Archive for the ‘Solar’ Category
Thursday, February 25th, 2010
Early February saw 2010’s first concentration of M&A activity in the solar market. First, French nuclear power giant Areva acquired Ausra, a linear Fresnel lens solar thermal plant equipment supplier. Ausra struggled in early 2009 as investment in solar thermal installations all but halted (see the February 5, 2009 LRSJ – client registration required), and changed focus from a power plant developer to an equipment provider. The company was rumored to be up for sale since mid-2009. The Areva-Ausra match-up could breathe life into Ausra’s low-cost solar plant technology, and use the experience and reach of Areva’s power plant equipment business to push forward solar thermal installations.
Meanwhile, dish Stirling solar thermal technology developer Infinia raised $11.5 million in an equity financing round. This follows a $50 million capital raise mid-2009, and a $58 million raise in April 2008. Infinia competes directly with Stirling Energy Systems, which received $100 million in financing from NTR in May 2008.
The hoard of cash flowing into solar thermal component developers follows the acquisition of leading parabolic trough technology provider Solel by Siemens for $418 million in October 2009. But two questions remain.
First, who’s next to buy? Large component firms, including energy and defense firms, may see a strong fit between their competencies and the large-scale, highly regulated processes required for solar thermal plant execution. As for targets, we’ll keep our eyes on three firms:
- Heliostat and power tower developer BrightSource Energy, which continues to execute in plant development
- Linear Fresnel lens and parabolic trough developer SkyFuel, which offers a lower-cost technology option and potentially lower price tag, and
- Power tower technology developer eSolar, which recently signed a licensing agreement for a 2 GW facility in China
The second question is tougher to answer. Where is all that solar thermal set to go? While 50 MW plant installations continue in Spain, regulatory issues continue to dog the U.S. market (see also the January 7, 2010 LRSJ – client registration required). Clients should expect large-scale wrangling among new solar thermal owners as they push through complex solar thermal projects and offer the reliability, and balance sheet, needed to get the huge projects off the ground.
All of this stands in sharp contrast to IPO activity among photovoltaic technology firms. In Q4 2009, Trony Solar indefinitely postponed its IPO followed by Daqo, a Chinese polysilicon producer, which filed (see the January 21, 2010 LRSJ – client registration required), then lowered, and then in January postponed its IPO. Then, earlier this month, Jinko Solar – a vertically integrated ingot, wafer, and cell producer, joined the list and withdrew its IPO due to “poor market conditions.”
Even the completed IPO of U.S.-based STR Holdings in Q4 2009 yielded lackluster results after repricing twice in the days ahead (see the November 5, 2009 LRSJ – client registration required).
While the general market slump since the first of the year will put investors off, their greater concern likely lies in the volatility of the subsidy-driven solar market – and with good reason. A fresh storm of price cuts and continued margin pressure is brewing for late 2010.
Tags: BrightSource Energy, Daqo, eSolar, Infinia, Jinko Solar, SkyFuel, Stirling Energy Systems, STR Holdings, Trony Solar
Posted in Solar |
Friday, January 29th, 2010
Panasonic finally inked its purchase of Sanyo last month. After plans for the takeover became public more than a year ago (see the November 5, 2008 LRPJ – client registration required), the deal was stalled by anti-monopoly regulatory concerns, which forced the pair to sell some nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) battery assets. With those concerns behind it, Panasonic will now be the dominant player in many markets, including large-format NiMH batteries (see the July 1, 2009 LRPJ – client registration required), battery packs for hybrid- and all-electric vehicles (via Panasonic’s JV with Toyota), and Li-ion batteries, where Sanyo and Panasonic were the largest and sixth largest manufacturers, respectively.
The deal means that automotive companies will have fewer options for mass-produced lithium-ion cells for electric vehicles, driving current customers of Panasonic and Sanyo to seek out other qualified battery suppliers – such as LG Chemical’s Compact Power, or Johnson Controls-Saft (JCS) – to maintain multiple sources.
At the same time, however, the acquisition bodes well for Panasonic’s ability to reduce cost in its Li-ion cells, as it can now greatly increase volume. Because of this, the merger of Panasonic and Sanyo will encourage other lithium-ion battery manufacturers to consolidate in order to share similar economies of scale. Clients should expect to see other major tie-ups in the near future as the lithium-ion shakeout comes to fruition (see the December 16, 2009 LRPJ – client registration required).
