SolarPVInvestor Forums

https://solarpvinvestor.com/spvi-news/418…china-report-22

HI there article from Solarplaza on Mexico and conference there https://solarpvinvestor.com/tech-news/421…ture-for-mexico those who have a chance to go can register here http://www.elfuturosolar.mx/registro/ using this code EFSMX13-SOLARPVINVESTOR for 10%

A bit of the summary on Taiwan https://solarpvinvestor.com/spvi-news/423…ipments-in-2012

https://solarpvinvestor.com/spvi-news/424…ces-to-increase

Quoted from "explo"

This implies mono wafer processing cost is 85% higher than multi.

you mean 30%?

I think including poly the difference is about 50%, in costs. You are quotting Q3 SOL processing costs yes?

Honey is right up there, they make wafer themselves, although I think that GCL wafers could be used for the same. JA and now YGE can produce similar results of HP wafers. PANDA has been notoriously achieving more than their datasheets show. Due to bifacial structure, each panel can get as much as 15W more on the top of the rating due to reflection effect of the roof etc. We beat this to death. The range concentration, average, whether is 255W, 260W, 265W etc is really an enigma today. I wish this statistic was published somewhere, but it is not. PANDA was the second best panel rated just last week or so Solarwatt had the best, the company I think is semi-bankrupt. At any rate. I think that selling more watts (due to efficiency) at less logistical costs (shipping, storing etc) should benefit. Producing more efficiency should add to the savings, if processing has the same cost. So if the cost per watt, versus ASP per watt, has improved gross margin, then this is the winner, somewhat regardless of efficiency at the end or rather inclusively. I am looking forward to see what margins will be in Q4 and what processing costs will be then. Yingli's costs are really in silicon, Trina did pretty good job getting poly at $0.12 level. It looks like last week prices for wafers and cells got the lift, while modules were actually selling off, for the first time in three weeks.

Hi Both, My original reply was to Klothilde, I quoted those companies i believe they posses the technology internally or are able to purchase the wafer externally. The article I had written on HP was based on conversations with insider who works for one of the companies in waferring business. SOL`s technology is not unique I was told, and because of it I do not believe this is just SOL`s niche. Clearly concept of HP, or moving to HP is being a focus of many. However, Chinese market in particular but also global commercial installations are continue to use lower or average efficiency modules. I doubt that mono will disappear. In fact mono inventory has been reduced dramatically, probably because of Japan demand. I am trying hard to talk to ECN about their visit in China , and inquires made by LDK about producing n-type wafers. LDK has also its HP wafers. So is GCL or they claim to have it. I think that there is also one more factor. 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.

Explo, HP concept is a new concept? Can you please understand my statements for what they are instead of assuming what they may refer to? I said HP wafers do not have a history of efficiency nor the modules made of HP do. This is not the question about multicrystalline family of products but another sub-category. Do you think that purchasers are that much interested in taking on the risk, rather than buy something what is familiar and known to have high efficiency? There is always a group which will buy a new product offering advantage, but there is also a group, which will pay more to get the sure thing. If quasi-mono showed as anything, it was basically a "no go". Companies first could not stop talking about it, now they had dismissed its value. Again from perspective of a buyer, nobody wanted this to a point it matters to a supply chain. N-type mono cells have been used in space for the longest time. I am not here to say that n-type is going to be a next big thing, nor I say that HP will not become a mainstream pushing away legacy type multi-wafer. I am only saying that adoption curve is something one needs to consider, despite high specs. As time progresses I have no doubt, when it comes to efficiency upgrades, what companies will do next will tell us what they see value in.

Quasi-mono was a way to get the mono qualities using the multicrystalline process. HP involves sorting existing wafers and upgrades involve ingot production, by way of furnace upgrades including graphite cores etc, to produce anything beyond 17.3%. Statement one: No matter what specs you will print on the multi-module some people will choose mono module, anyway. If you take the Wafer II module and you put PANDA beside each other, some will still pick PANDA. They make a choice because there is a huge literature support mono product, and beside the blog and datasheet from ReneSola very little on HP is being said. The spec is also new, Explo, and such it is viewed as novelty. So you ask theoretical question and I am giving answers which are very theoretical as well. If I assume that SOL represents HP revolution, I can tell that their increase of selling Virtus II modules will be the way to benchmark the adoption. If they happen to expand their current and add more capacity of virtus modules, this is going to show that HP wafer technology will be pushing out legacy process. They do sell other modules now, so there must be a reason for it. Many believe that efficiency has very little to do with solar markets at large today. So if even the process is cheaper or equally cheap to legacy, spending on upgrading of existing processes may not be of interest, if you are selling other modules. This goes for mono and so on. Imho, I believe that there is no other way but efficiency to separate winners from losers. As an investor I see pursuit of cost reduction as something which offers advantage to a company, but I understand from the perspective of achieving success in this pursuit, the new technology, may not have an immediate advantage to the adoption curve. This is what brings me to your comment on Yingli. So they have the way of getting a 17.75% multi ingot. Based on the demand for their products they may not have a need to produce the ingot this way, and save $30M in upgrades. On the other hand this is the only things which is selling, I am sure they will do it. I am not sure how to describe this, demand is separated from cost savings. As a consumer you do not care what manufacturer paid to make it. For manufacurer if you happen to produce products which are in both areas, they are cheap to produce and they get bought, then you have a success.