PV module prices drop like a rock - US average price $2.49 per watt, lowest $1.25 a watt

[jpak]

http://www.solarbuzz.com/facts-and-figures/retail-price-environment/module-prices

There is little evidence of any slowing in retail module price drops. It should be noted that retail price moves can tend to lag factory gate moves by a month or more.

The continued drop in prices is being driven by excess module supplies coming from manufacturers that are still producing more than the market can absorb. Additionally, many do not want to miss out on the anticipated year-end demand caused by the rush to beat tariff reductions at the start of next year in Europe. In the US, there is also the rush to start installation ahead of the anticipated end to the Federal Cash Grant.

Price reductions that have taken place over the past 12 months have helped stimulate new markets, but those reductions have been twined with large cuts in solar subsidies, slowing the rate of market growth. This, in fact, is the implicit contract between the public and the industry: support for this industry will yield an economically self-sustaining solar energy source. This is exactly now what is happening. It’s an example of thoroughly successful government policies around the world.

In November, there were 91 retail module price reductions and 19 increases in this survey. This is a remarkably similar ratio to the October result where there had been 86 price reductions and 18 price increases.

<more>

:thumbsup:

[krispos42]

1. Excellent! n/t

[NickB79]

2. Am I reading this correctly?

To summarize:

Solar panel manufacturers are having a fire sale because they know the US and Europe are going to drastically cut subsidies for solar panel installation in the next year, and they don't want to be caught with warehouses full of solar panels they can't move. Prices have fallen on solar panels, but at the same time so has solar market growth.

I understand that this shows the birth of a self-sustaining solar industry, but it appears that it comes about by weeding out the weakest solar manufacturers and dropping demand so that the survivors can meet it at a cheap enough price. That sounds great for the surviving PV makers and their profit margins, but the last thing you want to read about when it comes to addressing global warming is "large cuts in solar subsidies, slowing the rate of market growth."

I'd rather see a continuation of the solar subsidies and as many solar manufacturers in business as possible in the short term to get more renewables online. But that's wishful thinking; global austerity measures now all but inevitable are going to be hell for pretty much all industries, including renewables.

[kristopher]

3. More accurately you should ask "Am I spinning this correctly?"

No one except perhaps the UK (where the conservative government want to promote nuclear) is set to "drastically" reduce subsidies for for solar. As is clear stated in the OP, the declining subsidies are tied to cost reductions in the capital investment for solar - effectively maintaining the ratio of government/consumer cost sharing. Maintaining a constant level of subsidies in the face of declining prices is tantamount to increasing subsidies.

What you are trying to put a negative spin on is a confluence of hugely successful policies across the borders of many countries.

[NickB79]

4. There is no spin involved

I am only going by what the article jpak posted says:

"The continued drop in prices is being driven by excess module supplies coming from manufacturers that are still producing more than the market can absorb. Additionally, many do not want to miss out on the anticipated year-end demand caused by the rush to beat tariff reductions at the start of next year in Europe. In the US, there is also the rush to start installation ahead of the anticipated end to the Federal Cash Grant.

Price reductions that have taken place over the past 12 months have helped stimulate new markets, but those reductions have been twined with large cuts in solar subsidies, slowing the rate of market growth."

As for what you said: "Maintaining a constant level of subsidies in the face of declining prices is tantamount to increasing subsidies."

That is EXACTLY what I was advocating in my post. If we want to reduce CO2 emissions as fast as possible, we need to INCREASE subsidies to maintain as much solar production as possible. This article clearly states that the rate of solar market growth has slowed, which is exactly what we do not want right now.

If anything, the spin seems to be in the article, because it sounds like it's trying to say slowing market growth is a good thing. That's what's really perplexing about this read.

[azul]

5. It is confusingly stated.

This is a market research and market site for investors. They try to give as many aspects and influences as possible to inform and warn and excite potential solar energy investment. Something there to confuse or advise investment in the competition of the solar industry too.

Looks like current solar investment is a big question mark, mainly because of the poor outlook caused by the continuing recession cut-backs everywhere, but the potential for big industry changes and opportunity still exist.