Further, the acquisition gives Panasonic a strong position in the solar industry, since it now controls Sanyo’s efficiency-leading “heterojunction with intrinsic thin layer” (HIT) cell technology. Sanyo ranks #15 in cell manufacturers by capacity as of Q3 2009 (see the Lux Solar Supply Tracker- client registration required), and its cells top even those of U.S.-based SunPower in the high efficiency segment. Further, Sanyo already has plans in place to aggressively ramp cell capacity to a total of 345 MW by the end of 2010, and to boost ingot and wafer capacity in Oregon, which will total 70 MW when fully ramped in April 2010. All told, the company plans to boost module capacity to a total of 600 MW by the end of this year.
Overall, that puts Panasonic in a very strong position to capitalize on the U.S. residential rooftop market, as well as the high-efficiency panel market in Japan, which is expected to grow in 2010 due to new subsidies. However, a number of competitors, such as Suntech and JA Solar, are making a push into the high-efficiency segment with competing technologies. Although these will likely prove more cost-competitive than Sanyo’s, they’re unlikely to top 20% efficiency. Further, we have recently heard of a Silicon Valley start-up targeting silicon inks for this “selective emitter” technology that is up for sale after exhausting funding; interested clients should contact lr.inquiry@luxresearchinc.com for more details.
Tags: Panasonic, Sanyo
Posted in Alternative Power, Solar |
Friday, January 15th, 2010
 Click on image to open larger version. While photovoltaic (PV) cells and modules attract most attention from solar industry watchers, the other elements comprising a PV power plant – called the balance of systems (BOS) – have barely earned a second glance. Yet, these components account for slightly more than 50% of the cost of a total system.
BOS components generally fall into three categories:
- Mounting, which includes racking and tracking systems
- Power electronics, which includes inverters and maximum power point tracking devices; and
- Installation, which includes the engineering and design work, as well as the actual labor of putting a system in place
Although not as glamorous as active PV elements, BOS components offer a largely untapped opportunity to improve the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for solar installations. Presented as cost per kilowatt-hour ($/kWh), LCOE measures the total lifetime cost of a solar installation. Put another way, reducing BOS costs could bring solar technology one step closer to grid parity.
From our analysis of BOS components – detailed in our recent report, “Balance of Systems: The Next Step to Grid Parity” – we found that labor presents the biggest opportunity for reducing overall system cost reductions. Because wage rates are typically fixed, high labor costs for solar system installation have been viewed fatalistically, as a bitter pill that must be swallowed. However, this view may be misguided. By both reducing the quantity and the quality of labor hours to install a system, integrators possess the largest lever for cost reductions on the BOS side. This will require thoughtful integration of the numerous BOS components to optimize each for reduced labor costs – even if it sometimes increases component cost.
Posted in Solar |
Thursday, January 7th, 2010
Late last year, the Chinese government began taking more aggressive steps to shore up the financial position of key polysilicon producers, which had been struggling due to the price collapse of polysilicon during 2009. First, on November 17, LDK Solar announced that it had sold a 15% stake in its 15,000 MT polysilicon plant in Xinyu, China. The stake went to Jiangxi International Trust and Investment, an investment arm of the provincial government, for RMB 1.5 billion ($219 million) – valuing just the polysilicon plant at $1.46 billion.
Then, two days later, GCL Silicon announced that it had sold 20% of the company to China Investment Corporation – a state-sponsored investment vehicle – through the issuance of new shares to raise about $715 million. Additionally, GCL secured investment for a joint venture company to develop solar projects, with a total investment of $500 million. The latter move resembled those of MEMC, SunPower and others who have sought to integrate downstream to ensure demand (see the October 29, 2009 LRSJ – client registration required).
These two investments are notable in that they show more drastic action by government agencies to shore up favored polysilicon manufacturers. Chinese import restrictions on polysilicon helped to buoy the price of the material just a few months ago (see the August 20, 2009 LRSJ – client registration required) – but apparently not enough. The subsequent steps demonstrate the most overt case of government support to date.
Companies in the U.S. and Europe have long complained about the stealthy industrial subsidies received by Chinese firms, arguing that Chinese imports should be restricted on these grounds, and this case gives them the strongest ammunition yet to argue for protectionism predicated on unfair government subsidies. Expect the case for protectionism to continue to heat up as prices fall and European manufacturers struggle to cut costs to remain competitive.
