Another bad investment, propped up by the state (EU/DE).
European subsidies, mostly in Germany, led to a massive expansion of the companies green energy industry, but eventually subsidies became their undoing as cheaper solar panels from China began to win out.
No, it looks like a *company* is going down.
German solar energy *itself* is doing just fine, thanks--joined by wind and water energy, of course.
Of course it is. It's called Socialism.
Socialism = Government goodies given to the oil industry for more than 100 years.
Reality is that manufacturing/designing PV products in Germany (with high salaries and social costs) simply is not viable. Not much more viable in the US.
Governments cannot fight gravity in the medium to long run...
Germany did play a role in accelerating the development of PV products. For that, we should be grateful.
Oregon is as bad as EU on solar waste.
Oregon’s experience with yet another failed solar venture should remind the public solar power can never pay for itself, no matter how generous the subsidies
It is ironic state and local officials are now suing SoloPower, the company they once swooned over and heavily subsidized. Instead of suing SoloPower, they should personally reimburse taxpayers and resign.
Did you miss the part where the Chinese solar industry is also massively subsidized? Probably to an even greater extent than the Germans?
Whether solar or other low-emission power sources are profitable for the companies or industries who make them is beside the point; the true economic impact is how it affects everyone across the board, including all the global benefits of cutting emissions and mitigating climate change. That's why subsidizing them is sensible. It's worth being in the red if it eliminates fossil fuel use, whether the market likes it or not.
The real issue is whether they're actually low-emission at all, by the same reasoning. The mining and manufacturing involved in producing, distributing and maintaining them does not generally run on solar power, just as electric cars are usually just a diversion from fossil fuels in the tank to fossil fuels in a power plant.
UK is down -94% after subsidies cut.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/05/home-solar-panel-installations-fall-by-94-as-subsidies-cut
Did you miss the part of the article which says that the Oregon Solar Panel factory is biggly contaminated with toxic waste.
Solar panel manufacturing is bad for the environment.
Virtually every sector of the energy industry relies heavily on subsidies. And the fossil fuel industry gets the biggest subsidy of all. It gets a completely free ride on all of its horrific cost externalities (air/water pollution, war, propping up corrupt regimes and climate change).
Solar as a consumer good is a very poor strategy for converting to solar energy. Individual homeowners buy a very small amount of solar panels. Even with generous subsidies, the individual consumer pays a big premium for solar panels compared to what a utility pays when it puts in a solar farm. So, of course, it is a long hard slog to get individual consumers to install solar panels.
But on an industrial scale, solar is winning in a big way. California actually has too much solar. Even oil and gas companies are using solar power in their operations.
https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural-resources/coal-a-long-history-of-subsidies/
https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power/nuclear-power-subsidies-report
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar-batteries-renewable-energy-california-20190605-story.html
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Oil-and-gas-pipeline-company-buys-solar-energy-13937172.php
If you pretend it's a "good thing" enough, maybe it will become wishfully true?
Ordinarily, in a healthy, market system, a glut of excess supply -- green power or anything else -- would lower prices. Supply and demand are a powerful economic forces, but the laws of economics don't apply to the California energy grid.
Nothin' new in the "it might be a good thing" theory of CA solar waste. Already in 2016 the Fool was promoting it.
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/05/01/california-has-too-much-solar-power-and-thats-a-go.aspx
I’m confused by this. Are you promoting the oil industry? Pollution? The idea companies should be able to pollute at the bennifit of making money?
Personally I like breathing clean air, drinking clean water and being able to see a blue sky. So what is it you’re trying to say exactly?
Least we not forget Hussein Obumer's Solyndra Solar company fiasco that cost taxpayers $535 million and ain't around no more.
As in any other business, some companies succeed and those that lose. Solar energy is no exception. This field is full of discoveries and achievements. Many people are thinking about and starting to switch to this type of alternative energy. If you wonder how many solar panels you might need, this https://solarpvadvisor.com/how-many-solar-panels-do-i-need/ article will help answer many questions regarding this topic.
Don't bore me with the details I'm up 65% on ICLN.
Not so green me wrote:
Another bad investment, propped up by the state (EU/DE).
European subsidies, mostly in Germany, led to a massive expansion of the companies green energy industry, but eventually subsidies became their undoing as cheaper solar panels from China began to win out.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-solarworld-bankruptcy-idUKKBN1862M3
