As I have written previously, the concept of bankable solar products and services is complex and contradictory and has many interpretations depending on where you sit in the industry. When looking at the bankability of modules (aka panels) the situation is quite confusing.
In the PV industry, there is continual chatter about which module providers are tier one or tier two, and who is on various analysts’ bankable lists and who isn’t. The general metrics involve the business health of the manufacturer, the technology they employ, the manufacturing process, vertical integration and being in business for more than 5 years. Many of the tier 1 companies are relatively new, stand alone companies with weak balance sheets, so they don’t have the financial health to meet bankability standards and yet they are considered bankable. This contradiction was illustrated in spectacular fashion over the last 2 years with the bankruptcy of the largest PV module manufacturer in the world, Suntech, and another large Asian company, LDK, among others. Both were publicly traded with high visibility on the NASDAQ and had been considered highly bankable.
With this history, it’s hard to understand how module providers with weak business fundamentals continue to show up on various analyst and industry tier one vendor lists. Many times the answer to this contradiction is that the module company has supplied a couple of large projects with the project financed non-recourse by well-known capital providers. The analysts are relying on the finance entity and the finance entity is relying on the analyst, and then it would seem that herd mentality takes over.
From a technology standpoint, a crystalline PV module is a mature (40 year old), proven technology that desperately needs the kind of
manufacturing standards that are found in many other commodity product industries. Manufacturing and materials standards tied tightly to verification protocols would go a long way toward lowering the risk for long-term owners of PV systems. With adherence to standards and robust verification, business-side bankability becomes less of a pain point. Standards are paramount if the PV industry is going to continue its steep growth curve.
The crystalline PV manufacturing industry is maturing with the reentry and/or scale-up of diversified, large multi-national corporations’ PV programs. As a result, the secure bankable route has developing clarity with companies such as BYD, Hanwha, Hyundai, LG Electronics and other similar companies who can bring confidence to finance entities via large balance sheets, continual technology improvement and strong manufacturing heritage. Additionally, a few of the original large stand-alone crystalline module companies are becoming more stable again as growth has returned to the market, and their balance sheet burden due to manufacturing capacity over expansion in the past few years is diminishing.
In my next post I will discuss PV thin-film version 3.0 bankability. Thin-film CIS and CdTe is rapidly achieving performance parity or better when compared with crystalline poly modules, and there is potential for disruption to the crystalline vendors in particular application segments.
A previous poston derates resulted in a few follow up emails where these 2 terms—power and energy—were used interchangeably by the writers, which is a common occurrence despite significant differences in meaning. Understanding this terminology makes understanding various solar energy concepts easier to grasp, especially when talking about derates and how they are calculated.
Power and Energy are two distinctly different but interrelated electrical principles:
- ENERGY is the AMOUNT of power produced or used and is denoted in Watt-hours (Wh) or Kilowatt-hours (kWh)
- POWER is the RATE that energy is produced or used and is denoted in Watts (W) or Kilowatts (kW)
For example, solar energy module output is denoted in Watts – the rate of POWER they will produce under Standard Test Conditions (i.e. a 220W rated module). Installed PV systems have a POWER production output rating in Watts, but they are also typically discussed in kWh’s – the amount of ENERGY the system will produce over a period of time. Here is an example from a SunEdison media article describing the completion of a 2.2MW system at the University of Maryland: “. . . . the 2.2MW (MW = Megawatt) rated farm will generate more than 3.3-million kWh of energy in the first year and over 61-million kWh over the next two decades.”
Rather than energy production, a simpler way to look at this terminology is from an energy use standpoint. Utilities and their customers are all looking for ways to reduce utility bills. Emphasis is put on lower POWER appliances and the amount of time we use them. ENERGY (the kWh charge on your bill) is calculated as follows:
Energy = Time X Power
An uncomplicated example is a 100 watt light bulb. One hundred watts is the POWER (rate) the bulb uses. If you leave that bulb on for 24 hours it consumes 2,400 watt-hours of ENERGY or 2.4 kilowatts.
Lowering of either or both the POWER and time, will lead to reductions in ENERGY costs. The converse is true of solar systems – increase the POWER rating of the system and multiply by a given time frame and the amount of ENERGY output will increase.
After a recent presentation during a government renewable energy conference, I received a number of questions regarding why there was such a large difference between crystalline solar cell efficiency and a fully packaged and weatherized module. For instance, a 19% efficient crystalline photovoltaic (PV) cell, when packaged into a module with 60 cells results in a panel that is roughly 15% – 16.5% efficient depending on the manufacturer. According to the NREL, the cell to module loss is in the 11% – 17% range for most manufacturers.
