Brightsource Will Not Go Public After All

The rocky road for the solar power industry continues.

Jennifer Runyon, Managing Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
April 12, 2012 | 49 Comments

About a year ago, Brightsource, the developer of what could be the largest concentrating solar power plant in the world once it is done, announced its plans to go public.

At the time, the company was seeking to raise $250 million to further its business activities, which include developing the 392 MW Ivanpah project in California’s Mojave Desert. As of eary this week, the company wanted to raise about $180 million.

It was supposed to launch the initial public offering (IPO) today, April 12. In a last-minute announcement Wednesday, however, the company said it would withdraw its IPO citing adverse market conditions as the main reason for its decision.

“While we received significant interest from potential investors, the continued market and economic volatility are not optimal conditions for an IPO,” said John Woolard, President and CEO of BrightSource Energy, in a statement. Specifically, Brightsource was hoping to sell 6.9 million shares at prices in the $21 to $23 range.

Woolard also said that the company is in a strong financial position, pointing out that it has world-class investors. NRG and Google are two investors in the company.

BrightSource Energy designs, develops and deploys concentrating solar thermal technology. Ivanpah makes up the first three of 13 power plants that the company plans to build to meet its more than 2.3 gigawatts of contracts with Pacific Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison.

The planned IPO was an important milestone for Brightsource and the solar power industry as a whole. It was a beacon of hope for an industry that continues to struggle amidst declining public support, consolidation and bankruptcies.

Ucilia Wang, a contributor to RenewableEnergyWorld.com, wrote persuasively why the Brightsource IPO was important to the industry. She said it would have been a success story for cleantech VCs, validation of Brightsource’s power-tower CSP technology, and a positive reflection on the government’s loan guarantee program that has been in the spotlight since Solyndra filed for bankruptcy last summer after receiving more than half a billion dollars from the U.S. government.

But, the Brightsource IPO will not happen after all. While experts in the solar industry exude confidence of the solar industry’s staying power and long-term success, all admit that 2012 will be difficult.

The failure of the Brightsource IPO certainly fits in that mold.

Image: Volatile road sign via Shutterstock.

49 Comments

william payne
August 2, 2012

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Where Does it Fit? (Part 1: Carbon Capture)
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=2554
may interest you?

Cliff Claven
August 2, 2012

Bob, I agree that pricing in all the costs upfront is the way to change behavior. So let's walk down this path in a fair and scientifically accurate manner. If we tax carbon, we should tax nitrogen at 298 times that rate and methane at 25 times that rate to reflect their relative contributions per molecule to global warming. To this tax on fertilizer and cow farts, we must also ask the farmers to pay for the environmental damage they cause by eutrophication and poisoning of streams and lakes by fertilizer and pesticide runoff, for irreversible land use change when converting forests to farm land, and for soil erosion. We must also add in the healthcare costs for the epidemic of diabetes and obesity resulting from people engorged on high-fructose corn syrup. Big Macs should go for about $50 bucks. Let's also price into solar panels and modules the environmental costs of mining silica and bauxite and the rarer materials needed to make the glass and aluminum and semiconductors, and the lifecycle environmental damage of the industrial chemicals and toxins used in manufacture and which must be handled in decommissioning. We also need to reimburse the taxpayers for any public land used for solar farms and furnaces, and for the pristine natural views and property values ruined by square miles of mirrors and panels. Even more importantly, we need to calculate the cost of the extinction of species and loss of biodiversity from industrializing millions of acres of natural habitat with solar farms. We also need to price in the toxins associated with the storage batteries and capacitors and fuel cells and smart grid meters necessary to make this viable, and reimburse the taxpayers for new rights of way for HVDC transmission lines and the costs of forcing existing electrical power plants to operate inefficiently with spinning reserves idling to make up for unpredictable lapses in variable solar power that otherwise endanger the grid. You write the bill, and I'll help sell it.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
August 2, 2012

Naive? You think that I'm NAIVE? Nah Cliff, it's naive to think that we have spent trillions of dollars in the middle east just to protect Israel. If we wanted to do that all we would have to do would be to have a few air bases and a combat brigade or two in the area. If Saudi Arabia didn't have oil, we wouldn't give a rat's axx about them. I do agree with you however that it's not a situation that we can walk away from on the drop of a hat. Now, the easiest way to fix this would be to lesson our dependence (worldwide dependence, that is) on oil. We can do that by instituting a comprehensive energy battle plan that gores all of the sacred cows of energy. The big oil companies need to adapt or die. The coal companies have been given notice that their time is coming to an end, as it should be. Carbon emissions need to be taxed so that their price reflects the true costs of fossil fuels. Imports from countries that don't manufacture goods in a sustainable way should have an excise tax levied against them. The grid should be expanded and upgraded. The grid should be nationalized and smart grid technologies should be rolled out as quickly as possible. People should be encouraged to reduce and reuse. Businesses should be given tax incentives to encourage their employees to ride a bicycle, car pool or take public transportation to work. People should be given tax incentives to bike, car pool or take public transportation to work. Tax policy should be used to encourage people to not have as many kids so as to limit population growth. We should encourage other countries to do the same. Wind, solar and other renewable energies should be encouraged and implemented as quickly as possible. Can all of this be done over night? No, but the sooner we get started the less pain that we'll feel in the long run. To keep our heads in the tar sand and whine that the problem is too big will only insure defeat.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell

