- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Investing in Solar
Posted on 3/23/16 at 6:37 pm
Posted on 3/23/16 at 6:37 pm
What is the MT's thought on this as a long term strategy? I don't see renewable energy going anywhere, especially with the current global political climate - as much as I disagree with the subsidies, etc. - I think it's here to stay. Much progress has been made in solar, but the ROI is still pretty far out, even including subsidies. So, that's a little worrisome.
That said, what are some solar companies you like?
FSLR First Solar seems to be one of the safest routes here, they actually make money and have an decent valuation. Looking at past earnings though, Q1 seems to be a crappy one for them and their earnings projections are all over the place. So maybe wait until April and see if they have a miss and start a position then?
CSIQ Canadian Solar has one of the lowest valuations, though I'm sure there is a reason there. I haven't found anything yet, but haven't dug into them very heavily either.
TSL Trina Solar Limited (ADR)? Small market cap, and decent valuation, but its China and I dont trust the numbers.
Or just get in an ETF and not try to pick a winner? Only problem with that is I'm sure there are some toxic companies inside an ETF. Such as TAN. - has/had a almost 4% exposure to SUNE. Not good.
Or say frick it, stick with traditional energy? But, coal has already been decimated and the Hildabeast has made it clear she'll complete the job. And to be frank, if she's elected, the only way she will be able to move the economy is by government intervention IMO. Now, assuming solar efficiency can only increase, and the demand for electricity continues to rise (as well as prices) it seems like a good long term play to me. I'm just hesitant because there has been so much fraud and such muddy numbers with subsidies to really get an educated idea (for me). Thoughts?
That said, what are some solar companies you like?
FSLR First Solar seems to be one of the safest routes here, they actually make money and have an decent valuation. Looking at past earnings though, Q1 seems to be a crappy one for them and their earnings projections are all over the place. So maybe wait until April and see if they have a miss and start a position then?
CSIQ Canadian Solar has one of the lowest valuations, though I'm sure there is a reason there. I haven't found anything yet, but haven't dug into them very heavily either.
TSL Trina Solar Limited (ADR)? Small market cap, and decent valuation, but its China and I dont trust the numbers.
Or just get in an ETF and not try to pick a winner? Only problem with that is I'm sure there are some toxic companies inside an ETF. Such as TAN. - has/had a almost 4% exposure to SUNE. Not good.
Or say frick it, stick with traditional energy? But, coal has already been decimated and the Hildabeast has made it clear she'll complete the job. And to be frank, if she's elected, the only way she will be able to move the economy is by government intervention IMO. Now, assuming solar efficiency can only increase, and the demand for electricity continues to rise (as well as prices) it seems like a good long term play to me. I'm just hesitant because there has been so much fraud and such muddy numbers with subsidies to really get an educated idea (for me). Thoughts?
7
Posted on 3/23/16 at 6:47 pm to TigerDeBaiter
Solar companies continue to rely upon government tax credits. Without them, consumers won't buy their products in profitable quantities for the solar companies to thrive. Even with the tax credits, most smart consumers who can do simple financial math won't buy their products.
The last time I looked into solar panels for my house, the payback period from the Entergy bill savings exceeded 12 years and that was not using present value for the payback. Using the discounted PV, the payback period was almost 15 years. And with current technology of the solar 'wafers' they lose a significant amount of efficiency converting sunlight into electricity, like 3-5% degradation per year they have been in operation.
All I'm saying is currently solar companies rely too much on the whims of government tax policy for my comfort level. At some point a new technology might happen that exponentially increases the efficiency of solar wafers to make them more feasible for the mass market.
The last time I looked into solar panels for my house, the payback period from the Entergy bill savings exceeded 12 years and that was not using present value for the payback. Using the discounted PV, the payback period was almost 15 years. And with current technology of the solar 'wafers' they lose a significant amount of efficiency converting sunlight into electricity, like 3-5% degradation per year they have been in operation.
All I'm saying is currently solar companies rely too much on the whims of government tax policy for my comfort level. At some point a new technology might happen that exponentially increases the efficiency of solar wafers to make them more feasible for the mass market.
Posted on 3/23/16 at 6:51 pm to TigerDeBaiter
I've got no advice, but thanks for informing me about TAN...it looks like a good time to buy.
I bought 3 shares of SUNE this morning
I bought 3 shares of SUNE this morning
This post was edited on 3/23/16 at 6:52 pm
Posted on 3/23/16 at 7:03 pm to bayoubengals88
I have 1000 shares of fslr formerly solar3d....I like their future due to patents and efficiency.
