Jump to content


Solar Investor
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SCSolar last won the day on October 17

SCSolar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

98 Excellent

About SCSolar

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The company bled red ink for the prior 4 years. This year they are finally turning a profit. They have good margins and it looks like they have grown their volumes and revenues. They are projected to be in the Low $1 in earnings for 2020. I have a hard time betting on a company with a forward PE of 40-50. Sedge has over twice the revenues and a PE just over 20. if you are looking at comps, SEDGE would be suggest at $160 with a similar PE. Based on Peers, it would suggest ENPH may be near full value
  2. PV Wind and Coal power from the west. https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/chinas-ambitious-plan-to-build-the-worlds-biggest-supergrid
  3. I currently own no Solar and for the most part except for a few trades when JKS dropped below 9 and CSIQ about $14, have not been in solar for most of the past 2+ years.
  4. If you use Sunpowers earnings forecast for Q3, they expect to lose $35-$55M. https://newsroom.sunpower.com/2019-07-31-SunPower-Reports-Second-Quarter-2019-Results The company's third quarter 2019 GAAP and non-GAAP guidance is as follows: on a GAAP basis, revenue of $430 million to $470 million, gross margin of 8 percent to 12 percent and net loss of $55 million to $35 million.
  5. Well I spent 30 years in bleeding edge technology. In Tech the product life cycles run around 5 years before the product is basically obsolete. To give you an example, a company I worked for acquired a next gen product when they bought a startup for $400M. They brought that product out as a high speed high density product. I looked at it and said it was too small. People thought I was crazy. 1.5 years later we had 10 times the density and speed. 2 years after that we had new products that were 4 time faster than that with tech that was another 10 fold faster. Then the density climbed. Each and every next gen bleeding tech and IEEE spec all became standards. The fact is solar is technology and it is not coal nor gas. There is new tech every 3 years sometimes incremental sometimes revolutionary. There is always early adopters and as the product stays out there it becomes the standard generally within 2 years and has a life of 2 -3 active years before it becomes obsoleted by the next gen. That is the fact of Tech which solar is. Sure it is a commodities business but it is tech. The Tier 1's and the next gen modules are not new tech rather incremental tech. Right now Bi Facial is the next gen as it can gain 5-30% more power and is optimal for Ground mount and commercial at minimal cost impact. In fact much of the change in bifacial is just the back eva. The new half cell still uses the same Si tech but cuts the cell in half. That gains power by lower heat and resistance. It is not a huge leap but incremental. The shingling of the cells is not new either as that was first developed in the 60's. Anti reflective coating and etching has been done now for going on 10 years. As far as larger panels, they have had 72 cell modules for 8-10 years. So the size relative has not changed. But then again, FSLR new Series 6 is a new format a large format they never made prior. So they are prone to some of the same issues. You can say what you want about the author, but 72 cell modules is the mainstay of ground mount systems. All I did was say I disagreed and gave a reason based on real customer demand to point to why I disagree with some of his points. As for FSLR, as I noted, they are in a protected market for now. They are a 1 trick market as of now and can milk it. I believe they will have issues internationally now and in the future as their future costs are out of line with market costs these days. They will not have 9GW of U.S. protected markets in the US come 2022. Your target costs of $0.22 is where similar products are selling at today. You can expect those products to gain another 10-20% lower costs in the next 2 years. In fact the targets being suggested in China by 2025 is in the $0.15 range. Where is First Solar earnings when they are selling 8GW of modules at $0.04/watt gross and all their US pipelines are sold? We can disagree to disagree.
  6. Most of the power gains have been incremental and not game changing. The article is clearly off a bit. For example Florida Power and light/NextEra is partnering with Jinko Solar and is taking their high powered latest and greatest 400W modules. So clearly something is worth having the modules and large companies are not shunning them. While I agree a few pennies does not make a difference on a project but $0.05 or $0..10 does when a project is being built for sub $1/watt. What really the discussion is about is FSLR costs and the reliance on a single market as well as their past marketing suggesting HUGE cost savings advantages with their(yes I will go their) next gen high powered modules. Those cost savings that used to be preached for the Series 6 is gone when comparing to current gen Si modules. When FSLR steps outside of the current protected US market, they are not competitive and they still have a large series 4 capacity that will be written down further.
