backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 152 comment(s) - last by jlips6.. on May 6 at 9:42 PM
Long treated with a wary eye, soaring gas costs and improved processes and materials have led investors to start taking solar seriously

Recently DailyTech reported on how companies like Sungevity are revolutionizing the consumer solar power industry. Companies are cutting costs in estimating using satellite imagery, cutting production costs with mass production and computer optimized installation infrastructures, and utilizing improved materials.

The solar industry has been booming and experiencing the heaviest financial investment in years.  Among them are a plethora of enterprising web startups looking to connect people to solar panels in the most efficient way possible.  Among them is Joseph Brakohiapa, CEO of Clean Power Finance.  His company just scored a major contract last Friday with German solar panel manufacturer Conergy, which use the company's financing options and software resources in its U.S. distribution network. 

The founder of Clean Power Finance is Gary Kremen, a rather legendary investment entrepreneur, known for his acquisition of the infamous domain name Sex.com.  Kremen and other big names in investment capital are showing newfound enthusiasm for the solar industry and online options.  Their take is by making the panel buying and installation process more like leasing a car, customers will take to it in droves.  In their mind, once people see how much money they'll be saving in a month, and how little hassle it will require, it will be easier to bring them onboard.

The biggest challenge is upfront costs.  Solar panels can cost $20,000 to $35,000 on a standard size home, and installation can be as high as half the cost of the panels themselves.  Tax rebates help to dull the blow, but it’s still a sizeable expenditure.

This means that most growth is limited to green consumers and corporations, two groups willing to part with large sums of money for long-term financial and environmental returns.  Brakohiapa states that the problem is that these green consumers have already bought panels.  He states, "For the industry to continue to grow in the residential space, we have to appeal to the mass market and find ways for the everyman to step into solar and get the benefits.  At some point, it's going to be difficult to convince people to make large investments simply based on the fact that it's green."

Clean Power Finance and rival SunCity both have lease programs in the works.  SunCity already rolled its program out in several states.  SunCity CEO Lydon Rive states that by leasing customers should see an immediate return and can have the option of eventually buying the cells.  Clean Power Finance has thus far only implemented a loans program to help with the initial capital, but plans to soon roll out a similar program.

Yet another enterprising idea is to allow neighbors with panels to sell electricity to their non-panel-equipped neighbors, using a setup similar to the standard pre-determined electrical rate used by power companies.

One of Clean Power Finance's big initiatives is to provide a SalesForce-like compilation of data.  The company provides up to date info on the tax rebates in every state and local region, on the electrical production of available panel models, and on utilities' electrical rates across the country.  This info helps installers give better estimates on the cost and return.

Brakohiapa says that one challenge is getting the more technical-geared solar power industry up to speed in sales competence.  He states the need for using more straightforward figures with customers; "Solar is still a technical sale. Installers are more comfortable talking about kilowatts but the consumer really isn't there.  Tell me that if my monthly payment to the utility is $500, I can get it to $450. Then I'm in."

Last year, solar start-ups looking to develop more efficient solar cells netted $1B USD in funding.  Solar experts say that along with the resulting benefits in production, the cost of cells will also be going down due to increases in the scale and capacity of manufacturers, essentially from increased and optimized mass production.

Many companies that currently sell to utilities looking to build solar plants, or to companies, are looking to jump into the consumer market soon.  Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen has a "fabulous residential solution" in the works, and also looks to bring the power costs of his company's panels down to $1 per watt.

These advances march solar power closer and closer to "grid parity" without tax rebates -- meaning that solar production will soon match traditional fossil fuel production in terms of cost per unit of power, with infrastructure investments factored in.  Some companies are even deploying in-home displays in new homes to show customers how much power their using, and potential savings from solar.

With the credit crunch, and sagging economy, some of the consumer growth in solar has slowed.  However investors like Brakohiapa believe that Wall Street Lenders will soon be jumping on solar.  He points out that they are already involved through companies such as SunEdison and SunPower, which signed a deal with Morgan Stanley.  He states optimistically, "Some investment banks are realizing that they can reach consumers and they can start investing in energy portfolios.  Over time, we are going to see more players in the financial space."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Still expensive
By PrinceGaz on 4/28/2008 7:46:07 PM , Rating: 4
As much as I like the idea of solar power replacing carbon, nuclear or other conventional means of electricity generation, like all current "green" alternatives, it is not economically viable.

I say "green" because I personally consider nuclear (fission) a quite green form of electricity generation, and one which not only doesn't contribute to global warming, but can also provide reliable power 24/7 from an abundant fuel source which will last for decades even if all the electricity generated worldwide was produced that way.

In fact it would last for centuries once the price of uranium rose enough to consider extracting it in more expensive ways, and it would hardly effect the price of electricity as the uranium itself is only a tiny part of the cost of nuclear power generation (unlike coal or gas where it is the cost of the coal or gas they burn which is the major factor).

I'm all for green power sources, but wasting money on solar cells which cost more to produce than the electricity they generate over their lifetime is not the way forwards. Until we perfect the technology needed to create a sustained and controlled nuclear fusion reaction, nuclear fission is our best option.




