The Future of Thin Film: Beyond the Hype

2009 was undoubtedly a difficult year for most thin-film producers. What does the future hold?

The Future of Thin Film: Beyond the Hype

2002 - 2008: The Promise

From only 17 MW in 2002 to 966 MW in 2008, thin film's rise over the last decade has been remarkable indeed.  Fueled by the greatest success story in the PV industry -- cadmium telluride producer First Solar -- the technology has captured the imagination of industry participants and interested observers alike. First Solar represents the disruptive potential of thin-film PV in full: high throughput (1,011 megawatts in 2009), competitive efficiency (11%), and an industry-leading cost (currently 83 cents per watt), enabling significant profit (the only pure-play solar company to be listed on the S&P index). From market entry in 2002, the company has gone on to become the largest PV module producer in the world. The basis for this remarkable turnaround was a fundamental insight on part of investor/entrepreneur Harold McMaster in the early 1980s: that "the essential cost element of large area solar arrays was glass, and [he] could treat the actual solar cell as simply a different kind of coating on glass." In other words, thin-film PV represented a technology that could be manufactured using glass' high-throughput coating process instead of the slow, cumbersome batch process of traditional crystalline silicon wafer-based PV -- an approach that had one-hundredth the feedstock requirement.

The search for alternative technologies led to a tidal wave of investment and entrepreneurial activity in thin film, with 46 companies entering the market between 2004 and 2008, as well as $1.8 billion in venture capital investment in the space. As market share rose from a mere 3% in 2001 to 12% in 2007, companies spoke confidently of hundreds of megawatts of production at below a dollar per watt being within arm's reach. It was only a matter of time before thin film would replace crystalline silicon as the dominant PV technology, finally enabling the long sought-after dream of grid parity.

2009 - 2010: Trials, Tribulations

Or so the hype went. As of 2010, only one other company besides First Solar -- triple-junction amorphous silicon firm United Solar -- has produced in excess of 100 MW annually. The cost structure of most amorphous silicon, considering its low efficiency, is barely competitive with crystalline silicon, and CIGS producers have encountered technical issues in manufacturing that have forced them to delay commercial production since 2007. To make matters more difficult, capital constraints made banks and developers shy away from thin film in favor of more mature and abundant crystalline silicon modules for projects in 2009. First Solar aside, one would have to admit that the results have yet to live up to the talk. As Asian crystalline silicon PV producers continue to ramp down costs and increase capacity beyond the gigawatt level, the question must be asked: will results ever meet expectations, and if so, when? In other words, will thin film fulfill its potential and make meaningful inroads into the solar energy landscape, creating new markets in the process? Or will it be relegated to a bit-player role in the growth of the global PV market?

2010 and Beyond: Inching Towards Inflection

As detailed in GTM Research's just-published report Thin Film 2010: Market Outlook through 2015, assessing thin film's impact on the global PV market in the years ahead requires an understanding of the factors that influence demand for this technology, and of how these factors interact when determining technology selection in PV markets. After a comprehensive analysis of more than 160 manufacturers, extensive data collection, and analysis that spanned three months, it is possible to trace the evolution of key aspects of the industry over the next three years. The following set of insights emerges as a result.

1. Thin film capacity will exceed 10 GW by the end of 2012. Thin film manufacturing capacity grew from just 349 MW at the end of 2006 to over 4.4 GW by the end of 2009, more than doubling every year, which reflected the attractiveness of investment in thin film due to the impact of the polysilicon shortage during that time. From 2010 onwards, the rate of expansion is expected to slow significantly; this reflects more sober plans in the aftermath of global oversupply, low consequent capacity utilization, and the lack of financing. Still, there will be over 10 GW of thin film capacity by the end of 2012, and there is room for upside adjustment if demand grows faster than expected. Amorphous silicon is expected to constitute a dominant majority at 5.65 GW, while CdTe and CIGS will have roughly even capacity share at 2.47 GW and 2.11 GW respectively.

