved a feed-in tariff policy in October but the need for such a policy at national level is certainly felt in expert circles.

Absence of a national policy has also resulted in solar companies taking advantage of the taxpayer’s money by availing different subsidies from governments for same project. The state of Oregon had to enact new rules last month to make it difficult for companies to qualify for multiple tax credits.

Lately, the performance of solar companies has improved after the financial turmoil. Most of the solar companies have reported improved quarterly financials beating sales and earnings expectations. Although different formats of solar panels are emerging, both crystalline silicon and relatively new thin-film technologies are expected to flourish, crystalline silicon technology is expected to have an upper hand as far as installation on urban rooftops is considered due to higher energy efficiency.

ADRs of the China-based Trina Solar Limited, a monocrystalline PV module manufacturer have run up 46 percent in November. On the other hand, thin-film players might spring a surprise as the technology is blessed with lower cost of production.

In the long run, the emphasis on renewable sources including solar is likely to increase but in the medium term, the popularity of solar energy and other renewable sources is likely to remain a function of the availability of cheaper or easier alternatives.

With the increasing usage of renewable sources for energy generation, solar energy is touted as one of the most readily available renewable sources of energy. It will not be incorrect to say that green energy is in vogue these days as a result of government subsidies. Solar industry has come a long way from being a niche and expensive industry to the one witnessing institutional and retail involvement alike.

Solar energy comes in the form of radiations which are used to produce electricity in addition to heating applications. Silicone based panels are used to collect the radiation. Solar energy is environment friendly because it has virtually zero greenhouse emissions. Primarily, this is the reason that the energy form has been promoted by the government. Barring the initial capital cost, solar energy is maintenance free and doesn’t require any subsequent investment.

The government is encouraging the use of solar energy by giving federal aids to the equipment manufacturers and giving rebates to the end consumers through electric utilities. While the stimulus funds by government drives down the price of the solar panels on the manufacturing side, consumer rebates drive the retail market. In addition, solar photo-voltaic (PV) manufacturers are successfully tapping the capital markets to raise money. Two thin film solar technology companies raised more than US$400 million last week.

Electric utilities in the US have been giving rebates to the customers for installing rooftop solar energy systems. Even with a growing market, increasing consumer interest and rebates, the use of solar energy continues to be small compared to other forms of energy. Solar power generates only about 0.02 percent of the world’s energy supply.

A part of the problem lies with the cost. Traditional economics tells that mass production of a commodity leads to lower costs, but the companies involved in solar panel production have not been able to do so. Although, the production cost of solar panels has been decreasing over years, the industry has faced a new setback in the form of economic slump last year. It has become more expensive for a utility or company to raise capital to build solar projects this year than in the previous years. High cost of financing in this high capital investment industry is the proverbial straw which breaks the camel’s back.

Pressure on the margins has compelled the companies to look for the ways to cut corners. As happened with Evergreen Solar, the company started a facility in Devens, Boston (Massachusetts) this summer with much fanfare and promise to create green jobs. The state helped the facility to the tune of US$58 million only to see around 400 of the newly created jobs being shifted to China. While the company can be accused of backstabbing the government aid in light of having tripled its sales last year, the truth remains that the company lost as much as three times last year due to higher cost.

Quite similar was the fate of a planned facility in Auburn (Massachusetts) by Boston Power Inc. The company was seeking federal aid of US$100 million to build a factory creating 600 jobs. Boston Power, which makes advanced batteries to store energy generated by the solar panels, decided not to invest its own money after it failed to garner support from the government.

More on this tomorrow.