I can read perfectly well. Aside from that quote ignoring the rest of the article that reiterates everything I wrote, are you truthfully unaware that that single model is among other models because multiple analysts produce models while working out financial projections?
You display a particular way of misreading content. In this article that you cited you ignored the rest of the content that reiterates what I wrote in my previous response. And like this article, you also chose to quote one sentence of mine while ignoring the next that stated:
"It wouldn't have been difficult for anyone to see though just by knowing the most basic facts that here was a company developing around an expensive process and over the course of a couple of years of watching that expensive process trend downward in cost the consequences would or at least should have been clear to analysts."
In case that was too difficult for you to understand or too long for your attention span, the shorter version is: any analysts can project that a manufacturing process is going to start losing money when that person looks out into the market and notices that the cost of a different production method is falling in cost.
I don't think you are naive enough to believe that silicon will always remain at it's current low prices.
It appears clear to me that you are arguing this based from a political agenda and not on the merits of market realities or tech advances.
This has nothing to do with risk. Our US company developed a more efficient, less expensive solar panel which should mean it is better on the market. China subsidized their companies so they could undercut ours and continue producing their less efficient, previously more expensive panels. If we don't play by the same rules we lose out and that's that. Then we continue using solar panels that don't produce adequate power for price. That might sound like a bargain in your mind but not to mine.
The upshot of it is that when silicone goes back up in price after the competition quits subsidizing the raw materials, we have an alternative method to turn to. It'll be in about ten years when it matters but by then people like yourself won't be paying attention to the politics of it and the tech industry will pick up the slack. Unfortunately, the US companies will have long since been defunct so someplace more progressive like Ireland will run with the technology and be a decade ahead of us and sell us the panels that we developed and bore the brunt of the development costs. Great bargain for them, crappy for our citizens.
Perhaps I'll be wrong. Perhaps it won't turn out like the rest of the mass consumed goods that we used to manufacture in this country. I'd very much like that but history doesn't indicate that to be likely.
You display a particular way of misreading content. In this article that you cited you ignored the rest of the content that reiterates what I wrote in my previous response. And like this article, you also chose to quote one sentence of mine while ignoring the next that stated:
"It wouldn't have been difficult for anyone to see though just by knowing the most basic facts that here was a company developing around an expensive process and over the course of a couple of years of watching that expensive process trend downward in cost the consequences would or at least should have been clear to analysts."
In case that was too difficult for you to understand or too long for your attention span, the shorter version is: any analysts can project that a manufacturing process is going to start losing money when that person looks out into the market and notices that the cost of a different production method is falling in cost.
I don't think you are naive enough to believe that silicon will always remain at it's current low prices.
It appears clear to me that you are arguing this based from a political agenda and not on the merits of market realities or tech advances.
This has nothing to do with risk. Our US company developed a more efficient, less expensive solar panel which should mean it is better on the market. China subsidized their companies so they could undercut ours and continue producing their less efficient, previously more expensive panels. If we don't play by the same rules we lose out and that's that. Then we continue using solar panels that don't produce adequate power for price. That might sound like a bargain in your mind but not to mine.
The upshot of it is that when silicone goes back up in price after the competition quits subsidizing the raw materials, we have an alternative method to turn to. It'll be in about ten years when it matters but by then people like yourself won't be paying attention to the politics of it and the tech industry will pick up the slack. Unfortunately, the US companies will have long since been defunct so someplace more progressive like Ireland will run with the technology and be a decade ahead of us and sell us the panels that we developed and bore the brunt of the development costs. Great bargain for them, crappy for our citizens.
Perhaps I'll be wrong. Perhaps it won't turn out like the rest of the mass consumed goods that we used to manufacture in this country. I'd very much like that but history doesn't indicate that to be likely.
Comment