2. Best-practice producers across all technologies will achieve costs of 80 cents per watt by the beginning of 2012, but there will be significant variation across producers. The figure below displays forecasted module costs for the beginning of 2012. CdTe costs are expected to drop to about 70 cents by this time. While possible tellurium price spikes present some risk to these numbers, the threat is limited by a thinner film and higher feedstock utilization from efficiency gains. In the case of amorphous silicon, it is expected that single-junction technology will hit its practical efficiency ceiling (8% to 8.5%) for many producers by 2012, and will start getting phased out thereafter. Tandem-junction, which just began to spread its wings in 2009, will take its place and become more representative of the a-Si market, at 10% efficiency. Costs for these technologies are expected to range from $0.80 to $1.20 per watt. CIGS should show an exponential improvement in costs from 2010 to 2012, due to the commercialization of high-throughput manufacturing through roll-to-roll processes by a few producers. For these firms, costs could be as low as 80 cents a watt. On the other end, smaller fabs that persist with glass substrates could be up to 50% more expensive, at $1.25 per watt.

3. First Solar will continue its dominance, remaining the largest thin film manufacturer in the world over the next three years. First Solar is expected to maintain its lead as by far the largest thin film manufacturer in the world, with over 2 GW of capacity spread across its plants in Germany, France, Ohio, and Malaysia. It will be followed by Sharp (tandem-junction a-Si), Showa Shell Sekiyu, a.k.a Solar Frontier (CIS), Solyndra (cylindrical CIGS), and QS Solar (double junction a-Si). Put together, the 20 largest firms in 2012 (by capacity) made up almost 90% of total thin-film production in 2008, implying that most of the top current producers should continue to be amongst the biggest in the industry in the near term. They also make up almost two-thirds of total thin film capacity in 2010 and 2012.

4. CIGS and amorphous silicon (particularly turnkey line production) will likely not see meaningful market share before 2013, after which cost reductions and efficiency improvements will finally start to drive a competitive product offering at an adequate margin. This is also the time horizon required for bankability concerns to be alleviated for thin film companies with quality modules. The chart below displays thin film market share for two scenarios, a "low-penetration" scenario where overall market share stagnates at 21% by 2012, and a "high-penetration" share that assumes a share of 30% by this time. In both cases, there is limited opportunity for a-Si and CIGS producers after assuming 90 percent utilization for First Solar.

5. High-margin thin film production will be a game played by the select few. A return to "normal" silicon prices over the next five years and the dramatic improvements that Chinese manufacturers have made in conversion cost and silicon utilization will mean that the window of opportunity for thin film is small and is constantly contracting. In particular, amorphous silicon will be a low-margin product for most manufacturers. There is a serious need for producers to differentiate themselves from one another in this space, and those that have had a head start will have a significant advantage in developing differentiated products. Single-junction a-Si will become obsolete by 2012, as its cost/efficiency combination will no longer result in a profitable product.

6. All signs point to one of the venture-backed CIGS companies (Solyndra, Nanosolar, Miasolé) emerging as successful representatives of this technology. The future of CIGS as a low-cost technology lies in producing it on flexible substrates at large scale. At the same time, flexible substrates also have lower efficiencies, meaning that continual R&D investment will be required to improve efficiencies and drive competitiveness. For the most part, CIGS on glass will be a niche market.  The past year saw three VC-backed flexible substrate firms (Nanosolar, Solyndra, Miasolé) enter into commercial production and achieve key technological milestones. It is likely that most of these companies will fail, but the few successful firm(s) will ramp up production and drive cost reduction in an exponential fashion. At this point, who these will be exactly is far from clear.

7. The coming years should see a great deal more consolidation than has been witnessed so far in the thin film industry. Many companies that lack the cushion provided by a large corporate parent will lose the race between profitability and solvency. Mid-sized amorphous silicon companies will be especially susceptible to this trend, as there is a natural fit for companies that use equipment from the same vendor (as in the example of Sontor and Sunfilm). In the case of CdTe and CIGS, this will take the form of the selling and licensing of IP assets (as has been witnessed in the case of CIGS startup Daystar). Evidence for this thesis comes from the figure below, which displays mid-year capacity utilizations for CIGS and amorphous silicon.

While GTM Research still sees the thin-film industry as having significant promise, both in terms of altering the global PV as well as the overall energy landscape, the time horizon for this looks to be further off than it seemed in 2007 and 2008. Only past 2013 will thin film adoption, the case of First Solar aside, begin to really take off, and developments over the next three years will play a crucial role in determining the exact pace of this transition.

