what happens to the solar industry, and this company in particular, if there's a new trump presidency and solar subsidies are killed? where does this company operate? is it a regional at heart, and if so, where?
imo solar can add value in e.g. arizona or nevada or west texas, but not in minnesota [which just passed a solar bill, of course] anyway if the subsidies are killed, the tam and the deal flow will shrink .markedly.
another question i have is about the applicability of their technology. how much value is added by going dual axis over single axis? i imagine that will vary with latitude and siting more generally. the north-south adjustments will help the most relatively where it can gain the least absolutely. e.g. minnesota- the winter sun is a lot lower in the sky but there's much less sunlight to harvest. otoh, in southern arizona the sun's changes in northern vs southern trajectories don't vary so much, so dual axis would add the least relatively speaking, though maybe it can be significant in absolute terms-idk. it might not be worth adding the cost and complexity of tracking systems if your solar farm is outside tucson.
and do these systems have enough history to judge the maintenance issues/costs? on a big solar farm i picture a motor on each collector, with each exposed to large swings in termperature and perhaps precipitation, with the expectation that these motors wlll run 12 hours a day, 365/year, for - how long? [iirc a big solar farm in texas was destroyed by hail not long ago.]
i guess i'm wondering if solar in general is following the trajectory of battery vehicles - big pr splash and subsidies drive an early market, but it turns out they really only work where there's an adequate infrastructure, [enough sunlight instead of enough charging stations] and not nearly as many people want one as was projected, and car companies keep announcing the repurposing of electric vehicle producing facilities along with much reduced production numbers for bev's. to stretch this analogy perhaps too far, non-tracking solar- with its lower cost and lower maintenance burden - might go further in the way that hybrids are now the production targets.
is the existence at all of these axial rotation systems just a function of available subsidies? if we went to world in which energy worked on economics instead of subsidies, i think we'd have solar in the sunbelt, especially the southwest, but if so would they bother with axial trackers?
For Trump to claw back Biden infrastructure dollars, probably would need both houses with a large mandate from the voters. Even then, doubtful to have 60 senators to prevent filibuster. FTCI operates globally, and just hired a new head of international sales. I have no details on where their backlig is, but I assume mostly US based. I don't think solar adds much value anywhere due to energy storage costs and redundant baseload needs. But that doesn't stop blue govrrnments from building them anyway. Still solar makes sense in the third world with unreliable grids. The entire industry switched to dual axis, and FTCI got left behind, but has now caught up. Internationally the dual axis tech hasn't penetrated yet. Regarding long term paybacks and hail storms, yes I too have my suspicions solar is a scam, but that hasn't stopped them from getting built so far, and at an accelerating pace.
Trump could not fully repeal the IRA on his own, as that would require an act of Congress. The IRA is enacted law, not an executive order, so major changes would need to go through the legislative process.
However, a Trump administration could potentially:
Make implementation of the IRA more difficult through executive actions
Tighten limits on tax credits
Hold back some loans and grants provided by the law
Revise Treasury Department rules that haven't been finalized
Drop defense of Biden administration regulations related to the IRA in ongoing litigation
Specific parts of the IRA that could be vulnerable to executive branch actions include:
Electric vehicle tax credits (Section 30D)
Clean energy manufacturing tax credits (Section 45X)
Guidelines for domestic content requirements
Trump's advisors have indicated dismantling the IRA would be a top priority if he wins. His campaign has said they would seek to cut spending allocated for the IRA's tax credits.
However, some experts believe certain parts of the IRA may survive even under a Trump administration, especially provisions benefiting Republican-leaning states.
In summary, while Trump could not single-handedly repeal the entire IRA without Congress, he could potentially use executive powers to weaken implementation of parts of the law, particularly around tax credits and regulatory guidelines. The full extent of changes would likely depend on the makeup of Congress and other political factors.
back to me:
the green movement has certainly used the regulatory agencies to accomplish its goals in stopping certain kinds of energy development. sweeping changes in those agencies could do the same for "green" development.
That is a reasonable analysis. But the blue states and the major utilities still have a say in what gets built. Plus the international market. I would size the FTCI position small. But I admit I did buy a little bit.
Is there a risk of FTCI getting delisted from nasdaq? The price has been below $1 and unless a reverse split is implemented to get the price above 1$, there is risk of delisting AFAIK.
