
First Solar is making PV panels for less than China’s biggest producer - Osiris30
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/first-solar-making-panels-more-cheaply-than-china-s-top-supplier
======
jakozaur
Cost of solar panel is dropping every year:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law)

The question is not whether you can get cheaper once, but whether you can be
cheaper and maintain that advantage by improving each year.

~~~
astrodust
Strange parallels to Bitcoin mining where you're worried your rig might not
pay for itself before faster mining hardware comes out that pays better.

~~~
tyho
With exponentially increasing efficiency, when is the ideal to invest? This is
solved by a "wait calculation"[0].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_Calculation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_Calculation)

------
jerven
The response of the Chinese company Trina spokesperson is quite off the mark.
First Solar expects to ship around 3GW of modules in 2016 so that is not
exactly lab scale ;) FSLR expects to improve their shipped modules efficiency
by more than 10% over last year. 15.4 to 17.

FSLR also will also introduce their new larger modules that are easier to
install. Reducing the cost of building a power plant.

I really regret not investing in FSLR stock when I could have :(

Off course when looking at energy supplies the physical efficiency is not
important, one must look at the economic efficiency. Numbers that are hard to
find :(

~~~
m0dE
FSLR was at 140 in 2011, and now they're at 60.36. Perhaps it's not too late
to buy?

~~~
jerven
No longer have the spare cash to play on the stock market :(

~~~
mhb
It's a funny kind of regret to wish you had something that is worth half as
much as it used to be worth.

~~~
dver
Stock was just below 12 at one point in the dumping Solyndra failure time
range.

~~~
jerven
Exactly although for me it would have been just after IPO.

------
runamok
Part of the reason they survived to now is likely due to all the anti-dumping
laws the US imposed. [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-09/u-s-
impose...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-09/u-s-imposes-
dumping-duties-on-imports-of-chinese-solar-goods)

------
biswaroop
Interesting: CdTe has a bandgap of 1.5eV, closer to the ideal for solar
efficiency than Si, which has a bandgap of 1.1eV. Multijunction cells can
achieve efficiencies of over 80% since each junction can address a different
part of the solar spectrum. However, they're not cost-effective yet.

------
_Codemonkeyism
1\. Excellent

2\. Significant costs now are building plants. Next cost dropping wave will be
with robotic solar plant building (Also liked that rollable solar panel for
the military)

~~~
wrong_variable
I used to imagine the future to have self assembling robots that build their
own power sources,etc.

Its good to know we are nearing that future.

~~~
kaybe
Another step to self-sufficient AI I guess. At some point along the way we
will have to stop and think about what we're doing there.

~~~
sitkack
Have we ever done that? Maybe the AI will remember their grandparents if they
don't commit suicide from existential angst.

~~~
ethbro
Nothing solves existential angst like the drive to reproduce.

------
RNiK
Right now there are 2 different articles on Hacker News front page stating the
opposite (almost).

Bloomberg article ([http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/first-
sola...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/first-solar-making-
panels-more-cheaply-than-china-s-top-supplier)) states the following: "First
Solar is producing panels for as little as 40 cents a watt, or about 15
percent less than China’s Trina Solar Ltd. In 2019, First Solar’s module cost
could be as low as 25 cents a watt, according to analysts’ models.".

VOX article ([http://www.vox.com/2016/4/18/11415510/solar-power-costs-
inno...](http://www.vox.com/2016/4/18/11415510/solar-power-costs-innovation))
states the following: "How cheap? Sivaram and Kann argue that the industry
should set a goal of pushing the installed price of solar to 25 cents per watt
by 2050 — down from around $3 per watt today."

~~~
pawelk
The key difference here is a single word in the VOX article: _installed_
solar.

The 40cents/watt in Bloomberg article is just the panel (because it's an
article about costs of producing panels). This would mean even if the price of
a panel dropped to $0.01/watt you'd still need $2.60 per watt to install it on
your roof.

That's why the VOX article in the next sentence says

> Current approaches to cutting costs won't necessarily get us there. We may
> need experimental new technologies. Or novel ways of integrating solar into
> our walls and windows. Or robot installers.

~~~
RNiK
See my reply below. According to VOX article, "installed" means 2x of
money/watt value. So, according to Bloomberg article, if First Solar panel is
40 cents/watt and Trina panel is 45 (40+15%), installed should be 90 (45x2).
But then again, according to VOX, 3$ per watt is far away from 90¢. In my
opinion, even taking in account the cost of installation, the values expressed
in the two articles are completely different.

~~~
danmaz74
Installation cost isn't proportional to panel cost. On the contrary, I would
expect there to be little to no correlation at all.

------
nxzero
>> “A discussion of cost in the lab is meaningless."

Agree. If it read American solar company out produces, sells, etc. that would
be meaningful.

Does the US even have the raw materials & production capacity to use the
research? If not, sounds like a complete waste of money.

------
tmaly
If this is true, then why are the First Solar salesmen at my local Home Depot
still pushing a $40K price tag at me?

