An Investment in Solar May Be “Socially Responsible” – But That’s Only One Way To Look At It
When I was in Boston on Tuesday I recorded a webinar in the office of Esplanade Capital’s founder Shawn Kravetz, who provided almost a full hour of really sharp insight into the ever-changing world of investment in solar photovoltaics.
In the course of the discussion, I asked Shawn if he wished to share any observations on the way the solar industry, or renewable energy in general, is treated vis-à-vis subsidies. Obviously, the PV industry has benefited greatly from the support it has received from the public sector all over the world, most notably Germany. However, these subsidies are inconsistent, unpredictable, and, in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars that are dumped into the coffers of the oil companies each year, quite modest in scope.
I loved Shawn’s response. He smiled, and quoted (the great U.S. football team New England Patriot’s head coach) Bill Belichick, who said, “We do business as business is done.” I took this to mean (and please feel free to comment if you think I’ve misread this remark) “There may be a place for idealism, but it certainly isn’t the business world.”
This is one of the many reasons I like the cut of the Esplanade Capital’s jib. They’ve dialed down into solar as a strictly business proposition – and an incredibly complex and dynamic one at that. They don’t even represent their enterprise as SRI (socially responsible investing). While Shawn privately may, as a person of conscience, hope that renewable energy prevails on Earth (and he clearly does) you certainly won’t hear a single mention of this in his presentation. If you’re an accredited investor who happens to think that solar is likely to gain ground, for whatever reason – social, moral, or purely financial — you may want to check them out.
Solar is key player, and we need more of it to make any difference.The hotter the temp.the better it works, and best for peek hours,when we need it most.
I think the future is better served with 24/7 green energy, not out there yet in big numbers,but proven to work.
Ocean power is the biggest missed opportunity for almost free green energy. Oceans rise 10 to 15 feet on most coastlines,twice a day ,with water going in both directions,every minute,24/7 why aren’t we tapping this free energy 24/7?
Do you think we can ? Or do you know we can ?
I do , and want to bring 24/7 green energy to the world ,ASAP,Join me at edmimmo@hotmail.com
WHAT? Actually, the tide rolls in or out for 13 hours then reverses and so it’s water flow velocity follows a sine wave with no movement at the change in direction from in to out then slowly accelerates to a max velocity in 6.5 hours, then slows for 6.5 hours more and stops 13 hours after it started moving and repeats in the opposite direction. As the velocity follows the sine function, the water level follows the cosine function.
Have you ever seen a single wave hit a shoreline,displacing thousands of gallons per second,then it is gone.
Imagine trapping and using some of that energy,24/7. free ,free , almost free, say it cost 1 million ,and you sold $500,000 a year of green energy,It’s almost free in 2 years right
“Oceans rise 10 to 15 feet on most coastlines,twice a day ,with water going in both directions,every minute,24/7 why aren’t we tapping this free energy 24/7?”
Free? Free?
It would be free only if there were no investment cost. The interest on an investment is just as much a cost as is the cost of fuel.
If the investment cost to generate power from the tides resulted in a cost of electricity 50 times greater than the cost of electricity from coal, I very much doubt that anyone would consider it to be free. Of course the investment cost could be eliminated if you and enough other people agreed to donate the necessary funds without getting a return on your investment. That, plus donating at no charge the necessary funds to maintain the system would result in free power.
Really, Est.cost for a new nuclear plant 10 billion.
Cost for new dirty oil plant 1 billion.
Cost for new more dirty coal plant 1 billion
Cost for a 24/7 green energy, clean air, reduce
carbon emissions, Priceless! wake-up and smell the smog ,killing the roses.
Not really.
The cost of nuclear plants has been intentionally raised by the anti-nuclear crowd to make nuclear too expensive. That has been done by using the court system to delay licensing and plant completion. When that is done, interest costs escalate while the plant is not generating any power. That can easily more than double the cost.
Also, it is a mistake to be unaware of alternative nuclear technologies. There are many ways to design nuclear reactors; some are far better than others. We have made the serious mistake of choosing a very bad nuclear technology. That causes huge nuclear waste problems because the nuclear fuel is used very inefficiently; perfectly good nuclear fuel is discarded after less than 1% of its available energy is used. It also makes it necessary to use multiple layers of expensive safety provisions to reduce the risks of an accident.
Instead of eschewing nuclear power, we should be spending more on R & D to prepare safer and more economical nuclear systems for implementation.
Surely one would not insist that we abandon cars because in 1910 many people broke their arms crank starting them. That is about what the anti-nuclear crowd is doing with nuclear power.
Instead of condemning nuclear power, do your own research. Read about the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), the integral fast reactor (IFR) and other nuclear technologies, getting information from multiple sources.
