Top Ten Greentech Misses in 2009

2009 had plenty of hits but there were also a number of misses

2009 had plenty of greentech hits: technical breakthroughs, lots of VC and government funding, some interesting acquisitions and a few successful IPOs.  But there were also a number of misses. Here's a list:

Spain Pays for Its Poorly Executed Solar Subsidy: The mistakes happened in 2008 but the echoes were felt in 2009. Spain went from being the largest PV market in 2008 to almost zero in 2009.

Spain had a lucrative feed-in tariff program that required utilities to buy solar electricity at high rates set by the government. After seeing an explosive growth of solar projects that far surpassed its estimates, the government reduced the solar electricity rates for solar power plants installed after September 2008. Additionally,  government investigation uncovered widespread fraud in the administration and roll-out of the FIT program.

A rush to install solar energy systems led to reports of fraud by developers claiming they had finished their projects when they only installed some of the panels or, in some cases, put in fake solar panels to buy time.

Spain had been a great market for Chinese panel makers, who were able to sell their goods at premium prices in 2008.  Not so in 2009.

Optisolar Lands Hard: Optisolar had raised more than $300 million based on a vision of the economies of scale of building a gigawatt-sized factory.  The vision was that the cost of solar could be radically dropped by building "Solar City" factory complexes capable of churning out 2.1 gigawatts to 3.6 gigawatts of solar cells a year. These factories would cost $500 million to $600 million and be composed of factories-within-factories focused on different tasks: an onsite glass making outfit capable of cranking out 30 million square meters of glass a year; a solar cell unit with 100 identical manufacturing lines; and a full-fledged packaging facility.

In this ideal world modules would cost 0.60 cents to 0.52 cents per watt and fully installed solar power would cost $1.00 to 0.88 cents a watt.

As per Michael Kanellos' article: The ideas from the Keshner NREL paper largely formed the company's business plan.

After building a factory in Hayward capable of producing 30 megawatts to 50 megawatts, it landed $20 million in tax breaks in 2007 to build a factory at McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento County. By 2011, the million square foot facility would employ 1,000 and put out over 600 megawatts worth of solar panels a year. Although the original paper discussed ways of making cheap solar panels out of CIGS, cadmium telluride or amorphous silicon, OptiSolar focused on silicon because, among other reasons, of its far wider availability.

Plans were also being laid to build an even larger factory after McClellan that would contain the in-house sub-factory for glass making as discussed in 2004.

But OptiSolar didn't stop there. Once organized as a company, OptiSolar also incorporated other ideas for cutting costs. Instead of concentrating on manufacturing solar panels, the company planned on installing them itself (through a subsidiary called Topaz Solar) and selling the power to a utility. By acting as a vertically integrated company performing several functions, the idea was that the cost could be reduced because profit margins wouldn't be split among several companies.

In 2007, it won contracts to install over 200 megawatts in Ontario. The crowning achievement came in 2008 when the company won a deal to build a 550-megawatt solar farm near San Luis Obispo for PG&E over several other bidders. Toward the end of 2008, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger showed up for a factory opening that 60 Minutes covered.

OptiSolar avoided VCs and won funding from private equity firms accustomed to the long slog of energy deals. Many investors like Robert Puchniak and chairman Geoff Cummings came out of Canada's oil industry.

So what went wrong?

Those closest to the company chalk it up to the credit crisis. When the crisis hit, the company was outfitting the McClellan factory and seeking another $200 million in funding.  Prior to the credit crisis, the plan was to hold an IPO in 2010.  Others, though, said that the expansive goals seem to be giving the company mission creep.  It was negotiating deals for tracts of land while also planning out factories and buying expensive equipment. Besides the already announced deals, it had secured rights to build power plants on 136,000 acres, enough for 19 gigawatts of power.

The company’s failure, ultimately, resulted in the further expansion of First Solar. The relentlessly efficient solar maker bought OptiSolar’s utility and land deals for approximately $400 million earlier this year.

Optisolar was an audacious bet, smacked down by the grim realities of the economy, by mission-creep, and by the hubris of the founders and investors.