RE: Still expensive
By masher2 (blog) on 4/28/2008 10:04:33 PM , Rating: 5
> "but can also provide reliable power 24/7 from an abundant fuel source which will last for decades even if all the electricity generated worldwide was produced that way"

Decades? We don't need to consider "more expensive" means of extracting uranium to get a fuel source that would last tens of thousands of years. Most of the large uranium deposits in the world haven't even been found yet-- when reserves are in the 200+ year range, no one bothers to prospect. Furthermore, thorium can be used almost as easily as uranium...and thorium is several times more abundant an element.

Finally, breeder reactors are dozens of times more efficient at fuel use than conventional ones.


RE: Still expensive
By ThisSpaceForRent on 4/28/2008 10:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
CANDU reactors are pretty sexy too. Basically any fissile material can be used as a fuel, with minimal processing. Of course you need a ton of heavy water, and that kind of evens out the cost as compared to a LWR.


RE: Still expensive
By MadMaster on 4/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Still expensive
By Ringold on 4/29/2008 12:10:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And we still have to wait 5+ years before new ones generate any electricity...


Ever bother to look in to why? Hint: The delays often have nothing to do with actual construction time.


RE: Still expensive
By MadMaster on 4/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Still expensive
By Ringold on 4/29/2008 12:31:03 AM , Rating: 5
Ah. I see. Environmental loons shouldn't be stopped from slowing progress on nuclear plants, they should be appeased by less rational investment choices. :P

Accepting irrational investment choices landed us with ethanol, this nasty parasite that no doubt well take a decade or more to dislodge, if not longer.


RE: Still expensive
By SectionEight on 4/29/2008 10:39:55 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the low amount of power per installation of wind versus other methods. The largest wind farm in Illinois will produce 400 MW when it is completed; the smallest nuclear plant (single reactor) produces more than 800 MW. And all but one of the nuclear plants in Illinois are double reactor designs, some producing in excess of 1,000 MW each.


RE: Still expensive
By masher2 (blog) on 4/29/2008 10:54:50 AM , Rating: 4
> "The largest wind farm in Illinois will produce 400 MW when it is completed"

Even that figure is a numbers game. Wind farms generally have about a 30% availability factor, meaning they generate less than 1/3 of that amount on a continual basis.

Nuclear (and coal) plants have AFs in the 80-90% range, meaning a 2000MW installation will generate 15 times what a 400MW windfarm will.

Furthermore, a nuclear site with multiple reactors can stagger offline time, meaning it is always generating *some* power. But when the wind stops blowing, all the windmills stop at once.


RE: Still expensive
By jlips6 on 4/29/2008 4:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
wind isn't that bad. The penninsula in Canada I go to for vacations too uses giant windmills to export electricity. Even the farmers up there get in on it by renting space for construction. Those things have a payback time of 5 years, and on even on days which have seemingly no wind (of which there are few up there) the windmills still turn, albiet slowly. As far as cost analysis goes, windmills are an excellent investment.


RE: Still expensive
By MadMaster on 4/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Still expensive
By Ringold on 4/29/2008 4:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
I seriously doubt "most environmentalists were opposed to bio fuels" several years ago when this really got moving, and doubt your ability to convicingly prove it, but Hillary and Obama both support it now, despite the clear harm its now causing.


RE: Still expensive
By MadMaster on 4/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Still expensive
By masher2 (blog) on 4/29/2008 9:33:46 PM , Rating: 4
> "Most environmentalists were opposed to bio fuels. "

Stuff and nonsense. Environmental groups were THE driving impetus between biofuels in the 1990s and early part of this decade. When it became obvious just what a farce biofuels truly where, they (to their credit, I admit) quickly changed face:

2005 Quote: "The Sierra Club applauds these [biofuel] efforts and we encourage our members to support biodiesel use in their local community "

http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html...

2003 Quote: "Greenpeace supports the use of bio-fuels to curb greenhouse gas emissions"

2006 Quote: "Coordinated action to expand biofuel markets and advance new technologies could relieve pressure on oil prices while strengthening agricultural economies and reducing climate-altering emissions," says Worldwatch Institute President Christopher Flavin"

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4079

2005: "Green Party to Exempt Biofuels from Taxation"

http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel...


RE: Still expensive
By masher2 (blog) on 4/29/2008 9:58:23 PM , Rating: 4
A few of the major acts which pushed ethanol and biofuels:

quote:
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 set a national goal of 30 percent penetration of alternative fuels in light-duty vehicles by 2010. It also requires the federal government, alternative fuel providers, state and local governments and private fleets to purchase vehicles that run on alternative fuels. In 1998 , the Transportation Efficiency Act of the 21st Century extended the ethanol tax incentive through 2007...
Both these acts were signed by Clinton, and both received rave reviews from environmentalist organizations.


RE: Still expensive
By phusg on 5/6/2008 6:23:55 AM , Rating: 2
A wise blogger on dailytech once said,
quote:
"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds."

Why are bio-fuels so bad? Because they have driven up food prices in the short term? Yes that is bad, but it is only happening because we are not compensating the rising demand from bio-fuels by reducing our demand for food-stuffs elsewhere.

Note this does not mean anyone going hungry or not eating nutritiously, but quite simply means eating less meat , which is the most inefficient way of using land to turn food into food.

If everybody on the planet were to eat less meat, food prices would fall, no-one would go hungry and there would be land/food left over for converting into fuel!


RE: Still expensive
By jlips6 on