http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-solartrust-bankruptcy-idUSBRE8310ZV20120402

Solar Trust of America LLC, which holds the development rights for the world's largest solar power project, on Monday filed for bankruptcy protection after its majority owner began insolvency proceedings in Germany.

The Oakland-based company has held rights for the 1,000-megawatt Blythe Solar Power Project in the Southern California desert, which last April won $2.1 billion of conditional loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy. It is unclear how the bankruptcy will affect that project.

Maybe they would have done better with a subsidy.........

 

-----signature-----

I think solar power will be viable as a tech as an addon to homes to supliment their energy needs not huge solar farms which destroy the environment

 

-----signature-----

I'm not sure what ill thought out political point your trying to score here. Bankruptcy is bad maybe? but it doesn't come across clearly.

 

-----signature-----

http://youtu.be/uK367T7h6ZY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR

Germany has a massive solar industry. Is it a surprise, then, that some companies couldn't compete?

Damn you capitalism! Clearly this is evidence that solar is a failed technology!

 

-----signature-----

If solar was economically viable they wouldn't need subsidies. They'd just build the panels, collect the electricity, and sell it.

They don't because it isn't.

 

-----signature-----

Isn't oil subsidized? Oil is MORE than economically viable. I don't understand your point.

 

-----signature-----

Fixed that all up for you.

 

-----signature-----

My point is what I said. What's your point?

Oil doesn't need subsidies. Fiscal conservatives are 100% in favor of taking those subsidies away. Unfortunately fiscal liberals incorrectly believe we're better off paying companies to provide jobs to Americans.

 

-----signature-----

Even though Paul doesn't care about realities, I post here just for fun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_per_watt

Price per watt, or $/W is a common way to compare the capital costs of various forms of electricity generation. It refers to the number of dollars one would have to spend to buy a machine capable of producing one watt of electricity. It is calculated by dividing the total project capital cost by the amount of peak power (watts-peak, or "Wp" it can produce.

Modern[when?] coal power plants are generally one of the least expensive sources of electricity by this measure, at around $2.10 a watt.[1] Large hydroelectric systems can be even less expensive by this measure; the Three Gorges Dam is reported to have cost ¥180 billion (US$26 billion), about $1 a watt, but actual costs are widely believed to be much higher.[2] Solar panels are currently selling for as low as just over $1 a watt in industrial quantities, but the balance of system costs put the systems closer to $4 to $5 a watt.[1] Large wind turbines are around $8 a watt and falling.[3] Natural gas-fired peaking power plants are around $6 a watt.[4]

Note that the capital costs are not the only determinant of the cost of the electricity produced. A coal plant needs to burn coal to produce power (a limited resource), while a solar panel and other renewable generation has no fuel input at all. Maintenance, replacement, fuel costs and capacity factor all affect the cents per kilowatt hour of the power plant's delivered electricity.

System costs include batteries, wiring, inverters, and charge controllers for OFF GRID systems. Grid tied systems eliminate charge controllers, some wiring, and batteries, which are at the moment one of the most expensive elements.

 

-----signature-----