Comments on: Solar cell maker Silevo plans to ramp up, with new funds

By: Mark R.

Mark R. — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 07:21:45 +0000

All of that is true, Ucilia. Degradation is pretty much a canard — at least with regard to anything made of silicon, which is absolutely a proven technology at this point and has shown no real-world degradation problems. It’s somewhat true that it’s hot-weather performance is less than optimal, but that’s already figured in for these desert-based systems.

I like SunPower for residential/small rooftop business systems. I’m just telling you now Silveo’s >projected< production costs are already too high for that market. Look, I'm all for more players and technological development. There is room for Cd/Te, CIGS and silicon. These numbers are not impressive, however.

By: Mark R.

Mark R. — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 07:18:04 +0000

Panels are virtually weightless, so obviously weight is not the limiting factor.. but anyway… The reason balance of system costs in Germany are lower isn’t that they are using more efficient panels there; you’re surely not suggesting that, are you?

It’s absolutely true that more efficient panels lead to lower install costs on rooftops. That’s why Sunpower is still in business. That said, it’s mattering not at all in utility-scale projects, which explains how First Solar is also still in business.

Unfortunately for Silveo, $0.98 per watt >production cost< is still not competitive, especially since that will exist at some future date.

By: james

james — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:14:07 +0000

You’re wrong. Watts are not watts.

$/W is only applicable for comparable efficiencies. As efficiencies go up, the balance of system costs go down. A better measure is LCOE which takes this into account. Not coincidentally, Silevo claims to have the lowest LCOE on the market which is probably why there are 250 MW of back orders.

Right now, panel costs are pretty much rock bottom but the solar industry is having a hard time reducing BOS and installation costs. You mentioned $.84/W panel prices. Know what system installation prices are today? $4.40 in the US. There are major inefficiencies there, however. In germany, it’s more like $2.20/W. I think the US will be there eventually but it’s hard to get it much lower than that with no-brainer things like reduction of permitting fees/economies of scale.

That’s why efficiency matters. Sunpower and Sanyo HIT are very popular with installers despite their high $/W cost for this reason. Last I checked, they still go for like $1.50/W and despite almost double $/W they sell like hotcakes with guys like solar city

Also too, the loadbearing weight of American roofs is the fundamental limit for how much pv can installed on a building–not area. This is another area in which efficiency is important.

Efficiency really is king. Hope to see more startups like Silevo that keep bossting solar module efficiency

By: Ucilia Wang

Ucilia Wang — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:12:56 +0000

@Mark: If you think Silevo’s price target is off base, well, I can’t argue with that. I can’t predict what the prices of various silicon and thin film panels will be. But I do appreciate that you seem to have worked out some math that convinces you that Silevo’s pricing wont’ work. I can tell you that efficiency is related to the size/dimensions of each panel. When SunPower talks about its high-efficiency panels, it’s saying that it can pack more watts into a given area compared with other silicon or thin film panels. Same thing for Silevo. That’s why for residential rooftop, installers might prefer SunPower — you can set up a 5KW system using less space than you could, say, with First Solar’s thin films. If cost per watt is the only metrics, then you should only use Firs Solar panels (some lesser known Chinese solar panel makers also can give you a good deal). Some installers/developers don’t want to pay more per watt and aren’t as concerned about the availability of space. In that case, more expensive solar panels aren’t attractive. Or, you can pay for SunPower’s panels and its trackers and count on getting more kWh over 20 years that will make the trackers worth the investment. And then, there is the debate over whether certain solar cell materials will degrade faster over time or work better/worse in the hot climate. Hence the need for long-term field data. At the end of the day, it’s part numbers game and part salesmanship that determine winners.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:35:25 +0000

No, Ucilia, watts are watts. That accounts for efficiency.

If their “volume production” price is $0.98 per watt wholesale, this product is >stillborn<. Literally stillborn.

There's an article in the WSJ (sub required, shouldn't be a problem for you I'm imagining) that has the current price paid for panels at $0.84 per watt — today.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443589304577637333545350176.html?KEYWORDS=solar

First Solar already relies on the fact that only watts matter, not efficiency. While it's marginally true that fewer panels = better (for rooftop installs in particular, but also utility scale), a wholesale panel price of $0.98 — at some unspecified date in the future — is absolutely not competitive. By that point, retail panel prices will likely be 50 cents. A more efficient panel might command 55-60 cents/watt for the smaller footprint in terms of panel use. That's literally as good a premium as will exist.

By: Ucilia Wang

Ucilia Wang — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 09:13:08 +0000

Prices are efficiency-adjusted. Most of the solar panels on the market can do 14-15%. Silevo can charge higher prices because its panels can convert 18%.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 01:24:46 +0000

“At full production speed, the company’s production cost should hit $0.98 per watt.”

Um, that’s higher than the current >retail< price of solar panels. How are they planning to profit with such a ridiculous business model?