-
This sixteenth edition of Photovoltaics International marks four years of production of the quarterly journal. As always, our focus is on efficiency and quality improvement and cost reduction in manufacturing. As 2012 rolls along, companies are falling by the wayside due to supply and demand issues, ASP declines and drastic governmental subsidy cuts. A clear picture of 2012 is offered through papers from the likes of TÜV Rheinland, Fraunhofer ISE, SEMI PV Group and EPIA, amongst others.
-
This digital interactive Lite sees Tom Cheyney follow Agua Caliente’s progress on becoming one of first truly utility-scale PV power farms, where 40–50MW (AC) will be commissioned by the end of the year. We also feature one of the world’s largest silicon thin-film PV power plants, Avenal; a report on warnings of the collapse of module prices from Solarbuzz and PI-Berlin presents tips on PV module testing. A print version of this edition will be distributed at Solar Power International 2011 in Dallas, Texas.
-
Manufacturing the Solar Future 2012, the second in the Photovoltaics International PV Production Annual series, delivers the next installment of in-depth technical manufacturing information on PV production processes.
Comments
To gildas le goff claiming inconsistancy: There is a delay in the pricing for rec modules compared with the fbr price. They state in the report that they will use the market price during q1 2012. This was not done in q4 2011 (basically at contract 50$ per kg prices or around that level) so that is why you have the so called “inconsistnancy” you claim. I have written and research a lot on rec FBR-a the last two years and know what i am talking about. Nasa did a research on the fbr technology allready in the 1980 and the theoretical limit for a 1000MT plant was at around 10$ per kg at that time. So you can imagine rec can achive at around those levels now with 20000 MT plant.
About the increase form 16.8 to 18 they allready demonstrated 17.8 in the one line the uppgraded. If you actually read the q4 report you would know all this. So again this is not impossible. They allready proven it in q4 2011!
4. 10 eurocents is totaly achivable. How are you exactly calculating? If you have polysilicon at 30$ per kg and you use 5 grams per watt = 30* 0.005 = 15 cents. If you have price at 25$ per kg and 4,5 gram per watt = 11 cents per watt. Notice that is dollars so if you convert to eurocents your allready there… Again your showing your ignorance on the subject.
5. TO conclude you dont have a clue about what your talking.
And to the author. My heartfelt thanks to you for actually writing a balanced report on rec. Yes they did major write downs, yes the wafer segment is suffering badly..this is all true. But at the same time they have world leading fbr cost and the module and cell in singapore are doing well and with chinese wafers they would be world leading also here.
thank you Eystein for your additional comment.
Effectivally you can find on REC web site some information - Next-Si datasheet - on the adventage of blinding FBR and Poly-Si (50 % / 50%). As a summary you are reducing the filling time by 40 % and at the sametime increasing the weight of the charged Si by 29 %. this means more blocks molted per day with the same equipment and less energy required per kg of Si.
I remember 2 years ago that most of the industry was doubting of the reallity of the FBR process. As a reminder, I remeber having seen a study (sorry cannot find back the source) stating that the theoretical limits for siemens in the 18 $/ kg (of course with Chinese condition and low cost hydropower ; or elecricalpower almost given by a sister company see GCL) .
I believe that if the Poly cost stays in the 25-30 $ for the next years (and even lower at 20 $ for the end of 2011), REC may surfer, but for sure the other major one OCI, Wacker, Heimlock, GCL and LDK will be in trouble if we are considering there production cost of 25 to 27 $/ kg (and 20-22 for the best one).
Morelikely within 5 year the poly price shall stabilize around 35-40 $ else I cannot see how Companies will be able to justify additional high investments (60 to 80 $/ kg) to increase Poly capacity. Else around 2015 we will see some more capacities closure and then a return to shortage and the crazyness of 2005-2008.
The difficulty for now is to find investors ready to postpone immediate pay back for 3 to 5 years in order to bet on the solar industry. So far this is what China is doing wiht its loan to LDK and GCL, the chosen white Knights.
If the industries would have the same relative decline than the solar with only a nearly 10 % increase of sales in 2011, I don’t think anybody would talk about crisis today.
REC has done some mistake in the past (over investing in Norway for instance and a pretty poor management of project in the 2007 Poly project) but this company is leaning. More important if you have a more closer look to ist report over the last three years almost each time REC reports a loss this is due to write off. REC is still producing cash. The main weekness of REC is its share holdr Orkla who whats to get out of Solar industry.
For the one who believe in solar development, this is a passionating field.
Nice overview that also frames some of the nonsense people talk about $0.70 / watt module selling prices in Q1/12. But some of the math and accounting is a little hard to fathom.
To reduce the depreciation element of FBR from $16/kg to $7/kg in two years the throughput of a facility must more than double. Are they that bad at the moment?
To reduce the cash production costs from $23/kg to $13/kg implies tremendous reduction in energy input per kg since the other cash production costs are hardly going to budge - what MJ/kg are they estimating for the FBR lines?
I can follow that, depending on how they do transfer pricing between their business units (maybe upstream sells at $30/kg spot), the silicon cost / watt of Singapore modules can drop as indicated, but please explain how the non-silicon costs will also halve and the depreciation drop by more than 60% per watt?
Hi RECordman…
1-Charts 1/4, 2/4, and 4/4 are not consistent, and Q4’12 target is more a wishlist for Santa than a realistic one.
2-Chart 1/4 is about polySi Cost by FBR process, with a 12% decrease target in Q4’12 against Q4’11 (@23$/kg v 26$/kg and quasi constant FBR cash cost of 13$/kg v 14$/kg).
Graph 2/4 is about Singapore Module Cost with a 31% decrease ( 70 EuroCents/W v 101 EuroCents/W), including a 45% decrease in the supply “silicon at market price”, more than 3 times the 12% decrease indicated for the “silicon-FBR” target in Graph 1/4 ( 23$/kg v 26$/kg).
3-It is totally impossible, and only good for PR people, even taking into account the totally irrealistic increase of 6,7% on the average cell efficiency climbing from 16,8% in Q4’11 to 18% for the total 2012 year….(see chart 4/4)....or there is a typo on chart 2/4…
4-By maths, the 10 EuroCents/W “silicon at the market cost” in the 70 EuroCents/W Q4’12 target, can only be achieved by REC’s FBR cells with a whooping 21,6% efficiency…..
New World RECord for multiSi cells, and REC is the best candidate for 2012 Physics Nobel Prize….
5-To conclude, it’s not a Q4’12 target but a superb Santa’s wishlist….
Best Regards
Gildas leGoff
Thank you for blogging about REC. Historically when REC has given a goal for its operation it has overachived this. So 13$ cash cost for fbr could be evne lower than this. I made a write up about rec FBR a year ago and the theoretical limit back in the 1980s when nasa did research on FBR was 10$ per kg. If your interested in reading: http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/901705-eysteinh/190594-a-closer-look-at-renewable-energy-rec-ol-pk-silicon-divison
What was new for me this q4 report was the aggresive pricing they use to gain market share. I think they decided to push the cost advantage. Also while some may claim that FBR has a bit lower quality, it has also a granular form factor that gives transportation advantage and crucible load advantages.
Great article Mark.