The losses are a result of three distinct issues. 1) physical layout of the PV module and framing, 2) optical loss from encapsulation and glass, and 3) series loss from cell connections
The physical layout of the module affects the efficiency by having a large inactive area, meaning the space between cells, the edge of the module and width of the frame. The larger the inactive area of a module, the lower the efficiency.
The optical loss is a less straightforward problem and has a number of challenges resulting from the top glass and the encapsulation film.
The top glass needs to have low reflectivity so the maximum amount of solar radiation reaches the solar cells. The glass choice has to balance a number of factors including thickness, to meet hailstorm impact rating; tempering, to meet safety standards; and optical clarity, for maximum radiation absorption by the PV cells. A good, if technical overview here.
The EVA encapsulation film used to protect modules from moisture and the elements require a similar balancing act. These include letting the maximum amount of solar radiation reach the cells, while maintaining a near-100% moisture barrier with no significant expansion or contraction of the film over the 20+ year life of the module. And it needs to do this without creating an overheating of the module in hot climates. A module with a high temperature coefficient (loss due to heat) is the
enemy of high solar power production.
The series loss is due to series resistance in the cells themselves and in the cell and string connectors. The cells themselves are made from silicon, which not as good as metal for transporting current, and its internal resistance is fairly high, resulting in current loss. This loss is compounded by copper ribbon (silver looking ribbon between cells) interconnection loss, and the cells’ series configuration in the module. While cells are put in series to meet a target voltage for a given module, this results in loss from the large number of connections.
There are a number of efforts underway to reduce this cell-to-module loss to 5% or less with novel approaches in all 3 areas. While the reduction to 5% has been achieved in national laboratories in an academic environment, the challenge always is to translate these new methods into a highly efficient manufacturing production line where throughput speed and yield (sellable product) are not compromised.
Another alarming piece in the NYT today on the Antarctic ice movement and its decline.
“Today we present observational evidence that a large sector of the West Antarctic ice sheet has gone
into irreversible retreat,” Dr. Rignot said in the NASA news conference. “It has passed the point of no return.”
The contribution of Antarctica melt to accelerating Greenland ice sheet melt water is more than alarming as the assumption that Antarctica would be slow to melt is incorrect. The heat-trapping gases could destabilize other parts of Antarctica as well as the Greenland ice sheet, potentially causing enough sea-level rise that many of the world’s coastal cities would eventually have to be abandoned.
“If we have indeed lit the fuse on West Antarctica, it’s very hard to imagine putting the fuse out,” Dr. Alley said. “But there’s a bunch more fuses, and there’s a bunch more matches, and we have a decision now: Do we light those?”
Hopefully we as a globally community can avoid lighting these remaining fuses. If we don’t, there may well be a demonstration of ecological overshoot resulting in a large reduction in the number of human inhabitants on earth starting in a 100 years from now.
Great piece from Tom Friedman this past Sunday on why a natural gas embargo on Ukraine and by extension Europe by Russia would be good thing for renewable energy and energy efficiency growth. Some excerpts:
“Because such an oil & gas shock, though disruptive in the short run, could have the same long-term impact as the 1973 Arab oil embargo — only more so. That 1973 embargo led to the first auto mileage standards in America and propelled the solar, wind and energy efficiency industries. A Putin embargo today would be even more valuable because it would happen at a time when the solar, wind, natural gas and energy efficiency industries are all poised to take off and scale.”
” . . . . Solar cells, for example, have dropped in cost by more than 80 percent in the last five years. This trend is underway, if a bit less dramatically, for wind, batteries, solid state lighting, new window technologies, vehicle drive trains, grid management, and more. What this means is that clean energy is moving from boutique to mainstream, and that opens up a wealth of opportunities.”
A gas embargo by Putin would also reinforce the message of the United Nations’ latest climate report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which warned with greater confidence than ever that human-created carbon emissions are steadily melting more ice, creating more dangerous sea level rise, stressing ecosystems around the globe and creating more ocean acidification, from oceans absorbing more C02 . . .”
“We are closer to both irreversible dangers on climate and scale solutions on clean tech than people realize. Just a little leadership now by America — or a little scare by Putin — would make a big difference.”
Everything you need to know about attracting mainstream capital to clean energy solutions.
A great read by Jigar Shah, founder of SunEdison, innovator of the solar power purchase agreement model and former CEO of the Carbon War Room. With real world examples in many energy related industries, Jigar outlines how entrepreneurs and investors can unlock the enormous potential that climate change represents. And how this can be done utilizing existing, commercial off-the-shelf technologies combined with new and innovative business models.
According to the International Energy Agency, $10 trillion can be invested profitably—today—in the world’s existing technologies, making Jigar’s plan of 100,000 companies each generating $100 million in sales a reality in catalyzing a new economy in the process.
