Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Back in 2011 I should have listened to my own advice and shorted a bunch of CPV

In an email (I wrote) I just saw again today, I read this:
 I wish I could find some time and some speculative money to short them as a group. Not just based on your reservations but my own. Such huge engineering inputs and robust gear waiting around for Spectrolab to get the triple junctions price down. And all that front-side risk just to hand themselves over to utility companies (who have access to cheap aperture and have to mark it up for retail) to get roughed up. And the redundancy of the work from company to company. They all have their own proprietary but indistinguishable stuff it seems. I have a licensing exit as my goal but most of these VC types want to build a soup-to-nuts company. So I considered (as an exercise) just suggesting we develop my product while staying as virtual as possible and then buy a concentrator company for pennies on the dollar when we need a manufacturing arm. While we work on our value - we'd let them grow wild (and let the herd thin while we got our act together.) Finally, we'd harvest the best bargain when and if we needed it.

Grim, I know, but there you have it.

SolFocus spins out...

I was reading one of their reports on progress to the NREL. Serious development on many fronts. But being beholding to fickle investor pools and on what I call the "wrong side of the meter" finally caught up with this pretty classy outfit.

more over at PVMagazine

Here is the report I was reading. I wonder what IP they have and for what price?

Monday, October 21, 2013

Angellist.co... pretty good at laying out their case!

Nice slide share

I've been stalking them. May be time to pounce.

CPV leaders, we need better answers than this! I'm looking at you Amonix and SolFocus...

From the fine folks at PV-Insider' recent round-up "is CPV meeting expectations?"

According to Amonix, benefits of this installation include the zero percentage of water used in power production, flexible scalability enabling quicker energy and revenue generation, and the minimal usage of land – only five acres were used per MW of installed capacity.  In addition, the dual-axis tracking that was employed prevents permanent land shading.

No water use, Lower acreage of land and prevents permanent land shading? Wow. LCOE is nowhere to be seen...

I was going to grouse about the shade issue but in stand alone settings consistent shade is not necessarily a benefit like it is on a building top. Keeps dust down to have plants growing below. Maybe goats to keep them in check and provide some dual use. Still. This is weak medicine.

Here is a more comprehensive report on tangential costs and considerations for CPV vs others

Berkeley CPV Environmental Report_05_16_2012

 Been too long between posts. Sorry fans.

(OH I know... SolFocus is gone so they have nobody to answer the call)