First Solar Reaches Grid-Parity Milestone, Says Report

An analysis of First Solar's system in the Nevada desert argues that solar costs less than coal. Renewables rejoice.

First Solar (NSDQ: FSLR) has made it to grid parity, according to at least one analyst.

A 12.6-megawatt system installed by First Solar for Sempra Generation showed that the system can produce electricity at below the price of conventional power in the United States, said Mark Bachman, an equity analyst at Pacific Crest, in a research note Tuesday.

The system can generate 12.6 megawatts of power in direct current, which is then converted to alternating current to feed the electric grid. First Solar announced the project as a 10-megawatt (AC) power plant earlier this year.

The plant, located in the Nevada desert near Boulder City, costs $0.075 per kilowatt hour to install without any subsidies, Bachman wrote. Conventional power fed into the grid costs $0.09 per kilowatt hour. 

"In our view, the industry leaders will be those companies that can deliver electricity at or below grid parity pricing without the aid of subsidies while also delivering superior return to shareholders," Bachman said. "Currently, only First Solar can claim these achievements, in our view."

Bachman's cost calculations, of course, are impacted by a number of factors. Others will likely come to different conclusions. Part of the calculation relies on what others are achieving in other locations with different kinds of panels. Nonetheless, it underscores the progress the industry is making toward the important milestone.

And First Solar isn't the only one narrowing in on it. Yesterday, Cypress Semiconductor CEO T.J. Rodgers told a group of reporters that power from crystalline silicon solar panels will be cheaper than coal power by 2012 when transmissions lines, utility bureaucracy and other factors are added in.

"We are zeroing in on parity," Rodgers said. "We're going to match PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) by 2012. Within a couple of years, the price of solar will be just as cheap."

Rodgers invested in SunPower in 2000 when it had 40 employees. He turned the shares over to Cypress later. SunPower now sells billions worth of panels a year.

First Solar, based in Tempe, Ariz., makes thin-film solar panels using cadmium tellurium as the key ingredient to convert sunlight into electricity. It's one of a handful of thin-film companies to be producing panels in high volumes and the only one turning out cad tel panels in volume.

Most of the solar panels today use crystalline silicon, which is able to convert more sunlight than materials used by thin-film makers. Next year, a handful of manufacturers will start making copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) solar cells.

First Solar's claim to fame for the past several years has been in its ability to churn out large numbers of panels and a fairly low cost. Last month, the company said it was able to produce panels at $1.08 per watt. The figure, however, is a blended average of all of the company's factories. First Solar's cost out of its Malaysian factories is lower, closer to 75 cents.

The $40 million system at Sempra is comprised of 168,300 panels, which First Solar installed at a cost of $3.17 per watt, Bachman wrote. (The installed cost is higher because it includes frames and installation, not just the solar module.)

He cited SunPower's installation of a 14.2-megawatt system at the Nellis Air Force base in Nevada for comparison. Bachman said SunPower's crystalline silicon panels cost $7.04 per watt to install.

After figuring out how much electricity the system is generating, Bachman determined that it costs $0.164 per kilowatt hour.

He concluded that for the SunPower system to generate electricity at the same rate (in kilowatt-hours) as First Solar's, SunPower would have to cut its panel prices by 52 percent and sell them at $3.4 per watt.

But Bachman went on to argue that the solar industry cares too much about the cost of producing and installing panels, and not enough about the how much a system costs in terms of its power generation, in kilowatt-hours. He noted that financial analysts should do so when dissecting the average selling price of a company's panels.

"By focusing on the cost/kWh calculation, we can compare competing business models on a defined metric that is independent of technologies," he said.

Bachman also figured that First Solar's system make more efficient use of real estate than SunPower's, something that contradicts SunPower's claim and the estimates of others.

SunPower's system needs more space because it uses a tracking system to point the panels to the sun throughout the day. Crystalline panels perform the best when facing the direct sun.

By using the tracker, however, the panels need to be farther apart to avoid the shadow cast by other panels as they follow the sun, Bachman said. That means it would take more space to fit a SunPower system than a First Solar system at comparable capacity, he said.

First Solar tilted its panels at a fixed angle instead. Its cadmium-telluride panels might not be as efficient as SunPower's panels under direct sun, but the thin-film panels do better at converting diffused light.

SunPower, however, achieves a far higher efficiency. It sells panels that can convert 20 to nearly 23 percent of the sunlight that strikes them into electricity. First Solar's cad tel panels wallow around the ten percent range.

6 Comments

  • David Lee 12/17/08 7:02 AM

    I have put together a chart to show conventional electricity cost converted into dollar per watt for grid-parity. Currently with cost of grid-tie system is as low as $5.44/w installed (http://www.dmsolar.com) it is obviously to see that Hawaii and California already reaches grid-parity. By 2009 grid-tie system cost will be at $4.77/w, $3.79/w in 2010 and $3.28/w by 2011. In three years 16 states shall reach grid-parity.