Cliff Claven
August 2, 2012

Bob, The U.S. military guards the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz more for our partners and allies like Israel who is directly threatened by hostile neighbors, Saudi Arabia who has forgone nuclear weapons contingent upon the umbrella of our protection, and Japan who is absolutely dependent on mideast oil. What geopolitical realignment do you envision that would let us walk away from that? It's about the global free flow of oil and trade which are essential to managing price volatility on the global market for a host of dependent goods around the whole world, not about the 16.5% of our imported crude (3% of our energy) we get from the Persian Gulf and could get from Mexico or Canada or produce domestically if we chose to. It is unspeakably naive to believe we have a military presence in the Persian Gulf solely because of oil, and should somehow count that bill to oil consumers alone. It is N2O (nitrous oxide, not NO2) that is the issue for GHG emissions. It is 298 times more potent than CO2 per the IPCC and is now overtaking CO2 as the leading anthropogenic contributor to global warming. Between 1 and 5% of the nitrogen in fertilizer production and application ends up in the atmosphere as N2O. It is directly tied to increasing global agriculture for both fuel and food. N2O, plus the emissions of the extra fossil fuel used to make up for the negative energy balance, plus the release of sequestered CO2 and destroyed appetite for CO2 caused by burning down forests to make biofuel crop land is why most every lifecycle analysis on biofuels since 2008 is finding no benefit or an increase in GHG emissions and increased environmental damage over fossil fuels. Several of those studies were cited above. All of the previously rubber-stamped Section 526 certs for biofuels should be revisited to include land use change, and if so, will have a very hard time passing if done with integrity. Now how is solar going to provide 27 quadrillion BTUs of transportation energy?

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
August 2, 2012

On the issue of subsidies, you're simply wrong! The 2.8 Billion dollar subsidy of fossil fuels figure that you referenced above only includes the direct subsidies. It doesn't take into account things such as equipment that the coast guard owns and maintains to fight oil spills or in rules that limit the amount of royalties that the government can demand of oil and gas companies from their operations on federal lands. To your point about our military expenditures....come on! Do you really think that we would be maintaining a combat brigade in Kuwait and would have doubled the number of US warships and planes in the Persian Gulf if it weren't for the oil? North Korea (which doesn't have oil) has nuclear bombs and a stockpile of chemical weapons, yet all we did was wag our finger at them. Saddam Husein couldn't fly from one part of Iraq (which does have oil) to another without our permission and we spent trillions waging war there. To not include these expenditures in the total of fossil fuel subsidies is naive at best, disingenuous at worst!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
August 2, 2012

Regarding your point that the negative health effects of bio fuels are higher than fossil fuels is ludicrous! While it remains to be seen if bio fuels can scale up in a manner that improves net carbon emissions over petroleum fuels, we don't have to wait to do the math on health effects. While the health effects of using coal is by far the worst, I'll grant you that you did limit your comment to liquid fuels. But even then, when you take into account the fact that hydrocarbon, carbon dioxide and particulate emissions are generally lowered by using bio-fuels and only NO2 emissions are increase (and only slightly), the net is an improvement (NO2 emissions can also be neutralized at the tailpipe as is being done with all new diesel engines). The biggest advantage of bio-fuels over petroleum based fuels is that they don't have to be mined and therefore don't release heavy metals and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from our efforts to secure them.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
August 2, 2012

I've read a couple of the articles that you referred to and a bunch of others and my current opinion is that we do need to take into account the EROEI (energy return on energy invested)and the net carbon emissions ratio of the different feed stocks for bio-fuels. That said, some of the things that these studies took into account kind of present a circular logic. For example,you do need to take into account the emissions from trucking any fertilizer that you need to the fields. If you are using petroleum based fuel to power these trucks, those emissions need to be subtracted from the total emission savings of that feedstock. However, there is no requirement that these trucks be powered by petroleum based fuels and if they weren't, you wouldn't have to subtract any emissions. Also, we are still early in the research phase of figuring out which feedstock is the best and the most optimum way of growing and processing it. Criticizing these efforts at this point is kind of like telling a 5 year old Michael Phelps that he swims too slowly!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
August 2, 2012

