Yeahbut, how much of SunPower's book has come about because of government money funding projects? Is it more like 15% or more like 85%?
Based upon my observations locally, it could be more like 95%; the stupid morons on the school board have put SunPower installations in the parking lots of several local schools. Lie to me and tell me that money came from ANYWHERE else other than government spending (read "tax dollars").
And how much of SunPower's overseas expansion is driven by infusions of cash from various governments? I don't see the growth being fueled by revenue from private-sector commercial or residential contracts.
The bottom line is this: when consumers can buy SunPower products through Lowes, or Home Depot, or COSTCO, that is when solar will be properly regarded as a serious player in the energy sector. At present, solar is a high-risk investor's crapshoot, and no better.
If there's a tech breakthrough that exponentiates panel efficiency at the same price point, or if halves production costs, THAT would be the kind of game changer that would make the investment pay off big, and move solar into the ranks of viable energy generation technology. As of this moment, it's better suited to spacefaring equipment, standalone electronic devices (highway call boxes, for example), and remotely located terrestrial facilities.
Only 43% of SunPower's sales are in the U.S., 21% in Germany, 22% in Italy, 10% in the rest of Europem and 4% elsewhere. 62% of the product mix are the components (not subsidized but, arguably, ultimately used in many subsidized markets) sold to other companies for assembly of solar systems, 38% are the complete assembled systems to distributors / installers.
Regardless, my point was not that the solar energy is a viable alternative to regular energy generating technologies or that much of the industry (in the U.S. or worldwide) would not even be at this point without governments subsidizing the developers, distributors and/or consumers of solar energy to push its acceptance - I have a pretty dismal view of prospects for wide use of solar energy, except in a very few localities / regions or relatively specific / small applications where it's feasible, convenient and/or cheaper to use (without subsidies) than alternatives.
See my post refuting the value of government involvement in this energy "research" and deployment:
The Phony Solyndra Scandal (Big government SUPPOSED to take risks the private sector won't) - FR post #44 / NYT, by Joe Nocero, 2011 September 24
My point was that the author deliberately (or ignorantly) misrepresented the financial and business condition of SunPower, trying to put it on the same plan with the fraudulent start-ups like Solyndra that would not get private financing (because they or their technologies were not viable in the marketplace) and received the government "loans" only because they were politically connected to Obama and Democrats. He should have emphasized the corruption aspect of the deal, he has chosen to resort to misleading statements about financial condition of SunPower and that has destroyed the credibility of the rest of the article. Liberal media gets caught in this every time, not that they care.
Author has done a disservice to his own material and the credibility of conservative media in general by playing up the misleading financial "facts" purely for effect.