For future Reference:

http://www.technologypartners.com/html/cleantech.html

http://insidegreentech.com/1544/technology-partners-starts-new-300m-fu

http://insidegreentech.com/770/imperium-renewables-lands-214-million

Very Rough Estimations of Capacity

Based on some news searches, I've come up with some rough estimates of upcoming solar capacity.

Feel free to correct me if you have corrections or additions.


Note: This list includes only public companies listed on American Exchanges. It does not include any of the numerous foreign public companies, and no private manufacturers.

This also only includes PV annual capacity, and do not include other solar technologies like Solar Concentration or Direct Heating systems.


LDK 1,600 MW End 2009 Reference

SPWR 400 MW End 2009 Reference

JASO 175 MW Unknown Reference

FSLR 275 MW FY08 Reference

ESLR 100 MW End 2007 Reference

KYO 500 MW End March 2011 Reference

STP 1 GW End of 2010 Reference

SOLF 50 MW Current Reference

CSIQ 250 MW Nov 2007 Reference

I'd put a rough total on this as 3.75 Annual GW by the end of 2010.



Let's look for more capacity in private or foreign companies:

Sharp 600 MW Current Reference

Ovonic 300 MW 2008 Reference

Shell 25 MW Current Reference

E-Ton 260 MW End 2008 Reference

Honda 27.5 MW End 2007 Reference

Mitsubishi 230 MW Current Reference

Aleo 10 MW Current Reference

Equation 60 MW 2010 Reference

Photowatt 60 MW Current Reference

PowerFilm 24 MW 2010 Reference

Nevada One Concentrator 64 MW Current Reference

Add these up for 1.66 Additional Annual GW by the end of 2010.



So, the total is 5.41 Annual GW Capacity by 2010.

Note: This is very rough.

Just a Coincidence.

I was just wondering today whether a process that starts with algae could produce a fuel appropriate for aircraft.

Then this shows up in my email.

Worth a read...

California's New Nukes War

Video showing NanoSolar Printing Tech.

Found via Ecogeek

Some articles.

First Solar shares may be overvalued - Barron's


Investors put more toward renewable energy

I want something like this.

My house is 100 years old. They weren't thinking about mounting Solar Panels on the roof when they decided on the direction of the face. We do, however, have a good chunk of land.


On the bigger picture, I think that there could be a heck of a market for pole mounted systems because they are so easy to install (relatively), and thus much cheaper than a major roof job. Also, I know that there are many houses that do not have ideal roofs for a solar installation, and for some, the pole mounted option would be the right solution.

They are also nicely scaleable, as you could add more as long as you have the land and the inverter capacity.

I'd want to not skimp on panels, though. The most efficient per unit area would be the way to go.



EDIT: I think another advantage of these where possible would be due to the fact that rooftop systems collect heat, which lower the panel efficiency, whereas these wouldn't have that problem. For the rooftop systems it looks like cogeneration is in order, where the panels generate electricity and a solar thermal system removes heat in order to heat the home, or water, etc.

Global Warming Bill in Congress. More Alaskan Hijinks.

Compromise Measure Aims to Limit Global Warming

The complex measure, sponsored by Senators Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, would put in place a firm limit on emissions of heat-trapping gases that most scientists say are causing the warming of the planet. Like other so-called cap-and-trade schemes, it would allow companies to buy and sell the right to emit carbon dioxide, which is seen as the chief culprit in global warming.

But to secure labor and corporate support, the measure also places a limit on the price industry would have to pay for such permits. And to win the endorsement of Alaska’s two Republican senators, the bill contains billions of dollars in new money to help their state cope with the effects of climate change on roads, bridges and coastal areas.



I'm torn on this. Of course, I'd rather have a superior bill, like one that we might get after 2008, but on the other hand, this sounds to me like quite a reasonable bill, considering the difficulty in getting the support of the affected unions, as well as many of the affected corporate interests.

I'd be perfectly happy if this passes; to my knowledge this bill is actually separate from the Energy Bill that they've been working on, and that will address much that this one doesn't. On the other hand, if it fails, then we'll just have to wait until there's a new President and a more Democratic Congress.



There is one thing that I do find offensive about this bill, though, and that's the "Billions of Dollars" that will go to Alaska in order to "help them cope." Come on. That money is a payoff to the Senators for their support of the bill. Alaska really doesn't need this money, they still have oil, and they're still going to be pumping it. Should coal states get cash in order to "cope?" What about states that have been proactive and have been working hard to invest in and develop clean, renewable energy prior to the US Government forcing that change with legislation.

No, Alaska should not be getting Billions of Charity Dollars in return for supporting Global Warming Legislation. If we don't pay them off, and they kill the bill, how much money is Alaska going to pay to the other states that will be having to "cope" with the environmental affects of Global Warming?

As long as Alaskans can count on their Senators to get away with these kind of counterproductive giveaways they're going to keep voting in the same corrupt breed of person.

It seems that though the State of Alaska only cost $11 Million Dollars to buy, the cost of maintaining the State is in the Billions.