Further, the new funds all but guarantee capacity ramp of these two major players, and this significant amount of capacity coming online over the next few years will further depress the prices of polysilicon, and make it difficult for smaller, independent players to exist. Indeed, increasingly, polysilicon makers can be divided into three groups: incumbents (such as MEMC, Hemlock, Wacker, and REC); state-sponsored firms (GCL, LDK, and Nitol); and those tied up with major device manufacturers (Fine Silicon, Asia Silicon, Joint Solar Silicon). Though a few exceptions, such as OCI and M.Setek, will likely weather the storm, it will be tough going for players without a corporate or government sponsor with deep pockets.
Tags: Asia Silicon, Fine Silicon, GCL Silicon, Hemlock Semiconductor, Joint Solar Silicon, LDK Solar, M.Setek, MEMC, Nitol, OCI, REC, SunPower, Wacker Polisilicon
Posted in Solar |
Friday, December 11th, 2009
We recently met with Takao Inoue of the newly formed Innovation Network Corporation of Japan (INCJ) in Tokyo. Formed through the support of Japan’s government, INCJ aims to encourage development of emerging technologies, as well as the adoption of an “open innovation” model among Japanese corporations. The vision is to enable industrial giants from Sony to Toyota to develop new products more rapidly by accessing inventions from universities, start-ups or other large corporations. Inoue explained that INCJ has been given 90 billion yen ($1.0 billion) to invest, with commitments for up to 900 billion yen ($10.2 billion) over the next 15 years. The Japanese government committed to providing 90% of the funds, with the balance coming from private firms, such as domestic leaders like Panasonic and Tokyo Electric Power, and overseas player like General Electric. INCJ plans to pursue investments in “environment and energy, life sciences, electronics, machinery and components and advanced materials,” with additional areas possible in the future.
As part of its role, INCJ will serve as an early-stage venture capital (VC) or angel investor. It will provide funds to secure promising intellectual property from universities and government labs, and back start-ups and spin-outs – filling a gap in which traditional Japanese VCs have been unwilling to invest more than small sums. However, Inoue-san noted, INCJ’s mission isn’t limited to early-stage investments. It will also provide larger investments to fill capacity expansions and project finance needs – a role that’s missing in the West as much as Japan. Such projects require larger sums than VCs are willing to offer, or impose too much technological risk to entice traditional private equity investors.
It’s still early days for INCJ. The firm was established in June, and won’t make its first investments until early 2010. But clients should watch to see if it can maintain its political and private support, and succeed in bridging gaps in Japan’s existing financing model, which make the country poorly suited to fund emerging technologies in energy, environment and materials.
Posted in Alternative Power, Biosciences, Nanomaterials, Solar, Water |
Friday, November 20th, 2009
The mood was decidedly upbeat at the Solar Power International conference in Anaheim, Calif. The crowd – mostly downstream installers and developers – was preparing for a boost in U.S. subsidies in 2010, which will likely lead to a surge in new projects. In addition, module manufacturers said that they have been seeing significant price stabilization, and even some price increases thanks to year-end demand from Germany before that country steps down feed-in tariffs early next year.
Some players – typically second-tier Chinese manufacturers such as Hareon Solar, Wangxiang Solar, and ENN Solar – spoke of price stabilization as justification for further capacity expansions, most were more cautious. For instance, Moser Baer is continuing to hold off expansion on its 40 MW TF-Si line from Applied Materials until it is more comfortable with the direction of market demand and pricing. It thinks the current surge in demand and pricing is only temporary. Even so, the company plans on ramping its crystalline silicon (x-Si) cell and module facilities from 80 MW today to 180 MW by mid 2010, a clear statement that the company expects x-Si to outperform TF-Si in the short term.
In addition to these developments, we picked up news of expansions and new products from a number of other companies.
Amonix recently expanded its facility in Seal Beach, Calif., to 30 MW for trackers and module pre-assemblies. The company also expects to close “any day” on a new round of financing that will enable it to add another 300 MW by 2012 in two “satellite” manufacturing facilities. They’ll likely to be located close to the point of installation. Investors were not disclosed, but expect existing investors MissionPoint and Kleiner Perkins to top the list.
Tigo Energy released a new series-level maximum power point tracking (MPPT) management unit for residential systems. By enabling higher voltages, the device can interface with more efficient inverters. With its older parallel structure, the MPPT solution limited voltages and thus reduced inverter efficiency. VP of Marketing Jeff Krisa noted this problem still plagues Tigo competitors by limiting system efficiency (inverter plus MPPT) to the low 90% range. Tigo received UL certification for its new MPPT device in September, and plans a smaller form-factor version that can be integrated into module framing during manufacturing to allow panels to be mounted flush to the roof. The company also has plans to develop a maximizer that can be built into the junction box of a module, likely in collaboration with Tyco. But this product will come out later in 2010. Another important point Jeff shared was that Tigo expects long-term revenue to come not through device sales, but rather through sales of micro-level production data from modules and systems to utilities. Such data would enable utilities to balance load and generation effectively in their smart-grid infrastructures.