GreenFuel Closes Down: GreenFuel Technologies, one of the earlier algae biofuel companies, closed its doors in 2009, a victim of the credit crunch.

"We are closing the doors. We are a victim of the economy," said Duncan McIntyre at Polaris Venture Partners, an investor in Greenfuel.

Although it had raised millions of dollars and landed a high-profile deal with Auranta in Spain to erect test facilities, it could not get money to complete the project.  The company had also been chronically saddled with delays and technical problems. The company's plan was to pump carbon dioxide from smokestacks into bioreactors – i.e., sealed plastic bags or tubes filled with algae and water. The algae would grow fat on the carbon dioxide and later be harvested by GreenFuel to be turned into oil for biodiesel.

The firm had raised $13.9 million from VCs including Access Private Equity, Draper Fisher Jurvetson and Polaris Venture Partners.

SV Solar RIP: As one of many solar start-ups destined for the dust bin – SV Solar raised $10.2M from Bessemer to build low concentration PV technology and then quickly disappeared.

Bessemer had funded a low-concentration PV firm (strike one), with a staff that had very little solar experience (strike two), based on some amazing cutting edge technology that they called -- a prism (strike 3).  The company’s value proposition was based on the high price of silicon at the time by investors who didn’t fully get the concept of supply and demand -- how the price of the silicon commodity was bound to drop as capacity was added.

2009 to 2011 will see enormous attrition for weak startups in solar power.  It will be a gut-wrenching experience but it will leave the industry leaner and stronger in the 20-year solar boom to come.

Some Bad News in Geothermal – Whole Lotta Shaking Going On

Venture Capitalists are accustomed to technology risk, market risk, and policy risk.  However they are not accustomed to seismic risk and the possible threat of eathquakes has sort of shut down a project by VC-funded AltaRock.

In September of this year AltaRock’s (Enhanced Geothermal Systems) EGS demo at The Geysers in Northern California suspended its drilling operations due, not to seismic activity, but to the bore-hole collapsing due to unstable geologies.  Previous permitting studies had not indicated a problem.  AltaRock continues to go after EGS, just not at The Geysers.  AltaRock is funded by Google, Khosla Ventures, KPCB, ATV and Vulcan Capital.   

But add that PR gaffe to the $9M in damages caused by the actual seismic activity from the EGS project in Basel, Switzerland and EGS boosters are going to have move a little slower and more carefully in 2010.

Failure to Meet U.S. Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) for Advanced Biofuelse: Under the EPA’s guidelines, refiners are required to blend 100 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel in 2010 increasing to 250MGY in 2011 and 500MGY in 2012. In a recent 1000- page report justifying the advanced biofuel mandate, the EPA outlines 25 pilot and demonstration plants currently operating in the United States. The EPA maintains that in 2010, 100.7 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol and diesel will be produced.

But in looking at the specifics of the EPA’s conclusions, it is interesting to note that 70 million gallons of the 100 million gallons in 2010 is expected to come from Cello Energy – a virtually unknown company that does yet not have an operating website. The company has operated so far below the radar that Paul Winters, the spokesman for a cellulosic industry trade group BIO, was recently quoted as saying, “I have to admit that before the EPA [report], I hadn’t heard of them. I don’t even have them listed on our map of cellulosic facilities."

In recent months, Cello Energy was convicted of fraud and it is unlikely that they are going to be producing meaningful amounts of biofuel any time soon. Cello was run by Alabama’s former ethics chairman, Jack Boykin, and funded by Khosla Ventures, et al.

GTM research forecasts U.S. cellulosic ethanol capacity to reach 28 million gallons in 2010, with 4.4 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol actually being produced in the United States in 2010.

Uni-Solar's Troubles: In early December Uni-Solar (aka ECD) announced plans to cut 20 per cent of its 1900 employee workforce, the latest sign that the company was struggling to weather the economic downturn.  The company builds multi-junction amorphous silicon solar cells on flexible substrates.

