PRESENTATION EXAMPLE - DATED MATERIALS - NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE (2)

Alternative Energy Investing, LLC

PhotovoltaicsJuly 2012

• Solar Subsidies in Key Regions• Net Benefit Analysis• Margin of Safety Analysis

PV UPDATE | MARKET

Market

Industry

Returns

Demand

Supplies

Efficiency & Scale

Invest on R&D &

production

Improve Sales &

Revenue

Increase demand

Reduce cost and

price

Company Performance

Analysis

Industry Trend

Analysis

Cost Simulation

Analysis

• Leaders & Laggards• Solvency Analysis• Financial Health summary• Cost Structure Analysis• Cost Vs Price

• Revenue Trend Analysis• Volume Trend Analysis• R&D Trend Analysis• Inventory Trend Analysis• Price Trend Analysis

Identifying key technological development and simulating the cost of production of PV modules under different scenarios.

PV Demand Assessment

PV Supply Assessment

PV Market Trend

Analysis

• Demand Forecasting• Demand Equations• Demand Assessment in key regions• PV Market Share Distribution• Demand by Technology & cell type

• PV Supply Assessment• Top players• Global Capacity & Production • Technological distribution• PV Supply Chain Imbalances

Source: AEI Consulting

Source: AEI ConsultingJuly 2012 Joseph Berwind

7,400 7,500 8,330 8,916 9,570

6,050 5,398 2,781 2,346 2,372

1,100 2,161 2,716 3,040 3,374

600 1,900 3,263 4,141

5,021 980

1,216 1,500 1,899

2,093

2,709

3,251 4,659

8,795

9,718

20,187

23,895 25,110

31,602

34,918

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

PV Demand: Current Assessment (MW)

Germany Italy Spain United States China Japan France South Korea India ROW

PV Demand: The Current Assessment


July 2012 Joseph Berwind

21,713

27,866

31,318 25,110

31,602

34,918

23,895

31,414

38,592 41,712

2011 2012 2013 2014

Global PV Demand

PV DEMAND: UP/DOWN RISKS



GERMAN SUBSIDY - UPDATE

23rd Feb 2012 Proposed one time cut from 9th March followed by monthly tariff reduction beginning May.

• The new tariff to be applicable starting 9th March to be as follows: Systems upto 10 KW: 19.5 cents; 10 kW to 1 MW: 16.5

cents and 1 to 10 MW: 13.5 cents. No subsidy for plants over 10 MW.

• The monthly tariff cut of 0.15 cents starting from May was proposed.

• Only 85% to 90% of energy produced would be eligible to receive subsidies

• If annual installations exceeds corridor of 2.5 to 3.5 GW, Ministry could cut tariff without going through Parliament

29th Feb 2012 Germany’s Cabinet approved the tariff cut proposal so that it will be sent to Parliament for consideration

05th Mar 2012 At Berlin, 12000 people gathered protesting the proposed FiT cut. Several solar companies including Q Cells, First Solar,

Conergy, Juwi, Bosch, RenoSolar, Centrosolar etc participated in the rally.

06th Mar 2012 The FiT cut was postponed to 1st April for roof top systems and 1st July to ground mounted systems

09th Mar 2012 The FiT amendment was discussed in the Parliament and Opposition parties rejected the new proposal. A final decision on

Germany’s new FIT is planned for 30th March.

27th Mar 2012 The revised PV draft revoked the clause that allowed the Ministry to make changes to the tariff if installation exceeds

corridor without going through Parliament. It is agreed that if annual installation exceeds 7.5 GW, a tariff cut upto 29% can

be made. If the annual installation is less than 1 GW, the subsidy cut will cease. If the installations are within prescribed

corridor 2.5 to 3.5, a maximum tariff cut of 11.4% can be made.

30th Mar 2012 Finally, German Parliament finally approved the drastic cuts to the solar subsidies. The cuts will be implemented on 1st April

and will be as high as 29% depending on the size of installation. This has been apparently done to curb the pace of solar

development in the country

16th Apr 2012 Financial Times Deutschland reported that 1.9 GW new solar capacity has been installed in Germany during 1st Quarter

2012. It is reported that 450 MW in January, 200 MW in February and 1.25 GW IN March have been installed. The “mini

boom” occurred in March was attributable to confusion over subsidy hanging since February.

Joseph BerwindJuly 2012

GERMAN SUBSIDY - UPDATE

11th May 2012 Germany’s Bundestrat (Federal Council) voted for invocation of mediation committee with the Federal Parliament to

revise renewable energy policy. The mediation committee will comprise members of Federal Council and Parliament and

will now consult on a compromise for PV Subsidies. The new changes recommended by mediation committee will come

into force from 1st Jun 2012 instead of 1st April.

07th Jun 2012 The mediation committee convened a meeting of Bundestrat Upper house. The new EEG due to come into effect on 1st

July has been stopped for immediate future. However the German government is expecting that they would be able to

have a retrospective validity.

28th Jun 2012 The mediation committee reached a compromise. The new EEG is accepted by both the houses. The Highlights:

• The new tariff to be applicable retrospectively from 1st April

• The new tariff will be as follows: system upto 10kW: 19.5 cents; 10 to 40 kW: 18.5 cents; 40 kW to 1 MW: 16.5 cents; 1 MW

to 10MW: 13.5 cents; No incentives for systems above 10 MW.

• A monthly degression of 1% will be retrospectively effective from 1st May.

• From November, depending on the MW installed, monthly degression can be increased or decreased between +2.8%

to -0.5%

• The rates are to remain stable in 2013 after 15 monthly cuts. The annual cut will begin next in 2014.


SUBSIDY CHANGE IN GERMANY

€ 0.2443€ 0.2323

€ 0.2198

€ 0.1833 € 0.1833€ 0.1950 € 0.1850

€ 0.1650

€ 0.1350

€ 0.0000€ 0.0000

€ 0.0500

€ 0.1000

€ 0.1500

€ 0.2000

€ 0.2500

€ 0.3000

<10kW 10 to 40kW 40kW to 1MW 1 to 10MW > 10 MW

Situation in April 2012

Existing Proposed

System Size (kW) Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12

<10kW € 0.1950 € 0.1931 € 0.1911 € 0.1892 € 0.1873 € 0.1854 € 0.1836 € 0.1818

10 to 40kW € 0.1850 € 0.1832 € 0.1813 € 0.1795 € 0.1777 € 0.1759 € 0.1742 € 0.1724

40kW to 1MW € 0.1650 € 0.1634 € 0.1617 € 0.1601 € 0.1585 € 0.1569 € 0.1553 € 0.1538

1 to 10MW € 0.1350 € 0.1337 € 0.1323 € 0.1310 € 0.1297 € 0.1284 € 0.1271 € 0.1258

> 10 MW € 0.0000 € 0.0000 € 0.0000 € 0.0000 € 0.0000 € 0.0000 € 0.0000 € 0.0000

Subsidy in Germany as per new EEG


Source: EEG & AEI Consulting


IMPACT OF SUBSIDY CHANGE

€ 0.2323€ 0.2091

€ 0.1882€ 0.1659

€ 0.1523€ 0.1370

€ 0.0000

€ 0.0500

€ 0.1000

€ 0.1500

€ 0.2000

€ 0.2500

2012 2013 2014

Average subsidy for a 100 kW Rooftop

Existing Proposed

3.84%4.11%

4.41%

1.76%2.26%

2.67%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

2012 2013 2014

Average Excess Return for a 100 kW Rooftop

Existing Proposed

8,330 8,916

9,570

5,813 4,909

5,791

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2012 2013 2014

Germany PV Demand (MW)

Existing Proposed

Subsidy Cut

Fall in Excess Return

Drop in PV Demand


Source: AEI ConsultingSource: AEI Consulting


ITALY: V CONTO ENERGIA

July 2012

• Italy is likely to implement a new subsidy program called Fifth Conto Energia. This will replace the existing subsidy program, Fourth Conto Energia

• Fifth Conto Energia is likely to be effective when €6 bn subsidy cap is reached. Contoenergia IV will be valid for 45 days after the limit is met. This could happen between July and October 2012.

• The Italian Government has provided only additional €700 mn for photovoltaics under V Conto Energia.

• It has been said that for removal of asbestos and/or use of European component, a bonus of €0.03/kWh is paid.

Joseph Berwind

ITALY: V CONTO ENERGIA

July 2012

System Type 2Q12

BIPV 1 to 3 kW € 0.4180

BIPV 3 to 20 kW € 0.4180

BIPV 20 to 200 kW € 0.3800

BIPV 200 to 1000 kW € 0.3800

BIPV 1000 to 5000 kW € 0.3520

BIPV > 5000 kW € 0.3520

BAPV 1 to 3 kW € 0.2740

BAPV 3 to 20 kW € 0.2470

BAPV 20 to 200 kW € 0.2330

BAPV 200 to 1000 kW € 0.2240

BAPV 1000 to 5000 kW € 0.1820

BAPV > 5000 kW € 0.1710

System Type 1-Semister 2-Semister 3-Semister 4-Semister 5-Semister

BIPV 1 to 3 kW € 0.2080 € 0.1820 € 0.1570 € 0.1440 € 0.1330

BIPV 3 to 20 kW € 0.1960 € 0.1710 € 0.1490 € 0.1370 € 0.1280

BIPV 20 to 200 kW € 0.1750 € 0.1570 € 0.1410 € 0.1310 € 0.1220

BIPV 200 to 1000 kW € 0.1420 € 0.1300 € 0.1180 € 0.1110 € 0.1060

BIPV 1000 to 5000 kW € 0.1260 € 0.1180 € 0.1100 € 0.1050 € 0.1000

BIPV > 5000 kW € 0.1190 € 0.1120 € 0.1040 € 0.0990 € 0.9500

BAPV 1 to 3 kW € 0.2010 € 0.1760 € 0.1520 € 0.1400 € 0.1300

BAPV 3 to 20 kW € 0.1890 € 0.1650 € 0.1440 € 0.1330 € 0.1240

BAPV 20 to 200 kW € 0.1680 € 0.1510 € 0.1360 € 0.1260 € 0.1180

BAPV 200 to 1000 kW € 0.1350 € 0.1240 € 0.1130 € 0.1070 € 0.1020

BAPV 1000 to 5000 kW € 0.1200 € 0.1130 € 0.1060 € 0.1010 € 0.9700

BAPV > 5000 kW € 0.1130 € 0.1060 € 0.9900 € 0.0950 € 0.9200

Existing FiT

Proposed FiT

Joseph Berwind

SOLAR TRADE WAR – STORY SO FAR

July 2012

Event AD CVD

Petition filed by

SolarWorld & others

19th Oct 2011 19th Oct 2011

DoC initiates

investigation

8th Nov 2011 8th Nov 2011

ITC preliminary

determination1

5th Dec 2011 5th Dec 2011

DoC preliminary

determination2

27th Mar 2012 12th Jan 2012

DoC Final

determination2

11th Jun 2012 27th Mar 2012

ITC final

determination3

25th Jul 2012 11th May 2012

Issuance of Orders4 1st Aug 2012 18th May 2012

1. If ITC makes negetive determination of injury, the investigations are

terminated

2. These deadlines may be extended by governing statute

3. This will take place only in the event of final affirmative determinations from

Commerce

4. This will take place only in the event of final affirmative determinations from

Commerce & ITC

• Led by SolarWorld, a group called CASM filed antidumping petitions with the US Department of Commerce (DoC) and the US International Trade Commission (ITC), claiming Chinese manufacturers are illegally dumping c-Si cells into the US market and are receiving illegal subsidies from China government

• Another group CASE (including Chinese solar makers such as STP, TSL etc) said that competition is making affordable solar energy a reality and CASM’s action to block or dramatically curtail solar product imports from China places that goal at risk.

• In late January, DoC issued a critical circumstances ruling by stating that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that certain subsidy allegations under investigation are inconsistent with SCM agreement and there has been massive imports from STP, TSL in a short span of time.

• On March 12, President Obama signed a law authorizing DoC to apply CVD on non market economy countries like China.

• On March 20, DoC released its preliminary determination of CVD for Chinese solar manufacturers at 2.9% to 4.73% range.

Joseph Berwind

SOLAR TRADE WAR – WHAT IS THE IMPLICATION?

July 2012

• Although the determined duty is much lower than anticipated by some investors, it could be material headwind to Chinese solar makers, with potentially much more anti-dumping duty decision yet to come.

• Already suffering from lean margins, Chinese solar makers may not be able to take the additional charges on account of these duties and hence we believe these could be passed on to the customers.

• Currently China’s share in the global production could be roughly 50%. Preliminary determined CVD is in the range of 2.90% to 4.73%. This implies,1.5% to 2.5% additional charges or ASP increase.

• In our view, 1.5% to 2.5% increase in module pricing may not significantly change the demand dynamics and project timing. As per our assessment 3% price rise could reduce demand by 300 MW to 400 MW

• Coupled with this, a higher anti-dumping duty could change the module prices significantly resulting in making solar returns unattractive and hence reducing the demand. There are rumors that anti-dumping duties could be as high as 20% to 80%

25,171 24,726

22,259

28,860 28,457

26,225

32,376 32,005

29,953

20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

28,000

30,000

32,000

34,000

Cu

rre

nt

1.0

%

2.0

%

3.0

%

4.0

%

5.0

%

6.0

%

7.0

%

8.0

%

9.0

%

10.0

%

11.0

%

12.0

%

13.0

%

14.0

%

15.0

%

16.0

%

17.0

%

18.0

%

19.0

%

20.0

%

Glo

ba

l P

V D

em

an

d (

MW

)Increase in ASP $/W (due to CVD etc)

Global PV Demand sensitivity to Price

2012 2013 2014

• A preliminary decision on anti-dumping duty is scheduled for May 27 and a final decision on both the duties are known by end of the year.

• We estimated the global demand at 25.1 GW, 28.9 GW and 32.4 GW for 2012, 2013 and 2014 respectively. Increase in module price due to CVD or AD could reduce the demand. However, the impact of proposed CVD could be <400 MW demand risk.


Joseph Berwind

3%3%3%9%

6%

28%11%

12%

10%

15%

Malaysia

Philippines

Qatar

Russia

Singapore

Australia

Thailand

Taiwan

India

South Korea

17%

19%

20%

44%

Mexico

Argentina

Brazil

Canada

15%

15%

16%9%

13%

16%

16%

Iran

Iraq

Morocco

Saudi Arabia

Israel

5%

17%

3%1%6%

9%32%

20%

3%3%1%AustriaBelgiumCyprusCzech RepublicPortugalSwitzerlandUnited KingdomGreeceHungaryNorwaySweden

Americas,

17%

Asia &

Australia,

30%

Europe,

32%

ME &

Africa, 21%

PV Demand: Growth in ROW

July 2012

8,330

8,916

9,570

2,781

2,346

2,372

3,263

4,141

5,021

5,022

9,481

10,475

- 10,000 20,000 30,000

2012

2013

2014

PV Demand - MW

Germany ItalySpain United StatesChina JapanFrance ROW

ROW BREAKUP

Key Markets

2013

1593 MW

2013

2840 MW

2013

3068 MW

2013

1979 MW

Source: AEI Consulting Source: AEI Consulting

Joseph Berwind

ROW: PV Demand Catalyst

Sl

NoCountry Drivers & Catalysts Chart

1 Australia Australian FiT schemes are state based. Several stakeholders are pushing for a

nation-wide subsidy. But some states are already considering phasing out

subsidy programs. New South Wales is considering retroactive subsidy cuts. The

political instability is expected to slow down the growth in the near term.

2 Canada Ontario Province introduced generous subsidy in 2010 which led to significant

growth in PV demand. The subsidies were cut in 2011 end, but other provinces

are also introducing subsidy, which should support further growth, demand

shifting away from Ontario.

3 UK UK market boomed in 2011 when the government announced a fast track

review of FiT. Though subsidies are slashed more than 50%, still the market

generates attractive returns. Recently the PV target by 2020 is revised to 22 GW,

which should spur the demand going forward.

4 Belgium Belgium is made up of three markets: Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels. The PV

policy supports small scale and residential systems. The support is given by way

of green certificates and net metering. For systems above 10kVA, 50% should be

self consumed. The support for systems over 250kW is still insufficient.

5 Greece Although the market is constrained by debt crisis and difficulty to finance PV

projects in the short-run, future for PV looks promising in Greece. By 2020 Greece

has an objective of 2.2 GW of cumulative PV. FiT rates in Greece is higher than in

several other European countries. Helios project announced in Aug 2011 aims at

installing >10 GW by 2020.


ROW: PV Demand Catalyst

Sl

NoCountry Drivers & Catalysts Chart

6 India India’s National Solar Mission was launched in 2010 in order to achieve the

target of 22 GW by 2020. Several State governments have adopted policies to

promote solar. The Gujarat State has set a target of 7% Renewable Energy

standard of which 1% is solar. The state of Rajasthan has signed 1.5 GW of solar

projects with developer with a target of 10-12 GW in next 10 years

7 S Africa Despite of attractive solar radiation, the PV installation remained low until

recently. In 2012 large CPV systems are getting installed. By 2014, the

government expects to install 1450 MW under Renewable Energy Independent

Power Procurement Program

8 Thailand Government has set a target to produce 25% of electricity through renewable

sources by 2021. Around 950 MW systems are approved for PPA (or FiT) by March

2012 of which ~150 MW has already been installed by 2011, according to

Ministry of energy.


CURRENT ASSESSMENT: GROWTH


July 2012

MW 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Germany 7,400 7,500 8,330 8,916 9,570

Italy 6,050 5,398 2,781 2,346 2,372

Spain 400 582 405 432 457

USA 1,100 2,161 2,716 3,040 3,374

China 600 1,900 3,263 4,141 5,021

Japan 980 1,216 1,500 1,899 2,093

France 817 1,634 1,094 1,347 1,555

Korea 131 152 218 411 455

India - 101 145 274 303

ROW 2,709 3,251 4,659 8,795 9,718

Global 20,187 23,895 25,110 31,602 34,918

Germany

Italy

USA

China

JapanKorea

0%

200%

400%

600%

800%

1000%

20112012

20132014

Percentage Growth over the Base

800%-1000%

600%-800%

400%-600%

200%-400%

0%-200%

MW 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Germany 100% 101% 113% 120% 129%

Italy 100% 89% 46% 39% 39%

Spain 100% 146% 101% 108% 114%

USA 100% 196% 247% 276% 307%

China 100% 317% 544% 690% 837%

Japan 100% 124% 153% 194% 214%

France 100% 200% 134% 165% 190%

Korea 100% 116% 166% 314% 347%

India 100% NA NA NA NA

ROW 100% 120% 172% 325% 359%Joseph Berwind

Demand EquationsFactors of Demand

PV DEMAND

System Price

Subsidies

Bond Rates

Interest Rates

Grid Prices

4Q11 TO 1Q12 CHANGE


0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%Historical Interest Rates

Germany Italy Spain USAChina Japan France

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

1Q092Q093Q094Q091Q102Q103Q104Q101Q112Q113Q114Q11

Hisotorical Bond RatesGermany Italy SpainUSA China JapanFrance

-

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60Historical Subsidies

Germany €/kWh Italy €/kWh

Spain €/kWh California USD/kWh

China USD/kWh Japan USD/kWh

Factors of Demand



Source: AEI Consulting`


July 2012

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

1Q

07

2Q

07

3Q

07

4Q

07

1Q

08

2Q

08

3Q

08

4Q

08

1Q

09

2Q

09

3Q

09

4Q

09

1Q

10

2Q

10

3Q

10

4Q

10

1Q

11

2Q

11

3Q

11

4Q

11

Historical System Prices $/W

Module Prices BoS

Joseph Berwind

713

6,050 5,398

3.43%

4.64%

4.00%

1% excess

return

implies

1008 MW

demand

2009 2010 2011

Italy: Demand Vs Excess Return

650

1,100

2,161

1.71%

2.22%

4.33%1% excess

return

implies

474 MW

demand

2009 2010 2011

USA: Demand Vs Excess Return

400 400

582

4.00%

5.04%

2.98%

1%

excess

return

implies

115 MW

demand

2009 2010 2011

Spain: Demand Vs Excess Return

3,000

7,400 7,500

2.46%

2.90% 2.88%

1%

excess

return

implies

2172 MW

demand

2009 2010 2011

Germany: Demand Vs Excess Return

Demand EquationsHistorical Excess Returns & Demand






420

980

1,216

4.60%5.01%

6.77%

1% excess

return

implies

160 MW

demand

2009 2010 2011

Japan: Demand Vs Excess Return

120

600

1,900

0.03%0.13%

3.69%1% excess

return

implies

680 MW

demand

2009 2010 2011

China: Demand Vs Excess Return

Demand EquationsHistorical Excess Returns & Demand





July 2012

817

1,634 5.42%

4.16%

1% excess

return

implies 256

MW

demand

2010 2011

France: Demand Vs Excess Return

Joseph Berwind

26%

12%

12%11%

10%

5%

24%

Bayern

Brandenburg

Baden-Wurttemberg

Nordrhein-Westfaien

Neidersachsen

Sachsen-Anhalt

Others

Demand Risk in Germany



Source: BSW & AEI Consulting

July 2012 Source: AEI Consulting

7,153 7,804

8,525

8,330 8,916 9,570

7,500

10,468 10,948 11,487

2011 2012 2013 2014

Germany: MW

Jan to Sep

2011

Installations

In Germany

$1.91

$1.59

$1.32

$2.12

$1.76

$1.47

$2.34

$1.94

$1.62

2012 2013 2014

System Prices ($/W)

0.21

0.19

0.17

0.23

0.21

0.19

0.26

0.23

0.21

2012 2013 2014

Subsidies (/kWh)

3.43% 3.42% 3.43%

3.81% 3.81% 3.81%

4.19% 4.19% 4.19%

2012 2013 2014

Interest Rates %

1.88%2.03% 2.02%

2.09%

2.26% 2.24%

2.30%

2.48% 2.47%

2012 2013 2014

Bond Rates %

12.13 12.32 12.51

13.48 13.69 13.90

14.83 15.06 15.29

2012 2013 2014

Grid Prices (/kWh)

Assumption of Key Variables GermanyVariables 2012 2013 2014

System Prices $1.91 to $2.34 $1.59 to $1.94 $1.32 to $1.62

Subsidies €0.21 to €0.26 €0.19 to €0.23 €0.17 to €0.21

Interest Rates 3.43% to 4.19% 3.42% to 4.19% 3.43% to 4.19%

Bond Rates 1.88% to 2.3% 2.03% to 2.48% 2.02% to 2.47%

Grid Prices €12.13 to €14.83 €12.32 to €15.06 €12.51 to €15.29

Excess Returns 3.29% to 4.82% 3.59% to 5.04% 3.93% to 5.29%

Joseph Berwind

17.1%

10.4%

9.9%

9.1%8.4%

6.8%

6.7%

6.1%

3.8%

3.5%

18.2%

PUGLIA

LOMBARDIA

EMILIA ROMAGNA

VENETO

PIEMONTE

LAZIO

SICILIA

MARCHE

TOSCANA

ABRUZZO

Others

Demand Risk in Italy



July 2012


2,171 1,744 1,791

2,781

2,346 2,372

5,398

3,919

3,463 3,450

2011 2012 2013 2014

Italy: MW

Cumulative

Installation

in Italy

$1.91

$1.59

$1.32

$2.12

$1.76

$1.47

$2.34

$1.94

$1.62

2012 2013 2014

System Prices ($/W)

0.19

0.15

0.13

0.21

0.17

0.14

0.23

0.18

0.16

2012 2013 2014

Subsidies (/kWh)

2.94% 2.93% 2.94%

3.27% 3.26% 3.26%

3.59% 3.58% 3.59%

2012 2013 2014

Interest Rates %

4.95% 4.96% 4.92%

5.50% 5.51% 5.47%

6.05%6.07% 6.01%

2012 2013 2014

Bond Rates %

14.09 14.11 14.13

€15.6

6

€15.6

8

€15.7

0

17.22 17.25 17.27

2012 2013 2014

Grid Prices (/kWh)

Assumption of Key Variables ItalyVariables 2012 2013 2014







Joseph Berwind

Demand Risk in Spain



July 2012


335 366

393

405 432 457

582 535

558 578

2011 2012 2013 2014

Spain: MW

17%

15%

7%

6%6%5%

4%4%

3%3%

3%2%

25%

ZARAGOZAMURCIATENERIFEVALENCIAMADRIDBADAJOZBARCELONASEVILLACORDOBAALICANTEGRANADABALEARESOthers

4Q11

Installations

in Spain

$1.91

$1.59

$1.32

$2.12

$1.76

$1.47

$2.34

$1.94

$1.62

2012 2013 2014

System Prices ($/W)

0.17

0.15

0.14

0.19

0.17

0.15

0.21

0.18

0.17

2012 2013 2014

Subsidies (/kWh)

3.26% 3.26% 3.26%

3.62% 3.62% 3.62%

3.98% 3.98% 3.99%

2012 2013 2014

Interest Rates %

4.92% 4.93% 4.93%

5.47% 5.48% 5.48%

6.02% 6.03% 6.03%

2012 2013 2014

Bond Rates %

11.89

13.16

14.56 13.21

14.62

16.18 14.53

16.08

17.80

2012 2013 2014

Grid Prices (/kWh)

Assumption of Key Variables Spain

Variables 2012 2013 2014







Joseph Berwind

44%

14%

11%

8%

6%

4%2%

11% California

New Jersey

New Mexico

Arizona

Pennsylvania

North Carolina

Colorado

Others

Demand Risk in the USA





2,521

2,852

3,192 2,716 3,040

3,374

2,161

3,083

3,397 3,721

2011 2012 2013 2014

USA: MW

3Q11

Installations

in the USA

$1.91

$1.59

$1.32

$2.12

$1.76

$1.47

$2.34

$1.94

$1.62

2012 2013 2014

System Prices ($/W)

0.03

0.03 0.02

0.04

0.03 0.03

0.04

0.03 0.03

2012 2013 2014

Subsidies (/kWh)

3.80% 3.80% 3.80%

4.23% 4.23% 4.23%

4.65% 4.65% 4.65%

2012 2013 2014

Interest Rates %

2.04%2.14% 2.15%

2.26%

2.37% 2.39%

2.49%

2.61% 2.63%

2012 2013 2014

Bond Rates %

11.49 11.54 11.59

12.76 12.82 12.88

14.04 14.10 14.17

2012 2013 2014

Grid Prices (/kWh)

Assumption of Key Variables USA

Variables 2012 2013 2014


Subsidies $0.03 to $0.04 $0.03 to $0.03 $0.02 to $0.03



Grid Prices $11.49 to $14.04 $11.54 to $14.1 $11.59 to $14.17


Joseph Berwind

Demand Risk in France

25

July 2012




21%

20%

16%

10%

7%

6%

6%

13%

Méditerranée

Sud-Ouest

Ouest

Rhône Alpes - Bourgogne

Est

Grand Centre

Réunion

Others

Source: ENR & AEI Consulting

1H11

cumulative

Installations

in France

$1.91

$1.59

$1.32

$2.12

$1.76

$1.47

$2.34

$1.94

$1.62

2012 2013 2014

System Prices ($/W)

0.19 0.19 0.19

0.21 0.21 0.21

0.23 0.23 0.23

2012 2013 2014

Subsidies (/kWh)

3.21% 3.20% 3.21%

3.56% 3.56% 3.56%

3.92% 3.92% 3.92%

2012 2013 2014

Interest Rates %

2.68%2.79% 2.78%

2.98%

3.10% 3.09%

3.28%

3.41% 3.40%

2012 2013 2014

Bond Rates %

8.14 8.21 8.27

9.05 9.12 9.19

9.95 10.03 10.11

2012 2013 2014

Grid Prices (/kWh)

965

1,227

1,440

1,094

1,347

1,555

1,634

1,333

1,575

1,773

2011 2012 2013 2014

France - MW

Assumption of Key Variables FranceVariables 2012 2013 2014







Joseph Berwind

Assumption of Key Variables China

Variables 2012 2013 2014


Subsidies CNY0.9 to CNY1.1 CNY0.9 to CNY1.1 CNY0.9 to CNY1.1

Interest Rates 5.73% to 7% 5.7% to 6.97% 5.71% to 6.98%

Bond Rates 3.19% to 3.9% 3.27% to 4% 3.26% to 3.98%

Grid Prices CNY0.5 to CNY0.61 CNY0.51 to CNY0.62 CNY0.51 to CNY0.62


35%

25%

25%

10%5%

Jiangsu

Hebei

Qinghai

Tibet

Ningxia

2,774

3,660

4,532

3,263

4,141

5,021

1,900

4,198

5,087

6,013

2011 2012 2013 2014

China: MW

Demand Risk in China

26

July 2012

Source: Greentech Media



STP Projects

under

progress

$1.91

$1.59

$1.32

$2.12

$1.76

$1.47

$2.34

$1.94

$1.62

2012 2013 2014

System Prices ($/W)

0.90 0.90 0.90

1.00 1.00 1.00

1.10 1.10 1.10

2012 2013 2014

Subsidies (/kWh)

5.73% 5.70% 5.71%

6.37% 6.34% 6.34%

7.00% 6.97% 6.98%

2012 2013 2014

Interest Rates %

3.19% 3.27% 3.26%

3.54%3.64% 3.62%

3.90%4.00% 3.98%

2012 2013 2014

Bond Rates %

0.50 0.51 0.51

0.56 0.56 0.57

0.61 0.62 0.62

2012 2013 2014

Grid Prices (/kWh)

Joseph Berwind

1,451

1,853

2,049

1,500

1,899

2,093

1,216

1,594

1,988 2,176

2011 2012 2013 2014

Japan: MW

Demand Risk in Japan

27

July 2012




$1.91

$1.59

$1.32

$2.12

$1.76

$1.47

$2.34

$1.94

$1.62

2012 2013 2014

System Prices ($/W)

36.00 36.00 36.00

40.00 40.00 40.00

44.00 44.00 44.00

2012 2013 2014

Subsidies (/kWh)

1.60% 1.61% 1.61%

1.78% 1.79% 1.79%

1.96% 1.97% 1.97%

2012 2013 2014

Interest Rates %

0.91%0.96% 0.97%

1.01%1.07% 1.08%

1.11%

1.18% 1.18%

2012 2013 2014

Bond Rates %

23.64 23.78 23.92

26.26 26.42 26.58

28.89 29.06 29.24

2012 2013 2014

Grid Prices (/kWh)

Assumption of Key Variables Japan

Variables 2012 2013 2014


Subsidies JPY36 to JPY44 JPY36 to JPY44 JPY36 to JPY44



Grid Prices JPY23.64 to JPY28.89 JPY23.78 to JPY29.06 JPY23.92 to JPY29.24


Joseph Berwind

PV Demand Evolution

28


2,012 3,100

5,961 6,620

20,187

23,895 25,110

31,602

34,918

CAGR (2006-2014)

43%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Global PV Demand Evolution (MW)

Joseph Berwind

PV Market Share DistributionDemand Growth Rates

29

July 2012 Source: AEI ConsultingJoseph Berwind

PV Market Share DistributionDemand Growth Rates

30

July 2012 Source: AEI ConsultingJoseph Berwind

PV Market Share DistributionAnnual Installations

31

July 2012Source: AEI Consulting

• Annual installation in Germany remains highest going forward.

• Italy’s installations are expected to drop given the planned subsidy cut under V Conto Energie.

• Annual installations in China should increase steadily given the recent policy supports.

• Japan should see meaningful growth given the recent subsidy announcement.

• ROW should see greater capacity installations going forward.


-

2

4

6

8

102011

2012

2013

2014

2011

2012

2013

2014

2011

2012

2013

2014

2011

2012

2013

2014

2011

2012

2013

2014GW

PV Annual Installation (GW)

Germany

Italy

USA

China

ROW

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2011

2012

2013

2014

PV Annual Installation Market Share %

Germany

Italy

Spain

USA

China

Japan

France

ROW

Joseph Berwind

16,014

7,194

2,820

2,945

737

3,770

1,168

12,845

50,331

20,092

4,697

14,236

15,062

10,477

6,798

67,749

Germ…

Italy

Spain

USA

China

Japan

France

ROW

2011 to 2014 Cumulative Installation (MW)

PV Market Share DistributionCumulative Installations

• Despite below market demand growth, Germany remains a “key” market.

• In Italy, there was spike in 2010 demand due to subsidy reduction by III ContoEnergie and introduction of SALVA ALCOA.

• The China, Korea and India are emerging as the major growth markets with sizable future volumes.


Source: AEI ConsultingJuly 2012

32

Germany

40%

Italy

1%

Spain

4%

USA

9%

Japan

20%

ROW

25%

2007 Market

Germany

34%

Italy

15%Spain

6%

USA

6%

China

2%

Japan

8%

France

2%

ROW

27%

2010 Market

Germany

27%

Italy

11%

Spain

2%

USA

7%China

8%

Japan

5%

France

4%

ROW

36%

2014 Market

Joseph Berwind

16,117 19,754 20,895 26,812

29,675 1,171

777 701

829 901

1,422 1,585 1,672

1,893 2,070

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Module Demand by Cell type - MW

c-Si a-Si a-Si/µc-Si CIGS CdTe

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

TF 4,070 4,142 4,214 4,790 5,243

c-Si 16,117 19,754 20,895 26,812 29,675

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Market Share of c-Si & TF

16,117

19,754 20,895

26,812 29,675

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Demand for c-Si Modules

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

CdTe 1,422 1,585 1,672 1,893 2,070

CIGS 566 726 834 983 1,081

a-Si/µc-Si 1,171 777 701 829 901

a-Si 911 1,054 1,007 1,085 1,191

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Thin Film Demand Assessment

PV Demand by Technology & Cell type





July 2012

33

Joseph Berwind

2,447 4,295

8,172

13,373

21,029

31,591

39,790

44,341

48,664

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Global PV Supply (potential) Evolution (MW)

PV Supply Potential

34


July 2012

Supply potential implies production potential assuming 100% capacity utilization.

The announced production capacities are adjusted for ramp-up delays, misstatements and over-statements by applying suitable discounting.

The resultant adjusted capacity is considered for production calculation assuming capacity addition to happen in 1:2:3:4 ratio over the four quarters of an yearJoseph Berwind

Available SupplyAvailable Supply=Supply Potential – Normal Inventory – Under Utilization

35


July 2012

PV System price Fall

Demand Pick up

Supply bottleneck

Increase Production Capacity

Supply grow faster than demand

Over Supply

DEMAND SUPPLY

IMBALANCE


• Of the total supply potential, normal inventory and under utilized units should be reduced to arrive at available supply.

• Normal inventory is assumed at 6 weeks production.

• Under utilization could happen either due to ramp-up issues or as a response to external demand environment.

Particulars 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Supply Potential (MW) 2,447 4,295 8,172 13,354 20,970 31,493 39,674 44,219 48,529

Normal Inventory week 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Normal Inventory (MW) 282 496 943 1,541 2,420 3,634 4,578 5,102 5,600

Capacity Utilization % 95% 85% 85% 75% 95% 90% 85% 80% 80%

Under Utilized (MW) 122 644 1,226 3,338 1,049 3,149 5,951 8,844 9,706

Available supply 2,042 3,155 6,004 8,474 17,502 24,710 29,145 30,273 33,224

Installation

(Demand)

Supply

Potential

(MW)

Available

supply

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Joseph Berwind

(50)

(40)

(30)

(20)

(10)

-

10

20

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Inv

en

tory

We

ek

s

Su

pp

ly/D

em

an

d -

MW

Supply-Demand Imbalances

Over Supply Under Supply Total Inventory Weeks

Supply – Demand Imbalances

36

July 2012

Oversupply to last till 2015

Supply-Demand should

balance from 2015 onwards


Normal inventory – 6 weeks

95%

85% 85%

75%

95%90%

85%80% 80%

85%90%

100% 100% 100% 100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Capacity Utilization %

Joseph Berwind

20,857 30,275

35,753 39,281 43,202 5,136

7,255

7,807 7,923

9,175

25,993

37,531

43,560 47,204

52,377

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Global Unadj Module Capacity (MW)

c-Si TF

16,742 26,035

33,015 37,516 41,243 4,228

5,459

6,659 6,703

7,286

20,970

31,493

39,674 44,219

48,529

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Global Module Production Potential (MW)

c-Si Thin Film

1,276 1,611 1,684 1,839 2,003 1,395

1,573 1,717 1,853 2,002 798 1,599 1,596 1,742 1,903

1,667

2,473 2,810 2,489 3,267

5,136

7,255 7,807 7,923

9,175

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Global TF Module Capacity (MW)

a-Si a-Si/µc-Si CIGS CdTe

947 1,389 1,591 1,517 1,655 1,216

1,024 1,107 1,161 1,253 588 957

1,318 1,376 1,502 1,477

2,089

2,642 2,649 2,876

4,228

5,459

6,659 6,703 7,286

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Global TF Module Production Potential (MW)

a-Si Tandem a-Si/µc-Si CIGS CdTe

Technological DistributionModule Capacity & Production

37





July 2012 Production potential implies production potential assuming 100% capacity utilization. Actual production could be different

because of lower utilization in response to soft external demand.Joseph Berwind

Top Players (2011 Production)

July 2012

17%

17%

15%16%

8%

7%

6%

3%2%1%

8%

GCL Silicon Technology

DC Chemical

Wacker Chemi

Hemlock

Renewable Energy Corporation

(REC)MEMC

LDK Solar Co., Ltd

Tokuyama

M. Setek

ReneSola

Others

Polysilicon

187,128 MT

17%

12%

4%

6%

5%4%4%4%

3%3%

38%

GCL Silicon Technology

LDK Solar Co., Ltd

Canadian Solar Inc.

ReneSola

Renewable Energy Corporation

(REC)Suntech Power Co., Ltd.

Green Energy Technology Inc.,

Jinko Solar Holdings Co., Ltd.

Nexolon Co. Ltd.

Hanwha SolarOne Co., Ltd.

Others

10%

8%

6%

4%

4%

4%

3%4%

4%4%

49%

JA Solar Co., Ltd.

Suntech Power Co., Ltd.

Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd

LDK Solar Co., Ltd

Gintech



Canadian Solar Inc.

Q-Cells

Neo Solar

Others

Wafer

25.90 GW

c-Si Cell

24.51 GW

6%6%

5%

6%

5%

4%

4%

3%3%

3%

55%

LDK Solar Co., Ltd

Suntech Power Co., Ltd.

Sharp

First Solar, Inc.

Canadian Solar Inc.

Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd

Yingli Green Energy



SolarWorld AG

Others

Module

31.59 GW



38

Joseph Berwind

35,366 44,412 23,262 22,568 23,245

734 764 764 787 811

80,344

136,185 164,198 169,123 174,197

116,444

181,360 188,223 192,478 198,253

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Adjusted Ingot Capacity

Europe North America Asia Africa Oceania South America Middle East

32,886 41,937 33,837 22,914 22,907 734 695 764

775 799

66,553

113,073 150,191 166,661 171,661

100,172

155,705

184,792 190,350 195,366

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Adjusted Ingot Production

Europe North America Asia Africa

116,444

181,360 188,223 192,478 198,253

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Global Adjusted Ingot Capacity - by quarter

Opening 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q Series6

21,789 33,795 45,512 47,162 48,264 23,416 36,361

45,855 47,375 48,553 25,856

40,209

46,369 47,694 48,987

29,111

45,340

47,056 48,120 49,563

100,172

155,705

184,792 190,350 195,366

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Global Ingot Production - by quarter

1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q Series5

Global Capacity & Production Potential Ingots

39





3,388 2,845 2,911 3,202 3,523 2,012 2,142 1,983 2,181 2,399

14,002

25,501 27,798 30,577

33,634 19,401

30,487 32,692

35,960 39,556

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Adjusted Wafer Capacity


19,401

30,487 32,692

35,960

39,556

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Global Adjusted Wafer Capacity - by quarter

Opening 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q

3,314 5,559 7,677 8,254 9,081 3,656 6,018

7,787 8,418 9,259

4,168

6,705

7,952 8,664

9,530

4,850

7,622

8,173 8,990

9,889

15,988

25,904

31,589 34,326

37,760

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Global Wafer Production - by quarter

1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q

3,084 3,138 2,878 3,057 3,362 1,928 2,135 2,063 2,082 2,290

10,977

20,631 26,649

29,187 32,107

15,988

25,904

31,589 34,326

37,760

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Adjusted Wafer Production

Europe North America Asia Africa

Global Capacity & Production Potential Wafers

40

July 2012




Joseph Berwind

19,650

28,092

32,986

36,267

39,887

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Global Adjusted Cell Capacity - by quarter

Opening 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q

3,213 5,414 7,146 8,328 9,158 3,590 5,771

7,390 8,493 9,338

4,157

6,308

7,757 8,738

9,608

4,913

7,023

8,246

9,067 9,972

15,872

24,515

30,539

34,625 38,076

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Global CellProduction - by quarter

1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q

2,494 2,584 2,671 2,841 3,122 955 1,337 1,351 1,372 1,502

12,372

20,543 26,466

30,358 33,393 15,872

24,515

30,539

34,625 38,076

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Adjusted Cell Production


2,731 2,633 2,710 2,973 3,274 1,251 1,391 1,311 1,433 1,569

15,617 24,017

28,914 31,804 34,982

19,650

28,092

32,986 36,267

39,887

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Adjusted Cell Capacity

Europe North America Asia AfricaOceania South America Middle East TOTAL

Global Capacity & Production Potential c-Si Cell

41July 2012




Joseph Berwind

c-Si PV Supply Assessment

42


July 2012

Production potential implies production potential assuming 100% capacity utilization. Actual production could be different because of lower

utilization in response to soft external demand.

