Abstract
The decrease in solar module prices is one of the main factors behind the recent expansion of the global solar energy market. The mechanism underlying this price reduction has been the subject of numerous empirical research. However, the technological aspect of manufacturing has been the main focus of studies on the mechanism for solar module price reduction over the years. This chapter examines how economic and monetary factors, such as interest rates and exchange rates, affect solar module pricing in addition to other factors that have been examined in earlier studies, such as technology and wage rates. The economic factors that influence solar module prices are identified in this chapter. To determine the influence of each factor, the chapter develops a pricing model for solar modules in the top five solar module-producing countries, backed by a theoretical oligopolistic model. For every country, the determinants of solar module prices are different. While exchange rates, knowledge stocks, and oil prices often correlate negatively with solar module prices, interest rates generally have a positive correlation with them. Since the renewable industries are high-tech, capital costs significantly impact technology costs. The governments’ initiatives to offer low-interest financing to enterprises will hasten the commercialization of renewable energy. To expedite the growth of solar energy projects, there have been numerous attempts to lower interest rates for renewable energy technology; however, it is not enough, and specific green financing channels are required. Second, the governments must expand research and development (R&D) expenses relevant to renewable energy. Increasing targeted R&D expenditure through government policies will be an effective strategy for reducing costs and increasing the willingness of the private sector to invest in the solar energy projects.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrow, K. J. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 155–173. Retrieved January 19, 2018, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2295952?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Bahk, B. H., & Gort, M. (1993). Decomposing learning by doing in new plants. Journal of Political Economy, 101(4), 561–583.
Barreto, L., & Kypreos, S. (2004). Endogenizing R&D and market experience in the “bottom-up” energy-systems ERIS model. Technovation, 24(8), 615–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00124-4
Barreto, L., Kypreos, S., Capros, P., & Messener, S. (2000). ERIS: A model prototype with endogenized technological change. International Journal of Global Energy Issues, 14(1/2/3/4), 347–397.
Bloomberg. (2017). Global trends in renewable energy investment 2016. Retrieved January 19, 2018, from http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/publications/globaltrendsinrenewableenergyinvestment2016lowres_0.pdf
Bruegel. (2017). Real effective exchange rates for 178 countries: A new database. Retrieved from http://bruegel.org/publications/datasets/real-effective-exchange-rates-for-178-countries-a-new-database/
Brunnschweiler, C. N. (2009). Finance for renewable energy: An empirical analysis of developing and transition economies. Retrieved January 31, 2018, from http://doc.rero.ch/record/303054/files/S1355770X1000001X.pdf
Chang, L., Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., & Saydaliev, H. B. (2022). How do ICT and renewable energy impact sustainable development? Renewable Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.08.082.
Cheon, A., & Urpelainen, J. (2012). Oil prices and energy technology innovation: An empirical analysis. Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 407–417.
De La Tour, A., Glachant, M., & Ménière, Y. (2013). Predicting the costs of photovoltaic solar modules in 2020 using experience curve models. Energy, 62, 341–348.
Dehghanimadvar, M., Egan, R., & Chang, N. L. (2022). Economic assessment of local solar module assembly in a global market. Cell Rep Phys Sci, 3(2), 100747.
Hayamizu, S., Furubayashi, T., & Nakata, T. (2014). Quantification of technological learning by R&D and its application for renewable energy technologies. Trans JSME, 80(811), TEP0042. https://doi.org/10.1299/transjsme.2014tep0042
Hyung, K., & Baral, P. (2019). Use of Innovative Public Policy Instruments to Establish and Enhance the Linkage Between Green Technology and Finance. In: Sachs, J., Woo, W., Yoshino, N., Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. (eds) Handbook of Green Finance. Sustainable Development. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0227-5_28
IRENA. (2012). Renewable energy technologies: Cost analysis series. 1(4/5). Retrieved January 31, 2018, from https://www.irena.org/documentdownloads/publications/re_technologies_cost_analysis-solar_pv.pdf
Kimura, K., & Zissler, R. (2016). Comparing prices and costs of solar PV in Japan and Germany. 1(4/5). Retrieved January 31, 2018, from https://www.renewable-ei.org/en/images/pdf/20160331/JREF_Japan_Germany_solarpower_costcomparison_en.pdf
McDonald, A., & Scrattenholzer, L. (2000). Learning rates for energy technologies. Energy Policy, 29(4), 255–261.
Messener, S. (1998). IIASA Maquette prototype on endogenized technological learning.
Miketa, A., & Schrattenholzer, L. (2004). Experiments with a methodology to model the role of R&D expenditures in energy technology learning processes: First results. Energy Policy, 32(15), 1679–1692.