Lest the delays and difficulties cause the faithful to be discouraged and the skeptics to be dismissive, a little history may shed a lot of light. It was not until 2002, almost 20 years after its inception, that First Solar shipped commercial product. Founder Harold McMaster had confidently predicted that "in five years SCI [First Solar's previous incarnation] will be able to produce a watt of solar energy for 60 cents"; this was in 1998, meaning that he will have been off by more than a decade. In both cases, therefore, success would arrive a lot later than expected. But arrive, to put it mildly, it did.

For more information on Thin Film 2010: Market Outlook through 2015, and to download the executive summary, go here.

24 Comments

  • StevePluvia 03/29/10 10:38 AM

    Shyam, nice work as always.  Pls look at the module efficiency for Solyndra, (they appear overstated).  As I recall, Solyndra plays games with their efficiency data.  Properly calculated they should use the power production for the area of the module which suggests they’ll may never achieve 11% efficiency.

    One other key differentiator you should consider for thin films is heat and lo light performance.  As you can see from the Cyprus data of 13 different modules (including Wurth CIGS and early FSLR modules), those that perform better in summer heat produce more power and ultimately become more desirable/valuable/in-demand. 

    http://www.pvtechnology.ucy.ac.cy/pvtechnology/publications/2009_RESEE_paper.pdf

    Reply
      • ECD Fan 03/29/10 11:35 AM

        Steve:

        On module level, based on the respective datasheets I have seen, Solyndra’s SL-001-191 is 9.7%-efficient under STC, while First Solar’s FS-280 is 11.1%-efficient under STC.  I would love to see the Cyprus data once they have accumulated at least 6 years worth of history,

      • StevePluvia 03/29/10 11:56 AM

        Agree ECD, yr 3 Cyprus data should be out shortly.

  • ECD Fan 03/29/10 11:00 AM

    Shyam:

    Something got messed up with my initial comment, so just two things:

    1. I thought Sharp was making 160MW annually in thin-film at the Katsuragi plant in 2009?  No?

    2.  It is misleading to say that “as of 2010—triple-junction amorphous silicon firm United Solar—has produced in excess of 100 MW annually.”  The fact is, Unisolar was indeed making over 100MW annualized for six quarters (June 2008-September 2009), but they were stuffing the channel and piling up unsold inventories.  For the March 2010 quarter, production was guided to just 25% of capacity (about 10MW), and inventories are still not moving much.  Unisolar is now operating at negative gross margins, as their 6.3%-6.7% efficient triple-junction modules (as efficient as single junction a-Si modules) cost over $2.20 per Watt to make.

    Reply
  • Shyam Mehta 03/29/10 6:35 PM

    Steve/ECD - bang on re:Solyndra actual efficiency - my calcs show 9.7% from the datasheet. This was actually mentioned in the earlier Solyndra piece itself. That’s actually the claimed CELL efficiency as per S-1. So incorrect term in parens. Wanted to mention the 11-14 as a working upper bound for now.

    ECD - good point on Sharp - capacity is indeed 160 MW - but they actually produced only 38 MW in 2008 and 94 MW in 2009. The latter figure is not publicly available yet, so you won’t find any backup on the net.

    Regardless of where Uni-Solar’s modules went, they did make more than 100 MW in 2008. The point was made not to tout their cost-competitiveness, but simply as a reflection of the almost-complete absence of scale for TF so far, and that First Solar/United Solar (and now Sharp) would be the exceptions to this rule.

    Reply
      • ECD Fan 03/29/10 7:00 PM

        Shyam:  Thanks about the Sharp info (and thanks for the wafering clarification on the other thread, it saved me some digging).  Yeah, given where Unisolar is going (with declining shipments, shrinking nameplate capacity, and just 25% plant utilization) , we are back to First Solar being basically the only player in (thin-film) town.

  • BBK 03/30/10 10:00 AM

    Although I am relatively new to following the solar industry, it seems to me that the benchmark for success is going to need to move from the cost per watt metric to a metric that takes into account the power density of solar modules (cost/watt/square foot or something of this nature).