2011 2012 2013 2014

Polysilicon 26,021 32,860 40,490 41,997

Ingot 25,271 31,951 35,058 36,423

Wafer 25,904 31,589 34,326 37,760

Cell 24,515 30,539 34,625 38,076

Module 26,035 33,015 37,516 41,243

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000Production Potential (MW)

Joseph Berwind

Global Capacity & Production Potential Polysilicon

43

Global PV Production, 2010-2014

Polysilicon Supply Driven Model

(All figures are in tons except noted otherwise)


Polysilicon Sources and Uses 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

End-Year Polysilicon Capacity 225,383 306,350 419,299 431,878 444,826

Current Year Average Capacity 190,782 265,867 362,825 425,589 438,352

Plant Utilization 90.0% 70.0% 65.0% 60.0% 60.0%

Annual Polysilicon Production 171,703 186,107 235,836 255,353 263,011

Average-Year Polysilicon Production 146,475 178,905 210,971 245,595 259,182

Less: Microelectronics Demand (29,380) (33,787) (38,854) (46,625) (55,950)

Plus: Reject / Reprocessed Silicon 11,718 15,207 17,933 20,876 22,030

Available for PV Production (in tons) 128,813 160,325 190,049 219,845 225,262

c-Si PV Production Potential (in MW) 19,691 26,021 32,860 40,490 41,997

Key Assumptions

Growth in Microelectronics Demand 5.0% 15.0% 15.0% 20.0% 20.0%

Reclaimed Sil. as % of Poly-Si Output 8.0% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5%

Tons of Silicon / MW of PV (adj.) 6.54 6.16 5.78 5.43 5.36

Joseph Berwind

4,018 5,354 5,774 6,352 6,983 2,118 2,444 2,577 2,785 3,063

14,636

22,380 27,304

30,035 33,038 20,857

30,275

35,753 39,281

43,202

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Adjusted Module Capacity

Europe North America Asia Africa Oceania South America Middle East TOTAL

3,551 4,688 5,564 6,062 6,668 1,387 2,233 2,511 2,681 2,924 11,730

19,027 24,842

28,669 31,538

16,742

26,035

33,015 37,516

41,243

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Adjusted Module Production

Europe North America Asia Africa Oceania South America Middle East TOTAL

20,857

30,275

35,753 39,281

43,202

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Global Adjusted Module Capacity - by quarter

Opening 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q

3,363 5,660 7,706 9,025 9,919 3,774 6,085

7,979 9,204 10,115

4,391

6,721

8,391 9,467

10,409

5,214

7,569

8,938 9,820

10,801

16,742

26,035

33,015

37,516 41,243

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Global Module Production - by quarter

1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q

Global Capacity & Production Potential c-Si Modules

44Source: AEI Consulting

July 2012




Joseph Berwind

Supply Chain Imbalances2011 & 2012

45

• Over supply situations could continue in the foreseeable future given the huge capacity expansion in all the parts of the value chain. Weak demand and Strong supply should meaningfully pull down the prices of all the elements in the value chain. The price fall could be far higher than the cost fall leading to margin shrinkage for module segment. The cell and wafer segment could see some profit as the cost fall could be higher than price fall.



Under Utilization

Normal Inventory

July 2012


Joseph Berwind

Supply Chain Imbalances2013 & 2014

46

• The situation could further worsen for module segment, their production exceeds end demand. The price fall is partially offset by cost fall due to over-supply of poly feed stock.


July 2012


Joseph Berwind

Solar SubsidiesGermany, Italy, Spain, France

47

Germany *

Italy

Spain

France

Source: AEI Consulting, Country Subsidy ProgramsJuly 2012

System Type 1Q12 2Q12

Rooftop <=30kW € 0.2443 € 0.2443

Rooftop 30kW to 100kW € 0.2323 € 0.2323

Rooftop 100kW to 1000kW € 0.2198 € 0.2198

Rooftop >1000kW € 0.1833 € 0.1833

Conversion Area € 0.1876 € 0.1876

Ground Mounted Installations € 0.1794 € 0.1794

Acre Land € 0.0000 € 0.0000


BIPV 1 to 3 kW € 0.4180 € 0.4180

BIPV 3 to 20 kW € 0.4180 € 0.4180

BIPV 20 to 200 kW € 0.3800 € 0.3800

BIPV 200 to 1000 kW € 0.3800 € 0.3800

BIPV 1000 to 5000 kW € 0.3520 € 0.3520

BIPV > 5000 kW € 0.3520 € 0.3520

BAPV 1 to 3 kW € 0.2740 € 0.2740

BAPV 3 to 20 kW € 0.2470 € 0.2470

BAPV 20 to 200 kW € 0.2330 € 0.2330

BAPV 200 to 1000 kW € 0.2240 € 0.2240

BAPV 1000 to 5000 kW € 0.1820 € 0.1820

BAPV > 5000 kW € 0.1710 € 0.1710

Non Integrated 1 to 3 kW € 0.2400 € 0.2400





Non Integrated > 5000 kW € 0.1480 € 0.1480


Rooftop <20 kW € 0.2662 € 0.2662

Rooftop >20 kW € 0.1932 € 0.1932

Ground Mounted € 0.1217 € 0.1217


BIPV Residential < 9 kW € 0.3880 € 0.3706

BIPV Residential < 9 to 36 kW € 0.3395 € 0.3242

BIPV Residential < 36 to 100 kW € 0.2609 € 0.1934

BIPV Residential >100 kW € 0.1108 € 0.1108

BIPV Edu & Health < 9 kW € 0.3009 € 0.2035

BIPV Edu & Health < 9 to 36 kW € 0.3009 € 0.2035

BIPV Edu & Health < 36 to 100 kW € 0.2609 € 0.1934

BIPV Edu & Health >100 kW € 0.1108 € 0.1108

BIPV Other buildings < 9 kW € 0.2609 € 0.2361

BIPV Other buildings < 9 to 36 kW € 0.2609 € 0.2035

BIPV Other buildings < 36 to 100 kW € 0.2609 € 0.1934

BIPV Other buildings >100 kW € 0.1108 € 0.1108

Simplified BIPV < 36 kW € 0.2249 € 0.2035

Simplified BIPV < 36 to 100 kW € 0.2137 € 0.1934

Simplified BIPV >100 kW € 0.1108 € 0.1108

Ground Mounted € 0.1108 € 0.1079

* In Germany, there are proposals to reduce subsidies by 20% to 30% in March

2012. From May onwards monthly FiT reduction by 0.15 Euro cents is

proposed. The proposal aims at reducing the PV demand to 2.5 to 3.5 GW

level during 2012 & 2013

Joseph Berwind

Solar SubsidiesNY, Vermont, Japan, India, Canada, Czech, Korea, China

48

New York

Vermont

Japan

Ontario, Canada

Czech Republic

South Korea

Jiangsu, China



Residential $1.75 $1.75

Commercial $1.75 $1.75

Non Profit $1.75 $1.75

System Type System Size 1Q12 2Q12

Residential 0 kW to10 $0.70 $0.70

Commercial/Industrial 0 kW to10 $0.70 $0.70



Non Profit 0 kW to10 $2.25 $2.25

Non Profit 10 kW to60 $1.50 $1.50

Non Profit 60 kW to150 $1.50 $1.50

System type 1Q12 2Q12

Residential < 10kW ¥42.00 ¥42.00

Residential > 10kW ¥40.00 ¥40.00

Non Residential - Local govt etc ¥40.00 ¥40.00

Non Residential - Private operators ¥40.00 ¥40.00


Rooftop <= 10 kW CAD 0.802 CAD 0.80

Rooftop 10 to 250 kW CAD 0.713 CAD 0.71

Rooftop 250 to 500 kW CAD 0.635 CAD 0.64

Rooftop > 500 kW CAD 0.539 CAD 0.54

Ground mounted <= 10 kW CAD 0.642 CAD 0.64

Ground mounted 10 kW to 10 MW CAD 0.443 CAD 0.44


< 30 kWp CZK 6.16 CZK 6.16

30 kWp to 100 kWp CZK 6.02 CZK 6.02

> 100 kWp CZK 5.61 CZK 5.61


< 30 kW Ground Mount KRW 566.95 KRW 566.95

< 30 kW Building KRW 606.64 KRW 606.64

30 to 200 kW Ground Mount KRW 541.42 KRW 541.42

30 to 200 kW Building KRW 579.32 KRW 579.32

200 kW to 1 MW Ground Mount KRW 510.77 KRW 510.77

200 kW to 1 MW Building KRW 546.52 KRW 546.52

1 MW to 3 MW Ground Mount KRW 485.23 KRW 485.23

> 3 MW Ground Mount KRW 408.62 KRW 408.62


Ground mounted CNY 1.20 CNY 1.20

Rooftop CNY 2.06 CNY 2.06

BIPV CNY 2.49 CNY 2.49

Particulars 1Q12 2Q12

1 to 100 kWp - with Accelerated Depreciation INR 11.14 INR 11.14

1 to 100 kWp - No Accelerated Depreciation INR 12.44 INR 12.44

>= 100kWp - with Accelerated Depreciation INR 9.28 INR 9.28

>= 100kWp - No Accelerated Depereciation INR 10.37 INR 10.37

Ahmedabad, India

Joseph Berwind

Solar SubsidiesTaiwan, Thailand, Hawaii, Florida, NJ, UK & CA

49

Taiwan

Hawaii, USA

New Jersey, USA

Florida, USA



Rooftop 1 to 10 kW NT$10.32 NT$10.32



Rooftop > 500 kW NT$7.97 NT$7.97

Ground Mount NT$7.33 NT$7.33


Solar ADDER THB 6.50 THB 6.50

Thailand


<= 20kWp $0.218 $0.218

20 kW to 500 kW $0.189 $0.189

500 kW to 5 MW $0.197 $0.197

> 5 MW $0.138 $0.138

System type $/W

Solar window of >85% $1.50

Solar window 70% to 85% $1.15

Maximum Limit $7,500.00


SREC $/kWh $0.603 $0.603


< 4 kW New GBP 0.378 GBP 0.210

< 4 kW Retrofit GBP 0.433 GBP 0.210

4 to 10 kW GBP 0.378 GBP 0.168

10 to 50 kW GBP 0.329 GBP 0.152

50 to 100 kW GBP 0.190 GBP 0.129

100 to 150 kW GBP 0.190 GBP 0.129

150 to 250 kW GBP 0.150 GBP 0.129

250 kW to 5 MW GBP 0.085 GBP 0.085

Standalone PV fields GBP 0.085 ########

United Kingdom

Program Steps

System Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

EPBB – Res/Comm $0.00 $2.50 $2.20 $1.90 $1.55 $1.10 $0.65 $0.35 $0.25 $0.20

EPBB - Govt/Non profit $0.00 $3.25 $2.95 $2.65 $2.30 $1.85 $1.40 $1.10 $0.90 $0.70

PBI – Res/Comm $0.00 $0.39 $0.34 $0.26 $0.22 $0.15 $0.09 $0.05 $0.03 $0.03

PBI - Govt/Non profit $0.00 $0.50 $0.46 $0.37 $0.32 $0.26 $0.19 $0.15 $0.12 $0.10

Date when the step

started – Residential

01/Jun

/08

06/Feb

/09

14/Oct

/09

21/Jun

/10

26/Feb

/11

03/No

v/11

10/Jul/

12

17/Mar

/13

22/Nov

/13

Date when the step

started – Commercial

01/Jun

/08

29/Sep

/08

06/Feb

/09

06/Jul/

09

13/De

c/09

01/Jul/

10

08/Mar

/11

13/No

v/11

20/Jul/

12

California

Joseph Berwind

Solar SubsidiesChina

50Source: AEI Consulting, Country Subsidy Programs


PV Market Trend Analysis1Q12 to 2Q12 Change

51

Commercial

Segment

1

2

34

5

6

7

89

10

11 12

13

14

15

1

23

4

56

78

9

10

1112

13

14

15

Residential

Segment




July 2012

1617

18

19

20

16

17

181920

Joseph Berwind

Solar SubsidiesKey Developments

52

• Germany cut 15% subsidies as installation spiked in 4Q11. Germany installed 7.5 GW in 2011.

• Italy introduced Conto Energia IV from Jun 2011 onwards, which cuts subsidies on a monthly basis. Recently Italy announced its plans to terminate subsidies for ground mounted systems.

• China introduced National Level Feed In Tariff scheme in 2011. The systems installed within Dec 2011 gets a subsidy of CNY 1.15/W, while systems installed in 2012 receives a lower tariff of CNY 1/kWh

• France cut subsidies in the range of 4% to 10% depending on the installation size and type.

• Spain temporarily suspended FiT on all the new projects.

Source: AEI Consulting, Subsidy Program DataSource: AEI Consulting, Subsidy Program Data


Net Benefit & Margin of SafetySubsidy Risk

53

The “Margin of Safety” is

the maximum subsidy cut

as a % of the current

program a market can

take before it’s makes the

net benefit negative.

The “Net Benefit” is the present value costs vs. incomes taken as a % of cost. A net benefit of 40% implies, the project generates $140 over its life on an investment of $100


Ger

man

y

ItalySpai

n

Fran

ce

River

side

CA

SanFr

anc

CA

New

York

Japa

n

Verm

ont

Onta

rioIndia

Chin

a

Kore

aUK

Czec

h

Taiw

an

Thail

and

Haw

aii

Florid

a

New

Jerse

y

Res Net Benefit 42% 42% 63% 39% 50% 63% 65% 74% 77% 97% 23% 15% 83% 44% 35% 63% 29% 95% 145% 118%

Comm Net Benefit 37% 42% 44% 39% 56% 54% 59% 78% 35% 94% 16% 82% 87% 31% 42% 61% 34% 76% 31% 119%

Res MoS 52% 47% 55% 47% 100% 84% 91% 95% 75% 72% 26% 15% 57% 73% 28% 49% 44% 63% 73% 100%

Comm MoS 43% 46% 43% 46% 94% 77% 81% 100% 56% 71% 19% 40% 59% 59% 32% 49% 49% 65% 47% 100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%Net Benefit & Margin of Safety

Joseph Berwind

Solar Excess ReturnSubsidy Risk

54


July 2012

The “excess return” implies return in excess of

threshold returns. This is calculated as the

difference between modified internal rate of

return (MIRR) and threshold rate. The threshold

rate is assumed at 110% of 10 year Government

bond yield in the respective region.

Ger

man

y

ItalySpai

n

Fran

ce

River

side

CA

SanF

ranc

CA

New

York

Jap

an

Ver

mon

t

Ont

ario

Indi

a

Chin

a

Kore

aUK

Cze

ch

Taiw

an

Thail

and

Haw

aii

Flori

da

New

Jers

ey

Residential 4% 3% 5% 4% 5% 6% 6% 8% 6% 9% 2% 1% 7% 5% 3% 4% 3% 8% 9% 13%

Commercial 4% 3% 3% 4% 5% 5% 5% 8% 4% 9% 1% 5% 7% 4% 3% 4% 3% 7% 3% 13%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Excess Returns

Joseph Berwind

Residential SystemRank 2Q09 2Q10 2Q11 2Q12

1 N Jersey N Jersey N Jersey N Jersey

2 France Vermont Ontario Florida

3 Vermont France Hawaii Ontario

4 Spain Ontario UK Hawaii

5 Florida Czech Florida Korea

6 Czech Japan Japan Japan

7 Italy Florida Italy Vermont

8 New York Spain New York New York

9 SanF, CA Italy Spain SanF, CA

10 Germany UK Korea Spain

11 RivSid, CA New York France RivSid, CA

12 Korea Germany Vermont UK

13 Japan SanF, CA SanF, CA Taiwan

14 Hawaii Korea RivSid, CA Germany

15 China RivSid, CA Taiwan Italy

16 UK Taiwan Germany France

17 India Thailand Czech Czech

18 Thailand India Thailand Thailand

19 Taiwan Hawaii India India

20 Ontario China China China

Commercial SystemRank 2Q09 2Q10 2Q11 2Q12

1 N Jersey N Jersey N Jersey N Jersey

2 France France Ontario Ontario

3 RivSid, CA Czech Japan Japan

4 Czech Ontario UK Korea

5 Spain Spain Hawaii Hawaii

6 SanF, CA Taiwan Korea China

7 Italy Italy Italy RivSid, CA

8 New York Japan France New York

9 Korea RivSid, CA New York Taiwan

10 Germany UK RivSid, CA SanF, CA

11 Florida Korea China Germany

12 Vermont SanF, CA SanF, CA France

13 Japan Germany Taiwan Czech

14 China New York Germany Spain

15 UK Thailand Spain UK

16 Hawaii India Thailand Vermont

17 Thailand China India Italy

18 India Vermont Florida Thailand

19 Taiwan Florida Vermont Florida

20 Ontario Hawaii Czech India

Ranking Movement

55Source: AEI Consulting

July 2012

• We ranked the regions based on net benefit and excess returns generated. Therefore, the ranking is determined by interplay of various externalities such as subsidies bond rates, interest rates etc.

• New Jersey stood rank-1 for all the four years due to very high returns backed by generous subsidies by way of SRECs.

• A favourable rank movement is noticed for Ontario, Florida, UK, Vermont in Residential segment; China, Ontario, Japan, Korea, NY in commercial segment.

• A unfavourable rank movement is observed for France, Spain, Hawaii, Japan in Residential segment; India, Thailand, France, Spain in commercial segment.

Joseph Berwind

• Solar Subsidies in Key Regions• Net Benefit Analysis• Margin of Safety Analysis

PV UPDATE | INDUSTRY

Market

Industry

Returns

Demand

Supplies

Efficiency & Scale

Invest on R&D &

production

Improve Sales &

Revenue

Increase demand

Reduce cost and

price

Company Performance

Analysis

Industry Trend

Analysis

Cost Simulation

Analysis

• Leaders & Laggards• Solvency Analysis• Financial Health summary• Cost Structure Analysis• Cost Vs Price

• Revenue Trend Analysis• Volume Trend Analysis• R&D Trend Analysis• Inventory Trend Analysis• Price Trend Analysis

Identifying key technological development and simulating the cost of production of PV modules under different scenarios.

PV Demand Assessment

PV Supply Assessment

PV Market Trend

Analysis

• Demand Forecasting Method• Demand Equations• Demand Assessment in key regions• PV Market Share Distribution• Demand by Technology & cell type

• PV Supply Assessment method• Top players• Global Capacity & Production • Technological distribution• PV Supply Chain Imbalances


PV COMPANIES – KPI RANKING

July 2012

OM%Solvency

Altman

OM%

Solvency

Altman

OM%

Solvency

Altman

OM%

Solvency

AltmanOM%SolvencyAltman

OM%

Solvency

Altman

OM%

Solvency

Altman

OM%

Solvency

Altman

OM%

SolvencyAltman

1Q12

OM%Solvency

Altman

OM%

Solvency

Altman

OM%

Solvency

Altman

OM%

Solvency


OM%

Solvency

Altman

OM%

Solvency

Altman

OM%

Solvency

Altman

OM%

SolvencyAltman

1Q10

OM%Solvency

Altman

OM%

Solvency

Altman

OM%

Solvency

Altman

OM%

Solvency


OM%

Solvency

Altman

OM%

Solvency

Altman

OM%

Solvency

Altman

OM%

SolvencyAltman

1Q11

ALEO

SPWR

TSL

CSIQ

STP

YGE

HSOL

FSLR

REC

• Given the challenging environment characterized by falling prices, lean margins, increasing losses and growing insolvencies, we believe Operating margin, Solvency ratio and Altman Z score are critical KPIs to watch for.

• FSLR, TSL & CSIQ stood top in most parameters. .

• FSLR which was standing no.1 for all parameters in the previous years, witnessed significant downside due to cut throat competition for c-Si.

• Significant improvement in ranking for most parameters are noticed for CSIQ, TSL and STP. This signifies dominance of Chinese c-Si players in the PV industry.

Source: AEI Consulting, Company Reports

Joseph Berwind

Company Performance Analysis

58

• TSL & CSIQ stood top in 1Q12.

• REC, & SPWR in the overall ranking.

1Q12: Over and Under Performers• We ranked each company for all the 11 parameters. If

a company stands in first three ranks we treated it as an “over performer,” and if it stands in last three ranks, we treated it as “under performer”.

• We counted the # of over and under performance for each company. It is desirable to have high # of over performance and low # of under performances.

• Based on this, we consider, TSL & FSLR are considered as leaders for 1Q12 while REC is considered as laggard

Competition

•Average Selling Price/W

• Volume Shipment (MW)

• Sales - $ Mn

Operation

•Inventory T/O

• DSO

• Opex to Sales

•Variable Cost/W

Profitability

•ROA

•ROCE

•G Margin

•N Margin

Source: AEI Consulting, Company ReportsJuly 2012 Joseph Berwind

Leaders & Laggards(Competition)

59

Competition

Operation

Profitability


“Competition” is measured by companies ability lower

ASPs and increase sales volumes. Profitable competition

is not ranked here.

• First Solar (FSLR) consistently has lowest ASP, which

was replaced by HSOL in 1Q12

• Almost all companies have demonstrated a decrease in

their ASPs over the past year.

• SunTech Power (STP) has highest volume consistently,

which was replaced by YGE in 1Q12.


Leaders & Laggards(Operations)

60

Competition

Operation

Profitability



Leaders & Laggards(Profitability)

61

Competition

Operation

Profitability



Leaders & Laggards(ROA & Net Margin)

62

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

Module Alone

Cell+Module

Wafer+Cell+Module

Ingot+Wafer+Cell+Module

Poly+Ingot+Wafer+Cell+Module

Poly+Ingot+Wafer+Cell+Module+System

Cell+Module+System

Module+System

• Our sample constitutes ~45% of the total module market size based on a total module market size of ~24 GW in ’11

• FSLR’s ranking deteriorated gradually. It incurred huge restructuring charges which pulled down ROA and margin significantly

• TSL, CSIQ consistently appear in favorable region (H,H)

• YGE & REC are considered laggards as they consistently appeared in unfavorable region (L,L).

• ENER filed for bankruptcy petition during 4Q11.



Leaders & Laggards(ROA & Net Margin)

63

1Q11 Report 1Q12 Report

• Generally we observed fall in net margin and ROA for all the companies without any exception.

• FSLR witnessed steep decline its ranking due to margin deterioration on account of heavy weighing restructuring charges.

• CSIQ ranking rose from last to first in past one year.

• A fall in the ranking is noticed for FSLR, YGE, HSOL & REC

• An increase in ranking is noticed for CSIQ, ALEO & STP

Module Alone

Cell+Module

Wafer+Cell+Module

Ingot+Wafer+Cell+Module

Poly+Ingot+Wafer+Cell+Module

Poly+Ingot+Wafer+Cell+Module+System

Cell+Module+System

Source: AEI Consulting, Company ReportsSource: AEI Consulting, Company Reports


Solvency Analysis

64

Solvency Ratio

• A measure of a company's ability to service debts, expressed as a percentage.

• It is calculated by dividing YTD Cash profit by Total Liabilities. YTD Cash profit implies net income plus non cash depreciation.

• A high solvency ratio indicates a healthy company, while a low ratio indicates the opposite. A low solvency ratio further indicates likelihood of default.

• The ratio was negetive for all the companies and overall industry level ratio dropped to -41%.

Module Segment Solvency ratio

Source: AEI Consulting, Company ReportsJuly 2012 Joseph Berwind

Solvency Analysis(Industry Vs Companies)

65

• The industry average solvency ratio continued to decline during 4Q11 and reached -41%.

• FSLR has been above industry average for all the quarters.

• ALEO, SPWR, TSL, CSIQ, STP, YGE, HSOL and FSLR managed above industry average ratio in the current quarter.

• REC & ENER had below industry average ratio during 1Q12.

• Except TSL all the companies had negative solvency ratio during the quarter.

Red : Industry

Tan: Individual company



Financial Health Summary

66




Cost Structure AnalysisBreakeven & Profitability

67


July 2012

Particulars Ref ALEO SPWR TSL CSIQ STP YGE HSOL FSLR RECSolar

YE 1Q12 Cost of Sales A $610,593 $1,142,650$1,645,306$1,626,604$2,872,800$1,858,560 $852,794 $1,200,264 $739,334

YE 1Q11 Cost of Sales B $592,556 $740,950 $1,490,294$1,349,803$2,634,746$1,355,428$1,131,472$1,060,280 $703,786

Cost Difference C=A-B $18,037 $401,700 $155,012 $276,801 $238,054 $503,132 -$278,678 $139,984 $35,548

YE 1Q12 MW shipment D 330.8 901.5 1,571.1 1,421.0 2,024.0 1,819.4 641.2 1,712.3 648.0

YE 1Q11 MW shipment E 283.2 435.5 1,184.8 862.6 1,718.1 1,180.9 785.6 1,439.3 506.0

Shipment Difference F=D-E 47.60 466.0 386.3 558.4 305.9 638.5 (144.4) 273.0 142.0

Variable Cost $/W G=C/F $0.38 $0.86 $0.40 $0.50 $0.78 $0.79 $1.93 $0.51 $0.25

Fixed Cost p.a H=A-(D*G) $485,246 $365,541 $1,014,865 $922,209 $1,297,756 $424,904 -$384,948 $322,198 $577,116

YE 3Q11 ASP I $1.87 $1.45 $1.18 $1.25 $1.32 $1.22 $1.18 $1.04 $1.45

Breakeven Volume MW J=H/(I-G) 326 619 1,311 1,217 2,379 991 512 611 480

Margin of Safety MW K=D-J 4 283 260 204 (355) 829 129 1,101 168

Margin of Safety % L=K/J 1% 46% 20% 17% -15% 84% 25% 180% 35%

YE 3Q11 Revenue M=D*I $617,028 $1,309,672$1,846,929$1,781,323$2,679,000$2,213,966 $755,499 $1,781,121 $940,951

YTD 2Q11 Profit N=M-A $6,435 $167,022 $201,623 $154,719 -$193,800 $355,406 -$97,295 $580,857 $201,617

Current Profit % O=N/M 1.0% 12.8% 10.9% 8.7% -7.2% 16.1% -12.9% 32.6% 21.4%

Future ASP - 20% cut P=I-20% $1.49 $1.16 $0.94 $1.00 $1.06 $0.97 $0.94 $0.83 $1.16

Future Guided Volume Q 295 525 2,050 1,900 2,300 1,700 875 1,650 750

Future Revenue R=Q*P $440,000 $610,163 $1,927,925$1,905,426$2,435,468$1,654,927 $824,744 $1,373,046 $871,251

Future COST S=(G*Q)+H $596,976 $818,100 $1,837,476$1,864,046$3,087,589$1,764,466$1,304,036$1,168,312 $764,868

Future Profit/(Loss) T=R-S -$156,976 -$207,937 $90,449 $41,380 -$652,120 -$109,539 -$479,292 $204,734 $106,383

Future Profit % U=T/R -36% -34% 5% 2% -27% -7% -58% 15% 12%

Joseph Berwind

Cost Structure Analysis,Future Profitability

68

• Given the price fall and flattish volume growth 2012 could be again a challenging year for solar companies. The profits are expected to decline for majority of the companies.

• However, there are possibilities for profits for TSL, CSIQ, FSLR & REC

• ALEO and SPWR are expected to suffer huge losses going forward due to inability to grow volumes and unfavorable cost structures.


July 2012

CURRENT VERSUS FUTURE PROFIBABILITY

Particulars ALEO SPWR TSL CSIQ STP YGE HSOL FSLR RECSolar

FUTURE ASP

Current ASP $1.87 $1.45 $1.18 $1.25 $1.32 $1.22 $1.18 $1.04 $1.45

5% ASP Cut $1.77 $1.38 $1.12 $1.19 $1.26 $1.16 $1.12 $0.99 $1.38

10% ASP Cut $1.68 $1.31 $1.06 $1.13 $1.19 $1.10 $1.06 $0.94 $1.31

15% ASP Cut $1.59 $1.23 $1.00 $1.07 $1.13 $1.03 $1.00 $0.88 $1.23

20% ASP Cut $1.49 $1.16 $0.94 $1.00 $1.06 $0.97 $0.94 $0.83 $1.16

FUTURE PROFIT %

Current Profit 1.0% 12.8% 10.9% 8.7% -7.2% 16.1% -12.9% 32.6% 21.4%

5% ASP Fall -14.3% -12.9% 19.7% 17.6% -6.8% 10.2% -33.1% 28.3% 26.1%

10% ASP Fall -20.6% -19.2% 15.3% 13.0% -12.7% 5.2% -40.5% 24.4% 22.0%

15% ASP Fall -27.7% -26.2% 10.3% 7.9% -19.3% -0.3% -48.8% 19.9% 17.4%

20% ASP Fall -35.7% -34.1% 4.7% 2.2% -26.8% -6.6% -58.1% 14.9% 12.2%

Joseph Berwind

-11%

-42%

30%34%

14%

-7%

36%

-4%

16%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2012 Guided Volume growth over 2011

Cost Structure Analysis,Current & Guided Volumes

69

• In year ending 1Q12 (2Q11 to 1Q12) STP has the highest volume shipment followed by FSLR, YGE & TSL

• High margin of safety is noticed for FSLR, YGE, TSL & STP.




July 2012

331

902

1,571 1,421

2,024 1,819

641

1,712

648

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500YE 1Q12 Total Volume Shipment (MW)

Breakeven Volume Margin of Safety

295 525

2,050 1,900

2,300

1,700

875

1,650

750

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,5002012 Guided Volume Shipment (MW)

Joseph Berwind

Cost Vs Price

70

Red : Price Reduction

Tan: Cost Reduction

Source: AEI Consulting, Company Reports, Bloomberg


Revenue Trend Analysis

71

x =

1Q12 Revenue Growth:

Module: -24.3%

Cell: -53.6%

Wafer: -24.2%

1Q12 Volume Growth:

Module: -14.4%

Cell: -44.8%

Wafer: -18.2%

4Q11 APS Growth:

Module: -18.1%

Cell: -27.7%

Wafer: -29.1%

• Sales declined sequentially

• Prices declined across the board

• Prices for all segments declined in the

range of 18% to 30%

• Volumes were almost flat for all the

segments

• R&D spending significantly increased

in the cell segment

• R&D flat for wafer companies

• Inventories of module and wafers

companies increased

• Cell companies inventories fell

• Wafer companies inventory to sales

spiked because of poor sales


Source: AEI Consulting, Company Reports Source: AEI Consulting, Company Reports Source: AEI Consulting, Company Reports


Volume Trend Analysis

72

1Q12 Volume Growth:

Module: -14.4%

Cell: -44.8%

Wafer: -18.2%Source: AEI Consulting, Company Reports


July 2012

926 749 749 613

422 517 517 285

2,578 2,983 2,968

2,540

3,925 4,249

4,234

3,438

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2Q11 3Q11 4Q11 1Q12

Shipment by Segment

Wafer Cell Module

Joseph Berwind

R&D Trend Analysis

73

1Q12 R&D Growth:

Module: -6.5%

Cell: -23.2%

Wafer: -51.9%Source: AEI Consulting, Company Reports

Source: AEI Consulting, Company Reports Source: AEI Consulting, Company Reports

July 2012

4.13%

6.15%

8.41%

5.34%

1.09% 1.19% 2.02%

3.35%2.41%2.55% 2.70%

3.34%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

2Q11 3Q11 4Q11 1Q12

R&D to Sales

W Average Wafer Cell Module

$¢2.77

$¢3.42 $¢3.32

$¢1.95

$¢1.28$¢1.21 $¢1.49

$¢2.08

$¢3.80

$¢3.47

$¢3.01$¢3.29

$¢0.00

$¢1.00

$¢2.00

$¢3.00

$¢4.00

2Q11 3Q11 4Q11 1Q12

R&D /W shipped


Joseph Berwind

Inventory Trend Analysis

74

1Q12 Inventory Growth:

Module: 14.7%

Cell: 108.9%

Wafer: -83.6%



July 2012

$981 $1,137 $1,073$176

$900 $738 $597

$1,248

$3,369 $3,693

$2,983 $3,421

$5,250$5,568

$4,653

$4,846

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

2Q11 3Q11 4Q11 1Q12

Inventory by Segment

Wafer Cell Module Series4

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

2Q11 3Q11 4Q11 1Q12

Inventory to LTM Sales

Wafer Cell Module

Joseph Berwind

$0.67$0.56

$0.39 $0.37

$1.18$1.02

$0.74$0.62

$1.58

$1.36

$1.11$0.98

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

$1.60

$1.80

2Q11 3Q11 4Q11 1Q12

ASP Movement by Segment


Pricing Trend Analysis

75

1Q12 Price Growth:

Module: -7.3%

Cell: -16.0%

Wafer: -11.6%

Weighted average price implies sigma module revenue of all companies divided by sigma module volume shipment (MW) of all the companies.




Cost Simulation Analysis: 1Q 2011 Basis

76

Going forward falling polysilicon prices, wafer thickness reduction, reduced pasteconsumption, increased efficiencies should drive further cost reduction. So, how are wedoing?

+32% = $1.72/W

ASP in 1Q11

+17% = $0.86/W

ASP in 4Q13

Source: AEI Consulting, Company Reports, ITRPV Roadmap


Cost Simulation Analysis 1Q12 Basis

77

1Q12 Original Vs Actual Price

July 2012

$0.31 $0.28

$0.67$0.58

$0.08$0.06

$1.06$0.92

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

Original Actual

1Q12: Original Vs Actual

Silicon cost Non silicon cost Profit

$1.06

$0.92$0.03$0.09

$0.02

$0.60

$0.70

$0.80

$0.90

$1.00

$1.10

Original Silicon

Cost

Non

Silicon

Cost

Profit Actual

Original

AssessmentActual

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

Original Assessment Vs Actual

Joseph Berwind

Cost Sensitivity

78

$1.16$1.14

$1.13$1.12

$1.10$1.09

$1.04

$1.09

$1.14

$1.19

15.0% 15.2% 15.4% 15.6% 15.8% 16.0%

Module Efficiency %

Cost Sensitivity to Efficiency %

$1.16$1.14

$1.11$1.09

$1.06

$1.00

$1.05

$1.10

$1.15

$1.20

180 170 160 150 140

Wafer thickness µm

Cost Sensitivity to Wafer thickness$1.16

$1.12$1.08

$1.04$1.00

$0.96$0.93

$0.80

$0.90

$1.00

$1.10

$1.20

$55 $50 $45 $40 $35 $30 $25

Polysilicon Price $/Kg

Cost Sensitivity to Polysilicon Price

$0.63

$0.73

$0.83

$0.93

$1.03

$1.13

1Q11 2Q11 3Q11 4Q11 1Q12 2Q12 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 4Q13

Cost $/W Accelerated Polysilicon ReductionPoly cost reaching $25/Kg by 4Q13

Poly cost reaching $20/Kg by 4Q13



It was expected that polycost could fall to $25/Kg by4Q13 and hence themodule cost would reach$0.71/W by 4Q13… butthere is acceleratedpolysilicon cost reductions.This is accelerating the fallin module costs beyond ouroriginal figures.

In the acceleratedscenario, module costscould reach $0.71/Wbetween 2Q13 to4Q13… By 4Q13,module cost could reach<$0.65/W


Cost Sensitivity

79

QUARTERLY VALUESParticulars 1Q11 2Q11 3Q11 4Q11 1Q12 2Q12 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 4Q13

Module CharacteristicsModule Area m2 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64 1.64Module Efficiency 15.00% 15.09% 15.18% 15.27% 15.36% 15.45% 15.55% 15.64% 15.73% 15.82% 15.91% 16.00%density (m2/kWp) 6.67 6.63 6.59 6.55 6.51 6.47 6.43 6.40 6.36 6.32 6.29 6.25

power per module (Wp) 246.00 247.49 248.98 250.47 251.96 253.45 254.95 256.44 257.93 259.42 260.91 262.40 Silicon cost Calculation

wafer thickness 180.00 176.36 172.73 169.09 165.45 161.82 158.18 154.55 150.91 147.27 143.64 140.00 module area m2*µm 295.20 289.24 283.27 277.31 271.35 265.38 259.42 253.45 247.49 241.53 235.56 229.60

silicon cost per kg $55.00 $52.27 $49.55 $46.82 $44.09 $41.36 $38.64 $35.91 $33.18 $30.45 $27.73 $25.00silicon usage per m2*µm 6.52 6.52 6.52 6.52 6.52 6.52 6.52 6.52 6.52 6.52 6.52 6.52

silicon cost $/module $105.78 $98.50 $91.44 $84.59 $77.95 $71.52 $65.30 $59.30 $53.50 $47.92 $42.55 $37.40silicon cost $/W $0.43 $0.40 $0.37 $0.34 $0.31 $0.28 $0.26 $0.23 $0.21 $0.18 $0.16 $0.14

Paste cost Calculationpaste usage g/cell 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.20paste cost $/gms $2.90 $2.90 $2.90 $2.90 $2.90 $2.90 $2.90 $2.90 $2.90 $2.90 $2.90 $2.90paste cost $/cell $0.87 $0.84 $0.82 $0.79 $0.76 $0.74 $0.71 $0.69 $0.66 $0.63 $0.61 $0.58

# of cells per module 72.00 72.00 72.00 72.00 72.00 72.00 72.00 72.00 72.00 72.00 72.00 72.00 paste $/Module $62.64 $60.75 $58.85 $56.95 $55.05 $53.15 $51.25 $49.36 $47.46 $45.56 $43.66 $41.76paste cost $/W $0.25 $0.25 $0.24 $0.23 $0.22 $0.21 $0.20 $0.19 $0.18 $0.18 $0.17 $0.16

Other costs calculationOther costs $/module $116.94 $116.09 $115.23 $114.38 $113.53 $112.68 $111.83 $110.98 $110.13 $109.28 $108.43 $107.58Fall due to scale etc -0.7% -0.7% -0.7% -0.7% -0.7% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8% -0.8%

other cost $/W $0.48 $0.47 $0.46 $0.46 $0.45 $0.44 $0.44 $0.43 $0.43 $0.42 $0.42 $0.41

Total Cost $/W $1.16 $1.11 $1.07 $1.02 $0.98 $0.94 $0.90 $0.86 $0.82 $0.78 $0.75 $0.71

Original Cost Assessment • Originally, we anticipated that silicon cost could drop from $55/Kg in 1Q11 to $25/Kg in 4Q13.

• This implies, module manufacturing cost reduction from $1.16/W in 1Q11 to $0.71/W by 4Q13.

• However, the accelerated decline in polysilicon cost and accepting lower margins leading to an accelerated decline in module prices.

• By1Q12, we had anticipated total module cost at $0.98/W, of which silicon $0.31/W and non silicon $0.67/W.

• However, the cost reduction accelerated and fell to $0.86/W of which silicon was $0.28/W and non silicon $0.58/W.

Actual 1Q12 cost stood at $0.86/W

Silicon cost: $0.28/W

Non Silicon cost: $0.58/W


COST OF PRODUCTIONC R I T I C A L A S S E S S M E N T O F C O S T O F P R O D U C T I O N O F C - S I A N D T H I N F I L M

P H O T O V O L T A I C M O D U L E S W I T H K E Y F O C U S O N P R O D U C T I O N P R O C E S S


July 2012



Solar PV Technology

• At its most basic structure a PV cell is a semiconductor that is a solid material that has electrical conductivity in between a conductor and an insulator

• PV broadly consists of two main categories of cells and modules, crystalline silicon and thin-film.

• c-Si which accounts for majority of the market size uses polysilicon as the starting raw material, whereas, thin-film which is relatively new process from commercial perspective uses other materials such as cadmium telluride, amorphous silicon etc as starting raw material.


c-Si

83%

a-Si

4%

Tandem

3%

CIGS

3%

CdTe

7%Thin Film

17%

2011: Technology View

16,742 26,035

33,015 37,516 41,243 45,356

4,228

5,459

6,659 6,703

7,286 8,216

20,970

31,493

39,674 44,219

48,529 53,572

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Global Module Production (MW)

c-Si Thin Film

947 1,389 1,591 1,517 1,655 1,806 1,216 1,024 1,107 1,161 1,253 1,354 588

957 1,318 1,376 1,502 1,642

1,477 2,089

2,642 2,649 2,876

3,414

4,228

5,459

6,659 6,703 7,286

8,216

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Global TF Module Production (MW)

a-Si Tandem a-Si/µc-Si CIGS CdTeJoseph Berwind

Solar PV Value Chain

Polysilicon-based PV

WafersPolysiliconPV

ModulesPV Cells Distribution Installation Energy Sales

Thin film-based PV

PV Modules

PV Cells

Capital EquipmentBalance of

System

Distribution InstallationEnergy Sales

Balance of System

Capital Equipment



Ingot


83

c-Si Module Cost of Production

Ingot Wafer Cell Module

Prep Silicon

Cast/Grow Ingot

Cut ingot into

bricks

Slicing bricks into

wafers

Wafer Separation

Wafer Cleaning

Texturing

Diffusion

HF Surface Etching

AR Coating

Metal Line

Firing

Glass Washing

Tab & String Cells

Module Layup &

Bussing

Lamination &

Curing

Framing &

Termination

Power Testing



c-Si Manufacturing Process

Ingot Fab

Polysilicon

DI Water

Argon

Pre Coated Crucible

Varnish

Saw Blade

Cooling Water

Electricity

Silicon Carbide 10µm

Glass support beam

Brick Epoxy

Glycol

KOH 50%

Saw Wire, stainless steel

City Water

Electricity

Plastic Bag 12.7 x 17.8 cm

Styrofoam

Box 17.6 x 17.6 x 7cm

HF 49%, HNO3 65%

HCL 37%, KOH 50%

Compressed, Air Nitrogen

Oxygen, POCl3,Ammonia, Nitrogen

Silane, Silver Paste,Al Paste,

Silk Screen,Doctor Blade,

Cooling Water,Electricity Plastic,

Bag,Styrofoam, Cell package Tape,

Box ,Flash Lamp

FlashLamp, Electricity,

Compressed Air, Detergent, DI

Water Ribbon 060“,IR Lamps,

Module Front

Glass,EVA,BusbarRibbon,TPAT,Di

aphragm O-ring,PTFE Release

Sheet Moduel Tape, Frame,Frame

Sides, Frame Inserts,Flash Lamp,

Jbox Bypass Diodes,Silicone

Sealant Potting Epoxy, Labels

Box,Molded plastic stacking

corners

FA

BP

RO

CE

SS

Wafer Fab Cell Fab

Prep Silicon

DSS Cast ingot

Slice into bricks

Slice bricks into wafer

Pre Wafer Clean

Package wafer

Incoming wafer inspection

Isotexture Etch

Diffusion

HF Surface Etch

A/R Coating

Metal Line

Firing Furnace

Cell Test & Sort

Package Cells

Incoming cell inspection

Glass Washing

Tab & String Cells

Module Layup

Bussing and Inspection

Module Lamination

Module Curing

Module Trim & Taping

Frame Module

Module Termination

Module Power Test

Module Safety Test

Package and Label Module

Module Fab

MA

TE

RIA

LS

TS3 Twin Spindle CNC Grinder

Measuring units

TS207 ID Saw

Robot Grinding

Robot Cropping

BKS Brick Gluing Station

Wafer Separation

Wafer Fine Cleaning

Wafer Transfer

Wafer Inspection & Sorting


c-Si Technology View

Thin

Film

17%

Mono

21%

Multi

62%

c-Si

83%

2011: c-Si Technology Viewc-Si Technology

Mono Silicon Multi Silicon

Grain size: >10 cm Grain size: 1mm to 10 cm• Higher efficiency

• Expensive • Low cost

• Lower efficiency

Czochralski

Flat Zone Silicon

Source: pveducation.org, siliconsultant.com/SImulticrs & AEI Consulting

Directional Solidification



July 2012

13,393 19,526

23,110 25,886 28,045 30,388 3,348

6,509

9,904 11,630

13,198 14,967

16,742

26,035

33,015

37,516 41,243

45,356

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

c-Si Module Production (MW)

Multi MonoJoseph Berwind

Silicon Ingot

• A PV module can be manufactured from mono or multi crystalline silicon. 75% of the PV uses multi while balance 25% uses mono. Mono is costlier than multi, whereas mono has better material characteristics implying higher efficiency.

