Setting the record straight on Solyndra

Nearly $1 billion in venture capital funding, a massive U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee, and a disruptive technology tabbed to translate United States clean technology innovation into economic growth have kept mentions of Solyndra alive in the business press and solar industry circles well past its demise. A number of interconnected conclusions have been drawn. Some are true, some are false, others lie in the middle. Among them:

Claim: Unexpected drops in polysilicon prices destroyed Solyndra’s business case.

Reality: Indeed, polysilicon prices falling from the order of hundreds of dollars per kilogram to roughly $50/kg today – and destined to fall further – rippled downstream, allowing module prices to fall from $3.80/W in 2008 to $1.50/W today. However, the drop was hardly unexpected. In February 2009, the Lux Research State of the Market Report “Finding the Solar Market’s Nadir” (client registration required) stated: “…in 2009, securing polysilicon will cease to be a major concern for an industry plagued by module oversupply, and polysilicon prices look ready to fall, even before the material goes into oversupply relative to x-Si manufacturing capacity in late 2009.”

Claim: Chinese manufacturing will always win thanks to significant governmental support.

Reality: While Chinese government support allows for ease in scaling production, it wasn’t a problem for Solyndra. Solyndra set up two fabs – extremely advanced facilities, at that. Fab 2 was constructed with former manufacturing mistakes in mind, featuring highly-automated processes and set to maximize yields and throughput. However, the company’s low yields and high production costs are design constraints – and certainly not borne of a lack of governmental support or competition from industry elsewhere. We warned of Solyndra’s high manufacturing costs over a year ago: “manufacturability proving difficult with low yields, and costs remain very high…positive gross margins a moving target” (see the June 10, 2010 LRSJ – client registration required).  The company’s investors believed it would win, and the loan guarantee program did its job in enabling the company to scale operations, and providing the opportunity for the company to prove its technology a competitive option; failure to do so was the fault of Solyndra alone. States will continue to offer support of the industry domestically, and companies will continue to manufacture in the U.S. – Stion and Calisolar are scaling in Mississippi, while Solopower plans to ramp operations in Oregon.

Claim: The solar industry in the United States is now doomed.

Reality: Just because high-cost players like Solyndra, Evergreen, and Spectrawatt couldn’t survive in the face of falling prices – a necessary step towards achieving grid parity – doesn’t mean the industry will turns its back on U.S. demand. In addition to Stion, Calisolar, and Solopower, downstream participants like SolarCity, SunRun, and Verengo are expanding operations in the U.S. Installers, developers, and integrators are poised to capitalize on U.S. market growth, and in doing so, will succeed where Solyndra failed (see the September 15, 2011 LRSSJ – client registration required).

Separate from each argument about Solyndra’s product or implications for the industry after its fall, is the political matter at hand – with regards to the due diligence performed prior to being granted the loan guarantee in 2009. While this debate is sure to continue well into the 2012 presidential election cycle, keep in mind that Solyndra was a unique, highly-publicized case that suffered from the same market conditions as its peers – but its own inability to compete should not discount the prospects of other U.S. solar players, nor should it be seen as an indicator of the broader demand market in the U.S.

Falling panel prices and Chinese competition creating solar woes

The precipitous fall of module prices has led to a few casualties in solar. Evergreen Solar filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and is currently trying to sell its assets and core “String Ribbon Technology.” With falling polysilicon prices (currently between $55/kg and $60/kg), the company couldn’t compete with standard crystalline silicon technology which, as we’ve mentioned previously*, has been made substantially cheaper by Chinese manufacturing firms. Chinese manufacturers have enjoyed continuing support from the Chinese government through inexpensive capital, low prices for electricity, and low labor costs. This is clear evidence that government subsidies and support are extremely critical to the growth of the solar industry.

Meanwhile, Solon announced that it has decided to shut down its Tucson facility given its inability to be cost competitive with the low-cost Chinese module manufacturers and instead focus on its project development and power plant business.

In addition, high-cost American sweetheart Solyndra was forced to shut its doors and file for bankruptcy. The start-up attracted high scrutiny for its inability to compete due to significant price drops in polysilicon, even after receiving a loan guarantee from the U.S. government. And Ascent Solar*, a thin-film CIGS manufacturer that was likely heading the Evergreen route was rescued by TFG Radiant Group of China, by signing a royalty and strategic partnership agreement.

Non-cost-competitive technologies and companies with poor strategy and balance sheets will likely go out of business faster given the shift in demand dynamics worldwide for PV that have significantly impacted module prices. This news bodes well for all the low-cost Chinese manufacturers such as Yingli, Trina Solar, and Suntech, all of which are better able to withstand the low-price environment. This news should make smaller thin-film solar companies wary of the competition in the industry.

* Client registration required.

Will PetroAlgae and Gevo poison the IPO pond for other biofuel and biomaterial developers?

In early August, PetroAlgae filed for an immodest $200 million IPO with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The filing contains a number of aspects that warrant closer scrutiny.

