Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/14/2019 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Hmmm using that data sheet, the HiKu modules you are referencing are 10% smaller not 24% smaller using the make and model I mentioned. Using the specs in the installation manua(pg 26)l for the CSIQ module I identified being the CS3U-420PG-AG. I get 24% smaller and a smaller weight. https://www.canadiansolar.com/upload/f9acf4466d1e0c6f/87ce57c92c82e873.pdf The dimensions in your data sheets still have the CSIQ footprint as smaller and the module is still 30mm vs FSLR 49MM or FSLR is 50% thicker and is atleast 7 KG heavier than the CSIQ module And with the spec sheet I see the HIKU 420W Bi Facial module producing 462W @ 10% backplane power vs FSLR 420W . Based on dimensions of your module the CSIQ 420Module @10% generates backplane .2067W per 1000squareMilimeters while FSLR gnereates 0.168W in the same square millimeters. Looking at those power numbers you preset, the CSIQ module generates and astounding 21.9% more power in the same square meter than the FSLR module and they could generate more. but I chose the 10% backplane power. Oh and did I mention that was the second lowest power module on your data sheet. The 435W module in the same foot print generates more than 3% more power on top of the 420W per square meter vs the FSLR module. As for the rest, the thermal impacts, FSLR is better at -0.32 while CSIQ is at -0.37. That is not very much degredataion at higher heat for CSIQ and certainly not even close to the 22% more power generated in the same surface area. From what I see the specs of the CSIQ blows the doors off the FSLR for power generated per square meter and weight. Your data does nothing to support my suggestion of lower costs for builders who use CSIQ 420 modules. Like I said, FSLR was comparing their Series 6 to 5 to 7 year old Solar module tech to get their what 15% lower LCOE which is a false claim these days, come on Kloth, I know you can do better your not that far off your game are you?
  2. 1 point
    Oh she is probably pretty accurate. DQ has indicated a $7.50 Q3 production cost. The Mono is around $8.80-$9/KG. Their blended ASP is probably going to fall in around 8.75 +/-. The Gross will should climb slightly to $11 from $8.6M. With Opex and Interest running at $11M a quarter, the profits will be near zero if not a loss due to added decline in the RMB. The issue is the demand is not picking up in China, thus the ASP is going to be flat to down through the next several quarters. As more comes on line, that blended ASP is likely to drop and the higher end Mono Poly should decline. The poly ASP is already near their costs to manufacture with depreciation. There is no profit there. What you will see is a cost to produce to ASP spread in the $1 range +/-. DQ is going to have to write down their legacy capacity in the near future that is producing in the $8 range with depreciation or in the $6.75 range without depreciation. Once that is done, then their costs will fall below the $6.50 guidance they gave for ramped production in early next year. That will allow them to get slightly better margins. Even with that I do not see the ASP to production spread breaking the $1.25 +/- range with the glut of new capacity. That spread is going to drag earnings probably well into next year if not 2021, DQ could be looking at $1-$2 a share in earnings for 2020 with those spreads. That is a far cry from the consensus average of $4.44 for 2019 that is going to be missed as well as the $8.80 a share average in 2020. The market has not yet adjusted down for the future low ASP prices. They are looking at the production costs and not recognizing the impacts of a sustained low and further decline in ASP. You could be looking at the stock testing the lows of October of 2018 or worse within the next 6 months if earnings point to a sustained low ASP..
  3. 1 point
    FSLR series 6 has about the same power output of a CSIQ CS3U-420PG-AG. FSLR takes up 23% more space to get the same power as the CSIQ CS3U-420PG-AG. FSLR series 6 weighs 40% more than the CSIQ CS3U-420PG-AG. FSLR series 6 is 60% thicker that the CSIQ CS3U-420PG-AG CSIQ module being smaller in footprint, lighter and thinner will reduce shipping costs, means that more panels can be installed in the same square area and thus a higher density of panels for higher outputs per acre leading to lower cost per watt generated overall. All those benefits that FSLR preached 3 years ago about cost savings due to more power in the module is all wiped out when it comes to LCOE. I believe even the temperature coefficients and low light absorption benefits that FSLR used to have is mostly wiped out. Yet FSLR keeps reference their benefits over Silicon modules by comparing to outdated 7 year old Silicon technology. As far as price points, CSIQ is about $0.20 today, FSLR Series 6, is not ramped and by most estimates of their target costs when ramped was to be around $0.21. That was before line process modifications to debottle neck a manufacturing process issue that was causing significant line down and throughput issues. FSLR is a 1 trick pony in a protected market. Yes they can make money in a protected market but will struggle outside of that 1 market.


×
×
  • Create New...