    Electricity Grid-Parity
    States Cost ¢/kWh $/Watt
    HAWAII       18.10   $7.31
    CALIFORNIA 12.50   $5.27
    NEW YORK 14.50   $4.33
    NEVADA       9.70   $4.09
    ARIZONA   8.70   $3.97
    TEXAS       9.70   $3.92
    MAINE       12.20   $3.86
    RHODE ISLAND 12.20   $3.86
    VERMONT       12.90   $3.85
    NEW JERSEY 11.20   $3.74
    NEW HAMPSHIRE 12.50   $3.73
    CONNECTICUT 11.60   $3.67
    MASSACHUSETTS 11.80   $3.52
    FLORIDA       9.00   $3.48
    COLORADO   8.40   $3.25
    IOWA       9.00   $3.16
    ALASKA       12.40   $3.05
    UTAH       7.20   $3.04
    NORTH CAROLINA 8.50   $2.99
    KANSAS       7.70   $2.98
    OKLAHOMA 7.70   $2.98
    WYOMING       7.20   $2.91
    MISSISSIPPI 8.20   $2.88
    WISCONSIN 9.10   $2.88
    PENNSYLVANIA 9.60   $2.87
    LOUISIANA 8.10   $2.85
    SOUTH CAROLINA 8.10   $2.85
    NEBRASKA 7.00   $2.83
    ILLINOIS 8.40   $2.80
    GEORGIA       7.90   $2.78
    SOUTH DAKOTA 7.70   $2.71
    ALABAMA       7.60   $2.67
    VIRGINIA   8.00   $2.67
    MONTANA       7.90   $2.64
    DELAWARE 7.80   $2.60
    MARYLAND 7.80   $2.60
    ARKANSAS 7.40   $2.60
    OHIO       8.50   $2.54
    OREGON       7.20   $2.53
    MINNESOTA 7.90   $2.50
    MICHIGAN 8.30   $2.48
    MISSOURI 7.00   $2.46
    INDIANA       7.30   $2.31
    TENNESSEE 6.90   $2.30
    NORTH DAKOTA 6.80   $2.27
    IDAHO       6.10   $2.14
    WASHINGTON 6.40   $2.14
    KENTUCKY 6.10   $2.04
    WEST VIRGINIA 6.20   $1.85

    http://www.dmsolar.com

    Reply
  • Ron Waner 12/19/08 12:54 PM

    This is great news. Hopefully the Obama administration will help accelerate adoption of this technology. I would imagine that there will be more advantages of scale coming.
    How will cheap oil affect the adoption of solar power? I see it as one way to keep oil cheap, and some day replace it by making hydrogen with excess production. Do other thin film producers have similar potential?

    Reply
  • Kanaga Gnana 12/19/08 7:28 PM

    These are relative terms depends on the place. What is the cost of grid electricity in that place and the solar radiation available over the whole year at that place. Typically the cheapest power plant as it is now in Coal plant in most of the places has an installed cost of anything from $1/W to $3/W. Having the fuel cost which is again high and variable depends on the place and availability of Coal at the site of the Power plant. The plant being central there is cost to take it to the user. Transmission and Distribution capital cost and the losses in the system also matters. The plant is said to have a life of 30 years with maintenance cost for the plants and the lines.. There has to be costly peaking plants in the system to meet peak loads as coal plants take only base load. All this will add to the grid cost
    The Solar Energy will be mostly distributed generation if done on roof tops and is generated where it is used. The system losses are minimum This type of generation will reduce the Grid system losses as well. The Coal plant of course will have a large plant factor anything between 80 to 90% the percentage of time plant will generate in the system. Unfortunately the Solar Panel system will generate only when the Sun shines and only during the day time. It will not generate in the nights when electricity is used in the houses for lights. It may be possible to get solar electricity in the nights but you need elaborate costly Battery charging system. But with net metering and grid connected solar energy system we can bank the extra energy in the day time to use from the grid in the night. Hence the term grid parity is a very difficult term to measure quickly. The Payback period with no incentives may be a more understandable factor for a common man. Definitely solar cell energy with LED lamps for the rural poor where there is no grid supply is a very attractive proposal. You need extra capital but is worth the green nature of energy and the safety and health benefit displacing the costly polluting fuel based lighting!

    Reply
  • Fabio Ciccarelli 12/24/08 7:20 AM

    As soon as I started getting involved in the PV business (2 ys back) it became obvious that the only valid comparison amongst systems is the ANNUAL kWh GENERATION. Being it necessarily related to a given location it seems to me that it helps in selecting the best system for that location. Thanks Mr.Bachman.
    Excellent article.
    Fabio

    Reply
  • Michael Mathres 01/2/09 8:03 AM

    dmsolar where can I find your chart? Michael

    Reply
  • syed hassan 11/15/09 8:02 AM

    It would be helpful if you could work out a comparative analysis of cost for both conventional fuels and latest solar energy and also predictions for next 5 years. We have huge portfolio for investment in Solar Energy in developing countries if we can bring Solar Energy to a reasonable parity with fossil fuel generated energy.

    Reply
.