Like many other companies in the solar industry, Uni-Solar has struggled amid an economic downturn that has strangled investments in building solar power projects worldwide over the past year. Earlier this year, solar panel manufacturers and their suppliers were reporting steep revenue cuts and even losses.  Uni-Solar had shut down its factories in Greenville and Auburn Hills for about a month between May and June this year.

While other solar companies began to see a boost to their revenues and profit during the summer, Uni-Solar continued to post losses.

Uni-Solar's product is unique but the reliability and cost model of their technology has been questioned on numerous fronts.  According to a recent research note by Deutsch Bank's Steve O'Rourke: "ECD has a solid technology and niche market position, but a higher cost basis and is beset by sharp ASP pressure; when combined with challenging end market conditions (demand and project financing) we expect quarterly losses looking into C2010."

ECD looks to have a challenging 2010.

Smart Grid Backlash: Excerpts from an October 22 article in The Fresno Bee: More than 100 people packed a town hall meeting in downtown Fresno to vent their frustration with PG&E's newest metering technology – SmartMeters – that customers say has led to faulty spikes in utility bills. "The meters, in my opinion, are not very smart," PG&E customer Joe Riojas told Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez, D-Shafter. The meeting lasted four-and-a-half hours. No one spoke in favor of the Smart Meters.

Many customers brought their PG&E bills to show Florez their skyrocketing costs. For example, Don Vercellini of Fresno said his bill recently went from $500 a month to $1,173. "It's straight-out fraud. I want my money back," he said.

Florez complained that the technology for customers to check usage will not be in place for years.

Said Florez: "People don't see the value [in this program]. They just see higher cost, and that makes them angry."

According to Jeff St. John's reporting: Those complaints have focused attention on PG&E's $2.2 billion, 10 million smart meter deployment, with the California Public Utilities Commission demanding that PG&E find a third party to investigate.

But PG&E has already tested many customers' smart meters – made by General Electric and Landis+Gyr and networked by Silver Spring Networks – and have not found any problems with how they're working, according to PG&E spokesman Denny Boyles.

Rather than malfunctioning meters, PG&E thinks the higher bills have come from its two rate hikes in the past 12 months, plus a hot summer that led to many Central Valley residents cranking their air conditioners to beat the heat, Boyles said.

With the feds ready to launch another wave of smart grid funding – it would be helpful for the public to actually want these products and services. And to actually feel some immediate benefit and value from the smart grid.  It can't be just about benefits for the utilities.

Imara, Lithium-Ion Battery Firm, Runs Out of Juice"We have the best product entering the market place." Jeff Depew, CEO of Imara.

In September lithium-ion battery startup, Imara, said it had begun to commercially produce lithium-ion batteries and might have a customer or two to announce in a few months.  The company's secret sauce revolved around a cathode that would effectively allow a battery to store more lithium ions than standard lithium-ion batteries.  The idea emerged from experiments conducted at SRI in 2000 funded by a program to develop electric cars sponsored by the Department of Energy (see Battery-Maker Imara Shuts Its Doors).

By December, unable to obtain their next round (a problem many mid-stage start-ups are going to face), Imara was closing its doors and ceasing operations. The company had experienced a delay in ramping up operations and could not line up investors to build a factory.

"It certainly did not help that hundred of millions in DOE stimulus funds went to two Korean companies and one French company, Saft," wrote Neal Maguire, vice president of business development."

Imara employed 38 scientists and engineers and will be attempting to sell its assets and IP.

 

13 Comments

  • ECD Fan 12/28/09 2:48 PM

    Hmm, I thought ECD’s technology was amorphous and flexible, not “solid.”  Let’s reiterate what the remote-monitoring systems are telling us about the following high-profile Unisolar installations with the “niche” and “solid” PV laminates completed in recent years:

    1. 12MW GM Opel in Zaragoza, Spain - underperforming by 26% vs expectations so far.
    2. 900kW GM in Fontana, CA - underperforming by 28% vs expectations.
    3. 750KW Long Beach Convention Center in Long Beach, CA - dead after the laminates ignited.
    4. 700KW East Coast Warehouse, Elizabeth, NJ - dead.
    5. 400KW Staples installation in Killingly, CT - dead.
    6. 377KW National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Waltham, Massachusetts - dead

    and the list goes on ...