Cliff! What have you been smoking? Maybe you should have processed it into bio fuels! ;-) Actually, I'll admit that we're still learning a lot about how to produce bio-fuels in a responsible manner that actually helps our climate problems and doesn't contribute to them. Unfortunately, here in the US at least politics got us going down the corn route and from what I can see that route really doesn't do us a bunch of good. That said, a lot of work is being done on improving the processes required to produce bio fuels from other sources with switch grass being the most promising one. (I hate that they don't allow you to break our comments up into more readable chunks, so I'll continue on another comment)

Cliff Claven
August 1, 2012

Bob, I do appreciate the link on the report that substantiates the $120B figure. That is a good data point. Health impacts, unfortunately get worse with any alternative choice for liquid fuels, particularly switch grass and algae which have huge negative energy balances (per the references I included.) You're still waiving your hands on subsidies. Alternative energy, not big oil, is the bottomless pit for taxpayer money. I gave data from a 2011 DOE/EIA report specially prepared for Congress that includes all manner of assistance across all federal government agencies including IRS tax breaks. I'm guessing you are smart enough to know that we only get 3% of our energy from the Persian gulf, and could get that domestically or from Canada or Mexico or elsewhere if we wanted to. I expect you understand that oil is a global market commodity and there is no way to segregate out the money spent on securing global oil supplies from the money spent to secure those same supply lines for global trade, and that the price of every global commodity we import would go up immediately if the U.S. suddenly decided in a fit of idiocy to attempt to save money by not patrolling the world's seas and skies with its military. The approx $90B the U.S. military spends in the Middle East each year would be dwarfed by the amount consumers would pay in higher prices at Walmart, as well as for fuel prices stoked by wall-street speculators and any real-world supply interruptions. Now I take it you are a promoter of PV solar. Events around the world, particularly in the countries that have gone whole-hog into solar like Germany and Spain, illustrate that we still have a way to go before solar reaches an EROI of 1.0. The upfront capital costs are still not offset by the subsequent savings, and the market is punishing those who bet on it. Exceeding break-even will not solve the energy density or capacity shortfalls. PV will never deliver the 27quads the US uses just for transportation.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
August 1, 2012

...that is directly related to keeping the oil flowing in the middle east!

So, if you're under the impression that renewable energy gets anywhere near the support that fossil fuels do, you're simply wrong!

Back to bio fuels for a second, one thing that you have to realize is that this is still a very new technology; one that is going to improve it's processes as time goes on. So, while a technology might not quite make the grade now, that doesn't mean that it can't be improved in the future to a point where it does make sense.

With fossil fuels, we know what we are getting and we also know that they are a finite resource that while it might be 40, 80 or 100 years out, that they are going to run out in any kind of economically feasible way.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
August 1, 2012

Damn, I didn't realize that I needed to provide footnotes here! That being the case, the $120,000,000,000.00 figure came from the National Academy of Science. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12794 Regarding the rest of your rant, all I can say is that the worst form of a truth is a half truth! Some bio-fuels do indeed require more energy to grow, harvest, refine and deliver than they provide. They can also put upward pressure on food prices. The use of corn in particular is problematic for these reasons and it's use as a bio-fuel probably has more to do with political clout than energy economics. That's not to say that all bio-fuels are this way. Switch grass, algae and even cannabis would probably be better sources for bio fuels in that they can be grown in such a way that they don't compete with food production and they have a better energy payback ratio. That said, were we talking about bio fuels? My last comment was on the comparison of fossil fuel subsidies to renewable energy subsidies. I wrote it in response to your comment that attempted to convince people that renewable energy subsidies were larger than fossil fuel subsidies and that they weren't a good investment..is that fair? Well, nothing could be further from the truth! As I mentioned, the fossil fuel industry is subsidized in a number of ways, both direct and indirect. Already mentioned were the favorable tax treatment that oil and gas companies get. As an example, did you know that BP got a tax credit for it's clean up efforts after the gulf oil spill? Yep, you and I, in addition to the money that the government spent on the oil spill and didn't bill for, paid about 1/3 of the cost of the clean up back to BP in the form of a tax credit! They also benefit from tax rules that were specifically written to benefit their industry and from favorable leases. Oh! I didn't mention the TRILLIONS of dollars in military spending..tbc

ANONYMOUS
August 1, 2012

Why are biofuels being discussed here? Everyone in renewable except those in biofuels already HATE ethanol and the farm lobby that created the subsidies for producing a "NEGATIVE" energy source.
My guess is because that is all you have to stand on.

