latest news
[GPS] Gap names Tom Wyatt Old Navy president

Giant solar project in California rivals coal plant

Analysts praise SunPower's role in the photovoltaic deal

By Steve Gelsi, MarketWatch
Last update: 6:36 p.m. EDT Aug. 15, 2008
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- SunPower Corp. shares rallied 18% Friday after the solar-panel maker announced its participation in a giant 800-megawatt, photovoltaic project from Pacific Gas & Electric Corp., hailed by industry insiders as the first major utility-scale endeavor of its kind in the United States.
Video: PV Solar Hits the Big Time
SunPower CEO Tom Werner gives Stacey Delo an exclusive interview about the new deal. (Aug. 14)
Analysts cheered the project's news as a positive move for the solar stocks, hit by concerns tied to a slowing economy and oversupply, as well as uncertainty over federal tax subsidies for alternative energy.
A common sight on rooftops or emergency phones on the highway, photovoltaic panels are finally taking a stab at producing energy that rivals full-scale coal and nuclear plants, at least when the sun is shining.
PG&E (PCG:
PG&E Corp
 Last: 40.02-0.48-1.19%
12:28pm 08/21/2008
Delayed quote data
Sponsored by:
PCG
 40.02, -0.48, -1.2%)
said that the combined power from two freshly signed power agreements with SunPower (SPWR:
sunpower corp com cl a
 Last: 95.29+3.72+4.06%
12:28pm 08/21/2008
Delayed quote data
Sponsored by:
SPWR
 95.29, +3.72, +4.1%)
and privately held OptiSolar Inc. will generate enough power for 239,000 California homes each year.
Shares of SunPower rose $13.95 on Friday to close at $92.52, the stock's loftiest level since May 16.
SunPower Chief Executive Tom Werner said the deal marks the culmination of 20 years of effort in the photovoltaic business to install a power plant on the scale of a traditional power plant.
The combined scope of PV cells for the two projects equals the entire installed base in the rest of the United States for 2007, according to the company.
Analyst Michael Carboy of Signal Hill said that the deal could generate about $1.3 billion in revenue for SunPower.
The value of OptiSolar's contract could top $2 billion based on an installed cost of about $4 per watt for thin-film solar, he added.
Credit Suisse analyst Satya Kumar raised his price target on SunPower to $120 a share from $100 a share and reiterated his outperform rating. He brushed off any notion that SunPower's rival First Solar Inc. (FSLR:
first solar inc com
 Last: 278.06+5.07+1.86%
12:27pm 08/21/2008
Delayed quote data
Sponsored by:
FSLR
 278.06, +5.07, +1.9%)
would get hurt by the deal.
"The contract is a broad positive for solar in general, where stocks have been in malaise despite what we thought were good earnings, as it demonstrates the potential of photovoltaics in the utility market," Kumar wrote in a note to clients.
OptiSolar, backed in part by Canadian private-equity firm ARC Financial, loomed on Wall Street's radar screen after the deal.
"The OptiSolar part of this contract demonstrates amorphous silicon low efficiency can be a utility-scale solution and is a longer-term positive for Applied Materials (AMAT:
Applied Materials Inc
 Last: 18.35-0.10-0.56%
12:27pm 08/21/2008
Delayed quote data
Sponsored by:
AMAT
 18.35, -0.10, -0.6%)
," Kumar said.
Chart of SPWR
Jefferies analyst Paul Clegg said SunPower's announcement makes the solar-power firm less susceptible to concerns about oversupply.
"SunPower's central message for the last two years has been enabling grid parity through 50% to 60% cost reductions by 2012," Clegg wrote to clients. "Signing such a large agreement at apparently very low price levels signals SunPower's high level of confidence that it can sell large volumes of PV systems at prices substantially below current levels and still generate target margins."
Wedbush Morgan analyst Al Kaschalk noted that the companies said the deal is contingent upon the solar-power investment tax credit, which awaits congressional approval. He's expecting an extension later this year or early in 2009.
"We continue to believe that utility-scale projects such as this 800-megawatt announcement need initial support in the way of tax incentives ... to help utilities achieve an increasing percentage of their power deliveries from renewables," Kaschalk added.
Other projects
Other big-scale projects are under way in the United States, with thermal-solar plants in the desert Southwest picking up steam as well. See thermal-solar story.
Faced with a California rule to tap into renewable sources for 20% of its electricity by 2010, PG&E has entered into contracts for more than 2,500 megawatts of solar power.
The latest two deals announced late Thursday are as follows:
  • The 550-megawatt Topaz Solar Farm project, deploying lower-cost, thin-film photovoltaic panels manufactured by OptiSolar in Hayward and Sacramento. Located in San Luis Obispo County, the Topaz project will begin power delivery in 2011 and be fully operational by 2013.
  • SunPower's planned 250-megawatt solar ranch, located in San Luis Obispo County's California Valley, with power delivery in beginning in 2010 and fully operational in 2012.
  • End of Story
Steve Gelsi is a reporter for MarketWatch in New York.
Yahoo! Buzz

Comments: 52

Schwarzenegger deserves a lot of credit for this. A Republican who actually cares about the environment. I'm one Democrat who supports him 100%. Thank you Governor.

