Mass. solar energy company files for bankruptcy (Evergreen)

[phantom power]

BOSTON (AP) — A solar energy company that received millions of dollars in grants and tax incentives from Massachusetts before closing one of its facilities in the state has voluntarily filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief.

Marlborough-based Evergreen Solar announced Monday that as part of its reorganization it would reduce its U.S. and European workforce by about 65 people and suspend operations at its Midland, Mich., facility.

In January the company announced it planned to shutter its solar panel factory in Devens, Mass., and eliminate 800 jobs. It cited the severe economic downturn and far cheaper labor costs at its manufacturing facility in China.

State officials say Evergreen Solar has been awarded more than $20 million in grants and $11 million in tax and lease incentives since 2008.

http://news.yahoo.com/mass-solar-energy-company-files-bankruptcy-214236848.html

[Gregorian]

1. We're busy subsidizing war.

And we're going to pay dearly for it. That's my take on this. I've been expecting this news for a while.

[kristopher]

3. Good news for solar, bad news for US manufacturing jobs, good news for US installation jobs.

There is a glut of panels because of massive investment by China over the past 3 years. Prices have tumbled - just as they should and as they need to. This falling price has spurred a dramatic investment increase by utilities solar installation, which will very shortly soak up the excess inventory. Meaning more manufacturing capacity will then be needed; beginning, of course, another cycle to drive the price down further.



The OP is the "boots on the ground" version of the following story:

Cheap solar - not yet, but soon
May 26, 2011

Solar power may be cheaper <1> than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co. (GE)

Of course, being cheaper than new nuclear isn’t hard when cost curves are moving in opposite direction (see “Does nuclear power have a negative learning curve?“).

Here is the solar cost curve (in blue) from the recent IPCC report <3> on renewables:
Experience curve in logarithmic scale for the price of silicon PV modules …. Reductions in the cost or price of a technology per unit of capacity understate reductions in the levelized cost of energy of that technology when performance improvements occur

This takes us through 2010. The Bloomberg piece on GE notes:

The cost of solar cells, the main component in standard panels, has fallen 21 percent so far this year, and the cost of solar power is now about the same as the rate utilities charge for conventional power in the sunniest parts of California, Italy and Turkey…..

So we continue to march down the cost curve...
http://www.eco-voice.org/node/10917

And meanwhile...

Does nuclear power have a negative learning curve?

By Joe Romm on Apr 6, 2011 at 4:05 pm
‘Forgetting by doing’? Real escalation in reactor investment costs

Drawing on largely unknown public records, the paper reveals for the first time both absolute as well as yearly and specific reactor costs and their evolution over time. Its most significant finding is that even this most successful nuclear scale-up was characterized by a substantial escalation of real-term construction costs.




We’ve known for a while that the cost of new nuclear power plants in this county have been soaring (see Nuclear power: The price is not right and Exclusive analysis: The staggering cost of new nuclear power).

Before 2007, price estimates of $4000/kw for new U.S. nukes were common, but by October 2007 Moody’s Investors Service report, “New Nuclear Generation in the United States,” concluded, “Moody’s believes the all-in cost of a nuclear generating facility could come in at between $5,000 – $6,000/kw.” That same month, Florida Power and Light, “a leader in nuclear power generation,” presented its detailed cost estimate for new nukes to the Florida Public Service Commission. It concluded that two units totaling 2,200 megawatts would cost from $5,500 to $8,100 per kilowatt “” $12 billion to $18 billion total! In 2008, Progress Energy informed state regulators that the twin 1,100-megawatt plants it intended to build in Florida would cost $14 billion, which “triples estimates the utility offered little more than a year ago.” That would be more than $6,400 a kilowatt. (And that didn’t even count the 200-mile $3 billion transmission system utility needs, which would bring the price up to a staggering $7,700 a kilowatt).

Historical data cost on the French nukes have not been as well publicized. But Arnulf Grubler of the International Institute for Applied Systems in Austria, using “largely unknown public records” was able to perform an analysis of French (and U.S.) nuclear plants for Energy Policy, “The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing” (subs. req’d)....

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/06/207833/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/

[Gregorian]

4. I'm thrilled.

My next farm or ranch will have photovoltaics. I just have been moving so often I can't take the time and money to design a system.

But still, we're way way overdue and late. Like battery research. That should be the half trillion dollar per year investment. Wars are not fought in battles with bullets anymore. They're fought with ideas.

[kristopher]

6. +1

[bahrbearian]

2. we need tariffs

[XemaSab]

5. "The Producers"

n/t