Cliff Claven
August 1, 2012

13. Wynn, Gerard. "U.S. Corn Ethanol Was Not a Good Policy: Gore." Reuters. Athens, November 22, 2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/22/us-ethanol-gore-idUSTRE6AL3CN20101122.
14. Bartis, et al., Rand Corporation. Promoting International Energy Security. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2012. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1144z1.html.
15. Bartis, James T., and Lawrence Van Bibber. Alternative Fuels for Military Applications. RAND National Defense Research Institute, 2011. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG969.html.
16. Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010. Energy Information Agency, July 2011. http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/.
17. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. "Estimated U.S Energy Use in 2010: ~98.0 Quads." Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2011. https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/energy/energy_archive/energy_flow_2010/LLNLUSEnergy2010.png.
18. Pimentel, David, and Tad W. Patzek. "Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower." Natural Resources Research 14, no. 1 (March 2005): 65–76. http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s11053-005-4679-8.
19. Patzek, Tadeusz W. "A Probabilistic Analysis of the Switchgrass Ethanol Cycle." Sustainability 2, no. 10 (September 30, 2010): 3158–3194. http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/10/3158/.
20. Clarens, Andres F., Eleazer P. Resurreccion, Mark A. White, and Lisa M. Colosi. "Environmental Life Cycle Comparison of Algae to Other Bioenergy Feedstocks." Environmental Science & Technology 44, no. 5 (March 2010): 1813–1819. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es902838n.
21. Murphy, Cynthia Folsom, and David T. Allen. "Energy-Water Nexus for Mass Cultivation of Algae." Environmental Science & Technology 45, no. 13 (July 2011): 5861–5868. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es200109z.
That should get you started.

Cliff Claven
August 1, 2012

4. Lisboa, Carolina Cardoso, Klaus Butterbach-Bahl, Matthias Mauder, and Ralf Kiese. "Bioethanol Production from Sugarcane and Emissions of Greenhouse Gases - Known and Unknowns." GCB Bioenergy 3, no. 4 (August 2011): 277–292. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110302080026.htm.
5. "Nitrous Oxide Now Top Ozone-depleting Emission." ScienceDaily, n.d. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827141344.htm.
6. Scharlemann, J. P. W., and W. F. Laurance. "How Green Are Biofuels?" Science 319, no. 5859 (January 4, 2008): 43–44. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.1153103.
7. Simpson, Sarah. "Nitrogen Fertilizer: Agricultural Breakthrough--And Environmental Bane." Scientific American, March 20, 2009. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nitrogen-fertilizer-anniversary.
8. Smith, Keith A., and Timothy D. Searchinger. "Crop-based Biofuels and Associated Environmental Concerns." GCB Bioenergy (June 2012). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120608100548.htm.
9. Yang, Yi, Junghan Bae, Junbeum Kim, and Sangwon Suh. "Replacing Gasoline with Corn Ethanol Results in Significant Environmental Problem-Shifting." Environmental Science & Technology (March 14, 2012): 120314152159007. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es203641p.
10. Dina Fine Maron. "Biofuels of No Benefit to Military -- RAND." New York Times, January 25, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/01/25/25climatewire-biofuels-of-no-benefit-to-military-rand-11643.html.
11. Energy Security in the United States. Congressional Budget Office, May 2012. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/05-09-EnergySecurity.pdf.
12. National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2011. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13105.
(continued in next post)

Cliff Claven
August 1, 2012

@FreeAsTheWind: apparently you got your nickname by pulling numbers like $120B out of thin air. I cited government data and you cite nothing. If you care to research the facts you will find that biofuels take more energy to make than they provide; are parasites of fossil fuel hydrogen, carbon, and heat energy; are accelerating our use of fossil fuels and increasing our dependence upon foreign oil; result in increased GHG emissions from the CO2 released from burning down forests and peat lands to make crop land and from the fertilizer N2O released that is 298 times worse than CO2; and that they are more damaging to the environment: requiring thousands of times more water to make per BTU and releasing toxic nitrate and pesticide and herbicide runoff. Global combustion of biomass fuels for home heating and cooking is being blamed for the premature death of millions by inhalation of particulates and carbon-monoxide, and these people would be far better off from a health perspective using clean-burning natural gas or LPG instead of wood and charcoal. If you are advocating PV solar for heating and cooking and transportation, then you need a basic STEM eduction as well. Here is a first handful of studies and reports from reputable government, university, and peer-reviewed science journal sources to further your education. 1. Crutzen, P.J., A.R. Mosier, K.A. Smith, and W. Winiwarter. 'N2O Release from Agro-biofuel Production Negates Global Warming Reduction by Replacing Fossil Fuels.' Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions 7, no. 4 (2007): 11191–11205. 2. 'Fertilizer Use Responsible for Increase in Nitrous Oxide in Atmosphere', n.d. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120402144930.htm. 3. Lewis, Jonathan. Leaping Before They Looked: Lessons from Europe's Experience with the 2003 Biofuels Directive. Boston: Clean Air Task Force, October 2007. (continued in next post)

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
August 1, 2012

Cliff: You should be careful when talking about subsidies because in terms of big oil and gas, a lot of the "subsidies" are indirect such as favorable tax treatment and government services that are provided for free or at below costs.