- Solar

comments Add Comment

Comments Story Comments

There are 52 comments

Mr-Zulu 5 days ago

+4 Votes (7 Up / 3 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

The one thing that almost everyone on this board is not taking into account is that tricky little thing called "economics." Good points have been brought up about the fact that you can't store this power and it only is useful during the day. What about the fact that it costs like 5 times more than coal to generate, and is hardly even viable without tax breaks, public handouts, and bureaucratic mandates? I so want to believe in the solar and renewable energy story, because what doesn't sound great about a source of energy that doesn't harm the environment and can be produced here in the US? We spend over $1.2 trillion in this country on electricity alone, which is about 10% of the economy. About 55% of this comes from coal. Replacing all of this with solar (even forgetting about the logistical nightmares and considerable amount of time to manufacture and build anything of this magnitude) would basically reduce our purchasing power by 10%. We get the same amount of energy but we pay like 4 times as much for it. If a business did this, it wouldn't take long for it to become bankrupt. I am not saying we stop work on solar or any other renewable effort, we just need to balance it with the energy supplies we already have, because coal and oil HAVE to be a part of our energy infrastructure for many decades to come.
chutnerd 5 days ago

+2 Votes (2 Up / 0 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

Wind energy is cheaper than Solar. High altitude wind energy technology promises to be more efficient since velocities are highe. Another advantage is a much more consistent in supply in comparison with ground based wind systems...will be available by 2010.

Solar is still at net negative - at least according to a UC Berkeley professor. Another MarketWatch commenter supplied this link a while back.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2008/02/18/daily44.html?q=californ

| Track Replies | Reply to chutnerd

nfroggy 5 days ago

 
 

|

Report Abuse

finite supplies of anything related to energy production tend to appreciate in cost over time.

| Track Replies | Reply to nfroggy

Cheese 5 days ago

+2 Votes (2 Up / 0 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

Two things I'd like to add...detract...depending how you view it.

Watching Enron & Opec, we know it's only a matter of time before big coal finds a reason to squeeze the consumers throat with supply shortages or shipping issues or whatever.

I think much needs to be done with our late 19 century grids and how they're managed - not much is said about how inefficient the design and transformer system is.

I think coal is going to be essential to helping us become more energy independent as we upgrade to cleaner domestic power sources. Long term, I'd like to see less used...call it a wishlist.
jokesonthecountry 5 days ago

+2 Votes (2 Up / 0 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

There are companies that can turn coal into liquid fuels. It's called the Fischer-Tropsch process. Utilized greatly by Germany during WW2 towards the end it supplied much of their war machine.
Oh our ovethrust belt of Anthracite coal between Wyoming and Montana have the equivilent btu's of oil to last at current consumption for oil..... get this 600 years. Source; USGS (United States Geological Survey)
Our grids need to be augmented with crossover designs that would utilize many different power companies, yes even your own solar cells that would stop any major blackouts.
Kind of like the internet only for power. The internet has never gone down completely, it can't because of its crossover design.

| Track Replies

diggstr2 4 days ago

+1 Vote (1 Up / 0 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

It's time for a change. Yes the energy infrastructure is crumbling and needs restructuring, but the *hinge point between fossil fuels (regardless of domestic supply issues) and renew-ables, is the climate affect and the billions of future dollars of climatic damage that we will have to invest in as the result of using... say coal.

| Track Replies | Reply to diggstr2

hinetreturn 5 days ago

+1 Vote (5 Up / 4 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

Building solar panels in the desert is fool's folly. Why take up the space. Put them in the city where the infrastructure is already there. Every parking lot in Phoenix should be covered with PV or Thermal heat panels. It would serve several purposes. Reduce the heat island effect of asphault parking lots, shade my car, no additional infrastructure would have to be built (power lines, roads, etc) and would have absolutely no adverse environmental impact to endangered species or the desert environment.
outsourced2 5 days ago