• Mono silicon ingots are manufactured using Czochralski (CZ) or Float Zone (FZ)

process. Multi silicon ingots are manufactured using Directional Solidification

(DS).

• Since FZ requires uniform, crack free cylindrical feed rod which is 100% higher than

normal poly rod, FZ method is not popular among PV ingot manufactures.

14.00%

15.00%

16.00%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Cell Efficiencies %

Mono

Multi


• FZ requires 30kWh/Kg silicon whereas CZ requires 60kWh/Kg silicon.

• Multicrystalline ingots as large as 690 mm x 690 mm in cross section and weighing as much as 240 kg are grown in total cycle

times of 56 hours. The resultant throughput is 4.3 kg/h. The energy consumption for DS is in the range of 8-15 kWh/kg

• Unlike CZ growth, the solid/liquid interface is submerged in DS, and precipitates or slag at the melt surface do not disrupt growth.

DS is a simpler process requiring less skill, manpower, and equipment sophistication than CZ growth, which can make it a lower

cost process

Source: siliconsultant.com

Multi Ingot Mono Ingot

Source: pveducation.org


100-300kg/ingot raw material is placed in a crucible & add boron

Evacuation of the crystal growing chamber

Melting of the silicon in inert atmosphere (argon)

Dipping of a thin crystal seed into the molten silicon material

Seed and the crucible rotate in opposite directions, the seed is slowly extracted.

Silicon Ingot - Consumables

• Crucibles, Graphite wear parts, Argon and Boron are the consumables used in silicon ingot manufacturing process.

Mono Ingot

Process flow

1

2

3

4

end

400-600kg/ingot raw material is placed in a crucible & add boron

Evacuation of the crystal growing chamber

Melting of the silicon in inert atmosphere (argon)

Dipping of a thin crystal seed into the molten silicon material

Directional solidification of the molten silicon is obtained by controlled cooling of the crucible

Multi Ingot

Process flow

1

2

3

4

end



Silicon Ingot – Crucibles

• Crucibles are important consumable in silicon ingot making.

• Normally, one crucible supports 100 to 300 Kg of mono ingot while 400 to 600 Kg of multi ingot. Therefore, cost of crucible per kg of ingot will be ~ $3.53 for Mono and ~$1.67 for Multi.

• This cost differential could partially offset by higher efficiencies of mono. However, mono’s cost still be higher than multi.

• Crucible costs are sensitive to wafer thickness. If wafer thickness reduces from current 200µm to 150µm, crucible cost could reduce from $0.013/W to $0.010/W


Crucible - G5 Jumbo

Particulars Mono Multi

Crucible Assumptions

Kg Ingot supported by Crucibles 100 to 300 400 to 600

Assumed Value (Kgs) 260 550

Cost of Crucible (per Unit) $917 $917

Crucible cost per Kg of Ingot $3.53 $1.67

Silicon usage g/W Calculation

Polysilicon usage per 1M2*1µm

module 4.151 4.151

Wafer thickness µm 200 200

Module efficiency 13.64% 13.37%

Silicon usage g/W 6.09 6.21

Crucible cost per Watt


Silicon usage per Watt g/W 6.09 6.21

Watts produced per Kg of Ingot 164.24 160.99

Crucible cost per Watt $0.02 $0.01

Weightage 25% 75%

Weighted average cost $0.0131

$0.013 $0.012

$0.012 $0.011

$0.011 $0.010

$0.000

$0.002

$0.004

$0.006

$0.008

$0.010

$0.012

$0.014

200 190 180 170 160 150

Wafer thickness µm

Crucible cost Sensitivity to wafer thickness


$0.008$0.008

$0.007$0.007

$0.006$0.006

$0.000

$0.001

$0.002

$0.003

$0.004

$0.005

$0.006

$0.007

$0.008

$0.009

200 190 180 170 160 150

Wafer thickness µm

Graphite Wear Parts Sensitivity

Silicon Ingot – Graphite wear parts

• Graphite wear parts are second major consumable used in ingot making

• Normally, one crucible supports 100 to 300 Kg of mono ingot while 400 to 600 Kg of multi ingot. One graphite wear part can be used for 125 times. This implies, wear parts cost $2.15/Kg of Mono and $1.02/Kg of Multi ingots

• This cost differential could partially offset by higher efficiencies of mono. However, mono’s cost still be higher than multi.

• Crucible costs are sensitive to wafer thickness. If wafer thickness reduces from current 200µm to 150µm, crucible cost couldreduce from $0.008/W to $0.006/W



Graphite Wear Parts


Graphite parts Assumptions

Kg Ingot supported by Crucibles 100 to 300 400 to 600

Assumed Value (Kgs) 260 550

Cost of Graphite part (per Unit) $70,000 $70,000

# of recycling of wear part (times) 125 125



Polysilicon usage per 1M2*1µm module 4.151 4.151




Graphite parts cost per Watt


Silicon usage per Watt g/W 6.09 6.21


Crucible cost per Watt $0.013 $0.006

Weightage 25% 75%

Weighted average cost $0.008July 2012 Joseph Berwind

Silicon Ingot - Argon

• Argon is a gas and is used while melting silicon in crucible in inert atmosphere.

• Argon is consumed at 40 liters per Kg of Ingot. Argon costs $14 per MT.

• This implies, Argon cost is $0.0035/W. As the wafer thickness improves, more wafer or more watts can be produced with same feedstock. This substantially reduces the cost/W. As per our analysis, as wafer thickness reduces from 200µm to 150µm, argon cost reduces from $0.0035/W to $0.0026/W.



Argon (Ar)


Argon Consumption

Argon usage Liters/Kg Ingot 40 40






Argon cost per Watt

Argon used - liters/Kg ingot 40 40


Argon used per Watt (Liter/Watt) 0.24 0.25

Argon cost per MT $14.00 $14.00

Argon cost per Watt ($/W) $0.0034 $0.0035

Weightage 25% 75%


$0.0035$0.0033

$0.0031$0.0029

$0.0028$0.0026

$0.0000

$0.0005

$0.0010

$0.0015

$0.0020

$0.0025

$0.0030

$0.0035

$0.0040

200 190 180 170 160 150

Wafer thickness µm

Argon cost Sensitivity to Wafer thickness


Silicon Ingot - Gases

• Nitrogen and Helium are used in multi crystalline ingot.

• Nitrogen is used at 7.01 liters per Kg of ingot and Helium at 0.0179 liters per Kg of Ingot.

• The cost per Watt works out to be insignificant.

July 2012

Nitrogen (N2)


Nitrogen Consumption

Nitrogen usage Liters/Kg Ingot 0 7.01358






Nitrogen cost per Watt

Nitrogen used - liters/Kg ingot 0 7.0136


Nitrogen used per Watt (Liter/Watt) - 0.04

Nitrogen cost per Liter $0.0002 $0.0002

Nitrogen cost per Watt ($/W) $0.0000 $0.000

Weightage 25% 75%


Helium (He)


Helium Consumption

Helium usage Liters/Kg Ingot 0 0.01792






Helium cost per Watt

Helium used - liters/Kg ingot 0 0.017918


Helium used per Watt (Liter/Watt) - 0.000111

Helium cost per Liter $0.0002 $0.0067

Helium cost per Watt ($/W) $0.0000 $0.000000001

Weightage 25% 75%



Joseph Berwind

Silicon Wafers

• Once ingots are manufactured, they are sliced into wafers. In the case of the multicrystalline silicon, large slabs are grown

which are then sliced up into smaller ingot blocks.

Silicon Wafer Manufacturing

Process Flow

1

2

3

4

5

Ingot is mounted on the

carrier with mounting

epoxy

The large silicon ingot is

sawn into more

manageable bricks

The individual bricks

are now ready to saw

up into wafers

Bricks are sawn in wafer

sawing machine

Moving web of

steel/diamond wire slices

brick into wafers

Wafers are then cleaned

and shifted to cell

manufacturing

Source: pveducation.org & AEI Consulting


Wafer Slicing Process

• Wafer slicing, is a key part of the solar photovoltaic (PV) cell manufacturing process. The process begins with solid ingots of single-crystal or multi-crystalline silicon material.

• Wire saws shape the ingots into squared blocks and then slice them into thin wafers. These wafers are used as the base for the active PV cell.

• Wire saws use a metal wire of up to 400 km in length which eats through the brittle silicon. The real cutting work is carried out by what is known as slurry – a mixture of oil and silicon carbide grains.

• Slurry used in wafer manufacturing is a mixture of SiC and PEG. It is a thick suspension of solids in a liquid.

• The Silicon Carbide (SiC) as a powder is 2nd hardest substance on the earth after diamond. It gives the wire its “teeth”. Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) is a high viscosity carrier liquid, provides coolant for metal wires.

• The heart of a modern wire saw is a very thin, high-strength steel wire which carries the slurry that performs the cutting action. The wire is wound on guides that form a horizontal “web” of up to 1,000 parallel wires.

• Motors rotate the wire guides, causing the entire wire-web to move at a speed of 5 to 25 meters per second. The wire speed and its linear (back and forth) motion are adjusted throughout the cut. Nozzles continuously spray the moving wires with slurry that typically contains suspended silicon carbide particles. The silicon blocks are mounted to cutting tables. The cutting tables then travel vertically through the moving wire web, cutting the blocks into wafers.


Wafer Slicing Process

Source: Rockwell Automation

Source: Applied Materials

Three stages of Wafering:

cropping

squaring

slicing

Wafer Slicing


Wafer Slicing Technologies

Squaring (band saw) Slicing (Wire saw)

Purpose Cutting ingot into bricks Slicing bricks into wafers

Input Multi or mono ingot Multi or mono bricks

Equipment used Multi or mono band saw Wafer Saw

Process

Output Multi or mono blocks Multi or mono wafers


Silicon Wafers - Consumables

• The “Consumable” is the sum of wire, slurry and all the other consumables costs such as glue, beam, pulleys and wire guide coating and grooving. This term is largely driven by wire and slurry with equal weight for each.

• The usage of “consumables” is a function of equipment and material performance metrics such as wire speed, table speed, brick load size, wafer length, wafer thickness and kerf loss.

• Kerf, consumables, slicing yield and capital cost accounts for almost two third of the total wafering cost according to Applied Materials.

• Improved processes leading to reduced kerf loss, reduced wafer thickness, increasing the brick load size have significant impact on reducing the usage of consumables and reducing the overall wafering cost/W.

Source: Applied Materials


Silicon Wafers – Slurry


Product DimensionParticulars Ingot Brick Wafer

width / mm (side for brick) 840 156 156

depth / mm (top for brick) 840 25

height / mm (tail for brick) 280 15

Wafer Thickness / micron 200

Saw parametersParticulars Brick Wafer

Wire dimension / micron 300 130

Grit Size / micron 14 12

Diamond Wire dia / micron 350

Yield 92.6%

Pricing AssumptionsParticulars $

Virgin PEG Price / $/lit $1.32

Virgin SiC Price / $/kg $2.63

Recycled PEG Price / $/lit $0.88

Recycled SiC Price / $/kg $0.99

PEG Recycle percentage 80%

SiC Recycle percentage 50%

Slurry Usage per Wafer CalculationParticulars Value Comments

# of Bricks from the ingot 25.00

Sawn Surface / mm^2 4,368,000 Slurry used / lit - band saw 15.29 Liters per ingot

# of Wafers per Brick 607

Sawn Surface / mm^2 369,298,800 Slurry used / lit - wire saw 1,292.55 Liters per ingotTotal Slurry used/lit 1,307.83 Total wafer produced 15,175.00 Slurry used /lit per Wafer 0.0862 Slurry Usage per Watt Calculation

Particulars Value CommentsCell efficiency 14.9% Cell efficiency

Energy Density 6.70 Area required to produce 1kWp power

Cell size 0.0243 156 mm wafer substrate, area is 156*156 mm2

Power produced per cell 0.0036 kWp produced per cell

Slurry Usage per Wafer 0.0862 Calculation as per aboveSlurry usage per kWp 23.73 Slurry per Wafer/kWp per WaferSlurry cost per Liter Calculation

Particulars ValueVirgin SiC cost in 1 liter SiC output $1.32

Recycled SiC Cost in 1 liter SiC output $0.49

Virgin PEG cost in 1 liter PEG output $0.26

Recycled PEG cost in 1 liter PEG output $0.70Total cost of SiC and PEG in 1 ltr SiC and 1 ltr PEG $2.77Slurry liter obtained by mixing 1 ltr SiC & 1 ltr PEG 1.50Slurry Cost $/Liter $1.85Slurry cost per Watt Calculation

Particulars ValueSlurry usage liter per kWp 23.73

Slurry Cost $/Liter $1.85Slurry cost per Watt $0.0439


Silicon Wafers – Wires


Product DimensionParticulars Ingot Brick Wafer

width / mm 840 156 156

depth / mm 840 25

height / mm 280 15

Wafer Thickness / micron 200

Saw parametersParticulars Brick Wafer

Wire dimension / micron 300 130

Grit Size / micron 14 12

Diamond Wire dia / micron 350

wire speed m/s 15

Cutting speed / mm per hour 60.00 25.00

Yield 93%

load size mm 8,910 1,000

Pricing AssumptionsParticulars $

Wire Price / $/km $1.28

Diamond Wire Price $/km $140.00

Wire Usage per Wafer CalculationParticulars Value Comments

# of Bricks from ingot 25.00

# of ingot per cut 10.00

# of bricks per cut 250.00

Total wire used kms per cut 1,008

wire used kms/brick 4.03

Wire used per wafer - band saw 0.0003 # of Wafers per Brick 607

# of bricks per cut 3

# of wafers per cut 1821

Wire used per cut / kms 337

Wire used per wafer - wire saw 0.185 Total wire used kms/Wafer 0.185 Wire Usage per Watt Calculation

Particulars Value CommentsCell efficiency 14.9% Cell efficiency

Energy Density 6.70 Area required to produce 1kWp power

Cell size 0.0243 156 mm wafer substrate, area is 156*156 mm2

Power produced per cell 0.00363 kWp produced per cell

Wire Usage per Wafer 0.1853 Calculation as per above

Wire usage per kWp 51.02 Wire per Wafer/kWp per WaferWire cost per Watt Calcuation

Particulars ValueWire Price / $/km $1.28

Wire usage per kWp 51.02

Total Wire cost per Watt $0.065


Silicon Wafers – Wire Cost Sensitivity


• Wire costs are sensitive to cell efficiency and load size.

• As the load size increases, more wafers are sliced in a single run. This implies lower cost per Watt. Our analysis suggests that as the load size increases from 1000 mm to 2000 mm, wire cost/W decreases from $0.065/W to $0.028/W.

• Similarly as cell efficiency improves, more power can be produced with the same wafer. This implies significant reduction in per Watt wire cost.

Source: AEI Consulting$0.065

$0.049

$0.039

$0.0327$0.028

$0.000

$0.010

$0.020

$0.030

$0.040

$0.050

$0.060

$0.070

1000 1200 1400 1700 2000

Load Size (mm)

Wire cost sensitivity to load size

$0.065$0.065

$0.064$0.064

$0.064$0.063

$0.063$0.062

$0.061

$0.061

$0.062

$0.062

$0.063

$0.063

$0.064

$0.064

$0.065

$0.065

$0.066

$0.066

$0.065 14.93% 15.03% 15.13% 15.23% 15.33% 15.43% 15.53%

Cell Efficiency %

Wire cost efficiency to cell efficiency


Silicon Solar Cells

• Wafers are the starting material to obtain a photovoltaic solar cell capable of converting sunlight into electricity. Through a series of chemical and physical processes, wafers are made sensitive to solar radiation to absorb photons of light which create free electrons within the solar cells.

• Cutting silicon into wafers leaves the surface covered with cutting slurry and the surface is damaged due to the action of the saw. Wafers are cleaned in a hot solution of sodium hydroxide that removes the surface contamination and the first 10 µm of damaged silicon. The wafers are then textured in a more dilute solution of sodium hydroxide with isopropanol as a wetting agent.

• The p-n (positive-negative) junction is obtained by exposing the wafer to thermal diffusion in a high temperature oven (about 1,000°C) and controlled highly purified atmosphere. During such process, the first 0.5 microns of the wafer are doped with phosphorous turning their conductivity into n-type thus creating a p-n junction. The rest of the wafer maintains a p-type conductivity which acts as separator for the electric charges created by the photons

• A very thin anti-reflecting coating (60-80 nm) of silicon nitride (SiNx) is applied through PE-CVD (Plasma enhanced chemical vapour deposition) to further reduce reflection and maximize light absorption. In combination with texturing, such coating enables to capture high fractions of light and achieve a higher conversion efficiency of the solar cell.

• A silver paste is applied on the front of the cell and aluminium paste on the back of the cell by automatic screenprinting. This process enables the electrical charges to be collected and converged to the electrical consumer

Texturing

Cleaning and texturing of wafers in hot solution of sodium hydroxide with isopropanol as wetting agent

Emitter Diffusion

A phosphorous containing coating is applied to the surface. The wafers are then put in a belt furnace to diffuse a small amount of phosphorous into the silicon surface

Edge Isolation

The edge isolation process removes the phosphorous diffusion around the edge of the cell so that the front emitter is electrically isolated from the cell rear.

AR Coating

An antireflection of silicon nitride is

typically deposited using chemical

vapour deposition process (CVD).

Screen Printing

A silver paste is applied on the front of the cell and aluminum/silver paste on the back.

Source: pveducation.org & AEI ConsultingJuly 2012 Joseph Berwind

Silicon Solar Cells – Texturing


Wafers are put into cassettes

for texturing

Cassettes are put into holder

and moved to production line

Wafers are put through several

rinse cycles

Finally the wafers are loaded into a

centrifuge for a final rinse & spin dry

Consumables used in Texturing


1 2 3 4

An acid solution (or alkaline for monocrystalline cells) is used to etch away the saw damage on the surface of the wafers, which is then textured with a

pyramidal structure to reduce optical losses and increase the amount of light absorbed by the silicon.

Materials Liters/HrThroughpu

t Wafers/HrLiter/Wafer

Cell

Efficiency

Cell Area

(mm)Liter/Watt Cost $/Ltr Cost $/W

HF - 49% 3 2,000 0.0015 14.93% 156 0.00041 $6.10 $0.0025

HNO3 - 65% 2 2,000 0.0008 14.93% 156 0.00022 $5.46 $0.0012

HCL - 37% 1 2,000 0.0005 14.93% 156 0.00014 $1.72 $0.0002

KOH - 50% 0 2,000 0.0001 14.93% 156 0.00003 $0.15 $0.0000

DI Water 1,000 2,000 0.5 14.93% 156 0.13766 $0.0035 $0.0005

Compressed Air 120,000 2,000 60 14.93% 156 16.51915 $0.00001 $0.0001

Total Consumables $0.0046


Silicon Solar Cells – Emitter Diffusion

In this process step, the wafer is doped with phosphorous creating the emitter or p-n junction

Textured wafers in

cassettes are loaded

Wafers are moved on a belt one by

one for phosphorous coatingPhosphorous coating is done

on all the wafers

Coated wafers travel through

furnace for an hour

Wafers are added back to

cassettes for an acid etch

1 2 3 4

5


Consumables used in Emitter Diffusion


Materials Liters/Hr

Through

put

Wafers/H

r

Liter/Waf

er

Cell

Efficienc

y

Cell Area


Nitrogen 720 2,000 0.36 14.93% 156 0.09911 $0.0002 $0.00002

Oxygen 1,200 2,000 0.6 14.93% 156 0.16519 $0.0003 $0.00004

POCl3 180 2,000 0.09 14.93% 156 0.02478 $0.340 $0.0084

Cooling Water 10 2,000 0.0050 14.93% 156 0.00138 $0.0014 $0.000002

Compressed Air 6,600 2,000 3.3 14.93% 156 0.90855 $0.00001 $0.00001



Silicon Solar Cells – Edge Isolation

The edge isolation process removes the phosphorous diffusion around the edge of the cell so that the front emitter is electrically isolated from the cell

rear. A common way to achieve this is to stack the wafers on top of each other then plasma etch using CF4 and O2

Wafers are removed from

cassettes and loaded to

etching system

Plasma etching is done in etching

system

1 2


Consumables used in Edge Isolation


Materials Liters/HrThroughpu

t Wafers/HrLiter/Wafer

Cell

Efficiency

Cell Area


HF - 49% 0.50 2,000 0.00025 14.93% 156 0.00007 $6.1040 $0.00042

DI Water 1,000 2,000 0.5 14.93% 156 0.13766 $0.0035 $0.00048

Compressed Air 120,000 2,000 60 14.93% 156 16.51915 $0.00001 $0.00012



Silicon Solar Cells – AR Coating

A very thin anti-reflecting coating (60-80 nm) of silicon nitride (SiNx) is applied through PE-CVD (Plasma enhanced chemical vapour deposition) to

further reduce reflection and maximize light absorption. In combination with texturing, such coating enables to capture high fractions of light and achieve

a higher conversion efficiency of the solar cell. Precursor gases of silane (SiH4) and ammonia (NH3) are fed into a chamber and break down due to a

plasma enhancement (PECVD).

Consumables used in AR Coating

Wafers are loaded to AR

Coating system

AR coated blue cells come out

of the AR Coating system

1 2


Source: Roth & Rau


Materials Liters/Hr

Throughp

ut

Wafers/Hr

Liter/Wafe

r

Cell

Efficiency

Cell Area


Ammonia 180.00 2,000 0.09 14.93% 156 0.02478 $0.0025 $0.00006

Nitrogen 21,600 2,000 10.8 14.93% 156 2.97345 $0.0002 $0.00056

Silane 360 2,000 0.18 14.93% 156 0.04956 $0.0025 $0.00012

Cooling Water 7,200 2,000 3.6 14.93% 156 0.99115 $0.0014 $0.00139

Compressed Air 6,000 2,000 3 14.93% 156 0.82596 $0.00001 $0.00001



Silicon Solar Cells – Screen Printing

The screen printing process consists in the transference of an ink or paste (with a specific viscosity) through a screen that allows its pass in a defined pattern, thanks to the pressure applied by a squeegee fixed in a moving part.

Basic parts of Screen Printing

• The screen, comprising a frame that holds a stretched fabric with a photo stencil attached to the mesh with the required design of the grid pattern.

• A squeegee, comprising a holder with a fixed, flexible, resilient blade.

• A metallic conductive paste that is transferred to the device surface.

• A silicon substrate located in a chuck aligned with the pattern to be transferred.

Types of Metallic Pastes

• Silver paste (Ag Paste): This paste contains ~80% silver content and balance frit and oil. This is used to create front contact. This paste is screen printed on the front side of the solar cell to create finger grids and bus bars.

• Silver/Aluminum paste (Ag/Al paste): This paste contains ~75% silver content, ~5% aluminum content and balance frit and oil. This is used to create bus bars on the rear side of the solar cell.

• Aluminum Paste (Al Paste): This paste contains ~90% aluminum content. This is used to create thick back surface contact for the solar cells.

Source: Dr. Luis Jaime Caballero Isofoton

Screen Printing Technique

Silver paste is forced through a patterned

screen. Those areas with gaps in the

pattern leaves a metal pattern on the

surface. The cells move along a conveyor

belt

Source: pveducation.org


Calculation of Paste Density (g/cm3)Particulars Unit Silver Frit Oil Total Comment

Paste content % % 80% 7% 13% 100% This represents the % of individual contents in the paste

Material Densities g/cm3 10.5 2.5 0.8 This is g/cm3 for various individual materials

Mix per liter g/Liter 800 70 162.5 1032.50 This shows the gms per liter of paste.

Content per Kg cm3/KG 76.1905 28 203.125 307.32 This shows the content in cm3 per Kg of paste. 1kG paste = 307.32 cm3

Paste Density g/cm3 3.253985 1 cm3 paste is equal to 3.25 gmsCalculation of Paste requirement (mm3) per Wafer

Particulars Unit Value CommentWafer size (mm) mm 156 We consider 156*156 mm wafer

Edge Exclusion mm 0.95 The four edges of the wafer is excluded from printing

Print thickness mm 0.03 This represent the height / thickness of the print aka dried thickness

Grid pitch mm 2.25 Distance between two grid lines

Line width mm 0.12 This is the width of each grid line. Higher the width more shading loss

# of bus bars # 2 No of bus bars on front side

Bus bar width mm 2.0 Width of each bus bar

Bus bar end mm 0.7 Bus bar end width

Bus bar taper length mm 3.0 Bus bar taper length

# of grid lines # 69 # of grid line is wafer length minus exclusion divided by grid pitch

Grid line area mm2 1275.95 69 lines, each line is 156 mm tall less edge excl multiplied by line width

Bus bar area mm2 612.5 2 bus bars of 2 mm width and 156 mm tall less edge excl minus ends

Total Printing area mm2 1888.45 Total printing area is grid line area plus bus bar area

Total paste required mm3 56.65 Printing area multiplied by print thickness/heightCalculation of paste usage per Wafer (g/Wafer)

Particulars Unit Value CommentPaste Density g/cm3 3.254 Calculaion as per above

Total paste required mm3 56.653 Calculaion as per above

Total paste usage g/Wafer 0.184 Paste used per WaferCalculation of paste usage per Kilowatt (g/kW)

Particulars Unit Value CommentCell efficiency % 14.9% Cell efficiency

Energy Density m2/kWp 6.700 Area required to produce 1kWp power

Cell size m2 0.024 156 mm wafer substrate, area is 156*156 mm2

Power produced per cell kWp 0.004 kWp produced per cell

Paste usage per cell g/Cell 0.184 Calculation as per above

Paste usage per kWp g/kWp 50.755 Paste usage per kWpCalculation of Front Silver paste cost per Watt

Particulars Unit Value CommentSilver Paste Price $/g $/g $1.22 Silver paste costs ~$1200 per Kg

Paste usage per kWp g/kWp 50.75 As per above

Front Silver Paste cost per Watt $0.0620 Silver Paste cost

Screen Printing – Ag Paste

July 2012


Joseph Berwind

Screen Printing – Ag/Al Paste

July 2012

Calculation of Paste Density (g/cm3)Particulars Unit Silver Al Frit Oil Total Comment

Paste content % % 75% 5% 2% 18% 100% This represents the % of individual contents in the paste

Material Densities g/cm3 10.5 2.7 2.5 0.8 This is g/cm3 for various individual materials

Mix per liter g/Liter 750 50 20 225 1045.00 This shows the gms per liter of paste.

Content per Kg cm3/KG 71.429 18.519 8.000 281.250 379.20 This shows the content in cm3 per Kg of paste. 1kG paste = 379.20 cm3










Total paste required mm3 26.76 Printing area multiplied by print thickness/height

Calculation of paste usage per Wafer (g/Wafer)Particulars Unit Value Comment

Paste Density g/cm3 2.637 Calculaion as per above


Total paste usage g/Wafer 0.0706 Paste used per Wafer

Calculation of paste usage per Kilowatt (g/kW)Particulars Unit Value Comment

Cell efficiency % 14.9% Cell efficiency





Paste usage per kWp g/kWp 19.428 Paste usage per kWpAG/AL Paste cost per Watt

Particulars Unit Value CommentAG/AL Paste price $/g $0.79 $786 per Kg

Paste Usage g/kWp 19.428 As per above

Ag/Al Paste cost per Watt $/W $0.0153 Paste cost per Watt


Joseph Berwind

Calculation of Paste Density (g/cm3)Particulars Unit Al Oil Total Comment

Paste content % % 90% 10% 100% This represents the % of individual contents in the paste

Material Densities g/cm3 2.7 0.8 This is g/cm3 for various individual materials

Mix per liter g/Liter 900 125 1025.00 This shows the gms per liter of paste.

Content per Kg cm3/KG 333.3333 156.25 489.58 This shows the content in cm3 per Kg of paste. 1kG paste = 489.58 cm3










Total Printing area mm2 23,266 Total wafer printing area (156*156 ) minus bus bar area

Total paste required mm3 767.77 Printing area multiplied by print thickness/heightCalculation of paste usage per Wafer (g/Wafer)

Particulars Unit Value CommentPaste Density g/cm3 2.043 Calculaion as per above


Total paste usage g/Wafer 1.568 Paste used per WaferCalculation of paste usage per Kilowatt (g/kW)

Particulars Unit Value CommentCell efficiency % 14.9% Cell efficiency





Paste usage per kWp g/kWp 431.8 Paste usage per kWpCalculation of BSF AL Paste cost per Watt

Particulars Unit Value CommentBSF AL Paste Price $/g $0.07 ~$72 per Kg

Paste usage g/kWp 431.758 As per above

Al Paste cost $/W $0.0311 Al Paste cost per Watt

Screen Printing – Al Paste



1 2

Silicon Solar Cells – Firing & Testing

After screen printing, cells are fired in a firing furnace

Cells are loaded to firing

furnace through robotsFired cells are unloaded

Source: pveducation.org & AEI ConsultingSource: Despatch

Finally, Photovoltaic cells

are tested and then

classified into bins

according to power and

color.

Cells are loaded to tester Tester in operation Cells are sorted into bins



Silicon Solar Modules

• Individual solar cells are protected from the weather by encapsulating into a module. Each cell is only around 0.5 volts, to obtain sufficient voltage the cell are connected together in series using flat wires called tabs.

• Modules are built by first interconnecting solar cells in series into strings which are then encapsulated in polymers under a tempered glass, framed with an anodized aluminum chassis and fitted with junction boxes.

Source: Fabrico

Stripes are added to the finished solar cells for electrical interconnection

Source: pveducation.orgJuly 2012 Joseph Berwind

Silicon Solar Modules Process steps

Glass Washing

Incoming Glass Panels are

cleaned and prepped for

module-lay-up

Tab and String

Using ribbon wire, individual

cells are electrically

connected into a solar cell

string

Module Lay-up, Bussing

Cell strings are placed onto

the glass panel, inter

connection with bus

ribbon, EVA & Tedlar™

Module Lamination

The cell matrix is laminated

between the glass and the

(Tedlar™ or glass).

Module Curing

Modules are stored for a

time, to cool and cure

Trim and Taping

After lamination, excess

EVA is trimmed with a hot

knife blade & protective

tape is placed.

Framing

Aluminum frames are

placed around laminated

module.

Module Termination

The Module junction box is

connected to the bus bar

ribbon on the back of the

laminated module.

Module Power Test

The completed solar panel

is tested with a flashed light

source to provide current-

voltage (I-V) characteristics

Module Safety Test

Hi-potential and ground

continuity electrical testing

is required for each module

by UL/CE.


Module Manufacturing Process Steps


Silicon Solar Modules – Glass Washing

• The incoming glass is washed and prepared for module lay-up.

• Normally glass washing machine operates at a speed of 4.6m/min to 9.1m/min.

• DI Water, Detergent and compressed air are used as consumables

Consumables used in Glass Washing

• The glass is used at 1m2 per 1m2 module. Assuming 5% yield loss, 1m2 module consumes 1.05m2 glass.

• The glass is priced around $4 to $6 per m2

Cost of Glass $/W



Source: www.bilco-mfg.com

Materials Liters/HrThroughput

M2/HrLiter/M2 Module

Efficiency

Watts

produced

per M2

Liter/Watt Cost $/Ltr Cost $/W

Detergent 0.0016 420 0.00000 13.43% 134.325 0.00000003 $3.13 $0.0000001

DI Water 1,500 420 3.5714286 13.43% 134.325 0.02659 $0.0035 $0.000092

Compressed Air 10,800 420 25.714286 13.43% 134.325 0.19143 $0.00001 $0.000001


MaterialsM2 per M2

of module

Module

Efficiency

Watts

produced

per M2

M2 glass

per Watt

Cost per

M2 Cost $/W

Glass 1.05 13.43% 134.325 0.0078 $4.20 $0.033

Total Cost $/W $0.0328


Silicon Solar Modules – Tab & String

Source: www.komaxgroup.com/

• In this process, using ribbon wire, individual solar cells are interconnected into solar string. No of strings is a function of solar module design architecture.

• Assuming module length of 1.64 m and 6 strings per module, (1.64*6*2) 22 m ribbons are used per module. Assuming module width at 0.99m, module area would be 1.63m2

Therefore, 13.50 m ribbons are used per m2 module area.

• The ribbons cost around $50 to $60 per km.

• During the process, compressed air is consumed at a rate of 30000 liters per hour. The machine throughput will be ~1200 cells/hour. Assuming 156mm cells, this implies 29m2 is processed per hour.

Cost of Ribbon $/W

Consumables used in Tab & String



MaterialsM per M2 of

module

Module

Efficiency

Watts

produced

per M2

Meter

ribbon per

Watt

Cost per M Cost $/W

Ribbon .060" Cu 13.50 13.43% 134.325 0.1005 $0.06 $0.006


Materials Liters/HrThrough

put M2/HrLiter/M2

Module

Efficienc

y

Watts

produced

per M2Liter/Watt Cost $/Ltr Cost $/W

Compressed Air 30,000 29 1027.2847 13.43% 134.325 7.64775 $0.00001 $0.000057



Silicon Solar Modules – Module Layup & Bussing

• Individual cell strings are placed onto the glass panels and then electrical inter connected with bus ribbon. Another encapsulant layer (EVA) and a protective sheet (Tedlar™) are placed over the inter connected cell strings.

• 1m2 module consumes 4 m2 EVA (front & back). Assuming 5% yield loss, this implies, 1m2 module consumes 4.20 m2

EVA. EVA costs $1 to $2 per M2

• Bus ribbon are consumed at 1.65 m per M2 module. These ribbons cost ~$70 per Kms

• The backsheet is used at 1m2 per 1m2 module. Assuming 5% yield loss, 1m2 module consumes 1.05m2 glass. Backsheet costs $2 to $4 per m2

Source:www.3-S.ch

Cost of Materials used in Module Layup & Bussing

Source: 3M


MaterialsM2 per M2

of module

Module

Efficiency

Watts

produced

per M2

Meter

ribbon per

Watt

Cost per

M2 Cost $/W

EVA 4.20 13.43% 134.325 0.0313 $1.54 $0.048

Bus bar ribbon 1.65 13.43% 134.325 0.0123 $0.07 $0.001

Backsheet 1.05 13.43% 134.325 0.0078 $2.80 $0.022



Silicon Solar Modules – Module Lamination

• The solar cell matrix is laminated between the glass and the rear substrate (Tedlar™ or glass), to encapsulate and protect the circuit from moisture and the elements.

• The laminator parts should be replaced at a regular interval. Normally, Diaphragm, O-Ring and Teflon sheets are replaced after every 2500 modules are laminated or assuming each module is 1.63m2 , the parts should be replaced after 4075 m2 modules are produced.

• Diaphragm costs $1,400, O-Ring $70 and Teflon sheet $245.

Cost of Materials used in Module Lamination

Source: www.spiresolar.com


Materials

# of

Cycles

per unit

Unit per

Module/

M2

Cost per

PieceCost $/M2 Module

EfficiencyWatts per M2 Cost $/W

Diaphragm 4,075 0.0002 $1,400 $0.344 13.43% 134.325 $0.003

O-Ring 4,075 0.0002 $70 $0.017 13.43% 134.325 $0.000

Teflon sheet 4,075 0.0002 $245 $0.060 13.43% 134.325 $0.000



Silicon Solar Modules – Module Trimming & Taping

• After lamination, excess material (EVA) is trimmed from the module with a hot knife blade . A protective tape is then placed around the module to prepare it for the aluminum frame. This process is typically performed at a manual station.

• Protective tape is placed around the modules. Therefore, tape usage will be 2 times the length and width of the module. Around 3.2 m tape is consumed per M2 of module area.

• The tape costs around $175 per kms.

Cost of Materials used in Module Trimming & Taping


www.gloabalspec.com Source: www.3-s.ch

Materials

M per M2

of

module

Module

Efficienc

y

Watts

produced

per M2

Meter per

Watt

Cost per

MCost $/W

Protective Tape 3.20 13.43% 134.325 0.0238 $0.18 $0.004



Silicon Solar Modules – Module Framing

• Aluminum frames are placed around laminated module. The frames enable ease in mounting and protect the glass from damage.

• Frame consumption is a function of module area. Normally around 3.2m frames are consumed per m2 module area.

• Frames cost around $2 to $5 per meter.

Cost of Materials used in Module Framing


Source: www.spiresolar.com

Source: www.3-s.ch

Materials

M per M2

of

module

Module

Efficienc

y

Watts

produced

per M2

Meter per

Watt

Cost per

MCost $/W

Module Frames 3.20 13.43% 134.325 0.0238 $2.10 $0.050



Module Termination

• The module junction box is connected to the busbar ribbon on the back of the laminated module. The unit is then sealed and potted.

• A junction box costs $3 to $6 per piece.

Cost of Materials used in Module Termination


Source: www.tycoelectronics.com

Source: www.3-s.ch

MaterialsPiece per

Module

Module

Efficienc

y

Watts

produced

per M2

Meter per

Watt

Cost per

MCost $/W

Junction Box 1.00 13.43% 134.325 0.0074 $3.50 $0.026



2011: c-Si BoM-$/kWp

July 2012


Joseph Berwind

2011: c-Si Module Cost of Production

• 2011 c-Si Module manufacturing cost could be $ 1.12/W

• Materials make up 69% of the total cost.

• Polysilicon accounts for 28% of the total cost, while module materials account for 17% of the total cost.



2011: c-Si Module Cost of Production ($/W)

Particulars $/W

Material

Material Cost $/W $0.759

Labor

Labor Hrs per M2 Module 1.00

Module Efficiency % 13.43%

Watts per M2 134.33

Labor hrs per Watt 0.007

Labor cost $ per Hr $20.00

Labor cost $/W $0.149

Depreciation

Capex $ per M2 module $250.00


Watts per M2 $134.33

Capex $ per Watt $1.86

Equipment Life (years) 12

Annual Depreciation $/W $0.155

Overhead

Overhead as % to labor 40%

Overhead cost $/W $0.060

TOTAL COST $/W $1.1230

Labor, $0.15,

13%

Depreciation, $0.16,

14%

Overhead, $0.06,

5%

Polysilicon,

$0.31, 28%

Ingot, $0.02, 2%

Wafer, $0.11, 10%

Cell, $0.12, 11%

Module, $0.19,

17%

Materials

$0.76

69%

Joseph Berwind

2011: c-Si BoM $/W

• In 2011, total Material cost of c-Si Module is $0.76/W.

• Cost excluding polysilicon is $0.45/W. Of this, Wires account for 14%, slurry 10%,frames 11%, metallic pastes 23%.

July 2012

Crucibles, $0.01, 3%Graphite prt, $0.01, 2%

Argon, $0.00, 1%

Slurry, $0.04, 10%

Wires, $0.07, 15%

Wet Chemicals,

$0.02, 3%

Gases, $0.00, 0%Ag Paste, $0.06, 14%

Ag/Al Paste, $0.02, 3%Al Paste,

$0.03, 7%

Glass, $0.03, 8%

EVA, $0.05, 11%

Backsheet, $0.02, 5%

Frames, $0.05, 11%

J Box, $0.03, 6%


Joseph Berwind

2011: c-Si Materials & Consumables


July 2012

Total

$0.45/W

Ingot

$0.02/W

Wafer

$0.11/W

Cell

$0.125/W

Module

$0.19/W

Glass,

$0.03, 17%

EVA, $0.05,

25%

Backsheet,

$0.02, 11%

Frames,

$0.05, 26%

J Box,

$0.03, 14%

Others,

$0.01, 7%

Ingot, $0.02,

5%

Wafer, $0.11,

24%

Cell, $0.12,

28%

Module,

$0.19, 43%

Crucibles,

$0.013,

53%Graphite

prt, $0.008,

33%

Argon,

$0.003,

14%

Slurry,

$0.04, 40%

Wires,

$0.07, 60%

Wet

Chemicals

, $0.015,

12%Gases,

0.001 , 1%

Ag Paste,

0.06 , 50%

Ag/Al

Paste,

0.02 , 12%

Al Paste,

0.03 , 25%

Joseph Berwind

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$0.70

$0.80

200 190 180 170 160 150 140

Wafer thickness µm

Cost Sensitivity to Wafer thickness

Polysilicon Slurry Saw Wires Metallic Pastes

Glass EVA Backsheet Frames

J Box Others

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$0.70

$0.80

Cell Efficiency %

Cost Sensitivity to Efficiency



J Box Others

c-Si Material Cost Sensitivity

• Material costs are sensitive to efficiency and wafer thickness. R&D is taking place at production to constantly increase efficiency and decrease wafer thickness. These implies, lower materials are consumed per Watt. These should help in further cost reductions

• Assuming a cell efficiency of 14.93% and wafer thickness of 200µm, we got 2011 module material cost at $0.76/W. As these improves, the cost reduces significantly.

• Keeping all other things constant, when for example, cell efficiency improves from 14.93% to 17.33%, cost should reduce from $0.76/W to $0.65/W. Similarly, if wafer thickness reduces from 200µm to 140µm, cost could reduce from $0.76/W to $0.64/W.


July 2012


Joseph Berwind

$0.31$0.23 $0.19 $0.16 $0.13 $0.09

$0.07

$0.07$0.07

$0.07$0.06

$0.06

$0.11

$0.11$0.11

$0.11$0.11

$0.11

$0.05

$0.05$0.05

$0.05$0.05

$0.05

$0.05

$0.05$0.05

$0.05$0.05

$0.05

$0.05

$0.05$0.05

$0.05$0.05

$0.05

$0.76

$0.68$0.64

$0.61$0.57

$0.53

$0.00

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$0.70

$0.80

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

c-Si Module Material Cost $/W



J Box Others

$50.00

$20.00

$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

2011 2016

Poly prices $/Kg

July 2012

c-Si Material Cost Reduction Potential

• Going forward module efficiency will increase, wafer thickness will reduce and poly prices continue to fall.

• We assume 1% annual material cost escalation.

• These implies, c-Si module material cost could reduce from $0.76/W in 2011 to $0.53/W by 2016.


