3 ms·

Right now there are 2 different articles on Hacker News front page stating the opposite (almost). Bloomberg article (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/201

by RNiK 10y ago

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-solar-making-panels-more-cheaply-than-china-s-top-supplier http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/first-sola...) 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-innovation http://www.vox.com/2016/4/18/11415510/solar-power-costs-inno...) 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."

DenisM 10y ago
Perhaps there's distinction between panel cost and installed cost?
- RNiK 10y ago
  dollars/cents per watt should be a standard measure. Plus, the VOX article states that "...we'd also likely need to rethink how we install solar panels. After all, the panel itself is only half the cost.".
pawelk 10y ago
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 $2.60 per watt to install it on your roof. That's why the VOX article in the next sentence says > Current approaches to cutting costs won't necessarily get us there. We may need experimental new technologies. Or novel ways of integrating solar into our walls and windows. Or robot installers.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Or we just realize that current installation costs are acceptable when your system is paid back within ~11 years, and the power is free after that.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    That realization doesn't do anything to alter the calculations that the bulk of investment dollars will do. (the point being that changes to the cost do impact those calculations)
- RNiK 10y ago
  See my reply below. According to VOX article, "installed" means 2x of money/watt value. So, according to Bloomberg article, if First Solar panel is 40 cents/watt and Trina panel is 45 (40+15%), installed should be 90 (45x2). But then again, according to VOX, 3$ 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 10y ago
    Installation cost isn't proportional to panel cost. On the contrary, I would expect there to be little to no correlation at all.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by RNiK 10y ago

DenisM 10y ago

Perhaps there's distinction between panel cost and installed cost?

RNiK 10y ago
dollars/cents per watt should be a standard measure. Plus, the VOX article states that "...we'd also likely need to rethink how we install solar panels. After all, the panel itself is only half the cost.".

pawelk 10y ago

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.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Or we just realize that current installation costs are acceptable when your system is paid back within ~11 years, and the power is free after that.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  That realization doesn't do anything to alter the calculations that the bulk of investment dollars will do. (the point being that changes to the cost do impact those calculations)
RNiK 10y ago
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 10y ago
  Installation cost isn't proportional to panel cost. On the contrary, I would expect there to be little to no correlation at all.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]