A quote from the book that sums a large issue facing the solar industry, ““The utilities are playing this wrong, saying you’re with us or against us. It’s not the solar industry that’s the problem — it’s their refusal to recognize the benefits of new technologies.” I remember Jigar telling me years ago that the utilities where in trouble as distributed generation plants like solar are going to put an enormous pressure on them in the very near future. I was skeptical that the utility monopoly would be in trouble anytime soon.
Fast forward today and the writing is on the wall. With the exception of few forward thinking utilities, the majority are fighting back instead of embracing distributed generation and morphing their models to this new technological and business model. But this makes sense as the electric utilities have made large capital infrastructure and business investments with long amortization horizons and would of course fight for their profitability. Government regulators and the utility industry need to work on a coordinated and long road map fashion to transition to the rapidly evolving distributed generation model.Utility business model innovation can’t happen in a vacuum or without government guidance as its always been highly regulated contrary to the free market fundamentalist’s claims.
A good update from Lazard’s annual look at Levelized Cost of the Energy (LCOE) for alternative and conventional energy sources illustrates two interesting developments: 1) the continued progress of solar photovoltaics (PV) reduction of cost and competitiveness with conventional brown fuel generation and 2) the cost reductions in the battery storage market.
A key metric for project finance entities, PV LCOE has been significantly reduced by ongoing year-over-year cost reductions of PV hardware, balance of systems (including installation methods) and financing. The result has been a robust PV market both in North America and globally at a time when government support has been steadily declining. (LCOE is defined as all the expense line items of a PV system’s installed cost + the total lifetime cost of the PV system divided by the total amount of energy output in kW hours that the system will put out over its lifetime. A simple LCOE calculator here). A signifcant recent example is SunEdison’s utility scale PV project for the City of Austin which is supplying energy in year 1 at just under $0.05/kWh as part of a 20 year supply contract. This contract will likely save the city’s electricity rate payers money compared to conventional brown fuel sources.
The most interesting data in the Lazard report is the all-important progress of energy storage cost and performance. Renewable energy has large value generally when the renewable fuel source is available–when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. For example, in the early evening a solar array is winding down production at a time when the peak energy demand on the utility grid is still elevated. Solar battery storage significantly increases the value of solar during this time, as solar power stored in the batteries can service this demand at a competitive cost depending on the location.
In addition, solar battery and other storage media can also provide voltage, frequency regulation (Hz) and ramp rate control for PV systems, which enable grid operators to have more control and confidence in the interegrity of their grid with a large number of intermittent distributed resources on their systems.
Notably, energy storage is not required for renewables solely because of their inherent intermittent generation function. Some of the Independent System Operators who manage the transmision and distribution grids nationally need storage throughout their grid to manage their ongoing demand response and frequency regulation challenges. This is due mainly to localized issues such as in the PJM ISO where they have a dearth of energy generation and other grid architeture issues. PJM embraces and rewards energy storage operators whose storage, placed strategically throughout the grid, helps them smooth out demand spikes and control frequency swings.
In a future post I will review the various storage technologies including battery, compressed air, hydro and thermal.
“Imagine fuel without fear. No climate change. No oil spills, no dead coalminers, no dirty air . . . .
. . . . no devastated lands, no lost wildlife. No energy poverty. No oil-fed wars, tyrannies, or terrorists. No leaking nuclear wastes or spreading nuclear weapons. Nothing to run out. Nothing to cut off. Nothing to worry about. Just energy abundance, benign and affordable, for all, forever.
That richer, fairer, cooler, safer world is possible, practical, even profitable-because saving and replacing fossil fuels now works better and costs no more than buying and burning them.”
This is the lead in from the book “Reinventing Fire – Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era” by Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute. Mr. Lovins is a noted and award winning physicist and leading authority on energy. With this book, he provides a compelling road map for transitioning the energy mix in transportation, industry, residential and commercial buildings profitably and with great societal and economic gain. He demonstrates that it’s not just dreaming but its already happening with technology, business models large amounts of willing finance capital already established. As a global society we just need the political and economic will to make it happen. A great read. A TED talk by Amory Lovins on this book can be found here.
Employment change and family transitions in the last 18 months limited my time for blogging on the industry. Thanks to everyone who sent inquiries regarding my publication schedule and your questions and suggestions for future posts.
For 2014, I plan to spend more time on the subject of sustainability and the interaction point with energy generally and solar energy specifically.
2013 was clearly a large indicator of things to come. Super Storm Sandy, the decline and near extinction of the Monarch butterfly, the North Atlantic cod fishery collapse, Typhon Haiyan, extensive Australian drought and on and on. As a species, we humans are overunning the earth’s ability to support the systems that support our way of life. We are in massive ecological overshoot to the point of needing another 50% of earth’s renewable and non-renweable resources to meet our rapcious needs. Overshoot meaning when a population exceeds the long term carrying capacity of its environment.