Source: AEI Consulting Source: AEI Consulting Source: AEI Consulting

13.43%

14.31%

12.80%

13.00%

13.20%

13.40%

13.60%

13.80%

14.00%

14.20%

14.40%

2011 2016

Module Efficiency %

200

160

0

50

100

150

200

250

2011 2016

Wafer thickness µm

Joseph Berwind

$0.759

$0.533

$0.149

$0.140

$0.155

$0.146

$0.060

$0.056

$1.123

$0.874

$0.000

$0.200

$0.400

$0.600

$0.800

$1.000

$1.200

2011 2016

c-Si Module Manufacturing Cost $/W

Overhead

Depreciation

Labor

Material

c-Si Total Cost Reduction Potential

Particulars 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Cell Efficiency (Poly - Max) 16.10% 16.20% 16.30% 16.40% 16.50% 16.90%

Cell Efficiency (Poly - Min) 13.60% 13.80% 14.00% 14.30% 14.60% 14.80%

Average Efficiency Poly 14.85% 15.00% 15.15% 15.35% 15.55% 15.85%

Cell Efficiency (Mono - Max) 16.80% 17.10% 17.20% 17.40% 17.60% 18.00%

Cell Efficiency (Mono - Min) 13.50% 13.60% 13.70% 13.80% 13.90% 14.00%

Average Efficiency Mono 15.15% 15.35% 15.45% 15.60% 15.75% 16.00%

Multi % market 75.00% 70.00% 69.00% 68.00% 67.00% 65.00%

Mono % of market 25.00% 30.00% 31.00% 32.00% 33.00% 35.00%

Market weighted cell efficiency 14.93% 15.11% 15.24% 15.43% 15.62% 15.90%

Module Efficiency (Cell -10%) 13.43% 13.59% 13.72% 13.89% 14.05% 14.31%

Wafer Thickness To Use In The Model 200 190 180 180 170 160

Polysilicon usage g/W 6.161396 5.78 5.43 5.36 5.01 4.63

Polysilicon Prices $/Kg $50.00 $40.00 $35.00 $30.00 $25.00 $20.00


Efficiency, Wafer thickness & Polysilicon prices Assumptions

• Our analysis suggests that the average module manufacturing cost could reduce from $1.12/W in 2011 to $0.87/W by 2016.

July 2012

$1.12

$0.87

$0.14

$0.05

$0.06$0.01

$0.70

$0.75

$0.80

$0.85

$0.90

$0.95

$1.00

$1.05

$1.10

$1.15

2011 Cost Poly price fall Efficiency

Improvement

Wafer

thickness

Material

price

escalation

2016 Cost

c-Si Total Cost $/WSource: AEI Consulting

Joseph Berwind

Thin Film Module Cost of Production

Eff: 8% to13%Eff: 6% to 10% Eff: 7% to 12%

July 2012

SOURCE: Solarnenergy.com & AEI Consulting

Joseph Berwind

Thin Film Cell Structure

Source: www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia

• Unlike most single-crystal cells, a typical thin-film device doesn't have a metal grid for the top electrical contact. Instead, it uses a thin layer of a transparent conducting oxide, such as tin oxide.

• These oxides are highly transparent and conduct electricity very well. A separate antireflection coating might top off the device, unless the transparent conducting oxide serves that function.

• Several different deposition techniques can be used, and all of them are potentially less expensive than the ingot-growth techniques required for crystalline silicon. Deposition techniques can be classified into physical vapor deposition, chemical vapor deposition, electrochemical deposition, or a combination. And like amorphous silicon, the layers can be deposited on various low-cost substrates (or "superstrates") such as glass, stainless steel, or plastic in virtually any shape


Thin Film Technology Review

Technology

Key Players

Materials Used

Cost/W

THIN FILM MODULES

Tandem a-Si CIGS CdTea-Si

• Trony Sciences

• Masdar

• Bangkok Solar

• Beyond PV

• Kaneka Solar

• Bosch Solar

• Sharp

• Schott Solar

• Kaneka

• UniSolar

• Ascent Solar

• Global Solar

• Miasole

• Nano Solar

• Solibro

• Avanics

• Solar Frontier

• Abound Solar

• Calyxo

• First Solar

• Primestar Solar

• Glass

• EVA

• Silane

• Hydrogen

• Oxygen

• Nitrogen

• Ammonia

• DEZ (Diethylzinc)

• AZO/Zn

• PVD Al

• NF3

• Glass

• EVA

• Silane

• Methane

• Hydrogen

• Oxygen

• Nitrogen

• Ammonia

• DEZ (Diethylzinc)

• AZO/Zn

• PVD Al

• NF3

• Glass

• EVA

• H3PO4

• HNO3

• CdCl

• CdTe

• CdS

• Glass

• EVA

• Mo (Molybdenum)

• Cu

• In

• Ga

• Se

• H2Se

• KCN

• CdS

• ZnO

• DEZ

$0.65/W to $0.85/W $0.95/W to $1.10/W $0.70 /W to $0.80/W$0.90/W to $1.10/W

7% to 10% 8% to 11% 10% to 12%6% to 8%Efficiency %



Thin Film Module Production


July 2012

947 1,389 1,591 1,517 1,655 1,806

1,216 1,024

1,107 1,161 1,253 1,354 588 957

1,318 1,376 1,502

1,642 1,477

2,089

2,642 2,649 2,876

3,414

4,228

5,459

6,659 6,703

7,286

8,216

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015



Joseph Berwind

a-Si Modules

• a-Si PV panel manufacturing process begins with a laser scribe on the TCO coated glass substrate followed by a cleaning

process.

• Then amorphous silicon deposition is effectuate using PECVD technique.

• The junction partner zinc oxide is deposited on top of the amorphous silicon-coated plate layer, and the second scribe is

accomplished before the metal conductive layer coating process.

• The monolithic cell structure is completed with the third scribe, where a polymer laminate is laid down and the encapsulating

glass sheet is bonded to the substrate glass.

• Some companies apply a germanium double junction a-Si/a-GeSi structure to increase the conversion efficiency.

• Electrical leads and junction boxes are added at the finishing step. The completed module is tested and binned by

performance.

Source: Trony Solar


a-Si Modules – Cost of Manufacturing

Total Cost $/W Module Materials $/W

Other Materials $/W


Particulars $/W

Material


Labor



Watts per M2 65.00




Depreciation



Watts per M2 $65.00




Overhead




Materials

M2 /piece

per M2 of

module

Module

Efficienc

y

Watts

produced

per M2

M2 / piece

per Watt

Cost per

M2 Cost $/W

TCO Glass 2.10 6.50% 65 0.0323 $5.88 $0.190

EVA/PVB 4.20 6.50% 65 0.0646 $1.54 $0.100

Junction Box 1.00 6.50% 65 0.0154 $3.50 $0.054


Materials Liter/M2

Module

Efficien

cy

Watts

produced

per M2

Liters per

Watt

Cost per

LiterCost $/W

Silane 1,407 6.50% 65 21.64 $0.00 $0.05

Hydrogen 1.55 6.50% 65 0.02 $0.00 $0.00

DEZ 0.19 6.50% 65 0.00 $36.15 $0.10

PVD Al 0.0001 6.50% 65 0.00 $738.00 $0.00

NF3 0.001 6.50% 65 0.00 $1,201.20 $0.02

TOTAL $0.18

July 2012



Joseph Berwind

Labor, $0.15, 17%

Depreciation,

$0.16, 18%

Overhead, $0.06, 7%

TCO Glass,

$0.19, 21%

EVA/PVB,

$0.10, 11%

J Box, $0.05, 6%

Silane, $0.05, 6%

DEZ, $0.10, 12%

NF3, $0.02, 2%

Materials

$0.52

58%

2011: a-Si Modules – BoM


• In 2011, total a-Si manufacturing cost stood at $0.90/W

• Of the total cost materials accounted for 58%.


a-Si Material Cost $/W

Particulars 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

a-Si 6.50% 6.70% 6.90% 7.10% 7.30% 7.50%

Efficiency Assumption


Assumed 1% Annual Material price escalation

July 2012

$0.190 $0.186 $0.183 $0.179 $0.176 $0.173

$0.100 $0.098 $0.096 $0.094 $0.092 $0.091

$0.054 $0.053 $0.052 $0.051 $0.050 $0.049

$0.053 $0.052 $0.051 $0.050 $0.050 $0.049

$0.105 $0.103 $0.101 $0.099 $0.097 $0.096

$0.021 $0.021 $0.021 $0.020 $0.020 $0.019

$0.524 $0.514 $0.504 $0.495 $0.486 $0.478

$0.000

$0.100

$0.200

$0.300

$0.400

$0.500

$0.600

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

a-Si Module Material Cost $/W

TCO Glass EVA/PVB Junction Box Silane Hydrogen DEZ PVD Al NF3

Joseph Berwind

a-Si Cost $/W

Particulars 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

a-Si 6.50% 6.70% 6.90% 7.10% 7.30% 7.50%




July 2012

$0.524 $0.514 $0.504 $0.495 $0.486 $0.478

$0.154 $0.149 $0.145 $0.141 $0.137 $0.133

$0.16 $0.16 $0.15 $0.15 $0.14 $0.14

$0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.05 $0.05

$0.900 $0.878 $0.858 $0.838 $0.820 $0.803

$0.000

$0.100

$0.200

$0.300

$0.400

$0.500

$0.600

$0.700

$0.800

$0.900

$1.000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

a-Si Cost of Production $/W

Material Labor Depreciation Overhead

Joseph Berwind

Tandem a-Si/ µc-Si

Source: Auri Solar

• Tandem a-Si/µc-Si cells have a tandem structure with an additional microcrystalline absorber in addition to the a-Si

layer. This layer converts the energy of the red and near infrared spectrum, allowing an efficiency increase of

approximately 30%.

• Oerlikon claims its ThinFab can produce Tandem a-Si/µc-Si solar panel at €0.50/W ($0.65/W), with 10% module

efficiency, on 1.4m2 module producing 143 Wp power.

Source: Best Solar


Particulars $/W

Material


Labor



Watts per M2 75.00




Depreciation



Watts per M2 $75.00




Overhead




Tandem a-Si Modules – Cost of Manufacturing


Other Materials $/W


Materials

M2 /piece

per M2 of

module

Module

Efficienc

y

Watts

produced

per M2

M2 / piece

per Watt

Cost per

M2 Cost $/W

TCO Glass 2.10 7.50% 75 0.0280 $5.88 $0.165

EVA/PVB 4.20 7.50% 75 0.0560 $1.54 $0.086

Junction Box 1.00 7.50% 75 0.0133 $3.50 $0.047


Materials Liter/M2

Module

Efficien

cy

Watts

produced

per M2

Liters per

Watt

Cost per

LiterCost $/W

Silane 1,138 7.50% 75 15.17 $0.00 $0.0375

Hydrogen 1.26 7.50% 75 0.02 $0.00 $0.0001

DEZ 0.15 7.50% 75 0.00 $36.15 $0.0736

PVD Al 0.0001 7.50% 75 0.00 $738.00 $0.0008

NF3 0.001 7.50% 75 0.00 $1,201.20 $0.0150

TOTAL $0.13

July 2012



Joseph Berwind

2011: Tandem a-Si Modules – BoM


• In 2011, total a-Si manufacturing cost stood at $0.75/W


Labor, $0.13, 18%


19%

Overhead, $0.05, 7%

TCO Glass, $0.16, 22%

EVA/PVB,

$0.09, 11%

J Box, $0.05, 6%

Silane, $0.04, 5%

DEZ, $0.07,

10%

NF3, $0.02, 2%

Materials

$0.42

57%


Tandem a-Si Material Cost $/W




Particulars 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Tandem a-Si/µc-Si 7.50% 7.85% 8.20% 8.55% 8.90% 9.25%

July 2012

$0.16 $0.16 $0.15 $0.15 $0.14 $0.14

$0.09 $0.08 $0.08 $0.08 $0.08 $0.07

$0.05 $0.05 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04

$0.04$0.04 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03

$0.07$0.07

$0.07 $0.07 $0.06 $0.06

$0.02$0.01

$0.01$0.01

$0.01 $0.01

$0.42$0.41

$0.40$0.38

$0.37 $0.36

$0.00

$0.05

$0.10

$0.15

$0.20

$0.25

$0.30

$0.35

$0.40

$0.45

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Tandem a-Si Module Material Cost $/W

TCO Glass EVA/PVB Junction Box Silane Hydrogen DEZ PVD Al NF3

Joseph Berwind

Tandem a-Si Cost $/W




Particulars 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Tandem a-Si/µc-Si 7.50% 7.85% 8.20% 8.55% 8.90% 9.25%

July 2012

$0.42 $0.41 $0.40 $0.38 $0.37 $0.36

$0.13 $0.13 $0.12 $0.12 $0.11 $0.11

$0.14$0.13 $0.13 $0.12 $0.12 $0.11

$0.05$0.05

$0.05$0.05 $0.04 $0.04

$0.75$0.72

$0.69$0.67 $0.65 $0.63

$0.00

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$0.70

$0.80

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Tandem a-Si Cost/W


Joseph Berwind

CIGS

CIGS METHODS

Vacuum Based Non Vacuum Electroplating Liquid Dissolve Dry sputter

• Co-sputters copper,

gallium, and indium

• Anneals the resulting

film with a selenide

vapor

Or

• Directly co-

evaporate copper

gallium, indium and

selenium onto a

heated substrate

• Mix copper gallium,

and indium into a

liquid

• Deposit nano

particles of precursor

materials on a

substrate

• Sinters them into situ

Nano Solar

• Continuous Roll to roll

process

• Deposit films on large

areas as well as a

variety of shapes

• Compositional control

is possible

SoloPower

• Dissolve copper,

gallium and indium

into a liquid

• Apply it to a surface

and bake it.

• In solution form solar

absorber layer can

be easily painted or

coated onto a

surface

UCLA Team

• Continuous roll to roll

process

• Proprietary

technology of AQT

solar

AQT Solar

• The active layer (CIGS) can be deposited in a polycrystalline form directly onto molybdenum coated glass sheets or steel bands. This uses

less energy than growing large crystals, which is a necessary step in the manufacture of crystalline silicon solar cells. Also unlike crystalline

silicon, these substrates can be flexible.

• One environmental advantage of CIGS solar cell technologies have over Cadmium Telluride solar cell panels is that it uses a much lower

level of cadmium, in the form of cadmium sulfide. In some designs, sometimes zinc is used instead of cadmium sulfide all together.

• Like all thin film solar panels, CIGS panels are not as efficient as crystalline silicon solar cells.



CIGS Modules – Cost of Manufacturing


Other Materials $/W


Particulars $/W

Material


Labor



Watts per M2 100.00




Depreciation







Overhead




Materials

M2 /piece

per M2 of

module

Module

Efficien

cy

Watts

produced

per M2

M2 / piece

per Watt

Cost per

M2 Cost $/W

TCO Glass 2.10 10.00% 100 0.0210 $5.88 $0.123

EVA/PVB 4.20 10.00% 100 0.0420 $1.54 $0.065

Junction Box 1.00 10.00% 100 0.0100 $3.50 $0.035


Materials Liter/M2

Module

Efficien

cy

Watts

produced

per M2

Liters per

Watt

Cost per

LiterCost $/W

Mo 0.0009 10.00% 100 0.00001 $1,130.80 $0.0106

Cu 0.0011 10.00% 100 0.00001 $269 $0.0029

In 0.0013 10.00% 100 0.00001 $8,772 $0.1155

Ga 0.0016 10.00% 100 0.00002 $13,002 $0.2118

Se 0.0020 10.00% 100 0.00002 $671 $0.0135

H2Se 0.0027 10.00% 100 0.00003 $2,842 $0.0770

KCN 0.0002 10.00% 100 0.00000 $74 $0.0001

CdS 0.0021 10.00% 100 0.00002 $366 $0.0075

DEZ 0.0080 10.00% 100 0.00008 $36 $0.0029

TOTAL $0.44

July 2012



Joseph Berwind

2011- CIGS Modules – BoM


• In 2011, total CIGS manufacturing cost stood at $1.00/W


Labor, $0.14, 14%


13%

Overhead, $0.07, 7%

TCO Glass, $0.12,

12%

EVA, $0.06, 6%

J Box, $0.04, 5%

Mo, $0.01, 1%

In, $0.12, 12%

Ga, $0.21, 21%

Se, $0.01, 1%

H2Se, $0.08, 8%

CdS, $0.01, 1%

Others, $0.01, 1%

Materials

$0.67

67%


CIGS Material Cost $/W



Particulars 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CIGS 10.00% 10.25% 10.50% 10.75% 11.00% 11.25%

July 2012

$0.12 $0.12 $0.12 $0.12 $0.12 $0.12

$0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.06

$0.04 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03

$0.12 $0.11 $0.11 $0.11 $0.11 $0.11

$0.21 $0.21 $0.21 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20

$0.08 $0.08 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07

$0.67 $0.66 $0.65 $0.64 $0.63 $0.62

$0.00

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$0.70

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CIGS - Material Cost $/W

TCO Glass EVA/PVB Junction Box Mo Cu In Ga Se H2Se KCN CdS DEZ


Joseph Berwind

CIGS Cost $/W




Particulars 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CIGS 10.00% 10.25% 10.50% 10.75% 11.00% 11.25%

July 2012

$0.67 $0.66 $0.65 $0.64 $0.63 $0.62

$0.14 $0.14 $0.13 $0.13 $0.13 $0.12

$0.13 $0.12 $0.12 $0.12 $0.11 $0.11

$0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.06 $0.06

$1.00 $0.98 $0.97 $0.95 $0.93 $0.92

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CIGS - Cost of Manufacturing $/W


Joseph Berwind

CdTe

Deposition Cell Definition Assembly & Test

Load the panel of treated Glass

onto the production line

Cleaning & Heating the Glass

Glass is coated with a layer of

Cadmium Sulfide followed by a

layer of Cadmium Telluride

Rapidly cool the coated plates to

increase strength

Laser Scribing of coated plates

Transforming coated glass plates

into series of interconnected

solar cells

Apply Bus bars on the

interconnected solar cells

Lamination of modules and Rear

glass

Apply Junction box and

Termination wires

Testing the finished modules



CdTe Modules – Cost of Manufacturing


Other Materials $/W


Particulars $/W

Material


Labor



Watts per M2 117.00




Depreciation







Overhead




Materials

M2 /piece

per M2 of

module

Module

Efficienc

y

Watts

produced

per M2

M2 / piece

per WattCost per M2 Cost $/W

TCO Glass 2.10 11.70% 117 0.0179 $5.88 $0.106

EVA/PVB 4.20 11.70% 117 0.0359 $1.54 $0.055

Junction Box 1.00 11.70% 117 0.0085 $3.50 $0.030


Materials Liter/M2

Module

Efficien

cy

Watts

produced

per M2

Liters per

Watt

Cost per

LiterCost $/W

CdS 0.0012 11.70% 117 0.00001 $365.898 $0.00

CdTe 0.0082 11.70% 117 0.00007 $1,860 $0.13

CdCl 0.0071 11.70% 117 0.00006 $5.747 $0.00

HNO3 0.0004 11.70% 117 0.00000 $5.460 $0.00

H3PO4 0.0537 11.70% 117 0.00046 $2.677 $0.00

Cu 0.0015 11.70% 117 0.00001 $268.800 $0.00

TOTAL $0.14

July 2012



Joseph Berwind

2011- CdTe Modules – BoM


• In 2011, total CdTe manufacturing cost stood at $0.74/W

• Of the total cost, materials accounted for 46%.

Labor, $0.17, 23%

Depreciation,

$0.17, 23%

Overhead, $0.07,

9%

TCO Glass,

$0.11, 14%

EVA/PVB, $0.06, 8%

J Box, $0.03, 4%

CdTe,

$0.13, 18%

Others, $0.01, 1%

Material

$0.33

46%


CdTe Material Cost $/W




Particulars 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CdTe 11.70% 12.60% 13.30% 14.00% 14.70% 15.20%

$0.106 $0.098 $0.094 $0.090 $0.087 $0.085

$0.055 $0.051 $0.049 $0.047 $0.045 $0.044

$0.030$0.028 $0.027 $0.026 $0.025 $0.024

$0.130$0.121

$0.116 $0.111 $0.107 $0.105

$0.330$0.307

$0.294$0.282

$0.271 $0.265

$0.000

$0.050

$0.100

$0.150

$0.200

$0.250

$0.300

$0.350

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CdTe - Material Cost $/W

TCO Glass EVA/PVB Junction Box CdS CdTe CdCl HNO3 H3PO4 Cu


CdTe Cost $/W




$0.330 $0.307 $0.294 $0.282 $0.271 $0.265

$0.171$0.157 $0.149 $0.142 $0.135 $0.131

$0.171$0.157

$0.149$0.142 $0.135 $0.131

$0.07$0.06

$0.06$0.06

$0.05 $0.05

$0.740

$0.685$0.652

$0.622$0.596 $0.579

$0.000

$0.100

$0.200

$0.300

$0.400

$0.500

$0.600

$0.700

$0.800

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CdTe Cost of Production $/W


Particulars 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CdTe 11.70% 12.60% 13.30% 14.00% 14.70% 15.20%


2011 – Thin Film Cost of Production

• By technology, CdTe has lowest cost structure

followed by Tandem a-Si/µc-Si.

• CIGS has highest cost structure.

• Of the total materials, TCO Glass, EVA/PVB,

DEZ, Silane, Ga, In have high costs.



MARKETS & FORECASTSA S S E S S M E N T O F C H E M I C A L S A N D M A T E R I A L S D E M A N D A C R O S S P V V A L U E C H A I N

B Y T E C H N O L O G Y . F I V E Y E A R C H E M I C A L S A N D M A T E R I A L S F O R E C A S T S


PV Materials

July 2012

Thin film



c-Si Technologies

Joseph Berwind

TCO Glass

31%

EVA/PVB

16%

J Box

9% Silane

DEZ

In

Ga

H2Se

CdTe

Chemicals, 44%

TCO Glass EVA/PVB J Box Silane HydrogenDEZ PVD Al NF3 Mo CuIn Ga Se H2Se KCNCdS CdTe CdCl HNO3 H3PO4

PV Chemicals

July 2012

Polysilicon

41%

Other

Materials,

56%

Argon

HF - 49%

HNO3 - 65%

DI Water

POCl3

Cooling Water

Chemicals,

3%

Polysilicon Other Materials ArgonHelium HF - 49% HNO3 - 65%HCL - 37% KOH - 50% DI WaterCompressed Air Nitrogen Oxygen

• c-Si total material cost would be $0.76/W, of which chemicals

account for 3%

• The chemicals are largely made up of:

• POCL3 43%

• Argon 17%

• HF49% 15%

• Cooling water 7%

• HNO3-65% 6%

c-Si Thin film

• TF total weighted average material cost would be $0.47/W, of

which chemicals account for 45%

• The chemicals are largely made up of:

• DEZ 18%

• Ga 22%

• CdTe 22%

• Silane 9%

• In 12%

• H2Se 8%


Joseph Berwind

PV Chemicals Market Size ($ Mn) - 2011


July 2012

• We estimate 2011 chemical market size would be $1.34 bn.

• Major chemicals used in PV industry are DEZ, Ga, POCl3, Silane, NF3, CdTe, Argon, HF and others.

$87

$0

$72

$29

$6 $0

$26$8 $14

$1

$207

$34

$2

$116

$0

$224

$2

$45

$10 $10

$111

$203

$13

$74

$0$15

$272

$1 $0 $3$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

Joseph Berwind

PV Chemicals by ApplicationSource: AEI Consulting


PV Materials Demand by Technology


$771 $892 $869 $920 $1,002 $1,069

$2,488

$2,945 $2,891$3,067

$3,341$3,571

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TCO Glass EVA/PVB Junction Box Silane

DEZ In Ga H2Se

CdTe Others


July 2012

$8,016 $7,602 $7,695 $6,758 $6,175 $5,349

$19,545$21,944

$23,753 $24,329 $25,415 $26,298

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Polysilicon Crucible - G5 size Saw Wire Slurry

Metallic Pastes Glass EVA Backsheet

Module Frames Junction Box Others

$22,033$24,890

$26,644 $27,397 $28,756 $29,869

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Polysilicon Glass/TCO Encapsulant J Box Saw Wire Slurry Metallic Pastes Backsheet Module Frames TF Chemicals c-Si Chemicals Others


Joseph Berwind

c-Si Materials Market

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Polysilicon 26,021 32,860 40,490 41,997 49,344 57,815

Ingot 25,271 31,951 35,058 36,423 40,201 44,802

Wafer 25,904 31,589 34,326 37,760 41,532 45,680

Cell 24,515 30,539 34,625 38,076 41,886 46,092

Module 26,035 33,015 37,516 41,243 45,356 49,883

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000 Production Potential (MW)


July 2012

$8,016 $7,602 $7,695 $6,758 $6,175 $5,349

$622 $746 $776$804 $836

$870

$2,830 $3,444 $3,745 $4,111 $4,512 $4,922

$3,055 $3,798 $4,309 $4,728 $5,191 $5,665

$5,022$6,355

$7,228 $7,928 $8,701 $9,491$19,545

$21,944$23,753 $24,329

$25,415$26,298

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

c-Si Materials Demand ($ Mn)

Polysilicon Ingot Materials

Wafer Materials Cell Materials

Joseph Berwind

$8,016 $7,602 $7,695$6,758 $6,175

$5,349

$332$398 $414

$429$446

$464

$1,693 $2,060 $2,241$2,459

$2,700$2,945

$1,137 $1,383$1,505

$1,651 $1,813$1,977

$2,657$3,303

$3,748$4,113 $4,515 $4,927

$855

$1,082

$1,230 $1,349 $1,481 $1,615

$1,254

$1,586

$1,804 $1,979$2,172 $2,369

$570

$721

$820 $900$987

$1,077

$1,302

$1,648

$1,875 $2,056$2,257

$2,462

$678

$858

$976$1,071

$1,175$1,282

$1,051

$1,302

$1,445$1,564

$1,695$1,830

$19,545

$21,944

$23,753$24,329

$25,415$26,298

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Others

Junction Box

Module Frames

Backsheet

EVA

Glass

Metallic Pastes

Slurry

Saw Wire

Crucible - G5 size

Polysilicon

July 2012

c-Si Materials Demand - $ Mn

6.1% CAGRSource: AEI Consulting

Joseph Berwind

Polysilicon Market

Polysilicon Sources and Uses 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

End-Year Polysilicon Capacity 306,350 419,299 431,878 444,826 458,102 471,901

Current Year Average Capacity 265,867 362,825 425,589 438,352 451,464 465,002

Plant Utilization 70.0% 65.0% 60.0% 60.0% 70.0% 70.0%

Annual Polysilicon Production 186,107 235,836 255,353 263,011 316,025 325,501

Average-Year Polysilicon Production 178,905 210,971 245,595 259,182 289,518 320,763

Less: Microelectronics Demand (33,787) (38,854) (46,625) (55,950) (67,141) (80,569)

Plus: Reject / Reprocessed Silicon 15,207 17,933 20,876 22,030 24,609 27,265

Available for PV Production (in tons) 160,325 190,049 219,845 225,262 246,986 267,459

c-Si PV Production Potential (in MW) 26,021 32,860 40,490 41,997 49,344 57,815 Key Assumptions

Growth in Microelectronics Demand 15.0% 15.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0%

Reclaimed Sil. as % of Poly-Si Output 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5%

Tons of Silicon / MW of PV (adj.) 6.16 5.78 5.43 5.36 5.01 4.63 Source: AEI Consulting

Source: AEI Consulting Source: AEI ConsultingSource: AEI Consulting

July 2012

$50

$40$35

$30$25

$20

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Silicon Prices ($ Per Kg)

6.165.78

5.43 5.365.01

4.63

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Silicon Usage (g/Wp)

$8,016

$7,602 $7,695

$6,758

$6,175

$5,349

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Silicon Market ($ Mn)

Joseph Berwind

Polysilicon Key Players

Product Players

Silicon

Methylchlorosilanes

• Elkem

• Dow Corning

• Wacker

• GE

• Shin Etsu

• Rhodia

TCS • Dow Corning

• Mitsubishi

• Wacker

• Degussa

• Tokuyama

• Shin Etsu

Polysilicon • Hemlock

• Wacker

•Tokuyama

• REC

• MEMC

• Sumitomo

• Elkem


Ingot Material Market


July 2012

$332$398 $414 $429 $446 $464

$203

$243 $253 $262 $273 $284$87

$105 $109 $113 $117 $122

$622

$745 $775 $804$836

$870

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Ingot Materials ($ Mn)

Crucible Graphite wear parts Argon Nitrogen Helium

25,271

31,951 35,058 36,423

40,201

44,802

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Ingot Production (MW)

Joseph Berwind

Crucible & Graphite part suppliers (1)

July 2012

Suppliers Brief Description

Covalent Materials Corp. • Covalent Materials was formed after buyout from Toshiba Ceramics in 2006. It produces quartz and graphite

crucibles and heaters for ingot manufacturing

Ferrotec Corp. • Ferrotec’s quartz crucibles are transparent and bubble free, thereby minimizing surface damage (crystal

dislocation) to the crucible and allows for multiple ingot pulling.

GrafTech International Ltd. • GrafTech International Ltd. is one of the world's leading manufacturers of carbon and graphite products under

2 groups – Industrial Materials and Engineered Solutions

• The Engineered Solutions segment offers advanced graphite materials including graphite crucibles, heaters,

and heat shields for polysilicon production.

Mersen • Flexible felt and rigid carbon insulation for controlling the thermal gradients of crystalline growth

Momentive Performance

Materials, Inc.

• Momentive’s quartz group produces high-purity crucibles, ingots, and quartz tubing and rods

Norwegian Crystallites AS • Norwegian Crystallites operates several mines to extract high purity quartz deposits and produces high quality

quartz products such as optics, tubes, fibers, wool, rods, glass, and crucibles for Silicon metal crystal drawing

for semiconductor and solar applications

Saint Gobain • Saint-Gobain is a major supplier of solutions for the photovoltaic industry. These include quartz crucibles

for melting silicon slabs and engineered abrasive grains for cutting the slabs, fluoropolymer films for

encapsulating photovoltaic panels and high-efficiency PV Lite and Albarino extra-clear glass


Joseph Berwind

Crucible & Graphite part suppliers (2)

July 2012


SGL Carbon • SGL Carbon SE, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the manufacture and sale of carbon-based products

worldwide. The Graphite Materials & Systems business group makes high purity graphite products including

crucibles for the photovoltaic and semiconductor industries.

Toyo Tanso Co., Ltd. • For photovoltaics, the company offers a range of graphite products, which include crucibles and heaters for

single crystal silicon pulling furnaces; and SiC graphite coatings for use in growing films on the surface of

semiconductor wafers, and in solar cell and liquid crystal display manufacturing.

Vesuvius USA Corp. • The company’s many manufacturing plants are located in China making a wide range of their products.


Joseph Berwind

Wafer Materials Market


July 2012

25,904

31,589 34,326

37,760 41,532

45,680

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Wafer Production (MW)

$1,693 $2,060 $2,241 $2,459 $2,700 $2,945

$1,137$1,383

$1,505$1,651

$1,813$1,977

$2,830

$3,444$3,745

$4,111$4,512

$4,922

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Wafer Materials ($ Mn)

Saw Wire Slurry

Joseph Berwind

Saw Wire Demand


Players Wire type

Tokyo Rope Mfg Steel

G&N Diamond

Noritake Steel & Diamond

Meyer Burger Steel & Diamond

Heraeus Steel & Diamond

Japan Fine Steel Steel & Diamond

Bakaert Steel

Arcelor Mittal Steel

Key Players

July 2012

1,322

1,592 1,715

1,863 2,025

2,187

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Saw Wire Demand (Mn kms)

$1,693$2,060

$2,241$2,459

$2,700$2,945

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Saw Wire Demand ($ Mn)

Joseph Berwind

Saw Wire Market Share

July 2012

53%

12%

4%

8%

23%

Bekaert ArcelorMittalFundant Tokyo Rope Mfg Co

Others

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Wire Volume Share %

Others

Tokyo Rope

Mfg

Fundant

ArcelorMittal

Bekaert

• Saw wire market is dominated by Bekaert followed by Arcellor Mittal.

• Going forwards, the share of Fundant should increase considerably.


Joseph Berwind

Saw Wire Key players

July 2012

Supplier Supplier details Wire Product details

• Founded in 1880 in Belgium

• Key products: drawn steel wire products

• Thin & High tensile wires > low kerf loss and less

fractures

• Tight diameter and ovality tolerances

• A wide range of spool types > Used in any machines

• Arcelor was created in 2002 by combination of

three steel making companies in Europe.

• Mittal steel was founded in 1989 in India.

• ArcelorMittal was created by merger between

Arcelor and Mittal in 2006.

• Wires are used to cut silicon, quartz, sapphire, glass,

SiC…

• Patented in collaboration with Applied Material

• Usable on different type of squarer and wire saws

• A large variety of wires from 350 µm to 100 µm are

available

• Founded in September 2008 in China

• Production lines completed in October 2009.

• Commercial production started in 2010. It has 3

GW production capacity in 2010 and increased

to 6 GW by 2011.

• Wire with 100 to 140µm diameters are available

• Tensile strength ranges from 3450 to 3700 Mpa

• Breaking force ranges from 29 to 56 N.

• Wide range of spools to suite HCT, MB & NTC

machines

• Founded in 1887 in Japan

• Key Products: wire rope, steel cord, carbon

fiber composite cable, specialty products like

rock fall prevention net, cable suspended

bridges, sound insulation walls etc

• Tokyo Steel cord co, a subsidiary manufactures saw

wires.

• These saw wires are used to slice and chip crystal

silicon, GaAs, crystal, glass and magnetic material.

• These saw wires are very thin, but strong and stable.

Bekaert,

53%

ArcelorMitta

l, 12%

Fundant

, 4%

Tokyo

Rope Mfg

Co, 8%


Joseph Berwind

Slurry Demand


July 2012

615

741 797

867 942

1,017

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Slurry Demand (Mn Liters)

$1,137

$1,383$1,505

$1,651$1,813

$1,977

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Slurry Demand ($ Mn)

Joseph Berwind

Slurry Market Share

July 2012


SiC Processing

90%

Metallkraft

8%

Saint Gobain

1%

Others

1%

Joseph Berwind

Slurry suppliers (1)

July 2012


Advanced Nano Products

Co., Ltd

• Its Product offering includes Inks for printed electronics, displays, sputtering targets, coatings, CMP slurry, and

others. Advanced Nano Products Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells a range of electronic nano-materials such as

coatings, silver nano paste, silver jet ink, and Ag/Pd Sol,Ag paste for printed electronics, and sputtering targets

displays, touch screens, solar cell, OLED, and other thin film applications.

• The company currently offers:Customizable silver paste for crystalline cells, Nano silver inks for flexible printed

circuits Nano inks and powders for CIGS

Aremco Products Inc. • Offers Ceramics, Adhesives & sealants, Cements, Coatings, Tapes, Binders

BASF • Offers Chemicals, Plastics, Performance Products,Functional solutions,Agricultural Solutions, and Oil & Gas. By

using SELURIS™ products, customers get chemical solutions during the cutting, etching and texturing, as well as

doping within the solar cell value chain

CRS Reprocessing

Services LLC

• Offers Wafer slicing slurry reclaim/recycling. Business model – construct on-site processing facility to recycle spent

wafering slurry. Reprocessing is done at the customer site, not at centralized location. Processing facilities typically

operated by local technical staff. Majority of customers are in Europe and China .

Dow Advanced Materials

(RHEM)

• Dow Chemical also sells PEG, polyethylene glycol, used in SIC slurries to prepare Si wafers, Ag plating products in

collaboration with Schmid. The plating solutions are used in Light Induced Plating processes, Alkali cleaners for Si

wafers

Metallkraft • Offers SiC reprocessing and slurry delivery. Norway based Metallkraft AS recycles silicon carbide and glycol from

spent slurry. Supplies glycol and SiSiCar, a raw material used in the production of ceramics and as an additive used

in the foundries and refractory industry. Also commercializing recycling of solar grade silicon from the silicon dust

captured in the spent slurry. 10 - 15% market share


Joseph Berwind

Slurry suppliers (2)

July 2012


Noritake Co., Ltd. • For photovoltaics, the company has products covering the entire value chain including silicon ingot casting furnaces,

ingot cutting tools, cleaning, electrode pastes, and firing furnaces. Consumables include conductive pastes, diamond

wires, and diamond coated abrasives

PPT Research • Proprietary slurry chemistry and process technology wafering

• Proprietary SSL-series of PEG-based and water-based slurry for wafer slicing

Saint Gobain • Saint-Gobain is a major supplier of solutions for the photovoltaic industry. These include quartz crucibles for melting

silicon slabs and engineered abrasive grains for cutting the slabs, fluoropolymer films for encapsulating photovoltaic

panels and high-efficiency PV Lite and Albarino extra-clear glass

SiC Processing • SiC slurry in glycol

• 90% Market Share

• Leader in the reclaim and re-manufacture of SiC from slurries of glycol

• Claimed recovery rates of 75-90% for the SiC

• Dedicated slurry recycle plants become interesting once demand reaches 10,000 ton per year requirement.


Joseph Berwind

Cell Materials Market


July 2012

24,515

30,539

34,625

38,076

41,886

46,092

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Cell Production (MW)

$165 $205 $233 $255 $280 $306$207 $257 $292 $320 $351 $384

$2,657

$3,303$3,748

$4,113$4,515

$4,927$3,055

$3,798

$4,309

$4,728

$5,191

$5,665

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Cell Materials ($ Mn)

Wet Chemicals Bulk Gases Dopant

Speciality Chemical Metallic Pastes

Joseph Berwind

Wet Chemicals


July 2012

12 15 16 18 19 21

5

7 7

8 9

10

3

4

5 5

6 6

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Wet Chemicals (Mn Liters)

HF - 49% HNO3 - 65% HCL - 37% KOH - 50%

$72 $90 $102 $112 $123 $134

$29

$37 $42

$46 $50

$55

$6

$7 $8

$9 $10

$11

$23

$29

$33 $36

$40

$43

$34

$42

$48

$53

$58

$63

$165

$205

$233

$255

$280

$306

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Wet Chemicals ($ Mn)

HF - 49% HNO3 - 65% HCL - 37%

KOH - 50% DI Water Cooling Water

Joseph Berwind

Wet Chemicals Suppliers

July 2012


BASF • Its product offerings includes Chemicals, Plastics, Performance Products,Functional olutions,Agricultural Solutions,

and Oil & Gas

• By using SELURIS™ products, customers get chemical solutions during the cutting, etching and texturing, as well

as doping within the solar cell value chain

Dow Advanced Materials

(RHEM)

• It offers Formulated process chemicals and plating solutions

• Dow Chemical also sells PEG, polyethylene glycol, used in SIC slurries to prepare Si wafers

• Ag plating products in collaboration with Schmid. The plating solutions are used in Light Induced Plating processes

Honeywell International • It supplies a specially designed PV-quality hydrofluoric acid called Puranal, a key chemical in the etchant process

Kanto Chemical • Offers Reagents, chemicals for electronics industry and diagnostics as well as fine chemicals

• It claims to be the first company worldwide that developed and launched high-purity chemicals for the

semiconductor manufacturing process in 1964

KMG Chemicals, Inc. • Offers Specialty chemicals

• KMG Electronic Chemical's Performance Products Group offers a broad range of products and services required to

achieve specific application criteria in semiconductor manufacturing

Mallinkrodt Baker (Avantor) • High purity wet chemicals and formulations

• PV-160 is a formulated cleaner that is claimed to increase cell efficiency, and is being implemented in multiple

manufacturing lines

Matheson / Taiyo Nippon

Sanso

• Offers Atmospheric gases, NF3, silane, dopants

• MTG is manufacturing H2Se for CIGS selenization in a plant that was opened in Dec. 2008

• H2Se is supplied at 100% concentration ands diluted prior to use

• Also supplies Ge mixes for multi junction CVD cellsTandem Si processes

• As a bulk gas supplier MTG also supplies liquid bulk gases and onsite gas plants for large users


Joseph Berwind

Bulk Gases


July 2012

75,324 92,714

104,168 113,161

123,003 132,915

4,050

4,985

5,600 6,084

6,613 7,146

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Bulk Gases (Mn Liters)

Nitrogen Oxygen Ammonia

6.31 7.85 8.91 9.77 10.73 11.71

14.24

17.70 20.08

22.04 24.19

26.40 1.52

1.89

2.14

2.35

2.58

2.82

23

29

33

36

39

43

-

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Bulk Gases ($ Mn)

Compressed Air Nitrogen Oxygen Ammonia

Joseph Berwind

Bulk Gas Suppliers (1)

July 2012


Air Liquide • Offers Atmospheric gases, NF3, silane, dopants

Air Products • Atmospheric gases, NF3, silane, dopants

• Air Products is one of the largest bulk and specialty gas supply companies in the world

• Also offers Fluorinated gases (CF4, C2F6) for etch steps

• POCl3 for n-type doping

BASF • Offers Chemicals, Plastics, Performance Products,Functional olutions,Agricultural Solutions, and Oil & Gas



Heraeus • Offers Precious metals and metals trading Sputtering targets and Evaporation materials

• Major supplier of ZnO/Al2O3 targets to the solar industry

• Longtime leading supplier of pastes in other industries Heraeus is promoting pates for PV use. Sales are growing

from a base in Europe

KMG Chemicals, Inc. • Main product includes Specialty chemicals

• KMG Electronic Chemical's Performance Products Group offers a broad range of products and services required to

achieve specific application criteria in semiconductor manufacturing

Linde • Supplies Atmospheric gases, NF3, Specialty Gases

• Strategic collaboration with Schmid Silicon Production to supply 540 MT pa of Monosilane


Sanso• Atmospheric gases, NF3, silane, dopants



• Also supplies Ge mixes for multi junction CVD cells

• MTG also supplies a range of dopants such as TMB, DiBorane, and Phosphine for use in Tandem Si processes


Joseph Berwind

Bulk Gas Suppliers (2)

July 2012


Praxair • Supplies Atmospheric gases, NF3, silane, dopants, metals and ceramic PVD targets

• Praxair supplies bulk gases: N2, O2, Ar, H2 and NH3

• Mo sputtering targets for CdTe and CIGS modules

• Cu alloy targets for CI(G)S sputtering

Sodiff • Offers Advanced materials used in the electronics and semiconductor industries

Voltaix • Specialty gases – germane, TMB

• #1 in germane globally

• Voltaix is the sole manufacturer of electronic grade Germane

• New production capacity of 50MT p.a. is due to com on line in 2010


Joseph Berwind

Dopants


July 2012

607

748

840913

9921072

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

POCl3 - Mn Liters

$207

$257

$292 $320

$351

$384

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

POCl3 - $ Mn

Joseph Berwind

Dopant Suppliers (1)

July 2012


Air Liquide • Offers Atmospheric gases, NF3, silane, dopants



• Also offers Fluorinated gases (CF4, C2F6) for etch steps

• POCl3 for n-type doping

BASF • Offers Chemicals, Plastics, Performance Products,Functional olutions,Agricultural Solutions, and Oil & Gas



Chimet SPA • Chimet SPA recovers, refines, and manufactures precious metals, precious metal catalysts, and conductive pastes

(including silver pastes)

• Also offers Phosphorous doping paste

Ferro • Supplies Conductive Inks and Pastes

• Market leader in conductive inks and pastes

• Extensive portfolio, including products for selective emitter patterning, improved resistivity, diffusion barriers

• Patented technology in hot-melt inks for screen printing

• Back-integrated to conductive powders

• Few products for TF cells of any type

Heraeus • Precious metals and metals trading Sputtering targets and Evaporation materials


• Longtime leading supplier of pastes in other industries Heraeus is promoting pates for PV use. Sales are growing

from a base in Europe


Joseph Berwind

Dopant Suppliers (2)

July 2012


Linde • Offers Atmospheric gases, NF3, Specialty Gases



Sanso• Offers Atmospheric gases, NF3, silane, dopants






Targray Technology

International• Supplier of materials to the Solar and Optical Media industries

• Sputtering Targets for Thin Films Solar Cells

ThinTech Materials

Technology Ltd.• Sputtering Targets for α-Si and CIGS Thin-Film Solar

• Offers Transparent conducting layer – TCO

Tosoh • Produces at both US and Japanese facilities, Tosoh's sputtering targets are available in a variety of high purity

metals, metal alloys, cermets, and ceramic compositions. Targets can be made in all shapes, sizes, and purity

levels to meet design specifications


Joseph Berwind

Specialty Chemicals


July 2012

1,215

1,495

1,680 1,825

1,984 2,144

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Silane - Mn Liters

$3

$4

$4$5

$5$6

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Silane - $ Mn

Joseph Berwind

Silane Suppliers (1)

July 2012


Advanced Nano Products

Co., Ltd• Produces Inks for printed electronics, displays, sputtering targets, coatings, CMP slurry, and others

• Advanced Nano Products Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells a range of electronic nano-materials such as coatings, silver

nano paste, silver jet ink, and Ag/Pd Sol,Ag paste for printed electronics, and sputtering targets displays, touch screens,

solar cell, OLED, and other thin film applications.