Ministry of the Environment. (2015). Oushuushuyoukoku ni okeru koteikakakukaitoriseido no hensendoukouchousa [Transition survey on feed in tariff policies in major European countries]. Retrieved February 5, 2018, from https://www.env.go.jp/earth/report/h27-01/ref04_3.pdf
Mohsin, M., Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., Iqbal, N., & Saydaliev, H. B. (2022). The role of technological progress and renewable energy deployment in green economic growth. Renewable Energy, 190, 777–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.076
Neij, L., Anderson, P. D., & Durstewitz, M. (1997). The use of experience curves for assessing energy policy programs. Energy Policy, 25(13), 1099–1107.
Nemet, G. F. (2005). Beyond the learning curve: Factors influencing cost reductions in photovoltaics. Energy Policy, 34(17), 3218–3232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.06.020
Nemet, G., & Arnulf, G. (2012). Sources and consequences of knowledge depreciation. Historical case studies of energy technology innovation. Historical Case Studies of Energy Technology Innovation, 24. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139150880.014.
OECD. (2018). Labour: Hourly earning. Retrieved January 31, 2018, from https://doi.org/10.1787/data-00044-en
Papandreou, A., & Ruzzenenti, F. (2015). Effects of fossil fuel prices on the transition to a low-carbon economy. Working papers wpaper89, Financialisation, Economy, Society & Sustainable Development (FESSUD) Project.
Phillips, P. C., & Hansen, B. E. (1990). Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I(1) processes. The Review of Economic Studies, 57(1), 99–125.
Pillai, U. (2014). Cost reduction in crystalline silicon solar modules. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2259155.
Pillai, U. (2015). Drivers of cost reduction in solar photovoltaics. Energy Economics, 50(C), 286–293. Retrieved January 19, 2018, from https://www.albany.edu/econ_technology/unni_pillai/pubs/solar_price_cost_reduction_energy_economics_rev2_2.pdf
REN21. (2017). Renewables 2017 global status report. Retrieved April 4, 2018, from http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/17-8399_GSR_2017_Full_Report_0621_Opt.pdf
Renewable Energy Institute. (2017). Feed-in tariffs in Japan: Five Years of achievements and future challenges. Retrieved February 5, 2018, from https://www.renewable-ei.org/en/activities/reports/img/pdf/20170810/REI_Report_20170908_FIT5years_Web_EN.pdf
Sallenave, J.-P. (1985). The uses and abuses of experience curves. Long Range Planning, 18(1), 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(85)90180-3
Schaeffer, G., Seebregts, A., Beurskens, L., Moor, H., Alsema, E., Sark, W., … Zuccaro, C. (2004). Learning from the sun: Analysis of the use of experience curves for energy policy purposes: The case of photovoltaic energy. Final report of the PHOTEX Project. Report ECN DEGO: ECN-C-04-035, ECN Renewable Energy in the Built Environment. Retrieved January 31, 2018, from https://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2004/c04035.pdf
Shimamoto, M., Kokubu, K., & Ueta, K. (2017, August 30). Guri-n Inobe-shon ‘Green innovation’. Chuo-keizaisha.
Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. (2022). Editorial: Special issue on green finance and the post-COVID-19 world. Global Finance Journal, 53, 100717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2022.100717
Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., Yoshino, N., & Inagaki, Y. (2019). Empirical analysis of factors influencing the price of solar modules. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 13(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-05-2018-0005
Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., Yoshino, N., Inagaki, Y., & Morgan, P. J. (2021). Analyzing the factors influencing the demand and supply of solar modules in Japan – Does financing matter. International Review of Economics & Finance, 74, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2021.01.012
Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., Li, Y., Rasoulinezhad, R., Mortha, A., Long, A., Lan, Y., Zhang, Z., Li, N., Zhao, X., & Wang, Y. (2022). Green finance and the economic feasibility of hydrogen projects. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 47(58), 24511–24522.
Terrado, E., Mendis, M., & Fitzgerald, K. (1988). Impact of lower oil prices on renewable energy technologies. Retrieved January 31, 2018, from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/829911468765911625/pdf/multi-page.pdf
Watanabe, C., Nagamatsu, A., & Griffy-Brown, C. (2003). Behavior of technology in reducing prices of innovative goods – An analysis of the governing factors of variance of PV module prices. Technovation, 23(5), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00121-3
Wong, S. L., Chia, W.-M., & Chang, Y. (2013). Energy consumption and energy R&D in OECD: Perspectives from oil prices and economic growth. Energy Policy, 62, 1581–1590.
