In a move that will bring thin-film solar panels to the U.S. residential market, First Solar has signed a deal to provide installer SolarCity with 100 megawatts’ worth of solar arrays over the next five years. First Solar is also investing $25 million into SolarCity, the Silicon Valley startup backed by Tesla Motors founder Elon Musk.
This is First Solar’s initial foray into the home market — and apparently the first of any thin-film solar module maker. Thin-film solar panels are made by depositing solar cells on sheets of glass or flexible material and use little of the expensive silicon that forms the heart of more bulky conventional solar modules. That makes thin-film panels cheaper, although they are less efficient at converting sunlight into electricity. And thin is in for homeowners who prefer less-obtrusive panels on their roofs.
SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive told Green Wombat that First Solar’s more economical panels will allow the company to expand to the East Coast and other areas that do not heavily subsidize solar. SolarCity installs solar panels at no cost to the homeowner and then leases them back for a monthly charge. “What matters is not efficiency but cost per kilowatt-hour,” Rive says, noting that solar programs like California’s reduce rebates to panel makers as the number of installations increase. “We need solutions that address declining subsidies.”
Added SolarCity communications director Jonathan Bass: “When we talk to customers their four biggest priorities are cost, cost, cost and aesthetics.”
Beginning in early 2009, SolarCity will start receiving 20 megawatts’ worth of First Solar panels a year. Rive won’t disclose how many megawatts SolarCity currently installs annually, but 20 megawatts would seem to represent a significant expansion of the startup’s operations. Over the past two years, SolarCity has installed solar arrays for 2,500 homes and small businesses and a spokeswoman says the First Solar deal would supply enough panels for about 5,000 homes a year.
The deal also marks a move to diversify on the part of Tempe-Ariz.-based First Solar (FSLR) — known as the Google (GOOG) of solar for its once-stratospheric stock price. The company, backed by Wal-Mart’s (WMT) Walton family, had primarily focused on the overseas commercial rooftop market. This year though First Solar has signed deals to build thin-film solar power plants for utilities like Southern California Edison (EIX) and Sempra (SRE).
First Solar on Wednesday reported that third quarter revenues rose 30% to $348.7 million from the second quarter and was up 119% from the year-ago quarter. Profit spiked 42% to $99.3 million from the second quarter and increased nearly 116% from a year ago.
Green Wombat 
I thought the number one issue with residential installations is space.
Has First Solar released their specs? Let me see the W/sf and the price!
I’m not sure why someone would put thin films over silicon on a south facing roof unless the price was so much lower. We will have to see the performance info…
I agree with Scott’s comment. The number one issue with residential installations is rooftop space. People use a certain amount of electricity. If the rooftop solar installation doesn’t provide enough electricity for the residence’s demand, then they still have to purchase the remaining electricity from the utility company. The less efficient the solar panels, the less of a home’s electricity demand it can supply in a fixed amount of rooftop space.
All solar panel installations that I know of pay themselves off fully within a reasonable number of years. Thus, afterwards, it is essentially free electricity. This means you want to get the most electricity out of whatever rooftop space you have, which means the most efficient panels.
Cost per kilowatt hour is a poor measure for solar panels, because it depends what time frame you are calculating it over. If the solar panels last a very long time with minimal maintenance costs, then the cost per kilowatt hour would be virtually none for any type of installation, which means you want the one that produces the most electricity, meaning the most efficient.
I would assume that it’s SolarCity who decides on the homes on which they can achieve adequate performance for their investment. Joe Homeowner merely has to decide to commit to a contract for constant-price power and give up his rights to the roof space consumed. So there is no “price” per se.
With the money savings they calculate, I would rather have the option to purchase the solar panels, have the government pay 1/2 of the purchase price because we’re saving the planet and they would pay for themselves in 4 years.
My biggest problem with news about the solar energy industry is that it almost never mentions any intentions about bringing the technology to the Midwest. It’s always about what’s happening on the coasts, and then mostly about California. If these solar energy companies were smart, they’d build up their businesses in the Midwest, like Kansas. Cost of living is cheaper, cost of labor is cheaper and plenty of people to employ.