Infinia, a developer of Stirling solar thermal dish systems for utility applications, unveiled its 3 kW engine to significant interest. Its system was much more compact and simple than Stirling Energy Systems’ competing 25 kW engine, which occupied the next booth. Stirling Energy’s engine stood over eight feet high, and in direct contrast to Infinia’s two-foot-high design. Plus, with multiple vents and exposed components, Stirling’s engine was much more open to the elements. Infinia reported that its system must covert AC power from the engine to DC and then invert back to grid-friendly AC. This essentially doubles the number of power converters per MW. However, the company said pilot installations have not shown inverter failure – likely due to the sterilized DC power fed into the inverter. The company hopes to have some new announcements soon on the financing and project development front.
Tags: Amonix, Applied Materials, ENN Solar, Hareon Solar, Infinia, Kleiner Perkins, MissionPoint, Moser Baer, Stirling Energy Systems, Tigo Energy, Tyco, Wangxiang Solar
Posted in Solar |
Friday, November 13th, 2009
 Crystalline silicon (x-Si) PV modules comprise the largest and most established portion of the photovoltaic (PV) module market, holding roughly 81% of the global PV market in 2008. These x-Si modules also have significant penetration in all sizes of grid-tied applications – from residential to large-scale utility installations.
A handful of large, top-tier manufacturers dominate the market, but smaller start-ups with differentiated technologies are still entering. As the module oversupply rolls through 2009 and 2010, some crystalline silicon module manufacturers will be at the heart of the shakeout.
Examining the performance of companies in this technology area, we find that:
- Large corporations with differentiated technologies are among the strongest performers.Many of the highest ranking companies are large corporations that stand out due to top-level high-efficiency products and large corporate backing. Their backing provides support for module warranties, capacity expansions, pricing battles, and technology development.
- New competition from low-cost manufacturers is driving down the value of European leaders. European module manufacturers with high-quality x-Si module technologies are beginning to struggle as module production becomes increasingly commoditized. Their quality advantage is beginning to slide as new low-cost manufacturers gain access to higher-quality materials, dropping their scores on technical value scale.
- Even with promising technologies, start-ups face formidable barriers to growth. The most successful pure-play solar firms got an early start in the market, and offer either differentiated technologies, sharp business execution, or both. New entrants to the solar market need more than a novel design or slight technical advantage to succeed. Companies building capacity, especially those based on a novel technology, score lower than those with existing capacity because they must play catch-up with more traditional and established manufacturers. The outlook is increasingly bleak for start-ups with unique technologies that are yet to build production capacity.
Tags: Advent Solar, Aleo Solar, Beijing Zhongkexin Electronics, Best Solar, BP Solar, Canadian Solar, Centrosolar, Conergy, Day4 Energy, EGging, ET Solar, Evergreen Solar, Hyundai Heavy Industries, IBC Solar, Isofoton, Jetion, Jinko Solar, Kyocera Solar, Millinet Solar, Mitsubishi Electric, Mosel Vitelic, Moser Baer, NanoGram, NingBo Solar, Perfectenergy, Perlight Solar, REC Group, Sanyo, Schott Solar, Sharp, Solarfun, Solaria y Energia, SolarWorld, Solon, Sovello, SpectraWatt, SunPower, Suntech Power, Sunways, Topray Solar, Trina Solar, Wanxiang Solar, x-Si Module Makers, Yingli
Posted in Solar |
Friday, November 6th, 2009
We recently attended the Rusnanotech 2009 conference in Moscow, a massive forum and exposition put on by Russian state-owned technology investment fund Rusnano.
The event opened with a flourish: Russia’s President Dmitri Medvedev gave an opening address, in which he announced his government’s firm intention to remake the Russian economy more innovative and technology-based. His vision was of a Russia in which emerging technologies in energy, information technology, infrastructure, and medicine played a stronger role. This vision would unfold even as the economic crisis that dealt such a blow to Russia’s resource extraction industries begins to abate.
