The New Economy

SunPower Corp. solar panels at Nellis Air Force base in Las Vegas.

(Steve Marcus / Reuters)

Photos (1 of 3)

Who will survive the solar energy shakeout?

The recession is squeezing solar energy firms. These four could thrive.

By Margaret Price  |  Correspondent/ July 29, 2009 edition

John Stilwell / PA Wire / AP

Prince Charles examines a solar panel at Sharp Corp. in Tenri City, Japan.


Until the big chill, the solar energy was red-hot, tearing along with a decade-long growth rate that averaged 50 percent a year.

Then the global recession hit – and the fizzling of subsidies in Spain and a credit crunch – which squeezed financing for many solar projects. Production slowed at plants making panels that turned sun into electricity. Prices fell sharply.

So now, despite climate-change legislation in the United States and a push for cleaner energy worldwide, a global industry shakeout looms, many analysts predict. And not a small shudder. They anticipate an earthquake of consolidation likely to leave only strong competitors standing.

Currently, some 250 companies around the world make solar photovoltaic modules.

“In five years, there probably can be only a couple of dozen of them,” says Travis Bradford, president of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development in Chicago. “At most.”

Which companies will be the winners? The ones with deep pockets, cutting-edge technology, and a rigorous focus on cutting costs. They’ll need to be big enough to build a brand name and demonstrate staying power. As close observers explain, customers want to know that the solar-energy companies they buy from today will be around to honor their warranties in the future.

Although opinions differ on who the winners will be, four names keep popping up: First Solar Inc. and SunPower Corp., both based in the US; Sharp Corp., headquartered in Japan; and SunTech Power Holdings in China.

In their own way, these firms have already distinguished themselves in a crowded field. If they do emerge as winners, their host countries can probably bank on building networks of solar-energy related suppliers around them, analysts say.

Various kinds of solar technologies exist – from simple hot-water heaters for homes and pools to multiacre installations that can generate electricity on a utility scale. But it is photovoltaic (PV) technology, which turns sunlight directly into electricity, that’s the fastest-growing technology – and is already the largest component of the solar market in the US, according to the American Solar Energy Society, in Boulder, Colo.

Here’s a look at the four potential winners in the coming shakeout.

Leader in thin films

Within the PV industry, First Solar has been the model for how to succeed with innovation, many observers hold.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that First Solar offers the industry’s best quality management and the best quality product at the best relative value,” says Matthew Patsky, portfolio manager of Winslow Green Mutual Funds, in Boston.

Formed in 1999, the Tempe, Ariz., solar company burst onto the scene with a type of thin-film technology called cadmium telluride. Although less efficient than traditional silicon-based PV panels, thin-film modules cost substantially less to produce. Last year, First Solar had $1.2 billion of sales and a $348.3 million profit. (That 2008 profit level was more than double the prior year’s earnings.)

“Thin films came into production during the boom period in the industry’s growth, which allowed for higher-risk new technology. But First Solar was the only one to establish itself successfully during that boom,” says Ken Zweibel, director of the George Washington University Solar Institute in Washington, D.C.

While competition has been rising in the thin-film sector, First Solar has continued to sustain its leadership, analysts say. It “is the only company in the world that’s been able to produce solar modules at less than $1 per watt,” says Shyam Mehta, senior solar analyst at GTM Research, a market-research firm based in Cambridge, Mass. “And [it] is on its way to producing solar electricity at rates competitive with electricity from fossil fuels.”

First Solar has reported that in this year’s first quarter, its manufacturing cost had fallen to an industry-leading 93 cents per watt. All the while, it’s been enjoying eye-popping profit margins and is operating at full capacity.

Efficiency, efficiency

If First Solar can boast about cost, SunPower Corp. offers efficiency. Its products have the industry’s highest degree of “conversion efficiency,” meaning how much sunlight they convert into electricity. Incorporated in 1985, the San Jose, Calif., company claims its solar panels are up to 50 percent more efficient than conventional solar panels and 100 to 300 percent more efficient than thin-film modules. That means its installations require “substantially less room on a roof to get the same amount of electricity,” says Julie Blunden, SunPower’s vice president of public policy and corporate communications.

