It seems quite a few years ago you could get Solar Voltaic Cells incredibly cheap. Now it seems that they are everywhere PLUS coupled with the fact of 'green initiatives' the cost of acquiring them is much more. I do not feel this price increase is pure inflation. Is it only me that feels because of the new-found 'popularity' or requirements to use these units that have driven up the costs, or is it some other factors (e.g. new technology, incredibly high demand, rare material etc.)?

 

years ago, magazines like popular mechanics and popular science had an artical every few months about some new breakthrough that would make solar power cheaper. it did go down a few years ago, but seems to be going up now. a friend of mine who was a stock broker told me that when the hew pattents came out for solar improvements, a certain industry bought them to keep their profits protected.

 

It is only right and proper, as well as being sound business sense, for the oil industry to invest some of its R&D budget (profit?) into developing oil replacements for the day when their supply dries up as it eventually will.

However I object to the feed in tariff system where my government forcibly removes my cash to pay users of solar panels up to three times what I pay for electricity.

 

The price may be ticked up very little, but you still can buy panels at roughly $1/watt.

 

It seems quite a few years ago you could get Solar Voltaic Cells incredibly cheap. Now it seems that they are everywhere PLUS coupled with the fact of 'green initiatives' the cost of acquiring them is much more.

Quite a few years ago, the cost of solar per watt was more than 100 times what it is today.

 

It is only right and proper...for the oil industry to invest some of its R&D budget...into developing oil replacements for the day when their supply dries up as it eventually will....

Please, tell us when that will be.

Also, tell us why an oil company should develop something other than oil?

Shouldn't a solar company develop solar?

Division of labor is a feature, not a bug, of free-market capitalism.

 

Please, tell us when that will be.

Also, tell us why an oil company should develop something other than oil?

Shouldn't a solar company develop solar?

Division of labor is a feature, not a bug, of free-market capitalism.

Ask BP and SHELL and others. They have, over the past 15 years developed their own solar technologies.

As Shale gas and other tight petroleum extraction technologies have extended the date that oil will run out, BP and Shell have decided to exit the solar market

http://www.bp.com/en/global/alternative-energy/our-businesses/solar-power.html

http://www.businessweek.com

The reason for the price increase, without conspiracy theories, is that Chinese manufacturers lowered prices and dumped into all regions to force Western producers out of business, now they raise their prices. Same process as Rare-Earth metals mining and refining.

 

Ask BP and SHELL and others. They have, over the past 15 years developed their own solar technologies.

As Shale gas and other tight petroleum extraction technologies have extended the date that oil will run out, BP and Shell have decided to exit the solar market.

Examples of oil companies that have invested in something other than oil does not answer my question of the "right and proper" duty of an oil company.

In this case, they spent 15 years, and likely vast capital, on things other than their core business, for reasons that were likely not related to their business. The "invisible hand" slapped them upside the face, and we are all now poorer for it.

 

that depends on whether they are developing the solar technology, or just sitting on it to keep us dependant on oil, thus increasing profits.

 

that depends on whether they are developing the solar technology, or just sitting on it to keep us dependant [sic] on oil, thus increasing profits.

This is crazy thinking. You suggest they spend considerable time and money to develop some new fangled, never before existing, solar technology that is both efficient and scalable, and then sit on it? To increase their profits?

Wouldn't it be better to not spend what would otherwise be profits to begin with?

 

that depends on whether they are developing the solar technology, or just sitting on it to keep us dependant on oil, thus increasing profits.

And, what the heck is wrong with profits???

Profits are good, and I say this without any reservation whatsoever. Profits provide the incentive required for those who supply the products and services that we, as human beings, require to survive.

Without profits, we'd all still be hunkering down in caves at night, wondering where our next morsel of food is coming from, assuming we lived long enough to find and eat it.

There are places on this earth where you can live without the danger of making a profit. Perhaps you should spend some time in such a place. You might change your outlook on a few things.