The company grows “selectively bred” strains of an aquatic algae-like plant called duckweed in open ponds. PetroAlgae claims its process yields up to 14,000 gallons of oil per acre per year (see the March 24, 2009 LRBJ – client registration required), and that its production is “economical versus $20/barrel oil.” Its prospective yield compares favorably with competitors’ claims, like Solix’s 2,200 gallons of oil per acre per year. But unlike Solix, PetroAlgae has had no success producing oil.

According to the company’s S-1 filing, it experienced net losses of $8.3 million, $20 million, and $30.3 million in 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively, on zero dollars in revenue, ever. Even firms with much more significant product revenues have struggled in the current market. Solyndra withdrew its filing (see the June 24, 2010 LRSJ*), A123Systems’ stock is off over 60% from its initial pricing, and Codexis has shed 40% of its IPO value in just four months. So accompany with no revenue to date and very uncertain prospects for producing an economically competitive product is unlikely to be a winner. Despite its lofty claims, expect PetroAlgae to either withdraw its IPO, or flop mightily.

Gevo, which also filed for an IPO in early August, is looking to raise $150 million. Underwriters include UBS, Goldman Sachs, and Piper Jaffray. Gevo develops yeast to ferment corn, cane, or cellulose-derived sugars in order to produce butanol and isobutanol (see the August 11, 2009 LRBJ*). This filing does not come as a surprise, as we heard from our network several months ago that a Q3 filing was forthcoming (see the April 27, 2010 LRBJ*). This news comes only a few days after Gevo announced the acquisition of a Minnesota ethanol facility it planned to retrofit into an isobutanol production plant. The retrofit will cost $17 million, and will produce 18 MGY of isobutanol when complete in Q1 2012. According to Gevo’s S-1 filing, its net accumulated deficit is $50.3 million, with a net loss of $8 million in Q1 2010 alone. 

Although Gevo’s (relatively) capital light business model is a reason for praise, its S-1 indicates that it will need to invest another $17 million in the Minnesota plant to retrofit. That’s in addition to the $20.7 million for the plant itself – a steep bill to foot with no revenues in sight for almost two more years, even if all goes as planned. In its filing, Gevo reports it “expects our relationships with customers such as Total Petrochemicals, Lanxess, Toray Industries, and United Airlines to contribute to the development of chemical and fuel market applications of our isobutanol.” The relationships that Gevo develops with these companies (and other commercial chemical and fuel companies) will make or break the company – but the large losses and long time to revenue its asking investors to stomach might be enough to sink this IPO.

Both offerings are indeed risky in this environment, as we have seen Codexis shares drop from $13 per share at IPO to about $8 currently. Clients should maintain some healthy skepticism as these two firms prepare for risky and uncertain public offerings. Although Gevo has a better chance of success than PetroAlgae, both firms have the potential to poison the biofuels and biomaterials pond for years to come. On the heels of Codexis’s shaky debut, it won’t take much more bad news for investors to sour on the biofuels space. What’s more, with other recent IPOs like Tesla (see the June 23, 2010 LRPJ*) and IPO candidates like Bloom Energy (see the June 30, 2010 LRPJ*) looking uncertain, on top of disappointments like A123 and debacles like Solyndra, the “cleantech” theme risks ending its run as a Wall Street darling.

*Client registration required

Early-stage solar deal values fell in 2009 as VCs doubled down in late-stage investments

Graphic of the Week 06-27

Since 2000, solar technology has attracted enthusiastic support from venture capitalists (VCs), who have cumulatively invested over $7.5 billion. However, 2009 was a harrowing year for the solar industry and for its VC backers. In a recent Lux report, we observed that VC funding for solar firms had dropped 55% in 2009 to $1.52 billion. Deal sizes were down across the spectrum of products and technologies. The exception was late-stage deals (Series D and later).

For solar firms of every size, 2009 was not just a difficult year, it was an outright fight for survival. As we outlined in recent reports (e.g. Finding the Solar Market’s Nadir and Solar’s Impending Shakeout: Europe Loses Leadership as China Rises – client registration required)  solar companies looking to “break out” in 2009 saw their plans delayed or squashed, while early start-ups unable to raise cash were forced to hunker down to wait out the storm. In reviewing VC funding by stage, M&A activity, and IPO data, we found that the overall deal value of early-stage deals fell more than 65% across Series A, B, and C investments. However, a select few companies – including Amonix, Solyndra, Siliken, and Innovalight – pulled in large sums during D series and subsequent rounds. Just as in 2008, select investors in these firms built on earlier investments, racing time and start-up costs en route to fully scaled production.

Consequently, late-stage rounds ballooned in 2009 as investors “doubled down” on their investments. In 2009, Series D or later investments garnered 43% of the total deal value, up from just 11% in 2008. Moving forward, the largest solar VC deals will be directed at late-stage rounds for cell and module companies as investors concentrate on their existing portfolios.

Source: Lux Research report “2009 Solar Financing: Double or Nothing.”