Innovalight - Silicon-based Thin Film.

News came up this last week on Innovalight installing "the industry's first high-throughput silicon-ink inkjet printing system."

If there's any thin film competition for wafers in the large-scale installation niche, I suspect that it must be silicon-based, simply because of the whole supply-constraint problem in the rarer materials like Tellurium, and to a lesser extent, Indium. Innovalight looks to be a good potential contender in Silicon-based Thin Film.

It doesn't look like Innovalight is giving out its cell's efficiency, and they also apparently haven't mentioned the capacity of their new production line, but they are talking about $.50/Watt in the long term (cost vs price, unknown). It'll be interesting to see how far they'll have to scale in order to approach $.50/Watt, and how much money it's going to take them to get there.

Thoughts on Solar Materials - Thin Film - 6/3/09

I hear the arguments on future domination of the Solar Industry by Thin Film Technologies, but I would suggest that this is far from certain.

What particularly gets me is when people talk about how they're going to come up with solar paint or some such thing, and all of our problems will be solved, just like that; like a snap of the fingers. The argument goes that there's little point in spending all the time and effort on the massive industrialization of Silicon, because some futuristic technology will simply come along to make it obsolete.

Ok, so maybe it's true that some revolution will come along that will completely change how we see Solar Energy. Maybe one day you'll be wearing Solar Clothing to charge your remote devices, and cars and homes will wear coats of Solar Paint to provide for their Energy needs.

Even if this Solar future is to be the case, though, we know that it will have to meet certain requirements, particularly in terms of Scalability / Material Availability, and Cost Efficiency.

Remember that only 1000 Watts of Power strike the surface of the earth per Square Meter on average in the middle of a clear day. That's it. No matter the wonderful technology that you develop, you can't generate more energy than what's available. To generate the incredible amounts of Energy that will be required of the future Solar niche will require a mind-dizzyingly vast array of "panels" distributed around the Planet. That's miles upon miles of glass and aluminum frames housing some kind of protected PV material, whether Wafer-based or Thin Film; or else unhoused, or lightly-housed thin films of various types, even potentially including "painted" Solar surfaces.

The main point that I want to mention at this point is on the value of Cell Longevity.

Note that when you invest in a Solar Panel, you are actually paying upfront for the entire future energy production of that panel. Normally, Solar Panels are rated in Cost per Watt Peak, or Peak Power, which is an indication of the amount of Energy that the Panel would produce at an instantaneous moment of time in ideal midday conditions. Peak Power, however, is no indication of how much Energy that the Panel will actually produce over its lifetime. Two different kinds of panels may cost the same number of Dollars per Watt, but if one lasts only half as long as the other, then ultimately it is twice as costly in terms of its total Energy Production over its lifetime.

This is where the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) comes in. When you Calculate the Levelized Cost of Energy of a Solar System, you are basically determining the overall cost of the System per unit Energy over the Entire expected Life of the System. I did a rough version of this kind of calculation here. Sunpower Corp provides this nice description of the factors involved.

There are a several reasons why a Solar Cell might stop working. One reason that a cell could fail would be from molecular damage to the PV material simply by the bombardment of Solar Energy (including various cosmic rays). This could slowly degrade any kind of Solar Cell. Other types of Solar Cell may be chemically susceptible to degradation, such as today's Organic and Plastic Cells. These materials degrade quickly under common exposed conditions, and at this stage of the game, a lifespan of five years or so seems to be the cutting edge. Finally, of course, smashing a Solar Cell by way of storm debris or a baseball can destroy a panel, and dirt and grime can cover the surface and degrade its performance.

Solidly encasing the PV material in an aluminum and glass (or possibly plastic) module will, in most cases, help to protect the cells from physical damage, but that housing will certainly add to the cost of manufacturing the module. For a thin film product aiming to compete on very low manufacturing cost, this added expense is going to be a killer. In fact, during First Solar's Q1 '09 Conference Call, Jesse Pichel of PJC suggested that Glass was actually FSLR's largest cost. First Solar didn't disagree, and nobody mentioned Tellurium.

Now, if glass is actually even a significant portion of the cost per watt for a thin film, then it sets a kind of a lower limit on the potential cost to manufacture Thin Film Cells housed in glass (adjustable by efficiency). So, to some extent, the decision is whether to go for extreme affordability (or flexibility) and avoid a robust enclosure, but lower the operating lifetime of the cells; or else go for a longer lifespan, but adding significantly to the total cost of the module. First Solar, for example, is targeting a production cost of $.65 per Watt.

Though I'm certain that nanotech of various sorts will be able to make headway in durable exposed thin film cells, I can't help but think that it's going to have its limits. For comparison's sake, a tarp is made of very tough stuff, yet I've seen my share of tarps shredded by fall winds, and a tarp doesn't depend on the same kind of exacting chemical structure that a PV cell does. You can beat the crap out of a tarp, and it will still keep the rain off of your stuff. I'll be very impressed if I see a thin film material that you can roll into a ball, peat with a stick, and still use to generate electricity. I can't wait to see the infomercial.