  7. Sunpower should get pounded every day until they are a penny stock. The company is horrible. It has negative shareholder equity and is continuing lose money as they have for the past several years. Their core manufactured products are way to expensive to compete except for a niche rooftop and even then I believe homeowners are wisening up. Their OEM products if built in Mexico will get an exemption on tariffs but the panels built in China are not exempt from my understanding. They are a 1 trick market similar to FSLR but with poor cash and poor operational metrics.
  8. 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?
  9. Indirectly yes for FSLR as the average ASP is lower due to Si costs being lower. The Si cost in Silicon being around $8/KG would be around $0.032 in material costs. That is down about 1/2 to 1 cent or 4-5% of the cost to make a panel. For Spwr, due to higher costs for their manufacturing, the cost savings would be less. Their OEM purchased modules should have an advantage in they buy at lower costs, however I look at OEM modules as that company being a middle man re-seller in which they take a small margin of profits out of the middle.
  10. 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..
  11. 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.
  12. Interesting the lowest bid is from ACWA the winner of the last bid even though they bid higher than Masdar/Jinko in the last round. This suggests ACWA might have be a preferred company by DEWA.
  13. So much for Bifacial solar modules getting exemptions. That exemption has been revoked. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-yanks-exemption-solar-relying-212607327.html The U.S. Trade Representative said Friday it was eliminating a loophole granted about four months ago for bifacial solar panels, which generate electricity on both sides. They’ll now be subject to the duties Trump announced on imported equipment in early 2018, currently at 25%. The change takes effect Oct. 28.
  14. Yes right now Bifacial capacity global is low right now and the target capacity has been primarily consumed in the China market as the Top runner projects. That is going to change going forward as capacity ramps. It is expected that Bifacial modules will jump in the US from 500MW in 2019 to 2GW+ in 2020 and be at 7GW by 2024 for the U.S. My guess is more capacity will be ramped more quickly for the US markets. http://taiyangnews.info/business/5-42-gw-bifacial-solar-module-capacity-by-2019/ It is the US where significant growth can be expected for obvious reasons – the government exempted bifacial solar modules from paying tariffs under Section 201 and major beneficiaries of this will be companies producing the technology in Southeast Asian countries since they don’t incur any import tariffs (see No Tariffs On Bifacial Solar Panels, Says US). A Wood Mackenzie and SEIA report on the US solar market claims the contracted utility scale solar pipeline of the country has ballooned to 37.9 GW and bifacial technology is likely to grow from 500 MW in 2019 to over 2 GW in 2020. In 2024, it will grow to more than 7 GW. As for manufacturers of Bifacial- here is a list with countries of origin https://www.enfsolar.com/directory/panel/bifacial As for FSLR, bifacial modules of 2G + 2.5GW of expempt modules + Sunpower production of 3GW + US production facilities of 4GW importing cheap cells at $0.13 with tariffs creates a 11.5GW capacity in the U.S. that will be lower cost that todays support $0.37-$0.42. But that is the U.S. protected markets, FSLR other exposure is golbal market price pressures where there is not tariffs and the ASP is sitting in the $0.20-$0.25 for Poly and Mono. Those numbers are lower that current FSLR production costs.
  15. Or the $4 cost is accurate for a 2020 year end. Here is an NREL report (table 6) from 2018 that suggests the cost to produce 1 Kg of Poly is $3.60 based on 0.045/Kwhr. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72134.pdf The $3.60 would not include the depreciation of reactors. It also does not consider the power plants depreciation or cost to operate. If you look at the $0.02Rmb that DQ is getting vs the $0.045 USD NREL is using, they will save $0.50 on energy for the reactors based on the Nrel document. That puts the cost to produce down to $3.10 for Silicon. This is without lower labor costs and other costs from the depreciated RMB and other costs being lowered. The RMB depreciation should in itself lower costs by $0.36 from the NREL slide. That puts cash costs in theory at $2.75/KG based on the NREL slides. That is before any other cost savings on say materials. Add in depreciations and another electric costs and you can see that the targets set forth for the end of 2020 is not that far off the research article I posted. But you do have your numbers and they appear to founded in past comments and targets. I would like to see what the real target costs are longer term. Kind of like FSLR costs you know suggesting Series 6 is at around $0.21, but now you seem to suggest they could be as low as $0.15/Watt. We all have been investing in solar long enough to know that target costs which were stated for 3 years out have always been surpassed and usually by a year or 2. So why would one presume that the DQ costs analysis ran in 2016 and stated in la 2017 early 2018 are still valid for a 2020 year end projection?
  • Create New...