• The company currently offers:Customizable silver paste for crystalline cells, Nano silver inks for flexible printed circuits

Nano inks and powders for CIGS

Air Liquide • Produces Atmospheric gases, NF3, silane, dopants

Air Products • Offers Atmospheric gases, NF3, silane, dopants


• Supplies Fluorinated gases (CF4, C2F6) for etch steps

• Provides POCl3 for n-type doping

Dow Corning • Dow Corning is a leading supplier of Silicon, Silicones and polymeric and gaseous Silicon compounds. The company is

leveraging these capabilities for new product development.

• Offers Silicone-based encapsulates and adhesives Dow Corning is owner of Hemlock Semiconductor

• Building new Monosilane plant

• Curable liquid Silicon encapsulants for c-Si modules.


Sanso• Offers Atmospheric gases, NF3, silane, dopants






Joseph Berwind

Silane Suppliers (2)

July 2012


Sodiff • Advanced materials used in the electronics and semiconductor industries

• Offers NF3, SiH4, DCS, WF6

• SiH4 is used in manufacturing semiconductors, TFT-LCD and thin film solar cells. It is expected to show increased demand

along with NF3 gas due to expansion in the electronics and semiconductor industries

MEMC • Produces m-Si metal, p-Si metal m-Si wafers, p-Si wafers

• Favorable sales and profits through 2008, but a dramatic decline in sales, gross profits and losses in operating profits in 1Q-09

• Manufacturing using fluorosilanes

• MEMC focuses on Silicon manufacture, and only supplies small quantities of monosilane

Nitol Solar • Offers Chemicals (Chlorine, Caustic Soda, Others), Trichlorosilane, Polysilicon

• Russia's largest producer of polysilicon

• Vertically integrated solar product company

• Production is based at their factory in Usolie-Sibirskoe, Irkutsk region, Russia, with their products being sold to international

customers, primarily in Europe and South-Eastern Asia

REC • Produces Polysilicon, Si Ingots, Si Wafers

• Largest silane producer (6,000 mt/yr)

• Vertically integrated company from Si metal through modules and installed systems

• Large producer of polysilicon and silane

Wacker-Chemie

AG• Offers Polysilicon, Silicones, Polymers, Fine chemicals

• It is a major polysilicon manufacturer. It has been producing hyperpure silicon for the semiconductor and photovoltaics

industries for over 50 years. It has an extensive portfolio of hyperpure polysilicon, chlorosilanes and pyrogenic silicas

• On Oct 22, 2009 Dow Corning and Wacker announced they have started construction of the second phase of their pyrogenic

silica plant in Zhangjiagang, Jiangsu province, China


Joseph Berwind

Metallic Pastes


July 2012

1,244 1,532 1,721 1,869 2,032 2,196

10,585 13,028

14,638 15,901

17,284 18,677 476

586 659

716 778

840

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Metallic Pastes (Mn Liters)

Silver Paste (Front) Al Paste Silver Paste (Back)

$1,520 $1,890 $2,145 $2,353 $2,584 $2,820

$762$947

$1,075$1,180

$1,295$1,413

$374

$465$528

$579$636

$694

$2,657

$3,303$3,748

$4,113$4,515

$4,927

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Metallic Pastes ($ Mn)

Silver Paste (Front) Al Paste Silver Paste (Back)

Joseph Berwind

Dupont

47%

Ferro

20%

Heraeus

18%

Others

15%

Metallic Pastes Market Share

July 2012

• The silver paste market concentrated in supply by Ferro, Dupont and Heraeus, with a few minority share suppliers.

• Heraeus has built its share over the last 1-2 years after entering the market in 2009/10.

Ag Paste Market shareAg/Al Paste Market share

Dupont

39%

Ferro

39%

Heraeus

12%

Monocrystal/

Analog

3%

Giga Solar

4%

Others

3%


Joseph Berwind

Aluminum Paste Market Share Evolution

July 2012

27%30%

54%47% 48%

45% 42%36%

1%

7%

17%

17% 17%18%

18%

16%

8% 6%

5%

4%

5%

2% 2%2%

2%

2%78%

63%

47%

41%

16%25% 26%

26%26%

24%

6%

23%15% 11%

3% 2% 2% 4% 8%19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Al Paste volume share %

Others

Ferro

Dupont

Toyo Solar

Giga Solar

GRTC

Monocrystal


Joseph Berwind

Metallic Paste Suppliers (1)

July 2012


Advanced Nano

Products Co., Ltd• Offers Inks for printed electronics, displays, sputtering targets, coatings, CMP slurry, and others

• Advanced Nano Products Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells a range of electronic nano-materials such as coatings, silver nano

paste, silver jet ink, and Ag/Pd Sol,Ag paste for printed electronics, and sputtering targets displays, touch screens, solar cell,

OLED, and other thin film applications.

• The company currently offers: Customizable silver paste for crystalline cells, Nano silver inks for flexible printed circuits Nano

inks and powders for CIGS

Agpro Technology

Co., Ltd• Provides Conductive metal powders and pastes for the electronic and photovoltaic markets

• Began commercial sales of silver and other conductive powder to electronic (multi-layer ceramic capacitors) markets in the past

decade, followed by silver and aluminum paste for crystalline silicon solar in the pas few years

Cermet Materials,

Inc.• Offers Conductive metal powders and pastes for electronic (MLCC, Hybrid) and crystalline silicon photovoltaic applications

Chimet SPA • Chimet SPA recovers, refines, and manufactures precious metals, precious metal catalysts, and conductive pastes (including

silver pastes)

• Phosphorous doping paste

Cookson • Electronic polymers, metal and plating solution

• Conductive inks and pastes for screen and inkjet deposition Adhesive polymers (epoxies) for connection Stringers and preforms

Solders and solder paste

Daejoo Electronic

Materials Co. Ltd.• Electric Conduction Paste, Materials for PDP, Metal Powder, Materials for Phosphor and Electronic Parts

• Daejoo’s core business is in metallurgical and powder expertise, and have a substantial share of the conductive paste for

passive components and PDP panels

• The company has recently moved into conductive paste for crystalline silicon cells. They currently have DS-0010 Front Silver

and DS-0030 Aluminum pastes


Joseph Berwind


July 2012


DuPont • Sole supplier of PVF, High share in metallization pastes

• Metallization pastes, PVF and PET films for backsheets Encapsulant resins, both EVA and PVB Films for front sheet

protection, thin film deposition PET resins for junction boxes

• Backsheet lamination customers have been developing non-PVF products, generally substituting PVDF, available from more

vendors

ESL Electro

Science• Screen-printable thick-film paste, ceramic tape casting, and specialty ceramics

Ferro

• Supplies Conductive Inks and Pastes

• Market leader in conductive inks and pastes

• Extensive portfolio, including products for selective emitter patterning, improved resistivity, diffusion barriers

• Patented technology in hot-melt inks for screen printing

• Back-integrated to conductive powders

• Few products for TF cells of any type

Ghanzou Ruxing

• Electronic paste, Conducting adhesive, Alloy of noble metal

• It specializes in the development of electronic and luminescent materials and intermediate products. It can also offer related

technology consulting service

Giga Solar

Materials Corp.

• Offers Conductive metallization paste for crystalline Silicon solar

• Spun out in 2008 as independent subsidiary named Giga Solar Materials Corp. (GSMC) to manufacture and sell aluminum,

silver-aluminum and silver paste.

GP Solar

• Supplies Consulting, turnkey lines, pastes, project management

• The company offers full line support and materials supply and turnkey lines for Cell Manufacture, Inspection and Moduling in c-

Si technology

• GP Solar is partnered with Centrotherm, Rena, ICOS, and Monocrystal


Joseph Berwind


July 2012


Heraeus

• Offers Precious metals and metals trading Sputtering targets and Evaporation materials


• Longtime leading supplier of pastes in other industries Heraeus is promoting pates for PV use. Sales are growing from a base

in Europe

Hunan Lead

Electronic Paste

Co. Ltd.

• Silver and Aluminum metallization paste for crystalline silicon Precious metal and base metal conductive paste for electronic

components such as capacitors, resistors, varistors, etc.

• Has root in metallurgy and recently moved into the PV metallization market

Metalor

• Supplier of Precious metals

• Very small share in metallic pastes

• Formulated Ag pastes in 2005 for the PV market. Qualification testing is underway, but sales are still small. They supply Ag

and Al pastes, but no AgAl back side grid pastes.

• Their focus is on Ag plating. They have developed a high speed plating capability, which they apply to PV Front Grids in

collaboration with Meco. This is an alkali CN free bath that runs with noble metal anodes (Pt). The bath is replenished by

addition of an Ag containing replenisher.

Monocrystal

• Offers Sapphire wafers and metal pastes

• Russian full line paste supplier that sells direct and distributes through GP solar.

• Sales are 50:50 EU and Asia, with use in EU stable in comparison with Asia which is very volatile.

Namics

Corporation

• Supplies Conductive and insulating materials, adhesives, coatings, powders and pastes, including silver paste for crystalline

silicon metallization

• The company recently introduced screen printable silver paste for solar applications


Joseph Berwind


July 2012


NanoMas

Technologies, Inc.• Produces Printable conductor, semiconductor and dielectric inks for printable electronics and solar cells

Noritake Co., Ltd.

• For photovoltaics, the company has products covering the entire value chain including silicon ingot casting furnaces, ingot

cutting tools, cleaning, electrode pastes, and firing furnaces.

• Consumables include conductive pastes, diamond wires, and diamond coated abrasives

Sun Chemical

• Silver (Ag) Front and Back Side paste, Aluminum (Al) BSF Back Side paste, Cellmet Etching Plating Resists, SunTronic™

Cellmet UV Dielectric, and SunTronic™ Cellmet Inkjet HotMelt Etching Plating Resists

• Thin Film PV – Sold under SunTronic™ Solsys brand:

• Solsys PTF Silver (Ag) Conductor Paste, Solsys Graphite, Solsys Flexible UV Dielectric, Solsys Solvent Strippable Resists,

Solsys UV Curing Resist/Dielectric


Joseph Berwind

Module Materials Market


July 2012

26,035

33,015

37,516 41,243

45,356

49,883

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Module Production (MW)

$855 $1,082 $1,230 $1,349 $1,481 $1,615$1,254

$1,586 $1,804 $1,979 $2,172 $2,369$570

$721$820

$900$987

$1,077

$1,302

$1,648$1,875

$2,056$2,257

$2,462

$678

$858$976

$1,071$1,175

$1,282

$363

$459

$522$573

$629$686

$5,022

$6,355

$7,228$7,928

$8,701$9,491

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Module Materials $ Mn

Glass EVA Backsheet

Module Frames Junction Box Others

Joseph Berwind

c-Si Glass


July 2012

204

255

287 312

339 366

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

c-Si Glass Demand (Mn M2)

$855

$1,082

$1,230$1,349

$1,481

$1,615

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

c-Si Glass Demand ($ Mn)

Joseph Berwind

Glass Suppliers (1)

July 2012


Asahi Glass Company • Offers Cover glass for PV Modules TCO coatings, Films for encapsulants, Fluoro-coatings

• Market Leader in glass

• Predicting PV sales of $33M/yr by 2011

Scheuten • Glass, specialty glasses, BIPV projects

• Scheuten is involved in the full supply chain for modules and BIPV using glass on glass

• Manufacturing float glass in small quantities (400MT/ day) in Germany

• Reprocessing FG for solar applications for tempered TF modules and BIPV projects

CSG Holding Co., Ltd. • Offers Flat Glass, Architectural Glass, Fine Glass, Structural Ceramics, Silicon, Iron Solar Glass, Solar wafer, cell and

modules

• The cooperation between its production bases provides CSG two complete industrial chains: the glass industry chain

through quartz sand, raw glass to glass deep-processing; the solar energy industry chain through silicon materials, solar

silicon wafer, solar modules to the solar energy cell

Ancai Hi-Tech Co., Ltd • Offers PV Glass, CRT Glass & Natural Gas (LNG & CNG)

• Is a key national high-tech enterprise and one of the high-end electronic glass and Solar Photovoltaic glass production

bases in China

Flat Solar Glass Group • Offers Ultra white glass rolling, TCO glass substrate, silver mirror glass, glazed glass, laminated glass, screen glass etc

Guangdong Golden

Glass Technologies

Limited

• Produces various type of glasses used in photovoltaic and other applications.

• Its solar customers include Antaris Solar; Juwi Solar; Donauer; Millennium Solar; Solar system; Solar23 Gmbh; LUXOR

Solar; Megasol; Amerisolar; CP Solar.Rioglass; Saireurope

Euroglass • Euroglas put the first float glass facility in operation in Alsatian Hombourg in 1995.

• It offers Floatglass, laminated glass, coated glass, low reflective glass, mirrored glass

• For PV, it produces low-iron front glass, TCO coated glass and normal floated glass for backglass


Joseph Berwind

Glass Suppliers (2)

July 2012


Hebei Yingxin Glass

Group Co., Ltd• Offers various types of glass for crystalline & thin film solar panels

• Hebei Yingxin Glass Group founded in 1993, is located in China with total assets of RMB 3 billion, over 2,500 employees

and an area of 2,000mu

• It has 12 glass production lines including six float glass production lines, two Low-E glass production lines, two super white

float glass production lines, two new decorative material production lines and one 10MW thin film solar cell production line

Zhejiang Hehe Holding

Group Co.,Ltd• Offers Ultra clear glasses for photovoltaic and other industries

ShanDong JinJing

Science & Technology • Offers Float glass, Energy Efficienent Low E Glass and Soda Ash glass

• Established in 1904

Nippon Sheet Glass • The Group is one of the world's leading manufacturers of glass and glazing systems in three major business areas;

Building Products, Automotive and Specialty Glass

• Founded in 1918, NSG acquired the leading UK-based glass manufacturer Pilkington plc in June 2006. Today, the

enlarged company has combined sales of approximately JPY 600 billion, with manufacturing operations in 29 countries

and sales in 130 countries, employing some 28,500 people worldwide

• Geographically, 42 per cent of the Group's sales are in Europe, 28 per cent in Japan and 13 per cent in North America,

with the rest primarily in South America, South East Asia and China


Joseph Berwind

814

1,020

1,149 1,247

1,355 1,464

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

c-Si EVA Demand (Mn M2)

$1,254

$1,586

$1,804$1,979

$2,172

$2,369

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

c-Si EVA Demand ($ Mn)

c-Si EVA



EVA Suppliers (1)

July 2012


Asahi Glass Company • Offers Cover glass for PV Modules TCO coatings, Films for encapsulants, Fluoro-coatings

• Market Leader in glass

• Predicting PV sales of $33M/yr by 2011

Arkema • Supplies PVDF films for backsheets, EVA, PMMA

• Arkema, INES to collaborate on PV polymer materials research-Arkema and CEA teams from the French Institut National

de l’Energie Solaire (INES) have joined forces to create what is being called the first private/public mixed research

laboratory in France dedicated to the development of polymer materials for various photovoltaic module technologies

Bridgestone • Products include Tires, Chemical and industrial products, Sporting goods, Bicycles

• It will increase its production capacity of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) film, which is used as an adhesive for solar modules.

It said it will install new production lines at its Seki Plant


• Conductive inks and pastes for screen and inkjet deposition Adhesive polymers (epoxies) for connection Stringers and

preforms Solders and solder paste

Dow Corning • Produces Silicone-based encapsulates and adhesives Dow Corning is owner of Hemlock Semiconductor

• Dow Corning is a leading supplier of Silicon, Silicones and polymeric and gaseous Silicon compounds. The company is

leveraging these capabilities for new product development.

• Building new Monosilane plant

• Curable liquid Silicon encapsulants for c-Si modules.

DuPont • Sole supplier of PVF, High share in metallization pastes

• Metallization pastes, PVF and PET films for backsheets Encapsulant resins, both EVA and PVB Films for front sheet

protection, thin film deposition PET resins for junction boxes

• Backsheet lamination customers have been developing non-PVF products, generally substituting PVDF, available from

more vendors


Joseph Berwind

EVA Suppliers (2)

July 2012


Etimex • Offers Packaging and industrial films

• A manufacturer of EVA and TPU films for moduling and lamination

• New products from Etimex include faster curing films

Kuraray • Supplies Chemical products, fibers, resins, functional materials and other products

• With the TROSIFOL PV/Solar module, manufacturers can now offer elements for use in building facades, overhead and

balcony glazings with outperformed safety features. Modules fitted with TROSIFOL PV/Solar show excellent transparency,

high adhesion strength and excellent resistance to heat, UV, moisture etc.

Mitsui Chemicals Inc. • Offers Performance Materials, Advanced Chemicals, Basic Chemicals

• SOLAR EVA (Solar cell encapsulant) & Silane (Raw materials for silicon film)

Protavic (Protex

International)• Adhesives, Coatings, Encapsulants, Sealants, Resins

• Maintains research & design and manufacturing facilities in the United States, France, Korea and China

Saint Gobain • Saint-Gobain is a major supplier of solutions for the photovoltaic industry. These include quartz crucibles for melting silicon

slabs and engineered abrasive grains for cutting the slabs, fluoropolymer films for encapsulating photovoltaic panels and

high-efficiency PV Lite and Albarino extra-clear glass

SKC • Leading producer of PET films

• Aims to be #1 producer of EVA film for PV applications

STR • Photovoltaic adhesive encapsulants

• The STR encapsulant product line named Photocap® is well known for ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) and thermoplastic

encapsulants and offers excellent adhesion on glass, metal and other module substrates.

• Photocap® encapsulants’ attributes range from standard cure to fast cure in lamination cycles, thermoplastic moisture

barriers, and all-in-one back sheet designs. Photocap® encapsulants are the leading environmental protection package for

silicon-wafer-based technology and thin film solar panels


Joseph Berwind

EVA Suppliers (3)

July 2012


Sun Chemical • Produces Silver (Ag) Front and Back Side paste, Aluminum (Al) BSF Back Side paste, Cellmet Etching Plating Resists,

SunTronic™ Cellmet UV Dielectric, and SunTronic™ Cellmet Inkjet HotMelt Etching Plating Resists

• Thin Film PV – Sold under SunTronic™ Solsys brand:

• Solsys PTF Silver (Ag) Conductor Paste, Solsys Graphite, Solsys Flexible UV Dielectric, Solsys Solvent Strippable Resists,

Solsys UV Curing Resist/Dielectric

Targray Technology

International• Supplier of materials to the Solar and Optical Media industries


Sumitomo Chemicals • Offers wide variety of chemicals for pharma, healthcare, IT & TECHNOLOGY & Petrochemical sectors

• Products include EVA, Caprolcatum, alumina, MMA polymer, polypropylene, polyethylene, photoresists, Lithium Ion,

polarized films etc

Tosoh • Its product includes olefins, polymers, cement, organic chemicals, advanced electronic materials

• Tosoh Corporation evolved in 1935 as a domestic producer of caustic soda and soda ash in Japan

AT Plastics

(Celanese)• Its product includes acetyl intermediates, emulsion polymers, EVA, engineering polymers, ethenol, food ingradiants

• Global integrated producer of speciality chemical products

• Celanese EVA Performance Polymers, the specialty polymers business of Celanese, is a leading North American

manufacturer of a full range of EVA Copolymers and specialty LDPE resins

Sanvic • Core products: Flexible polyvinyl chloride film (PVC), Rigid polyvinyl chloride sheet (PVC), Embossed polyethylene film/sheet

(PE), Embossed ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer film/sheet (EVA), Soft polyolefin sheet (PP, PE and EMMA),

Biodegradable plastic sheet, & Multilayer sheet, other synthetic resin sheet

• Established in 1951 in Japan

Sekisui • Sekisui Chemicals offers EVA under tradename S-LEC EN Film is EVA (ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer) interlayer film for

decorative laminated glass that was developed based on SEKISUI's long years of experiences dedicated to interlayer films in

laminated glass


Joseph Berwind

204

255

287 312

339 366

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

c-Si Backsheet Demand (Mn M2)

$570

$721

$820$900

$987

$1,077

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

c-Si Backsheet Demand ($ Mn)

c-Si Backsheet



Backsheet - Suppliers


July 2012

Sl No Company Model Chemistry

1 Krempel PTL 3-38/75 PVF/PET/PVF2 Krempel PTL 3-38/250 PVF/PET/PVF3 Krempel PTL 3-HR-750 PVF/PET/PVF4 Krempel PTL 3-25/250 PVF/PET/PVF5 Dunsolar MW1247 PVF/PET/PVF6 Dupont PV2001 PVF/PET/PVF7 Dupont PV2111 PVF/PET/PVF8 Haflon New energy HF200 PVF/PET/PVF9 Haflon New energy HF300 PVF/PET/PVF

10 Haflon New energy HF350 PVF/PET/PVF11 Solar Gard PVT10 PVF/PET/PVF12 Isovolta Icosolar 2442 PVF/PET/PVF13 Madico Insul patch EVA/PET/EVA14 Madico Madico EPE EVA/PET/EVA15 SFC SS-320 FPF/PTI/FPF16 SFC PP-350 FPF/PTI/FPF17 SFC PR-303 FPF/PTI/WPO/Primer18 SFC SR-290 FPF/PTI/WPO/Primer

Sl No Company Model Chemistry

19 Madico Protekt HD Protekt/PET/EVA20 Madico Protekt Protekt/PET/EVA21 Krempel PTL 3-BR-1000 PVF/AI/PET22 Krempel PTL 38-50-330 PVF/AI/PET23 DNP Solar WEPF-C ETFE / PET / Olefin24 Dunsolar RK24751 Fluorinated Layer / PET / Primer25 SFC PA-310 FPF/AL/PTI/Primer26 Avery Dennison EF25239M2 FPF/PET/FPF27 SFC TPE-34 FPF/PTI/FPE28 Dunsolar DS069 PET / PET / Primer29 Dunsolar DS004 Primer / PET / Primer30 Dunsolar SP0451 PVDF Film / PET / Primer31 Krempel PTL 1000V PVDF/PET/PVDF32 Madico TPE HD PVF/PET/EVA33 Backfilm Backfilm PVF/PET/FPE34 Coveme Dymat PVF/PET/Primer35 Filmcutter Filmback DMD SN/PET/SN36 Isovolta Icosolar 3554 PA/PA/PA37 Isovolta Icosolar 3552 PA/PET/PA38 Isovolta Icosolar 3572 FPF/PET/PA39 Isovolta Icosolar 3570 PVF/PET/PA

Joseph Berwind

c-Si Module Frames


July 2012

620

777

875 950

1,033 1,115

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

c-Si Frames Demand (Mn M)

$1,302

$1,648

$1,875$2,056

$2,257$2,462

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

c-Si FramesDemand ($ Mn)

Joseph Berwind

c-Si Junction Boxes


July 2012

194

243

273 297

323 349

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

c-Si J Box Demand (Mn pieces)

$678

$858

$976$1,071

$1,175

$1,282

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

c-Si J Boxes Demand ($ Mn)

Joseph Berwind

c-Si Module Other Material suppliers (1)

July 2012


3M Renewable

Energy Div• Wide range of tapes, films, sealants, adhesives, resins, and others for photovoltaic cells, concentrators, and wind turbines

• For PV applications, 3M’s products dominate the Thin Film module metallization market with:3M™ Charge-Collection Solar

Tape

Aremco Products Inc. • Offers Ceramics, Adhesives & sealants, Cements, Coatings, Tapes, Binders


• Conductive inks and pastes for screen and inkjet deposition Adhesive polymers (epoxies) for connection Stringers and

preforms Solders and solder paste

Dow Advanced

Materials (RHEM)• Formulated process chemicals and plating solutions

• Dow Chemical also sells PEG, polyethylene glycol, used in SIC slurries to prepare Si wafers

Henkel AG • Laundry & Home Care, Personal Care, and Adhesives, Sealants and Surface Treatments

• Terostat Butyls for Module Framing

Indium Corporation • Indium and Bismuth and alloys. Solders, conductors and thermally conductive materials

• Company claims a reliable global supply of indium for CI(G)S production of up to 5 GW

• Suppliers Cu stringer tape

• Also suppliers solders, and fluxes

MTI Corp • Oxide crystals and substrates, Precision machines

• Optical grade Fused Silica has been used widely for Laser optics, optical grade UV Fused Silica windows and lenses, mirror

blanks and substrates, wedges, optical beamsplitters and filters, prisms, lightpipes, space and aircraft windows, solar cells,

high quality coating substrates etc

Nikka Seiko Co., Ltd. • Wax (Solid & Liquid), Coatings, Epoxy Adhesives, Coolants, Lubricants, Strippers

• Water soluble, fast curing 2-component epoxy adhesives for slicing ingots or blocks


Joseph Berwind

c-Si Module Other Material suppliers (2)

July 2012


Otto Chemie • Silicone, hybride, polyurethane and acrylic sealants and adhesives

• 1- and 2-part silicone adhesives for bonding of the module frame

Protavic (Protex

International)• Adhesives, Coatings, Encapsulants, Sealants, Resins

• Maintains research & design and manufacturing facilities in the United States, France, Korea and China

Valtech Corporation • Detergents, adhesives, custom-molded polymers

• Specialty epoxy based glue to hold the silicon in place (glued onto holding plate) during block cutting, chamfering, and

wafering

CSG Holding Co.,

Ltd. • Flat Glass, Architectural Glass, Fine Glass, Structural Ceramics, Silicon, Iron Solar Glass, Solar wafer, cell and modules

• The cooperation between its production bases provides CSG two complete industrial chains: the glass industry chain through

quartz sand, raw glass to glass deep-processing; the solar energy industry chain through silicon materials, solar silicon wafer,

solar modules to the solar energy cell

DAQO • Polysilicon, Voltage Switchgears, Electrical Components, Railway Traction Equipment

• Daqo Group invests 6 bn yuan in the polysilicon project with an annual output of 10,000 tons of silicon materials in Chongqing

Wanzhou

Nitol Solar • Chemicals (Chlorine, Caustic Soda, Others), Trichlorosilane, Polysilicon

• Russia's largest producer of polysilicon

• Vertically integrated solar product company

• Production is based at their factory in Usolie-Sibirskoe, Irkutsk region, Russia, with their products being sold to international

customers, primarily in Europe and South-Eastern Asia


Joseph Berwind

Thin Film Materials Market

947 1,389 1,591 1,517 1,655 1,806 1,216

1,024 1,107 1,161 1,253 1,354 588 957

1,318 1,376 1,502

1,642 1,477

2,089

2,642 2,649 2,876

3,414

4,228

5,459

6,659 6,703 7,286

8,216

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015



$729 $818 $765 $819 $878 $942

$435 $454 $460 $481 $504 $530$636

$864 $889 $958 $1,033$1,115$689

$811 $778$811

$926$985

$2,488

$2,945 $2,891$3,067

$3,341$3,571

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TF Materials Market $ Mn

a-Si Tandem CIGS CdTe



Thin Film Materials Demand $ Mn

$771 $892 $869 $920 $1,002 $1,069

$404$467 $455 $482

$525$560$219

$253 $246$261

$284$303

$224

$246 $237$251

$267$285

$203

$275 $283$305

$329

$355

$272

$320 $307$320

$366

$389

$2,488

$2,945 $2,891

$3,067

$3,341

$3,571

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Others

CdTe

H2Se

Ga

In

DEZ

Silane

Junction Box

EVA/PVB

TCO Glass


7.5% CAGR


TF - TCO Glass

131

150 145 152 164

173

-

50

100

150

200

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TF - TCO Glass Demand (Mn M2)

$771

$892 $869$920

$1,002$1,069

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TF - TCO Glass Demand $ MnSource: AEI ConsultingSource: AEI Consulting

• 2011 TCO coated glass price is assumed at $5.88 per M2.

• 1% annual price escalation is modeled.


TF - Encapsulant


• 2011 EVA/PBA price is assumed at $1.54 per M2.


262300 290 304

327346

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TF- Encapsulant Demand (Mn M2)

$404

$467 $455$482

$525$560

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TF - Encapsulant Demand $ Mn


TF – Junction Box


• 2011 Junction box price is assumed at $3.50 per piece


6272 69 72

7882

0

20

40

60

80

100

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TF - Junction Box Demand (mn pieces)

$219

$253 $246$261

$284$303

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TF - Junction Box Demand ($ Mn)


TF – Silane


45,605 49,457

47,040 49,458

52,118 54,987

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TF- Silane Demand (Mn liters)

$113$123 $119

$126$134

$143

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TF- Silane Demand ($ Mn)


TF – Diethylzinc (DEZ)


6,194 6,737

6,415 6,746

7,111 7,504

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TF- DEZ Demand (KILO liters)

$224$246 $237

$251$267

$285

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TF- DEZ Demand ($ Mn)


TF – Phosphoric Acid (H3PO4)


959

1,117 1,062 1,096

1,239 1,305

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TF - H3PO4 DEMAND (Kilo Liters)

$3

$3 $3 $3

$3$4

$0

$1

$1

$2

$2

$3

$3

$4

$4

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TF - H3PO4 Demand ($ Mn)


TF – Other Chemicals



38 41 39 41 43 45

26 35 35 38 40 43

41 51 50 53 58 62 146

170 162 167 189 199 128

149 141 146 165

174 484

581 563 587 650

687

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TF - Other Chemicals (kilo liters)

PVD Al NF3 Mo Cu In Ga SeH2Se KCN CdS CdTe CdCl HNO3

$45 $49 $47 $50 $54 $57$111 $150 $154 $166 $179 $194$203

$275 $283 $305 $329 $355$74

$100 $103 $111 $120$129

$272

$320 $307$320

$366$389

$755

$961 $962$1,024

$1,125$1,208

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

TF - Other Chemicals ($ Mn)

PVD Al NF3 Mo Cu In Ga Se

H2Se KCN CdS CdTe CdCl HNO3


Thin Film – Chemicals & Material Suppliers (1)

July 2012


5N Plus Inc • Pure metals and compounds

• Consumption of First Solar accounts for 78% of sales or about $56m p.a.

• PV Industry ~$24million

Advanced Nano

Products Co., Ltd• Inks for printed electronics, displays, sputtering targets, coatings, CMP slurry, and others

• Advanced Nano Products Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells a range of electronic nano-materials such as coatings, silver nano

paste, silver jet ink, and Ag/Pd Sol,Ag paste for printed electronics, and sputtering targets displays, touch screens, solar cell,

OLED, and other thin film applications.

• The company currently offers:Customizable silver paste for crystalline cells, Nano silver inks for flexible printed circuits Nano

inks and powders for CIGS

Air Liquide • Atmospheric gases, NF3, silane, dopants



• Fluorinated gases (CF4, C2F6) for etch steps

American

Elements• Engineered and advanced materials

• It includes silicon, cadmium, indium, gallium, selenide and many other elemental materials and the crystal growth, nanoparticle

and thin film manufacturing departments

Heraeus • Precious metals and metals trading Sputtering targets and Evaporation materials


• Longtime leading supplier of pastes in other industries Heraeus is promoting pates for PV use. Sales are growing from a base

in Europe

Indium

Corporation• Indium and Bismuth and alloys. Solders, conductors and thermally conductive materials

• Company claims a reliable global supply of indium for CI(G)S production of up to 5 GW

• Suppliers Cu stringer tape

• Also suppliers solders, and fluxes


Joseph Berwind


July 2012


Linde • Atmospheric gases, NF3, Specialty Gases


Matheson / Taiyo Nippon Sanso • Atmospheric gases, NF3, silane, dopants






Mitsubishi Aluminum Packaging

Co., Ltd. (MA Packaging)• Aluminum and Aluminum Alloy, Mill Products and Fabricated Products

• It provides a variety of foil products, such as containers, labels and various packaging materials for foodservice

and pharmaceutical applications. They are also used in electrolytic capacitors, various electrical and electronic

components, heat insulating materials for construction uses, etc

Plansee High Performance

Materials • Molybdenum, Tungsten, Tantalum, Niobium and Chromium

• A leading manufacturer of products made of molybdenum, tungsten, tantalum, niobium and chromium

Praxair • Atmospheric gases, NF3, silane, dopants, metals and ceramic PVD targets

• Praxair supplies bulk gases: N2, O2, Ar, H2 and NH3

• Mo sputtering targets for CdTe and CIGS modules

• Cu alloy targets for CI(G)S sputtering

Sodiff • Advanced materials used in the electronics and semiconductor industries

• SiH4 is used in manufacturing semiconductors, TFT-LCD and thin film solar cells. It is expected to show

increased demand along with NF3 gas due to expansion in the electronics and semiconductor industries

• Offers NF3, SiH4, DCS, WF6


Joseph Berwind


July 2012


Targray Technology International • Supplier of materials to the Solar and Optical Media industries


ThinTech Materials Technology

Ltd.• Sputtering Targets for α-Si and CIGS Thin-Film Solar

• Transparent conducting layer – TCO

Tosoh • Produced at both US and Japanese facilities, Tosoh's sputtering targets are available in a variety of high purity

metals, metal alloys, cermets, and ceramic compositions. Targets can be made in all shapes, sizes, and purity

levels to meet design specifications


Joseph Berwind

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTSR E V I E W O F K E Y F U T U R E T E C H N O L O G I C A L D E V E L O P M E N T S A N D A S S E S S I N G T H E I R I M P A C T O N F U T U R E C O S T O F P R O D U C T I O N .


Identified Areas of Future Key Technological Development


Prep Silicon

Cast Ingot

Cut ingot into bricks

Slicing bricks into wafers

Wafer Separation

Wafer Cleaning

Texturing

Diffusion

HF Surface Etching

Metal Line

Firing

Glass Washing

Tab & String Cells

Module Layup & Bussing

Lamination & Curing

Framing & Termination

Power Testing


July 2012

AR Coating

14

32 5

6

7 8 9

10 11

12

14

13No Particulars

1 Induction Melt Cold crucible

2 Mono cast Ingot

3 Diamond Wire

4 Structured Wire

5 SiGen PolyMax™

6 Plasma Etching Texturization

7 Ion Implantation

8 n-type silicon

No Particulars

9 Selective Emitter

10 Double Printing – Esatto™

11 Busbar Optimization

12 Nickel film & Wet Metallization

13 Rear Passivated PoP

14 Direct Printing

15 Multiple dye doping of EVA

16 Backsheet Developments

15

16

Joseph Berwind

List of Developments (1)

July 2012

No Particulars Brief Description Cost saving

$/W

Expected timeline

1 Induction Melt

Cold crucible

(IMCC)

The (IMCC) is introduced as an alternative to Directional solidification which aims

at reducing cost of costly crucibles and increase the productivity

$0.01 2013 to 2015

2 Mono Cast Ingot GT Advanced Technology has developed a new technique called “monocast” to

produce quasi-mono ingots at a very low cost. GT’s new mono-cast technology

uses lower-cost multicrystalline ingot process to manufacture higher-quality, mono-

like ingots without the associated higher production costs

$0.03 2012 to 2013

3 Diamond Wire The diamond wire is essentially a wire coated with diamond particles. This is being

introduced as an alternative to multi wire saw and is aimed at completely

eliminating slurry cost and increasing the throughput by 2x to 5x conventional saw

$0.05 2012 to 2013

4 Structured Wire Structured wire is an evolutionary wire technology that can significantly increase

productivity due to more efficient transport of slurry and faster cut rate.

$0.03 2012 to 2013

5 SiGen PolyMax It is a kerf less wafering in which, electro beam injection of H ion is used to peel the

wafer from silicon ingot. This technology eliminates gluing, wafer cutting, wafer

separation and wafer cleaning process steps

$0.09 to $0.23 2014 to 2016

6 Plasma Etching

Texturization

This is an alternative to the well established isotexture process by combining a wet

etching with a plasma process. This aims to increase the cell efficiency.

$0.01 2013 to 2014

7 Ion Implantation Alternative to conventional diffusion process. ENERGi implanter is high throughput,

low cost technique which can form emitters with significantly improved J0E values

even at lower sheet resistances.

$0.04 2013 to 2015

8 n-type silicon Replacing p-type silicon base with n-type silicon base and then diffusing it with

boron and phosphorous. This aims to increase cell efficiency significantly by

increasing carrier lifetime.

$0.05 2013 to 2014

Joseph Berwind

List of Developments (2)

July 2012

No Particulars Brief Description Cost

saving

$/W

Expected

timeline

9 Selective

Emitter

Using selective emitter approaches, it is possible to deposit more phosphorus directly under the

silver grid to facilitate contact between this and the silicon, enabling the electrons to migrate

efficiently. At the same time, by reducing the amount of phosphorus between the grid fingers,

recombination losses are reduced and the cell's blue response is improved.

$0.06 2011 to 2014

10 Double

Printing –

Esatto

Aims to print tall narrow front contact grid line with advanced Esatto printing technology, that

increases aspect ratio and thereby increases cell efficiency while reducing paste usage

$0.03 2011 to 2012

11 Busbar

Optimization

An approach by changing the busbar design which significantly cut down silver paste usage by

over 30%, while the fill factor (75.8%) and maximum output power (187 W) of the final module

keep at the same level.

$0.01 2012 to 2013

12 Nickle film

contact &

wet

metallization

A new approaches for the front side metallization of crystalline silicon solar cells using a blanket

sputtered nickel film as the contact layer, targeting on dramatically reducing the specific

contact resistance between the metal gridline and the emitter layer. Further replacement of

silver with copper using wet metallization brings down the cost significantly

$0.07 2013 to 2016

13 Rear

Passivated

PoP

Optimizing a print-on-print process that reduces the silver finger width from 110 μm to 70 μm and

implementing two different dielectric rear surface passivation stacks: (i) a silicon dioxide/silicon

nitride stack and (ii) an aluminum oxide/silicon nitride stack.

$0.06 2012 to 2014

14 Direct

Printing

This technology is able to print as fast as a half a meter per second. Multiple nozzle will enable

this process to print each wafer in about 2 seconds. Aims to increase aspect ratio , reducing

paste usage and increasing efficiency

$0.05 2012 to 2014

15 Multiple dye

doping of

EVA

Optimizing the absorption properties of luminescent encapsulation layers made by poly-

ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), by using multiple dye-doping and varying the concentration of

the most promising dye

$0.02 2013 to 2015

16 Backsheet Various developments are taking place aiming at strengthening the backsheet characteristics

which provide good life and protection for solar modules

NA Ongoing

Joseph Berwind

July 2012

Technology Pulling Down Cost


Joseph Berwind

c-Si Developments


Future Developments – c-Si Ingot

July 2012


Mono c-Si Multi c-Si

Promising technology

Being developed by Piller Group

Intends to replace quartz crucible with low cost

copper crucible and increases the productivity and

ingot material purity

Cost saving:

$0.013/W

Induction Melt Cold Crucible

Promising technology

Developed by GT Solar. The technology uses

lower-cost multicrystalline ingot process to

manufacture higher-quality, mono-like ingots

without the associated higher production costs

Cost saving:

$0.03/W

Mono Cast Ingot

Joseph Berwind

July 2012

Mono Cast Technology - Introduction

Silicon ingot can be either mono or multi. Mono ingots are highly efficient than multi and they are expensive to manufacture over multi ingots.

GT Advanced Technology has developed a new technique called “monocast” to produce quasi-mono ingots at a very low cost. The DSS450 MonoCast furnace produces the industry’s highest mono volume yield in production ingots comprised of up to 25 bricks.

GT’s new mono-cast technology uses lower-cost multicrystalline ingot process to manufacture higher-quality, mono-like ingots without the associated higher production costs.

Cells produced from DSS450 MonoCast wafers are claimed to have lower Light Induced Degradation (LID) and the full square surface dimension area across the wafer provides greater electricity generating surface area than the pseudo square shape of traditional monocrystalline wafers. MonoCast full square wafers have ~1.8% more electric generating area vs. psuedo square.

MonoCast Ingots produce three grades of wafers: Grade-1 (mostly mono); Grade-2 (hybrid); and Grade-3 (Mostly multi). Over 95% of the wafers are either Grade-1 or Grade-2.

Source: GT Solar

Joseph Berwind

July 2012

MonoCast Technology - Review

Quasi-Mono silicon using DSS

Seeding Seedless

Place mono-crystalline

seed at the bottom of

crucible

Load Polysilicon on

top of the seed

The underlying seed

allows quasi-mono

silicon ingots to grow

in the DS furnace.

Place the crucible with a

notch at the bottom. No

mono-crystalline seed is

used

Controlled cooling to get

ingot block

Source: Yuanta Research & AEI Consulting

Efficiency distribution of cells from mono-cast wafers

Source: Photon Consulting & Yuanta Research

Key Players offering quasi mono ingot/wafer

• GT Solar

• Jinggong Science & Technology

• GCL Poly

• JA Solar

• Rena Solar

• PVA Tepla

• ALD

• ECM Technologies

Joseph Berwind

July 2012

MonoCast Technology – Cost Saving Potential

Mono cast technology offers sizable cost saving by increasing the ingot quality which results in increasing cell efficiency.

