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