+4 Votes (4 Up / 0 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

In the city? As long as you don't have to pay solar panel insurance.
(Picture a enterprising nine-year old with a rock). "Hey, mister , fifty bucks to watch your solar panels."
selkirkcider 3 days ago

 
 

|

Report Abuse

surely we can build a panel that can take abuse and still perform

until we determine the limitations of the technology we can't improve it

| Track Replies

1sparrow 5 days ago

Even (1 Up / 1 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

devils abound. all around us. the one comment said you dont know the south west- my heart jumped-(hes right), i thought. then i get lectures by bogus know nothings for oil and coal-and SPWR stock jumps- watch the time line- i used to shovel coal. they'll kill spwr- i wont buy it- its cursed now. by controll freaks
jokesonthecountry 5 days ago

 
 

|

Report Abuse

SPWR is one of the most manipulated stocks out there. I'm glad I got out of it. FSLR is another one.

| Track Replies | Reply to jokesonthecountry

Solar 5 days ago

+4 Votes (7 Up / 3 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

I've got a couple of pollution promotion Republicans that follow me around and give me thumbs down now matter what I say. Like that Press Release above; I cut and pasted it. Didn't make a comment, just transferred information.

Probably fans of that pudgy drug addict, Rush Limbaugh.

| Track Replies | Reply to Solar

JohnQTaxpayer 5 days ago

+6 Votes (7 Up / 1 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

Walmart,WholeFoods and other retailers are putting solar panels on their roofs to help lower energy costs. This is a great idea which should be considered by other "big box stores"......
Cheese 5 days ago

 
 

|

Report Abuse

It's a step in the right direction by companies that will use it as PR move to dig up more empty fields and bleet in the annual report about being green. Now if they knocked down empty big box stores that pock suburbias landscape, build new ones (recycle), and use solar I think they'd earn more credibility.

| Track Replies | Reply to Cheese

wjm11 5 days ago

+2 Votes (6 Up / 4 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

There is a need for both regional and centralized solar power generation. There is a role for both private and government sponsorship. The need to shift away from fossil fuel reliance is obvious from both global warming and national security standpoints.

To accomplish such a conversion in a "timely fashion" (within the next 40-90 years) will require government backing/cooperation/commitment on the scale of the Manhattan Project and the Apollo space program (both of which are historical demonstrations of the feasibility of this approach). If you want REAL numbers with lots of supporting detail, please read the Scientific American article "A Solar Grand Plan"

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

This plan envisions a massive solar collection facility in the American SW, DC infrastructure investment for improved efficiency in nationwide energy distribution, and innovative approaches for storing energy during periods of non-production -- all with existing technology.

The cost of achieving independence from foreign oil by 2050: "$420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive."

If we'd taken the money we've already wasted on the Iraq oil war, this would already be paid for. Looking forward, projected costs of the current war will end up costing us $1-2 Trillion dollars (per a Nobel laureate economist). Oh, and by the way, about a million less people would be dead, and there would be several million fewer refugees -- all of which would not have occurred if our "leadership" were not so invested in maintaining the status quo of the world's energy sources and supply lines.

Kudos to all those who advance alternative energy locally -- but we need the national plan as well!

| Track Replies | Reply to wjm11

PeterK 5 days ago

+7 Votes (8 Up / 1 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

We don't need a big national plan, and we don't need centralized solar farms.

There is plenty of space for solar panels on the top of all the flat commercial rooftops in the US, on strip malls, offices, factories, apartment complexes. That is where the electricity is used; generating it there saves transmission costs. Expensive buildups of the grid are not needed if the solar generation is small and distributed; the existing grid will handle that.

Around five years from now, when solar electricity is cheaper than "the grid", most businesses will want to own their own solar panels. Ownership will be the only way for the business to take advantage of the cheaper solar electricity. Most grid electricity will still come from old, expensive sources and businesses won't get much price reduction as alternative sources are added to the grid. If the grid is 30% cheaper alternative energy, only 30% of the electricity from it will be cheaper. But 100% of solar energy is cheaper to a business that owns the panels.

The utilities, oil companies and T Boone Pickens will all tell you that centralized solar or wind production is the answer, because they want to continue to own energy production and have us buy it from them. But now a home or business can own solar panels, pay the utilities less, and with electric or plugin hybrids, buy little or no gasoline.

The US is an "ownership society". With solar panels, "we the people" can produce our own energy and become independent of, or at least less dependent on, utilities, oil companies and gas stations. Those that sell us energy now are aware of this and will try to prevent it. Watch out for them. They (including T Boone Pickens) have their interests in mind, not ours.

