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?
...The hope for mono is that Virtus II like tech capacity remains much lower than total PV demand.
Users who thanked for this post:
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.
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