Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

First Solar Reaches US $1 Per Watt Milestone

February 25, 2009 | 16 Comments

Do you like this news?

Bookmark

Feed

Arizona, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com] First Solar Inc. announced it reduced its manufacturing cost for solar modules in the fourth quarter to US $0.98/watt, breaking the $1 per watt price barrier that the industry has been striving towards in recent years.

"With this announcement, First Solar continues to demonstrate the ability of thin film PV technology to provide an alternative to traditional fossil fuels and for solar power to provide a meaningful contribution in addressing climate change."

-- Ken Zweibel, Director, Institute for the Analysis of Solar Energy at The George Washington University

"This achievement marks a milestone in the solar industry’s evolution toward providing truly sustainable energy solutions,” said Mike Ahearn, First Solar's CEO. “First Solar is proud to be leading the way toward clean, affordable solar electricity as a viable alternative to fossil fuels.”

First Solar began full commercial operation of its initial manufacturing line in late 2004. From 2004 through today, manufacturing capacity has grown 2,500 percent to more than 500 megawatts in 2008. First Solar’s annual production capacity will double in 2009 to more than 1 gigawatt, the equivalent of an average-sized nuclear power plant. These escalating volumes have been accompanied by a rapid reduction in manufacturing costs.

From 2004 through today, First Solar’s manufacturing costs have declined two-thirds from over $3/watt to less than $1/watt. First Solar said it is confident that further significant cost reductions are possible based on the yet untapped potential of its technology and manufacturing process.

“This represents a major milestone for the solar industry,” said Ken Zweibel, director of the Institute for the Analysis of Solar Energy at The George Washington University. “In order to address climate change in a meaningful way, we need energy technologies that are affordable, scalable and have a low environmental impact on a life-cycle basis. With this announcement, First Solar continues to demonstrate the ability of thin film PV technology to provide an alternative to traditional fossil fuels and for solar power to provide a meaningful contribution in addressing climate change."

Solar Energy

16 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 16

collinar

February 25, 2009

Wonderful! Now, where can I actually buy your product for $1.00 per watt?

Comment
2 of 16

mike-zagorsky-136998

February 25, 2009

I think it's worth noting that the claim is just the manufacturing cost. I assume that this is not including Interest, Amortization, Taxes, Overheard, Sales and Distribution, etc.

Comment
3 of 16

raphael-tisch-162694

February 25, 2009

Exactly - it's $1/watt for the cells, but the actual panel will cost more like $2-3/watt. Still, compared with a coal-fired power plant at $2.10/watt (which does not account for fuel or any potential carbon price), its a great step towards subsidy-free solar power.

Now if it could only serve as base-load power generation...

Comment
4 of 16

steven-mielke-81365

February 25, 2009

It is deceptive to compare 1GW of solar production to the production of a nuclear power plant. Solar panels are rated at a solar insolation of 1000 W/square meter but the average solar insolation is typically ~25% of this value. Nuclear power plants have uptimes of better than 90% so you need ~3.6 GW of solar panels to equal the production of a single nuclear plant--and you would have to site them in locations where partial shading does not reduce the overall panel efficiency (as it often does on rooftop installations).

It is nice to see that cost reductions are continuing, but we articles such as these should be making distorted comparisons to other technologies.

Comment
5 of 16

denis-godinot

February 26, 2009

Excellent! I totally agree with former comments. What we all want to do is to fight with conventional means in the range of kWh prices. Our cost prices in France are around 7 c€ for the last cogeneration plants (I do not know the last nuclear costs), around 20 c€ for thermodynamic solar plants (under development in our country) with a target around 7 c€. I cannot get any information about CPV (Solfocus does not answer, OPEL Inc is very long, are they really ready?), I have an estimation around 27 c€, not confirmed; some european are designing their own products, but not producing them yet. The Nanosolar films seem to be far from beeing marketed, with the same announced prices as First Solar, but absolutely no proper answer to any question concerning availability. The conventional silicon panels are around 55 c€, the thin films seem to be around 36 c€.

Where are First Solar with their new milestone?

Comment
6 of 16

jeremy-fields-171881

February 26, 2009

True, there is still considerable progress to be made before the cost of energy delivered by PV will actually reach $0.10 /kWh at the consumption level, but I don't think that's what we should dwell on today. This is an accomplishment and a happy day for everyone in PV. Well done First Solar.

Production at under $1.00/W has been a goal shared by the entire PV community for some time now. The DOE said that in order to be competitive with coal, PV must be sold @ $1.00 /W or less. You can't run a business selling PV at $1.00 /W unless you can make it for less! They are a few cents under the mark - that's moving in the right direction.

No one is out of the woods yet, but this is encouraging news to us all.

Comment
7 of 16

RTagain

February 26, 2009

There is a company selling their Solar Thermal Power Plants for $1.50 to $2.00 per Watt. The system can be massed produced with fresnel lenses and a low cost turbine. They have opened up participation in their plant under construction to tax payers who can buy into the plant with their tax liability (a 100% tax credit) for a deal effectively at NO COST or better to them. In fact the equipment can also be depreciated so people save more on taxes than they invest - gaining ownership in the plant and putting money in their pockets, and stand to realize meaningful income from the plant. Sounds to good to be true, but is all verified. Government programs with good techs make good deals. Many people got wealthy off these kinds of deals in oil in the 80's. Deals like this are nice, tho this gov't generally is out of control - this is where the problems in the economy come from - too much gov't involvement in the markets - trying to manage & fix everything. More description here: tnns.org/energy-credit

Comment
8 of 16

ben-gatti-37189

February 27, 2009

Not only didn't this announcement make the press - but First fell (even more than the DOW) on the same day.

