Sector Snap: Solar-Power Stocks Plunge

OKIsItJustMe

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 01:40 PM
Original message

Sector Snap: Solar-Power Stocks Plunge

For those interested in buying solar stocks, they're on sale at up to 15% off!

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/01/23/ap4564598.html

Associated Press

Sector Snap: Solar-Power Stocks Plunge

Associated Press 01.23.08, 12:36 PM ET

NEW YORK -

Shares of solar-power companies dived Wednesday despite a few analyst upgrades, as oil prices fell further and investors dumped risky stocks amid continued market turmoil.

Though oil prices and solar power are not directly linked, cheaper oil sometimes leads to a sell-off of alternative energy stocks. Light, sweet crude for March delivery fell $1.61 to $87.60 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract fell 72 cents to settle at $89.85 a barrel on Tuesday.

Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. (nyse: YGE - news - people ) shares posted a drop of $3.89, or 15.1 percent, to $21.94. Suntech Power Holdings Co. (nyse: STP - news - people ) fell $7.39, or 13.1 percent, to $48.96; First Solar Inc. declined $28.30, or 15.5 percent, to $154.49; and Hoku Scientific (nasdaq: HOKU - news - people ) Inc. fell $1.10, or 12 percent, to $8.10.

Despite sharp declines across the sector, several analysts cited buying opportunities at cheaper prices. Banc of America Securities analyst Eric Brown, who is cautious on renewable stocks, noted that solar stocks are down an average 34 percent so far this year as a result of broader fears of an economic recession and concerns about industry fundamentals.

...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dogmudgeon

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 01:45 PM
Response to Original message

1. I'd think they would be linked to semiconductors

They're also "go-go" stocks, which are quite vulnerable to market lurches.

Wind energy stocks should be somewhat more stable, having more manufacturing infrastructure in place. The big question is what will happen when wind energy production runs into power storage issues. For now, the grid can absorb all their output, but once their total output gets big enough, their economics will change. It's a risk and an opportunity alike.

--p!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DCKit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #1

4. Compressing air or pumping water to higher levels...

during periods of high or cheap (night-time) production are both cheap ways of storing energy for later use. Both can also be done close to the end-user to lower transmission losses. Solar thermal plants use molten salts or sodium to continue production of steam through the night.

People paid to be critics of alternative energy will always claim that any alternative technology is either too expensive or simply impossible to implement. However, when the hidden costs - security, environmental, social - of current fossil fuel technologies are considered, the alternatives are, at their worst, better than competitive. We spent far more money protecting our oil imports than we spent on imported oil long before Dumbya decided to mix it up in the M.E..

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TheWraith

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. Cheap but incredibly lossy. You're talking about throwing away a lot of power...

... and "alternative energy" technologies already don't have power to spare.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DCKit

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. Agreed, but more efficient and far cheaper than charging batteries.

Edited on Wed Jan-23-08 07:00 PM by DCKit

If you have a better idea, I'm listening. This is the third time in two days I've been told my ideas were unworkable without an alternative being presented.

What is your idea for cheap, efficient storage of large amounts of energy - and please don't say "Hydrogen"? I'm really bored of "it won't work" as the singular answer in every single discussion about alternative energy issues. Anything is better than imported oil, even new-cue-lur.

I too am constantly fighting the urge to be the snarky critic. I guess it's a personality defect. My remedy is to avoid posting and only recommend where I have nothing positive to add to a good discussion. Granted, I'll slip every now and then, but I'm working on it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bananas

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #6

9. Power to spare? Yes, they do.

http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/
Total primary energy supply: Land area requirements

Solar power systems installed in the areas defined by the dark disks could provide a little more than the world's current total primary energy demand (assuming a conversion efficiency of 8 %). That is, all energy currently consumed, including heat, electricity, fossil fuels, etc., would be produced in the form of electricity by solar cells. The colors in the map show the local solar irradiance averaged over three years from 1991 to 1993 (24 hours a day) taking into account the cloud coverage available from weather satellites.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nihil

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-24-08 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #9

10. Non-snarky question ...

Why is the dot in the USA in the "green" zone rather than in the
area that is apparently receiving a significantly higher energy level?

(Or is it supposed to be a stylised map indicating that it can be done
rather than where it should be done?)

Second question: How much more than the calculated 18TWe will be required
to offset transmission losses from wherever the final sites are to wherever
the loads are?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bananas

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jan-25-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #10

11. Non-snarky answer ...

You'd have to ask the author for specifics about that graphic, but you can do the math yourself, solar irradiance is orders of magnitude larger than our energy consumption.
Rooftop PV will reduce transmission losses, but even with a centralized system, distribution and storage losses will be less than an order of magnitude, and since the energy available is orders of magnitude greater than our needs...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nihil

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jan-25-08 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #11

12. OK, ta! (n/t)

:thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

predfan

(769 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 01:57 PM
Response to Original message

2. I've never seen any numbers

on which would be more affordable.........enabling homeowners, through loans, grants, and tax credits, to generate power back into the existing grid through solar and wind power, or rebuilding the whole system, along with new coal-powered and nuclear. Methings we'd be far better with millions of little generators.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TheWraith

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #2

5. Central production is cheaper.

The larger a generator station of any type is, the more efficient it tends to be through economies of scale.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

diane in sf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 02:35 PM
Response to Original message

3. Solar seems like an emotional sell-off. My main energy stock fell and that

puppy has done nothing but grow the last 7 years. I don't expect solar to stay down.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OKIsItJustMe

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-23-08 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #3

8. Solar analysts ponder whether selloff is overblown

http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN2363762120080123

Solar analysts ponder whether selloff is overblown

Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:21pm GMT

By Nichola Groom

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - It's not easy being green on Wall Street these days.

Shares of solar energy companies have lost nearly half their value this year on investor concerns that a U.S. recession and falling oil prices will hamper demand for renewable energy sources. Fears that greater supplies of solar cells and panels will drive down prices -- and the sector's lofty margins -- have also weighed on the stocks.

The aggressive sell-off of one of last year's hottest sectors has analysts asking whether it has finally hit bottom.

Many have advised clients to snap up battered shares of companies including SunPower Corp and First Solar Inc, while others said valuations on some solar stocks are still too high. All agree the industry's long-term fundamentals are strong, and many hope SunPower's fourth-quarter earnings report on Thursday will give the sector a much-needed jolt.

...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 01st 2024, 12:26 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.