Inverters: For future reference.

Manufacturer List

Algae Oil Estimation

From www.coloradoan.com:

"Algae only uses water as its source for hydrogen, which allows researchers to produce very high yields per acre — maybe 50 to 100 times more than soy or canola while using 1 percent to 2 percent of the water, Willson said."


If these numbers were to be demonstrated... damn... what a solution.

Canada.com article on Investing

Gore gets the green, so can you

The article contains some good bits of info.

One particular point from the article:

"He (Robert Wilder, cofounder of the WilderHill Clean Energy Index) has few positive things to say about the prospects for fuel cells and hydrogen power, which he says have been grossly over-hyped over the years. He's also skeptical about the environmental benefits of ethanol."

I'd just point out that I agree here, thus my focus on solar investing for the time being).

On the other hand, in a Live Earth Interview (linked on a previous post), Gore states that he believes that cellulosic ethanol techniques are on the way within three years, and that the current infrastructure that's being built is welcome (paraphrased). So, it will definately be worth watching for biotech IPO's that will be providing these technologies.

For the record... My Bio.

Though I am writing about solar stocks pretty frequently, I'm not a terribly experienced picker of stocks. I do have some experience over the years, and I've done more than my share of studying of issues of economics, politics, and energy.

I have a BS in Physics, so energy has been one of my biggest area of study, though I don't work in the field; I'm in IT at a Health Insurance company.

They say "invest in what you know," and so that's what I'm doing, and that's what I'm writing about, and continually learning more about.

The last thing I want to do is send someone in the wrong direction.

On the other hand, I feel like right now the opportunity is so great in getting involved in investing in these companies, which, barring some economic meltdown, are going to be tomorrow's behemoth energy corporations.

I can only ask the reader to not ever take my word for it. Of course, they shouldn't take Cramer's word for it, either.

Live Earth is just the beginning.

From this 30 minute interview with Gore he makes the following statement:

"... see saturday, 7/7/07, as the great launch, where we really have, it's like a kick-off, it's a wakeup call, SOS, and ask people to answer that call, and then launch the intensive messaging that will get us across the tipping point."

Gore isn't done talking about this, he's just getting started, and he surely won't be alone.

On Live Earth and Activism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070706/music-live-earth/


SYDNEY, Australia — Live Earth got a traditional Aboriginal welcome in Australia and a high-tech virtual one in Japan, as the 24-hour global concert series to raise awareness about climate change kicked off Saturday.

Al Gore made appearances at both _ as a hologram in Tokyo and via live video link with Sydney _ urging rock fans to join the fight against global warming.


Sounds like a good start. Also sounds like they might still be able to do something in Washington DC.

I'm recording what I can of it, as I'll not be around tomorrow, and there's always online options (www.liveearth.org).


As for those who are scoffing at the concept of "celebs" flying around the world, using fossil energy, and blasting away with stacks of speakers, again using fossil energy, and suggesting that this in some way invalidates the point of the concerts; I'd just like to point out that the other option is to do nothing at all.

Any action requires energy.

Action on a Global Scale, which Live Earth represents, requires a large amount of energy.

The vast majority of the energy supply on Earth is Fossil-based. Therefore, in order to take any action at all requires Carbon Emission.

So, if action is required to move the World Economy towards Carbon Neutrality, and yet action is not allowed simply because it causes Carbon Emmissions, then there can be no transition at all towards a Carbon-Neutral Economy, and so we settle for a future devoid of alternatives to Fossil Energy.


Bonus Info: Solar Web Hosting Company Powers Live Earth Sites

Double Bonus: Gore Brings Surprise Live Earth Concert to Washington

Triple Bonus: Garth Brooks will be at the Washington show. Now, last I checked, Mr. Brooks and the majority of his fans are not Moveon Liberals.

Biosolar energy?

I've been thinking alot about Biodiesel of late. I can't help it, I know that it is about to burst wide open with the IPO of Imperium.

On the other hand, the name of my blog is AmericanSolarEconomy, so by discussing Bio-Energy, I'm straying from the main topic.

The simplest solution, of course, is to simply include those topics in this blog, and on the main site at www.AmericanSolarEconomy.com.

To support this solution, I came up with a rationale, which I wasn't quite satisfied with until just a few minutes ago. The rationale states that Bio-Energies are, in fact, rooted in "Solar Energy." For instance, to produce Biodiesel, you need vegetable oil. The energy that is packed into that oil comes from plants which are absorbing the energy from the sun.

Think of it this way. Given some land surface area, you can make use of the Solar Energy radiated on that area either by absorbing that energy using photovoltaics to convert it to electricity*, or by using crops (algae?) to absorb and store that energy as oil. There is a definite parallel, and it could be said that PV is simply a semicondoctor-based approach to solar energy absorbtion, whereas Bio is crop-based.

So anyway, I'll be talking about Biofuels here, and expanding the main site to be inclusive. It's the right thing to do.

* Or by concentrating the energy in order to generate electricy via heat-based generator.

Green Dancefloor...