2 Big problems.

1. Installations are expensive on private roofs.
2. The Solar price model depends on edging out the distribution company.

Comment
9 of 16

sudhakar-gorantla-166608

February 27, 2009

It is an encouraging news. One has to go into practical problems of installations for houses.
If it is possible to develope smaller capacities of solar power generators of 50 kwh to 500 kwh, it definitely help to be more economical for individual house owners to possess which can help in transmission requirements and also avoid transmission losses which is around 10 to 25 % in different countries under their circumstances.

I want the research in this direction may be of more beneficial in the larger interest of all communities.

Comment
10 of 16

Tim-vesely

February 27, 2009

As an installer of Solar PV and Hot water systems,this sounds great. First Solar has had a nice run. But! like Evergreen solar. a high of 18.00 dollars per share quickly became 2.50 a share..It happens...my beef is with local building departments and their lack of understanding of Solar and no uniform acceptance of the installation process. The modules can drop to 1.00 dollar or 2.00 dollars a watt, but installation still a costly issue. by the time you add the equipment to install,insurance, OSHA required safety equipment and an entire host of other issues,(Home owners insurance, will they or not re:Solar) The savings will be wiped out by regulations,and not all of them good. States rebate programs should not be directing you to use an installer that was trained a certain way,(NABCEP) without checking how many there are in the State. Allow electrical contractors to do PV and Plumbing contractors or HVAC to do Thermal installs instead! This will allow Solar installs to blossom across the country...My 2 cents...

Comment
11 of 16

ann-malone-48191

February 27, 2009

Yeah, Tim! Total agreement here. Plumbers, Electricians, and HVAC guys are the ones who make things happen, and it's local building codes/inspectors plus insurance companies that provide the regulatory environment in which these guys function.

A whole lot of Little People, not Uncle Sam, to make a real transition.....where's the public service announcements to educate, then?

Comment
12 of 16

manuel-lopez-22263

February 28, 2009

Steven:
Nuclear power plants. Things usually not accounted for:

1. Plant decommission costs
2. Nuclear fuel proliferation (weapons-grade fuel)
3. Nuclear waste disposal
4. Nuclear accidents (radioactive contamination)

Comment
13 of 16

norman-paul-abess-167644

March 1, 2009

Requiring anyone who pulls a building permit to have a solar, wind or another alternative energy design submitted with their conventional design is the only way that we will make significant enough transitions and conversions to "green technologies." Making it optional does not get it done.
Demontrating low carbon, or carbon neutrality begins with design and sizing, to meet the loads of each building. (heating and cooling) Combinations in energy efficient buidling designs and solar techology systems, whether it be a Trembe Wall or a solar panel begins with design.

Now is the time to do this, when building permits are at near all time lows.

I submitted this as a Memorandum to President Obama, so let's see
what happens. I will soon follow up. This must be a national initiative then a law that requires states, municipalities, local governing bodies to enforce it.

Comment
14 of 16

bob-freeston-133871

March 1, 2009

Nuclear cost numbers are bogus, mostly based on a ten year look back instead of original cost of plant construction. Companies have defaulted on bonds and sold assets at pennies on the dollar. Bond holders, customers and tax payers have absorbed huge amounts of the cost structure. The industry is a subsidiary of the weapons industry. They've had 50 years to prove themselves. It's still a very expensive way to boil water. The CO2 load is in the mining and refining. Engineered (or enhanced) Geothermal will be a much cheaper base load power. The earth's crust at 5.000 to 10,000 feet is above boiling. The Germans are commercializing this. Congrats to First Solar--the progress continues. Air and geo source heat pumps are mostly solar thermal and are the cheapest way to heat and cool most buildings.
)1

Comment
15 of 16

matt-schwartz-164519

March 2, 2009

Who would buy this stock now? It's around $100.

Comment
16 of 16

norman-paul-abess-167644

March 29, 2009

People who support and earn money from the 'mining' (or as they call it, drilling) of land for natural gas from areas of New York and Northeastern Pennsylvania do not pay enough attention to the fact that right under their feet is a more natural, cost effective way to harness the sun and steer the planet away from the ominous effects of infrastructure degradation and climate refugees in the continental U.S. the direct result of man made global warming.
Look at the rivers overflowing the Dakotas, look back on the June 2006, worst floods in recorded history in Northeastern Pennsylvania and in Southern New York State, that most people there have already forgotten.

Oil companies who like to erect their oil platforms which produce droplets of oil when compared to world demand in normal economic times, should too be mandated NOW by our legislative and executive branches of government to builld one ocean thermal energy plant for every one oil platform in existence off American coasts, then continue with the one for one.

Big oil making us poor, will never do it, if left to their own resources, as such they have proven. When they can make money on the rest of us, where's their incentives? I have been looking for them? Have you seen them?

Wait until the price of oil and natural gas go higher and higher, and it will be too late. Are they going to pay for the infrastructure rebuilding necessary, post global warming catastrophies. I don't think so.

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!