I m fully loaded and all in.I dont trade.
Q4 was a turning point.
More good news will come,stay long in REC

Folks, do not forget:one thing; even though REC is good, be very careful with it, at the end of the day, they produce only silicon, not gold. For the time being, they are doing OK but anytime it can be replaced with another disruptive technology. The idea here is to play the shorters and not REC :-)

Many types of disruptive technologies has been attempted, mostly at the 2008 top when the prices for polysilisium was prohibitively 475 USD/kg (against todays priceranges of 14-17 USD/kg).

Outside of solar we have (attempted at) wind, bio, oilsand, wave, geothermal, water, nuclear fission/fusion etc..
Within solar we have (attempted at) concentrated solar mirror plants, solar molten salt ponds etc
Further within the solar subsection of photovoltaics, we have (attemted at) CadmiumTelluride, Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide, thinfilm (of organics or copper zinc tin sulfide or zinc phosphides), perovskites, nanotubes) each with their own challenges of cost, toxicity, rarity of component, durability, scalability, complexity etc..

I think the key for the future energy-development is simplicity. For every complex operation or superfluous layer you add to the process of energyextraction, you drain or degrade the entropy of the energysource. The most obvious and commonly available energy-source in the Universe happens to be solar - all other energy sources are derivatives or specials cases. The most obvious and commonly available material in the Universe displaying photovoltaic property is the element Si.

I cannot perceive any disruptive energy technology within the foreseeable future (even at the point of dysonspheres + universal assemblers in about year 2300 the base technology will still be SI-based photovoltaics(!)). Si is the material of asteroids and planets :)

If any.. RECs development of FBR-technology can be regarded as a disruptive one (90% reduction of energy consumption compared to earlier). A future slightly-above-roomtemperature, selfassembled, FBR technology would be ideal :)

Disruptive technology can come in any form that leads to change in cost, demand, renewability, manufacturing, flexibility, implementation, etc...Tesla Solar roof is a good example.

What is the life time of a solar panel/plant? After how many years do they have to be replaced with the new ones? You cannot cover the whole earth with solar panels. There is a upper limit to everything...never forget that

Do not get me wrong, I still consider REC as a good case, but it is far from a "cannot-do-without-it" case

Chinas plan to use the commercially relevant space between the earth and the moon (in contrast to US or Russia who aims for other more prestigious but 'useless' area of space). To have access to 'unlimited' amount of energy is to have dominance :) The area that spans the moon and the earth (384400 km ^2 * PI = 463.976.950.400 km2) is about 900 times as large that of the surface area of earth (510.100.000 km2) :)

China’s SBSP Program

https://thediplomat.com/2016/08/chinas-unique-space-ambitions/

SBSP has the potential to harness solar power in space, where the rays of the sun are constant, and beam that energy from satellites by the use of microwave technology to receiving stations on earth. This energy is clean, renewable, and constant. China’s space solar ambitions were outlined in a report by its leading space agency, the China Academy of Space Technology (CAST). The report stated, “In 2010, CAST will finish the concept design; in 2020, we will finish the industrial level testing of in-orbit construction and wireless transmissions. In 2025, we will complete the first 100kW SPS demonstration at LEO; and in 2035, the 100mW SPS will have electric generating capacity. Finally in 2050, the first commercial level SPS system will be in operation at GEO.”

Well, that is very good news, but the question you should ask is, will this mean they will need less or more of REC's sil in the years to come? McDonald's will never go bankrupt, because we all need to eat regularly. Do you see my point?

If REC are visionary.. they will be in on the race to the stars :)
I would not be surprised if stateowned YouserGroup supplies the Chinese with the material for their mega-structure ambitions :)

Supply-demand ratio is a metric that applies to all companies, without exception. Going forward, REC should simply supply more to a market that "must" demand more from REC.

We all know that McDonald's gives us the cheapest and fastest food, but not necessarily the best food.

Does anyone know what the lifetime of a solar plant is? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years?

http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/

As it happens REC is both is 3.rd cheapest in the world (the 2 cheaper are subsidized), AND almost best quality (highest FBR-purity og growing purer)...

the type of 'food' that REC provides for the world may very well be a type of necessity-goods considering the survival of the human species and the proliferation of the current holocene era. If solar power are cheap enough, then carbon-capture would also be cheap enough and feasible :)

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3058270/sustainable-it/study-solar-panels-dont-last-forever-and-degradation-varies-wildly.html

Pålitelige tall er ikke tilgjengelig siden de fleste har bare blitt opprettet for 5 år siden.
Gjennomsnittlig degraderingrate er 3% per år (ikke i effektpoeng - men i andel av utgangseffekt) men kan være så lavt som 1% eller så høyt som 35% i andel per år!

med 35% degradering er panelet helt ubrukelig etter ca 2-3 år og veldig dårlig allerede etter 1 år.
med 3% degradering tar det ca 30 år å nå samme nivå av ubrukelighet.

La oss ta som premiss at strømprisen i et bestemt område er omtrent uendret (eller økende) i en tidsperiode på 30 år. La oss også anta at det lønte seg for en produsent ved et tidpunkt å sette opp en solpark og at han går litt i overskudd per kw/H solgt. Dersom effektiviteten av hans solpark degraderes med 3% i året, og prisen for å kassere et gammel panel + prisen for å installlere et nytt panel er lavere enn denne 3% av tapte inntekter vil det lønne seg å oppgradere sin solpark med nye paneler.

Så det blir nok litt individuelt. Et eksempel kan være slik... fortjeneste per år for en solpark eier er feks 1 mill NOK. Årlig tapt fortjeneste på 3% degradering = 30k NOK per år. Dersom scrapping+erstatning på 3% av hans paneler med nye koster mindre enn 30k så lønner det seg å stadig inkrementelt bytte ut deler av parken (kanskje måle der bytting trengs)

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-costs-are-hitting-jaw-dropping-lows-in-every-region-of-the-world

Anlag viser at prisen for å installere et nytt panel faller med 4.4% per år. Har du et stort nok anlegg vil stordrifts-prinsippet tilsi at kostnaden for å scrappe+reinstallere nærme seg nyinstallering. Det vil derfor være teoretisk lønnsomt å årlig erstatte ca 3% eller mer av din solpark for å ha maks inntjening.

We are in the 'athropocene' which is even more relevant to REC. The jury may still be out as to whether the anthropocene is a subset of the holocene, or whether it should be a new climatic period, though archaeologists at least consider it as a new era.

An even better estimate is to view the demand macroscopically...

If the average degradation is 3% then (ignoring growth) - globally the average demand (that is canalized into maintenance) must also be 3% :)

If the total number of global installation is great enough.. then this 3%- maintenance induced demand alone (ignoring any growth) would be enormous! :))

Solar panels typically degrade faster in the first couple of years of their life.

The life expectancy of solar panels.
http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/