Ok, so say you start with a Solar Panel that's 15% efficient (like today's low-end Crystalline Silicon Panels). For simplicity's sake, lets say that the panel has an area of 1 M^2.
So, at 1000W/m^2 Insolation, the panel will produce 150W, so this would be called its Peak Power Rating.
Let's say that you set that panel in an area with an Insolation Ratio of 20%.
In one year, that panel will produce 30W*Year = 262.8kWh [150W * .20 * 1Year * 365 Days/Year * 24 Hours/Day]
Now, say that the solar panel is 16% efficient.
At 1000W/m^2, the panel will produce 160W, so this is its peak rating.
You set that panel in an area with an Insolation Ratio of 20%.
In one year, that panel will produce 32W*Year = 280.3kWh
What is the percentage difference in the Energy Produced by the two panels in one year?
280.3kWh/262.8kWh = 1.067, so the 16% efficient panel will produce 6.7% more energy in a year than a 15% efficient panel.
Now, say that the solar panel is 22% efficient.
At 1000W/m^2, the panel will produce 220W, so this is its peak rating.
You set that panel in an area with an Insolation Ratio of 20%.
In one year, that panel will produce 44W*Year = 385.44kWh
This panel prouces 46.7% more energy in a year than the 15% panel.
See http://spreadsheets.google.com/... for a Spreadsheet that shows the interesting, but maybe obvious results.
So, let's say I have a choice between a 14% Module and a 15% Module. Well, the 15% module produces 7.14% more Energy per year than the 14% one. So, I had better look at the prices, and if the 15% module is more that 7.14% more costly, then you're better off sticking with the 14% one. This is assuming that space, quality, etc, aren't factors, of course. This is "all things being the same."
What if I has a choice between a 45% module and a 46% module? Well, the 46% Efficient Panel will produce just 2.22% more Energy per year than the 45% Efficient one. So, once again assuming that space isn't a factor, the 46% efficient panel had better be no more than 2.22% more costly.
I'm thinking that this is something that manufacturers have to be thinking about, too. Of course, there could be marketing reasons why a panel of a higher percentage efficiency might sell for more, and there are certainly applications that put surface area at a premium, but from a basic cost perspective at the very least, if a manufacturer of 50% efficient modules thinks that they have some technology that will take that efficiency up to 51%, then they'd better be able to manufacture those panels for less than 2% more than it costs them to make their 50% Modules. If the additional materials and manufacturing operations are going to add more than 2% to the cost of manufacture, then they very well might not have gained anything by the "breakthough."
As usual, if my thinking is wrong, by all means, let me have it.