An interesting report from MSN’s money columnist Jim Jubak:
Out of the spotlight, solar will thrive

A US energy policy that largely ignores solar power will, ironically, help the sector by giving it time to catch up with demand. That’s good for investors, too.

(Page 1 of 3)
Government neglect could make 2008 and 2009 the best years ever for solar companies — and for those who invest in them.

That’s right. Long-term prospects for the solar industry are actually brighter because the energy bill that President Bush signed Dec. 19 didn’t launch a crash program to expand solar-energy use or even extend solar tax credits that will expire in October.

The solar industry had a problem in 2007, and it wasn’t a lack of demand. Global solar production, measured by the megawatts of power that solar cells and modules produce once they’re hooked up to the grids, climbed 57% in 2004, according to investment bank Jefferies International. And it increased 30% in 2005, 35% in 2006 and a projected 13% in 2007.

See a problem there? Young growth industries facing a virtually untapped market shouldn’t show slowing growth rates. If solar has the potential its supporters say it does — and I agree it does — the industry’s growth rate should be accelerating, not dropping. (Global solar installations, which always lag equipment production and which are growing from a smaller base because of that lag, climbed a projected 60% in 2007.)

Not enough raw materials
So what happened? Beginning in 2005, demand for silicon from solar-wafer, solar-cell and solar-module makers overwhelmed supply from the companies that provide silicon to the solar and semiconductor industries.

(Solar wafers are processed silicon that’s been cut into pieces, the first stage in producing solar cells. Wafers are doped with materials such as boron and phosphorus to turn them into cells that will generate flows of electrons when exposed to sunlight. When cells are placed in metal frames protected with rubber or plastic and embedded in a protective coating, they become solar modules.)

Companies that turn silicon ingots into solar wafers couldn’t get enough crystalline silicon to meet orders from solar-cell makers. That forced makers of solar cells and modules to idle capacity. Utilization rates, the percentage of production capacity that a company is using, fell among solar-cell makers to 70% in 2005 from 86% in 2004. And the problem kept getting worse in 2006 and 2007. German wafer and cell maker ErSol Solar Energy (ERSLF, news, msgs), for example, cut its forecast for 2007 production to 55 megawatts from 70 megawatts, a 21% drop, because of the wafer shortfall.

That shortfall in supply had a predictable effect on silicon prices: They went up. Way up. Companies able to arrange long-term contracts with suppliers saw the silicon raw material required by wafer and solar-cell manufacturers jump in price to $45 a pound by mid-2007 from $20 in 2003. On the spot market, cell manufacturers who couldn’t sign up a stable, long-term supply were paying $95 a pound.

The logjam won’t last
Those higher prices have had the salutary effect of bringing more companies into the business of making silicon for solar wafers and encouraging existing suppliers to expand. After climbing just 14% in 2007, silicon production is projected by Jefferies International to climb 43% in 2008, 50% in 2009 and another 50% in 2010. The industry bottleneck that restricted production and produced higher prices for raw materials will be broken this year.

And that’s critical because the big barrier to growth in the solar industry isn’t a lack of subsidies from the U.S. government but the cost of electricity produced from solar cells. Right now, it costs about 30 cents to produce a kilowatt-hour of solar electricity versus the 15 to 18 cents retail customers pay for most kilowatt-hours in the United States. So, solar isn’t yet competitive with other technologies for generating electricity.

But solar is gradually closing the gap. Solar-wafer makers are getting more wafers out of a kilogram of silicon by making wafers thinner. The industry is on track to get 35 wafers out of a kilogram of silicon by 2010, up from 29 wafers per kilogram now. That 21% increase is a huge cost savings because silicon accounts for about 30% of the cost of a solar module.

At the same time, solar-cell makers are getting more energy out of their cells. Solar-cell efficiency is projected to go up to 17% from the current 15% by 2010. Combine that with the manufacturing savings and the cost of solar electricity falls almost 30% by 2010, to about 21 cents a kilowatt-hour.

Price parity coming soon
I think you see the punch line coming. As electricity from solar gets cheaper and electricity from conventional sources gets more expensive, at some point the cost of solar-generated electricity reaches parity with the retail cost of electricity.

Hemlock Semiconductor, the world’s largest producer of silicon, projects parity around 2012. (Hemlock is owned by Dow Corning, Mitsubishi Materials (MIMTF, news, msgs) and Shin-Etsu Chemical (SHECF, news, msgs). Jefferies International is a bit more conservative: It sees parity in the sunshine-rich U.S. Southwest in 2013.