The current weighted average cell efficiency is assumed at 14.93%. We believe mono cast quasi cells could increase the cell efficiency by 0.35%.

Also, we assume this could result in 10% reduction in ingot material usage.

Our analysis suggest that there is a potential to reduce the total cost by $0.03/W.


Particulars Unit Existing Proposed Comments

Polysilicon Price $/Kg $50.00 $50.00

Cell Efficiency % 14.93% 15.28% Assumed to increase by 0.30%

Silicon Usage g/W 6.16 6.02

Polysilicon cost $/W $0.31 $0.30

Ingot Materials $/Kg Ingot $3.99 $3.59

Assumed 10% reduction in ingot

materials

Watts per Kg Ingot W/Kg Ingot 162.30 166.11

Ingot material cost $/W $0.02 $0.02

Other costs $/M2 $117.95 $117.95

Watts per M2 W/M2 149.25 152.75

Total other costs $/W $0.79 $0.77

Total Cost $/W $1.12 $1.09

Net Cost Savings $/W $0.03

Joseph Berwind

Induction melting in cold crucible (IMCC)

July 2012

Source: 26th EU PVSEC, 2BV.4.42

• The standard technology of producing multicrystalline

silicon ingots is by directional solidification method in

quartz crucibles.

• This method has several drawbacks:

• inhomogeneity of ingots

• part of the material is contaminated with oxygen,

metal impurities, silicon carbide, carbon etc

affecting the final solar cells’s efficiency due to

light induced degradation (LID), problems with

shunted cells, silicon nitrate inclusions etc

• the productivity of growing is rather low

• consumption of disposable quartz crucibles and

graphite components is rather high

• The Induction melting in cold crucible (IMCC) is

introduced as an alternative to Directional solidification

to overcome these drawbacks

Joseph Berwind

IMCC for Multicrystalline Ingot

July 2012


• Tesys Ltd & Piller Limited have developed an innovative equipment for

growing multicrystalline silicon ingots for photovoltaic application by induction

melting in cold crucible (IMCC) method.

• The IMCC method has a number of advantages in terms of product cost: high

growth rate, eliminating the need to use expensive quartz crucibles and

graphite components. First lot of solar cells made of wafers from IMCC

multicrystalline ingot was produced with average efficiency of 16.3%. These

results confirm the promising use of IMCC technology for solar cells

application.

• The technology of producing multicrystalline silicon ingots by IMCC method

consists in induction heating and melting of silicon held in a water-cooled

(cold) segmented copper crucible. Melting is accompanied by ingot formation

via crystallisation of the melt in the cross-sectional shape of the cold crucible

thus forming the ingot, which allows to consider this technology as

continuous casting. Application of induction heating provides a high

concentration of energy in the melting zone, thus achieving a high rate of

fusion and high-speed crystallisation and formation of the ingot. At the same

time the resulting ingot has both a uniform structure and homogeneous

distribution of impurities along the entire length

Joseph Berwind

IMCC Cost Saving Potential

July 2012



Kg Ingot supported by Crucible Kg/Crucible 430 516 Assumed 20% higher productivity

Kg Ingot supported by Graphite part Kg/Gra part 53,759 64,511 Assumed 20% higher productivity

Crucible Price $/unit $917 $550 Assumed 40% Savings in crucibles

Graphite wear part Price $/unit $70,000 $0

Crucible cost $/Kg Ingot $2.13 $1.07

Graphite wear part Cost $/Kg Ingot $1.30 $0.00

Total Material cost $/Kg Ingot $3.43 $1.07

Watts per Kg of Ingot W/Kg 161.80 161.80

Material Cost $/W $0.02122 $0.00659

Net Cost Saving $/W $0.01463

• IMCC saves significant cost by increasing the productivity and reducing crucible and graphite wear part consumption.

• We assumed 20% productivity gain and 40% reduction in crucible usage and no graphite wear part is required.

• There is a net benefit potential of $0.0146/W

Joseph Berwind

Future Developments – c-Si Wafer

July 2012


Sawing Technology Kerf Less Methods

Diamond Wires Structured Wires

Gas-phase Liquid-phase Solid Phase (thin) Solid Phase (Full)

PSI Process CVD Hot wire CVD String Ribbon Direct wafering Slim cut Cleave PolyMax

Promising

Already several

suppliers started

using this

technology.

Cost saving:

-$0.04 TO $0.08/W

Promising

Already several

suppliers started

using this

technology.

Cost saving:

$0.01 TO $0.06/W

Not Promising

Commercial efforts have now been abandoned as uncompetitive with the steadily

improving performance of wiresaw-based wafering

Promising

Still under

progress at

SiGen

Cost Saving:

$0.09 to

$0.23/WSource: AEI Consulting

Joseph Berwind

Diamond Cutting Wire

July 2012

• Current hot topics in the PV research community are comparisons of, SiC based slurry with diamond slurry and diamond wire. For basic research, the diamond wire saws are still an interesting alternative and a full slurry compatible version is under development.

• The diamond wire is essentially a wire coated with diamond particles. The diamond particles act as the abrasive elements instead of SiC particles as in conventional wire sawing technology. While diamond wire technology promises to substantially increase throughput and reduce cost, it is still under development.

Concept of the two-roller technology (left). The easy accessibility of the DS 265 is clearly visible

(centre). This enables a rapid conversion from SiC to diamond slurry or diamond wire. The DWT multiwire

saw is ideally suited for pure diamond wire pv slicing experiments. Source: Mayer Burger

Joseph Berwind

Particulars Valuetotal system cost per saw bed $467,500

System life years 5

annual depreciation $93,500total hours in an year 8640

uptime 96%

effective days/year 8294.4brick side mm 156

cutting speed mm/hour 25

cutting time hrs per cut 6.24# of brick cut per year 1,329

# of wafers per brick 607

# of wafers per year 806,843 Depreciation per wafer $0.116brick height mm 280

Load size 1,000


wire speed m/s 15

wire kms per cut 336.96

# of wafers per cut 1821.00

# of cuts before replacing 1

wire kms per wafer 0.185 wire cost $/kms $1.28

Wire cost per wafer $0.237Slurry cost per wafer $0.159total cost per wafer $0.512

Diamond Wire Vs Steel Wire (MWSS)

July 2012


CoO of MWSS CoO of Diamond Wire Saw

MWSS wire $/km $1.28 $0.75 $1.00 $1.25 $1.50 $1.75

CoO $/Wafer $0.581 $0.482 $0.529 $0.575 $0.621 $0.667

Source: AEI Consulting Cost Saving

$0.512-0.318 = 0.19/Wafer

$0.05/W

Particulars Valuetotal system cost per saw bed $467,500

System life years 5

annual depreciation $93,500total hours in an year 8640

uptime 96%

effective days/year 8294.4brick side mm 156

cutting speed mm/hour 100

cutting time hrs per cut 1.56# of brick cut per year 5,317

# of wafers per brick 607

# of wafers per year 3,227,372 Depreciation per wafer $0.029brick height mm 300

Load size 1,000


wire speed m/s 15

wire kms per cut 84.24

# of wafers per cut 1821.00

# of cuts before replacing 40

wire kms per wafer 0.0012 wire cost $/kms $250.00

Wire cost per wafer $0.289Slurry cost per wafer $0.000total cost per wafer $0.318

Joseph Berwind

Diamond Wire – Pros & Cons

July 2012

1. High Cutting Speed

2. No Slurry Cost

3. Wire reusability

High Wire cost

+ / - of Diamond Wire

Currently the CoO of diamond wire saw is almost in par with MWSS and this is a relatively

new concept still in the developing stage.

The Diamond wire has very high cutting speed (2-5 times higher than MWSS). Certain

companies like Read Co Ltd claims their diamond wire has a cutting speed 5x higher than

slurry based steel wires. This results in higher productivity, lower wire usage and

ultimately lower CoO.

Since diamond wires use fixed diamond grit on the wire, it does not require slurry (SiC and

PEG). This avoids entire slurry cost.

The diamond wires have very high tension strength and hence can be reused for several cuts. This implies a very low

wire usage. Mayer Burger has demonstrated wire consumption <3 m/wafer (156mm) on their DS265 sawing

machine.

However the cost of diamond wires range from $200/km to $450/km. Read co, Japan, one of the key diamond wire

supplier is selling the wire at $400/km FoB Japan.

The price of MWSS, on the other hand has been declining over the past year. MWSS price dropped from $1.75/km in

2009 end to $1.29/km by mid 2011.


Joseph Berwind

Dia

mo

nd

Wir

e $

/km

s

Cutting speed as a multiple to MWSS speed

$0.3182.00 2.30 2.60 2.90 3.20 3.50 3.80 4.10 4.40 4.70 5.00

$250 $0.64 $0.55 $0.49 $0.44 $0.40 $0.36 $0.33 $0.31 $0.29 $0.27 $0.25

$275 $0.69 $0.60 $0.53 $0.48 $0.43 $0.40 $0.37 $0.34 $0.32 $0.30 $0.28

$300 $0.75 $0.65 $0.58 $0.52 $0.47 $0.43 $0.40 $0.37 $0.34 $0.32 $0.30

$325 $0.81 $0.70 $0.62 $0.56 $0.51 $0.46 $0.43 $0.39 $0.37 $0.34 $0.32

$350 $0.87 $0.75 $0.67 $0.60 $0.54 $0.50 $0.46 $0.42 $0.39 $0.37 $0.35

$375 $0.93 $0.80 $0.71 $0.64 $0.58 $0.53 $0.49 $0.45 $0.42 $0.39 $0.37

$400 $0.98 $0.85 $0.76 $0.68 $0.61 $0.56 $0.52 $0.48 $0.45 $0.42 $0.39

$425 $1.04 $0.91 $0.80 $0.72 $0.65 $0.59 $0.55 $0.51 $0.47 $0.44 $0.42

$450 $1.10 $0.96 $0.85 $0.76 $0.69 $0.63 $0.58 $0.54 $0.50 $0.47 $0.44

$475 $1.16 $1.01 $0.89 $0.80 $0.72 $0.66 $0.61 $0.56 $0.53 $0.49 $0.46

$500 $1.21 $1.06 $0.93 $0.84 $0.76 $0.69 $0.64 $0.59 $0.55 $0.52 $0.49

Diamond Wire CoO Sensitivity

July 2012

2011 average MWSS price stood at $1.28/km. The CoO of wafer sawing at this price works out to be $0.581/wafer. The MWSS wire price has been declining. We assume

MWSS wire price could oscillate in the range of $0.75 to $1.75. For this the CoO could be $0.482 to $0.667/wafer respectively (see bottom right hand graphic)

The CoO of DW is a function of cutting speed and diamond wire price. In the base case we assume cutting speed at 4x MWSS speed and DW price at $250/km. For this,

we got CoO of $0.318/wafer.

In the below graphic, we showed the CoO sensitivity of DW wrt to cutting speed and diamond wire price. For example, when cutting speed is 2x MWSS speed and price is

$250/km, CoO IS $0.64/wafer.

Then we highlighted the scenarios when CoO of DW seems attractive over MWSS. For example, orange color denotes the scenarios when DW CoO is cheaper to MWSS

when MWSS wire price is => $0.75/km. When MWSS wire is $0.75/km, CoO WILL BE $0.482/wafer. Hence in the sensitivity table, one can notice orange color is applied on

those cells which are less than $0.482/wafer

For example, in the sensitivity table, yellow area represents the scenarios when CoO DW is cheaper than MWSS if MWSS wire is priced at $1.50 to $1.75 range.

MWSS wire $/km CoO $/Wafer$1.47 $0.581$0.75 $0.482$1.00 $0.529$1.25 $0.575$1.50 $0.621$1.75 $0.667



Joseph Berwind

Structured Saw Wiring Technology

• Today’s state-of-the-art technology for c-Si wafering is based on multi-wire saw using abrasive grains as the

cutting agent suspended and transported in a liquid media (“slurry”). The productivity and quality of the wafer

slicing process essentially relies on the capability to transport slurry into the cutting channel.

• Applied Materials (D. Heppner & others) have developed a new process of applying a thin 120µm diameter

structured wire for wafer slicing. The structured wire is a metal saw wire with a plurality of crimps (waves)

alternatively oriented in two orthogonal planes.

• Structured wire is an evolutionary

wire technology that can significantly

increase productivity due to more

efficient transport of slurry and faster

cut rate. Applied HCT has pioneered

structured wire technology for both

wafering and squaring.

• It has been demonstrated that use of

structured wire can result in over

25% improvement in productivity over

conventional MWSS.

Source: 26th EUPVSEC, 2BO.7.1


Structured Saw Wiring Vs MWSS

July 2012

+30% productivity

+10% higher

• Applying structured wire sawing

technology to wafering is a natural

evolution which is also expected to deliver

significant wafering productivity gains

while offering a low risk upgrade path to

wafer manufacturers.

• Assuming structured wire results in 30%

higher productivity over MWSS, wire

usage per kms could drop from

0.185kms/wafer to 0.142 kms/wafer or

23% reduction in wire consumption.

• Assuming structured wire costs 10%

higher than conventional MWSS, this

could result in net cost saving of $0.02/W.


Particulars MWSS Str Wire

total system cost per saw bed $467,500 $467,500

System life years 5 5

annual depreciation $93,500 $93,500

total hours in an year 8640 8640

uptime 96% 96%

effective days/year 8294.4 8294.4

brick side mm 156 156

cutting speed mm/hour 25 33

cutting time hrs per cut 6.24 4.8# of brick cut per year 1,329 1,728

# of wafers per brick 607 607

# of wafers per year 806,843 1,048,896

Depreciation per wafer $0.116 $0.089

brick height mm 280 300

Load size 1,000 1,000

# of bricks per cut 3 3

wire speed m/s 15 15

wire kms per cut 336.96 259.2

# of wafers per cut 1821.00 1821.00

# of cuts before replacing 1 1

wire kms per wafer 0.185 0.1423

wire cost $/kms $1.28 $1.41

Wire cost per wafer $0.237 $0.201

Slurry cost per wafer $0.159 $0.159

total cost per wafer $0.512 $0.449

Saving Potential $/Wafer $0.063

Saving Potential $/W $0.02

Joseph Berwind

Structured Wire Cost Sensitivity

July 2012

• Switching to structured wire is economical when the incremental benefit is higher than the incremental cost.

• Structured wire could result in 25% to 35% higher productivity over MWSS. Structured wire could be at 10% to

20% premium to conventional MWSS.

• This implies, CoO for structured wire could be $0.44/Wafer to $0.48/Wafer

• Current CoO for conventional MWSS is $0.512. This implies, replacing the conventional wire with structured wire

could result in cost saving of $0.03/Wafer to $0.07/Wafer.


CoO $/W for Structured wire under different scenarios

In this table, yellow highlighted region represent

scenarios in which CoO of structured wire is

lower than CoO of conventional MWSS.

Str

uc

Wir

e C

os

t P

rem

ium

Productivity increase from structured wire over MWSS

$0.449 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%

5.0% $0.51 $0.49 $0.48 $0.46 $0.45 $0.44 $0.43 $0.42

10.0% $0.52 $0.50 $0.49 $0.47 $0.46 $0.45 $0.44 $0.43

15.0% $0.53 $0.51 $0.50 $0.48 $0.47 $0.46 $0.45 $0.44

20.0% $0.54 $0.52 $0.51 $0.49 $0.48 $0.47 $0.46 $0.45

25.0% $0.55 $0.53 $0.52 $0.50 $0.49 $0.48 $0.46 $0.45

30.0% $0.56 $0.54 $0.53 $0.51 $0.50 $0.49 $0.47 $0.46

35.0% $0.57 $0.56 $0.54 $0.52 $0.51 $0.49 $0.48 $0.47

40.0% $0.59 $0.57 $0.55 $0.53 $0.52 $0.50 $0.49 $0.48

45.0% $0.60 $0.58 $0.56 $0.54 $0.53 $0.51 $0.50 $0.49

Joseph Berwind

Kerfless Silicon Wafers

• Kerfless silicon wafer-making equipment has been

suggested as a cost-effective alternative to the wire

saw method. The potential benefits include greater

materials utilization efficiency and lower cost. Until

recently, EFG and ribbon technologies (both liquid-

solid phase crystallization kerf-free methods) were

the only real “kerf-free” methods that have been

industrialized to any scale.

• Commercial efforts have now been abandoned as

uncompetitive with the steadily improving

performance of wiresaw-based wafering of mono-

and multi-crystalline Si ingots. To become

competitive and gain traction against modern

wiresaw-based wafering, kerfless methods must

support a sub-100μm thickness roadmap while

preserving monocrystalline wafer electrical quality

and high mechanical strength.

• Only solid-phase kerfless wafering with a substitutional to ultra-thin absorber

thickness range can compete. One such kerfless technology is ion beam-induced

cleaving of crystalline silicon, demonstrated as capable of producing high quality c-Si

wafers in thicknesses ranging from 20 microns to 150 microns. Progress of this

promising technology in the form of wafering equipment at SiGen is described and

demonstrates its low-cost wafering potential

Source: 26th EU PVSEC, 2BO.7.5


SiGen - PolyMax

July 2012

• SiGen is developing a novel technology called PolyMax™ and provides disruptive new capability for wafer

generation by cleaving the wafers in contrast to the destructive sawing process

• In this technology, electro beam injection of H ion is used to peel the wafer from silicon ingot. Hence this

avoid kerf loss. This technology eliminates gluing, wafer cutting, wafer separation and wafer cleaning

process steps.

• Polymax technology offers wafer thickness of 20µm as against ~150µm wafer thickness in wire saw

wafers. This provides 15x material saving over the conventional sawing process.

• The company claims the following benefits of this technology over the conventional wafer sawing:

• Poly feed stock saving

• Upstream equipment saving

• Lower opex cost due to elimination of several process steps (gluing, wafer cutting etc)

• Free of wire and slurry consumables

• Free of waste and recovery/waste treatment infrastructure

• However the technology is still in development phase and is applicable only on mono crystalline silicon.

Joseph Berwind

SiGen – PolyMax Process steps

July 2012

Silicon bricks are

implanted with H+ ionsIon acceleration

voltage determines

depth of penetration,

and final position of

cleave

Wafer TTV is

determined by the top

surface

Cleaving module

removes wafers from

bricks for cell

manufacturing

Source: AEI Consulting & SiGen

Source: SiGen

Joseph Berwind

SiGen – PolyMax Production process

July 2012

• The process technology, called PolyMax™, is a

cyclic, two-step process: Implant-Cleave-Repeat

• First, a high energy proton beam is directed at the

top surface of a silicon brick. The protons (or other

ions) are implanted in a thin layer at a controlled

depth under the surface of the silicon. Then, the

silicon is induced to fracture, or cleave, in a highly

controlled manner, along the cleave plane defined by

the implanted ions. A single wafer of silicon is

released and the process is repeated on the newly

exposed surface of the brick. The use of cleaving,

rather than sawing, eliminates the waste due to kerf.

• The first step of the PolyMax™ wafering process is

performed by Silicon Genesis’ production-grade

proton implantation tool. This first-of-its-kind tool

started operation in 2009 at SiGen’s plant in San

Jose, CA.

• Today, the tool is operating at about 60% of its rated

beam current and roughly 85% of its rated maximum

energy. Implantation of full-sized, 1m2 trays of

silicon bricks has been demonstrated.

Ion Implanter Tool

End Station of Ion Implanter tool


Joseph Berwind

SiGen – PolyMax Cost Reduction Potential

July 2012


• The implanter can processes trays of 36, 156 mm pseudo-

square bricks in a 6x6 array. The system is also designed

to process 64 bricks (in an 8x8 array) of the smaller 125

mm square size. The system is also designed to handle

bricks up to 100 mm thick, allowing the production of

hundreds or thousands of wafers from one brick before it

must be removed from the processing line. The trays of

bricks are moved through the endstation on powered

rollerwheels, driven from outside the vacuum by servo

motors coupled to timing belts.

• For 156mm square bricks, the SiGen implanter is

designed to have a throughput of about 185 bricks

(wafers) per hour. This corresponds to roughly one tray

every 12 minutes or one brick every 20 seconds, on

average, resulting in throughputs of about 290 wafers per

hour.

• The potential for cost savings by eliminating kerf waste

using solid-phase kerfless wafering such as PolyMax™ is

widely recognized. The yield, cost and performance

impact of the new wafering technology’s higher

mechanical strength and tighter thickness variation are

more difficult to quantify but are expected to be

substantial.

Joseph Berwind

SiGen – PolyMax Cost Sensitivity

July 2012

Particulars Unit Wire SawPolyMax

Stage-1

PolyMax

Stage-2Comments

Wafer thickness µm 200 120 30 Could reduce to 120µm and gradually to 30µm

Module Efficiency % % 13.43% 13.43% 13.43% Assumed no change in efficiency

Poly usage g/W g/W 6.16 3.70 0.92 Significant reduction in poly usage

Polysilicon Price $/Kg $/Kg $50.00 $50.00 $50.00

Poly Cost $/W $/W $0.31 $0.18 $0.05

Crucible - G5 size $/W $0.01

Graphite wear parts $/W $0.01

Argon $/W $0.00

Saw Wire $/W $0.07

Slurry $/W $0.04

Other Materials cost $/W $0.13 $0.00 $0.00 Polymax saves all other material costs at wafering process

Wafering Labor cost $/M2 6.00 6.00 6.00

Watts per M2 W/m2 134.325 134.325 134.325

Wafering Labor cost $/W $0.04 $0.04 $0.04

Wafering Capex $/M2 112.82 $338.46 $338.46 Assumed capex is 3x normal wafering capex

Watts per M2 W/m2 134.325 134.325 134.325

Capex per Watt $/W $0.84 $2.52 $2.52

Useful Life years 10 10 10

Annual Depreciation Charges $/W $0.08 $0.25 $0.25

Total Wafering Cost $/W $0.57 $0.48 $0.34

Net Benefit $/W $0.09 $0.23

• The cost saving comes mainly from reduced wafer thickness leading to lower polysilicon usage and avoidance of wafering

process steps which saves consumables used in conventional wafer processing (slurry, crucibles, saw wire etc).

• However, Ion Implantation involves very high capex. We assumed the capex could be 3 times higher than normal wafering

capex. Despite, there is a potential cost saving upto >$0.20/W as the wafer thickness falls to 30µm level.


*In the above calculation “unit” is with respect to module. For example, $/m2 implies $ per m2 module area.

Joseph Berwind

Future Developments – c-Si Cell

July 2012


Texturing Diffusion HF Surface Etching Metal Line FiringAR Coating

Double

Printing

Esatto

Busbar

optimization

Rear

Passivate

d PoP

Ion

Implantation

Direct

PrintingNickle

film & wet

metallizati

on

Plasma

Etching

Texturization

Promising

Already

several

suppliers

started using

this

technology.

Cost saving:

~$0.03/W

This is a

proposed

architecture

(Segmental

bus bar) to

reduce paste

usage without

compromising

efficiency.

Cost Saving:

$0.01/W

Very

promising

technology

introduced

by nScript.

Cost

Saving:

$0.05W

Very

promising

technology .

Still in

developmen

t phase.

Cost

Saving:

$0.06W

Promising

Develope

d by

Intervac

Cost

saving:

~$0.04/W

Promising

Still in

development

phase

Cost saving:

~$0.01/W

Promising

Still in

developmen

t phase.

Cost

Saving:

$0.07/W

n-type

Silicon

Promising

Honeywell

invented

special

dopants &

codiffusion

process.

Cost

saving:

~$0.05/W

Promising

Centrother

m has

successful

ly

implement

ed

Cost

saving:

~$0.06/W

Selective

Emitter

Joseph Berwind

Plasma Etching Texturization

July 2012


• Surface texturing is the first process done on incoming wafers in silicon cell manufacturing. Texturing also allows the saw

damage layer removal owed to the slicing of the Si ingots into wafers. The defects induced by the slicing with a wire saw (as

μ-cracks), well known to degrade the cell performance, are remove during this process.

• The isotropic etch in an acidic bath, based on a HF/HNO3 mixture, is now a standard process in the photovoltaic industry for

randomly oriented grains mc-Si.

• Furthermore, reflectivity losses become even more relevant to reach high efficiency silicon solar cells. This is especially true

for mc-Si wafers. It is also well accepted in the PV community that non-textured rear surface are required to reach high

efficiency. However, the texturing process currently happens on both sides of the wafers and increasing solar cell efficiency

implies a decoupling treatment of both rear and front surfaces.

• An alternative to well established texturization was established: this is called Plasma Texturization. In the experiment, saw

damage removal and texturing process were separated. Four type of texturing was carried on:

• group A: alkaline texture

• group B: alkaline etching and plasma (alk+P)

• group C: acidic isotexture process => Standard HF/HNO3 bath

• group D: acidic etching and plasma (ac+P)

Joseph Berwind

Plasma Etching - Details

July 2012


• Surface texturing enhances the photon absorption and removes the saw damage layer. For randomly oriented grains silicon,

isotropic dip in HF/HNO3 mixture is currently a standard process. Important is that isotexture occurs on both sides and has a

high de-ionized water consumption. However, it is well accepted that polished rear surface and reflectivity losses become

even more relevant to reach high efficiency solar cells. Increasing solar cell efficiencies implies a decoupling treatment of rear

and front sides.

• MPO Energy, Semco Engineering & others have developed an alternative to the well established isotexture process by

combining a wet etching with a plasma process and a specific plasma chamber was been designed. The texturing process

thereby developed was then successfully implemented in a solar cell process. Surface characterizations underlined that no

plasma damages occur during this texturing process. Solar cells results exhibit an increase in short circuit current density and

no drop in open circuit voltage. This lead to a gain efficiency for plasma texturing process compared to the standard texture

process (alkaline or acidic).

• An increase of the density current was measured leading to a gain efficiency of + 0.15% absolute for both wet etchings

processes compare to standard texturing processes (alkaline or acidic) without dry plasma process. All characterizations

performed shown that dry plasma process has no significant impact on both bulk and surface electrical properties. As a

consequence, no drop in VOC was measured on solar cells.

Joseph Berwind

Plasma Etching – Process Steps

July 2012

Source: 26th EU PVSEC, 2BV.3.62 & AEI Consulting

Plasma Process

Step-1 Step-2

A texturing plasma with a Fluorine chemistry

etches and auto-masks the silicon. SF6/O2 or

NF3/O2 mixtures gases are well used for

plasma etching process. A specific plasma

chamber was designed by Semco-Engineering

to create active gases and a remote plasma is

used to reduce

The second step of the dry process is realized

just after the first one. It consists in an O2

plasma to smooth and to clean the surface of

the wafer. The same plasma source is used

and no vacuum breakage is required.

• An alternative to the isotexture process has been developed in this work. This has been done by combining a wet etching with

a dry plasma process

• A large decrease in reflectivity over the whole solar spectrum was observed, especially for alkaline etching. This texturing

process was then successfully implemented in a solar cell process.

• An increase of the density current was measured leading to a gain efficiency of + 0.15% absolute for both wet etchings

processes compare to standard texturing processes (alkaline or acidic) without dry plasma process.

Joseph Berwind

Plasma Etching – Cost Saving Potential

July 2012

Particulars Unit Existing Proposed Comment

Total Cost of production $/m2 $167.60 $167.60

Cell Efficiency % % 14.93% 15.08% 0.15% efficiency gain

Watts per M2 W/m2 149.25 150.75

Total Cost per Watt $/W $1.12 $1.11

Net Benefit $0.011

Particulars Unit Value Remark

Additional Capex $ $1,000,000 ~50% texturing tool cost

Texturization throughput Cells/hr 3,500 Assumed

Hours per Annum hrs/year 3520 220 days, 8 hrs 2 shifts

Cells processed per year cells/year 12,320,000

Efficiency after Plasma Etch % 15.08%

Watts per Cells W 3.669

Watts produced per year W/year 45,197,793

Incremental Capex per Watt $/W $0.02

Equipment Life years 10

Annual Depreciation charges $/W $0.002

Particulars Value

Incremental Benefit $/W $0.011

Incremental Cost $/W $0.002

Net Benefit $0.009

Incremental Benefit (Cost savings)

Incremental Cost (Depreciation)

Net Benefit

The new approach could result in

0.15% efficiency gain.

This implies 1.50 addition Watts

can be generated per M2 area.

This translates to $0.011/W cost

saving.

Normally, texturization tool could

cost $2 mn. We assumed the

additional capex could be 50% of

that. This implies, $0.002/W

additional annual depreciation

charges would be incurred on

implementing this.

Therefore, this leaves a net benefit

of $0.009/W


Joseph Berwind

Ion Implantation

July 2012

In normal solar cell making, the starting material is p-type boron doped silicon

wafers. The first process is to acid etch, or remove saw damage and to texture

the surface, improving the absorption of incident light.

Then the wafer is heated in a furnace (800 to 1000 C) with a phosphorous

atmosphere causing small amount of phosphorous to be incorporated in

the outer layer of silicon. This is called “Thermal Diffusion” in which

Phosphorous doping is done in a furnace with POCl3 gas that creates

light n+ emitter region on the silicon surface.

The diffusion causes creation of phosphorous silicate glass (PSG). The

hydrofluoric acid etch is done to remove PSG.

Then antireflective coating of SiNx is deposited on the surface to improve light

absorption.

Then the cells are screen printed with metallic pastes. Finally, Heating or

“firing” the contacts melts them through the thin insulating layer of SiNx to

make contact with the underlying n+ silicon layer.

The POCl3 diffusion is consumes one hour and requires very high temperature

(800 C). Therefore, Ion Implantation is suggested as a replacement of

Diffusion Process.

Source: photonics.com

Source: technologypublisher.comJoseph Berwind

Ion Implantaion - Introduction

• Diffusion is done in a furnace with a flow of gas running over the

wafers. This step, like etch, is not selective so the photoresist and

patterning need to be done before this step. The best way to

understand the processes of this step is to imagine oxidation. Diffusion

is very similar to oxidation except using a different gas other than

oxygen.

• Ion implantation is different from diffusion. Diffusion uses the natural

state of gas going to where there is no gas, while ion implantation

shoots the desired dopant ions into the wafer. Ion implantation has

been best equated with firing a machine gun into a wall. In this analogy

the wall is the wafer and the bullets are the ions. The main

disadvantage of ion implantation is that it can only process a single

wafer at a time while a diffusion chamber is capable of handling many

wafers.

• In this step the wafer is heated to make the ions go deeper into the

wafer. This is called “Drive in”.

• Due to the incredible damage that these processes (especially ion

implantation) can cause to the wafer an additional stage of heating is

required. During this final stage the wafer is heated so that the crystal

lattice structure of the wafer will repair itself.

• The finished wafer is an intricate sandwich of n-type and p-type silicon

and insulating layers of glass and silicon nitride.

Source: Dr Seth, P Bates, Applied Materials

July 2012

The magnets used to

control the ion beam

A wafer handling tray in

ion implantation

Annealing Process

Joseph Berwind

Ion Implantaion - Advantages

• In traditional solar cell making process, cells are diffused both

the sides at a very high temperature with POCl3. this process

takes almost 1 hour.

• IMEC & Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, have suggested a

new approach for replacing the diffusion step with a few

second, one sided low temperature implantation step.

• Traditional diffusion process flows include a diffusion process

step which takes ~1 hour to complete with a temperature of

above 800C. Traditional diffusion furnaces consume a large

amount of energy (T>800C), they are in vacuum environments

(allowing gases to flow uniformly) and need a relatively long

time to achieve the desired profile (t>30min). The resulting

wafers are diffused on both sides and have a phosphosilicate

glass (PSG) on both sides. The PSG is removed from the

wafer and then the rear side is etched using a single side

emitter etch, typically where wafers are suspended above

etching chemistry.

• The proposed technique should to save energy, chemicals

and is more robust in terms of cleanliness of equipment.

Source: 26th EUPVSEC, 2AO.1.3


ENERGi Ion Implantation tool

July 2012


• Ion-implantation offers numerous advantages for solar cell

manufacturing. Historically, semiconductor based ion-implantation tools

did not meet the performance and cost requirements for the solar

industry.

• Intevac has developed a high throughput ion implantation tool for solar.

Wafers are transported horizontally on a conveyor in three columns.

Despite having a smaller footprint than commercial ion-implanters, the

ENERGi tool is capable of 2400 wafers per hour for low or high sheet

resistivities. The first demonstration tool has shown dose rates of

3x1015 P/cm2/s across an entire wafer, allowing for 60 Ω/◻ emitters to

be implanted in less than one second. The implanted doses were

confirmed by SIMS analyses. N-type dopants or p-type dopants can be

implanted, allowing for great flexibility in emitter design.

• For many advanced cell designs, including selective emitter (SE), dopants are patterned on a surface. For SE, the patterns

are lines, and for local contacts, the pattern can be spots. Using ion-implantation, patterning of dopants can be accomplished

during the implantation process using shadow masks or other methods. In this manner, dopant patterning can be used for not

only SE, but local contacts, and IBC designs. The advantage is non-contact patterning of all dopants as needed followed with

a single anneal.

• For the case of SE, a single ENERGi tool can implant both the homogeneous and the selective emitter pattern at 2400 wph.

With the addition of an annealing furnace, the total COO is ~$0.025/Wp. This compares favorably against other SE doping

solutions.

Joseph Berwind

ENERGi Ion Implantation tool – Cost Saving

July 2012


• For the case of SE, a single ENERGi tool as

picture in can implant both the homogeneous and

the selective emitter pattern at 2400 wph.

• Ion-implantation with ENERGi implanter is high

throughput, low cost technique which can form

emitters with significantly improved J0E values

even at lower sheet resistances. Simulations

have shown the principles behind phosphorus

profile engineering for J0E and Rsheet. These

are demonstrated by the resulting experiments.

• It is shown that the ENERGi implanter is capable

for forming high quality amorphized layers which

recrystallize defect free by SPER.

• The total CoO of Ion Implantation tool could be

$0.025/W compared to $0.04/W for conventional

diffusion process. This implies $0.038W cost

saving.

Joseph Berwind

n-type Silicon

July 2012

• A solar cell is a device that converts solar energy into electric power without thermal or mechanical hardware.

When light strikes the cell, a certain portion of it is absorbed within the semiconductor material. This means that

the energy of the absorbed light is transferred to the semiconductor. The energy knocks electrons loose, allowing

them to flow freely.

• Silicon is the most commonly used material to produce solar cells. Silicon is a non- conducting material,

meaning that it does not conduct electrical current because of its wide energy band gap. During material

preparation, a dopant is introduced homogeneously into the silicon lattice to make it electrically

semiconducting, meaning that it conducts electricity in only one direction, according to the type of dopant

added.

• The most common dopants are phosphorous and boron. When silicon lattice is doped with phosphorus, the electric

conduction is dominated by electrons and is called “n-type”. Boron-doped silicon is dominated by holes and is

called “p-type”.

• During the cell making, electric junction is formed by thermal diffusion of oppositely charged impurity. For example,

a junction is formed on the n-type substrate by boron diffusion on the front and similarly a junction is formed on the

p-type substrate by phosphorous diffusion. The junction provides built-in voltage that separates electon-hole pair

that flow through an external circuit.

• Today most of the solar cells (whether mono or multi) are made from p-type (boron-doped) substrate on which

phosphorous is diffused.

Joseph Berwind

n-type: Minority carrier lifetime & bulk resistivity

July 2012

• There has been growing interest in development of low

cost industrial cell processing based on n-type

substrates. It has been well demonstrated in several

research institutions that the use of n-type substrates

could increase the minority carrier lifetime and bulk

resistivity. This could significantly increase cell

efficiency.

• Several studies have confirmed that 1% to 2%

efficiency gain can be achieved by using n-type silicon

instead of p-type standard silicon.

Sensitivity of cell efficiency to minority carrier lifetime and bulk

resistivity

Solar Cell design on n-type substrate

Source: D.M.Huljić, T. Zerres & others

Joseph Berwind

Printable Dopant for n-type solar cells

July 2012


• Recently n-type silicon solar cells have been getting significant

interest due to their high tolerance to metal impurities, immunity

from light induced degradation, and potential to achieve higher cell

efficiency. So far, industry-wide adoption of n-type Si cells has

been hindered by lack of cost effective manufacturing processes.

• Although industrial manufacturing of n-type cells based on

conventional architecture has started recently, the manufacturing

cost is higher than that of conventional p-type silicon solar cells.

The process of manufacturing n-type cells usually involves two

diffusion steps including for example, BBr3 diffusion for top emitter

formation, and POCl3 diffusion for back surface field (BSF)

formation. In addition to the associated equipment depreciation,

energy costs and safety concerns involved in handling of

hazardous BBr3 in high volume manufacturing, the added thermal

budget limits the use of this process to very high quality Si

substrates.

• Honeywell presented an approach of using co-diffusion of boron

emitter and phosphorus BSF using printable dopants. The printable

dopants can be applied by various techniques including inkjet

printing and screen printing. The new technique has been able to

reach sheet resistance (Rs) below 60 /sq under diffusion condition

of 925°C, 60 min for boron emitter with good doping uniformity

over whole wafer.

Joseph Berwind

n-type: Honeywell’s Dopant experiment

July 2012


• Honeywell printable phosphorous (ACCUPRINT-P) and boron (ACCUPRINT-B) dopants were used in this study. They

were deposited via either inkjet or screenprinting over Si wafers and then diffused at elevated temperature to create

doped regions

• Inkjet printing was done using Fuji Dimatix DMP 2831 tool with jetting frequency of 7 kHz and drop space of 30 um.

Screen-printing was done using ATMA semi-automatic screen printer (model# AT- 25PSC) and a PET screen. Boron film

usually was printed on the front surface of Si wafer first and dried at or below 250oC. Phosphorus film was then printed

on the other side of the Si-wafer and dried similarly.

• Too low a sheet resistance indicates higher level of doping which leads to higher level recombination, while too high a

sheet resistance indicates a low doping level and/or shallow junction depth, which can lead to highcontact resistance at

metal contact and higher potential for shunting. For a given process flow, too high or too low emitter sheet resistance will

negatively affect cell efficiency.

• The sheet resistance varied from 42.1 to 89.2 ohm/sq over the diffusion temperature range of 950oC to 900oC. It

illustrates that for printable Boron dopants, one can adjust the doping level by controlling diffusion temperature.

• Sheet resistance below 60 ohm/sq was reached at diffusion temperature of 925oC for 60 minutes.

• This study has demonstrated the feasibility of using printable dopants in manufacturing of solar cells. In particular, a full

surface emitter has been achieved on textured n-type Si wafers using screen printable boron dopant with very good

doping uniformity. It also demonstrated feasibility of forming emitter and BSFregions using boron and phosphorus printed

dopants anda single high temperature step for co-diffusion of the twospecies into opposite sides of the wafer. These

materialsshow significant promise for achieving low cost manufacturing of n-type solar cells.

Joseph Berwind

n-type: Cost Saving Potential

July 2012


Particulars Unit* Existing Proposed Comment

Polysilicon $/m2 $45.98 $48.28 n-type is assumed 5% higher than p-type

Phosphorous (POCl3) $/m2 $1.26 $1.32 Phosphorous paste to cost 5% higher

Boron Pastes (BBr3) $/m2 $1.32 Assumed to be same as phosphorous paste

Other Materials $/m2 $66.10 $66.10

Total Materials cost $/m2 $113.34 $117.03

Labor Cost $/m2 $22.22 $22.22

Overhead Cost $/m2 $8.89 $9.33 5% higher overhead charges assumed

Capex $/m2 $277.78 $333.33 Assumed 20% higher capex

System Life Years 12.00 12.00

Depreciation Cost $/m2 $23.15 $27.78

Total cost of production $/m2 $167.60 $176.36

Cell Efficiency % % 14.93% 16.43%

2% gain demonstrated, conservatively taken

1.5%

Watts per M2 W/m2 149.25 164.25

Total cost of production $/W $1.12 $1.07

Net Benefit $/W $0.05

• n-type silicon offers very good cost saving potential by substantially increasing the cell efficiency by increasing the

minority carrier lifetime and bulk resistivity. Honeywell has demonstrated that using printable phosphorous and boron

dopants, the sheet resistivity can be well controlled.

• We assumed these addition materials could cost 5% higher than the materials used in conventional multi c-Si cells. Also,

we assumed this entails 20% higher capex.

• On the whole, we conclude that there is a net cost saving potential of $0.05/W


Joseph Berwind

Selective Emitter: Introduction

July 2012

• The energy conversion in a silicon solar cell happens at its p-n junction.

This is normally formed by firing the wafer in a phosphorus-rich

atmosphere, where the phosphorus diffuses into the upper zone of the

wafer to form a layer which is uniform, planar, lies a few hundred

nanometers under the surface, and extends across the wafer's entire area.

This is called “Emitter Diffusion”. Here, photons of sunlight release

electrons that migrate through the silicon to the cell's front face where they

are captured by the grid of silver conductor fingers printed on the cell's top

side. Their flow through this grid is the electrical current that constitutes the

cell's power. These electrons then flow around the circuit back to the

aluminium contact on the reverse side of the cell, where they once again

join with atoms missing electrons (or possessing ‘holes’).

• However, the top part of the cell where the phosphorus is most

concentrated, is essentially a “dead layer” that reduces the cell's blue

response. In other words, the electrons activated by blue light turn into

charge carriers, but then even before they get out to the silver conductor

grids, they recombine with at the wafer’s surface, generating heat rather

than current.

• In order to resolve this problem it is desirable to deposit more phosphorus

under the silver grid and less phosphorus between grid fingers. Here the

idea is varying the amount of phosphorus across the cell's surface. Using

selective emitter approaches, it is possible to deposit more phosphorus

directly under the silver grid to facilitate contact between this and the

silicon, enabling the electrons to migrate efficiently. At the same time, by

reducing the amount of phosphorus between the grid fingers,

recombination losses are reduced and the cell's blue response is improved.

Source: Honeybee Solar

Source: Kristine Drew, Sybille Hopman, Matthias Hörteis, Stefan W. Glunz

and Filip Granek

Joseph Berwind

Selective Emitter(SE): Methods

July 2012

SE

Doped

Silver Paste

Screen

Printing

Selective

Diffusion

Laser

Doping

Etch Back

Buried

contact

In this method, the doping materials are added to standard metallization pastes so that both are printed at the same time.

The phosphorus then diffuses into the silicon at the same time as the paste is fired. Not very Effective

Extra dopant is screen printed onto the cell in a pattern mirroring that of the collection grid, and is then fired, after which

the silver conductor grid is printed over it. Here, the two print patterns must be closely aligned with each other, calling for

highly reliable print technologies that offer repeatable accuracy to within just a few microns

A second doping step is performed on the wafer prior to silver paste printing, but with the areas between the silver grid

fingers masked off. In this way, only the grid area is doubly doped. In a slight variation on this theme, experimental work

is ongoing using semipermeable masks that enable doping to be graduated across the wafer in a single process

This single-step process, developed by the University of Stuttgart’s Institute for Physical Electronics, takes advantage of

the phospho-silicate glass (PSG) layer that forms on the surface of the wafer during the standard diffusion process. This

would normally be removed after the diffusion process, but in this case it is firstly laser written, driving more phosphorus

into the silicon under the area where the silver grid will be printed.