From a great piece by Haley Smith Kingsland of the Global Footprint Network in Huffpo: ”Most Americans might be surprised to discover that it would take the ecosystems of 1.9 United States to regenerate the ecological resources U.S. residents use annually. Were Italy’s residents to use ecological resources produced solely within their country’s borders at their current rate, they would need 4 Italys. Japan’s residents demand the ecological resources of 7.1 Japans. It would take 1.8 Indias to support India. Egypt uses the ecological resources of 2.4 Egypts, and China the resources of 2.5 Chinas.”
The pace at which this overshoot problem is accelerationg is alarming as it exceeds even the least conservative modeling projections by the acedemic and scientific communities. How do we reign this in with all the competing nationalistic, econonmic and even religious factions?
It’s no secret that solar PV module costs have plummeted in the last 24 months. The improvements in non-module balance of systems (BOS) and installation processes are now leading the total installed cost reduction assault with less publicized but equally significant developments in solar PV hardware, software, process and logistics.
One intriguing development has been Gehrlicher Solar’s development and use of ground mount installation robotics to reduce the cost of installation of solar PV modules in the field. (disclosure – this author works with Gehrlicher) A great video of this robotic system in use can be found here.
Over the last 15 year’s, Gehrlicher has lead this BOS cost reduction race on a number of fronts including quick install racking, cost reducing wiring harnesses and other BOS components under the Gehrtec® brand. The company recently installed 34MWp’s of ground mount hardware and solar PV modules in 10 months in Germany which is a stunning illustration of this BOS progress.
€1/Watt ($1.50/Watt in US) installed is just around the corner, stay tuned!
I had the opportunity to attend the US Department of Energy’s inaugural lecture series “Energy AllStars, What’s Our Energy Future” in Washington DC on January 19. Dr. Steven Chu, outgoing Secretary of DOE gave another one of his adroit and compelling presentations, which started with a comparison of how technology solved an environmental problem caused by transportation in the late 1800’s – namely that major American urban centers like New York and Detroit were being fouled with 3 – 4 million pounds of horse manure and 40,000 gallons of urine per day by horse drawn carriages. A technology transition—the rise of the automobile—solved this problem in less than 30 years.He went on to show how the dire issues facing us as a result of climate change and its cost to insurance companies and taxpayers presents another technological and economic solution transition opportunity: this time with clean energy and energy efficiency. Dr. Chu’s presentation is one that the President Obama should give to the nation.
As compelling as Secretary Chu’s presentation was, the one that followed, by the energic and former Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, really got my attention. She outlined her experience of being powerless, despite valiant efforts, to stop manufacturing flight from Michigan and the resulting collapse of the middle class. But the Governor then outlined her Clean Energy Jobs Race to the Top proposition that is modeled on the highly successful Department of Education’s Race to the Top program. This program leveraged $4.5B in American Reconstruction & Reinvestment Act (aka stimulus package) funding by making competitive grants to state governments that instituted education reform and showed progress in many categories of improved education statistics. It’s a successful program that has received bipartisan accolades.
As Governor Granholm outlined, the beauty of this program is that it becomes non-partisan – who would say no to funds that are being offered on a structured basis that provides real value to each state? It respects the states and federalism while it builds on the leadership already demonstrated by many states on climate change, clean energy, and energy efficiency.
Her Clean Energy Jobs Race to the Top program would be on an opt-in basis working with a funding level similar to the Department of Education program. The price for entry would be to establish both demand side and supply side strategies. These include enacting a state level clean energy standard of something like 80% by 2035, establishing innovation centers via industry and education partnerships, and producing technology and clean energy that is indigenous to each region. Each state would do an analysis of its strengths and weaknesses and hone in on a strategy that would leverage their region’s unique capabilities. The overall goal is to show how many jobs can be created.
With the government stimulus program over, the question is how to fund a program like this given the current sad state of Capitol Hill. Governor Granholm posited 2 ideas that would be difficult but could be achieved. One is to leverage philanthropic foundations such at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google and others, where they provide capital that can then be matched by other private and government sources. The second, and I think the most interesting, is to repatriate some of the large amount of corporate money now offshored in tax havens with a program that would have low tax basis for investing in the program, resulting in enormous business opportunities that would benefit all of US industry.
Clearly there are many questions and challenges to this proposition but the basic framework she provided is clever, could have legs and create massive change with little money spent. To paraphrase the Governor, “Truly, we have an obligation as a nation to fix the problem of the hollowing out the middle class and to achieve energy independence by creating clean energy jobs.”