Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dydo

Hanwha Q CELLS (HQCL)

Recommended Posts

Guest rational_judgement

Unbelievable ASP! As if they gave away some modules for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice plots Eystein. On Renesola per watt costs you assign all opex and interest cost to the 320 MW modules shipped and nothing to the 392 wafers shipped. This gives a skewed module cost picture. You can check my numbers on the Q4 ASP thread and maybe use the same business unit allocation. The same would apply to REC, but I haven't verified your numbers there yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest joshchang

Updated r&d and module cost with hsol numbers.

Nice work! It will be more informational if you can add ASP along with the cost for each company. TSL can easily sell out its capacity if TSL is going with YGE's ASP and therefore can lower the per watt cost significantly (improved utilization, opex and interest per watt). The spread between ASP and total cost per watt (including interest and OPEX) makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

joshchang, I think it makes sense to do a breakdown based on full utilization too. As you say TSL has good potential to show good results then, especially based on the high ASP. The question is if one should assume retained ASP as utilization is increased? At least one can conclude that there's some work to do for those who don't look good under full utilization and retained ASP assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eysteinh

Nice plots Eystein. On Renesola per watt costs you assign all opex and interest cost to the 320 MW modules shipped and nothing to the 392 wafers shipped. This gives a skewed module cost picture. You can check my numbers on the Q4 ASP thread and maybe use the same business unit allocation. The same would apply to REC, but I haven't verified your numbers there yet.

I do the same for REC. Rec interest cost for rec solar modules is 0.01$/watt but all interest cost for rec is 0.08$/watt. It is the simplest way to get a comparison. I agree you could try to even it out without the wafer costs too. Thanks for the feedback. For now I updated with ASP and a note about the cost spread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eysteinh

joshchang, I think it makes sense to do a breakdown based on full utilization too. As you say TSL has good potential to show good results then, especially based on the high ASP. The question is if one should assume retained ASP as utilization is increased? At least one can conclude that there's some work to do for those who don't look good under full utilization and retained ASP assumption.

Good point. I will try to add these numbers also in another chart in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ASP for Trina and Yingli differ from the estimation in odyd's articles (67 and 62). I think he had access to some additional information not available in the ERs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest joshchang

joshchang, I think it makes sense to do a breakdown based on full utilization too. As you say TSL has good potential to show good results then, especially based on the high ASP. The question is if one should assume retained ASP as utilization is increased? At least one can conclude that there's some work to do for those who don't look good under full utilization and retained ASP assumption.

I agree full utilization scenario will show companies' full potential in a clearer way. Problem is how to calculate OPEX in a full utilization scenario. Interest and direct cost (TSL's direct cost will be 3-4 cents lower under full utilization) are easier to calculate. You need to make some assumptions to calculate OPEX in a full utilization scenario though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it should be not too difficult to adjust selling expenses for increased freight and commissions and I'm already estimating depreciation. Maybe if we use guided 2H utilization (derived from Q1 and FY shipment guidance) instead of full utilization we don't need to assume any ASP sacrifiction and it will reflect actual state of 2013 business for the company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×