    My reasoning for this is that, in all but the largest utility installations, the space available for module installations will not be sufficient to provide the total power needs of the facility purchasing the installation. Therefore to the end user, the real value will not be in who can provide the lowest cost per watt on an absolute basis but who can cost effectively provide the most watts in a fixed amount of space.

    I would like to hear your thoughts on this subject and any opinions on who might be winning this race.

    Reply
      • ECD Fan 03/30/10 10:57 AM

        BBK:  There is a tradeoff.  Yes, higher-efficiency modules save you various balance-of-system costs (real estate, labor, wiring, etc,. etc).  So, yes, higher-efficiency modules could cost more and still sell very well.  But how much more?  The highest efficiency modules I know about (the ones used by NASA) are multi-junction GaAs (or variants), but they are superexpensive per Watt, and nobody in their right mind would even consider them for solar generation here on Earth (unless, of course, they drank the concentrated PV cool-aid).

        So what is the tradeoff?  A rule-of-thumb is that every 1% increase in efficiency lowers the balance-of-system cost by about 5c to 10c per Watt, all else being equal (such as warranty, long-term degradation, kWh/kW performance, etc).  Thus, an 12%-efficient module that costs $1.00 per Watt is roughly as cheap as a 14%-efficient module that costs $1.16 per Watt (the precise tradeoff depends on the size and the type of the system, as well as other site-specific factors).

        So, no, you won’t see any super-efficient multi-junction NASA panels closely packed on rooftops or on the ground, but you will see a lot of low-cost First Solar and Chinese panels.

  • mds 03/30/10 11:48 AM

    Good article.  A lot of food for thought.  Maybe it’s me but I don’t see how even multi-layer aSi has much of a future.  ECD is struggling and BP is closing down their Frederick plant.  Amorphous Si has been problematic for 20 years.
    I also don’t see how CIGS/CIS can fail.  I’m not an expert in this field, but have internet link info on seven companies with module efficiencies of 10% or better.  Significantly better in some cases.  Several of these are using roll-to-roll production, which should be very low cost/Wp.  A number of them are currently starting to scale their production.  There seems to be some pain common in the initial production development and “bankability” is an issue Nanosolar ran into, but CIGS is inherently stable.  It looks to me like several CIGS and/or CIS companies will be able to seriously challenge First Solar’s CdTe product, in spite of First Solar’s large early lead.  Maybe I’m wrong.  I don’t understand enough about marketing strategy.
    Think predictions based on linear extrapolations or comparisons to historical development of other chemistries are likely to be way off.  This is a very interesting race.  What if multilayer quantum-dot technology starts to reach production?  Wow!

    Reply
  • PST pro 03/30/10 5:45 PM

    BBK: net kWh produced in actual (not STC) conditions in a given installation of a given total cost is what turns the meter to generate dollars against an actual installed cost = project return on investment.  Offsetting 100% of facility use is rarely a customer’s real concern: usually it is lowering their net cost of electricity and hedging its variation toward a predictable budget number (i.e. no surprises when I open the bill).  First Solar has done well in part because CdTe utilizes the blue range of the sun’s irradiation and this tends to penetrate clouds.  Prism Solar holographic film added to improving c-Si cells (both efficiency & cost/W) creates a similar improved low-light performance, but also strong-sun performance, thus increasing kWh / rated Wp and also decreasing module unit cost per Wp. This combination will significantly limit the ultimate growth of thin film market share because holographic optics are inexpensive, allowing c-Si module mfgrs to produce for less than $0.90/Wp by 2012.

    Reply
  • eyeconoclast 03/30/10 5:56 PM

    I don’t understand the basis for some of the CIGS conclusions. First Solar (and the windows in my house) show me that vacuum deposition on glass can be done very cost effectively. Additionally, the roll-to-roll CIGS guys chop up their films and sandwich them between glass plates, negating some of the claimed for roll-to-roll advantages. Why is it concluded that glass substrate CIGS (which also achieves better efficiencies than that using flexible substrates) won’t be cost-competitive with other CIGS and CdTe solutions? As for the specific winners, Q-Cells/Solibro seems like a more formidable competitor than Solyndra.

    Reply
      • hane 03/31/10 2:48 PM

        Agree with eyeconoclast. Why does everyone think flex is cheaper? There are some savings on the Capital side, but as of today, flex substrates and encapsulation are more expensive than glass. The limiting thru-put factor is the deposition rate of the CIGS source (same for glass and flex) and not the max. possible transportation speed (clear advantage for flex).

