My gawd you are one stupid man. First Solar has been around since 1999. You realize companies exist before they go public ? Read my comment in the context it was given for once in your life. I was referring to the previous comment about his claims about "real world" NREL data that sows the average degradation was 0.5%. I was was explaining why this data does not exist and was using the fact that FSLR hasn't even been in the utility solar business for 10 years - and 10 years ago the degradation rate was in the 1.25-.1.5% range. My point was that EVEN IF NREL data existed form the beginning of FSLRs commercial production lines - there is no way it can show an average 0.5% degradation. Gawd - I donlt know why I even waste my time on brain dead morons like you. Go have another drink gramps - pickle your brain some more.
No - I referenced a paper from 2002 in relation to degradation from a plant installed in 2004. Try and keep up. And try and stay focused. All I said was that c-si panels produce more energy of their system life than FSLR panels - even with the temperature coefficient advantage (and their 2012 paper on degradation). The lifecycle performance advantage is even higher with mono-si panels. Anything you guys want to go out on tangents on is irrelevant to my point.
Degradation IS related to the temperature coefficient. If you are producing less and less energy every year - then the temperature coefficient is increasing the module efficiency from a lower baseline module efficiency every year. So yes - they are absolutely related in terms of annual and lifecycle energy production. The only thing that matters is annual and lifecycle efficiency. But - you guys are making way too much of this. All I said was the temperature coefficient advantage that some claim as a big deal - isn't - because of the degradation. C-si modules will produce about 2-3% more energy over the life. Not much - but it DOES negate the temperature advantage claim. That was my only point. Please provide a reference to the degradation of 0.5% a year from NREL. I have not seen it and doubt it exists. FSLRs own paper on its web site (that is not peer reviewed BTW ) says 0.7% per year. And the warranty is not based on 0.7% a year either. There is no way that "real life studies" can show 0.5% average annual degradation over system life ! LOL System life is 30 years and FSLR has only been in the utility scale business for less than 10. And back then the degradation - according to NREL was in the 1.2%-1.5% range. Also I have no idea what you meant on the manufacturing costs so I can't respond to that.
Why don't you be specific. Instead of just calling names, why don't you be specific ? LOL Wanna talk DCF models ? I'm game. But you be specific first.
Wow - you just like to argue. You agree with me on cost. You agree with me on materials - but ask who cares ? LOL It is a significant deal, maybe I'll explain it to you sometime. We disagree on ramp up costs and technical ease of ramp up. And you confirmed my point that the temperature coefficient is negated over time by the increased degradation. Even when you agree with me you want to argue and say I provide misleading information ? LOL That's some funny stuff, man. Sorry, I won't argue with someone who just agrees with me.
My references for the degradation ratesd for FSLR are from FSLR's web site. There is a paper on there from 2012 on degradation where FSLR claims an annual degradation rate of 0.7% per year, while SPWR's degradation rate is tied to its warranty and equals 0.45% per year. I see where you are getting your information about thin film roofing, but you are conflating FSLR with ALL types of thin films. All CdTe panels are thin film - but there not all thin film panels are CdTe. There is also amorphous silicon and CIGS and few others that can be deposited in flexible substrates - but FSLR can not, it need to be deposited on glass. And some of the companies mentioned in the google searches you suggested are already bankrupt like UniSolar. FSLR is not used in roofing applications.
OK - let's take this point by point, just for fun.
- Cheaper to manufacture. TRUE !
- Less Material is Required. - Which material are you referring too ? Yes, there is less PV material required, but FSLR requires much more glass and aluminum - that's why FSLR's panels are so much HEAVIER on a per watt and per square foot basis than Si-based modules. So, in fact, while FSLR uses less PV material it requires more overall materials.
- Much lower equipment costs / easier to scale production. - Um - isn't lower equipment costs the same as lower manufacturing costs ? LOL Are we double counting the benefits already ? Easier to scale up production ? On a cost basis, yes. But ease of scaling up is more than just costs. One could also argue its technically easier to ramp up production on more mature technologies like Si-based modules.
- Performs better in hot weather ? Yes and no. In the early life of the panels yes. After about year 12 - no. Annual degradation is higher for FSLR than Si-based modules - so the temperature coefficient benefits are eliminated by Year 12-15 - resulting in Si-based modules generating more energy over the life of the module.
Performs better on cloudy days ? - Yes and no - again in the early life before degradation takes out that benefit too.
- Flexibility provides potential for much cheaper rooftop installation - Huh ? FSLR doesn't do rooftop installations due to low efficiency and high weight of the modules. What is the flexibility you speak of ? When and if TetraSun ever gets up to commercial-scale manufacturing and issues specs and says they will expand beyond the Japan market we'll revisit that one.