    Reply
      • Eric Wesoff 12/28/09 2:56 PM

        OK, ECD Fan, here’s a question for you - if and when ECD runs out of money and customers - do you think their management can be replaced and the technology optimized or is the technology hopeless?

      • ECD Fan 12/28/09 4:24 PM

        Eric, the verdict is clearly NO, and here are some of the reasons (aka “lessons of history”):

        1. Management changes are irrelevant in the long term for ECD.  In 2004 Mr. Stempel replaced Mr. Ovshinsky as the CEO with the promise of achieving sustained profitability (which, of course, never happened).  Mr. Morelli replaced Mr. Stempel as the CEO in 2007 with the promise of achieving sustained profitability (which, of course, never happened).

        2.  Conversion efficiency (especially on module level) is low and not improving.  Unisolar’s current Chairman, Mr. Guha, claimed in a press release in 1985 a “stated” commercial cell efficiency of 8% for the dual-junction a-Si laminates (no longer in production by Unisolar) and a 12.2% efficiency for the triple-junction a-Si laminates (Unisolar’s today’s technology, commercial since 1997) that allegedly remained 11%-efficient after 20 years of exposure to light (at least 90% of the efficiency retained). Today, Unisolar’s best “stated” commercial cell efficiency is 8.5% (while the rest is 8%, and some is, apparently, just 7.5%) , and warranted for just 6.5% after 25 years of exposure to light, and even that warranty claim is VERY, VERY suspect (based on the long-term NREL study).  On module level, things are much worse (for various reasons).  Unisolar’s main line (PVL-136) is just 6.3%-efficient on module level, while Unisolar’s most efficient commercial module, the 144W PVL, is just 6.7% efficient (compare to First Solar’s 11.1%-efficient FS-280 module).  ECD’s “new” management “promised” at the 2007 shareholder meeting that they will deliver a 152-154W rated PVL in 2008 - never happened.

        3.  Cost of manufacturing per Watt is too high relative to the conversion efficiency of the laminates, and is actually increasing as unsold inventories are piling up and the company is reducing production. Unisolar’s main line is 6.3%-efficient on module level, thus, to truly compete with First Solar and the low-cost Chinese crystalline module makers today, it has to have cost of manufacturing of less than 90c per Watt (yeah, some BOS costs are higher for Unisolar, and the long-term degradation and the real-world kWh/kW performance are worse, but the glue-on laminates could potentially save you a 30c-per-Watt rack).  Unfortunately, Unisolar is guiding for over $2.20 per Watt cost of manufacturing in the December quarter (due to poor overhead absorption)  - these are levels unseen since early 2008.  First Solar was able to drop costs of manufacturing 50%+ over the past 5 years while improving efficiency by over 20%.  Over the same period, Unisolar dropped costs of manufacturing just 15%, while improving efficiency by just 10% or so.  So, as First Solar and the Chinese continue to drop costs and increase efficiencies, Unisolar falls further behind.  Thus, some companies still could achieve “grid parity” by 2012, some never will.

        Let me know if I should elaborate further.

  • Weirdo 12/28/09 3:17 PM

    You left out EESCAM, I mean EESTOR from your Top Ten Greentech Misses in 2009.  Remember the CEO of EESCAM, Dick Weir in the leaked investors conference call stated EESTro is ahead of schedule for delivery of EESUs to Zenn this year 2009. 
    Oh wait, Dick has 2 days left to deliver on his BS.  Don’t hold your breath. We’ve been hearing this BS from Dick Weir since 2004.

    Reply
      • Eric Wesoff 12/28/09 3:30 PM

        EEStor probably deserves a category of its own.  Either revolutionary, disruptive technology that changed the world or what you said.  Let’s give them a bit more time.  And rope.