Thanks for the good info,but nobody wants it in their backyard.
Last one we built,I believe was in the 80’s on Long Island N.Y. for 5 billion,still off-line. Try to get that one running ,with the best new system going.
I don’t think it will happen,but
had we spent 5 billion on tidal power,wave capture,(not out there but soon will be)with low head turbines(already out there)back in the 80’s.
We’d be a lot greener. A $1 then got you more than 1 gallon of gas. It didn’t go over a $1 till 1996,now it’s 3.65 heading for $4
Looks like it doubles every 10 years,we can expect $7 a gallon by 2023,or before.
Back to green energy,we must go green soon,in all sectors,we owe it to the next generation,
it’s just the right thing to do.
Until now, nuclear power plants have been built near bodies of water to ensure a ready supply of cooling water. However, nuclear reactors that can operate at much higher temperatures could use air cooling instead of water cooling.
In particular, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) can operate at much higher temperatures making it possible to use the Brayton cycle (the working fluid would be a gas, probably helium) instead of the Rankine (steam) cycle which requires water cooled condensers to have an acceptably high efficiency.
So, if we implement a nuclear technology that does not require cooling water, then nuclear power plants can be built away from high population areas. They could even be built in deserts.
Solar is being restrained by the PV panel makers. They are making the most inefficient panel they can devise to increase manufacturing profits. Think outside their box, the active elements do not have to me the total surface area of the collector. simple reflectors and increased collection area with solar rays reflected onto the collector so the panel is getting two or three times the light from the sun increase electrical output, of course the panel total area including PV panels and reflectors take more space but price of total installation is reduced while electrical energy output is increased. meanwhile the PV manufacturers hold to forcing more PV panel sales and no reflectors to increase efficiency by a warranty clause voiding the warranty if reflectors are used to increase output.But they also claim the PV Panel can withstand over nine times light levels.Read their own bragging on the “Spec Sheet.” I call that an unfair business practice.
There are problems with your post.
If PV manufacturers were trying to make PV more expensive than necessary, they would be risking being forced out of business; there is competition.
Also, while mirrors can greatly increase the capacity of PV panels, that works only in direct sunlight. On cloudy days, the concentration resulting from mirrors would not work and the amount of power would be less than what it would be if no mirrors were used and the PV area were increased.
There is a trade-off. In areas where cloudy days are rare, mirrors could make sense. But in cloudy areas, which includes most of Germany, systems using mirrors would not work well at all.
Hi Frank, Desserts sounds great,still $10 billion, say you get it down to $8 billion
still not likely,it’s payback is 8-10 years running,20 years if your paying interest,.
If we spent 10 billion on solar panels,no one would have to drive an hour to go work in a dessert,and we’d have a million people working,singing,” O sole` mio,” all day.
We don’t know exactly how much nuclear power plants will cost after adequate R & D has been done to prepare better nuclear technologies for implementation.
With currently available technology, solar and wind power cannot replace sources of power that can produce power 24 hours per say 365 days per year. Both solar and wind power are intermittent and there is no energy storage technology that can store enough energy at an acceptable price to make solar and wind practical as a major source of power for large developed countries.
Nuclear R & D was terminated during the Clinton administration; it was said to be unnecessary. Had the R & D not been terminated, we might be implementing better nuclear technologies right now.
It is often said that one of the advantages of wind and solar power is that they will employ more people. But if that were true, would it really be an advantage? If renewables would employ significantly more people, presumably that would increase the cost of the power produced. The reason that the Industrial Revolution succeeded in raising standards of living is that it made people more productive, i.e., it took fewer people to accomplish the same amount of work thereby reducing prices.
The preferred way to evaluate investments is not payback. Rather, it is internal rate of return.
I do agree with most of what you say and solar,and wind will always be a small band-aid to our problem.
Hydroelectric now almost extinct is our only 24/7 green energy,
and the largest green energy worldwide,most countries @ 20%.
I believe the R&D needs to be in ocean generated power,
it is out there in small batches,
and some Einstein can soon get more energy from a coastline,
at 1/10 the cost of the next nuclear
plant even if that plant is only
5 billion 80’s price.
Check out the “sharks” on Friday night they all want a quick return,
and a good profit,
At one time, over 50% of the electricity here in the U.S. was provided by hydro power. It may not be quite extinct, but as our need for power increased and concerns for the environmental impact of power increased, hydro gradually provided a lower percentage of our electricity.
Probably R & D on ocean power should be done. Even though it seems to be of questionable practicality, there have been surprises. Even if it is never practical here in the U.S., it might turn out to be practical for some small island nations.