World Bank. (2018). GDP deflator (base year varies by country) | Data. Retrieved January 31, 2018, from http://api.worldbank.org/v2/en/indicator/NY.GDP.DEFL.ZS?downloadformat=excel
Wright, T. P. (1936). Factors affecting the cost of airplanes. Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, 3, 122–128. https://doi.org/10.2514/8.155
Youah. (2013). Learning by doing effect from solar photovoltaic RD&D. Retrieved January 31, 2018, from http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/3rd_IAEE_Asia/pdf/paper/068p.pdf
Zhang, D., Mohsin, M., & Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. (2022). Does green finance counteract the climate change mitigation: Asymmetric effect of renewable energy investment and R&D. Energy Economics, 113, 106183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106183
Zhao, J., Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., Dong, K., & Dong, X. (2022). How green growth affects carbon emissions in China: The role of green finance. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2095522.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Solar Module Pricing Model
Using the following procedures, Taghizadeh-Hesary et al. (2019) developed a pricing model for solar modules. We assume that the Cobb-Douglas production function with five production inputs applies to the countries that produce solar modules, where (yt) represents the total production of solar modules, (At) is the productivity parameter, (Nt) is labor input, (Kt) is capital stock, and (IMt) is imports. The output elasticities of labor input, capital stock, and imports are (α), (β), and (γ):
In Eq. 2, the assumed inverse demand curve is depicted, along with the solar module price (psolar, t) I, the intercept (\( \overline{B} \)), the coefficients (d1) and (d2), the price of oil in US dollars (poil, t), and the exchange rate (et). As an alternative for oil resources, renewable energy technology is considered in this situation together with the import price of oil. As a result, if the price of importing oil increases, so will the demand for solar modules and the prices of solar modules with increase accordingly.
In Eq. 3, the solar module cost function is demonstrated. (Ct) is the cost of solar module production, (wt) is the labor cost, (rt) is the interest rate, and (et) is the exchange rate. In this equation, the cost is the sum of labor cost, capital cost, and import cost.
We assume that there is an oligopoly market in the solar energy industry. In order to maximize profit, the Lagrange multiplier minimizes the cost. With the production function acting as the constraint equation in Eq. 5, the profit equation for a producer of solar modules is shown in Eq. 4.
Eq. 6 provides the definition of the Lagrange function. The first order conditions for the cost minimization problem are Eqs. 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Eqs. 11, 12, and 13 are obtained by utilizing Eq. 1 to differentiate f with respect to N, K, and IM.
Using Eqs. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, N, K, and IM can be expressed as below in equations Eqs. 14, 15, and 16.
Using Eqs. 14, 15, and 16, cost function (Eq. 3) and marginal cost can be written as below.
Equation 19 may be used to represent the profit of a company that produces solar modules. It is possible to identify the ideal output at which profit is maximized by computing a partial derivative of profit with respect to solar module production (yt). According to Eq. 20, profit is maximized in an oligopolistic market when marginal revenue and marginal cost are equal. The ideal production of solar modules (yt) is therefore given by Eq. 21, using Eqs. 16 and 18.
Using Eqs. 2 and 21 can be rewritten as below.
As presented in Eq. 18, λ is a function of wage (wt), interest rate (rt), exchange rate (et), and production of solar modules (yt). Hence, using Eq. 22, we can comprehend that price of solar modules (psolar, t) is a function of wage (wt), interest rate (rt), exchange rate (et), and price of oil (poil, t).
Derived from the results, the pricing model for solar modules can be written as below:
This pricing model will be used to conduct an econometric analysis. The coefficients will be computed and factors will be analyzed to determine which have a significant influence on the price of solar photovoltaic modules.
Knowledge Stock
In this research, the productivity parameter At is defined as the total expenditure of research and development. Below is the definition of At:
This is based on a study conducted by Youah (2013) that suggested it is more acceptable to analyze solar module pricing by utilizing accumulated expenditures of R&D. Here, RDt is a country’s R&D expenditure on photovoltaic technology and δ is the R&D expenditure’s depreciation rate. In this study, it is presumpted that, given the stated depreciation rate δ, the impact of R&D expenditures will diminish with time. We simplify by assuming that knowledge stock depreciation is constant across all countries and terms. There has been little research on the knowledge stock depreciation rate in the solar industries, according to Nemet and Arnulf’s (2012) evaluation of various knowledge depreciation rates in energy technologies. The research conducted by Watanabe, Nagamatsu, and Griffy-Brown is one that should be highlighted (Watanabe et al., 2003). According to their findings, the Japanese solar industry’s mean knowledge stock yearly depreciation rate is around 30%. As a result, the analysis’s basic depreciation rate is set at 30%.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., Yoshino, N., Inagaki, Y., Vandercamme, L. (2023). Solar Module Price Determinants. In: Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., Zhang, D. (eds) The Handbook of Energy Policy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9680-0_25-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9680-0_25-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-9680-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-9680-0
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences