Thursday, January 17th 2013, 8:10am
Sunday, January 20th 2013, 3:09pm
Monday, January 21st 2013, 10:17am
Monday, January 21st 2013, 4:04pm
Yes including the polysilicon it's half the percentage difference compared to wafer step only (42.5% total wafer cost diff vs 85% wafer processing cost diff) between mono and multi. No not quoting SOL, just based on the quote from Jason. It said polysilicon is 50% of the cost for multi wafers and 35% for mono wafers. If polysilicon cost of 10 cents is plugged into that relation, then multi wafers costs 20 cents and mono wafers 28.5 cents, i.e. 10 + 10 multi vs 10 + 18.5 mono for the poly + wafer pc costs. This was my example of what that quote translates too.I think including poly the difference is about 50%, in costs. You are quotting Q3 SOL processing costs yes?
Monday, January 21st 2013, 5:14pm
Monday, January 21st 2013, 5:50pm
Monday, January 21st 2013, 9:19pm
...The hope for mono is that Virtus II like tech capacity remains much lower than total PV demand.
Monday, January 21st 2013, 10:53pm
Monday, January 21st 2013, 11:57pm
Tuesday, January 22nd 2013, 3:09am
Users who thanked for this post:
Tuesday, January 22nd 2013, 8:11am
Tuesday, January 22nd 2013, 10:14am
Can you clarify this? Why is multi not proven? It has higher market-share than mono. Increases in multi efficiency should be viewed in the same way as increases in mono efficiencies, right? Wouldn't a shift from p-type to n-type be a bigger risk, since p-type has dominated last 30 years?Mono efficiency has been long-time proven, HP wafers well have not. Adoption could be a barrier and buyers may simply prefer mono because of it. SOL is the best to monitor this.
Tuesday, January 22nd 2013, 12:52pm
Tuesday, January 22nd 2013, 1:21pm
Tuesday, January 22nd 2013, 3:04pm
Antaisolar(Today, 7:13pm)
Zuid(Today, 11:25am)
AdamRamsay2009(Today, 3:43am)
so-so-solar(Yesterday, 11:34pm)
sunnydaze(Apr 11th 2013, 2:38pm)
Greetings to our newest member: Antaisolar
Forum Software: Burning Board®, developed by WoltLab® GmbH