What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
91 Comments
- MorganMghee, on 12/05/2008, -0/+27EVERY sector has declined despite Obama's victory. I've been keeping track of a number of solar/green stocks since just after the first big hit. To date, they are down 47%, right on average with the decline in general. Considering the promise of funding for clean energy, the polls showing people want clean energy, votes approving greater and greater minimums for clean energy from local utility companies (by public vote), the fact that the prices are dropping now is only a signal to investors, great and small, to invest. Unfortunately, due to the lack of incentives NOW, many of the cutting edge companies are still privately held and operating mainly overseas, in a holding pattern until the government subsidies flip from fossil fuels to AE.
- nickaster, on 12/04/2008, -2/+18no - the TRUE "green" solution is efficiency and less consumption
- jbittle, on 12/04/2008, -5/+21The article doesn't mention that tax credits for home solar will be far greater in 2009 - It would have been idiotic to buy in late 2008 when waiting a few months will save thousands. That doesn't necessarily mean solar's prospects will improve but it might explain flat sales in 2008.
This article talks about those tax changes: http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/10/09/the-fu ... - wefarrell, on 12/05/2008, -3/+19Obama's victory is insignificant compared to the price of oil. When oil prices rise so will solar stocks.
- hbyrne, on 12/04/2008, -2/+17While you can't argue with the long term trends that point towards the advancement of the solar industry, now is not a great time to be making bets on the winners and losers in this game.
- eco57, on 12/04/2008, -2/+13Another factor pertains to the fact that a new, more efficient, solar panel coating gets announced every other week.
- Wosat, on 12/05/2008, -0/+9The price of conventional energy -- oil, natural gas, electricity, everything -- has fallen, making solar look even more expensive by comparison. That, and *all* stocks have been falling lately if you haven't noticed... so... what's so surprising again?
- vault, on 12/05/2008, -5/+12Isn't a solution meant to be realistic, otherwise it's a pretty weak solution?
Dramatically less consumption to the point it would make any noticeable difference seems about as likely as world peace. - logpony, on 12/05/2008, -0/+6The article is right. Presidents (even President-elects) immediately revamp entire markets as soon as they get in office, no?
- SethEllis, on 12/05/2008, -1/+6Remember that a stock will follow the market 8 times out of 10. Solar companies are considered a part of the energy industry. The energy industry is taking a bit hit due largely to the drop in oil prices. Hence why solar stocks are taking bigger hits than the rest of the market. I know it sounds silly, but that's just how things work.
- zbeast, on 12/05/2008, -2/+71) People can't buy homes right now.
2) if you own a home it's decreasing in value so why would you invest moeny in it?
3) Why would you take out a loan right now with the job market being tight and cash even tighter.
4) A real solar system that could give you enough power that would actual do something useful is almost $100.000 dollars.. those crappy little $40,000 system is not worth the effort.
5) The stock value of these solar company were only up on speculation because solar is todays latest coolaid.
Don't get me wrong I like the Idea of "free" power the thing is solar is not free.
there's a large amount of up frount cost that in reality you'll not recoup.
Don't confuse "saving the planet" with "saving moeny" these things are mutually exclusive. - digitronix, on 12/05/2008, -3/+8There is a study conducted by Giacomo Bizzarri of the University of Ferrara and Gianluca Morini of the University of Bologna found that the COST of installing solar panels over their lifespan is 2.5 time MORE than the cost of purchasing the power they produce. They more importantly stated that they "...found that the total energy produced over a two-year period outweighs the energy used in manufacture, installation, and maintenance. Their analysis also shows that the manufacture and use of PV panels produces less pollution than fossil fuel based electricity generation."
Unfortunately, politicians are currently trying to get rid of coal power plants and replace them with stuff like solar panels. - barius, on 12/05/2008, -2/+6Up here in Canada we had a power shortage (brownout) a couple years back and the Gov. put some money into adverts asking everyone to be more efficient with their power use. It's now 2 years later and we're still below the usage we were at then. Clearly, a lot of waste is simply caused by ignorance of the problem. A little education can go a long way. It's too bad we don't teach home economics to kids anymore, that would have been the perfect place to learn about energy efficiency and how it can save money as well as resources.