The only support from the government required is that utilities be forced to support "reverse metering", where unused electricity from solar panels on homes or businesses is fed into the grid and measured. The solar panel owner receives a credit (from a program in the meter) to use the same amount of power, for example at night.

Utilities actually benefit from "reverse metering", because daytime (solar) electricity is more valuable to them; the utilities charge more for it. Demand peaks during the day, particular during hot sunny days. Solar reduces peak demand, so utilities don't have to build expensive new plants to meet that demand; plants that sit idle at night.

"Power to the People". Solar power, that is. Owned by people and businesses, not the utilities.

peartree 5 days ago

+2 Votes (2 Up / 0 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

Yes, I agree. The more individuals can produce of their own, the better. I wonder that, even if the utilities find an incredibly cheap source of power, that the consumer will still be paying through the teeth for it.

| Track Replies | Reply to peartree

ErikS 3 days ago

 
 

|

Report Abuse

That's OK for solar energy use - utilizing roftops are mostly possible (inclination, orientation).

But for wind energy - no. This must be out of the cities (noise etc.).

Solar energy is evenly distributed - wind energy has to be placed on a limited area with frequent wind.

| Track Replies | Reply to ErikS

outsourced2 5 days ago

Even (1 Up / 1 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

Like all energy projects, I'd like to see the numbers that say they get more energy back than was expended in building it. I'm not doubting there's an energy benefit here, but I'd still like to see those numbers.

If you've ever pondered what it takes to get a nuclear facility built, and functioning, you'd wonder if it really recovers what was expended to get there before the plant owners finally shut it down.

As an aside, building several square miles of silicon is going to suck up a lot of raw material, and I don't think that's going to drive the cost per square foot down .... Someone's going to have to give up their Xbox and their cell phone....
PeterK 5 days ago

+3 Votes (3 Up / 0 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

An article in Science News (www.sciencenews.org) just addressed that, for solar panels.

A group of independent researchers estimated that, to make a solar panel, it takes from 2% to 11% of the energy that solar panel will generate in its lifetime. A solar panel therefore generates between 9 and 50 times as much energy, as it took to make the panel. The newer panels are the more efficient ones.

All solar panels generate more electricity, within their first 3 years of use, than it took to make them.

Your kind of right about the (poly) silicon. In 2007, for the first time more polysilicon was used to make solar panels than was used to make computer chips. But the solar and chemical industries are building lots of more efficient polysilicon foundries, and polysilicon will become cheaper. It will limit how many solar panels can be made (less of a problem for thin film makers, which SPWR is not) but it won't make iPhones more expensive. Computer chip makers have their own sources. No worries there, mate.

Here's the article:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/9446/title/Greener_Green_Energy_Todays_solar_cells_give_more_than_they_take

| Track Replies | Reply to PeterK

Cheese 5 days ago

+2 Votes (2 Up / 0 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

Just a decade ago people wanted to shutter nuke plants because they were expensive to maintain and "dirty". Oil was cheap, climate change wasn't an issue. Those same nuke plants were saviours on the East Coast and prevented a lot of brownouts on an overtaxed grid. Build 50, 150 solar plants, just throw in a few nukes to balance things out. A lot of this is dependant on where you live. The calculations in Florida vs. Connecticut are going to yield different results.

Really smart government leadership and well funded private enterprise is what we need. Flexibility. The ability to agree that no solution is completely perfect and move on to seal deals.

I would gladly plug in my propane / electric hybrid into a parking lot plug at work which draws its power from the sun. The EU, all of Asia, South Asia awaits too. Oil will always be with us, but I'd LOVE to see OPEC lose 75% of its market share.

| Track Replies | Reply to Cheese

jokesonthecountry 5 days ago

 
 

|

Report Abuse

Solar is only going to be viable when the price drops to below $5.00 per watt. Currently it's at 8-9 dollars. The average home uses 5KW the math $8 X 5000 shows a cost of $40,000 for a system that could deliver the needed electricity.
Also solar cells lose minimum about 5%/year efficiency so the system is practically dead after 7 or 8 years and lets not forget what hail does to solar panels. And yes I've seen hail storms in Phoenix.
Source; NREL (National Renewable Energy Labs)
Cheese 5 days ago

+2 Votes (2 Up / 0 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

I'm sure your stats are correct. But they don't factor in the leapfrogging improvements that technology takes. The system designs that are out there now had it's last big improvements when the Ford Pinto was still coming off the factory line and bell bottoms were in...or are they again.