Government support in the form of rebates to buyers of solar equipment (the U.S. approach) or in the form of guaranteed above-market prices for the purchase of electricity from solar-power generators (the European approach) is crucial to reaching that point. Without the economies of scale created by the demand growth generated by these subsidies, solar costs won’t fall fast enough to hit parity on that schedule.

Continued: Why neglect is good for the industry

by Jim Pierobon, Contributing Writer

Citing the possibility of job losses by the hundreds of thousands and the impact on a weakening economy, leaders of four major U.S. renewable energy trade associations Tuesday called on Congress and President Bush to extend production and investment tax credits that renewable energy developers, their financiers, and local and state governments are counting on to generate tax revenues and cleaner electricity.

“Congress will be raising taxes on clean, domestic, renewable energy sources and will undercut one of the fastest growing segments of the U.S. economy. With the nation facing a possible recession, it is difficult to imagine a worse time to destabilize America’s rapidly growing renewable energy sector.”

–Joint AWEA, SEIA, NHA, and GEA statement
“Already, we are seeing sales and new project announcements drop off,” the associations declared in a rare joint statement at a news conference. The associations include the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), National Hydropower Association (NHA) and the Geothermal Energy Association (GEA).

“The solar industry is seeking an eight-year extension of the 30% business investment tax credit and a six-year extension of the 30% residential investment tax credit, along with the elimination of an existing $2,000 limit on the residential credit. The industry also wants to eliminate the public utility exception to the investment tax credit and allow corporate and individual taxpayers to claim it against the alternative minimum tax, which is affecting more and more taxpayers each year.”

full article here http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com

I wanted to offer a few words clarifying the terminology of the “Forward Rental Agreement” (FRA) For some there seems to be confusion about if the customer is signing an “application” or a binding “agreement”.

We recently has some changes in the FRA and the  “application” wording is still in the cover letter and the FRA. It has just been removed from the title.

The best way of explaining this is through the words on the cover letter…
“Once Citizenre receives the application, they will review it and check it for accuracy. If there are no problems with the application, then the company will approve your application and provide a Letter of Acceptance to you.” The “application” will also be their “agreement” as they move forward to the next level of commitment with their security deposit after the site review. No need for anyone to feel nervous, they can cancel at anytime with no financial obligation. The new wording (section 9) of the T&C is very clear and easier to understand than before… that should help folks alleviate their fears.

I also agree, as Rob has stated, that the wording needs to convey a sincere interest of what they “will” be agreeing to in the future…. thus the words “Forward Rental Agreement”. If they are not serious about wanting solar we have plenty of folks that are, no need to convince anyone… although we certainly want to include everyone…

Hope this helps.

Peace,
Bruce

What is the Story of Stuff?

From its extraction through sale, use and disposal, all the stuff in our lives affects communities at home and abroad, yet most of this is hidden from view. The Story of Stuff is a 20-minute, fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns. The Story of Stuff exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues, and calls us together to create a more sustainable and just world. It’ll teach you something, it’ll make you laugh, and it just may change the way you look at all the stuff in your life forever.

Forever settling the “Which is faster? Bikes or cars?” debate is the Acabion GTBO. With a top speed of 340mph, it’s a full 90mph faster than a Bugatti Veyron. It accelerates from 0 to 300mph in 30 seconds. Oh, and that top speed is limited, not what it’d actually be capable of reaching in perfect circumstances. Best of all, Acabion are ready to start production.

The GTBO is capable of more than just jaw-dropping performance figures. By employing low aerodynamic drag, low weight, and low rolling resistance, it’s extremely economical, too. Cruising at 100mph it achieves 100mpg. At 250mph, 25mpg.

While this is not an electric vehicle, maybe someday they could have a nice hybrid or plug in conversion? …:)

 Full article

The Inspirational Flame
If just one person becomes inspired by one line of free thought that is not of their own creation, and that one person goes onto inspire others with their own lines of free thought and those others create inspirations for future generations - then inspired those generations will become. An inspired generation fashions the tools to create an inspired world.

When you look upon the sadness in this world and despair at the enormity of what lies before a hopelessness befalls you, the solution a closed door. Yet just one inspired thought aimed at another can open a path for future sister and brother.

The spark of my mind was ignited by others, who were fired up by the minds of those who came before them. An inspirational pyre that is as old as humanity, yet is as new as the most distant part of humanity’s future. It is an inspirational wildfire that ignites each heart and mind it touches, with each mind stoking the inspirational flame. A common ground of cooperation, unseen, unnoticed, yet as powerful as the fire within our sun. You and I can add the fuel to keep the flame alight for generations to come. - Unkown

How do you view competition vs. cooperation?

