• Thursday, June 11, 2009 Latest Update: 6:01AM

Greentech Solar

Solar Survivors: Winners and Losers in Crystalline Silicon PV

As the market becomes restricted to only the companies with the best products, lowest costs and successful business models, the task now is to identify just who those companies are.

If you're a crystalline silicon-based cell or module maker, life is hard right now. Module prices have been in free fall since the fourth quarter of 2008, plummeting from $4.00/W in September to $2.25/W at present. At the same time, demand has trended sharply downwards as well during this time (so much for short-term price elasticity, right?). And that's just the beginning of their woes: year-end cell crystalline silicon capacity for 2009 is estimated at over 14 gigawatts. When one reconciles that with around 6 gigawatts or so of demand (and it remains to be seen if we'll even get there), of which 1 gigawatt or so will be installations using First Solar modules, it doesn't make for a pretty picture. And if things couldn't get any worse, many of these companies have millions in debt repayments due over the course of the next twelve months (unlike a number of thin-film firms, which are venture-funded).  

Put this all together and you have a struggle for survival of Darwinian proportions; much blood will be spilled, and not everyone will make it through to the other side. Over the next few years, the market will be increasingly restricted to only to those companies with the best products, lowest cost structures, and most successful business models. The task, then, is to identify which crystalline silicon-based technologies, business models, and companies will be in a position of strength to weather the storms versus those most likely to be at risk from the shakeout that is currently well underway in the PV industry.

This question framed the considerations of GTM Research's recently published report, Surviving the Shakeout: Winners and Losers in Crystalline Silicon PV. Aiming to comprehensively lay out what it will take for a crystalline silicon-based cell/module manufacturer to succeed over the next two years, it conducts a comparative analysis of the 50 most prominent crystalline silicon-based cell and module manufacturers in the market over eight key performance metrics, namely:

1. Degree and nature of vertical integration

2. Cost structure

3. Balance sheet strength

4. Polysilicon procurement arrangements

5. Technology differentiation

6. Manufacturing scale

7. Proximity to demand

8. Brand recognition

Figure 1: Determining Metrics for Crystalline Silicon Cell/Module Manufacturing Business Model

A quantitative assessment was carried out for each metric for each crystalline silicon cell and module manufacturer, and companies were ranked based on a weighted average calculation. Cost structure and balance sheet strength (as indicated by the larger circles in Figure 1) are considered as first-order drivers, meaning that they were weighted higher in the final assessment than other factors. To whet the appetite, below is a sample section from the report.

Technology Differentiation

As pertains to PV, the term "technology differentiation" is largely synonymous with one variable: conversion efficiency at the cell and module levels. Efficiency matters for the following reasons:

1. Gains in efficiency drive cost reductions at all steps of the manufacturing process on a dollar-per-watt basis, from the cost of the feedstock to module conversion: all else equal, higher efficiency means higher energy output for the same cost.

2. Efficiency gains also lower area-related or balance-of-system costs (i.e., wiring, foundations, labor, etc.). BOS costs scale inversely with module efficiency, since higher efficiency means fewer panels are required for the same output. Therefore, given equal module cost, higher efficiency drives a lower installed cost, and thus lower cost of electricity.

3. Efficiency becomes a key consideration when space is a constraint – meaning that in such cases, higher efficiency technologies will obtain a premium and differentiate a company's product. This is precisely the value proposition of "super mono" technologies such as SunPower's back-contact cell and Sanyo's HIT product.

  1. Page
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Next ›

Comments [8]

  • Steve Pluvia 06/11/09 11:01 AM

    Nice Work.  This is very timely and potentially valuable information.  The winning c-Si producers have a rare opportunity to rapidly expand market share relative to peers given today’s unique market conditions.  c-Si technology advances that translate to cost reductions have an opportunity to survive the coming thin film transition.

    Reply
      • Jan Richarts 06/19/09 7:54 AM

        Hi
        apart of the valid fact of looking not only at cell costs the whole system costs are relevant. However I was wondering how comparable is aSi with CIGS. Especially with repsect to potential may. targets of efficiencies. This is at least the cost driver/lever in cell manufacturing.