There are numerous conclusions that I could follow with, but for now, I'm going to leave this with a simple idea for the consumer. Don't just buy solely based on Cost per Watt, or one day you're going to be led astray. Know what you're buying, and make sure that it has a solid warrantee over a time period to assure your expected payback. If you're offered a deal too good to be true on a cost per watt basis, it could simply be that the product you're buying is going to crap out long before it pays itself off.

A couple points on FSLR.

I have to say, I'm not a fan of FSLR's particular technology, CdTe, because of the whole Tellurium Scarcity problem, as well as the Cadmium toxicity.

As evidence of this, I'll point out a line on their Q2 report.

Under "Liabilities," "Accrued collection and recycling liabilities" are shown as $23.5 Million for the Quarter. This compared to $69.7 Million in Net Income. One of the goals mentioned in the CC, was that they had produced their 500th Megawatt in Q2.

Essentially, the two big problems of CdTe lead to a company that MUST recycle the vast majority of their product for its lifetime. They MUST have that source of Tellurium, and in order to do business in places like Germany they've got to deal with their toxins at the end of a product's life. That could potentially lead to an increasingly expensive infrastructure required to support an increasing number of installations, which will be distributed widely around the planet.

I guess my hope would be that a big chunk of this expenditure is for the set-up of a recycling facility, and is a one time cost. What happens years down the road when FSLR has many GigaWatts of installed capacity?


On a totally unrelated note, it seems that they state in the CC that Conversion efficiency has increased by 10 "basis points," or .1%. I'm sorry, but that's peanuts. When asked about whether their newer facilities were producing more efficient modules, they replied that the 10.7% figure that they had been using was just an average, and that the actual efficiency varied, and they confirmed that 10.7% was the average at all of the facilities.

Based on this, I'd be very curious what kind of mid-term increases they are expecting in Conversion Efficiency, because otherwise it looks to me like they're close to "stalled."

As I've said before, just because I have a hard time believing in the fundamentals of this company, I wouldn't be shorting it unless I was willing to lose alot of money, at least in the short to mid term.

Disclosure, I have no position on First Solar.


Note: For more background on FSLR, See this.

Time Magazine Article - Thin Film - Global Solar, FIrst Solar, NanoSolar.

Solar Power's New Style.

"Mike Gering, CEO of the start-up Global Solar, picks his way along his factory floor, tracing the convoluted path that his thin-film solar panels follow from birth to shipping truck. The raw materials the workers carry are ultra-thin sheets of flexible plastic, which are then coated with a series of chemicals--indium, gallium, diselenide--that allows the module to turn sunlight into electricity."


The article goes on to touch on First Solar, and NanoSolar. It's a little brief on Thin Film basics.

First Solar product may be banned in Europe. Ouch!

First Solar CEO cashes half his stock in $257 million deal

"But cadmium, a toxic metal according to the U.S. Labor Department, is linked to breathing and kidney disorders. It's banned from use in batteries and related electronics in the European Union, where First Solar gets more than 90 percent of its sales.

An expansion of EU restrictions to solar cells would make the company's current technology "impractical," First Solar said in a Feb. 21 SEC filing."

Found by bjr149 of Yahoo.

Applied MAterials - China Daily CEO Interview.

Solar power looks into a brighter future

"China has 700 GW in electrical storage capacity. The demand is increasing 10 percent a year, so by 2010, when 15 percent renewable energy (of the total energy supply) is required by China's 11th Five-Year Plan, there needs to be 100 GW. That's really a lot compared with what we have now."


Found by Jshi5 of Yahoo.

Q-Cells to enter Thin Film Market.

Q-Cells plans plant abroad to cut costs

AMAT Sunfab Thin Film Line Brochure.

BTW, here's the sunfab line.

FSLR and the Tellurium Fiasco.

It's interesting to see First Solar so well hyped, while the Tellurium issue goes undiscussed by the Investment Community. The possibility of a price spike in Tellurium has been discussed for some time over at the Stock Psychology Blog, and at that Author's posts at Seeking Alpha.

Here's his latest post on the subject.

It sure looks like there's a hell of a spike happening in the price of Tellurium. To me, it's reminiscent of what's been happening in Silicon, and it's just the kind of price movement that makes highly dependent industries struggle with competitiveness. The difference between Tellurium and Silicon, of course, is that Tellurium is incredibly rare on earth, while Silicon is incredibly common. With Tellurium, you can't just increase manufacturing capacity freely, because there simply isn't enough raw material of refine, whereas with Silicon, though refining is expensive, there is a vast amount of raw material available for as far as the eye can see.

Edison's Solar Power Push

John Bryson, Edison International chairman CEO. Video Interview.

Posted in response... Arguments for buying Solar.

My many cents (I think this might go on long):

I see you're in Massachussetts. There's an excellent tradition of Solar in that state, I believe it's the home of both Evergreen Solar and Spire Solar.

