Solar ♦ industry news
lower power draw from the constantly evolving chip-process technologies. The use of chips is also allowing MLPM system providers to offer much longer lifetime warranties than traditional inverters, to 15 years and beyond—which more closely aligns with the payback lifetime of PV installations.
The U.S. residential installation market, in particular, has fallen in love with micro-inverters as they make it easier to design a PV system for a specific roof. Optimizers have found an interesting interim market in which they are being used to boost the harvest of already installed modules that have dropped below installation warranty levels. Optimizers are also used to create so called Smart Panels—a possible margin-enhancing path for module suppliers.
iSuppli believes that traditional string and central inverters will continue to be preferred in many regions and applications, especially utility-scale projects, but that MLPM solutions are set to seriously penetrate the rest of the installation market.
iSuppli’s unique market research reports help deliver vital information on the status of the entire electronics value chain.
Cost is King in Battle for Solar Dominance
Cadmium telluride (CdTe) technology remains the long term leader in terms of cost-of-goods-sold (COGS). Led by First Solar, CdTe has a significantly lower cost structure than mc-Si, and its cost reductions are expected to march onward.
In the face of renewed pricing pressures, solar device manufacturers have had to refocus on minimizing costs and maximizing performance to maintain profit margins. Advances in crystalline silicon technology, and the falling cost of the polysilicon raw material, have only increased the pressure on manufacturers of emerging thin-film technologies, including thin-film silicon (TF-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), and copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS) – many of which are under the gun to improve margins or face extinction, according to a new report from Lux Research.
The report, titled “Module Cost Structure 108
www.compoundsemiconductor.net November/December 2010
Breakdown: Can Thin Film Survive the Crystalline Silicon Onslaught?,” compares incumbent multicrystalline silicon (mc-Si) technology (representing roughly 80% of the crystalline silicon market) on a $/W basis against three challengers: thin-film silicon (TF-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), and copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS). The report surveys process changes and cost reduction efforts that module developers have undertaken, and forecasts which technology will gain a long- term cost advantage at the module level.
“Crystalline silicon is dominant by volume and remains the cost/price benchmark for solar modules. Cadmium telluride is limited in efficiencies, but is the absolute leader in cost. We project these two technologies will continue to be highly profitable,” said Ted Sullivan, a senior analyst for Lux Research, and the report’s lead author. “The profitability of thin-film silicon is much dicier, but CIGS is positioned to outplace crystalline silicon in profitability by 2013 as leading developers improve process stability.”
To forecast how module developers would reduce the key components of cost – capital, materials, utilities, and labor – Lux Research built detailed cost-of-goods-sold (COGS) models for the four key technologies – mc-Si, TF-Si, CdTe and CIGS – through 2015, including both glass and flexible substrates for CIGS. Among the report’s key observations:
Multicrystalline silicon remains highly profitable as COGS decline. The dominant technology will continue to be profitable throughout the value chain as vertically integrated players drive cost from $1.45/W in 2009 to $0.93/W in 2015, assuming poly pricing at $70/kg. Efficiency will be a key driver of cost reduction, rising from 14.0% in 2009 to 16.1% in 2015.
Oerlikon will give thin-film silicon new legs. Improvements enabled by Oerlikon’s new ThinFab line will push thin-film silicon efficiencies from 9.0% to above 11.0%. Significant improvements in output will cut depreciated capex per watt, and help to reduce TF-Si costs from $1.32/W in 2009 to $0.80/W in 2015.
CdTe technology remains the long term leader in terms of COGS. Led by First Solar, CdTe has a significantly lower cost structure than mc-Si, and its cost reductions will march onward, keeping it
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244 |
Page 245 |
Page 246 |
Page 247 |
Page 248 |
Page 249 |
Page 250 |
Page 251 |
Page 252 |
Page 253 |
Page 254 |
Page 255 |
Page 256