4 ms·

I came here to post this. The solar "gold rush" of 2006-08 was precipitated by companies like HelioVolt claiming they could achieve panel production for under $

by scythe 17y ago

I came here to post this. The solar "gold rush" of 2006-08 was precipitated by companies like HelioVolt claiming they could achieve panel production for under $1/watt. Cheaper solar panels won't kill the industry, it will make it economically viable on the large scale. If this article's predictions are correct, it's probably time to invest--if you know the right company, that is.

rjurney 17y ago
Very happy to hear this, as we have a solar startup building a massive production facility in Atlanta - http://suniva.com/ http://suniva.com/
- Devilboy 17y ago
  Could you comment on your cost per watt expectations please?
  - rjurney 17y ago
    Well, considering that their units are supposed to be something like 20%+ efficient... I think it should be pretty good?
    - Devilboy 17y ago
      The energy conversion efficiency is independent of the cost per watt. 20% is a pretty good figure but not at a cost of $3 per watt for example.
      - rjurney 17y ago
        Yeah, I don't know what their cost per watt is. Here's to hoping its good.
Eliezer 17y ago
Cheaper solar panels could create large amounts of value for the industry's customers, but if sellers have no pricing power they will only capture a small fraction of that value, possibly negative if sellers end up preferring a small loss on the sale to no sale at all. As Warren Buffett observes, the problem with technological improvements from an investor's perspective is that they usually happen in industries with no pricing power and the customer ends up reaping the cost savings. Great if you're a customer, of course. In the long run this can theoretically reduce investment in an industry. In practice, though, it looks like at least some investors are sufficiently optimistic that they'll throw capital at the industry anyway. That's how the optical fiber of the Internet backbone got paid for. Only fools try to capture all the value they create (then the other person has no motive to engage in the transaction), but it really isn't enough to create value, you've got to be able to capture at least some of it, or there's no feedback loop of reinvestment.

by scythe 17y ago

rjurney 17y ago

Very happy to hear this, as we have a solar startup building a massive production facility in Atlanta - http://suniva.com/ http://suniva.com/

Devilboy 17y ago
Could you comment on your cost per watt expectations please?
- rjurney 17y ago
  Well, considering that their units are supposed to be something like 20%+ efficient... I think it should be pretty good?
  - Devilboy 17y ago
    The energy conversion efficiency is independent of the cost per watt. 20% is a pretty good figure but not at a cost of $3 per watt for example.
    - rjurney 17y ago
      Yeah, I don't know what their cost per watt is. Here's to hoping its good.

Eliezer 17y ago

Cheaper solar panels could create large amounts of value for the industry's customers, but if sellers have no pricing power they will only capture a small fraction of that value, possibly negative if sellers end up preferring a small loss on the sale to no sale at all. As Warren Buffett observes, the problem with technological improvements from an investor's perspective is that they usually happen in industries with no pricing power and the customer ends up reaping the cost savings. Great if you're a customer, of course. In the long run this can theoretically reduce investment in an industry. In practice, though, it looks like at least some investors are sufficiently optimistic that they'll throw capital at the industry anyway. That's how the optical fiber of the Internet backbone got paid for. Only fools try to capture all the value they create (then the other person has no motive to engage in the transaction), but it really isn't enough to create value, you've got to be able to capture at least some of it, or there's no feedback loop of reinvestment.