Another "subsidy" that doesn't get counted is below market leases on federal properties.

The biggest "subsidy" however is the additional cost of healthcare and premature death that is the result of toxins being released into the environment from the mining and burning of fossil fuels.

These costs add up to over $120,000,000,000.00 per year! That's 120 BILLION dollars that is not included in the costs of a gallon of gasoline or a ton of coal. Factor that cost in and renewable energy starts to look very inexpensive!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell

Cliff Claven
July 31, 2012

Peter Lynch, why don't you do a little research before attacking others and advertising your ignorance. Here are 2010 numbers from DOE/EIA specially prepared at the request of Congress. Federal government subsidies to big oil totaled $2.8B. Alternative energy subsidies totaled $14.7B. Oil and gas were subsidized at a rate of 27 cents per barrel of petroleum energy consumed. Solar received subsidies at the rate of $59.60 per barrel of oil equivalent energy output. Wind received $31.33 per BOE. The federal government collected $36B from big oil corporate income taxes in 2009 (didn't have 2010 data), and also collected $32.7B in 2010 from consumers paying gasoline and diesel excise taxes. All told, the feds netted $6.28 per barrel of revenue from oil, a very respectable ROI for their 27 cent investment, but flushed the $14.7B of alternative energy subsidies down the drain for zero ROI. This was just the latest installment in a total of $34.7B of stimulus money given away to friends of the Administration for "green" energy pipe dreams and outright scams like Cello and Solyndra and Range Fuels. Stop getting your information from the Malibu Institute of Technology or the greenwashed PC Press and research the facts. Sources: 1. Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010. Energy Information Agency, July 2011. http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/ ; 2."DOE-Loan Programs Office?» Our Projects", https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45 ).

Amet Kianin
April 18, 2012

Anonymous> may I suggest you read my posting again, and perhaps you would be kind enough to highlight for me, where Exactly I mentioned Solar Computers ?? -
Finaly I would like to add that perhaps your knowledge about what is and what is not being developed and tested is not a comprehensive as YOU believe...Thank god you were not around when Edison was inventing the Light Bulb...
The Future is solar......

Peter Lynch
April 18, 2012

Bob - you could not be more correct. I second you on the AM radio and maybe start with a comic book :)

"We are not friends--just shook hands" Obviously, Anono, I was kidding.

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
April 18, 2012

90% of this comment thread is asinine! To you guys who are saying that solar (be it PV or thermal) is a scam, all I can say is turn down the AM radio and pick up a book!

The only reason that fossil fuels are less expensive than solar is because of the hundreds of billions of dollars that the industry has received since it's beginning. If you factor in the external costs to health and the environment that aren't included in the price of a gallon of gasoline or in a ton of coal, fossil fuels become even more expensive.

Never mind the fact that be in in 20, 40 or 100 years (if you're a real optimist) we're going to run out of recoverable oil and as that day gets closer, we're going to see wild price fluctuations (wait, aren't we seeing those now???). Combine this fact with the fact that China, India and much of the third world is developing a middle class that is increasing it's demand for fossil fuels and you've got a recipe for disaster!

So, pooh pooh solar all you want, barring a major technological development that really does make electricity that is "too cheap to meter", the future belongs to renewable energy and solar pv and thermal are going to be part of the mix!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell

ANONYMOUS
April 18, 2012

We are not friends--just shook hands.
Nuclear?!? A disaster waiting in the wings for decades, and not my bag, so go argue with another anonymous.
The typewriter analogy is asinine.

Peter Lynch
April 18, 2012

Anonymous - careful my old friend, who I do not remember.

Clueless is a dangerous word. Nuclear has never proven itself with out loan guarantees either.

More difficult to determine - but the use subsidies for oil are HUGE and not sure if they are really proven at this current time to be viable - it all depends on what you count and what you do not.