Starting next year, the company plans to offer a “Generation 3” solar cell with a 23.4 percent efficiency, reports GTM Research.

To be sure, the company did post a roughly $4.8 million net income loss on $214 million of sales in this year’s first quarter. That was a “tough” period “for everybody because prices came down so fast,” says Brion Tanous, solar energy industry analyst at Merriman Curhan Ford, an investment firm in San Francisco. However, he notes that the bulk of analysts expect SunPower to bounce back to profitability soon. (It was due to release its second-quarter results on July 23.)

“We have made commitments to our investors and customers that we would lower our cost of solar-system installation 50 percent between 2006 and 2012,” Ms. Blunden says. “By 2010, we’ll be two-thirds of the way” toward that goal.

A solar giant

Sharp Corp., based in Osaka, Japan, is relying on its size and experience to survive in the business long term. It began mass-producing solar cells 46 years ago, initially to electrify Japanese lighthouses. For most of this decade, it claimed to be the world’s biggest producer of crystalline silicon cells and, by 2007, to have produced 2 gigawatts’ worth (1 million kilowatts) of solar cells – one-quarter of the world’s total PV output.

Clearly, Sharp benefits from the overall corporation’s mega size.

“From its parent, it has an extraordinary amount of resources,” says Mr. Bradford of Prometheus. The electronics giant “can deploy engineers and process capital on a scale that none of the rest of these companies can.”

Expanding beyond more traditional solar offerings, Sharp is pushing aggressively into thin films. According to published reports, it aims to secure a bigger than 50 percent market share of this sector by 2012. Already, it has an annual production capacity of 160 megawatts of amorphous silicon-based thin-film panels and is scheduled to open a new 480-megawatt-per-year plant in Sakai City, Japan, next March.

A low-cost leader

Based in Wuxi, China, the $1.9 billion SunTech Power Holdings Co. Ltd. enjoys some indisputable advantages: a huge supply of low-cost labor and a supportive banking system. “Our real strength is our ability to deliver products at very low cost that are also very high quality,” says Steve Chadima, SunTech’s vice president for external affairs.

Founded in 2001, it has grown with lightning speed, it says, to become the “largest supplier of solar panels in the world” with 1 gigawatt of PV cells and module production capacity. Taking on the high-efficiency market, the company is steadily converting to the use of a new technology it calls Pluto. The technology allows solar panels to convert 19 percent of sunlight hitting its monocrystalline panels, and 17 percent of sunlight with the polycrystalline panels, into energy.

To be sure, SunTech has incurred substantial debt used to fund its rapid expansion. But observers believe that issue shouldn’t dim SunTech’s long-term prospects: Looking into the future, China’s domestic demand for solar energy is widely expected to surge. If so, SunTech could be well-positioned to capture market share in China.

( More stories )

Comments

1. Fuzzy-mathatic | 07.29.09

How can 2 GW = 1 million kW?

2. Think Again | 07.30.09

Think you got this way wrong:

1. The real solar sweet spot is utility scale photovoltaic/thermal hybrid generation.

2. There are much cheaper techs coming out - eg. paint-it-on solar using organic pigments.

3. There’s always money for energy. There are plenty of big utilities which are likely to buy some solar producers and use their tech. So no shortage of deep pockets for solar at this time.

I would think nano solar, technologies like coolearthsolar, and the ultra-cheap MIT solar concentrating dish.

3. Merrill Peterson | 07.30.09

First Solar’s heavy metal, cadmium technology is very dangerous. It’s just plain stupid to be introducing a toxic mining by-product into the environment. In a fire, a burning solar panel made with cadmium produces toxic fumes. It’s cheap to produce because the raw material is a waste product, like depleted uranium.

4. Joe Beach | 07.30.09

CdTe technology like what First Solar uses is actually the “greenest” photovoltaic technology we have. Its energy payback time is under 1 year. It removes more cadmium from the environment than any other technology by 1) turning a hazardous waste into a stable semiconductor, 2) encapsulating that stable semiconductor (CdTe) between two sheets of glass so it is isolated from the environment, and 3) displacing coal generation that releases heavy metals and greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

National laboratory studies have shown that CdTe panels do not pose any hazard in fires. The CdTe does not vaporize in normal fire temperatures, and the glass-on-glass encapsulation will melt and contain the CdTe even in extremely hot fires. This is in addition to the more practical consideration that structural fires release huge amounts of toxic compounds from burning asphalt shingles, carpets, and plastics that are vastly more plentiful and toxic than the CdTe in CdTe panels could ever be.