- vault, on 12/05/2008, -5/+9^^ Can someone refute this? I just don't understand when people say things like the solution is "less consumption." Yeah, no ***** that would help. But it's not a solution because it's COMPLETELY unrealistic given how materialistic people are, always have been, and always will be. Nothing short of a Stalinesque government mandate will curb consumption to the extent that it will actually solve our energy issues.
The solution quite obviously will have to accommodate rising consumption especially when you consider the energy needs of the developing world, too. - Gemfinder, on 12/05/2008, -1/+5A lot of stocks are declining. I don't think the stock market is a reliable barometer for the efficacy of a given commodity/product.
- inactive, on 12/07/2008, -0/+3Great idea. Take stuff that doesn't work. And bribe people to buy it. Great.
- Countess666, on 12/05/2008, -1/+4you, in about 5 years when its back up to 150 or more.
- Wosat, on 12/05/2008, -0/+3The market discounts the future... always the future.
- stonewall123, on 12/05/2008, -4/+7"Littering the landscape with acres of solar panels" ... hate to break it to ya but solar panels as they most commonly exist today don't liter the landscape. Almost all are installed on rooftops where they take up no extra space. Nice try though.
- deadsenator, on 12/05/2008, -2/+5What are you trying to say?
Firstly, the study you've referenced states "the amount spent in purchasing, installation and maintenance of solar panels is recovered over the duration of two years." To me, this appears to be highly variable depending on what you pay per unit of energy and how much energy is produced by the panel. Northern climates would have a much longer payback period.
Secondly, I do not understand your last statement. Replacing coal would be a very good thing to do. Replacing it with some sort of solar or whatever renewable type of energy is what all of us should strive for.
Calling it 'unfortunate' requires me to bury you. - Trigonometron, on 12/05/2008, -1/+4You will definitely be able to find a job in that industry, don't go on stock prices to gauge everything. I own some stocks that are down 90% right now. Does that mean that the entire industry is failing? Nope, not yet...
- Dumbledorito, on 12/05/2008, -5/+8"...which require tons of toxic solvents to manufacture, and can't be recycled, isn't a very "green" solution...doh!"
Because you can spread the waste from a nuclear reactor in your garden and double the health value of your tomatoes?
Think before typing. - barius, on 12/05/2008, -0/+2@pw378,
The fault in your logic is that a fit human being consumes fewer calories than a fat human being. So, the extra exercise pays for itself by reducing your overall consumption. It's like the difference between a tuned up engine, and one that hasn't been maintained. Clearly, the tuned engine will be more economical over time.
Since you have to eat either way, you should try to stay fit by walking thereby reducing your overall energy consumption. - 3242130193, on 12/05/2008, -1/+3Agreed - there happens to be this thing we're in right now called a 'recession' which, among other side effects, causes stocks to fail.
I'm no economist and didn't RTFA, but I hear that the best time to invest in stock is when you think it has reached rock bottom. So perhaps investors will wait until they think the worst has been reached before they consider investing. Then I assume prices will go up. - floorman56, on 12/05/2008, -1/+3When oil prices rise so will solar stocks
Why? We don't use oil to run our power plants we use coal
There are not enough electric cars on the road to make a difference on the price of oil so solar wont help the price of oil
I have never understood why people keep saying that - flyingclutchman, on 12/05/2008, -0/+2oh i get it, you make your name "iloveobama" then post stuff the opposite, very tricky
- JackG1980, on 12/05/2008, -0/+2EVERYTHING IS CHANGING!!!
- Trigonometron, on 12/05/2008, -2/+41- Solar has always been a very volatile sector. VERY volatile.
2- The Big O's plan hasn't been proposed, started, funded, anything. It's just an idea right now. Give it time.
