It seems to be a trend now, last October it was Siemens who gave up on solar, now it is British Petroleum, who has been in the solar business nearly 40 years, and has made the last closure announcements, finalizing what they announced in 2011.
In the news today:
(Reuters) – British oil major BP shut down the remnants of its solar unit on Wednesday, drawing a line under the business on which most of its Beyond Petroleum tagline of the early 2000s was premised.
The unit, which BP has been scaling back since 2008, is the latest sun energy business to fall victim to rampant competition from China, falling prices, overcapacity and lower government subsidies on which the industry still depends.
Solar Millennium on Wednesday became the second German solar company to file for insolvency in December, following module maker Solon.
U.S. company Solyndra LLC folded earlier in 2011 while Swiss bank Sarasin said in a recent study that Conergy and Q-Cells were among the German solar companies most exposed to the sector’s crisis.
“The continuing global economic challenges have significantly impacted the solar industry, making it difficult to sustain long term returns for the company, despite our best efforts,” BP said in an internal letter to staff.
The company confirmed on Wednesday that it plans to exit its large-scale projects at Long Haven in the U.S. and Moree in Australia.
BP announced plans in July to abandon its household and industrial rooftop solar activities to concentrate on the larger projects but said on December15 that even those were no longer viable.
Discovered while view dailyjobcuts.com today:
SoloPower confirms layoffs as company restructures, struggles mount
February 27, 2013
Note that last line …
http://www.oregonlive.com/money/index.ssf/2013/02/solopower_confirms_layoffs_as.html
MorningGuy says:
March 8, 2013 at 3:05 pm
“Why don’t you cut out all the emotive language them maybe we can have a rational conversation.
Why do you see it as us against them? I think power companies benefit from a mix of technologies.”
As long as there’s no storage, the combination of fossil fuel power infrastructure and renewable energy is inefficient and expensive. Hope that’s unemotive enough for you, Morning-Guy.
MorningGuy says:
March 8, 2013 at 3:05 pm
“Why don’t you cut out all the emotive language them maybe we can have a rational conversation.
Why do you see it as us against them? I think power companies benefit from a mix of technologies.”
Ok, a longer answer, I got disturbed by the kids. First, I don’t see it as us vs them, but a fight for money between consumers, the green/warmist movement, energy companies, solar companies, and of course the bureaucracy (the state).
For a private citizen in California, PV makes economic sense even without subsidy, as PG&E is one of the most predatory energy supplier in existence, and 2,500 sun hours a year are enough to make it worthwhile.
That PG&E would not neet to extort as much money from customers were it not for the most insane policies by the Cali government is obvious; but PG&E is something the Californian citizens will have to live with, just as I have to accept the existence of the Green scourge in Germany.
For a society as a whole, a combination of the existing fossil fuel infrastructure plus solar cells is always more expensive than just the existing fossil fuel infrastructure. We can call it an unnecessary vanity; in the eyes of the green part of the electorate, it is seen as virtuous; they support this squandering of wealth. I am against it as I see better use for the wealth. But again, I have to accept the gargantuan squandering of money that happens in Germany. Just as I have to accept the catastrophic consequences of EU policies.
I mentioned that PV panels go down in real prices by 50% in 10 years. Still, this does not comprise a storage solution. If you ever want to make the case that for a society as a whole a switch to PV is cost-efficient, it is not enough to point to the existing fossil fuel infrastructure and say “See? We don’t need no storage because we have fossil fuel base load.” You and the other proponents of solar need to show that your system is cost-efficient with a storage solution.
The alternative is that you sell the PV electricity for bulk spot prices. You will then realize that all PV owners produce at the same time, driving the spot price into the negative. This does happen on the EEX in Germany. If supply exceeds demand, prices must fall to zero; when the glut threatens the grid, even to negative. An even more bizarre situation than Soviet Union style planned economy, invented by the economic geniusses of the Green movement.
I have nothing but disdain for such idiocy.
DirkH says:
March 9, 2013 at 4:02 am
“If you ever want to make the case that for a society as a whole a switch to PV is cost-efficient, it is not enough to point to the existing fossil fuel infrastructure and say “See? We don’t need no storage because we have fossil fuel base load.” You and the other proponents of solar need to show that your system is cost-efficient with a storage solution.”