Anyway, point is, now that it appears there will be real change in the energy grid - capitalism kicks in and there WILL be huge improvements on the basic technology. How can there not be? Someone will invent a more efficient solar cell, a better turbine. h***, I've seen the windmills in Montana and Wyoming - turn of the century technology except for the stamped aluminum and non-mechanical generator. That's going to change fast.

| Track Replies | Reply to Cheese

freecleansolar 3 days ago

+1 Vote (1 Up / 0 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

Today to the cost of a solar power system is 90% less than it was in 1990. The industry is forecasting a further 50% - 60% cost reduction within 4 - 5 years. The efficiency loss numbers you cite are misleading and today's systems have 20 - 25 year warranties.

In 1990 there were maybe a million or two cell phone users in the U.S. Opponents said 1) it's too expensive, 2) the coverage areas are spotty and 3) It might cause brain cancer. By 2000 there were 100 million cell phone subscribers in the U.S. The cost was affordable, the coverage was good and the brain cancer scare tactics proved unfounded. This provides a good analogy to what's coming for all forms of clean energy.

| Track Replies | Reply to freecleansolar

MysteryStevenson 4 days ago

+2 Votes (2 Up / 0 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

This is an extraordinary research phase project.It is perhaps one of the most important events in history! Solar Cells not only do not pollute but they remove thermal energy (heat) from the local environment and eventually the planet in turn, (Law Of Thermodynamics;Heat is never destroyed or created) but the Earth is not a closed system.Other energy sources (oil or coal fired) produce higher levels of thermal heat in the local environment and on Earth. (This side of the greenhouse barrier) And so Solar cells do double duty on reducing thermal energy increases in the environment. This type of essential environmental assistance AND Energy production deserves governmental support. The Desert is a perfect area to experiment with this technology, the city proper of Phoenix would be a better location as local thermal extraction would help solve some of that city's heat island issues.Solar energy CAN be stored cheaply and without chemical batteries. Air batteries have been built and work just fine, and that is an old technology. Essentially air batteries are just common air pressure tanks. When electricity is generated during the daytime, some is used to build up air pressure employing compressors in major cylinders or spheres. When night has come, the air pressure is used to turn pneumatic electric generators.Even if these tanks leaked there would be no danger of chemical contamination and they can be located underground, out of site. Air is all they can leak and so they are very safe energy storage devices.Of course in any energy storage system some is lost due to thermodynamics, however more is lost in creating gasoline as a storage medium than is lost employing air batteries as a storage medium.
Solar 3 days ago

 
 

|

Report Abuse

Very interesting information. I would like to see you post more often. Please try to find the time.

| Track Replies | Reply to Solar

BobArmstrong 4 days ago

-1 Vote (0 Up / 1 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

The worst thing about politically skewed deals like this is you know they are dumber than true free market decisions would be and therefor lower our overall quality of life .

The press release does not say how much land is consumed by these installations but it must be in the square miles . Were solar not one of the "greens"' darlings , the environmental impact on the flora and fauna whose environment is about to be radically altered would surely put the project on hold for years .

| Track Replies | Reply to BobArmstrong

freecleansolar 3 days ago

+1 Vote (1 Up / 0 Dn)

 
 

|

Report Abuse

Solar and other renewable energy sources are actually less expensive than coal sources over a system lifetime.

Certain interested parties falsely promote that the kWh cost of coal is less than that of solar. They also typically do not mention that utility prices go up by 4% annually. Comparatively, the cost of solar is relatively fixed and the user can effectively have no utility bill after the initial payback period. It's simple to figure really... take your monthly electricity cost, multiply by 20 or 25 years and remember to add for 4% annual price inflation. Then get a price quote to install solar. You'll see that a homeowner will spend considerably less using solar than by paying a monthly bill to a utility. In addition, the home will appreciate in value and the environmental impact will be reduced significantly.

Last, the cost of solar power systems have been reduced by 90% since about 1990. The industry expects another 50% to 60% cost reduction in the next 5 years. The bottom line is that coal-powered utility costs increase and have a harmful effect on the environment. Solar power has decreasing costs and produces clean power.

| Track Replies | Reply to freecleansolar

Picker1 1 day ago

 
 

|

Report Abuse

This was a very interesting , informative and enlightening article.

| Track Replies | Reply to Picker1

Please sign in to comment

We welcome your thoughts, stories and information related to this article. Please stay on topic and be respectful of others. Any inappropriate posts will be removed and may result in loss of privledges.
By commenting, you agree to our guidelines.

MarketWatch Community: Discover. Share. Organize.

Weekly Roundup E-newsletter
Find out the top ten MarketWatch stories of the week.
Most Popular
PARTNER CENTER

New! Community Groups
Give your Favorite topic a home

Discuss topics of interest to you,
with people of interest to you!

Find or start a group now»