3- I do wish I had sold STP at 90 (it's now at 7) - theyerb, on 12/05/2008, -0/+2I almost bought JASO stock last year. Very happy I didn't :D
- geoffg, on 12/05/2008, -1/+3Basically we have the same solar tech that we had decades ago. The same things that prevented it from taking off then are with us today. You want to buy FSLR be my guest, it's your money.
- HappyMonk, on 12/05/2008, -1/+3oil
- MiNGLED, on 12/05/2008, -1/+3Or later when it starts to run out.
- inactive, on 12/05/2008, -0/+2Guess what? Solar power technology doesn't revolve around Obama! This article tears down a false premise. MOST stocks, of all types, are lower despite Obama's victory. There's more to the market than who the US President is.
- inactive, on 12/07/2008, -1/+3Drill baby, drill.
- floorman56, on 12/05/2008, -0/+2Fall
End of time ... dud - inactive, on 12/07/2008, -0/+2What "domino" effect?
- fx666, on 12/05/2008, -1/+2Currently less than 1% of the US energy comes from what is called "clean sources". According to the Department of Energy's estimate, it would take about 500 years to switch the US economy to clean energy sources. Obama was selling a pipe dream to his stupid supporters. On the other hand, 70% of France' energy comes from nuclear power stations, which is much more realistic approach to the energy independence.
- Farth, on 12/10/2008, -0/+1We use 10 billion barrels of oil a year. We don't have enough. Game over. And you're engaging in the fallacy of assuming that ONLY solar would be used. We're talking solar in addition to many other sources of energy. Do you know how to think, or is all of this argumentation just stream of consciousness for you? Please, please stop reading right wing newspapers and blogs. I beg of you. Get some real info, son. We need educated people in this country, not ideologues.
- markmdillon, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1The stock market hasn't lost 47%, has it?
- stonewall123, on 12/06/2008, -0/+1While your post was lengthy your facts are completely wrong and I feel compelled to provide the other side of the argument. Let me preface by stating that I am not against nuclear but that this is not the answer we need. Contrary to what you say, 80% of our energy does NOT go to transportation. 70% of oil may go to transportation but coal is equally important as a primary energy source and this is used for commercial and residential energy needs not transportation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel
Oil: 1,119 to 1,317 billion barrels 2005-2007
Gas: 6,183 - 6,381 trillion cubic feet ; 6,381*0.182= 1,161 billion barrel oil equivalent (BBOE) 2005-2007
Coal: 997,748 million short tons[13] (997,748*0.907186*4.879= 4,416 BBOE) (2005)
You also claim that if solar were installed on every rooftop it would be negligible. There are many large corporations which beg to differ. Look at GM for instance ( http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/gm-to-host ... ) . To quote the article directly... " General Motors already opeates rooftop solar arrays on two of its California warehouses, which provide up to 50% of electricity used in these facilities." Many other large corporations (Walmart, google, microsoft ) are doing similar things. Now factor in energy savings from newer energy efficient technologies that are coming online ( LED lighting, microturbines, better insulation, lower power computer chips, energy star appliances ). As demand goes down solar capable will by default deliver an even greater percentage of energy needs. These technologies will complement each other. Now lets get back to transportation. Assuming we see mass adoption of plugin hybrid and electric cars. We will obviously use less oil and more coal, nuclear, gas, sun, wind, etc. Energy independance is a problem that has to be solved at many levels. You cannot simply throw out one clean source of energy to replace it with nuclear. - inactive, on 12/10/2008, -0/+1@Kosh
The ad hominem attacks were so random and generic that for a while I thought she was a bot. - MorganMghee, on 12/06/2008, -0/+1Well, it was 13,371.72 Nov '07. And there's this: Dow plunges over 360 points on credit fears - Nov. 1, 2007http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/01/markets/markets_44 ...