Which to you think make the best business model competition or cooperation?

Which concept works best historically?… globally?

I have been blessed with attracting a number amazing people that have opened my eyes on this comparison.

In cooperation,
Bruce

Here is a child addressing the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio about the importance of cooperation:

Below is a wonderful article on the subject and a few videos possibly worth your time……..

COMPETITION VS. COOPERATION

By Perry W. Buffington, Ph.D.

Which works better, competition or cooperation? The answer,
without equivocation, is cooperation. Although most people are
surprised by this, scientists have repeatedly verified it in
hundreds of studies since the late 1800s. Yet big business, the
educational system, the health-care community, and most parents
continue to encourage competition, almost totally neglecting the
power of cooperation. None of these groups realizes that
unabated competition may be costing billions of dollars in sales
and overall decreases in human achievement. Furthermore,
researchers have shown that too much competition may cause poor
health. Yet we continue to hold the cherished belief that
competition (not cooperation), to paraphrase Sigmund Freud, “is
the royal road to success.”
If in fact competition brings out the “beast” in us, then
research demonstrates that cooperation surely brings out the
“best” in us. This finding has been held in virtually every
occupation, skill, or behavior tested. For instance, scientists
who consider themselves cooperative tend to have more published
articles than their competitive colleagues. Cooperative
businesspeople have higher salaries. From elementary grades to
college, cooperative students have higher grade point averages.
Personnel directors who work together have fewer job vacancies
to fill. And, not surprisingly, cooperation increases
creativity. Unfortunately, most people are not taught
cooperative skills.
Dr. David W. Johnson and Dr. Roger T. Johnson, professors at
the University of Minnesota and co-directors of the
Cooperative Learning Center, concur and add that education and
psychology have been at odds on the issue for years. Roger
Johnson explains, “If we are to teach people to be cooperative,
then education and psychology must work together. You see, a
typical classroom teacher is taught to keep students quiet and
apart, indirectly fostering competition. Yet … people learn
best when they work cooperatively with each other. Children who
experience this type of learning at an early age carry it with
them as they mature.”
David Johnson adds, “More students feel good about
themselves as learners when they cooperate. Their self-esteem
goes up, they have a better sense of community, belonging, and
acceptance. One can also extrapolate this finding to any
setting.”
The Cooperative Learning Center, cooperatively chaired by
the Johnsons, has been researching and training cooperative
skills for over 15 years. According to Roger Johnson, the Center
has “a research base of over 500 studies dating back to the turn
of the century.”
Given their research and training tradition, the Johnsons are concerned that too much unsupported emphasis is placed on
competition. Moreover, they feel that the means by which
individuals once learned cooperative skills are eroding.
Roger explains, “There are a lot of reasons to worry. Some
of the standard ways that people once learned to cooperate -
home, churches, communities - are not operating as they did a
generation ago. Teaching young people how to cooperate does not
receive the appropriate level of interest.” As a result,
competition breeds unabated. Few are teaching, practicing, or
promoting a better idea.
To counteract this problem, the Johnsons work through
education. Says David Johnson, “Although we do some work with
big business, we prefer to work with the school system. That way
we teach students, the next business generation, how to be
cooperative and influence corporate America indirectly. Once
people experience cooperation, they find out that it’s a better,
even easier way.”
It seems that cooperation has an impact on individuals
working together in several key areas. Not only does it create a
more fluid leadership, but it allows everyone to participate
actively without fear of censure. Cooperation also has an
impact on an individual’s perception of the work environment.
Another area directly impacted by cooperation is, perhaps
surprisingly, health. A fascinating study conducted by the
Cooperative Learning Center took a statistical look at
competitive hockey players. The study examined the relation
between cooperation/competition and mental and mental and
physical health. The Center evaluated 57 collegiate and
semiprofessional ice-hockey players (aged 18-29 years) trying out
for the 1980 Olympic team. Using sophisticated personality
measures and a social-interaction scale, the researchers found
that cooperation does much more than help people get along.
In this study, the more cooperative individuals were better
adjusted psychologically and physically healthier than their more
competitive colleagues. It seems that competition, or the
constant feeling that you have to work against something, has
unhealthy physical side effects. Cooperation, and other
pro-social/unselfish behaviors, tend to have positive side
effects.
To that point, limited evidence suggests that cooperation
generates a type of “runner’s high.” Although the research is
not definitive, it is promising. Like those individuals who
exercise regularly, people who are cooperative and help others
also experience a type of “high,” which might better be described
as calmness or sense of freedom from stress. As the researchers
have shown, once this cooperation, not competition, is preferred.