        Regards

        Jan

  • rooferguy 06/14/09 6:43 PM

    Interesting, but one dimensional if your primary metric for differentiation relates to cell efficiency.  No customer EVER buys just a solar cell — they buy a complete, installed system.  Focusing on just cell efficiency has been the drain for billions of VC $.  Now we need to reduce the NON CELL costs, mostly direct and indirect labor, as well as BOS components.  These non-cell costs account for close to 75% of the cost of the system now (cells at $1.50, systems at $6.00).

    Companies that figure out how to reduce non-cell costs will really have a differentiated product.  What can we do to reduce non-cell costs?  Microinverters are one good way (not dc-dc converters, which only solve 1/2 the problem).  New distribution channels that operate more efficiently than solar distributors (think Home Depot) also cut out costs.  DIY installations that have zero indirect and direct labor costs also improve customer economics, opening up a whole new customer category.  SunPower T-5 panel has racking built into the panel, and simplified wiring.  Products like these will reduce the total installed costs the most.

    Reply
  • Solaradvocate 06/15/09 1:14 AM

    I agree with rooferguy.  Who is actually working actively on Non Cell costs.  All we see is reduction on cell prices which is great however, I have not seen any one actively addressing the Non Cell cost in a structured way.  What about prefabricated, prewired larger units with 12-16 modules already integrated with an inverter. Simplification on design and engineering is anyone pushing this?  Question is who will benefit and who will loose out if Non Cell costs are reduced.

    Reply
  • Danny Kennedy 06/15/09 10:38 AM

    Lots of great companies are thinking about how to apply a wind tunnel to the sale of solar systems after the factory gate. The greatest efficiencies in the short term will be in the sales & marketing and general & administrative cost structures, which are basically clunky cottage industry creations now. Streamlining sales into a call center based process, without site visits for quoting, saves the end customer about 10% off the average price. That’s more than any breakthrough in hardware of the last year - but less than the fall in COGs from oversupply! The truth is cells and modules are being commoditized and the key metrics are going to be around customer service and total life cycle cost including such things as warranty and service. Ultimately its the price per kwh to deliver the service of electricity.

    Reply
  • Shyam Mehta 06/15/09 12:11 PM

    Point taken about non-cell costs - lots of potential for cost reduction, and lot of work that needs to be done (one thing we could all really use is a consolidation of integrators/installers to really get economies of scale going and streamlined processes to reduce SG&A/paperwork costs). This, however, is a comparative analysis of cell/module manufacturers, not the entire value chian, so doesn’t really apply here.

    Reply
      • Ronald Byrd 06/19/09 10:49 AM

        Josepie,

        I have a prewired mega panel design that utilizes sixteen H. E. modules (3360 Wdc) in a 10’ x 20’ frame. It can be assembled in a production setting in less than ½ hour and is fully intergraded and ready to place in service in less than 2 hours. This system can be installed on a roof or ground mounted to a re-locatable or fixed in place support structure. The design is intended for short term rapid deployment and relocation.

        The early design which I named the “PV Power Box” used a four x four module configuration connected to one HV string tie inverter. I wrote a technical paper called the Six-Second Watt and attempted to get a grant to test my idea. The issue I had is that a string inverter is not tolerant to the level of heat you find on the roof. The only current solution to make the system rapidly deployable in a public setting is to install a micro inverter at each module, which is a little more expensive. We need an inverter company that can build a reliable string tie inverter for the mega panel design. This system would work well for utilities that want to provide RE services to their rate payers. The ideal model is to have the utilities own the equipment and have the PV assets managed by a service organization on the utilities behalf. 

        The customer call center solution is a great idea for generating leads, but I think you will find that people don’t make a $20k purchases over the internet. They buy from people who meet with them in their homes… The Rainmakers get paid well for this function regardless of how well they can design a system. This is because sales are vital to the existence of any business. Now if you were offering them the product of the product service on a short contractual basis, then you maybe able to do it from a call center and never use a real salesman.

.