Here, the wafer is doped using high dopant concentrations, after which the wafer surface in the areas between the

fingers is etched away. As the highest concentration of phosphorus lies closest to the wafer surface, a suitably low

concentration remains where necessary, leaving a higher concentration where the silver conductor lines will be.

Etchback can be performed by printing an etching paste where phosphorus is to be removed, or by masking off the area.

Not effective

Here, the first diffusion process is run at low concentrations, after which a passivation layer is deposited on the top side

of the wafer. Deep trenches are then laser or saw-cut through the passivation, doping and emitter layers. The wafer

subsequently goes through a further doping process, during which the phosphorus will be deposited only in the trenches

as the rest of the wafer is masked off by the passivation layer. The metal conductors are then printed, or more likely,

electroplated, into the now highly doped trenches

Source: www.solarnovus.com & AEI Consulting

Joseph Berwind

http://www.solarnovus.com/

Selective Emitter(SE): Laser Doping, Promising candidate

July 2012

• The major task in laser diffused selective emitters is to sufficiently increase the phosphor

concentration in the silicon close to the surface of the laser treated areas for a good contact

resistance without causing too many crystal defects or contamination within the silicon

• Centrotherm with its partners has implemented a new SE process different industrial

production lines in Asia. Average daily efficiencies above 18.5% were achieved in running

productions. With a slightly improved diffusion process, efficiencies up to 18.72% on batches

of 200 cells were achieved..

Source: 26th EUPVC 2AO.3.4

• In the new process flow, between the diffusion and the PSG etching, an additional

process step is inserted in the process sequence. In this process step the contact

resistance of the previously diffused emitter with high sheet resistance and inferior

contacting properties is locally improved to a level of contact quality comparable to

standard homogeneous emitters

• The two main cost drivers in selective emitter technologies are the number of

additional pieces of equipment added to the production line and the amount (and

price) of additional consumables needed. In both respects the laser diffused selective

emitter as developed by Centrotherm is very cost effective. Only one additional piece

of equipment (laser) which needs almost no consumables is used. Otherwise, the

cost structure of the standard process is unchanged. Thus, the process used is

probably one of the most economical selective emitter processes available.

Joseph Berwind

Selective Emitter(SE): Screen Printing –Dupont Innovalight

July 2012

• Phosphorous Doping is required to make a diode with a p-n junction.

The amount of doping impacts how efficiently the cell converts energy:

high doping undercuts the efficiency of converting blue light, while light

doping makes it difficult for the gridlines to contact Si and carry the

current out of the PV cells. Selective emitters is a technique to achieve

both at the same time.: heavily doping only areas directly under the

silver printed gridlines where the paste can contact, but very light

doping elsewhere to maximize efficiency to generate current.

• DuPont Innovalight provides innovative silicon inks and licenses

proprietary high-efficiency solar cell process technology to solar cell

manufacturers which enables an immediate increase in solar cell

conversion efficiency. The proprietary material is comprised of silicon

nano-particles dispersed in an environmentally friendly blend of

chemicals.

Source: 26th EUPVC 2BV.1.35 & 2BV.1.11

Concept illustration of Silicon Ink SE cell

• For the Silicon Ink SE cells, as-cut wafers are first cleaned and textured in an alkaline bath to create random pyramid textured

surface. In a screen-printing step, the Silicon Ink is deposited where heavily doped regions are required for good contact formation.

This screen-printing step includes a simple drying process to drive off the remaining organic solvents and densify the printed Silicon

Ink film. N-type phosphorus diffusion is subsequently performed in a quartz diffusion tube. The diffusion step forms the selectively

doped regions on the front surface of the wafer. Typically, heavily doped printed regions achieve sheet resistance values between

30 and 50 Ohm/sq, whereas unprinted areas remain at 80 to 100 ohm sq.

• Tests have shown final results of 18.9% on mono wafers, and Yingli claims 0.5% improvement on multi with best cells at 17.2% .

Innovalight claim that they will increase their efficiency improvements to 2% in 2011, and 3 % in 2012.

Joseph Berwind

Selective Emitter(SE): Cost Saving Potential

July 2012


• Selective emitter offers very good cost saving potential by substantially increasing the cell efficiency. Innovalight claims

efficiency can be improved 2% to 3% with SE technology.

• Dupont’s innovalight technology requires additional material cost on silicon ink dopant. We assume this could imply 5%

additional material cost. Also, this requires the silicon ink should be screen printed, which requires new screen printing

equipment. We estimate this could entail 30% additional capex.

• Our analysis suggests that there is a cost saving potential of $0.06/W.



Material cost $/M2 $113.34 $119.01 5% additional cost due to silicon ink

Labor cost $/M2 $22.22 $22.22

Overhead $/M2 $8.89 $8.89

Capex $/M2 $277.78 $361.11 30% additional due to new screen printing equipment

System Life years 12 12

Depreciation cost $/M2 $23.15 $30.09

Total cost of production $/M2 $167.60 $180.21

Cell Efficiency % % 14.93% 16.93% Assumed 2% efficiency gain

Watts per M2 W/M2 149.25 169.25

Total cost of Production $/W $1.12 $1.06

Net Benefit $0.06

Joseph Berwind

Double Printing - Esatto

July 2012

On the front side and on the back side metallic contacts have to be formed in

order to drain the solar current. At the backside a holohedral aluminum layer is

deposited, while at the front side silver contact fingers are generated, which

allow most of the sunlight to pass into the cell. Finally a silicon nitride

antireflection coating ARC is attached to the front side in order to increase

absorption of the sunlight

For the formation of the front side and back side contacts, metallization paste

is printed on the silicon wafers, using thick film technology and screen printing.

The paste is containing aluminum for the back side contact and silver for the

front side contact fingers. The pastes have to be fired then in a furnace. In the

debindering zone of the furnace, organic or polymer parts of the paste

decomposite. In the firing section of the furnace metallic parts are sintered and

form a continuous and conductive layer.

The solar cells consists mainly of silicon. The bulk silicon is usually lightly p-doped, and conductive for positive charge

carriers or holes.

On the front side a thin heavily n-doped layer has to be formed by doping, which is conductive for negative charge carriers or

electrodes. This way a p/n-junction is formed, which can separate the charge carrier pairs, generated by the absorption of

sunlight.

Joseph Berwind

Esatto – Screen Printing Introduction

July 2012

A screen printing method is used to produce electrodes in a solar cell.

In the screen printing method, a printing mask formed with a predetermined pattern thereon is used. The printing mask is placed at a predetermined

distance from an object to be printed placed on a printing stage, and paste including an electrode material is supplied on the printing mask.

The paste is spread on the printing mask by a squeegee, and only the paste on a meshed area is applied to the object to be printed. The paste applied

to the object to be printed is baked at a predetermined temperature depending on the electrode material, and thereby the electrode is formed.

After printing the paste is still wet and is easily

smudged. Here the wafers are loaded into a drier

to evaporate off the organic binders in the paste.

Driers operate at a low temperature of around

200 °C.

Silver paste is forced through a patterned

screen. Those areas with gaps in the

pattern leaves a metal pattern on the

surface. The cells move along a conveyor

belt

The rear is printed in two parts. A thick layer of

aluminium past covers most of the cell and

provides a back surface field (BSF). Silver strips

are also printed on the cell for later soldering to

the interconnect metal tabs.

Printing on the front side Loading the printed wafers to drier Printing on the rear side


Joseph Berwind

Esatto Technology - Introduction

July 2012

Baccini Esatto Technology is an integrated solution for high precision screen printing for the suite of Baccini’s back end

processing systems.

Esatto Technology was designed to enable advanced contact formation techniques such as double-printed frontside metal

lines and the multiple process flows required to create selective emitter structures.

This application enables manufacturers to print taller, narrower grid lines, thus reducing the shadowing effect caused by wide

grid lines while improving electrical conductivity. In a production environment, Esatto Technology allowed the replacement of

single 120µm wide lines with two-layer, double-height lines less than 80µm wide on the finished cell.

A key component of Esatto Technology is the high precision kit which features:

High resolution cameras

Custom illumination for each application

Sophisticated image processing software

Advanced process control

Extra fine mechanics for superior durability

Customers have demonstrated 0.46% absolute cell efficiency gains with Esatto Technology, and up to a 14% reduction in

consumption of silver printing paste.

Joseph Berwind

Esatto Technology – Cost Saving Potential

July 2012

ESATTO Technology

Double printing of Tall

Narrow front contact lines

Reduced Shadow &

reduced line Resistance

Improved Cell efficiency

> 0.46% Absolute

efficiency gain is

demonstrated

Lower silver paste usage

14% saving in silver paste

is demonstrated by

customers


Source: 26th EUPVC 2CV.2.24

Applied Materials Italia, in a white paper, investigated current screen printing

pastes from three different vendors in order to provide an adequate solution

for DPI and DPII in terms of line geometry and electrical performances. The

observations are documented in Table-1 & 2.

It is clear from these that there is a potential for 0.29% to 0.40% efficiency

gain and paste usage reduction of 3% to 20%.

Joseph Berwind

Esatto Technology – Cost Sensitivity

July 2012

Incremental Benefit (Cost savings) Incremental Cost (Depreciation)

Assuming Esatto could increase efficiency by 0.40% and reduce

paste usage by 10% per cell, incremental benefit works out to be

$0.03/W.

Esatto could cost $650 k per upgrade. Assuming 2000 wafers/hour

throughput and 3,520 days working per year, this implies capex

cost of $0.02/W. Assuming 5 years system life, this implies

additional depreciation expense of ¢0.50/W.

The net benefit by introducing Esatto would be $0.03/W

Particulars Unit Existing Esatto Remarks

Front silver paste usage g/Cell 0.18 0.17 10% Reduction in paste usage

Cell size (156mm) m2 0.024336 0.024336

paste usage per m2 g/m2 7.58 6.82

Paste price $/g $1.22 $1.22

Front Silver Paste cost $/m2 $9.26 $8.33

Others Costs $/m2 $158.34 $158.34

Total cost per M2 $/m2 $167.60 $166.68

Cell Efficiency % % 14.93% 15.33% 0.40% efficiency increase

Watts produced per M2 W/m2 149.25 153.25

Cost per Watt $/W $1.12 $1.09

Overall Cost Saving $/W $0.0354 Overall cost Saving

Particulars Unit ValueCost per Upgrade $ $650,000

Screen printing throughput Cell/hr 2,000

Hours per Year Hrs 3,520

Cells produced per year Cell/yr 7,040,000

Cell size mm 156

Cell Efficiency post Esatto % 15.33%

Watts per Cell Watts 3.729492

Watts per Year Watts 26,255,624

Capital Cost per Watt $/W $0.02

Useful Life Yrs 5

Depreciation cost $/W $0.0050

Net Benefit of Esatto introduction

Particulars Value



Net Benefit $/W $0.0304





Joseph Berwind

Bus Bar Optimization

July 2012


• With the rising price of silver material, the cost of screen printed silver paste has become one of the major components of the

total cost for $/kW in PV modules. In traditional H-grid front metallization pattern design, over one third of the total

metallization area comes from busbars, which are required to be wide enough for terminal contacts in IV measurements and

for reducing the series resistance.

• State Key Lab of PV Science and Technology, Trinasolar Limited Company, presented a segmental busbar design which

significantly cut down silver paste usage by over 30%, while the fill factor (75.8%) and maximum output power (187 W) of the

final module keep at the same level.

• Experiments on 125x125 mm2 Cz-Si mono cells show that, because of the increase of resistive losses along the busbars, the

segmental busbar design will lead to a 0.45% drop in the cell’s FF and a 0.12% drop in cell efficiency. However, this loss can

be compensated by soldering ribbons in modules, given by almost the same performance. This implies that over 30% silver

paste cost can be saved while there’s no influence on the final module’s output power.

Joseph Berwind

Segmental bus bar pattern – Cost Impact

July 2012


• In standard cells, normally 2 bus bars of 2 mm wide each is used. The bus bars normally occupy 612.5 mm2 of area per cell and

consumes 60 mg silver paste per cell.

• In the proposed optimization, the busbar regions between contact terminals have been hollowed out while the regions corresponding to

the positions of the IV tester contact pins remain normal. In this case, the current from the fingers flow through the edge of the busbar and

reach the contact terminals.

• This implies, around 30% of bus-bar area is hollowed and hence 30% less silver paste is used. Therefore, paste used per cell bus-bar

area can be reduced to 42 mg. Assuming silver paste is priced at $1200 per Kg, this implies a cost saving of $0.006/W.

Net Benefit from Bus bar optimization Source: AEI Consulting

Particulars Existing Proposed Comments

Wafer size mm 156 156

# of bus bars 2 2

Bus bar width mm 2 2

Total bus bar area (excl edges) mm2 612.5 428.75 ~30% less due to hollowing busbar region

Print thickness mm 0.03 0.03

Bus bar printing area mm3 18.375 12.8625

Paste density 3.254 3.254

Paste usage for busbar g/cell 0.060 0.042

Paste price $/g $1.22 $1.22

Paste cost for busbar $/cell $0.07 $0.05 Significant reduction in paste cost

Efficiency % 14.93% 14.93%

Watts per Cell 3.632148 3.632148

Paste cost $/W $0.02 $0.01

Paste cost Saving $0.006 Net Cost Savings

Joseph Berwind

Sputtered nickel film as a contact layer

July 2012

Source: 26th EU PVSEC, 2EO.2.6

• Reducing the contact resistance is one of the major challenges for the front side

metallization of crystalline silicon solar cells. Screen printing silver paste and firing

through the silicon nitride antireflection coating layer is the most common

technique for front side metallization of today’s industrial silicon solar cells, but it

also produces a poor, very resistive metal-silicon contact.

• Palo Alto Research Center has developed new approaches for the front side

metallization of crystalline silicon solar cells using a blanket sputtered nickel film as

the contact layer, targeting on dramatically reducing the specific contact resistance

between the metal gridline and the n+emitter layer.

• The basic procedure of the approach is shown in Figure 1. Starting with a solar cell

silicon substrate (a) and after drilling the contact holes through the nitride layer

using laser ablation method (b), a thin nickel film is sputtered on the whole surface

(c), followed by screen printing silver gridlines which are aligned with the contact

holes (d). Next the uncovered nickel film is etched away using the silver gridlines

as a protective mask, then the silver gridlines and the underlying nickel contact

layer are co-fired at high temperatures to finish the metallization, as shown in

Figure 1(e).

• The significant reduction in specific contact resistance can improve the cell efficiency in three aspects. First, the contact area

between the front side electrode and the n+ emitter layer can be reduced, and hence the reduction of front side recombination

velocity (FSRV), which results in the improvement of cell efficiency. Secondly, by reducing the glass frit content in the silver

paste or even using frit-free silver paste by using laser ablation to make contact holes, the resistance of silver gridlines can be

reduced, and thus the reduction of series resistance Thirdly, emitter layer with higher sheet resistance (e.g., 100 Ω/sq. instead

of 50 100 Ω/sq.) can be used, which improves the shortwave length response and also cell efficiency

Joseph Berwind

Nickel film as a contact layer - Details

July 2012

Source: 26th EU PVSEC, 2EO.2.6

• One of the challenges for the procedure shown in Figure 1 is to develop a method

which can etch the sputtered nickel film rapidly without destroying the green body of

the screen printed silver lines. FeCl3 solution has been widely used in PCB (Printed

Circuit Board) industry to pattern the copper film for decades and is readily available.

• As per the experiment, it has been demonstrated that after dropping the sample in

FeCl3 solution for about 3 to 5 seconds, the uncovered nickel film was removed,

without any damage of the silver gridlines.

• This approach could significantly reduce the specific contact

resistance and it has been demonstrated that this translates to

0.9% absolute efficiency gain.

• It has been demonstrated that incremental cost/W has been

~$0.74/W. This is lower than the current cost of $1.12/W and

hence seems to be attractive.

• Also, further cost reduction potential is identified through electro

less plating and inkjet printing.

Joseph Berwind

Nickel film– Cost saving potential

July 2012


Total Cost of production $/m2 $167.60 $167.60

Cell Efficiency % % 14.93% 15.83% 0.90% efficiency gain

Watts per M2 W/m2 149.25 158.25

Total Cost per Watt $/W $1.12 $1.06

Net Benefit $0.064

Particulars Unit Value Remark

Additional Capex $ $4,400,000 20% of Cell line capex

Screen Printing throughput Cells/hr 2,000 Assumed

Hours per Annum hrs/year 3520 220 days, 8 hrs 2 shifts


Efficiency after Plasma Etch % 15.83%





Annual Depreciation charges $/W $0.016

Particulars Value



Net Benefit $0.048

Incremental Benefit (Cost savings)

Incremental Cost (Depreciation)

Net Benefit

The new approach could

result in 0.9% efficiency

gain.

This implies 9 additional

Watts can be generated per

M2 area. This translates to

$0.064/W cost saving.

We estimate the additional

capex could be $4.40 mn.

This could be roughly 120%

of screen printing tool

Therefore, this leaves a net

benefit of $0.048/W


Joseph Berwind

Wet Chemical Metallization - Introduction

July 2012


• Screen printing the silver paste on the front of solar cell to form electrode is the most common and widely accepted

technology in the current day cell manufacturing. However, the silver pastes are very expensive that occupies significant

portion of the cell BoM. Additionally, silver paste suffers from the constraints of screen printing and inefficient contact to the

underlying doped silicon emitter. Again, silver paste printed cells require excessive thermal processing that can induce

micro-cracks, bowing, and other thermal stresses on the cell, as well as diminish the effectiveness of the passivation layer

on the wafer’s surface

• MacDermid is developing Wet chemical deposition technology to replace silver paste screen printing for electrode

formation.

• The use of wet chemical metallization for electrical contact formation is well known in the electronics industry, as it figures

prominently in the fabrication of printed circuit boards and semiconductors. The adaptation of these technologies to the

metallization of silicon solar cells is already underway for high efficiency cell production.

• The implementation of wet chemical metallization process schemes for the formation of conductors on silicon solar cells is

advantageous for multiple reasons. Using nickel seed layers for silicon contact allows for reduced thermal processing

temperatures from 800-900°C down to <400°C while achieving significantly lower contact resistance than silver paste,

due to the continuous contact of Ni-Si compared to the localized ‘spike’ contacts made by firing paste. Additionally, a novel

patterning techniques, such as inkjet resist or laser ablation, can reduce optical losses caused by shading by as much as

50%, especially when combined with high aspect-ratio plating.

• However, there are still few technical obstacles and will require additional improvements in order to become production-

ready solutions.

Joseph Berwind

Wet Chemical Metallization – Process steps

July 2012


• A low-resistance metal-silicon contact is formed using nickle. A

plated nickel seed layer forms a continuous electrical contact with

the silicon which has a lower contact resistance than silver and

doesn’t require high temperature firing. Nickel plated seed layers

can also achieve low contact resistance on shallow-doped

homogeneous emitters, permitting the production of cells with higher

Voc and thus better efficiency.

• Once a low-resistance metal-silicon contact is formed using nickel,

the grid structure is grown using either silver or copper. This serves

to reduce the metal line resistance, which also reduces overall

series resistance in the cell.

• In a further improvement, copper can be used as the plated

conductor. The substitution of copper for silver can reduce the metal

cost significantly, as copper has a comparable bulk conductivity of

59.6 MS/m versus 63.0 MS/m for silver.

• The implementation of a new process technology carries with it

some inherent obstacles and risks which should be addressed by

optimizing barrier layers, adjusting ARC, setting up new thermal

profiles etc.

Joseph Berwind

Wet chemical Metallization – Cost Saving Potential

July 2012

Wet chemical metallization brings significant cost saving potential by improving efficiency and replacing costly silver with inexpensive

copper. We assumed replacement of silver with copper could bring down metallization paste cost by 70%. We expect 1.1%

efficiency gain by wet chemical metallization through reduction of shadowing loss and reducing resistance.

On the other hand, the new process requires additional process step, which we believe, increase capex by 30% and overheads by

5%.

Our calculation suggests that there is a potential for $0.07/W cost saving potential.

*In the above calculation “unit” is with respect to module. For example, $/m2 implies $ per m2 module area. Source: AEI Consulting


Cost of Silver Paste $/M2 $9.26 $2.78 ~70% reduction as silver replaced by copper

Other Material costs $/M2 $104.09 $104.09

Total Material Cost $/M2 $113.34 $106.86

Labor cost $/M2 $22.22 $22.22

Capex $/M2 $277.78 $361.11 ~30% increase due to new process steps

System Life Years 12.00 12.00

Depreciation $/M2 $23.15 $30.09

Overhead costs $/M2 $8.89 $9.33 5% increase due to additional process steps

Total Cost $/M2 $167.60 $168.51

Cell Efficiency % 14.93% 16.03% 1% absolute efficiency gain is assumed

Watts per M2 W/M2 149.25 $160.25

Total Cost $/W $1.12 $1.05

Net Cost Savings $/W $0.07

Joseph Berwind

Rear-Passivated Print on Print

Source: AEI Consulting & 26th EUPVSEC, 2BP.1.4

July 2012

Efficiency Bottleneck in Screen Printing

Front Side Back Side

The silver (Ag) front side metallization

with finger widths around 90 – 100 μm

reflects about 7% of the incident solar

radiation.

The screen-printed full area Al BSF exhibits only a

moderate passivation quality. In addition, only

about 70% of the infrared light reaching the Al

rear contact is reflected back into the silicon

wafer

Problem

Solution

Reduce the front side shading loss by print

on-print (PoP) technique, where the silver

front contact is deposited in two

consecutive screen printing steps

Result

The electrical and optical losses of the full area Al-BSF at

the rear side can be reduced by applying the PERC

(passivated emitter and rear cell) solar cell design. The

dielectric layers are applied as rear passivation:

thermally grown SiO2 PECVD SiNx , SiCx or SiOx and

Al2O3 deposited by ALD or PECVD

• 10 additional fingers are printed on the front

• The Ag front side fingers deposited by print-on print are 90 μm wide and possibility to reduce to 70µm resulting in

significant reduction paste usage

• Cell efficiency increases by 0.90% & possibility for further increase upto 1%

Joseph Berwind

Rear-Passivated PoP - Details

• Majority of the silicon solar cells apply screen printing for the deposition of the silver front and aluminium rear metal

contacts resulting in conversion efficiencies around 18% on monocrystalline silicon wafers.

• Institute for Solar Energy Research Hamelin (ISFH) and DEK Printing Machines in a joint study have demonstrated that the

conversion efficiency can be further increased upto 20% by:

• optimizing a print-on-print process that reduces the silver finger width from 110 μm to 70 μm

• implementing two different dielectric rear surface passivation stacks: (i) a silicon dioxide/silicon nitride stack and (ii)

an aluminium oxide/silicon nitride stack

• The dielectric layer stacks at the rear decrease the surface recombination velocity from Seff,rear = 350 cm/s for a full-area

Al-BSF down to Seff,rear = 70 cm/s and increase the internal reflectance from 61% up to 91%. The improved solar cell rear

increases the conversion efficiency up to an independently confirmed value of 19.4%. The detailed solar cell analysis

reveals potential to further increase the conversion efficiency towards 20% in the near future

(A) Standard screen printed solar cell,

(B) Print-on-print (PoP) screen printed cell,

(C) Passivated emitter and rear cell (PERC) with

Al2O3/SiNx, and with SiO2/SiNx rear

passivation. Laser edge isolation is not

required for the PERC cells due to the single-

sided phosphorus diffusion.

Details of the study

Source: 26th EUPVSEC, 2BP.1.4


Rear-Passivated PoP – Process Steps

July 2012

• The process flow of the PoP cells is identical to

standard single-printed solar cells. However, the

Ag front contact is deposited in two consecutive

screen printing steps.

• The number of fingers has to be increased for

PoP in order to minimize resistive losses due to

the significantly smaller finger width.

• The first print is done with commercially available

paste, after drying at 200°C, the second Ag

screen printing step follows using a commercially

available Ag paste Ag2 with low specific resistivity

in order to reduce the finger line resistance.

• The second print is completed by a drying step at

200 °C. Both printing steps are highly accurately

aligned towards the four edges of the silicon

wafer by a vision camera system in the PVP1200

printer which ensures ±12.5 μm alignment

accuracy at 6 sigma and hence an excellent

alignment of the second print on the first print.

Print on Print (PoP) Rear Passivation

• A new process sequence in introduced which

includes a passivation of the cell rear side

applying dielectric layer stacks based on

Al2O3/SiNx and SiO2/SiNx.

• Before texturing and phosphorus diffusion, a

dielectric protection layer is deposited on the rear

side of the solar cell. The dielectric layer acts as

a barrier against the alkaline texturing process as

well as the phosphorus diffusion.

• Accordingly, only the front side of the solar cell is

textured and phosphorus doped with a sheet

resistance of about 70 Ω/□ whereas the rear side

remains planar and boron doped.

• The PSG etch after the diffusion step is slightly

adjusted in order to remove the dielectric layer at

the rear in addition to the PSG at the front. For

the Al2O3-passivated PERC cells the wafers are

coated with a 10 nm plasma-assisted ALD-Al2O3

layer


Joseph Berwind

Rear-Passivated PoP – Cost Reduction Potential

July 2012


ParticularsConventi

onal

Rear

Passivated

PoPComments

Silver Paste Savings

# of Grid Lines 69 79 to minimize resistance losses


Edge exclusion 0.95 0.95

Line Width mm 0.12 0.07 Width can be reduced to 70µm

Line Height mm 0.03 0.03

Grid line printing area mm3 38.28 25.57


Total Printing Area mm3 56.65 43.94

Paste Density g/cm3 3.25 3.25

Paste usage g/cell 0.184 0.143

Paste Price $/g $1.22 $1.22

Paste Cost $/cell $0.23 $0.17

Cell efficiency % 14.93% 15.93% 1% abs gain is assumed

Watts per cell 3.632 3.876

Paste Cost $/W $0.062 $0.045

Paste cost Savings $0.017 Savings in paste usage

Other Costs

Other costs $/M2 $158.34 $158.34

Cell efficiency % 14.93% 15.93% 0.90% abs gain is assumed

Watts per M2 area 149.25 159.25

Other costs $/W $1.06 $0.99

Savings in Other costs $0.07 Savings due to efficiency gain

Total Cost $/W $1.12 $1.04

Total Saving $/W $0.08 Total Saving from PREC & PoP

Particulars Unit Value Remarks

Additional screen Printing line $ $2,400,000

Additional Diffusion Furnace $ $3,100,000

Total Additional Capex $ $5,500,000 Additional equip required

Metal line throughput Cells/hr 2,000 Assumed

Hours per Annum hrs/year 3520 220 days, 8 hrs, 2 shifts

Cells processed per year cells/yr 7,040,000

Efficiency after PREC & PoP % 15.93%





Annual Depreciation charges $/W $0.02 Total Incremental cost

Particulars Value



Net Benefit $0.06


PERC & PoP could result in 1% efficiency gain and reduced silver

paste usage by reducing print width. These could result in $0.08/W

cost saving to cell makers.

However, this requires additional steps: due to additional chemical

deposition and consequent printing. These entails additional capex.

We estimate that these could result in $0.20/W additional capex.

Therefore, the proposed technological development could bring

$0.06/W net benefit. Source: AEI Consulting


Joseph Berwind

Direct Printing Technology

July 2012

• The challenge in the front contact grid line printing is to reduce the grid width to decrease the shading loss without reducing the line

conductivity. This implies that increasing the aspect ratio (height/width) is recognized as one of the potential approach for increasing the cell

efficiency.

• nScrypt Inc along with Dupont and others have presented a direct printing technology and an enabling tool for patterning high aspect

ratio fine gridlines for front side metallization on industrial silicon solar cells.

• This technology is based on micro-dispensing and uses a special pump assembly and a printing head, which is able to handle screen

printable paste and thixotropic materials with very high viscosities. This technology is able to print as fast as a half a meter per second.

Multiple nozzle will enable this process to print each wafer in about 2 seconds. To achieve fine lines with high aspect ratios, a silver paste

for front side metallization was modified based on available screen printing paste.

• It was demonstrated that this new technology can bring down the cost by $0.02/W to $0.08/W, by significantly reducing the Ag paste usage

and increasing the cell efficiency.

Source: 26th EU PVSEC, 2CO.15.4

Joseph Berwind

Direct Printing Advantages

July 2012

• Through a unique parallel printing process, multiple lines and bus bars can be printed at speeds exceeding that of screen printing. A modified

commercial screen-printable silver paste is used to pattern the metal lines directly on the top-side of wafers using a process whereby the line

width, pitch, and height can be carefully controlled.

• In a typical case, the line width is as small as 50 microns by 30 microns tall after firing. This is typically more precise than stencil printing, which

generally can only achieve dimensions around 110 to 130 microns width. This type of printing effectively reduces the shading area while

maintaining high grid line conductivity and low contact resistance

• The company claims that solar cells with direct print gridlines show up to a 0.5% absolute efficiency increase over those with screen print

gridlines. As per the company this could save $2 to $3 million annually to solar cell makers.

Source: nScript

Zygo image of nScrypt's advanced

technology to produce high aspect ratio

finger lines

Scanned electron microscope (SEM) photo of

non-contact direct print finger line top view

SEM photo of the screen print finger

line with micron scale shows a wider

line.

Joseph Berwind

Direct Printing Cost Saving Potential

July 2012

ParticularsScreen

Print

Direct

PrintComments

Silver Paste Savings

# of Grid Lines 69 69


Edge exclusion 0.95 0.95

Line Width mm 0.12 0.05 Width can be reduced to 50µm

Line Height mm 0.03 0.03

Grid line printing area mm3 38.28 15.95


Total Printing Area mm3 56.65 34.32

Paste Density g/cm3 3.25 3.25

Paste usage g/cell 0.184 0.112

Paste Price $/g $1.22 $1.22

Paste Cost $/cell $0.23 $0.14

Cell efficiency % 14.93% 15.43% 0.30% abs gain is assumed

Watts per cell 3.632 3.754

Paste Cost $/W $0.062 $0.036

Paste cost Savings $0.026 Savings in paste usage

Other Costs

Other costs $/M2 $158.34 $158.34

Cell efficiency % 14.93% 15.43% 0.50% abs gain is demonstrated

Watts per M2 area 149.25 154.25

Other costs $/W $1.06 $1.03

Savings in Other costs $0.03 Savings due to efficiency gain

Total Cost $/W $1.12 $1.06

Total Saving $/W $0.06 Total Saving from Direct Printing


Particulars Unit Value Remarks

Incremental Capex on nScript $ $3,000,000 ~120% screen printing tool

Metal line throughput Cells/hr 2,000 Assumed

Hours per Annum hrs/year 3520 Assuming 220 days, 8 hrs, 2 shifts


Efficiency after direct Printing % 15.43%





Annual Depreciation charges $/W $0.01 Total Incremental cost

Particulars Value



Net Benefit $0.05

Assuming double printing reduces print width to 50µm and

increases overall cell efficiency by 0.50%, incremental cost

saving by introducing direct printing could be $0.06/W.

nScript direct printing tool could cost 20% higher than normal

screen printing tool. Then, assuming 2000 wafer/hour

throughput, this could work out to be $0.11/W capex. Assuming

10 year system life could implies $0.01/W additional

depreciation cost.

The net benefit by introducing direct printing could be $0.05/W



Joseph Berwind

Future Developments – c-Si Modules

July 2012


Glass

WashingTab & String

Module

LayupModule

CuringTrim &

TappingModule

LaminationModule

TerminationFinal

TestingFraming

Multiple dye

doping of EVA

Promising

technology

Could significantly

increase module

efficiency, but still

in development

phase

Cost saving:

$0.02/W

Back sheet

There has been

significant

improvement in

backsheet

technology to

provide high quality

backsheet with

long life and

improved module

performance.

Joseph Berwind

Multiple Dye Doping of EVA

July 2012

• Luminescent down-shifting of the incident light can improve the short-

wavelength (λ) response of photovoltaic (PV) modules without altering

the structure and manufacturing methodology of the solar cells.

• School of Engineering and Physical Sciences in a study, have

optimized the absorption properties of luminescent encapsulation layers

made by polyethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), by using multiple dye-

doping and varying the concentration of the most promising dye.

• These layers were used to encapsulate multi-crystalline silicon (mc-Si)

solar cells. This led to enhancement of an external quantum efficiency

(EQE) up to 25% for the region 300 nm < λ < 400 nm, leading to an

efficiency increase of Δη =0.3% absolute for a 59 cm2 single-cell mini-

module.

• The starting material for the luminescent encapsulation sheets was

commercially available nonformulated EVA pellets (DuPont PV1650).

EVA sheets were made, some clear (containing no luminescent

materials) and some doped with commercially-available organic

luminescent dyes. Three dyes were selected: BASF Lumogen-F Violet

570, Yellow 170 and Orange 240 [9, 10, 11], which are referred to as V,

Y and O in all Tables and Figures. The dye concentrations used were

0.13% w/w, 0.07% w/w and 0.05% w/w, respectively, in order to achieve

an optical density (OD) of 3 at peak absorption λ of each dye for 0.5

mm sheet thickness.

Source: 26th EU PVSEC, 1DV.2.45

Joseph Berwind

EVA Multiple Dye Doping: Cost saving potential

July 2012



Cost of EVA - per m2 module $/m2 $6.47 $7.76 20% premium for multiple dying

Other Costs - per m2 module $/m2 $144.37 $144.37

Total Costs $/m2 $150.84 $152.13

Module Efficiency % % 13.43% 13.73% 0.30% absolute efficiency gain

Watts per M2 W/m2 134.325 137.325

Total Cost $/W $1.12 $1.11


• By optimizing the light absorption properties by doping dyes to the EVA, module efficiency could be increased by 0.30%,

This implies, per M2 area, additional 3 Wp power can be produced.

• We assumed this multiple dye doping could cost 20% of EVA cost.

• There is a potential for saving $0.02/W by adopting this new approach.


Joseph Berwind

Backsheet Improvements

July 2012

• A backsheet is a material that is used at the backend of the panel. Most backsheets are multilayer composites which enhance the performance of PV

modules in many ways. They provide protection from the environment, electrical insulation, and contribute to aesthetics. Backsheets must provide

these properties throughout the life of modules, which today can exceed 25 years.

• The following are the main functions of backsheet:

• Physical protection: puncture and abrasion resistance

• Moisture protection: minimize moisture vapor ingress

• Electrical Insulation: isolate the cells and connections from the environment

• Long term protection: UV Stable and moisture stable over the life of the module, protects the p layer.

• Color: provide the color that helps the modules blend into environment

• More power: can improve efficiency through internal reflection

• The backsheet is laminated at the back of PV cells in vaccum laminator at a very high temperature (~140 C)

Source: Solar Gard Photovoltaic

Joseph Berwind

Backsheet - Characteristics

July 2012

The backsheet has a predominant role in providing long term protection to the solar module. It has been established that the main reason for PV system

failure includes degradation of packaging materials, adhesional loss, degradation of interconnects, degradation due to moisture intrusion, and

semiconductor device degradation.

The backsheet used in photovoltaic module should be superior in mechanical strength and also in durability mainly for protect ion of the rear face of the

photovoltaic module. Hence we consider the following are the critical parameters to be considered in selecting the backsheet:

Peel strength: The peel strength is the measure of the average force to part two bonded materials. The strength is calculated during a 180° peel

test at a constant speed rate by divided the average force required during the test by the unit width of the bonded samples. Hence it is desirable

to have higher peel strength for backsheet to have a good life expectancy.

Water Vapor Transmission Rate (WVTR): This is a measure of the passage of water vapor through a substance. The main quality of the

backsheet is determined by its water vapor barrier property. If the backsheet cannot block water vapor in the air, the vapor will enter and break

the bonding between the EVA layer and the panel. When water vapor contacts the solar panel directly, oxidation occurs and electrical function

can be lost.

Dimensional stability/Shrinkage: This is the ability of a substance or part to retain its shape when subjected to varying degrees of temperature,

moisture, pressure, or other stress. A lower dimensional stability % is required for vacuum lamination, as this is done at a very high temperature.

Dielectric Strength: This is a measure of the electrical strength of a material as an insulator. Dielectric strength is defined as the maximum

voltage required to produce a dielectric breakdown through the material and is expressed as Volts per unit thickness. The higher the dielectric

strength of a material the better its quality as an insulator.

Joseph Berwind

Backsheet - Database

• We created a database of backsheets by considering the major backsheet players’ datasheets. If we missed one of particular interest we will gladly recalculate the results for you.

• Our database has 39 backsheets offered by 13 players. Different cos. apply different chemistries. On the whole we found 23 chemistry types. PVF/PET/PVF was the most popular chemistry.

PVF: Poly Vinyl Fluoride

PET: Polyethylene terephthalate

ETFE:Ethylene tetrafluoroethylene

FPE:fluoropolyethylene resin

PVDF: Polyvinylidene Fluoride

Protekt : is a multi-layered laminate

FPF: Fluor polymerPTI: polyester film

WPO: low - oligomer white polyester filmSN: Saturated Nonwoven

PA:Polyamide


Backsheet - Evaluation

July 2012

• Peel Strength: The peel strength should be higher for the backsheet to avoid delaminating effects in the long run. We noticed the average peel strength for all backsheets in the database to be 4.84 N/mm, with minimum 2.50 and maximum 12. We consider a backsheet as “excellent” if peel strength >=6 and “bad” if peel strength is <3

• Water Vapor transmission (WVTR): The backsheet must block the water vapor in the air from entering the panels. WVTR averaged 2.75 g/m2/day with a minimum of 0.80 and a maximum of 9 for our database of backsheets. We consider a backsheet “excellent” if WVTR is <=1.50 and “bad” if WVTR is >3.50.

• Dimensional Stability: If the backsheet changes its shape substantially under high temperature lower manufacturing yield can result. The average dimensional stability we note as 1.21% with a minimum of 0.05% and a maximum of 5%. We consider a backsheet “excellent” if its dimensional stability is <=0.8% and “bad” if its dimensional stability is >1.5%.

• Dielectric strength: If the dielectric strength of a backsheet is low, there are chances of safety hazards in case of voltage fluctuations. We got an average dielectric strength of 20 kW with a maximum of 30 and minimum of 13 for the backsheets considered. We consider a backsheet “Excellent”, if the dielectric strength >=25 and “Bad” if this is <15.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Bad

Good

Excellent

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Excellent

Good

Bad

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Excellent

Good

Bad

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Bad

Good

Excellent

• For the purpose of evaluating and selecting the best backsheet, we considered 4 criteria:

Joseph Berwind

Backsheet - Ranking

July 2012

• Peel strength was excellent for EVA/PET/EVA and Protekt/PET/EVA backsheets. 9 out of 12 PVF/PET/PVF backsheets are “good” with respect to Peel strength.

• WVTR was excellent for PVF/Al/PET backsheets and bad for EVA/PET/EVA, FPE/PET/WPO/Primer & Protekt/PET/EVA backsheets.

• Dimensional stability was “good” for almost all kinds of backsheets.

• Dielectric strength was “Bad” for EVA/PET/EVA and Protekt/PET/EVA backsheets. This is “Excellent” for PVG/AL/PET backsheet.

Joseph Berwind

Backsheet & Module Performance

July 2012

Backsheets predominant role is to provide long term protection. Thus, module performance largely depends on the quality of the backsheet. For example, if the backsheet is of poor quality and has a high WVTR, annual power degration could increase significantly. Similarly, if dimensional strength is poor, delamination can lower yield and increase the cost of manufacturing. Finally, if peel strength is very low, the system life could be at stake as there could be delaminating risk in the field during long term continuous exposure to the weather.

For the purpose of examining the impact of backsheets on module performance and to select the best backsheet, we consider the following relationship between backsheet parameters and module performance:

Peel Strength: If peel strength is “excellent” it can reduce annual power degradation by 0.2% and increase system life by 2 years. If peel strength is “bad” it could increase annual power degradation by 0.2% and decrease the system life by 2 years.

WVTR: If WVTR is “excellent” it could decrease the annual power degradation by 0.2%; if it is “bad” it could decrease the annual power degradation by 0.2%.

Dimensional stability: If dimensional stability is “excellent”, it could increase the lamination yield by 3%, if it is “bad” it could decrease the lamination yield by 3%.

Joseph Berwind

Backsheet quality & LCOE

July 2012

• Our analysis shows a significant variation in LCOE

for varying quality of backsheet used.

• A backsheet with “Excellent” quality in all the

parameter (Peel, WVTR & Dim strength) could

generate an LCOE of ¢31.9/kWh while a backsheet

with “Bad” quality for all the parameters could

generate an LCOE of ¢38.4/kWh in Germany.

• Peel strength has a very high impact on the final

LCOE. A backsheet with “Bad” peel strength

generates a higher LCOE of ¢36.5/kWh even

though the other parameters are “Excellent”.

• Dimensional stability has very low impact on the

final LCOE. A backsheet with “Bad” dimensional

stability generates as low as ¢32.3/kWh when the

other parameters are “Excellent”.

Existing LCOE structure

Joseph Berwind

Backsheet quality & LCOE

July 2012

• The LOWEST LCOE of ¢32.07/kWh is noticed for Isovoltabacksheet which uses FPF/PET/PA chemistry. This backsheet was “Excellent” with respect to Peel strength & WVTR, but “Good” with respect to dimensional stability.

• The HIGHEST LCOE of ¢38.09/kWh is noticed for a Dunsolar’s backsheet which uses Primer/PET/Primer chemistry. This backsheet was “bad” with respect to Peel strength & WVTR and “Good” with respect to dimensional strength.

Joseph Berwind

Cherry Picking Backsheets

July 2012

• While selecting the backsheet one should ensure that it generates lowest LCOE and whose dielectric strength is highest. This way one can ensure long term better performance as well as safety.

• Our analysis shows that Isovolta’s backsheets (38 & 39) have lowest LCOE with considerably higher dielectric strength. Solar Gard (11) has relatively high dielectric strength with low (next to Isovolta) LCOE.

Joseph Berwind

Thin Film Developments


Thin Film – Further Developments

July 2012

a-Si technology Tandem a-Si technology

CIGS CdTe

• In-house TCO coating

• Replace back glass with laminate back sheet

• Improve Silane usage by improving plasma deposition

• Increase Module Efficiency by optimizing light trapping, improving buffer layer design & reduce scribe line width.

• Improved cell design by inserting a transparent insulating layer, with a suitably chosen optical index in between the cells

• Adding an anti-reflective coating (ARC) at the air/glass interface and glass/TCO interface.

