Search

Saturday, April 20, 2024

Donate
Subscribe
Saturday, April 20, 2024
Search

Graph of the Day: PV module costs to drop to $0.36c/W by 2017

Sophie Vorrath
17

Production costs for industry-leading crystalline-silicon PV modules is set to fall from 50 cents per watt at the end of 2012 to 36 cents per watt by the end of 2017, according to a new report from GTM Research. The 112-page report, PV Technology and Cost Outlook, 2013-2017, predicts that around 80 percent of this price decline will stem from the industry’s adoption of advanced technology platforms and manufacturing automation innovations, reports Greentech Media.

pv-production-costs-2017_570_319

“Yesterday’s PV cost reduction roadmaps are no longer relevant today,” said Shyam Mehta, Senior Analyst at GTM Research and the report’s author. “Three or four years ago, the industry was targeting one-dollar-per-watt costs in 2013; today, we are at 50 cents per watt, and there is currently little consensus on what is a realistic goal for the module supply chain to set for itself over the next three to five years. This is important not only for these manufacturers and their investors, but also for installers and project developers across the globe.”

As Nicholas Brown at CleanTechnica points out, this drop in solar panel prices means much more than making solar more affordable for more people.

“Solar panel costs of $0.36 per watt make it more feasible to install additional solar panels to back each other up instead of using any other type of power plant (for off-grid setups), reducing the need for batteries,” Brown says.

“For example: If you need 1,000 watts of power, and your 1,000 watt solar panel generates only generates 50% of its capacity (500 watts) due to cloudy weather, that can be compensated for by using two of those 1,000 watt panels instead of one, so you could still draw 1,000 watts from that 2,000 watt (nameplate capacity) array.”

Articles for you

More
More

Comments

17 responses to “Graph of the Day: PV module costs to drop to $0.36c/W by 2017”

  1. Bob_Wallace Avatar
    Bob_Wallace

    Overbuilding renewable capacity can be cheaper than building storage, given today’s technology. The Budischak, et al. paper does a good job of showing how rather large overbuilding can actually bring about an affordable renewable electricity grid.

    https://docs.google.com/file/d/1NrBZJejkUTRYJv5YE__kBFuecdDL2pDTvKLyBjfCPr_8yR7eCTDhLGm8oEPo/edit

    The paper authors were using much higher costs for their solar inputs, more expensive than even today’s. As the price of solar panels, wind turbines, storage, etc. continues to drop the price of electricity from our future grids becomes cheaper.

    1. Bob Wallace Avatar
      Bob Wallace

      Solar accounts for less than 0.2% of electricity produced in the US.

      As solar has scaled up in Germany, the costs have declined. But the dynamics are not dissimilar with nuclear. France saw significant cost declines
      as it scaled up standardized plant designs in the 70s and 80s. The new
      plant in Finland is a first-of-kind design. Subsequent builds are
      already showing significantly lower costs. The EPR under construction in
      France, initiated around the same time as the one in Finland, is
      expected to cost slightly less. The third and fourth versions of the EPR, currently under construction in China, will be a third the cost of the Finnish plant.

      You can’t simply say “nuclear is too expensive” when it is already much cheaper than wind and PV in China, and competitive with Wind in many other parts of the world. Modular design and the involvement of China will likely lead nuclear to see the same types of dramatic costs decreases that Solar PV saw in the past 5 years. China has plans to manufacture and export portions of the Toshiba AP1000 reactor within the next 5 years. This should lead to dramatically lower construction costs for developing nations looking to deploy these.

      Conventional PV panels can’t drop far enough in price to compete with nuclear around the world. PV panels on far cheaper substrates (without glass and aluminum) could potentially compete with Nuclear, but the glut of panels around the world will maintain a niche spot for distributed variable energy production that accounts for a small percentage of overall electricity.

      If you don’t understand why costs of nuclear plants dramatically increased in the 1970s then you don’t have enough information to provide conjecture on global and future prices of nuclear energy.

      http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

      1. Bob_Wallace Avatar
        Bob_Wallace

        Folks, this is my self-admitted stalker and impersonator. Note the lack of the underline between the two names.

        He used to post on CleanTechnia under the name “George Stephens” before the administration kicked him off for violating community settings. I’m one of the mods on that site.

        He then began stalking me from site to site using the Disqus ‘follow’ feature and registered a new account on Discus using this close variation on my name. On multiple sites he has admitted to his deception and stalking.

        Just so you know, he’s a pro-nuclear right winger who will post a few credible statements but embed some really misleading garbage.

        George is a world-class jerk and his dishonesty is on display for all to see.

        1. Bob Wallace Avatar
          Bob Wallace

          Why now are you avoiding discussion of nuclear power economics in China?

          I was banned from cleantechnica because of it, and you seem unwilling to discuss it.

          1. Giles Avatar
            Giles

            Wow. And i just thought you were schizophrenic, seem to be having a right old argument with yourself. Could the impersonating Bob please comment under your real name, or another assumed name if you must, but please don’t pretend you are someone you are not.

          2. Bob_Wallace Avatar
            Bob_Wallace

            Thanks, Giles.

            George, the name he used on CleanTechnia did not get kicked off for the reasons he’s claiming. Zach and I got tired of him being dishonest and disruptive.

          3. Bob Wallace Avatar
            Bob Wallace

            My name isn’t George, Its Bob Wallace, and the only one being dishonest is you: Spending a great deal of time claiming nuclear is uneconomical in comment sections while totally avoiding any acknowledgement of nuke economics in the developing world. That is pure dishonesty and spreading of propaganda for your own interest rather than an adherence to the truth.

          4. Louise Avatar
            Louise

            Nuclear power is uneconomical.
            Regardless of how much time you spend on promoting nuclear power, it will not change the economics of nuclear power.

            You might want to research the late Dr Herrman Scheer.
            In 1976 he changed employment, he was working as associate economics professor when he was hired as cost analyst to work for the nuclear power industry. After working for four years as nuclear power cost analyst he quit his job and became one of his countries most vocal opponents of nuclear power.

            His objection was based on costs.
            Herman Scheer was not a member of the green party, he was a member of the SPD, which looks after the interests of consumers and employees, as opposed to the interests of captains of industry.

            He was a member of parliament from 1980 until his death in 2011 and his own party had unsuccessfully tried to exclude him from the party.

            Dr Herrman Scheer said that nuclear power was the power source which received more government subsidies than all other power sources in Germany combined.

            Since renewable energy is more economical than nuclear power, I am puzzled why some people still want to continue to promote wasteful power generation.

            I do not expect nuclear power to become price competitive in future. The opposite seems to be the trend as renewable power sources keep getting cheaper the less likelhood that nuclear power will be able to catch up.

            The window for nuclear power has closed.
            There just is no business case for nuclear power.

          5. Bob Wallace Avatar
            Bob Wallace

            Is nuclear power economical today in China? The answer is unquestionably yes.

            You might want to research that (my original assertion) before rebutting claims that I’ve never made (Nuclear is competitive with Coal and Nat Gas in the US today).

          6. Bob_Wallace Avatar
            Bob_Wallace

            George, Giles asked you to quit using my name.

            Go back to using George Stephens or pick some other name that does not cause confusion.

            –

            Folks, George attempts one of his pro-nuke tricks in this post. He attempts to use the overnight cost of nuclear to state that it is economical.

            China builds reactors with ‘out of pocket’ money. That makes the cost seem low. But what George tries to keep hidden it the lost opportunity cost calculation.

            Just be aware of his character and be suspicious of any claim he makes.

          7. Bob Wallace Avatar
            Bob Wallace

            Im trying to keep hidden the lost opportunity cost calculation?

            Please do elaborate.

            And my name is Bob Wallace, that is the name I will continue to use in the honor of my mother who gave it to me.

            Pro-nuke tricks? I’m not pulling any tricks, just voicing honest environmental concern.

          8. Bob Wallace Avatar
            Bob Wallace

            My name is actually Bob Wallace. Believe it or not there is more than 1 Bob Wallace on the Earth.

        2. Brian Donovan Avatar
          Brian Donovan

          He banned me on CleanTechnica as Bob, or was that you?

      2. Brian Donovan Avatar
        Brian Donovan

        Hey, are you the cleantechnica bob a h?

    2. Brian Donovan Avatar
      Brian Donovan

      This is hilarious. Which one you you bobs are the ah at Cleantechnica?

    3. Brian Donovan Avatar
      Brian Donovan

      Ah, Bob the supercilious boor who gives renewable energy a bad name.

      Clean Technica in particular.

      You always seem to reply to your own comments.

      Is this some scheme to prevent people from responding?

      Yeah, solar panels are no less tan 50 cent per wp, except in the fossils and nuclear bought USA.

      Solar panels are expected to last 50 to 100 years.

      Of course the banker short term defintion of discount rate mean that doesn’t matter.

  2. Brian Donovan Avatar
    Brian Donovan

    Panels are already 32 cents per Wp. http://sunelec.com/datasheet-library/download/sharp/NS-F121G6.pdf

Most Read

Other news

All articles
All articles
Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.