Thin‐film PV –

Current situation and potential in the US

Thin‐film Industry Forum 2012

Berlin, Germany

1
 Renewable Analytics, LLC

Independent Research

 Renewable Energy
 Energy Storage
 Supply Chain Analysis
 Regulatory Environment

Industry Consulting

 Mergers & Acquisitions

 Market Valuation
 Due Diligence
 Procurement Consulting

2
 Overview
 Current situation

o Technologies and companies in the US

 Challenges

o VC funding
o Competitive landscape (c‐si)

 Markets

o Utility
o Commercial
o Residential

 Outlook

3
 Technologies & Thin‐film companies in the US
CdTe CIGS a‐Si/ μ‐Si

‐ Abound Solar ‐ MiaSole ‐ Mitsubishi

‐ Encore Solar ‐ Stion ‐ Kaneka
‐ SoloPower ‐ Heliovolt ‐ Schott
‐ PrimeStar Solar (GE) ‐ Solibro (Q‐Cells) ‐ Bosch
‐ Calyxo ‐ Nuvosun ‐…
‐… ‐ Nanosolar
‐ Avancis
‐ Ascent Solar
‐…
 Every technology has one established large scale manufacturer
 Competitors fight to gain market share and bring down costs despite
small scale.

4
3 established manufacturers selling in the US

 Largest CdTe Thin‐film manufacturer (2.4 GW capacity)

 Own utility scale projects development pipeline

 Largest CIS Thin‐film manufacturer (1 GW capacity in Japan)

 150 MW agreement with enXco for projects in California

 1 GW manufacturing capacity
 Tandem structure Amorphous Silicon/ Microcrystalline Silicon

5
 Silicon Valley

 CIGS modules
 2011: 100 MW capacity and 60MW production in the Silicon Valley
 CapEx below $0.5/W
 Over 55 MW installed worldwide (5 kW ‐ 11.1 MW)
 Average 13.5% efficiency in 1Q12 production and 17.3% in lab
 Total VC funding of $350m

 CdTe modules
 65MW manufacturing capacity in Colorado
 $260m from private investors; $400m loan guarantee from US DOE
 10.5% efficiency in production (12.5% target by YE12)
 $260m from private investors and $400m DOE loan guarantee

6
 Global VC funding 2011
700 25
Source: Mercom Capital Group
600
20
500 20

17 15
400
Number of deals in
$m
300 13 2011
10
10
200
5 Funding ($m)
100
338 595,5 129 308
Number of deals
0 0
c‐si Thin‐film CPV CSP (thermal)

 CIGS accounted for $467m of total $596m invested in thin‐film PV (2011)

 Including three major US CIGS deals:

7
 Bankruptcies

 February 2012 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

 Continues operation
 ECD intends to sell Uni‐Solar as an operating business

 August 2011 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

 Solyndra raised first financing when c‐si was >$3.50/W

Reasons
 c‐Si price decrease
 Global oversupply
 Decline in credit markets

8
 c‐Si as primary competition
Conversion efficiencies 2010 ‐ 2012
Crystalline silicon 22,00%

 High conversion efficiency in mass 20,00%

production
YGE mono
 Proven supply chain 18,00%
YGE multi
 Demonstrated reliability 16,00%
 Bankable manufacturers FSLR
14,00%
 Well understood material processes MiaSole
and technology 12,00%

10,00%
Thin‐film
8,00%
 Low production cost 2010 2011 2012E

 Higher installation cost (labor, space, mounting systems, BOS)

 Low conversion efficiency in production
 Better suited for shaded areas and hot climates
 Currently only three manufacturers with scale

9
 Pricing per Watt
 Two decisive factors for customers

o $/kWp cost of the installed system

o $/kWh cost of electricity generated

 C‐si has set aggressive price benchmarks

3,00
Average price (2009 – today)
2,50

2,00

Chinese Tier 1 Average

EUR/W 1,50
TF incl. BOS penalty

1,00

0,50

0,00
2009 2010 2011 2012

10
 US thin‐film markets
1) Utility
Thin film market share 2012 vs 2015
70%
60%
2) Commercial 60%

50%
40%
40%
% of total 30% 2012
3) Residential 30% 2015

20%
10% 10%
10% 5%

0%
Residential Commercial Utility

11
 Utility
 First Solar has a large share in the US Utility Scale PV Market

CA Utility Scale PV, est. in GW

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Total 0.25 1.2 1.8‐2 2.5‐4 3‐5
First Solar 0.2 0.85 1.1‐1.3 1.5‐2 1.8‐2.2
% Market Share 80% 71% 63% 53% 50%

290 MWp Agua Caliente Project

 The future of thin‐film in utility installations will depend on

 owner of the project pipeline
 cost per kWh produced under PPAs with utilities.

12
 Commercial
 The market share of thin‐film commercial applications is small (currently)

Potential

 Irradiation Los Angeles County 1,800 kWh/kWp

 Comm. Electric Rate (Southern Cal. Edison) $0.14/kWh

 Light weight solutions could lead to further adoption in the commercial market

13
 Residential
 Residential roofs are mostly tilted and weight is not an issue in most cases.

 Cost will be the crucial factor when comparing to c‐Si.

 In the US as in Europe the residential market share of thin film PV will remain in
the single digit % range in the near future.

Source: Solopower

14
 Module Type distribution in North America –
excluding utility scale project developers
100% 2% 3% 4% 2% 1%
2% 1%
4% 6% 6% 7% 7% 2%
5% 4% 1%
8% 1%
90% 4% 8% 9% 5%
3% 2%
19% 6% 19% Korean Crystalline
80% 38%
43% 39%
20% 25% 42% Copper Indium Selenide (CIS, including
2%
1%
70% 8% 2% 29% 39% CIGS)
3% US Based Crystalline
60% 2%
1% 1%
1% 3%
46% 2% Amorphous Silicon [based on Applied
19% 3% 3%
50% 35% Materials or Oerlikon Tools]
45% 3%
Cadmium Telluride (Cd‐Te)
40% 39%
39% 33%
20% 42% 37% Chinese/Taiwan Tier 2
30%
12% 37% 44%
11% Chinese/Taiwan Tier 1
20% 5%
3% 5% 6%
4% Japanese Crystalline
10% 22% 20% 21% 19% 1%
15% 1% 14% 15%
11% 2% 9% EU Crystalline Brand Name
6% 3%
0%

 North American residential/ commercial switched from TF to c‐si since 4Q11 due
to falling prices for crystalline modules.

15
 Outlook
 Utility scale projects will dominate for the next 2‐3 years.

 Commercial rooftop market can become a major market on roofs where

crystalline modules can’t be installed.

 Cost decreases of c‐si modules will be a barrier for residential markets in

the short‐medium term.

 On size constrained roof‐tops TF will have a harder stand against c‐si.

 Not widely adopted quality control assurance in the US might be a

problem for thin‐film companies in the future and lead to warranty claims
(FSLR might handle, small silicon valley companies probably not).

16
 Contact

Dirk Morbitzer
Managing Director
Direct: +1 415 692 7576
Mobile: +1 415 324 9667
dirk.morbitzer@renewableanalytics.com

17
 Bankability

 Bankability is crucial for commercial/industrial scale projects to secure financing

 Bankability primarily affected by two factors

1. Historical data on performance reliability

2. Financial strength to replace the modules/ honor warranties

 Companies with < 50 MW in the field face difficulties securing financing at same
rates as bankable crystalline modules.

 No long term data on energy output

 No balance sheet to sustain warranty claims

18