ANONYMOUS
April 18, 2012

ametis,
"Photo Voltaic Technlogy is the most marketed system, it is the equivalent of a man trying to sell a 1975 typewriter in a world dominated by computers."
By your own statement you admit that you are clueless about solar investment and finance. The solar "computers" you refer in this misguided analogy haven't proven themselves yet (not financable w/o loan guarantees), at least to the people that matter (banks/investors)

Amet Kianin
April 18, 2012

Appologies, my earlier post this morning somehow ended as being from Anonymous...

Peter Lynch
April 18, 2012

Anonymous has a point

Bright Source is solar THERMAL, i.e. solar heat, via steam, thru a turbine into electricity

Photovoltaics (PV) is Solar Electric. Direct from sunlight to DC electricity

ANONYMOUS
April 17, 2012

I personaly think that we should start to distinguish between Different Solar technology systems. As soon as one mentions the word SOLAR many automatically assume Photo Voltaic.

Photo Voltaic Technlogy is the most marketed system, it is the equivalent of a man trying to sell a 1975 typewriter in a world dominated by computers.

Appologies, my earlier post this morning somehow ended as being from Anonymous...Ametis

william payne
April 17, 2012

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO FOR APPROVAL OF RENEWABLE ENERGY RIDER NO. 36 PURSUANT TO ADVICE NOTICE NO. 439 AND FOR VARIANCES FROM CERTAIN FILING REQUIREMENTS

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO,

Applicant )

Case No. 12-00007-UT

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrider/pnmrider.htm#pnmset3

THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES

INTRODUCTION

Intervenor William H Payne requests, pursuant to 1.2.2.25 NMAC, that you answer the following Interrogatories and produce all documents which are responsive in any way to the Interrogatories or in any way to the specific Requests for Production of Documents. Your responses must be made in accordance with the STAFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO. If you have any questions about any of the Interrogatories or Requests for Production, please contact Willaim H Payne at bpayne37@comcast.net or 505-3409225 cell. Please serve responses to bpayne37@comcast.net and have the certificate of service filed with the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission Records Bureau.

The Los Lunas Solar Energy Center

1 What is the size of each of the 78,000 Solar Panels?

2 Who is the panel manufacturer and what is the part number?

3 What inverter is used with the system?

4 What was the cost of the panels?

Documents please.

5 What was the cost of the inverters?

Documents please.

6 What was the cost of the hardware for the Los Lunas Solar Energy Center photovoltaic (PV) system?

Documents please.

7 What was the installation cost of the Los Lunas Solar Energy Center system?

Documents please.

8 What is the purpose ofthe Los Lunas Solar Energy Center?

9 Is the PNM utility-scale solar energy facility at the Los Lunas Solar Energy Center connected to the grid?

...
http://santafegreenline.ning.com/profiles/blogs/solar-green?xg_source=activity

Peter Lynch
April 17, 2012

Travis - what is GTFO ??

Also - I assume you are kidding about only profitable products etc. Nuclear power is WITHOUT question the "Socialist Energy Source" - it is 100% Government subsidized, cannot be financed currently with the 100% Gov guarantee and Cannot be insured, for obvious reasons - only way it works is if you and me (taxpayers) pay for the damages.

Fossil fuels have been subsidized since 1894 - and still now over 100 years later still get 10 fold more than little tiny solar.

Please take a little time to do minimal research before you shoot off your mouth and prove conclusively that you know not of what you speak.

TRAVIS SAGERT
April 17, 2012

To douglas-prince-175356;

Is this your way of solving the problem? Silly political bullying and accusations that mean NOTHING?

"Anonymous" clearly stated the fact that a solar company had massive problems, was a huge donor to political campaigns (which he didnt mention) and got nearly literal access to a cash printing press funded by taxpayers...and you accuse him of being Dick Cheney?

Do you expect anyone to take your drivel seriously? If wou WERE to make a valid point, you'd have negated it.

ONLY PRODUCTS THAT MAKE A PROFIT will exist in non-communist countries. PERIOD. If you run a company poorly, it makes no difference how magical your technology is. So, stop being a silly, childish troll, ignoring the facts that solar is too expensive to manufacture at a large profit until the rate for manufacture goes down, coupled with an actual DEMAND by the consumer.
Mandates for putting a dozen 15-watt panels on the roof of a 20-student schoolhouse in Grantsburg Illinois with taxpayer dollars and Union installers at the cost of $350,000 isn't going to help get you what you want.

Tax subsidies, incentives and rebates (all 'funded' by tax dollars from the same people applying for it) are NOT enough to make solar grow. If anything, it has let solar companies rely on them INSTEAD of R&D and innovation (Just look at the German PV bankruptcy cases; no govt money = no profit).

When solar is cheap enough where the installation is cheaper than the materials, EVERYONE will want it. You cant force it, especially by ridiculous pseudo-puns asking people what "secret evil Republican identity" they are. GTFO, troll.

