Fred's Comments

Clear cutting forests for solar projects is borderline greenwashing--Apple just might have jumped-the-shark. Never mind the inconsistencies regarding Apple's solar plans in the PRs.

FSLR needs to slash development overhead by teaming with small shops that are nimble and have connections to "pitch" owners of large sites.

Rod,
If nuclear plant owners are willing to pay insurance premiums that are based on risk then I'm all for nuclear powering everything. But of course we both know that will never happen since it makes nuclear impossible to finance. Bottom line is that nuclear needs a massive insurance subsidy in order to pencil. Liability caps are subsidies--arguing to the contrary will make you look even more like a lobbyist. Refuting common sense is one of the bigger tasks for the nuclear lobby.
BTW--Apple's PR about the data center in North Carolina is loaded with inconsistencies--Apple needs some help with solar.

There aren't ANY 245W pv modules that are "3 square feet". Look up the dimensions before commenting. Some are 3 feet LONG but area = length times width.
For future reference 100 sqft of roof equates to about 1.1 kWp of modules--depending on tilt and other design choices.

20 MW...in North Carolina...no tracking...producing 42 million kWh each year..are you kidding??? If the project were located in the Mohave desert, maybe.
Assuming you mean 20 MWp and not 20 MW-AC (either way the numbers are still way OFF)
20 MWp x (1350MWh/1MWp)= 27,000 MWh or 27 million kWh--the article shows an estimate that is about 50% off.

Apple has to be smarter than:
"A 100-acre, 20-megawatt (MW) solar array, supplying 42 million kWh of energy each year."

Good comments.
And thanks for the insights Ed.

ENOUGH with protectionist tariffs that would only benefit a very small group of manufactures.
If you want to support US industry, project level finance support is how it should be attacked. Lower rates for construction loans and project debt for those using US made components--the "green" infrastructure bank that so many have talked about for years. Then the market (developers) could decide--rather than tariffs that simply funnel money into a few manufacturers coffers.

Judging by this article Lou appears to have been wrong about Solyndra for a long time. Not a good thing for a due diligence provider so I can understand the defensive tone of this article.
Better luck next time Lou.

NJ went afoul when it changed its policy regarding Qualifying solar projects--allowing infront of the meter solar farms over 2MWp was a HUGE mistake and the main reason the market #s have crashed so dramatically. NJ changed the rules for short term correction that over shot by a mile--next time NJ should "think" before you "does"/look before you leap.

WHY are developers avoiding private land that is already "disturbed"?
The answer is: because BLM land is basically "free"--most developers can't juice up their development fees to where they want them on private land--these are FREE RIDERS in every sense of the term. They will want water rights as well.
Make no mistake, the extraction of $ is all that is underway--actual power production and value to grid security aren't major concerns--bottom line/IRRs and the ecosystem be damned.

JayModi-
CA does NOT have a solar carve out.
CA has an RPS that utilizes a multi-source REC structure. The RPS allows TRECs to be used as substitutes for CA RECs through 2013.
There has only been talk about a carve-out for solar PV.

Hopefully Dr. Paul MacGregor was misquoted/misunderstood:

"6 percent payback" as there is no such thing--simple payback (return of initial investment capital to investor) and project returns ($ in excess of equity returns) are not one in the same.
Unlevered returns for an "average" large solar project vary over the states with carve-outs but 6% would be at the bottom end of the range.

Nice work Stephen.

This is FOOLS GOLD pure and simple. The source of the "information" in this piece is laughable:
"surveys with ethanol producers and corn farmers and is summarized in a press release they issued this week."
Why don't you just ask a coal company to tell you how great coal is??

Anonymous-- solar gardens simply do not work in most states due to net metering laws and QF issues.
Care to name a couple of states where you plan to "work on this"?