  • tom gray 12/29/09 11:35 AM

    I’d say the biggest mis has been Greentech Media’s ability to ignore the handwriting on the wall. Global warming is either 1) simply the same old thing we’ve had for millions of years, or 2) not happening at all.
    Regardless, even the lying, scamming government paid “scientists” (I use the term loosely when dealing with junk science like climatology) have admitted that htere’ nothing we can do to stop it. Certainly reducing an impotent GHG like CO2 won’t do nothin’.  If Greentechmedia had any honesty, it would admit to years of lies and misleading propaganda and close up shop. But the folks at greetechmedia have to earn a living and scamming the public is a lot easier than actually doing something constructive - like waiting on tables, a skill the folks around here might actually possess.

    Reply
      • jcat 12/29/09 6:18 PM

        hey tom gray, don’t look now but while writing your comment you just missed a slow flying quail right over head at them thar ranch down in ol’ kennedy county. try not to hit me in the arse with a lead-shot pellet when you whip back around and try to bag that lil’ sucker.

  • Sure 12/29/09 5:19 PM

    I’m afraid I have to agree with Weirdo regarding EEStor.  You’ve been fairly direct about your doubts about EEStor as have other contributers at Greentech Media.  Yet EEStor gets a free pass for their 2009 miss?  Something is fishy here.  Could it be you had a conversation with Ray Lane this month at the panel you moderated?
    As you reported previously:
    http://tinyurl.com/yl2mv9k

    Hard to believe you would moderate a panel and not ask Lane to talk at least a little bit about EEStor.  At lhe very least, he would let you know if they were no longer working with EEStor.

    Reply
  • jcat 12/29/09 6:17 PM

    hey tom gray, don’t look now but while writing your comment you just missed a slow flying quail right over head at them thar ranch down in ol’ kennedy county. try not to hit me in the arse with a lead-shot pellet when you whip back around and try to bag that lil’ sucker.

    Reply
      • Tom Murley 12/30/09 5:49 AM

        Suriprised that you missed the big failures:  Theolia in France. Too much debt, too little quality teetering on bankruptcy.  Econcern in The Netherlands.  Grew to big, too fast, tried to do too much.  Bankruptcy and loss of €400m in equity.  Meinl Power International.  Raised €700m in 2008, spent it on dodby solar projects.  Shareholder revolt over mismanagement, selling off assets in fire sale.  Conergy in Germany, like Econcern.  from share price of €25 to €.66 in 18 months, market cap from over €3 bn 3 years ago to €260m today and on life support from banks, and the receivership of Schmack Biogas, losing over €100m in market cap in 18 months

  • solarMD 01/11/10 1:06 PM

    I only counted 9 misses in Eric’s list.  Still, Eric brought out the essence of failures or mis-calculations in the renewable energy projects.  I particularly appreciate ECD Fan’s partial list of UniSolar’s under-performaing, or dead projects.
    Isn’t there any remedy, or salvageable opportunity in them? Who’s is left holding the
    bag at these projects?

    Reply
  • ECD Fan 01/12/10 1:22 PM

    To solarMD:  If there were a salvageable opportunity in those, the remote monitoring systems are not telling.  But how do you salvage laminates that are glued on to a roof without risking destruction of the roof or the laminates or both?

    Who is holding the bag?  Obviously, if a PV system is down or underperforming, it is the clueless “investors” who chose the inferior product(s) and/or installer(s) that are holding “part” of the bag.  But they deserve it - they should have done their homework and they didn’t.  Unfortunately, all the systems mentioned above got US or state taxpayer funding covering significant portions, or even 100%, of the system cost.  So, ultimately, if these systems underperform, it is the “innocent” US taxpayer that will be holding the bag.

    Reply
  • solarMD 01/15/10 6:26 PM

    Thanks for your clarification.  My startup is focused on doing diagnostics on solar plants over the web.  We are
    on the look out for beta site for our solution.  Where did you get the 26% under-performing numbers ?
    Are these from some publicly accessible monitoring web page? 
    I certainly hope that thin-film technologies don’t get a bad name on account of these cases.

    Reply
Need an avatar? Get one here: Gravatar
.