Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (99609)	1/10/2008 3:11:52 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 306849

thanks for that article about 640MW solar thermal. Thats huge. We have one going up in San Luis Obispo CA for 177MW which pales in comparison although I thought that was also huge. I understand that for any emerging industry, costs skyrocket if everybody jumps on board at the same time. That is simply a growth company phenomenon. We are seeing it in solar with the cost of silicon which has gone from .30 to $2.40 in 3 short years all due to the solar boom (thin films use no silicon and have no such shortages for their commodity ingredients). but its not like fossil fuels are a steady state either, those keep going up, and you need to keep paying and paying forever after solar is paid off. I will try to find this quote from the German minister of energy from this year. He said when Germany implemented the feed in tariffs to get people to install solar and get paid for it by the govt, the costs to the german government were seen as high, but in the years SINCE the feed in tariffs have been implemented, fossil fuels have risen so much in price, that now the government estimates that the solar tariffs have SAVED Germany money,since the $$ stays in the countries economy (I guess they have no domestic fuel capacity and buy it all from the ME). Thats what we are seeing all over solar, where last year it was expensive but had I installed it I would be better off now, etc.

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (99609)	1/10/2008 3:49:09 PM
From: Sea Otter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

That's one example of a non-PV approach. Another is (Ausra) - they're putting in a 177MW plant in CA and another in SA. They're claimed cheaper and more scalable - they use water has the fluid, and the mirrors are cheap, flat architectural glass, as opposed to costlier parabolic structures. ausra.com They also have a pressuried steam storage technology that will run a plant for 6-8 hours after the sun goes down. Lots of innovation in this area with serious capital beyond it. (Ausra is backed by KP).