      • ECD Fan 03/31/10 3:29 PM

        hane & eyeconoclast:  They must be drinking the Kool-Aid served by Mr. Ovshinsky, the founder of ECD, and his co-consiprators at Unisolar, NREL, and certain other places.  He promised in 1977 to all those drinkers 0.2c per kWh electricity (in today’s dollars, about 1c per kWh) from flexible laminates.  The drinkers are still waiting for the coming of that 1c per kWh, while the real solar PV companies deliver real solar PV products.

      • mds 04/10/10 11:50 AM

        1. CIGS has a higher potential conversion efficiency, at least based on NREL efficiency records of 16% for CdTe and 19% for CIGS, so it can theoretically be done more cost effectively than CdTe.
        2. PV on household roofs will be a large market at some point.  Just drive around Southern California or Arizona and consider all the homes cooking in the sun that will eventually need new shingles, or other new roofing.  This is a huge opportunity for BIPV where your margin for savings on electricity costs are much higher than at the power source end of the grid.  Ever install a large window in a home?  It’s tough to handle large pieces of glass.  Dow Chemical is using Global Solar’s CIGS PV on stainless steel to make shingles.  Consider the potential for reducing installation costs (which are becoming the larger part of the solar PV cost as PV production costs drop) ...if they can make it work ...and if they can make it last reliably for 20 to 30 years.  There are other companies working on this type of BIPV approach using CIGS.  The advantage is clear.  It is a matter of time till someone cracks this nut and changes the home PV market as a result.  This is the Kool-Aid ECD Fan refers to.  I’m not going to predict 0.2c per kWh electricity, but I’m sure it will be cheaper than grid prices in many places in California and probably Arizona.  ECD Fan can critique that comment all he wants.  If CIGS fails to do it then Quantum Dot technology will.  It is going to happen.  Pass that Kool-Aid on.

      • ECD Fan 04/10/10 4:04 PM

        mds:  PV on household roofs is the BIGGEST PV market already in Germany, and has been 87% of the number of PV systems reserved under the CSI program in California in the past 15 months. 

        The last time I checked, windows still use glass, despite the difficulties in handling large pieces of glass.  Windows, the last time I checked, are not made from transparent flexible plastics, and for a good reason.

        Dow Chemical is apparently just planting articles in Forbes and issuing press releases (which apparently do not require any stainless steel).  The last time I checked, their product was not UL/IEC certified (could it be the rain!) and the “projected” retail sale price exceeded the price of a regular crystalline residential rooftop system.

        We all know about potential, but the reality is that the flex PV has failed to achieve promised costs, performance, durability, again, and again, and again, since 1977, despite all the NREL charts and diagrams.

  • ToTo 03/31/10 3:13 AM

    I like this site.  It has a lot of very real and honest discussion/information.

    Reply
  • Shyam Mehta 03/31/10 8:21 PM

    Eyeconoclast - there are >30 companies in the world today that do CIGS-on-glass. Most of them are small, don’t have great products, and don’t have the money to scale. It has been mentioned before by me that Solibro (~15 MW in 2009, looks like could have competitive cost structure) and Showa Shell (43 MW in 2009, needs lot of work on cost structure but scaling big) are exceptions to this. That’s why it was stated that FOR THE MOST PART, CIGS on glass will be niche. Example? The company with the best CIGS module efficiency in the world - Wurth Solar. They have been stuck at 30 MW for years, because their cost structure doesn’t seem to be viable enough to compete.

    hane - the transportation speed will make a big difference once both deposition process speeds on glass and flex are maxed out. My bet is that one company in the VC+flex bracket will make it - not sure who yet. Based on inside chatter, Miaosole’s been making good progress, but we’ll need to keep an eye on them through 2010.