FTCI has been Nasdaq noncompliant since December last year. They had a 180 day window until June 19th, and now they are in their second 180 day window with a December 17th deadline to regain a share price of $1, or to do a reverse split.
what happens to the solar industry, and this company in particular, if there's a new trump presidency and solar subsidies are killed? where does this company operate? is it a regional at heart, and if so, where?
imo solar can add value in e.g. arizona or nevada or west texas, but not in minnesota [which just passed a solar bill, of course] anyway if the subsidies are killed, the tam and the deal flow will shrink .markedly.
another question i have is about the applicability of their technology. how much value is added by going dual axis over single axis? i imagine that will vary with latitude and siting more generally. the north-south adjustments will help the most relatively where it can gain the least absolutely. e.g. minnesota- the winter sun is a lot lower in the sky but there's much less sunlight to harvest. otoh, in southern arizona the sun's changes in northern vs southern trajectories don't vary so much, so dual axis would add the least relatively speaking, though maybe it can be significant in absolute terms-idk. it might not be worth adding the cost and complexity of tracking systems if your solar farm is outside tucson.
and do these systems have enough history to judge the maintenance issues/costs? on a big solar farm i picture a motor on each collector, with each exposed to large swings in termperature and perhaps precipitation, with the expectation that these motors wlll run 12 hours a day, 365/year, for - how long? [iirc a big solar farm in texas was destroyed by hail not long ago.]
i guess i'm wondering if solar in general is following the trajectory of battery vehicles - big pr splash and subsidies drive an early market, but it turns out they really only work where there's an adequate infrastructure, [enough sunlight instead of enough charging stations] and not nearly as many people want one as was projected, and car companies keep announcing the repurposing of electric vehicle producing facilities along with much reduced production numbers for bev's. to stretch this analogy perhaps too far, non-tracking solar- with its lower cost and lower maintenance burden - might go further in the way that hybrids are now the production targets.
is the existence at all of these axial rotation systems just a function of available subsidies? if we went to world in which energy worked on economics instead of subsidies, i think we'd have solar in the sunbelt, especially the southwest, but if so would they bother with axial trackers?
For Trump to claw back Biden infrastructure dollars, probably would need both houses with a large mandate from the voters. Even then, doubtful to have 60 senators to prevent filibuster. FTCI operates globally, and just hired a new head of international sales. I have no details on where their backlig is, but I assume mostly US based. I don't think solar adds much value anywhere due to energy storage costs and redundant baseload needs. But that doesn't stop blue govrrnments from building them anyway. Still solar makes sense in the third world with unreliable grids. The entire industry switched to dual axis, and FTCI got left behind, but has now caught up. Internationally the dual axis tech hasn't penetrated yet. Regarding long term paybacks and hail storms, yes I too have my suspicions solar is a scam, but that hasn't stopped them from getting built so far, and at an accelerating pace.
here's perplexity's view:
Trump could not fully repeal the IRA on his own, as that would require an act of Congress. The IRA is enacted law, not an executive order, so major changes would need to go through the legislative process.
However, a Trump administration could potentially:
Make implementation of the IRA more difficult through executive actions
Tighten limits on tax credits
Hold back some loans and grants provided by the law
Revise Treasury Department rules that haven't been finalized
Drop defense of Biden administration regulations related to the IRA in ongoing litigation
Specific parts of the IRA that could be vulnerable to executive branch actions include:
Electric vehicle tax credits (Section 30D)
Clean energy manufacturing tax credits (Section 45X)
Guidelines for domestic content requirements
Trump's advisors have indicated dismantling the IRA would be a top priority if he wins. His campaign has said they would seek to cut spending allocated for the IRA's tax credits.
However, some experts believe certain parts of the IRA may survive even under a Trump administration, especially provisions benefiting Republican-leaning states.
In summary, while Trump could not single-handedly repeal the entire IRA without Congress, he could potentially use executive powers to weaken implementation of parts of the law, particularly around tax credits and regulatory guidelines. The full extent of changes would likely depend on the makeup of Congress and other political factors.
back to me:
the green movement has certainly used the regulatory agencies to accomplish its goals in stopping certain kinds of energy development. sweeping changes in those agencies could do the same for "green" development.
That is a reasonable analysis. But the blue states and the major utilities still have a say in what gets built. Plus the international market. I would size the FTCI position small. But I admit I did buy a little bit.
Will respond more fully after I'm finished proctoring an exam for my daughter :)
what bene gesserit spice are you taking because i want some too:
"so I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a pullback, especially on negative earnings results for the next quarter or two"
Just doing my darnedest.
Is there a risk of FTCI getting delisted from nasdaq? The price has been below $1 and unless a reverse split is implemented to get the price above 1$, there is risk of delisting AFAIK.
FTCI has been Nasdaq noncompliant since December last year. They had a 180 day window until June 19th, and now they are in their second 180 day window with a December 17th deadline to regain a share price of $1, or to do a reverse split.