It has been observed that for humanity to survive, we must emulate natural systems in which there is no such thing as waste; everything is a feedstock for something else. CdTe photovoltaic technology is doing just that. We need zinc for a variety of products. When we mine zinc, we get cadmium as a byproduct. We can either leave that sitting in a leach field or turn it into CdTe to make clean electricity. The latter choice is obviously better. Furthermore, the selling price of all CdTe panels includes a fee that goes into an escrow account managed by a third party that will take back the panel and recycle it at the end of its service life, so the end-of-life CdTe panels end up becoming new CdTe panels. No other photovoltaic product has this high level of environmental responsibility.

5. Kingzrule | 07.31.09

Unfortunatley, from an investment standpoint, these companies are all apparently overpriced. The PE ratios are sky high. Speculation is rampant. And in a field of 250 players, it is a long, long bet that any of the four companies named would be a god buy.

6. R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. | 07.31.09

These articles lack substance. They speak to a subset of costs, and a subset of performance parameters. None address total cost, over time, “at the buss bar”. None address guaranteed capacity, and availability factors.

In the real world, dust, frost, ice, snow, and age, will, in general, degrade performance. In the real world, if you do not perform, you are penalized. So real world proponents are disciplined to tell the whole truth to their purchaser, typically a grid broker or utility, via a contract. What are the real world costs, installed, with power conditioning and dispatching control? What are guaranteed efficiencies, and performance parameters. at one day, one year, ten years, and twenty years? Who pays when the sun doesn’t shine? Are these dispatched peakers? In US regions, where the solar energy is highest, these are areas subject to high winds. What is the design wind speeds, where performance is unchanged, and the maximum survivable speed, considering storm borne debris missiles? What does a sand storm do to these installations? Temporarily? Permanently?

There is no question that solar energy will find a market, but until these parameters are known with certainty, there will be real world barriers.

7. How To Build Solar Panels | 08.06.09

Hi,

I Think you might be intrested in reading my review on how to build solar panels at: http://www.TedBayers.com :)
Regards,

Ted Bayers

8. Anco Blazev | 08.22.09

NREL Report: Very limited data exist on CdTe toxicology, and no
comparisons with the element Cd have been made [1]. However, CdTe is a more stable and less soluble compound than Cd and, therefore, is probably less toxic than Cd.
NOTE: The scientific report / study concludes that CdTe is “probably” less toxic than Cd. What does this tell you?

NREL Report: A reasonable average amount (of CdTe) would be about 7 g/m2 Cd in CdTe modules.
NOTE: 10MW solar field recently installed in Nevada consists of 197,000 CdTe TFPV modules. 7 grams of CdTe in each module = approx. 2100 lbs. CdTe spread over 80 acres area. What if…?

CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics: CdTe is soluble in water and mild acids.
NOTE: And rain and floods consist of what…?

Wikipedia: Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) are nominating Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) for inclusion in the National Toxicology Program (NTP). This nomination is strongly supported by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and First Solar Inc. The material has the potential for widespread applications in photovoltaic energy generation that will involve extensive human interfaces. Hence, we consider that a definitive toxicological study of the effects of long-term exposure to CdTe is a necessity.
NOTE: BNL recommends “a definitive toxicological study” of this untested and unproven toxic material, but it is already in mass production so what now? Oh yea, this is only the short term, so let’s make some money while we can. We’ll worry about the long term later.

Does this reminds you of something? Asbestos safely in the walls, maybe? Or lead pipes cleanly feeding our kitchen sinks? Yes, our fathers and grandfathers were very cleaver and made lots of money doing this, but we ended up cleaning their mess. Now is our children’s turn to clean our mess. Fair, no?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Leave a Comment

  By clicking "Submit Comment", you agree to our Terms of Service.

We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.

Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.

Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.

Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.