Solar panel efficency

According to Greentech Media?s report, it seems that First Solar has managed to achieve grid parity with its 12.6MW system in the Nevada desert, installed for Sempra Generation. Mark Bachman, a senior research analyst with Pacific Crest and a specialist in cleantech energy, has aggregated the numbers in the Greentech Media report.

Mr. Bachman claims that the Nevada desert system costs $0.075 per kilowatt-hour to install without any subsidies, compared to costs incurred by ?conventional? power of $0.09 per kilowatt-hour. Looking solely at these figures, it would seem that this is an achievement that should have the solar energy industry rubbing its hands together in joy.

However, naysayers will always challenge such claims. Bachman?s cost calculations are based on one particular location and one particular panel type; different results may have resulted from use of the same panels in a different location, or using different technology in conditions similar to those found in the Nevada desert.

"In our view, the industry leaders will be those companies that can deliver electricity at or below grid parity pricing without the aid of subsidies while also delivering superior return to shareholders," said Mr. Bachman. "Currently, only First Solar can claim these achievements, in our view."

First Solar has managed to produce large numbers of panels at a low cost for the past few years, claiming recently that it had lowered the cost-per-watt of production of its modules to $1.08 per watt. According to Greentech Media, this figure is an amalgamated average of the individual costs of production in each of the company?s manufacturing facilities, although First Solar has reached a low cost of 75 cents per watt in its Malaysia-based plants.

Bachman noted that while the installation for Sempra cost around $3.17 per watt, this price incorporated the cost of frames and installation as well as the cost of the modules themselves. He also pointed out that the solar industry spends too much time focussing on the cost of production and installation of panels, and not enough time looking at the overall cost of the entire project in terms of kilowatt-hours.

"By focusing on the cost/kWh calculation, we can compare competing business models on a defined metric that is independent of technologies," he said.

This report also highlighted the potential competitors First Solar may encounter in the next few years in the race for grid parity. Cypress Semiconductor?s CEO T.J. Rodgers was reported as saying that power produced by crystalline silicon solar panels will be cheaper than that produced by coal by 2012.

SunPower is another potential runner: the company?s 14.2MW system at the Nellis Air Force base in Nevada features crystalline silicon panels that cost $7.04 per watt to install. In terms of kilowatt-hour cost, Bachman figured that it worked out at $0.164 per kilowatt-hour. For SunPower to rival First Solar?s kilowatt-hour rate of electricity generation, however, Bachman reckons that SunPower?s panels, despite the fact that they boast a much higher conversion efficiency rate, would have to be sold at 52% less, or $3.4 per watt.

I _might_ even believe something like this, assuming:

• the electricity price varies hour by hour

• there is a huge day/night consumption difference in the country

• the high day peak demand is handled by a simple (non-combined cycle) gas turbine burning some expensive fuel

During some high demand hours a year, there even might be price parity.

Are those the same people who'll pay THOUSANDS OF DOLLAR PER SQUARE FOOT for a home that has thousands of extra square feet that they'll probably never use? Or perhaps use a few days a year for guests?

What's a Toyota Pious battery cost? Certainly they're bigger than a coupla kWH.

A few square million$? ;-)

I have a bedroom, with full bath, suite (probably 400 sq ft) that's only been used three times in the year and a half I've lived here. I only paid $120/sq. ft., though. ;-)

Just about. :-)

For me if the choice were between, say... $50k for an extra room in the house that I never expected to use vs. $50k in PV panels... I might just go for the PV panels.

Actually I'd probably get a $50k RV, knowing full well I'd never use it nearly enough to make it cheaper than staying in a four-stay hotel every tiem I travelled. :-)

Knock a door into the side of the house there and rent it out?

I'd seriously consider doing something like that if I were single, but being married there's no way my wife would agree to it!

In college I spent half-a-year living in this really cool old house that looked a lot like a scaled-down version of the White House ... albeit with only two big white pillars in front. Beautiful hardwood floors throughout, and nice big bedrooms -- one (not mine) even had a door to a roof patio that was another good 400 sq. ft. or so. It'd been student housing for quite some time, though, and they'd even converted the old single-car garage into its own little apartment.