Your argument seems to boil down to solar can’t be made economical by itself because there is no economical storage solution yet… but no one is suggesting 100% solar, there are limits, I think with proper load matching i.e. installing more west facing systems that export power to eastern areas they could shift the solar production peak to better match peak afternoon times, that could also spread the peak.
Besides this again you allude to the cost of solar and I agree it was expensive, but is not now, and is dropping even further.
You also have to realise that if solar becomes cheap enough there will be less need for storage, as there would be installed unused spare capacity on tap.
MorningGuy says:
March 9, 2013 at 5:23 am
“You also have to realise that if solar becomes cheap enough there will be less need for storage, as there would be installed unused spare capacity on tap.”
Prove your point. Become a solar tycoon. Refuse any subsidy. Sell at bulk spot prices. Or store it in your own storage solution, that you bought with your own money, to be able to sell your precious electricity when the competing solar tycoons can’t deliver because the sun refuses to shine, which will give you better prices. Assuming you have a spot market for electricity in the US.
An existence proof is needed. Don’t beg for free base load assistance. Nobody needs a drag on the economy.
Well, I’m talking hypothetically, as the US as well as the EU are no free energy markets. But maybe you understand the concept of a free market. Maybe you can even begin to understand that a free market would produce greater wealth than what we have now.
If you can’t I can only give you a link.
“Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth”
By Ludwig von Mises (1920)
http://mises.org/econcalc.asp
“””””…..Berényi Péter says:
March 8, 2013 at 1:14 pm
Actually, I have already seen solar panels constructed using next century technology. They are soft, flexible sheets attached to a fractal support, they are not producing electricity, but an energy rich, non-toxic, not flammable chemical made of water and air, to be stored locally for later use (when it gets dark). These solar panels are not expensive, are recycled when disposed of, have a pleasant shade, smell good and oh, they are greeen……”””””
So what is the conversion efficiency; from say 1,000 W/m^2 air mass 1.5 solar input at earth surface. to whatever form of output human benefit, these wonder panels are going to supply us with.
The sun limits us strictly to about that level in input power density, I mentioned, and we can presently get between 20 and 40% of that converted to readily understandable grid electric power.
So we don’t want to waste resources, pursuing some wonder alternative technology, that isn;t going to at least match what we already know how to do.
And these soft flexible sheets with their fractal support; how well do they stand up during the 150 year storms, that come along about every five years or so ??
DirkH says:
March 9, 2013 at 7:31 am
“Sell at bulk spot prices. ”
Here in Oz the feed in tariff from solar is now matched to wholesale electricity prices, so effectively people that install solar ARE now selling back at wholesale spot prices, it went from 60c/kWh – which was insane BTW, now down to something like 8c/kWh which is much more sustainable. But even at these prices payback times are hovering around 5years even with interest on the outlay as the electricity prices here have gone up dramatically up due to privatisation of electricity suppliers a while back. After people get free electricity.
“An existence proof is needed. Don’t beg for free base load assistance. Nobody needs a drag on the economy.”
No i really don’t understand this “us against then” “all or nothing” mentality. People with solar don’t beg for base load they pay for it, just like any other customer, they pay monthly service charges for the connection even if they don’t use any, that’s like saying anyone that buys electricity begs for it. Solar has benefits as it offsets the need for peak capacity for the base load guys, seem to be working just fine in Germany (apart from some load matching challenges) and here in Oz, in SouthAus 1/4 of house have solar – 1/4 ! and it seems to work just fine, no need for “an existence proof”.
MorningGuy says:
March 9, 2013 at 1:39 pm
“Here in Oz the feed in tariff from solar is now matched to wholesale electricity prices, so effectively people that install solar ARE now selling back at wholesale spot prices, it went from 60c/kWh – which was insane BTW, now down to something like 8c/kWh which is much more sustainable.”
That is not a spot price; that is a fixed price; see also price fixing by politicians.
“No i really don’t understand this “us against then” “all or nothing” mentality.”
You don’t understand my position at all. The price of a good in a free market is determined by supply and demand, not by political price fixing. The resulting price is the market clearing price. A politically fixed market is a suboptimal market. It leads to oversupply or undersupply. Not sometimes; ALWAYS.