Troy, lobby your state legislature for solar subsidies and they’ll beat a path to your door (er, state). The solar energy companies are smart, they go where the money is. And it ain’t in Kansas right now.
Hey midwesterners, don’t you have roofs and telephones, also?
Thin film won’t be financially workable on residential rooftops. First Solar’s panels may be cheaper per watt, but they generate less than half the power per square foot compared to conventional silicon. So the installation cost (which is one of the biggest costs of a system) will be double that of conventional silicon panels, negating the original price advantage. I suspect this is why FSLR has stayed out of residential up to this point. In point of fact, I had to go with the most efficient panels on the market, made by SunPower, to make the installation work out financially on my residential rooftop, yielding 6 KW of panels in the limited shade-free areas of my roof.
This is a risky move on the part of First Solar. One of the main materials used in their solar panels is Cadmium, an element known to be toxic to humans. I’d hate to see what happens when a home topped with these panels goes up in flames spewing Cadmium into the air.
The company leases you the panels so they get the government tax credit which is hopefully going to loose the $2000 cap. So they will be getting your lease payments, plus they still own the panels, and they are getting the tax benefits – WOW!!
This would be a good company to invest in because they seem to have this all locked up.
So the deal is for Fist Solar to supply 20MW of thin film a year to SC. The SC spokesperson says the FS deal would supply 5,000 homes/yr. That equates to an avg home install of 4kW thin film (20,000kW/5,000 homes). Does the avg home have enough roof space to host a 4kW thin film system? I wonder what the watts per sq footage ratio is for this product?
I still have yet to see a good thin film solar cell technology. I know the ones I have deployed are deteriorating after only 1.5 years of being exposed to the elements in the deep south. My regular panels are faring much better. Thin film is not a bargain if you have to replace them every few years.
A couple of years ago, I looked at installing a 5Kw silicon array. $40k unsubsidized cost, knocked down to $13k after CT and Fed subsidies and tax credits. Even with our extra-expensive electric rates (~20c/KwH), I could only come up with estimated savings of $1,000/yr. So that’s a payback of 40 years, if you count everyone’s money, or 13 years if I only cared about mine. That kind of ROI means that photovoltaic has a verrrrry long way to go to be anything but a subsidy play…and it’ll be shocking to see how much money gets thrown at it now that the $2000 federal tax credit cap has been lifted.
By comparison, my unsubsidized geothermal heating/cooling system will pay for itself in 5 or 6 years. It doesn’t have the cool blue rooftop panels…it just saves money by the bucket. Shouldn’t we put the incentives towards those things that save the most energy, or eliminate the most foreign oil? Or do we just want to throw money at what makes us feel better?
To find out more go to http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/?a=f. There is a company who takes thin solar films and rolls it up inside a glass tube, pretty neat.
The goverment funding should be restricted to R&D activities until a reliable, efficient and non hazardous, non-toxic way of tapping the solar power is made available at large. Goverment should rather provide rebate to house owner/leasers who use minimum KWh. As a nation, our goal should be in using minimal of resources (as storing energy concept doesn’t really work in a efficent way, when it comes to electricity) and develop sustainable ways of harnessing power from Sun.
For home-rooftop solar to really work, building codes must be revised to make houses have reasonably-designed roofs.
Simple roof designs lead to maximum coverage for solar cell modules and for solar-water heating modules too, if the homeowner wants it.
The other problem is energy storage – most existing houses have no way to safely locate batteries.
Perhaps the high-priced hoyty-toyty neighborhoods should be required to lead the way by requiring ‘homes’ over a certain square footage size must be built to accomodage local power generation.
The jet-set can darn well afford this – without subsidies – by simply not buying that yacht or private jet.
I see comments that include requireing the large home to pay for ineffecient storage for others while preparing to pay a higher portion of taxes as well. Spreading the wealth will kill the golden goose of capitalism and capital will move offshore quickly. So much for the constittion and democracy.