Posted on 3/23/16 at 7:05 pm to LSURussian
quote:
The last time I looked into solar panels for my house, the payback period from the Entergy bill savings exceeded 12 years and that was not using present value for the payback. Using the discounted PV, the payback period was almost 15 years. And with current technology of the solar 'wafers' they lose a significant amount of efficiency converting sunlight into electricity, like 3-5% degradation per year they have been in operation.
Curiously speaking, did your calculation have an increase in energy prices yearly?
And I agree, it's still too heavily subsidized to be completely comfortable, but I also think it continues for some time. Like you said, hopefully we see some breakthrough. Thanks for the input.
Posted on 3/23/16 at 7:08 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:
bought 3 shares of SUNE this morning
hopefully you used robinhood? Or your going to have to gain like 400% just to break even on brokerage fees. They are not investable, but purely speculative. If they don't go bankrupt you'll see a big squeeze.
Posted on 3/23/16 at 7:15 pm to TigerDeBaiter
quote:No, simply because the price of natural gas (the primary fuel for Entergy's electricity generation) has been going down for almost three years. My average Entergy monthly bill has not been this low for over 25 years.
did your calculation have an increase in energy prices yearly?
When you say "long term" if you mean 10-15+ years, then yes, I think solar will be an investable (is that a word?) technology by then. But that is too far of a horizon for me to put money into.
If you're comfortable with it, go for it.
Posted on 3/23/16 at 7:22 pm to LSURussian
yeah, I've got 25-30 years. Sigh...
Posted on 3/23/16 at 7:59 pm to LSURussian
quote:
And with current technology of the solar 'wafers' they lose a significant amount of efficiency converting sunlight into electricity, like 3-5% degradation per year they have been in operation.
You mean .03-.05%? The standard is .07%-1%. Good panels you can get the .03-.05% range per year. That's why panels have a warranty guaranteeing 80%+ production for 25 years. If you were correct about 3-5% that would be hit in 4-7 years
Posted on 3/23/16 at 11:17 pm to TigerDeBaiter
Rockefeller Family Fund hits Exxon, divests from fossil fuels
While I completely disagree with climate change, follow the money...
quote:
HOUSTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Rockefeller Family Fund said on Wednesday it would divest from fossil fuels as quickly as possible and "eliminate holdings" of Exxon Mobil Corp (NYSE:XOM), saying the oil company associated with the family fortune has misled the public about climate change risks.
Though only a sliver of the endowment's modest $130 million in assets is invested in fossil fuels, the move is notable because a century ago John D. Rockefeller Sr. made a fortune running Standard Oil, a precursor to Exxon Mobil. The charity said it would also divest from coal and Canadian oil sands.
Given the threat posed to the survival of human and natural ecosystems, "there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons," the Rockefeller Family Fund said. In a letter posted on its website, the fund said Exxon's conduct on climate issues appears to be "morally reprehensible."
Asked about the Rockefeller announcement, Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said in a statement: "It's not surprising that they're divesting from the company." "The Rockefeller Family Fund provided financial support to InsideClimate News and Columbia University Journalism School which produced inaccurate and deliberately misleading stories about ExxonMobil's history of climate research," Jeffers added.
Rockefeller Family Fund Director Lee Wasserman responded in an email that Exxon was not singled out. "We supported public interest journalism to better understand how the fossil fuel industry was dealing with the reality of climate science internally and publicly," Wasserman said. "No specific company was targeted in our push to drive better public understanding and better climate policy."
Last year, after publication of the stories that Exxon mentioned, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched an investigation into whether the company misled the public and shareholders about the risks of climate change.
On Wednesday, Exxon said those stories "wrongly suggested that we had reached definitive conclusions about the risks of climate change decades before the world's experts and while climate science was in an early stage of development." The company said it believes the threat of climate change is clear and warrants action.
In response to the divestment movement, many oil industry leaders have said millions of people in the developing world would be condemned to darkness and poverty if society were to halt the burning of fossil fuels before there is ample supply of cleaner energy sources.
As early as 2008, members of the Rockefeller family called on Exxon to increase spending on alternative fuels. In late 2014, another fund associated with the family, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), said it would divest from fossil fuels. Shares of Exxon fell 0.4 percent to $83.75 on Wednesday as U.S. oil prices slipped 4 percent.
While I completely disagree with climate change, follow the money...
Posted on 3/24/16 at 8:01 am to TigerDeBaiter
quote:
hopefully you used robinhood? Or your going to have to gain like 400% just to break even on brokerage fees.
They are not investable, but purely speculative.
Of course. This is my second entry point...made about 20% on the first one. It's pure fun on Easter Break
Posted on 3/24/16 at 8:16 am to TigerDeBaiter
quote:
follow the money...
I read this article as well. If only a sliver of $130M is invested in XOM, this is not news to me.
quote:
Given the threat posed to the survival of human and natural ecosystems, "there is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons," the Rockefeller Family Fund said.