    Reply
      • Slurry 04/10/10 2:23 PM

        Shyam, I thought Wurth only came up to 11,0%, let me know if I need to be updated.  I’m currently tracking Solibro at a record-setting 12,2%:

        http://solibro-solar.com/medien_cigs/produkte/downloads/SL2/DataSheet_SL2_Sep2009.pdf

        Moreover:

        - the company is sold out for 2010 (I estimate 50 - 100 MWp of shippings)
        - is currently making a good operating profit
        - targets COGS of slightly above $1/Wp by year end
        - targets long-term COGS below $0,6/Wp
        - interestingly First Solar is rumored to have put up an R&D team to assess CIGS

        So why do you think this will be niche for the most part?  Cheaper than FS at higher efficiency doesn’t sound bad to me.  Do you fear there will be scaling issues?

      • ECD Fan 04/10/10 3:50 PM

        Slurry:  The last time I checked, Solidbro was indeed 12.2%, and Avancis was close behind with their 12.1%-efficient 130W Powermax.  Since First Solar makes their 11.1% modules at 84c per Watt, Solibro will need to make their 12.2% at less that $1 per Watt (probably less than 94c per Watt) to compete effectively (given the efficiency effect on BOS).  First Solar targets long-term COGS of $0.5-$0.6 per Watt as well, but we know that in the long-term the executives making today’s promises have long sold their shares and have happily “retired,” so one better be skeptical.

  • Puravida19 04/10/10 5:13 AM

    I am new to Greentechmedia and am finding info in the article and the comments that give me perspective on the solar market. I am a longterm follower of a solar company which has been in stealth mode for the last eight months until two weeks ago. They have patented a CdSeTetrapod Quantum Dot which promises a much lower cost and more reliable prediction of future cost for materials. They have discovered a way to mass produce it and have just begun to offer it for sale officially this week. In the flexible display area,  they have Ghassan Jabbour, head of ASU solar/nano dept., and Director of the Flexible Display Center, working on the problems since 2004, sponsored by a consortium of companies, and he is also Director of KAUST solar. I count six universities associated with this firm. It is Solterra Renewable Technologies and the parent company is Hague Corp., soon to be renamed Quantum Materials Corp. Ticker is HGUE. today at .20c . Not an IPO, but on the market now. Eventually they will spinoff Solterra from QMC. They have not announced efficiency yet, but the TQD can be produced at 90 percent conversion in uniform tetrapods, at any light frequency. They are ramping up production. Their audacious goal is grid parity without subsidy or rebate and are shooting for
    1-3 GW /year factories with a small footprint. Plan is to take the pre-sold contracts to the bank for funding with finance companies guaranteeing the buyer to build the factory. They claim this will be disruptive technology that will revolutionize the industry with low cost units and true mass production. The sale of TQD for display and medical sensor, etc. uses will supply this 19 month old development stage company with income, and they believe they will dominate QD sales with their low prices and ability to supply quantity. They are offering a QD capable of better MEG, a type that NREL says has the highest efficiency potential - over 60 percent in time, with the highest quality uniformity and conversion in tetrapod form at any frequency, including ultraviolet and infrared. Infrared for waste heat thermal applications. Ultraviolet for capturing waves at night.
    Commonly available materials.  I think this is what you all have been searching for. It was right there all the time.

    Reply
      • mds 04/10/10 11:25 AM

        Very interesting!  Will be interesting to see if they can produce per plan.  There’s quite a PV startup graveyard out there.

  • Shyam Mehta 04/11/10 11:24 PM

    Slurry - Wurth is most certainly at 12%. I have it from Veeco (deposition equipment provider, don’t believe they are a vendor to Wurth though) that they upped this to 13 sometime mid-2009. Wurth is targeting 14+ in the next 2 years.

    My view on CIGS-on-glass is not really a function of the technology itself, but of the companies that are currently participating in it, with, as said, Solibro and Showa as promising exceptions: only Showa really seems to have the appetite to target a throughput/scale that would enable non-linear cost reduction. I would be delighted to be proved wrong, though.

    Reply
      • ECD Fan 04/11/10 11:52 PM

        Shyam:  I double-checked off the datasheet - Wurth is 11.8% efficient (module WSG0036E086).  WSG0036E092 is also TUV certified (efficiency is 12.6%), but not sure whether it is in production.

  • scholarships for single mothers 06/17/10 10:14 PM

    I never thought there is that thing about thin film. Good thing I bump into your blog. It brought me new knowledge about it. Thanks for sharing and posting.

    Reply
Need an avatar? Get one here: Gravatar