ANONYMOUS
April 17, 2012

Peter-
We have met before and none of my "anonymous" criticism was directed your way. I like your style and willingness to question the herd.
However, no name is coming. The only thing I can assure anyone reading my comments is that I believe them to be true.
Best of luck,
Anonymous

Peter Lynch
April 17, 2012

Exactly Anonymous - exactly - since you are always thinking - think about what you said - below and see if in the midst of your thinking you can come up with a simple solution that will eliminate confusion and enhance communication and elevate our discussion. Maybe a first name or a fake first name ??

Posters-
Consider that there could be more than 1 person posting as "anonymous"--as tough as that may be for some of you to understand.

Hakki Surel
April 17, 2012

Why are you making things so complicated and fight each other?

The IPO was withdrawn because there would be many public discussions to judge the viability and profitability of the business, either side BS side and utility companies side.
Most probably the cost of the project to be implemented would be around $4000/kW of installed capacity even with high insolated region level.

The same project would be easily materialized at half price (we do here in our part of the world with little water consumption just to clean the panels (pv-thin film better)no emission, no CO2 and even with the possibility of making shade under the panels (you can cultivate-green energy)with the water used for cleaning the panels (no chemicals required-exception of the water softening).

Therefore those public discussions would harm the project and put the decision makers and public authorities in danger.

This is the only reason that IPO is withdrawn (adverse market conditions; pv is much less costly these days).

If somebody see any other reason please inform us all without fighting.

Thank you for your understanding if I am wrong.

Hakki Surel

william payne
April 16, 2012

Monday April 16, 2012 20:12

Google 'hybrid owners one and done'

And finally, while we're on the topic of energy, here's a submission from Fellow Reckoner, V. Forbes, who writes in from our old home state of Queensland, Australia. This one ought to inspire a few responses. Writes Mr. Forbes...

Generating electricity from solar panels in cold, cloudy Northern Europe is like growing pawpaws in Iceland — it can be done, but who would be so silly as to try?
http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrider/pnmrider.htm#pnmset2

Germany was silly enough to try. Germany gets about an hour of useful sunshine per day in winter — solar power is weakest just when they need it most. But they have installed about half of the world's solar panels. Germany's Q-Cells, once the world's biggest manufacturer of solar panels, just went broke. So did four other German solar companies.Sunny California also tried, but despite a half billion dollar loan from US tax payers, solar panel manufacturer Solyndra went broke. Solar Trust of America, recently offered $2 billion in loan guarantees by US tax payers, has also filed for bankruptcy.

All the European PIIGS have tried — and the waste of taxpayer funds on failing green energy schemes is a major reason for their parlous financial state.

The only sensible participant in the solar industry is China — they make panels very cheaply using coal or nuclear power and sell them to green dreamers.

The reason green energy creates so much red ink is pretty obvious — it just needs one day's observation of the sun.

Full strength solar energy is available around midday for maybe 8 hours each day, providing the skies are clear, and there is no dust on the panels, and you are in a tropical zone. For the other 16 hours of the day, most electricity must come from reliable energy sources like gas, hydro, coal or nuclear. This about doubles capital and operating costs for no increase in output.

ANONYMOUS
April 16, 2012

Posters-
Consider that there could be more than 1 person posting as "anonymous"--as tough as that may be for some of you to understand. Speaks to the way you build your assumptions--blindly assuming things that make you feel better/smarter/righter.
If you can't see BS for what it is, you probably thought Solyndra was a "game changer" too.
I will maintain my anonymity because I am the harmless fly on the wall in many situations--I listen and I think a lot about what I hear and what is actually being done. Believe it or not.

Alison Tottenham
April 15, 2012

Whether or not it benefits an well founded installation if the company goes public, is not something that I am going to get worked up about. I can see plenty of reasons against a public share issue - maybe I'm wrong, I tend to run on commonsense! But I think that a part of this discussion has lost the plot.

All installations, be they to use fossil hydrocarbons, or nuclear, or sun, or wind or water, use both energy and water in their creation. However, once installed the first two of these require continuous disruption to habitat (mining) and provision and purchase of fuel materials. All that the latter three - and all permutations of same - require is an annual service/inspection. All renewables other than sustainable biomass and biofuel, run on free energy supplied to the energy converter (PV panel or turbine etc.) by the planet for the lifespan of the materials and as long as the sun shines and the moon remains in place! The following video of the work of Sanjit Roy is well worth watching and thinking about.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/es/bunker_roy.html as is the work of Greg Mortenson and the Central Asia Institute.