Additionally, individuals who develop a cooperative stance
tend to feel more in control of their lives and do not live for
approval from others. They tend to feel good. This is in sharp
contrast to the constant intensity of the competitive individual.
As with everything, too much of a good thing can be a
problem. In the case of cooperation, as psychologists point out,
too much can lead to “group-think,” “yes-man syndrome,” or
inappropriate conformity.
Scott G. Isaksen, director for Studies in Creativity at
Buffalo State College in Buffalo, New York, explains, “If
everyone is so caught up in cooperation with the other side that
they lose a critical respect for the issue, they can all decide
to do the wrong thing unanimously. Although there’s no doubt
that a
cooperative environment increases the number of ideas, improves
the quality of the outcome, and facilitates a better working
environment, cooperation must be done in such a way as to protect
the integrity of the project at hand.” Simply put, cooperation
is the rule, but objectivity must be maintained.
There are ways to facilitate cooperation, and they are the
same no matter the environment, from big business to peewee
football.

1. Focus on doing well. Isaksen points out that attempting to
do well and trying to beat others are two separate mental
processes. It is impossible to concentrate on both. Of the
two, cooperating with yourself and others to create a
positive outcome has more rewards.

2. Allow ample time. Cooperation comes to a grinding halt as
time pressures increase. Time pressures produce non-agreement,
decreased information exchanges, and firmer
negotiator demands. The perception of available time
facilitates cooperation.

3. Use similar language. If someone is hoping you will
cooperate with him or her on a particular venture, ask
questions using the same works they used to describe the
plan originally. Isaksen explains, “This creates what
psychologists call ‘congruence,’ and you will appear to be
more cooperative and interested even though you are
critically challenging and gathering additional information.

4. Share leadership. Isaksen sees cooperation as a form of
leadership, equally shared by all group members. By sharing
the leadership, you allow others to take on initiative and
to be integral parts of the group. There is an increased
sense of “ownership” of plans and ideas by all members, and
the work environment is pleasurable.

5. Learn cooperative problem-solving tools. Isaksen points out
that these are really creativity tools by another name. For
instance, he says, “A simple tool is brainstorming.
What happens is that someone invites another to offer wild
suggestions so that others can find ways in which they can
tag along, create, or cooperate.” Other techniques include
suspending judgment, clarifying goals and objectives before
seeking cooperation, and evaluating others’ plans in a non-threatening
manner.

6. Practice reciprocity. When someone helps you out, make it a
point to help them. Express your gratitude by helping them
before they expect it. A policy of general reciprocity -
people helping people - facilitates cooperation. This
particular technique has been shown empirically (especially
in international studies) as one of the few ways to gain an
adversary’s cooperation.

7. Share resources and information. When people are vying for
knowledge, work space, personnel, or anything to help them
get the job done, cooperation decreases. Resource exchange,
however, encourages one person to work with another.

8. Reinforce team efforts. Rather than praising one person for
a job well done, utilize a team approach to problem solving.
When the team does well, the entire group is rewarded. This
minimizes individual competition, and maximizes cooperation.
Distribute the rewards equally among group members.

9. Act cooperatively. Research supports the fact that
individuals who have witnessed a cooperative act will
“pass it on,” sharing some degree of cooperation with the
next person they meet. Anytime you help another person
feel better, you have increased the probability that he or
she will be cooperative toward you. As Isaksen summarizes,
“Actions speak louder than words and encourage another
person to cooperate with you.”

10. For your health’s sake, experience cooperation. Make it a
point to notice how much better you feel when you
cooperate with others. As the researchers suggest, once you
experience the positive feelings, there seems to be no other
way to work except cooperatively.

Cooperation is a valuable commodity and works best when it
is freely given and indirectly encouraged. It promotes goodwill
toward men and women, and is a gift that is always appropriate.
And there’s no better time to be cooperative. After all, ’tis
the season.

REFERENCES

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Krotee, M.L. “The relation
between social interdependence and psychological health on
the 1980 U.S. Olympic ice hockey team.” (May, 1986). Journal
of Psychology, 120, 279-291.
Kohn, A. “How to succeed without even vying.” (September, 1986)
Psychology Today, 20.22-28.

Related Websites
The Cooperative Learning Center

How Cooperation (eventually) trumps conflict

Literacy of Cooperation