“People with solar don’t beg for base load they pay for it, just like any other customer, they pay monthly service charges for the connection even if they don’t use any, that’s like saying anyone that buys electricity begs for it. ”
Again, you do not understand me. Your solar installation has no marginal use value for any customer. Every customer needs stable power around the clock. Your solar installation cannot provide that. You need the service of the existing base load capacity to ride your parasitic venture on top of that, but you do not want to pay a fee for the provision of that service – by which I mean not a price per kWh but a price for the round-the-clock buffering of your intermittent power source. The value of that service is equal to the price you would have to pay for a battery bank you install yourself.
“Solar has benefits as it offsets the need for peak capacity for the base load guys, seem to be working just fine in Germany (apart from some load matching challenges)”
It works really awfully. As you don’t know the difference between the politically fixed FIT tariff and the spot price, let me give you an introduction.
You already know what the politically fixed subsidy paid to the owners of solar panels is, so I won’t explain that further.
Now, the spot price is a very different price. It is the market clearing price paid at an electricity exchange where energy distributors bid for quantities of electricity. Providers of electricity offer quantities of electricity. Think of it as a nonspot auction or a stock exchange.
Now, when a lot of intermittent power from PV panels comes in, it drives down the spot price. According to German law, which Australia has imitated, the intermittent power from PV panels must not be rejected, so this glut is put on the spot market and quickly overwhelms the demand, driving the price to zero and below. (The high politically fixed price paid to the owners of PV panels is paid out by a slush fund which is charged up by a mandatory fee paid by end consumers like me. At the moment this is about 5 Eurocents per kWh.)
Now this has some funny consequences, or disastrous consequences, depending on your point of view. When we reach negative spot prices we PAY the Swiss and the Austrians with their pumped hydro to take energy from the German grid.
The second not so funny consequence is that the fast open cycle gas turbine plants that used to serve in times of peak demand have much less hours per year where they can sell their electricity for good prices on the spot market. Either the solar panels or the wind turbines drive the spot prices down – most of the time – except for longer periods in winter.
This means that these peaker gas plants become extremely uneconomic, to a point where EON wants to shut down several of them. But in Winter they are our last resort to prevent a blackout. So we will probably have to pay EON and other peaker plant owners some extra compensation – my aforementioned fee for the service of keeping reserve capacity available.
In other words, an entirely distorted, destroyed and inefficient mockery of an energy market.
But as you have shown that you do not know what a market is, do not care about it, and do not understand that any alternative to a free market must be more expensive and inefficient, I guess I’m barking up the wrong tree here.
And that’s my last word on this thread.
DirkH says:
March 9, 2013 at 2:02 pm
“But as you have shown that you do not know what a market is,”
This is my last post too, I understand fully whats happening, and the issues with solar in Germany
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/23/german-solar-bringing-down-price-of-afternoon-electricity-big-time-more-charts-facts/
and how solar is pushing the price of electricity down in peak periods removing fat margins that load buffering companies enjoyed.
But I’m not advocating 100% solar as you constantly seem to imply I am, I’m not even advocating solar to the point it introduces load balancing issues. I’m saying soon to be cheaper than new coal solar has very valid place amongst the mix of options, as a means to shave the peak demand curve during the day. That’s all I’m saying – no need to create a strawman and put words in my mouth and say I’m advocating solar to the point it becomes a load balancing issue.
MorningGuy: Let’s make it simple. You feel that PV Solar has a good place into the energy mix. So you are happy that taxpayers all are paying more money for energy to make solar more competitive. Every solar cell I see on a roof, has made my energy cost more money. Whether or not you understand what’s happening, has no effect on reality. That’s why you are being jumped on.
If you knew where the money came from and how it affected energy prices, we could have an intelligent conversation with you. However, you will choose to read misinformation.
You have no answer for why Germany has the second highest electricity prices in the world… after having succeeded in using a lot of PV solar panels. Mind you, right now PV solar only provides less than 5% of their total electricity.
It is very sad that the government is not doing enough to help manufacturers using renewable resources. Reforms and subsidies are what they need to sustain.
Dr Green: What do you mean by sustain? How much have you donated to the cause? Please be honest here. Typically, it’s another boondoggle which requires other people’s money, money that we don’t have. And your green so called sustainable energy is not so sustainable without subsidies.