BP Exits the Solar Industry (via Planet Gore)
Bloomberg:
BP Plc, Europe’s second-largest oil company, will shut its solar power unit and quit the business entirely after 40 years because it’s become unprofitable.
The company will wind down the unit, BP Solar, over several months, Mike Petrucci, the unit’s chief executive officer, told staff in an internal letter last week. About 100 employees will be affected.
BP Solar is withdrawing from an industry that’s facing oversupply and price pressures after Asian competitors increased production. Panel prices plunged 48 percent this year, helping tip three U.S. makers including Solyndra LLC into bankruptcy, and Solon SE (SOO1), Germany’s first listed solar company, filed for insolvency last week.
“The continuing global economic challenges have significantly impacted the solar industry, making it difficult to sustain long-term returns for the company,” Petrucci said in the letter.
The rest here.
So I take it.
BP’s ‘Beyond Petroleum’ slogan is now a thing of the past. 🙂
FYI…
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/as-bp-exits-solar-business-transcanada-jumps-in/11509?tag=nl.e550
Steve in SC says:
December 21, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Photovoltaic efficiency is crap and has always been crap.
I think lab efficiencies are only about 20% at best.
—
Steve, good point, I agree, but you left out the 0.50 correction for the sun not shining at night and the 0.40 correction for the inverse of average cloud cover. So if you are looking at solar panel efficiency at the ‘average’ location around the world, I always view it as 0.20 x 0.50 x 0.40 or about 4% efficiency when compared to other power sources worldwide, any location. Yes, there are some specific desert locations where this efficiency is boosted a bit, but not much.
I was reading deeper on these thorium reactors. Since speaking of efficiency, I never stopped to realized that since they operate at ambient pressure and at 1000°C instead of about 400°C, their efficiency at generating electricity is, by Carnot cycle, about 50+% instead of 33% for coal, gas-fired or current nuclear plants. So the fuel is producing an extra 50% of free energy just because of this increased operating temperature. And that high temperature can be used to manufacture liquid fuels.
I also never realized that in a worst case scenario, like a cracked containment vessel, all fuel would immediately turn to a solid glass-like puddle below and would be air cooled, no rods and no water necessary, a self-shutdown hands-off system in all cases. Those two factors put a liquid fluorine salt thorium reactor at the top of my list of future energy sources. And being able to slow-burn our current nuclear waste to boot… there is no question left in my mind.
Now, the people of the world need to be calmly and properly educated on nuclear energy, it can be safe and is our god’s gift to us humans if you want to view it that way.
I guess B.P. is Back to Petroleum now.
Mike Bromley the Kurd says:
December 21, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Harvey says:
December 21, 2011 at 10:57 am
Actually the big problem is that the WEST cannot compete with the solar products coming out of China… Nothing else. If China sells panels for 1/2 your cost well your company is hosed.
I thought you guys were all for freemarkets driving the economy.
This is nothing to do with competition. China universally produces inexpensive goods. The only trouble is, that they are not inexpensive. They are cheap. And people like a perceived deal, so the unload their wallets in droves, but the shoddy products stop working. No warranty to be found. But too late, the economic engine has started, and the funds have been transferred. The Chinese model is just as subsidized as the Western variety. So, your snipe has no grounds, Harvey. No free market anywhere to be seen.
—————————————————-
It is more complicated than cheap Chinese panels. The cost of installation, maintenance, connections to a power grid – there are many other costs. But the solar industry should be booming right now with the introduction of cheap Chinese panels. After all the costs have gone way down. So why are all these companies going bankrupt? Because once the panels are made they can’t compete with conventional energy production – coal, oil, hydro. Without subsidies on the production and generation side they can’t make money. Subsidies are falling off on the production side. Soon the generation side will end. Bye bye solar. So long wind. Hello coal, nat gas, oil and one day again, nuclear.
I suspect John Billings 2:54 sees the true picture. It is a tactical move. BP will keep looking at all alternatives. You can and should do that when you routinely deal with billions of dollars. They can re-enter the solar industry whenever they wish.
Right now the prospects of profit are bleak. But now is not forever.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is not a free market, and its manipulation of its currency and currency exchange rates to make other currencies and economies non-competitive with its captive labor and markets is calculated to transfer manufacturing and the technologies associated with the manufacturing from the other nations to itself. China would still be very competitive in the PV products in a freemarket due to its access to the necessary raw materials, but the radical disparity in the costs of the finished goods would be far closer than at present.
Mike Bromley the Kurd says:
December 21, 2011 at 6:27 pm
“This is nothing to do with competition. China universally produces inexpensive goods. The only trouble is, that they are not inexpensive. They are cheap. And people like a perceived deal, so the unload their wallets in droves, but the shoddy products stop working. No warranty to be found. But too late, the economic engine has started, and the funds have been transferred. The Chinese model is just as subsidized as the Western variety. So, your snipe has no grounds, Harvey. No free market anywhere to be seen.”
Actually Mike, China produces excellent goods. Pick up just about any laptop or computer associated peripheral that you use everyday without a second thought and you will find it was made there. The problem with the crap goods lays with the people importing them into whatever country you live in that has no local rep in China ensuring quality control. I has a good few years in ship building in China installing locally built electrical panels etc and the only time we had any problem were with generators out of the USA! All because I did the Q.C. in China and ensured we got what we asked for. Apple? IBM? Microsoft? All there and even doing research there. Do not blame China because some people buy cheap!
Back on topic, the U.K. have moans from owners of companies installing the crap panels as the Government is reducing pay in tariffs. Tough! You open a company installing the things with false claims of efficiency you better expect the scam to tumble at some point.
Solar grand minimum, more clouds, less sunshine, who needs solar panels?
Supply and Demand 🙂
First Solar FSLR reached $317.00/share on May 14, 2008 and is currently at $31.80.
A dose of reality for BP so back to core business and rake in the profits.
Why don’t we accept the truth that namely for sunny climates solar possesses potential but presently the technology is not yet there, such that all we do is fund research into new technology and upping the efficiency of solar panels by at least 50% so that they become a cost effective means of energy production without the need for subsidies.
It is crazy to roll out on mass scale a technology which we know is not up to the job.
thepompousgit says:
December 21, 2011 at 10:53 am
pat said @ur momisugly December 21, 2011 at 10:31 am
“As a former owner of a solar company, I understand this completely. only one solar application makes sense: heating water. The idea that solar panels can do anything other than serve as a boutique power source is simply boneheaded.”
Almost completely agree. However, I’d hardly call PV a “boutique” power source where the electricity supply companies charge so much for connection to the grid that they make solar power more economic. A friend in NSW was quoted more than double the cost of his PV array for a grid connection. It’s not huge; he uses propane for space heating, cooking and hot water==========
the very best way is the real old method a copper pipe coil loop whatever in a glass topped box bloody cheap to DIY and doesnt need to be on the roof just a stand high enough to drain into your heaters tank. ok its low pressure but that has the boon of a lot less expensive valves replacing too..
and your not paying a huge loan or having to deal with power cos and dodgy deals etc.
And let’s not leave out the unspoken subsidy in China, the government cap on interest paid on deposits. It is set far below inflation, allowing subsidized lending rates for businesses far below what a true market rate would be.
BP Solar covered the pump canopies of two of their freeway filling stations here in Johannesburg with solar panels – which supposedly would provide enough power, they claimed, to run the pumps and associated shop. Seemed like a good idea, if it worked, BUT it’s not common knowledge that they have never used them. They run on grid power, same as everyone else.
The man with the golden gun figured out how to capture sunlight and get tons of energy out of it without resorting to fields and fields of panels. Maybe BP should seek him out and ask him to come on board as the leading expert in solar energy? It worked for the IPCC and Puke-arie (spelling is such a problem for me). He knew how to make a choo choo go and write smutty books, so was hired on as the climate expert. BP could learn a lesson from IPCC.
But then…maybe they already have.
KTWO says:
December 21, 2011 at 8:34 pm
I suspect John Billings 2:54 sees the true picture. It is a tactical move. BP will keep looking at all alternatives. You can and should do that when you routinely deal with billions of dollars. They can re-enter the solar industry whenever they wish.
Right now the prospects of profit are bleak. But now is not forever.
——————————-
Keep Dreamin’, my friend. I’ve been hearing about the soon to be ascendency of solar since the early 70’s. Maybe it’s just a loser?
No, it is not a loser but it can sure produce losses. The mistake is regarding it as a universal elixir suited to any energy shortage. Magic, Salvation. Yet that mistake is repeated. And repeated.
Everywhere the alternative energies are so entwined with politics and subsidies that the technology itself means little. The goals are to (appear to) create jobs and enrich your political friends and yourself. The sales tools are promises to win the future and pleas to save Gaia.
It is the same with wind power. And subsidized bio-fuels. And electric cars which government agencies buy when more useful vehicles are available at less cost. And installing thousands of recharging stations that may never be used
Government will build useless 1000 foot high dams in Kansas if there is an advantage to politicians. They build bridges to nowhere. Yet we do not denounce dams or bridges. Solar power generation can produce benefits, but only finite benefits not infinite ones. And not yet. And probably never in some places.
“”””” Galane says:
December 22, 2011 at 2:28 am
“Will there eventually be a PV solar production process – ‘printable’ panels, for instance – that’ll render the Chinese investment in silicon PV moot?”
Nanosolar has developed a process of using modified roll to roll printing presses. They layer a “self assembling” goop onto metal sheet. The goop diversifies into the layers needed to form semiconductor junctions. The entire backing sheet serves as one electrode. “””””
Well Galane, I can spray a self assembling goop out of my garden hose, onto metal sheet (note to self; look up Periodic Table listing for “metal”). And as dirty as our tap water is, I’m sure it will diversify into semi-conducting layers.
I’d like to compare my el cheapo solar cells with yours. Just how many stacked junctions does your nano-solar diversify into, and how many different bandgaps are stacked; and just in case you know, what is the average and best solar to electric conversion efficiency, let’s say for any of one, one and a half, and two air mass values. Also how many suns can the material tolerate in concentrator systems ??
I suspect that quantum dots are useable as solar collectors; but good luck on the long term stability.
“”””” Steve in SC says:
December 21, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Photovoltaic efficiency is crap and has always been crap.
I think lab efficiencies are only about 20% at best.
When they reach 50% or better it might be quasi viable. Until then it is a giant sucking sound. “””””
Well Steve, it’s not quite that bleak.
Silicon has a theoretical maximum solar conversion efficiency (for air-mass 1.5 I believe) of around 25 %; and Sunpower syatems is getting about 23%. They are one of the silicon groups that know what they are doing. Unfortunately, silicon is an indirect band gap semiconductor, which limits its potential.
For thin film Gallium Arsenide, Alta Devices, is getting around 28.3% conversion, and that stuff will operate at hundreds of suns (concentration) so cell material cost is not limiting.
The current record for a triple band gap triple junction cell is 43.5% CE
First Solar employs Polycrystaline Cadmium Telluride and get about 11% conversion efficiency. in production.Hard to find two materials more obnoxious than Tellurium and Cadmium.
The yuppy goop (not to be confused with yippee) is CIGS; Copper Indium Gallium Selenide, and some claim around 13% for production poly cells. 19% is the lab best for CIGS, which was the miracle of Solyndra material of choice. Solyndra just didn’t know beans about PV solar collection; or they would have known that a cylindrical cell was fatal.(unless you use massive non-imaging optics, and that has a problem in achieving anything close to uniform area irradiance).
Rather than wasting good Indium and Gallium on CIGS, which hates water, it would be put to better use as an InGaN/GaN hetero-junction wide band cap for a multijunction multi-bandgap stack. Current thinking is that >60% direct solar to electric conversion is doable with a triple stack.
That and multi-sun non-imaging optical concentrators, can make niche application PV solar interesting. Nothing else besides conversion efficiency (and survival lifetimes) is of any consequence to PV solar energy, until we can put up a giant lens and focus the sun onto a smaller area of the earth. Don’t forget the state and local real property taxes on improved property values, with solar farms built on them; don’t think you will get that for free. And wait till people start charging roof rental fees to those Solar City folks who want to sell you your own solar energy for less than PG&E charges you for juice.
I’ve been following solar panels prices and technology for over two years now and prices certainly have tumbled from where they were when I began watching the industry. As I recall, back then $6 per watt was roughly the price. Now it’s as low as $1.50. If you install your own panels, which, with the advent of microinverters is child’s play, you are almost crazy not to install solar panels, what with the $1000 per kilowatt Fed tax credit (up to 6 kilowatts). Twenty years of use (the panels will
last a lot longer than that – they are warranteed for 35 years) calculates to electricity for roughly
4.5 to 6.0 cents per kilowatt hour, depending. It’s crazy not to install solar panels.
Ramon Leigh says:
“It’s crazy not to install solar panels.”
If you don’t count the subsidies, this is what happens:
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2011/dec/21/radar1-camp-pendleton-solar-navy
If the outlook for solar is so bleak, why is Warren Buffett spending $3 Billion on projects in California and Arizona?
Do you suppose they figured out that global warming is a fraud? Sounds like it.
@Smokey
The article clearly shows that inadequate time, poor preparation,a lack of project management and questionable decision-making were to blame. Did you bother to read it?
DMarshall,
I not only read the article, I posted it three times: once in the Climate Craziness of the Week thread @2011/12/23, and once in the BP Quits Solar Power thread, @2011/12/23. And of course, I posted the article in this thread, too. Since it was published on back Dec. 21st you probabbly didn’t go back and find it in the San Diego news archives, you found it in my posts.
If taxpayer subsidies are not supplied, solar power is simply not viable. Neither is wind power, or any other alternative energy source. The free market would see to that. And blaming poor management and questionable decision making is the wrong explanation – unless you believe in a giant coincidence: that bad management only happens when alternative energy schemes are tried.
Face it, alternative energy would not exist if it were not for the outrageous taxpayer subsidies wasted on them.
@Smokey On a level playing field, solar is doing better and better. And it’s difficult to say if the “free” market was every truly free.
I’ve said before and I’ll stand by it again – dump all the subsidies for ALL energy sources, let the exploration, mining, extraction, manufacturing companies foot their own bills (incl. fighting their own wars) and let’s see just how the energy sources stack up.
And no sweetheart political deals for anyone – if someone wants to plant, mine or build something, they have to come to an agreement with the locals, not the mayor / governor in their pocket