“Our post-crisis economy must be based on knowledge, on new technology, not on the raw material potential of Russia,” Medvedev declared. Medvedev touted Rusnano’s plans to spend 318 billion rubles ($10.9 billion) through 2015 to help that vision become a reality. Also, the President didn’t shy away from citing what he views as the obstacles to high technology in Russia, including conservatism of incumbent firms — “business has not been proactive enough” — concerns about corruption, and the need for legal frameworks to support entrepreneurship and guarantee a long-term market for new technologies.
Medvedev and Rusnano’s CEO Anatoly Chubais both cited Rusnano’s goal of boosting the output of nano-enabled products in Russia to 900 billion rubles ($31 billion) — by which point we anticipate $2.5 trillion in nano-enabled products worldwide.
However, Rusnano takes a much broader view of its mission than its “nano-focused” brand would imply. Indeed, clients should view Rusnano’s role as supporting emerging technology in Russia in general, not just as what’s usually defined as “nanotechnology.”
Witness, for instance, its investment in polysilicon producer Nitol (see the May 1, 2008 LRSJ and September 10, 2009 LRSJ — client registration required). This will likely prove solid moves given the solar industry’s demand for low-cost polysilicon, and Nitol’s access to cheap electricity that can allow cost-effective production. But it doesn’t qualify as something that we, or most observers, would consider nanotech.
Walking the exhibition floor at the event, we spoke to a diverse range of firms seeking investments from Rusnano. Among them was the solar division of Konti, which offers bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells like those made by Sanyo (see the September 24, 2009 LRSJ — client registration required). Konti is seeking funds to expand from 5 MW of production to 60 MW by 2012.
Another firm seeking Rusnano investment was Russian Superconductor, a project of Atom Invest, the investment arm of Rosatom. The firm was using its parents’ support for work on superconductors for power cables and fault current limiter, much like those pursued by American Superconductor (see the June 3, 2009 LRPJ — client registration required).
All told, Chubais noted, Rusnano has approved €1.2 billion ($1.8 billion) worth of investment in 36 projects, which have pulled in a total of €2.1 billion ($3.1 billion) including other private investments.
There’s clearly some distance to go before Russia becomes a high-tech powerhouse, but its goal of 900 billion rubles of products is certainly achievable, especially under the broader umbrella of technologies Rusnano pursues. On the positive side of the ledger is the vast sums Rusnano deploys. It plans to invest €3 billion ($4.5 billion) through 2015. That has clearly attracted a lot of interest and activity in these technology areas. On the other hand, changing the business culture to a more entrepreneurial one will be a slow process, and excessive bureaucracy continues to gum up the works for innovation in Russia. Even for emerging technology events like Rusnanotech: One invited speaker at the event lamented the need to collect 20 different signatures just to get her travel expenses reimbursed.
Nonetheless, Russia’s commitment to emerging technologies looks real. President Medvedev emphasized, “we can’t just relax and give up on nanotech as global economy recovers, and go back to just supplying energy.” Clients should expect Russia to increasingly become a global player in areas like nanotech, solar, power, and medicine. The question is whether it will be a minor one, or whether it could ultimately rival major movers like the nations of Western Europe.
Posted in Alternative Power, Nanomaterials, Solar |
Friday, October 16th, 2009
The mood was decidedly somber at the 24th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition (PVSEC), which took place in Hamburg, Germany earlier this month. Companies from all segments of the solar value chain told us that, despite a significant uptick in demand in recent weeks, they were reluctant to commit to significant capacity increases for the foreseeable future. Our contacts attributed the demand spurt to the usual cyclical growth in installations toward the end of the year (in advance of the annual downward readjustment of German subsidies).
Attendees with whom we spoke also blamed their noncommittal attitude on last year’s events in Spain (see February 26, 2009 LRSJ: client registration required). Namely, they acknowledged they “messed up” in building out capacity too quickly following the introduction of Spanish subsidies, and consequently planned to scale up significantly only after a market had proven itself to be sustainable.
As a result, very few companies are forecasting capacity increases in Q2 2010 and beyond. Even those who gave some indication of future capacity quickly emphasized they were making rough guesses that might have no practical bearing. While such a measured approach is certainly welcome after the hysteria of the recent past, overreacting in the other direction will only add to the growing sense of uncertainty in the marketplace. That, in turn, could potentially force established players to cede market share to new entrants as demand growth returns as we project in 2010. (see the report “Finding the Solar Market’s Nadir” (client registration required).
