Good answer Captmoon. The efficiency of CIGS is really not as much of a factor as some people make it out to be.....of course, it can't be "inefficient" and anything below 14% is likely a deal breaker in the real world. Efficiency speaks more to the physical size of a module than to the power generating capabilities of the module. (Inefficient modules are larger and require more area, but two 250 watt modules with different efficiencies will still both produce 250 watts under standard test conditions (STC).)
The only thing that will make or break a new module technology is dollars/watt, (this was XsunX's advantage before Si prices hit the floor). A utility scale system built with modules of low production efficiency still might (and usually will) financially outperform the same system built with highly efficient modules......it might need a couple more acres to do it, but will use the same number of modules, all else being equal. That's why no one uses uses monocrystalline modules for utility scale systems....poly financially outperforms mono.
CIGS is better technology than Si for several reasons, but if the $$$/watt isn't at least equal to Si costs then Si will win every time. We saw this same thing play out when a-Si was popular.....inefficient from a power perspective, but very good in dollars per kW generated, the real measure of a system's efficiency. After all, all my customers care about is how much energy will they make and how much will it cost them to do that.
So touting a module's (or in Tom's case, a single cell's) efficiency is good for justifying the process, but unimportant in the long run. The only thing that matters is can it compete with current technology financially. Si seems to have won that race, and CIGS has a lot of catching up to do before the technology will see any real R&D capitol.
As for the integration side....I just don't see it. Yes, a person with experience and a good business plan can make a go of integration.....I'm living proof. But I must compete with new integration companies who seem to be popping up like dandelions in the spring. Every time I bid a job I must contend with businesses willing to sell at or near (sometimes below) cost in order to build a portfolio. The highly competitive atmosphere is great for the customer, but it results in VERY thin margins for integrators. Only those with very low overhead can make it work. Look at Solar City for example......their business plan is one of the best out there.....sales are growing at about 40% annually, but they are still $48 million in the red.....risky at best.
I question suitability of the structure of XsunX's business plan regarding the integration market. Tom may be able to close the deal and get some contracts signed, but can he do it at a profit? Not from what I've seen. Does it really matter if he has cash-flow? Probably not in the short term, which is what I'm counting on (or hoping for).
At this point I think we all agree that anything (aside from more common stock sales) that generates any income at all will be good for the stock. But that is bound to be short-lived. XsunX is technology company, and Tom needs to find a new and viable product. Energy storage is the holy grail right now and Tom should be concentrating on product development, not integration.
Tom, if you're listening, why don't you develop a good flow battery and get us moving forward again? I too want to see the stock at a buck!
