Morelli seems to be a no nonsense. CEO. He has taken the hard steps with the downturn; laying off workers , stopping expansion, and stopping productiom. Apparently the R&D on solar production goes on. Morelli spoke of grid parity in 2012 at the quarterly CC and the Mark from Unisolar repeated the projection at the DB presentation.The way the U.S. is headed, the price of energy is headed up and grid parity is easier. The market has in no way priced this into ECD. tertom
electro999: Average commercial rates are typically below residential rates. Peak rates, demand charges, etc, etc are utility specific. Gives us a rate schedule, and we will tell you why Unisolar system won't be a good investment at current all-in system prices. Ok?
mycatisfren: Nobody has disputed that PV's cost of generation per KWH should be compared to the specific, relevant retail rates, from the point of view of the retail investor (commercial or residential). In certain states, your 30c may be relevant, in other states, 10c is the relevant numbers. As I pointed you, current peak electricity rates may not last (they can go higher, or they can be eliminated, replaced by a flat fee or flat rate). A careful analysis should incorporate such risks.
So, for you, 30c may be relevant now (but not in five years). For somebody in a moderate-climate state with well-planned electricity generation, 10c is the relevant number. And, yes, peak rates do matter in certain states, but again, are you sure your PV will eliminate all those? A study that looked into this found that peak electricity demand (and rates) does not exactly coincide with peak PV generation.
So instead of just replying "gee, you're right, maybe we shouldn't compare the cost of PV to the 0.10/kWh grid parity target", you twist it around and fabricate a scenario in which the evil power company still screws over the consumer. I guess I should have expected no less from you.
mycatisfren: What you forgot to account for in your "protection scenario" is that the utility instead of increasing pricing for peak KWH, may actually start charging you on subscription basis (flat fee per month, or flat price per kWH). Yes, it is stupid, but more stupid things have happened. Grid-connected PV solar is not a risk-free investment, partially because the payoff is so dependent on what the utility might or might not do over the next 10-15 years (and you cannot go off-grid with PV without doubling the price of your system, per Watt, at least). But you are welcome to go and install that PV system (Unisolar's, in particular)! Then you will have some interesting stories to tell us (like how many KWHs your system generates when there is a black-out).
I just read the numbers off my bill, no calculations required so far. From April 10 to May 12, I used 817 kWh.
0.32/kWh for the top 72 kWh
0.30/kWh for the next 260 kWh
0.14/kWh for the next 112 kWh
0.12/kWh for the bottom 372 kWh
If I could eliminate 444 kWh, my electric bill would drop by 78%, and I would be protected against future price increases in electricity. I'd wager that prices could easily double in the next 10 years. Anyway, my point is that you can't keep assuming that PV is competing with 0.10/kWh electricity. I know you will try to twist this around to whether Unisolar can save me 444 kWh for less than $5.50 per watt. I don't know about right now, but I think so in the near future.
This puts Unisolar about 2 to 3 years ahead of traditional x-Si PV in achieving this goal as it is widely believe that x-Si will achieve grid parity in 2014 to 2015. Because of this, Hemlock (the worlds largest producer of polysilicon) just their first phase of a multi billion dollar expansion of their production capacity in Michigan and Tennessee.
Ironically, the polysilicon shortage may have accelerated the price reduction in PV by both giving a boost to thin-film PV and forcing an aggressive reduction in non polysilicon costs of x-Si PV production.
tertom: Mr Morelli, unfortunately, has no idea what grid parity means. He thinks grid parity is achieved when cost of manufacturing are below $1.10 per Watt. That's plan wrong. $1.10 per Watt per cost of manufacturing means the laminates ASP will be $1.55 (to maintain a 30% gross margin). That will mean that the all-in system cost will be over $2.55 per Watt. That will mean 13c+ per KWH (includes the inverter in 10 years, the degradation, and zero O&M costs). Nowhere near grid parity in most places (which he defined as less than 10c per kWH).
He already misled you. Go back to the chart about efficiencies from the 2007 annual shareholder meeting (if you keep the pdf presentations). Where are the PVL-152 and PVL-154 we were supposed to have in 2008?
And, of course, nothing Mr. Trinske says should be trusted, as he hails from a fraud. And so does Mr. Knoll.
I don't know where you guys came up with 10 cents /kWh. I just looked at my bill, and I'm paying .31/kWh for my most expensive 73 kWh, and .29/kWh for the next 260 kWh. These are the kWh that would dissapear from my bill if I had a solar system, not the cheapest kWh (which were .12/kWh). Comparing the cost of solar to the inexpensive baseline allowance is deceptive, even by your standards, ecd.fan.