---Joel

er

at

phone: (928)428-4073

Interesting article. Also found this article about a 250MW solar project by a SCE in the southern California area. Must have some value if SCE wants to build it.

"Southern California Edison (SCE) and ProLogis have reached an agreement to place up to 40% of SCE's 250MW solar panel project on ProLogis distribution warehouse roofs in the Inland Empire region of Southern California."

-Bill

California utilities are required to get a portion of their power from renewables. They might not if the decision were purely economic.

John

PV panels will never pay for themselves. $50K invested, in a house or otherwise, will most likely. In my case it's the third (of three) bedroom, so it's sort essential.

Not much of an RV and they're money losers, too.

Not likely. The neighbors would have my skin

Right. The neighbors would never get the chance.

High class campus slums. ;-)

Possibly not yet, but given that in places like California you get an aircon demand bump under peak daytime solar heat load the economics may be a lot closer to being in favour of solar power than at my latitude. Otherwise they have to fire up other expensive quick start kit in the mid afternoon to handle the peak demand for cooling.

And it is win win on the warehouse a second outer skin keeping direct sunlight off the roof with an airspace behind makes the heat load on the building less.

The only thing that makes solar power attractive in the UK is a market distortion that gives an annual income guaranteed by the government of around 8% of capital employed for domestic installations. I still have to decide if I will install - a very green friend has a 2kW PV array and hot water system but on an earlier (less profitable tariff).

For a higher rate taxpayer these schemes are attractive.

or for the prices per unit (which are pretty insane)

I don't approve of these market distortions (which are even worse in Germany) but with a bank interest rate of 0.3% is is tempting....

Regards, Martin Brown

A lot of the subsidies are for two reasons: a) PV costs are heavily dependent on economies of scale ie pump priming b) Places like Germany want to get a good portion of manufacturing, now and in the future.

PV panels might pay for themselves if you find some environmentalist-type to buy your home when you sell it... :-)

But on average, yeah, I'd agree, they don't pay for themselves and having them is presently more a "lifestyle choice" and can't really be viewed as "a good investment."

$50k would get me a "good enough" RV -- I'm only interested in the smaller ones like Sprinters --

You'll just as easily turn off a realist. I suppose some people like pink living rooms and black bed rooms, too.

University owned? Seems pretty inefficient.

Hi Keith,

I don't think a "realist" is necessary going to put much financial value on PV cells, but I'd be surprised if it actively dissuaded them for buying otherwise. Heck, pools -- which are generally considered to neither add nor subtract valuation from a home -- strike me as worse: You pretty much *have* to maintain them, or else drain them and then make darned sure no one can fall in.

Sprinters have engines, although the ones that get 20MPG are pretty anemic, it would seem.

Then again, as far as I can tell it's the dream of many men to become old farts whose RVs slow to a bus, but it's not going to happen. It would be great for three months,

You might be able to find someone who'd give you a good deal on a long-term rental? I mean, you're likely still talking >$10k, but probably an order of magnitude less money than buying one and then turning around a year later and selling it.

No, it was some private party -- I'm not sure who, as the place was being run by a property management service, and hence we never met the actual owner.

---Joel

ather

ed at

the

rs

to

ed

io

to

st

ey

ed

ve

How about hydro-electric which qualifies as renewable. Why waste time with solar if economics are better with hydro? Or is this a dumb question?

-Bill

They certainly aren't going to give them any value, so your house is going to be overpriced.

It depends on the area. In some areas you can't sell a house without one. In others it's a toss-up.

???

Single lane? That's going to get interesting. ;-)

Good point. Maybe my boss... ;-)

Ah, "Student housing" normally means university owned. Privately owned college housing == slums. Students don't generally take care of residential housing; owners don't either.

And kill salmon? Shirley you jest!

How about hydro-electric which qualifies as renewable. Why waste time with solar if economics are better with hydro? Or is this a dumb question?

-Bill

They would need to get their water from *cough, cough* Arizona. :)

Tom

Most of the good hydro opportunities are already in use. And not only is it impossible to build any new dams, the Sierra Club type loonies want to tear down many of the ones we have now.

John