 

Ask BP and SHELL and others. They have, over the past 15 years developed their own solar technologies.

Shell is already in and out of the solar power game. They sold off that division in 2006.

BP too. "BP has completed its previously announced wind down of its solar operations."

 

Examples of oil companies that have invested in something other than oil does not answer my question of the "right and proper" duty of an oil company.

In this case, they spent 15 years, and likely vast capital, on things other than their core business, for reasons that were likely not related to their business. The "invisible hand" slapped them upside the face, and we are all now poorer for it.

It is all a question of risk and definition of their charter / goals. If they view themselves as an energy company or a petrolium company. Also, they were (are) making between 1 and 6 Billion per year. It might make sense to be viewed as Green when the green craze was emerging and it might make sense to 'know your enemy (competitor ).

With your logic, no vacuum tube manufacturer should have invested in semiconductor technology. And no, I don't think that is an unfair comparison.

 

Shell is already in and out of the solar power game. They sold off that division in 2006.

BP too. "BP has completed its previously announced wind down of its solar operations."

Yes, that is why I said,

As Shale gas and other tight petroleum extraction technologies have extended the date that oil will run out, BP and Shell have decided to exit the solar market

I was just saying, oil companies have invested in solar - which was claimed to be a stupid suggestion in an even earlier post.

 

It is all a question of risk and definition of their charter / goals. If they view themselves as an energy company or a petrolium company. Also, they were (are) making between 1 and 6 Billion per year. It might make sense to be viewed as Green when the green craze was emerging and it might make sense to 'know your enemy (competitor ).

With your logic, no vacuum tube manufacturer should have invested in semiconductor technology. And no, I don't think that is an unfair comparison.

Stop missing my point, please. I was referring to studiot's "right and proper" assertion.

I will not argue that any decision made freely by a board of directors is not "right and proper." If they are wrong, they can be held accountable by the shareholders.

EDIT: If studiot is wrong, who holds him accountable?

 

Examples of oil companies that have invested in something other than oil does not answer my question of the "right and proper" duty of an oil company.

What is right and proper for the oil company to do is use R&D money in whatever way they can to produce a ROI for their shareholders. Without the ROI, they would be out of business.

 

What is interesting is that I am being exhorted, by a businessman, to accept diversification as necessary to business survival in this thread.

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=100315

(post#13)

Whereas I am castigated for suggesting it here.

 

What is interesting is that I am being exhorted, by a businessman, to accept diversification as necessary to business survival in this thread.

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=100315

(post#13)

Whereas I am castigated for suggesting it here.

I never said anything regarding the merits, or lack thereof, of diversification. You claim to know the "right and proper" disposition of oil companies' profits. Buy *lots* of stock, then get yourself elected to the BOD of an oil company. Test your theories. Then get back to us.

 

Studiot,

Whatever the business, there are choices. If you have a narrow niche, with limited clients, don't expect to get rich and you might not survive.

Most recommend multiple income streams. This typically means products for all seasons and all reasons.

The sole purpose of business is generate a profit for the owners, or share holders.

That is why the government has no business of creating a business. How much money was spent on a "tomorrow's technology" business by the governments only to have them "go bankrupt" within five years. Once the government money ran out, so did the "business". It seems their business model was to collect the government millions and not have any results. That business model is used over and over again in the U.S.

Here's one site on business failure rate.... http://www.statisticbrain.com/startup-failure-by-industry/

IT has a 63% failure rate by four years. Services has a 43% failure rate by four years.

Yes, there are many reasons for the failures. If one wanted to start their own business, I would recommend the "starting your own business" information at the small business administration for those in the U.S. I don't have any recommendations for those acrossed the two ponds from the U.S.

 

The real reason that solar panel pricing is increasing in the US is because the US government has instituted tariffs against Chinese imports. see: http://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...i-Dumping-Tariffs-in-US-China-Solar-Panel-Tra This is a bit of a joke, considering the company "SolarWorld" is a German owned company.