- ElGstr, on 01/06/2009, -0/+1Bizarre
Using High Tech For Conservation http://reno.broowaha.com/article.php?id=4327
We Love Sunlight Spills. In this article, How American Energy Independence Was Won, http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=3907, the author wrote,
“Voila, 4,641,748,800 megawatts a year. America’s heir and a spare to American energy independence. The Feds lease this land to U.S. Solar, Inc. (a strong, proud and patriotic USS for the stock exchange with We Love Sunlight Spills as its’ slogan) for The Nevada Solar Plant. U.S. Solar, Inc. is a red-blooded true blue American capitalist mega-corporation. U.S. Solar, Inc., through it’s Nevada division, Nevada Solar, Inc., gets the usual Federal and State tax subsides and contracts awarded to mega-corporations. A new breed of lobbyist is born, one driving electric cars with a solar panel on every roof. U.S. Solar, Inc. immediately pays it CEO $100 million a year plus perks and bonuses. U.S. Solar, Inc. hires illegals, has zero retirement and health care coverage, is non-union. It charges its’ employees for plugging in their electric cars, and each car has a solar panel on its roof. Ownership of electric cars is a condition to employment and the power generated by the solar panel on each car’s roof belongs to the U.S. Solar, Inc. electric grid. For those just not getting it :-( more ;-) tongue-in-cheek sarcasm going on here. Nevada Solar, Inc pays it CEO $50 million a year plus perks and bonuses. Within two years Nevada Solar, Inc., replicates itself in Montana and other American states, then goes global. It’s Another Great American Story. Brings a tear of patriotic pride to my eye, ‘cause boy, we really won that American War for Energy Independence. “ - inactive, on 12/10/2008, -0/+1Farthy
Seems obvious to me. But here's the argument:
We need to be warm and toasty. We need to travel to work and play. There is no workable way to do that using solar/wind. Only oil works.
What's holding up solar/wind is storage. There is no usable way to save up the energy from the sunny/windy days to the gloomy/calm days. Batteries just don't hold anywhere near enough. Scientists all over the globe are wracking their brains trying to figure out how to cram, for example, 15 gallons of gas worth of energy into the batteries that will fit in a car. But currently no one has a clue as to how to proceed. We can hope that some genius scientist somewhere makes a breakthrough. But until then, we need oil.
Here in the US, we have oil that we've arbitrarily put off limits. It's past time to change that. And man up. And go get the oil. - brandita, on 12/05/2008, -1/+2And I was hoping for a job in the solar industry...
- Farth, on 12/10/2008, -0/+1Not defensive at all 140! I'm just waiting for you to make a real argument. I'm starting to think that it probably won't happen. Good luck in your future endeavors.
- Countess666, on 12/05/2008, -1/+2no they are not mutualy exclusief. investing in efficiency can really save you money in just a few years.
but solar, without subsidies or tax credits isn't really a money savor yet.
but it doesn't have to be that way. Germany now gets 20% of its power from solar energy just because they have subsidies on energy produced with solar. and perhaps more importantly have stimulated the development of cheaper and better solar panels. panels that you'll be using on your roof in the future.
and no way that a solar powered roof has to cost 100.000 dollars today. that sounds like prices from 10-15 years ago. - inactive, on 12/05/2008, -4/+5Shock! Obama can't flap his gums and talk up the prices of bad 'green' stocks. The Street hates Obama's socialist policies. The financial meltdown is very much related to the lack of confidence in Obama.
- webbles, on 12/05/2008, -0/+1Whats so funny is when the economy is going great everyone is all excited and investing. When the economy plummets everyone gets scared and sells. NOW is the time to buy people, not when the stock is overpriced... And now isn't the time for trying to make a quick buck. If you are in it for the long haul, get stocks that are way undervalued and you can't go wrong. (Making sure of course you don't try for the longshots...)
- Andysan, on 12/06/2008, -1/+2This whole solar thing makes no economic or environmental sense. Besides that, Obama simply used the "believers" just like he used just about everyone who voted for him. Look up and see what the underside of the Obamabus looks like.
-
Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is