• Nanocrystalline silicon oxide (nc-SiOx:H) doped layers

• Novel substrates such as ZnO bi-lyers, Multi-scale ZnOtextures, nanomoulded ZnO electrodes, Ultraviolet nanoimprint lithography.

• Moving from mechanical to laser patterning to reduce the dead area of solar modules and thereby increase the module efficiency.

• Window optimization by replacing the traditional CdS buffer with more transparent materials such as Zn(O,S).

• New type of series connection by a superior arrangement of the patterning grooves aiming at considerably increasing the active area and thus efficiency.

• Depositing the un-doped SnO2 thin films with different thickness as buffer layers to improve the transparency.

• Close Spaced Sublimation (CSS) deposition tools for high deposition rates and an excellent utilization of the raw material

• New type of series connection by a superior arrangement of the patterning grooves aiming at considerably increasing the active area and thus efficiency.

Joseph Berwind

Thin Film – Cost Reduction Potential

July 2012

$0.90

$0.6527% Cost

saving

Potential

Today 2016

$0.75

$0.5034% Cost

saving

Potential

Today 2016

$1.00

$0.6931% Cost

saving

Potential

Today 2016

$0.74

$0.5328% Cost

saving

Potential

Today 2016

Joseph Berwind

a-Si Cost Improvement Areas

July 2012


Focus Area Details Cost Impact

In-house TCO

coating

Generally TCO coated glass is purchased. In-

house TCO coating could reduce the glass cost

substantially.

The glass cost is assumed to be

reduced by 10%. The capex could

increase 30%

Replace back glass

with laminate back

sheet

The cost of laminate back sheet could be lower

than glass. Again, this could improve internal

reflection, increase heat shedding, and reduce

weight.

This could reduce back glass cost by

10%.

Improve Silane

usageImproved plasma deposition with confined

plasma, and in-situ exhaustThis could reduce silane usage by

10%

Increase Module

Efficiency

• Buffer layer design, which is a film design

technique used to reduce lattice mismatch

between layers and improve stability.

• Multi-junction and light-trapping techniques

• Limit scribe line width to increase active area

We assume further scope to increase

efficiency by 2.5% in short to medium

term (by 2015). For example, Trony is

currently operating at 6.5% efficiency

and has demonstrated 7.3%

efficiency at production stage and

targets at 9% by next year


Joseph Berwind

a-Si – Future Cost Reduction Potential

July 2012

• There are significant cost reduction potential through continuous efficiency improvement.

• Also, in-house TCO and replacing back glass with backsheet could meaningfully reduce the cost.

• By 2015-2016, the cost of production could drop to $0.65/W level, when factored the above developments.



TCO Glass $/m2 $12.35 $9.88 20% saving due to in-house & backside replacement

Silane $/m2 $3.48 $3.13 10% Saving is assumed

Other Materials $/m2 $18.26 $18.26

Total Material cost $/m2 $34.08 $31.27

Labor Cost $/m2 $10.00 $10.00

Capex $/m2 $125.00 $162.50 30% additional cost due to in-house TCO

Equipment Life years 12 $12.00

Depreciation $/m2 $10.42 $13.54

Overhead $/m2 $4.00 $4.00

Total cost $/m2 $58.50 $58.81

Module Efficiency % % 6.50% 9.00% 2.50% increase in efficiency

Watts per m2 W/m2 65 90

Total Cost $/W $0.90 $0.65


Joseph Berwind

a-Si/µc-Si Improvement potential

July 2012

Short circuit current (ISC)

This is current through solar cell

when there is no voltage

Module efficiency implies power produced (Pmax) per module area. For example, if

module area is 1.5m2 and module’s power (Wp) is 100, then efficiency is (1.5/100/1000) =

6.67%

Open Circuit Voltage (VOC)

This is the voltage through solar

Cell when there is no current

Fill Factor (FF)

This is a correction factor. This

represents the % power transmitted

This depends on the light speed, light

wavelength & Energy gap (Eg) of

materials used. Assuming Eg of a-Si

materials as 1.75eV, theoretical

maximum ISC would be 2.54

• Improve light trapping & absorption

• Optimize p-layer energy gap (Eg), doping

concentration and film thickness without

compromising film uniformity.

• Improve the quality and transmission of AZO

layer which has special role in controlling light

transmission & light scattering back to the

device to improve absorption in the i layer

• Achieve film uniformity by improving deposition

by optimizing deposition parameters such as

gas flow ratio, power, pressure, p-i-n spacing

etc

• Optimize i & n layer deposition conditions

without sacrificing light induced degradation

• Optimize lasers to improve scribe

quality to achieve low series and

contact resistance.

This depends on the module structure.

This can be increased by optimizing

the deposition parameters.

This depends on the resistance loss

occurred during the photovoltaic

process. Higher resistance loss

implies lower FF and consequently

lower efficiency.

Efficiency Improvement Potential Areas


Joseph Berwind

a-Si/µc-Si – Module Efficiency limit

July 2012

• The solar cell efficiency is governed by Isc, Voc and FF.

• Voc and FF remain always very low in a-Si solar cells due to the p–i–n-type structure and difficulty in doping such amorphous

layers.

• However there is a scope for further increasing Isc, but this is limited because thin i-layers should be used to avoid light

induced degradation effect, reduce the deposition time and cost.

• Assuming a-Si solar cell with energy gap of 1.75eV, maximum Jsc could be 20.5mA/cm2 or Isc is 2.47

Parameter Maximum limit

Jsc (mA/cm2) 20.5

FF (%) 91

Voc 1300

Efficiency % 24.3%

• Current efficiency is 6% to 7%. Maximum efficiency for a-Si considering the bandgap, light wavelength and semiconductor

material energy gap is 24.3%. This need not be achievable currently, given the cost and technology constraints.

Source: A. V. SHAH ET AL

Joseph Berwind

a-Si/µc-Si – Efficiency improvement potential

July 2012


Efficiency improvement potential areas

ARC Coating Nanocrystalline Silicon Oxide Novel substrates

• In a typical a-Si/µc-Si panel,

primary reflections of 4% at the

air/glass interface and 2% at the

glass/zinc oxide (ZnO) interface

are calculated.

• By adding an anti-reflective

coating (ARC) at the air/glass

interface, short-circuit current

density, and hence efficiency,

can be increased by up to 4%

relative.

• Similarly, an ARC such as a

titanium dioxide (TiO2)-ZnO

layer can be applied at the

glass/TCO interface as well.

Glass texturing can also be

employed to reduce reflection

losses

• The use of nanocrystalline silicon oxide

(nc-SiOx:H) doped layers combined with

optimized intrinsic layers deposition

processes result in an enhanced

resilience of the cell design to substrate

texture, allowing one to convert the high

light trapping potential of some textured

substrates into increased device

efficiencies

• The developed nc-SiOx:H doped layers

were combined with best i-layer

processes to improve μc-Si:H p-i-n

junction performance on textured

LPCVD ZnO front electrodes, resulting in

very high efficiency μc-Si:H solar cells:

small area cells (0.25 cm2) with an

efficiency of 10.6% without antireflection

coating on the front glass were achieved,

By further using an innovative textured

anti-reflection layer imprinted at the

air/glass interface a record efficiency of

10.9 % was attained

• Four types of innovative

substrates are identified:

ZnO bi-lyers, Multi-scale

ZnO textures, nanomoulded

ZnO electrodes, Ultraviolet

nanoimprint lithography.

Cell Design

• Total SA, OC Oerlikon and

Applied Materials have

developed a an alternative

way of fabricating tandem

amorphous/microcrystallin

e silicon solar cells, namely

four-terminal devices,

where the cells are stacked

up optically, but are

independent electrically.

This is achieved by

inserting a transparent

insulating layer, with a

suitably chosen optical

index in between the cells.

Carrier collection is insured

through one additional

transparent oxide layer for

each junction

Joseph Berwind

a-Si/Tandem Cell Design Optimization

July 2012


• Multi-junction devices where individual cells with different band gaps are stacked

up in series, both optically and electrically, allowed significant performance gains,

and stabilized efficiencies on the order 11.9% and 12.5% have been obtained for

tandem micromorph® and triple junction cells respectively

• Further efficiency improvements are hindered by metastability issues associated

with amorphous silicon [4], as well as by the need to equalize the current of each

of the individual junctions in their serial configuration. Carefully optimized, light

trapping schemes have been implemented in order to insure current matching

conditions, and any change in one of the constituting cells requires renewed

tweaking of the intermediate reflector.

• Total SA, OC Oerlikon and Applied Materials have developed a an alternative

way of fabricating tandem amorphous/microcrystalline silicon solar cells, namely

four-terminal devices, where the cells are stacked up optically, but are

independent electrically. This is achieved by inserting a transparent insulating

layer, with a suitably chosen optical index in between the cells. Carrier collection

is insured through one additional transparent oxide layer for each junction.

Joseph Berwind

a-Si/µc-Si – Anti Reflective Coating

July 2012


• a-Si/tandem cells generally have very low efficiency of 6% to 7%

compared to c-Si solar cells of 15% to 17%. But there are several

potential for further improvements.

• At PV-Lab Neuchâtel, recent efforts have been made to find

innovative solutions to further increase micromorph solar cell

efficiency in view of the well known difficulty of growing thin film

silicon solar cells with good and uniform electrical performance on

substrates with large light trapping potential.

• On of the improvement area is increasing the light trapping

potential. Light scattering takes place at rough interfaces, whereas

reflection losses typically occur at the air/glass and glass/front

transparent conductive oxide (TCO) interfaces. Primary reflections

of 4% at the air/glass interface and 2% at the glass/zinc oxide

(ZnO) interface are calculated. The light trapping can be increased

by Anti Reflective Coating (ARC) at air/glass interface and at

Glass/TCO interface. Glass texturing can also be employed to

reduce reflection.

Joseph Berwind

a-Si/µc-Si – Nanocrystalline Silicon Oxide

July 2012


• The use of nanocrystalline silicon oxide (nc-SiOx:H) doped layers

combined with optimized intrinsic layers deposition processes

result in an enhanced resilience of the cell design to substrate

texture, allowing one to convert the high light trapping potential of

some textured substrates into increased device efficiencies.

• The use of nc-SiOx:H doped layers was shown to partially reduce

the effect of cracks on global cell performance by possibly

quenching current leaks.

• Furthermore, the amorphous O-rich matrix of these nc-SiOx:H

layers could possibly act as a barrier against diffusion of water

vapor or contaminants into the absorber layer through such

cracks.

• The optimized cell design then also permit the development of

micromorph tandem cells on front LPCVD ZnO electrodes

optimized for efficient light trapping.

Joseph Berwind

a-Si/µc-Si – Novel Substrates

July 2012


Novel substrates for a-Si/µc-Si Cells

ZnO bi-lyers Multi scale ZnO Structure Nanomoulded ZnO electodes Ultraviolet nanoimprint lithography

LPCVD ZnO bi-layers are

obtained by growing a highly

boron-doped nucleation phase

followed by a non-intentionally

doped (n-i-d) bulk ZnO layer.

The bi-layer configuration

enables the growth of large

pyramids with enhanced light

scattering, while retaining a low

free carrier absorption and high

conduction. Indeed, sheet

resistances as low as < 20 /sq

were measured, suggesting that

boron diffuses from the

nucleation phase through the

bulk, probably via grain

boundaries

The idea behind LPCVD ZnO

multi-scale texturing is to achieve

better light scattering in both the

top and bottom cells by stacking

small pyramids on top of large

ones. A thin (< 5 nm) n-doped µc-

Si:H layer was deposited after the

growth of large ZnO pyramids to

inhibit epitaxial growth of a second

ZnO layer resulting in smaller

pyramids. Various surface

morphologies can be obtained with

this technique by varying either the

thickness of the individual ZnO

layers or the post-plasma

treatment time.

Nanomoulding method completely

frees ZnO films from

morphological constraints imposed

by nature, and allows one to

transfer or replicate an arbitrary

master structure made from an

arbitrary (transparent or opaque)

master material onto a transparent

ZnO electrode. It has been further

demonstrated that conversion

efficiencies for thin-film silicon

solar cells deposited on

nanomoulded electrodes can be

as high as those on state of- the-

art nanotextured electrodes,

proving that ZnO nanomoulding

allows one to go far beyond proof-

of concept devices. Nanomoulding

therefore provides a promising

experimental platform for exploring

the light trapping performance of

specifically designed photonic

nanostructures directly in high-

efficiency solar cells.

Nanoimprinting is performed into a

deformable UV-curable lacquer, which

is both transparent and insulating. An

additional transparent conductive layer

is therefore required to obtain an

operational front electrode.

Hydrogenated indium oxide (In2O3:H)

is used with extraordinarily high

mobilities (above 100 cm2/V.s) at low

carrier densities (in the low 1020 cm-3

range) resulting in excellent near-

infrared transparency. Compared to

state-of-the-art ZnO front electrodes,

the combination of nanoimprinted

superstrate with In2O3:H not only

leads to a substantial current

enhancement of 1 mA/cm2 in the

microcrystalline bottom cell due to the

improved near-infrared transparency

of In2O3:H and the excellent light

scattering provided by the

nanoimprinted pyramidal morphology,

but also an increase of 1 mA/cm2 in

the amorphous top cell due to the

higher band gap of In2O3:H compared

to ZnO.

Joseph Berwind

a-Si/µc-Si – Efficiency Improvement potential

July 2012


7.50%

13.00%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

14.00%

Current

Efficiency %

Cell design

Optimization

Nanocrystalline

Silicon Oxide

ARC Coating ZnO bi-layer Multi-scale ZnO

Structure

Nanomoulded

ZnO electrodes

UV Nanoimprint

lithography

Future

Efficiency %

a-Si/Tandem: Cell efficiency Improvement Potential

Joseph Berwind

a-Si/µc-Si – Cost impact of efficiency gain

July 2012

Source: AEI Consulting* Keeping all other things constant

$0.75

$0.43

$0.00

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$0.70

$0.80

Current

Efficiency %

Cell design

Optimization

Nanocrystalline

Silicon Oxide

ARC Coating ZnO bi-layer Multi-scale ZnO

Structure

Nanomoulded

ZnO electrodes

UV Nanoimprint

lithography

Future

Efficiency %

a-Si/Tandem: Cost reduction Potential

Joseph Berwind

Tandem a-Si/µc-Si – Future Cost Reduction Potential

July 2012

• There are significant cost reduction potential through continuous efficiency improvement. It has been suggested that

the efficiency could be increased from current 7.50% to 13%.

• These efficiency increase come from novel cell designing and use of novel substrate materials. We assume these

could entail 50% increase in capex and 20% increase in material costs.

• By 2015-2016, the cost of production could drop to $0.50/W level, when factored the above developments.



TCO Glass $/m2 $12.35 $12.35

Silane $/m2 $2.81 $2.81

Other Materials $/m2 $16.67 $20.01 20% additional cost is assumed


Labor Cost $/m2 $10.00 $10.00

Capex $/m2 $125.00 $187.50 50% additional capex for inhouse TCO & technology

Equipment Life years 12 12


Overhead $/m2 $4.00 $4.00

Total cost $/m2 $56.25 $64.79

Module Efficiency % % 7.50% 13.00% 5.50% efficiency gain is demonstrated


Total Cost $/W $0.75 $0.50


Joseph Berwind

CIGS – Further developments

July 2012


Efficiency improvement potential areas

Laser Scribing

Moving from mechanical to laser patterning

is a measure to reduce the dead area of

solar modules. Considering the state of the

art mechanical pattering processes for P2

and P3, the active area of monolithically

integrated solar modules is reduced by

several 100 μm per cell as a result of the

scribe width of the three individual pattern

trenches and the required spacing in

between. As laser patterning avoids

chipping adjacent to the trench, spacing

between P1, P2 and P3 can be significantly

decreased resulting in more active area and

increased short circuit current. Therefore

module power can increase by up to 4%

relative.

Optimization of Window Layer

The ZnO:Al window layer sputtering process

can be optimized in a way to improve the

Haacke factor. This enhancement of the

Haacke factor can be achieved both by a

lowered sheet resistance of the window layer

as well as by an increased light transmittance

through the window layer. The better electrical

conductivity of the window layer additionally

lowers the series resistance and raises the fill

factor. The increased light transmittance also

helped to slightly improve the short-circuit

current Jsc

Series conncection

IEK5 – Photovoltaik has

introduced a new type of

series connection that can

considerably increase the

active area and thus the

efficiency of a thin film

module by a superior

arrangement of the

patterning grooves

Joseph Berwind

CIGS – Laser Scribing – Introduction

July 2012

Source: 26th EU PVSEC, 3DV.2.9 & 3CO.2.1

• The AVANCIS manufacturing sequence starts with the soda-lime glass covered by

a silicon nitride (SiN) alkali-barrier layer and the molybdenum (Mo) back electrode

as a substrate. After the P1 laser patterning, the first step in the CIGSSe absorber

formation is the elemental precursor film deposition consisting of DC-magnetron

sputtering of Cu-In-Ga:Na and thermal evaporation of selenium (Se). The second

step is the reaction of the elemental precursor stack to form the CIGSSe

semiconductor. Rapid thermal processing (RTP) is conducted in an infrared

heated furnace capable of high heating rates in a sulfur containing ambient. The

CdS buffer layer is deposited in a chemical bath deposition process, the ZnO:Al

window layer by magnetron sputtering

• In the baseline process mechanical scribing is applied for the

patterning of the absorber (P2) and the ZnO (P3). Before

lamination, the thin film is edge deleted and a bus bar is

contacted to the Mo back electrode by ultrasonic welding. The

standard module size is 30*30cm2 for the R&D pilot line. An

antireflective (AR) coated front glass is used to increase the

short-current density as described in

Joseph Berwind

CIGS – Laser Scribing – Details

July 2012


• Majority of CIGS modules produced today uses mechanical

scribing process. By replacing mechanical scribing with laser

scribing suggests that significant improvements are possible in

the CIGS technology.

• In case of a CIGS panel laser scribing can reduce dead zone

from 500 μm to 200 μm, and a gain in active area can be

achieved of more than 5 % (Based on a PV panel that includes

100 cells in an area of 1200 mm x 600 mm).

• A new generation of picosecond (ps) lasers, that are now available to

the market, enabling the scribing process without a big impact on the

price tag of such a system. If these lasers would also be fiber guided

the whole system setup would be much more stable and reliable

without losing speed.

• A study by Hemut Vogt & Others (Avanics Gmbh) showed that

patterning of all three steps (molybdenum back electrode p1, the

absorber layer p2 and the ZnO front electrode p3) by picosecond laser

processes resulted in achieving module efficiency of 14.7% on 30*30

cm2 Avanics module.

Joseph Berwind

CIGS – Window Optimization

July 2012


• Currently CIGS modules have an average efficiency of ~10% and also the cost of production is relatively high.

• Zentrum für Sonnenenergie- und Wasserstoff-Forschung, Baden-Württemberg (ZSW) made a detailed analysis of the

parameters for increasing the efficiencies of CIGS on glass.

• It has been noted that further potential for increasing efficiency arises from window optimisation by replacing the

traditional CdS buffer with more transparent materials such as Zn(O,S). By using alternative substrate materials such

as novel types of polyimide films, mild steel foils or special enamelled steel, flexible or non-flexible CIGS modules with

less weight and new features are under investigation.

Joseph Berwind

CIGS – Series Connection concept

July 2012


• In case of thin-film, interconnection process of individual cell stripes

is embedded in the solar cell manufacturing. This processing step is

accomplished by an alternating sequence of layer deposition and

layer patterning steps. In contrast, for wafer based technologies the

cell manufacturing and the series connection process are

separated.

• A disadvantage of the integrated series connection is the formation

of so called “dead areas”, where no electrical power is produced

since they exclusively serve for the series connection. The width of

these dead areas is given by the applied patterning technique and

is typically in the range of 250 – 500 μm. The width of the active

area is usually in the range of 5 – 15 mm

• IEK5 – Photovoltaik has introduced a new type of series connection

that can considerably increase the active area and thus the

efficiency of a thin film module by a superior arrangement of the

patterning grooves

• It has been demonstrated that this can be applied to a laser

patterned thin film silicon solar module. For this module the new

series connection leads to an relative efficiency increase of

approximately 3%.

Joseph Berwind

CIGS – Efficiency Improvement

July 2012


10.0%

17.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

Current

Efficiency %

Laser Scribing Window Layer

Optimize

Series

connection

Future

Efficiency %

CIGS: Efficiency Improvement Potential

Joseph Berwind

CIGS – Future Cost Reduction Potential

July 2012

• There are significant scope for further efficiency improvement. On a conservative basis, we assumed 7% efficiency

improvement potential in the medium term. This should reduce the cost significantly.

• The efficiency gain is mainly brought by laser scribing technology. Being a new technology, we assume this could entail

50% incremental capex.

• Again, window layer optimization could bring further efficiency gain. However this implies replacing CdS with Zn. We

assume these could involve 20% increase in opex.



TCO Glass $/m2 $12.35 $12.35

Other Materials $/m2 $54.15 $64.98 20% additional cost on window optimization


Labor Cost $/m2 $14.00 $14.00

Capex $/m2 $125.00 $187.50 50% additional cost due to Laser Scribing



Overhead $/m2 $7.00 $7.00

Total cost $/m2 $100.00 $117.08

Module Efficiency % % 10.00% 17.00% 7% increase in efficiency


Total Cost $/W $1.00 $0.69


Joseph Berwind

CdTe – Further developments

July 2012


Cost reduction potential areas

SnO2 buffer Layer

Depositing the un-doped SnO2 thin

films with different thickness, as

buffer layers, by magnetic reactive

sputtering could significantly improve

the transparency of CdTe solar cells.

Also this could significantly improve

response of short wave resulting in

achieving higher Jsc & FF values.

Overall, this could result in 1% to 2%

efficiency gain.

CSS Deposition

Roth&Rau AG is offering Close

Spaced Sublimation (CSS) deposition

tools for CdTe solar modules. The

advantages of this technique are high

deposition rates of some μm per

minute and an excellent utilisation of

the raw material, leading to low

production costs and competitive

module prices

Series connection

IEK5 – Photovoltaik

has introduced a new

type of series

connection that can

considerably increase

the active area and

thus the efficiency of a

thin film module by a

superior arrangement

of the patterning

grooves

Joseph Berwind

CdTe – SnO2 Buffer Layer

July 2012


• Decreasing CdS thickness is one of the effective ways to improve the conversion efficiency of CdS/CdTe solar cells.

However, the decrease in CdS thickness may lead to the adverse effects on devices. In order to eliminate these

effects, it is necessary to introduce a buffer layer between CdS and front electrode.

• Guanggen Zeng & others have demonstrated that use of SnO2 buffer layer could increase the cell efficiency

significantly. The un-doped SnO2 thin films with different thickness, as buffer layers, have been deposited by magnetic

reactive sputtering. Then the films have been annealed at 550℃ in N2/O2=4:1 ambience for 30 minutes. After

annealing, surface topography has been improved, and higher than 80% transparency has been obtained.

• The performances of cells with un- doped SnO2 show that the response of short-wave has been improved; higher Jsc

and FF have been achieved.

Joseph Berwind

CdTe – CSS Deposition

July 2012


• Roth&Rau AG is offering Close Spaced Sublimation (CSS)

deposition tools for CdTe solar modules. The advantages of this

technique are high deposition rates of some μm per minute and an

excellent utilization of the raw material, leading to low production

costs and competitive module prices.

• Recently Roth & Rau established in close cooperation with the

Fraunhofer Institute for Electron Beam and Plasma Technique

(FEP) in Dresden a laboratory a pilot line which is dedicated to

research on CdTe solar cells. The pilot line covers all relevant

process steps such as TCO deposition, CSS deposition of

semiconductor layers, wet chemical surface treatment and

cleaning, back contact formation by thermal evaporation and/or

sputtering.

• The advantage of these tools are a larger

deposition width for substrate sizes of

120x160cm² and a high utilization of raw

materials >95%.

Joseph Berwind

CdTe – Series Connection concept

July 2012


• In case of thin-film, interconnection process of individual cell stripes

is embedded in the solar cell manufacturing. This processing step is

accomplished by an alternating sequence of layer deposition and

layer patterning steps. In contrast, for wafer based technologies the

cell manufacturing and the series connection process are

separated.

• A disadvantage of the integrated series connection is the formation

of so called “dead areas”, where no electrical power is produced

since they exclusively serve for the series connection. The width of

these dead areas is given by the applied patterning technique and

is typically in the range of 250 – 500 μm. The width of the active

area is usually in the range of 5 – 15 mm

• IEK5 – Photovoltaik has introduced a new type of series connection

that can considerably increase the active area and thus the

efficiency of a thin film module by a superior arrangement of the

patterning grooves

• It has been demonstrated that this can be applied to a laser

patterned thin film silicon solar module. For this module the new

series connection leads to an relative efficiency increase of

approximately 3%.

Joseph Berwind

CdTe – FSLR Guidance at Glance

July 2012

Source: FSLR

Joseph Berwind

CdTe – Future Cost Reduction Potential

July 2012

• There are significant cost reduction potential through continuous efficiency improvement. FSLR has noted that its

module efficiency could increase 1% in 2012 and could reach 15% by 2015.

• SnO2 buffer layer and cell design improvement (series connection) should increase the efficiency. However, this could

entail 10% increase in materials’ cost.

• Use of CSS deposition could result in significant increase in productivity. We assume this could entail 20% increase in

capex cost.



TCO Glass $/m2 $12.35 $11.11

Other Materials $/m2 $26.23 $28.86 10% increase due to SnO buffer layer

Material cost $/m2 $38.58 $39.97

Saving due to Productivity increase $/m2 $6.00 15% productivity gain due to CSS deposition

Total material cost $/m2 $38.58 $33.97

Labor Cost $/m2 $20.00 $20.00

Capex $/m2 $200.00 $240.00 20% increase in capex due to new tool & technique



Overhead $/m2 $8.00 $8.00

Total cost $/m2 $86.58 $85.97

Module Efficiency % % 11.70% 16.20% 4.50% increase in efficiency


Total Cost $/W $0.74 $0.53


Joseph Berwind

VALUE CHAIN ANALYSISS I N GL E P AG E O V E R VI E WS O F K E Y V AL U E C H AI N

P AR T I C I PAN T S


TRENDS IN THE C-SI VALUE CHAIN

Silicon Metal

• DC Chemical

• GCL Silicon

• Hemlock

• MEMC

• REC

• M. Setek

• Tokuyama

• Wacker

• few others

Ingots/Wafers

• Deutsche Solar

• ErSol

• ET Solar

• Evergreen

• LDK

• MEMC

• PV Crystalox

• REC

• Renesola

• M. Setek

•Trina

• Yingli Green Energy

• several others

PV Cells

• BP Solar

• Emcore

• ECD (Unisolar)

• ErSol

• Gintech

• Isofoton

• JA Solar

• Kyocera

• Motech

• Q-Cells

• REC

• Sanyo

• Schott

• Sharp

• SunPower

• Suntech


• ~50 others, many new entrants in China

PV Modules

• BP Solar

• Canadian Solar

• ErSol

• ET Solar

• General Electric

• Kyocera

• Isofoton

• Mitsubishi Electric

• Mitsubishi Heavy Ind.

• REC

• Sanyo

• Schott

• Sharp

• Signet Solar

• Solarfun

• Solarworld

• Solon

• Sun Power

• Suntech

• Trina


• hundreds more

Systems/ Installation

• Borrego

• Centrosolar (Solarstocc)

• City Solar

• Conergy

• Dependable Solar

• Deutsche Solar

• Donauer Solartechnik

• ErSol

• ET Solar

• GroSolar

• IBC Solar

• Ibersolar Energia

• Isofoton

• MHH Solartechnik

• Phaesun

• Phonix Sonnenstrom

• REC

• SPG Solar

• SunPower

• SunTechnics

• Wirsol


• thousands others, including small, local companies

• Ease of entry and more competitors results in lower margins for PV Modules and Systems/Installation markets

• Polysilicon and Ingots/Wafers have fewer competitors, and require economies of scale and/or technical expertise

Higher Barriers to Entry, Fewer Competitors – Higher GP


ALTERNATIVE ROUTES IN PV BUSINESS

• The direct supply path in c-Si will be under pressure

for lower costs. There are alternatives which will

enjoy the growth, and may have less profit pressures

• This example is for c-Si cells and modules, but the

same case can be shown for TF Si, CdTe and

CIGS

• Consider those niches in Specialty Materials and

Equipment, where there are fewer competitors, and

products with technical sophistication

• Equipment business will have separate

challenges with profit volatility

Equipment

• Anwell

• Applied Materials

• Centrotherm

• Jusung Engineering

• Oerlikon

• Roth & Rau

• Schmid

• ULVAC

Specialty Materials

•Asahi Glass Bakaert

•Cookson Dow Corning

•DuPont Etimex

•Ferro GfE

•Heraeus Indium Corp

•Isovolta Kuraray

•Metalor SiC Processing

•Voltaix

Silicon Metal Ingots/Wafers PV Cells PV ModulesSystems/

Installation


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

July 2012

Abbr Details

µc-Si Microcrystalline Silicon

µm micron

AEI Alternative Energy Investing LLC

Ag Silver

Al Aluminum

Al2O3 Alumina

ALEO Aleo Solar

Ar Argon

AR/ ARC Anti Reflective Coating

a-Si Amorphous Silicon

ASP Average Selling Price

AZO Aluminum Zinc Oxide

BAPV Building Applied photovoltaics

BIPV Building-integrated photovoltaics

BoS Balance of system

C2F6 Hexafluoroethane

CA California

CAGR Compounded Annual Growth Rate

Cd Cadmium

CdCl Cadmium chloride

CdS Cadmium sulfide

CdTe Cadmium telluride

CF4 carbon tetrafluoride

CIGS Copper Indium Gallium Selenide

cm centimeter

c-Si Crystalline Silicon

CSIQ Canadian Solar

Cu Copper

Abbr Details

DEZ Diethylzinc

DI Water Distilled water

DSO Days Sales Outstanding

DSS Directional Solidification System

ENER Energy Conversion Devices

ESLR Evergreen Solar

EVA Ethylene vinyl acetate

FiT Feed in tariff

FSLR First Solar

g Gram

Ga Gallium

GM% Gross Margin

GW Giga Watts

H2Se Hydrogen selenide

H3PO4 Phosphoric Acid

HCL Hydrochloric Acid

HF hydrofluoric acid

HNO3 nitric acid

In Indium

ITO indium tin oxide

J Box Junction Box

KCN Potassium cyanide

Kg Kilogram

KOH potassium hydroxide

kW Kilo Watt

kWh Kilo Watt Hour

kWp Killo Watt Peak

M2 Meter squares

Joseph Berwind

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

July 2012

Abbr Details

MIRR Modified Internal Rate of Return

mm Millimeter

Mo Molybdenum

MoS Margin of Safety

MT Metric Ton

MW Mega Watts

N2 Nitrogen

NF3 Nitrogen trifluoride

NH3 ammonia

NM% Net Margin

NY New York

O2 Oxygen

Pd Palladium

PDP Performance Designed Products

PECVD Plasma enhanced chemical vapour deposition

PEG Polyethylene Glycol

PET polyester film

POCl3 Phosphorus oxychloride

PV Photovoltaic

PVB polyvinyl butyral

PVD physical vapor deposition

QoQ Quarter over Quarter

R&D Research & Development

REC Renewable Energy Corporation

RMB Renminbi

ROA Return on Assets

ROCE Return on Capital Employed

ROW Rest of World

Rs. Indian Rupees

Abbr Details

Se Selenide

SiC Silicon Carbide

SiH4 silane

SiNx silicon nitride

SnO2 Tin oxide

Sol Nano-Particle Slurry

SOLF/HSOL Solarfun aka Hanwah Solarone

SPWR Sunpower Corp

STP Suntech Power

TCS Trichlorosilane

TF Thin Film

TMB Tetramethylbenzidine

TSL Trina solar

UK United Kingdom

USA United Sates of America

VC Variable Cost

W Watt

W.Avg Weighted Average

Wp Watt Peak

YGE Yingli Green Solar

YoY Year over year

Zn Zinc

ZnO Zinc Oxide

Joseph Berwind

LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES

July 2012

Figures & Chart Page

Global PV Demand Assessment - 2010-2013 17

Global PV Demand Scenarios - 2010-2013 19

PV demand growth rates by Region 2010-2013 20

Historical System Prices 1Q07 to 2Q11 22

Historical Subsidies 1Q08 to 2Q11 22

Historical Bond Rates 1Q08 to 2Q11 22

Historical Interest Rates 1Q08 to 2Q11 22

Excess Return & Demand in Germany, Italy, Spain, USA 23

Demand Assessment in Germany 2011 to 2013 24

Demand Assessment in Italy 2011 to 2013 25

Demand Assessment in Spain 2011 to 2013 26

Demand Assessment in USA 2011 to 2013 27

Demand growth rates in key regions 2007 to 2013 28

Cumulative Installations in major regions 2011 to 2013 29

PV Demand by Technology 2009 to 2013 30

c-Si Poly, ingot, wafer, cell & module supply Assessment 2011 to 2013 32

List of Top producers in Poly, Ingot, Wafer, Cell & Module segments 33

Global Polysilicon Capacity & production 2010 to 2013 34

Ingot: Adjusted capacity & Production 2010 to 2013 35

Wafer: Adjusted capacity & Production 2010 to 2013 36

c-Si Cell: Adjusted capacity & Production 2010 to 2013 37

c-Si Module: Adjusted capacity & Production 2010 to 2013 38

Module Capacity & production technological Distribution 2010 to 2013 39

2011 Geographical Capacity Distribution: Poly, Ingot, Wafer 40

2011 Geographical Capacity Distribution: Cell & Module 41

2011 Production Capacity analysis: Poly, Ingot, Wafer, Cell & Module 42

Joseph Berwind


July 2012


2011 Production Capacity analysis: Poly, Ingot, Wafer, Cell & Module 42

Supply chain imbalances in 2011 & 2012 44



Solar subsidies in Germany, Italy, Spain, France, CA & India 47

Solar subsidies in NY, Vermont, Japan, UK, Ontario, Czech, Korea & China 48

Region Ranking on Net benefit & Excess Return for Residential in 2019 to 2012 51

Region Ranking on Net benefit & Excess Return for Commercial in 2019 to 2012 52

Factors of solar Returns: subsidies, insolation, bond rates & interest rates 53

change in Region Ranking between 2Q11 to 3Q11 54

Net Benefit & Margin of Safety in key regions for Residential & Commercial 56

Excess Returns in key regions for Residential & Commercial systems 57

Selected Module companies performance analysis for 11 KPIs in 3Q11 59

Selected companies ranking for Compitition KPIs 3Q10 to 3Q11 60

Selected companies ranking for Operations KPIs 3Q10 to 3Q11 61

Selected companies ranking for Profitability KPIs 3Q10 to 3Q11 62

Selected companies ranking for ROA & Net Margin 63

Change in Ranking between 3Q10 & 3Q11 64

PV Module Segment Solvency ratio 1Q08 to 3Q11 65

Individual companies' solvency ratios 1Q08 to 3Q11 66

Financial health Summary: Altman & Springate Ratios: 3Q08 to 3Q11 67

Cost structure: Expected profitability of selected companies 68

Current shipment volume, guided volume and BEP volume for selected companies 69

Calculation of Breakeven and Profitability for selected companies 70

Cost change versus Price change 2Q08 to 3Q11 71

Joseph Berwind


July 2012


Cost change versus Price change 2Q08 to 3Q11 72

Revenue trend for selected companies 4Q10 to 3Q11 73

Volume trend for selected companies 4Q10 to 3Q11 74

R&D trend for selected companies 4Q10 to 3Q11 75

Inventory trend for selected companies 4Q10 to 3Q11 76

Pricing trend for selected companies 4Q10 to 3Q11 77

Cost simulation: Reduction potential identified in 1Q11 Base 78

Cost simulation: Reduction potential identified in 3Q11 Base 79

Cost Sensitivity to efficiency, wafer thickness & poly prices 80

Cost Sensitivity analysis 81

PV Module Production split by technology 2010 to 2015 83

c-Si Module Production split by Mono & Multi: 2010 to 2015 87

Calculation of Crucible cost per Watt & Sensitivity to wafer thickness 90

Calculation of Graphite parts cost per Watt & Sensitivity to wafer thickness 91

Calculation of Argon cost per Watt & Sensitivity to wafer thickness 92

Calculation of cost of Gases used in Ingot stage 93

Calculation of Slurry cost per Watt 99

Calculation of Saw Wire cost per Watt 100

Saw Wire Cost sensitivity analysis 101

Calculation of Consumables cost per Watt in Wafer Texturization 103

Calculation of Consumables cost per Watt in Emitter diffusion 104

Calculation of Consumables cost per Watt in Edge Isolation 105

Calculation of Consumables cost per Watt in AR Coating 106

Calculation of Front Silver Paste cost per Watt in Screen Printing 108

Calculation of Rear Silver/Aluminum Paste cost per Watt in Screen Printing 109

Joseph Berwind


July 2012


Calculation of BSF Aluminum Paste cost per Watt in Screen Printing 110

Calculation of Consumables cost per Watt used in Glass Washing & Glass

cost 114

Calculation of Consumables & Ribbon cost per Watt used in Tab & String 115

Calculation of EVA, Bus bar ribbon & backsheet cost per Watt 116

Calculation of Consumables cost per Watt in Module Lamination 117

Calculation of Protective tape cost per Watt in Module Trimming 118

Calculation of Module Frame cost per Watt 119

Calculation of Junction Box cost per Watt 120

Cost per Watt of Materials & Consumables used in PV module production 121

c-Si Module cost of production in 2011 122

c-Si Bill of Material in 2011 123

c-Si Material BoM split by value chain elements 124

c-Si Material cost sensitivity analysis 125

c-Si Material Cost per Watt movement: 2011 to 2016 126

c-Si cost reduction potentials 127

Global Thin film production split by subtechnologies: 2011 to 2015 131

Calculation of cost of production for a-Si Module 133

a-Si Module BoM in 2011 134

a-Si material cost per Watt 2011 to 2016 135

a-Si Cost of Production per Watt 2011 to 2016 136

Calculation of cost of production for Tandem a-Si Module 138

Tandem a-Si Module BoM in 2011 139

Tandem a-Si material cost per Watt 2011 to 2016 140

Tandem a-Si Cost of Production per Watt 2011 to 2016 141

Calculation of cost of production for CIGS Module 143

Joseph Berwind


July 2012


CIGS Module BoM in 2011 144

CIGS material cost per Watt 2011 to 2016 145

CIGS Cost of Production per Watt 2011 to 2016 146

Calculation of cost of production for CdTe Module 148

CdTe Module BoM in 2011 149

CdTe material cost per Watt 2011 to 2016 150

CdTe Cost of Production per Watt 2011 to 2016 151

Thin film cost of production split by cost elements & materials: 2011 152

PV Materials BoM for c-Si and Thin film in 2011 154

PV Chemicals BoM for c-Si and Thin film in 2011 155

PV Chemicals market size in 2011 split by chemicals 156

PV Chemicals market size by application in 2011 157

PV Materials Demand: total, c-Si and TF: 2011 to 2016 158

c-Si PV Materials Demand split by value chain elements 2011 to 2016 159

c-Si Materials demand split by materials: 2011 to 2016 160

Calculation of Polysilicon production potential 2011 to 2016 161

Ingot material demand 2011 to 2016 163

Wafer material demand 2011 to 2016 166

Saw Wires demand 2011 to 2016 167

Saw Wire market share analysis 2011 168

Slurry demand 2011 to 2016 170

Slurry Market Share analysis 2011 171

Cell Material market Demand 2011 to 2016 174

Wet Chemical market Demand 2011 to 2016 175

Bulk gases market Demand 2011 to 2016 177

Joseph Berwind


July 2012


Dopant market Demand 2011 to 2016 180

Silane market Demand 2011 to 2016 183

Metallic pastes market Demand 2011 to 2016 186

Metallic Paste market share analysis 2011 187

Aluminum Paste market share analysis 2006 to 2015 188

Module Materials Market Demand 2011 to 2016 193

c-Si Glass market Demand 2011 to 2016 194

c-Si EVA market Demand 2011 to 2016 197

c-Si Backsheet market Demand 2011 to 2016 201

c-Si Module Frames market Demand 2011 to 2016 203

c-Si Module Junction boxes market Demand 2011 to 2016 204

Thin film Materials demand split by technology: 2011 to 2016 207

Thin film Materials demand split by materials: 2011 to 2016 208

TF - TCO Glass market Demand 2011 to 2016 209

TF - Encapsulant market Demand 2011 to 2016 210

TF - Junction box market Demand 2011 to 2016 211

TF - Silane market Demand 2011 to 2016 212

TF - DEZ market Demand 2011 to 2016 213

TF - Phosphoric Acid market Demand 2011 to 2016 214

TF - other chemicals market Demand 2011 to 2016 215

List of key developments in c-Si technologies 221

Technological developments pulling down cost: 2011 to 2016 223

Calculation of cost saving potential from IMCC 228

Calculation of COO of MWSS and Diamond Saw wires 231

Diamond wire cost sensitivity analysis 233

Joseph Berwind


July 2012


Diamond wire cost sensitivity analysis 233

Calculation of cost saving potential from structured wire 235

Structure wire cost sensitivity 236

Calculation of cost saving potential from SiGen PolyMax 242

Calculation of cost saving potential from Plasma Texturization 247

Calculation of cost saving potential from n-type silicon 257

Calculation of cost saving potential from Esatto double Printing 266

Calculation of cost saving potential from Bus Bar Optimization 268

Calculation of cost saving potential from Nickle film contact layer 271

Calculation of cost saving potential from Rear passivated PoP 275

Calculation of cost saving potential from Direct Printing technology 278

Calculation of cost saving potential from EVA Multiple dye doping 281

Cost reduction potential for thin-film solar 293

a-Si Future cost saving potential 295

Tandem a-Si Future efficiency gain potential 303

Tandem a-Si Future cost impact of efficiency gain 304

Tandem a-Si Future cost saving potential 305

CIGS Efficiency improvement potential 311

CIGS Future cost saving potential 312

CdTe - FSLR guidance at glance 317

CdTe Future cost saving potential 318

Joseph Berwind

AEI CONSULTING

Joseph Berwind

Alternative Energy Investing, LLCAt The Intersection of Electronic Materials

& Photovoltaic Power Generation

AEI Research & Consulting

343 Millburn Avenue,

Suite 209

Millburn, NJ 07041 USA

©2005 - 2012 Alternative Energy Investing, LLC™ All Rights Reserved


Date post:	09-Feb-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	joseph-berwind
View:	316 times
Download:	7 times

PRESENTATION EXAMPLE - DATED MATERIALS - NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE (2)

Documents