First Solar posts major sales, profit growth in 2009

[wpsedgwick]

Source: Green Technology Daily

Despite headwinds buffeting the solar industry, thin-film photovoltaic leader First Solar grew sales nearly 66 percent in 2009 to $2.07 billion. Full-year profit was about $640 million, or $7.53 per share, up nearly 84 percent from 2008.

Long-term prospects for the solar sector remain extremely robust, according to Lazard Capital Markets, which noted strong government policy support for the industry, declining raw material prices and manufacturing efficiency improvements, as well as rapid project execution times.

Read more: http://www.greentechnologydaily.com/solar-wind/634-first-solar-posts-major-sales-profit-growth-in-2009

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NNadir]

3. Actually no. I don't really care that much about investor scans. My unit of energy is NOT

the "dollar."

It's the joule.

Rich people have always ripped off poor people and announced in the same breath their nobility in the process.

After all, how many dumb people do we have here applauding the billion dollar bail out of the Tesla car company and it's product for spoiled children?

How many billions of tons of carbon dioxide have been prevented by that useless subsidy for spoiled brats.

Note, that the "profit" depends wholly on getting governments to take money that should go to health care, to education, to environmental proetection and squandering it on "investors" who will get "tax breaks" for installing solar PV systems that don't do a fucking thing for the environment.

Have a nice "Bernie Madoff is God" kind of dumb ass evening and please, please, please, please don't trouble yourself with units of energy like these: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

[kristopher]

4. objective analysis says you are incorrect.

Solar PV is rated a tier 2 choice and its use " should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security".

Nuclear on the other hand, was rated tier 3 with operational characteristics that make it inferior to hydro for load balancing. Because of its poor showing in the evaluation, it is not recommended.

Also with regard to rich people ripping off poor people, that is precisely what is happening with the government loans for nuclear.


Posted with permission:

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[420inTN]

2. Hopefully they'll reinvest their profits...

into expanding their manufacturing abilities (and not just big bonuses to their executives).

[kristopher]

5. That seems to be the trend

For those positioning the right technologies (thin film), it is a time of rapid expansion. Their cost advantage over the older processes is HUGE and there is a lot of market share waiting to be grabbed.