Personally I agree with the others on the attitude of Anonymous. As you will see from the video of the Barefoot College's establishment, certificates and degrees are not everything, but a knowledge of who you are and what you know is important. A teacher cannot teach without the respect of their community; and Anonymous, your current community comprises the people to whom you make points.

Peter Lynch
April 14, 2012

Anonymous - who is the below comment directed to ?? When you make a comment it is nice to refer to who you are commenting to - yes ? If you go back and read your posts they have no continuity and therefore loose impact. You do make some good points but the loss of impact hurts you.

Just an FYI.

is your employer going to get your post deleted again?
you must drive them crazy
get back to your boiler room

william payne
April 13, 2012

Clouds on Solar's Horizon

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/business/energy-environment/clouds-on-solars-horizon.html?_r=2&ref=business

Solar works for charging batteries.

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrider/solarlights.htm

But watch out for over and undervoltage situations.

william payne
April 13, 2012

ANONYMOUS
April 13, 2012

Oh No! You meant to say that BrightSource is a risky investment?

Did you know that they did not predict how much water and natural gas they are going to use for that project? They want to use an additional 6 acre feet of water and burn even more natural gas at night! Here is their petition to amend. It will increase emissions, not reduce them! http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/ivanpah/compliance/2012-02-08_Petition_to_Amend-Equipment_Change_to_Reduce_Emissions_TN-64038.pdf

I don't think BS ever really knew if they had a project that could produce. They spent a lot of time giving us a bunch of lies about not only their technology, but their environmetal mitigation.

This is the karma for all of their desert tortoise genocide in Ivanpah Valley

Peter Lynch
April 13, 2012

Anonymous - who is the below comment directed to ??

is your employer going to get your post deleted again?
you must drive them crazy
get back to your boiler room

bart barton
April 13, 2012

Too much risk that you'll be exposed as a biased politico with nothing meaningful to offer is what you really mean....keep the comments section relevant and respectful.

ANONYMOUS
April 13, 2012

too much risk speaking the truth openly

ANONYMOUS
April 13, 2012

is your employer going to get your post deleted again?
you must drive them crazy
get back to your boiler room

Peter Lynch
April 13, 2012

Anonymous -

You are correct about pumped up prices being fraud - I am not sure, since I am not all knowing, how "pumped up" their prices are.
Solyndra is a totally different story. Never was a viable product and handled mindbogglingly by the folks at ODE. But this is certainly nothing new to anyone who has followed the failures of DOE over the past 40 years.
Why you do not use your name is your business, however, I do find it a bit strange and it diminishes your credibility - but after all , it is your credibility.
I am still puzzled as to your viewpoint on anything solar ?? Are you for or against, is it too soon or will never come ?? Perhaps that would be a good use of posting space.

Douglas Prince
April 13, 2012

Ahhh, the turd-monkey returneth.

Tell me, anonymous, if you are so worldly and wise, why do you hide your face? Such great wisdom and insight must certainly have a name to match. A person with the greatest of abilities to consistently knock down nascent and emerging technologies in blatant favor of the status quo MUST have a quality name behind him.

Tell us, turd-monkey, what IS your name? Petersen? Koch? Cheney?

ANONYMOUS
April 13, 2012

You are right, in that you are wrong. Interest from the IRS killed the IPO.
A business model based on pumped up sales prices to takeout (NO comps available) is a business model based on tax fraud.
You either ignore or are ignorant of the facts.
Just another solar shill marching to the manufacturer/developer's drum beat.
I used to get lambasted by solar junkies when I spoke about Solyndra's product problems in 2007-9. After DOE went through, I basically was forced to shut up and wait quietly for the "end".

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
April 13, 2012

Maybe I'm wrong, but the fact that the company is displaying the patience and confidence to not rush into going public at a time when the markets might not be receptive shows to me a level of maturity that should be admired.

I don't know what Anon means above when he says, that they couldn't get enough "free money" out of the deal, but I'd love to know what, if anything, he/she has done that would come anywhere near comparing with what BrightSource has already accomplished!

Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell

ANONYMOUS
April 13, 2012

Couldn't get enough "free" money out of the deal. Never mind the skeletons in the closet of BrightSource (BS)--post Solyndra, you really need to keep a lid on the truth.
[ Ivanpah makes up the first three of 13 power plants that the company plans to build to meet its more than 2.3 gigawatts of contracts with Pacific Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison.]

Amet Kianin
April 13, 2012

" adverse market conditions " ? what would have been a better confidence builder than to go ahead ??

One ponders................

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Jennifer Runyon

Jennifer Runyon is managing editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com coordinating, writing and/or editing columns, features, news stories and blogs for the publications. She also serves as conference chair of Solar Power-Gen Conference and Exhibition...