Re:The price of solar power just fell 50% in 16 months
by dragontamer on Tuesday May 03, 2016 @03:30PM
(#11623511)
> It's true that financing the up-front investment is a difficulty, and that's why Solar City is doing such great business
On the contrary. SolarCity hasn't made a profit and their stock has tanked. It seems like solving the up-front cost issue is difficult.
Widespread deployment of Utility-scale Solar will harm SolarCity and their customers (who have entered into long-term purchase agreements). If Widespread Solar LOWERS prices in the long term, then SolarCity dies.
Good for the world of course, but SolarCity's bets are on the wrong side of progress IMO.
The up-front financing business is hard.
An inverter that cost $2000 ten years ago now costs $400. (Amazon has a Bestek 2000W inverter for US$140 right now; three of these can supply more than what my house is wired for.) Even if you did have to buy a new $2000 inverter every 10 years, that's US$17 a month.
It's true that financing the up-front investment is a difficulty, and that's why Solar City is doing such great business. But as the component cost drops, accelerating both the IRR and the up-front investment size, that's less and less of a problem.
If you do want to bet on it, I imagine you can buy stock or long-expiry call options in coal-mining companies (BTU is in penny-stock territory right now because they filed for bankruptcy a couple weeks ago, and ACIIQ is too because they filed for bankruptcy in January), or puts on SCTY and Enel Green Power. This is a terrible idea and will lose you money, and you should not do it.
Because you refuse to calculate, you are doomed to talk nonsense.