The low cost of Chinese x-Si products
While at the PVSEC, we also had several conversations contrasting output of Chinese crystalline silicon (x-Si) cell/module manufacturers with that of their European and Korean counterparts. Products out of China are usually far cheaper than those from their competitors, which Europeans and Koreans both insist is the result of poorer materials, lower product quality and more lax environmental compliance. The Chinese counter that the disparity in price is simply a matter of far lower labor and operational costs, and claim their products are essentially indistinguishable from a quality perspective.
Having seen the specifications and performance profiles from various suppliers, we tend to agree with the Chinese – at least for high quality players such as Yingli Green Energy and Solarfun and increasingly Suntech Power, with its new high performance Pluto cell architecture.
The power performance of Chinese products is comparable to the rest, especially as they come up the manufacturing learning curve, although it’s hard to judge factors like maintenance costs. In fact, there was very little in the x-Si world to set any manufacturer of classical x-Si cells/modules apart from the rest — which seems to justify the momentum towards outsourced OEM relationships for module production recently announced by BP Solar and strongly hinted at by SunPower and REC Group.
On x-Si and thin-film competition
Most x-Si companies do not anticipate serious competition from thin-film technologies, other than First Solar. Indeed, most x-Si cell manufacturers that we spoke with have tested thin-film technologies, and consequently stepped back from it due to current and forecasted x-Si pricing. Instead, they’ve preferred to maintain their war chests to make opportunistic acquisitions in case a disruptive technology emerges. SunPower, Kyocera, and SolarWorld have all publicly advocated this strategy, while maintaining that they intend to stay with x-Si for the time being, as crashing prices will make it difficult for any new thin-technology to succeed.
Although we see x-Si technologies continuing to dominate for some time, it’s shortsighted to adopt the semiconductor industry’s mantra of “never bet against silicon,” especially in a market with as many diverse applications and technologies as solar. Indeed, the Q-Cells approach of sowing multiple speculative investments looks wise; while CSG Solar was a disastrous money-sink, CIGS investment Solibro looks poised to realize significant upside, and TF-Si developer Sunfilm and CdTe investment Calyxo are also potential successes, albeit at smaller scale.
Posted in Solar |
Monday, September 28th, 2009
Last week, JA Solar and Innovalight jointly announced a partnership to develop Innovalight’s cell design “using silicon ink technology and conventional silicon wafers,” which has already shown 18% cell efficiencies. As we outlined in the latest Innovalight briefing (see the February 19, 2009 LRSJ), this technology is likely a take-off on Sanyo’s “heterojunction with intrinsic thin layer” (HIT) cells. In these cells, Sanyo adds thin layers of intrinsic (undoped) and p-type (positive-charge-carrying) amorphous silicon (a-Si) on one side of a high quality n-type (negative-charge-carrying) monocrystalline (c-Si) wafer, and intrinsic and n-type a-Si layers on the other. In doing so, it makes the crystalline silicon wafer into a multi-junction solar cells, increasing the range of light it can absorb and convert into electricity – achieving cell efficiencies up to 22%. Though the details of its approach are unconfirmed, Innovalight may print p-doped, n-doped, and intrinsic silicon nanoparticles onto monocrystalline wafers, followed by an annealing process to complete the cell structure. The partnership with JA Solar is a boon for Innovalight, which struggled to commercialize applications based on its silicon nanoparticles since 2002. While the development and qualification process will be long for the new cell design, JA Solar’s participation is the best vote of confidence thus far of Innovalight’s technology.
Also last week, Kaneka – a leading thin-film silicon module producer – announced that it will invest ¥1.5 billion ($16.4 million) in a three-year agreement with leading European research institute IMEC to develop solar cells based on a “hybrid” of crystalline silicon solar cells and amorphous silicon, with the target of 20% cell efficiency within three years. Once again, the announcement strongly suggests that Kaneka and IMEC will pursue a cell concept similar to Sanyo’s HIT cells. The participation of IMEC suggests that Kaneka will also pursue nanoparticle (or non-vacuum deposition) routes to a HIT-style cell structure. With Sanyo’s HIT cell patents expiring in the next several years, the HIT cell concept offers an attractive option for crystalline silicon cell developers to boost their efficiencies with a well-known design. As competition in the crystalline silicon module market intensifies throughout 2010 and 2011, clients should expect lots of cell developers to pursue alternative crystalline silicon structures – including the HIT cell, emitter wrap-though, and back contact cell designs – “behind the scenes” in the effort to gain market share in the high-efficiency, high-power-density residential and commercial rooftop markets.
Posted in Nanomaterials, Solar |
|
|