- Efficiency fast catching up to Si ? NO. At best, they are keeping pace with efficiency gains. Meanwhile, SPWR is currently SELLING 24% efficiency modules now with far superior warranties to FSLR - which FSLR is at 14.2% efficiency. Actually, SPWR has gained on efficiency compared to FSLR over the last 5 years
Show me where the BLM announcement is where they changed the date. I suppose I got in my my time machine to watch the BLM auction live on Monday and got an article on the auction results on Monday - a full day before the auction took place. LOL Its pretty obvious the article above was written on Monday late in the day - but was not released until Tuesday and they didn't change the wording. It is government after all. This is my last post on this stupid topic. Does it really matter to you what day the auction was ?
From the BLM website - can we stop this silliness now ?
Release Date: 05/30/14
Contacts: Kirsten Cannon , 702-595-2034 , firstname.lastname@example.org
BLM to Host Competitive Auction for Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone
Las Vegas, Nevada – As part of the Obama Administration's strategy to spur renewable energy development on public lands and the President’s comprehensive plan to cut carbon pollution and create jobs, the Bureau of Land Management will host a competitive auction for public lands in the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone in Clark County, Nevada on June 30, 2014.
I posted the info on FSLR. jeez man. Way to focus on the most irrelevant things. And why was it obvious that FSLR would be on the list ? Because you say so. If it was obvious why didn't you say so when you first posted the article ? Don't you have anything better to do than to nitpick nonsense. I notice you just stopped responding when someone else confirmed the auction was on Monday. You could at least be a man for once and admit your wrong. But I doubt it.
Way to put words in my mouth. I said the Kochs were one reason that the RPS were not not going to be raised anytime soon. They are pausing the Ohio RPS - which means no activity in the RPS for 3 years while the consider repealing it. My facts are quite straight. I never said the kichs were "winning" - but they are putting up a good fight with a lot of money.
I never said it was a conspiracy - I was just wondering why the article did not disclose the winners. I posted the winners and the article that came out on Monday. Like I said - its public information. BUt I provided it to the board - it was positive info for FSLR - and you clowns still pounce on me like jackals. I was questioning the BLM process not FSLR's involvement. But thanks for posting the article showing the auction was on Monday like I said. Even when I post positive info on FSLR you trolls are in attack mode. What a bunch of tools.
Any questions Mr. Know It All - The AUCTION WAS MONDAY (as if it makes a difference). I pay a subscription for this news service so its kinda reliable (and I got the article on Monday LOL)
Scott Streater, E&E reporter
Published: Monday, June 30, 2014
The Bureau of Land Management's competitive solar auction held today in southern Nevada proved a resounding success with energy developers bidding $5.8 million for a chance to develop six parcels covering 3,083 acres.
Because the Koch Bros are spending millions to repeal the ones on the books. They already succeeded in Ohio. You sure ask a lot of stupid questions for someone who is invested in the solar industry. It took a lot of hard work and money to get them where they are - and against utility opposition. Sheesh. I'm guessing you didn't even know what RPS stood for before today before you had to google it.
Sorry - the auction was on Monday. I saw it love and I know what day it is. Who you gonna believe - the media or your own lying eyes ? And who cares what day it was ? Does it make one bit of difference? I posted info here about FSLR that FLSR hasn't even posted yet - and you guys jump my #$%$ over the smallest meaningless stuff. Get a life. You should be thanking me, not nitpicking me.
Well, since you don't know how it works - the land lease payments do not kick in until the project is under construction. A project does does not begin construction until it has a PPA. So, unless all these projects are built (which they won;t because they far exceed demand, the government is not in fact maximizing the value of lands for us taxpayers. Also, the solar companies do not make the decisions about markets in the west - the state due through the RPS regulations. You sound like a tea bagger - all mouth and no brain.
The demand is set by the RPS mandates in each state. Currently, all the states in the west are ahead of schedule for meeting future RPS requirements. Not one utility scale PV project has been built outside of the RPS mandates. Not one. That's how I know what the demand is. If you know know what the RPS requirements are, then you what the demand is by year. Its pretty common knowledge.
I don't know why the article didn't name the winning bidders. Its public information, and I saw the auction live on Monday. FSLR paid $ 3.6M for three parcels totaling 1700 acres. This is just for the development rights - annual land lease fees of about $1250/acre per year as well as additional development fees will apply. Funny thing is this land for FSLR along, not including the land preliminary awarded to NV Energy and others, far exceeds the demand for utility-scale solar projects in the west. I talked to a BLM rep a few months ago about this, and said you realize that you are leasing way more land than the solar market can support ? He just smiled and said, out job is just to lease the Federal. Whether the markets can support it or not, or whether the developers can even get PPAs for their projects is not our problem or concern. I just shook my head. Leasing land for above-market rtes for projects that will likely never be developed. Gotta love the Federal government.