The ROI exists - Goldman, Walburg, etc all have billions invested. Most solar developers are private companies. A lot of the oil giants have been investing in these developers to diversify. The issue is not whether this asset class generates a return, but rather is it available to non-institutional investors. Diversification normally preserves wealth - we tend to recommend our investors to allocate 5% of their portfolio in this asset class - its not correlated and annuity generating). Full disclaimer - I'm a co-founder at renewables.org.
Your latter suggestion (public corporation) exists. Check out Renew Power - they're a large developer from India. The challenge historically has been there are very few such listed developers. Most of this asset class so far has only been available to very large funds - Goldman, Walburg, etc who operate privately. That's why we entered the space too (see: www.renewables.org - only for accredited investors for now)
We are currently talking to a fuel station company in East Africa to deploy solar powered battery banks for electric bikes across 250 of their petrol pumps. We have already powered two of their stations with panels and batteries as a proof of concept. They know there is an energy transition coming from fuel to electric and they want to be at the beginning of this curve. The transition has started across the world.
Ramez (in the article) is on my Board. He has always maintained that price point/economics is crucial for tech to become main stream, to a point that adoption often can be much faster than anticipated. This has definitely been true for solar adoption so far - it has beat all expectations until now. I won't be surprised if this happens for EVs too.
Interestingly, this demand is being felt in terms of increased prices of solar panels. Solar modules are currently trading at 15-20% higher (relative to end of last year) due to high demand and raw material shortage. This is further exacerbated by shipping and container issues. The long term downward price pressure has been incredibly helpful but we need more capacity and raw material for the downward price pressure to continue relative to increase in demand.
(Source - from our own procurement at www.de.energy)
One of the best tips I received for sales: when trying to sell a pen, don't focus on the features. Stop and ask the customer - what are they looking to do with a writing instrument? Go as deep as possible in understanding their need in that conversation by asking questions. Once you understand the need - work out how best to fit the pen you're selling to their needs.
Two benefits of this approach: the customer does most of the talking. And by listening intently you know the things to say to help the customer see what you have matches their need.
Also, if in your conversation with the person you find out that they actually need a paint brush instead of a pen, don't try to sell them the pen! If you try to sell them something they don't need, you either piss them off by looking like you don't understand them, or you piss them off once they bought the pen from you and realize it won't work for them.
Instead say that probably you don't have (currently at least) what they are looking for, and if they need help in the future to contact you again.
Besides being a really good insight into women in science in early 1900s I wonder whether inadvertently her upbringing and the society around her stole a female icon in science for the generations that followed.
I run a startup (www.de.energy) that opens up solar as an asset class and funds solar commercial and industrial projects in India and Africa. The last project we funded was for 31,500 INR per kW ($425) and we are currently about to fund a few projects at $364/kW for Tier 1 equipment. This is more expensive than utility scale projects. The estimates in the article are what we are seeing on the ground.
Yes, it is accurate that solar can't supply more than 30-40% of the energy mix. But we are still far from reaching that level of supply in the developing world and faster the cost reduces, the better it'll be for continued deployment en masse. Battery innovation as well as other tech will continue to improve the amount of solar in the energy mix.
I’ve had this question for a long while but no one to ask it to. You might have the expertise required to answer it.
When I see new solar projects that have tendered absurdly low prices, are the bidders bidding with today’s solar prices or are they betting that solar prices will fall further, allowing them to eventually make a profit? For example Adani solar won a contract to supply energy at INR 3 or $0.05 per kwh. Is that the price of building and operating a solar in 2022 or is it the price that the winning bidder hopes it’ll be in 2024 when they’re building the second and third phases of their contract?
Your question goes to the core of what we do. Cost of solar on today's price is already really low and the calculation is being done on prices today. Keep in mind per kW yield of solar in India is very different from in the US or further north.
For example, at a cost of 30,000 INR/kW ($405), and a bid price of INR 3, assuming yield of 4.25 kWHr/day per kilowatt, we are looking at an IRR of 10.5% over 20 years. Now add long-term debt to the mix and we are upwards of 12%. Solar doesn't have any moving parts and this assumes operations and maintenance at 15%. If the cost squeezes further by 2024 - the IRR is even more attractive.
Goldman, Walburg, Pension funds, etc are deploying billions in solar for this reason - IRR upwards of 10% over 20-25 years with low risk. That's why we started this business too :)
Yeah it’s a great business to be in. As long as the climate doesn’t change, you’ll be pumping out electricity from a plant at an unbeatable price - since there’s no input apart from maintenance costs. How long do solar panels last before you need to replace them though?
Since you’re so on well informed about this here’s another question. I notice that battery prices are roughly halving every 3 years. At what point does it become cheaper to attach batteries to Indian solar plants than it is to operate coal powered plants?
- How long do solar panels last before you need to replace them though?
A lot of them offer warranties for 20-25 years. Most tier 1 panels are expected to last 25-30 years.
- I notice that battery prices are roughly halving every 3 years. At what point does it become cheaper to attach batteries to Indian solar plants than it is to operate coal powered plants?
At a grid level this is a complex question that I'm not completely qualified to answer because it goes into the larger question of energy mix and energy security. At a factory or building level, we are not that far - we're already offering monthly packages (in terms of cost) which amounts to 10-15c/unit of a blended rate (solar + battery). The min it breaches 8c/kWHr blended rate, this can become more permanent. I'm speculating but some of what I've seen in Li-ion and ESS flow costs we may be two years or less out.
We've only used Li-ion or led acid so far. Li-ion is much better long-term for a number of reasons. We like the idea of ESS flow, but haven't had a chance to use it yet.
No experience w/ solar for desalination or hydro as its outside our focus right now.
Solar + battery is where the future of solar is, but the economics of batteries don't work yet relative to grid electricity price in the developing world. So far we've deployed solar+battery in petrol pumps and a few off-grid locations. In the markets where we operate, on grid, it is economically not an option yet.
Bruh did you miss the part where OP said “developing world”? They’re talking about projects in India, where the grid looks very different from the US grid.
I used to own a large APAC agency. We had six figures in Facebook going through us every month. Issues like ad accounts being blocked, poor performance, etc received no feedback or conversation. Google over time assigned an account manager and improved support but Facebook was always awful. In one instance email went to Sheryl Sandberg, reply to which got forwarded down to 6 people who eventually gave us a 'this is policy' answer. I often advice founders to find friends who work there to get their issues resolved - because there is no formal sensible way to get it done.
I often advice founders to find friends who work there to get their issues resolved - because there is no formal sensible way to get it done.
Yes, Facebook is a complete train wreck, which survives in spite of its abysmal technology and support for its real customers rather than because of them. Even then, speaking only from the point of view of a much smaller business that has been a regular Facebook advertiser in the past, it probably left 33-50% of the money we would have spent with it on the table simply because we couldn't spend that money on the Facebook platform due to all the bugs. We redirected those funds to other channels instead. And yes, we too only got around Facebook's systems demanding nonsensical or literally impossible things that would have totally blocked our access at least once because we knew a senior dev who worked there and could escalate internally.
Unfortunately, this model seems to have become SOP for big tech service providers in recent years. Google are similarly non-communicative and have also provided such a bad experience to us as an advertiser that we stopped all our ads on their platforms for a long time. It's not just the big advertising platforms, either. Every payment service we use (including some that are darlings of HN) has messed us around horribly over the years, too. Unless you're spending literally millions of dollars per months with these tech giants, it seems they've decided it's not commercially sensible to offer any meaningful support, and presumably to accept that in some cases they'll lose customers entirely and damage their reputation as a result.