This is silly.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 8:25 am to TigerDeBaiter
2 things
1) it is hilarious to me some of the Rockefellers are trying to be climate heroes when the only reason any of them have money is because of fossil fuels. They need to just donate all of their money to a cause they believe in. Instead, they are wealthy because of fossil fuels yet heroic for their climate stances
2) this family fund just refers to one of probably dozens of funds with their holdings. I'm sure they own hundreds of millions of dollars in climate-unfriendly* stocks
(*I said "climate-unfriendly" only for simplicity but not because I believe that)
1) it is hilarious to me some of the Rockefellers are trying to be climate heroes when the only reason any of them have money is because of fossil fuels. They need to just donate all of their money to a cause they believe in. Instead, they are wealthy because of fossil fuels yet heroic for their climate stances
2) this family fund just refers to one of probably dozens of funds with their holdings. I'm sure they own hundreds of millions of dollars in climate-unfriendly* stocks
(*I said "climate-unfriendly" only for simplicity but not because I believe that)
Posted on 3/24/16 at 8:44 am to stevengtiger
quote:
I read this article as well. If only a sliver of $130M is invested in XOM, this is not news to me.
Agreed, but if other global elitist follow suit then it has the potential to be significant.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 8:49 am to AndyJ
quote:
me some of the Rockefellers are trying to be climate heroes when the only reason any of them have money is because of fossil fuels. They need to just donate all of their money to a cause they believe in. Instead, they are wealthy because of fossil fuels yet heroic for their climate stances
It's fricking ridiculous, that's what it is. It's one thing to invest in the future based on technological advancements, etc but quite another to act as if there is some moral obligation that you are bound to when there is zero (concrete) evidence that humans can change the climate.
Don't bother posting links to your "evidence". I'm not getting into that in here.
ETA: That last part was directed generally, not at you Andy
This post was edited on 3/24/16 at 8:52 am
Posted on 3/24/16 at 8:52 am to Sho Nuff
quote:I'm probably wrong but when I looked at getting solar panels for my house, I'm pretty sure the literature I was given by the company I was talking to had the 3%-5% annual degradation rate in its disclosure information. At least that's what my recollection is. This was about 5 years ago so maybe the degradation issues have improved since then???
And with current technology of the solar 'wafers' they lose a significant amount of efficiency converting sunlight into electricity, like 3-5% degradation per year they have been in operation.
You mean .03-.05%? The standard is .07%-1%. Good panels you can get the .03-.05% range per year.
I also remember that the disclosure said I had to keep the panels clean and free of dust, leaves and pollen in order to be efficient. Our house is surrounded by oak trees so the pollen and leaves from them would have required me to get up on the roof frequently to clean them.
But I will defer to your new information about the degradation rate of panels now.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 8:54 am to TigerDeBaiter
quote:
It's one thing to invest in the future based on technological advancements, etc but quite another to act as if there is some moral obligation that you are bound to when there is zero (concrete) evidence that humans can change the climate.
The article doesn't even give an exact amount but only calls it a sliver and only mentions XOM. There is little doubt that throughout the Rockefeller book of investments, there is a presence of other O&G companies. This is one fund cutting one company.
Posted on 3/24/16 at 9:34 am to TigerDeBaiter
We are about to get some answers.
With the LA solar panel credit done (they have enough applications at LDR to use up all remaining years of credit) a huge subsidy has been removed. As it is, in the last month or two, I'm seeing a lot less billboards, commercials, etc for solar panel installation.
Without the credits, the payback periods just don't make any sense.
Thus, the panel prices are going to have to come down.
Where I do see a future is in commercial and industrial applications. Large solar panel "farms" being used to power major complexes especially ones further away from the urban core.
With the LA solar panel credit done (they have enough applications at LDR to use up all remaining years of credit) a huge subsidy has been removed. As it is, in the last month or two, I'm seeing a lot less billboards, commercials, etc for solar panel installation.
Without the credits, the payback periods just don't make any sense.
Thus, the panel prices are going to have to come down.
Where I do see a future is in commercial and industrial applications. Large solar panel "farms" being used to power major complexes especially ones further away from the urban core.
Posted on 4/28/16 at 9:42 pm to TigerDeBaiter
Possible buying opportunity for FSLR tomorrow. They best EPS, but missed revenues (hmmmm theme, much? Haha) and dropped about 9% today.
I may pick up a few shares of it gets to $55 tomorrow. I want to get some exposure to solar and they certainly seem to be the best in breed.
I may pick up a few shares of it gets to $55 tomorrow. I want to get some exposure to solar and they certainly seem to be the best in breed.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News