Here's the DSIRE page for your state on incentives available in your state: http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/maphomeowner.cfm?State=MA&CurrentPageId=1&RE=1&EE=1

The Federal incentive program is also available till the end of this year.

A professional installer would be able to calculate all of the incentives and give you totals.

Go get some numbers, and see what kind of payback timeframe you're looking at. Remember, the standard warranty timeframe for silicon-based panels is typically 25-30 years.


Buy now, or buy later?


If you want "cheaper, more efficient technology" then you're pretty much out of luck. You'll have to wait for at least a year. It's all pretty expensive(*)(**).


An Argument for buying now:


If the shit hits the fan, and for whatever reason Energy prices (continue to) spike in the next couple of years***, or if power simply becomes unavailable, then you'll be served by having bought now. However, prices of equipment and installation are undoubtedly high. If you have the money, then it might be worth the immediate investment. It depends on what you see happening in the next few years as far as the World Economy is concerned.


An Argument for buying later:


Industry "shorts" argue that there will be a "glut" of Silicon and Silicon-based panels on the market in the next year or two. They argue that the manufacturing capability is scaling up way too fast, and that it will outstrip demand, reduce prices of the final product, and cause the industry to bust. If this happens, it will be within two years as the world's polysilicon supply increases manyfold as many projects currently in development begin producing. Personally, I believe the shorts are incorrect (and very often shills for the Fossil / Nuclear Industries). The company LDK Solar, for instance, has just announced that they are almost completely sold out of product for '08 and '09, and they have numerous long-term contracts stretching out over the next 10 years with European and Asian trading partners. In any case, any price reduction will serve to boost demand until a balance is achieved, and considering the Economy's thirst for Energy, I don't believe that prices are going to collapse for many years. This isn't the 70's again, Fossil Energy has few options for new development with which to increase supply.

"Shorts" also argue that thin-film panels will take over the market, and blow away today's Silicon Technology in efficiency and price. This may be, but I have my doubts. For one, thin films are less efficient per unit area than Silicon-based Panels, and they have their own "feedstock" constraints. Some use Cadmium Telluride, where Cadmium is toxic, and Tellurium is one of the rarest elements on Earth, and others use Indium, which is not incredibly rare, but is not common. Another factor between thin films, and Silicon-based panels would be durability / working lifespan, and I don't think we have the numbers yet.

Positive arguments for buying later would also include increased Federal Subsidies under a Democratic President / Congress, as well as new Incentives that will be forthcoming from Lenders (we've seen a couple examples of banks seeing value in lending for these projects, and I think we'll see more coming).


An Argument for buying Solar stock:


Maybe it makes sense to wait before Installing at home, but there are Installations happening at an increasing rate all over the World. It is my strongest "Belief" that getting into certain stocks over the next year is truly getting in on the Ground Floor of an Industry Boom. In truth, these stocks have been beat up since the end of last year, and I call that a good thing for anybody who gets in while they're out of favor. The risk, of course, is that the World Economy will collapse, taking with it the Stock Markets. If that happens, then you had better have a Home Energy Installation, firearms, and a stash of food. Otherwise, it seems to me fair to say that as the cost of all Energy Increases (in US Dollars, at least), combined with the economies of scale that we're seeing develop in Solar Manufacturing over the last 2 years (and the rest of '08), Public Companies in this Industry will be increasingly recognized by American Investors as we go into '09 and beyond, and owning some stock during a period of growth could eventually offset some of the increases that you'll see in your own power bills.


Anywhoo, just a couple of thoughts.


* There has been a shortage of Polysilicon for use in Silicon-based panels, and in the next year many new plants will be up and running around the world.

** It's possible that you could get some kind of solar water-heating system for a bit cheaper than PV.

*** Possibly due to further devaluation of the US Dollar?

AMAT is planning a massive move into Solar.

Fueling the Solar Energy Boom - Applied Materials


"In 2007, Applied's solar equipment sales amounted to only $165 million, or less than 2% of its $9.7 billion in revenues. But the company says it expects the business to generate up to a quarter of sales by 2010, or about $2.5 billion to $3 billion annually. Its ambitious goal: for Applied equipment to be used in the making of nearly three-quarters of all the solar panels forecast to be produced in 2011."


Note: See comments at the original site to see explanation of the "seven to 10 times" statement.

Nice product by Applied Materials

Applied Materials Revolutionizes Solar Module Manufacturing with Breakthrough SunFab Thin Film Line

Applied Materials, Inc. today introduced its revolutionary Applied SunFab(TM) Thin Film Line, the world's first and only integrated production line for manufacturing thin film silicon solar modules using 5.7 square meter (m2) glass panels. These ultra-large substrates, sized at 2.2m x 2.6m, are four times bigger than today's largest thin film solar production panels. The Applied SunFab Line defines a new standard for the industry that can be replicated by customers around the globe to rapidly establish solar panel manufacturing capacity and achieve the lowest production cost per watt to drive down the cost of solar electricity.


I'd like to see what the costs work out to, but this seems good on first look.