Category Solar Stocks

Rising inventory levels of photovoltaic (PV) panels and new production capacity coming online is driving solar PV prices lower and thereby, bringing solar energy closer to grid price parity. With the release of the latest earnings of solar energy companies, Wall Street’s keen attention to revenue guidance, inventory levels and pricing are paramount in diagnosing the health of the solar energy industry. Expectations call consolidation of the solar industry with some key players gaining market share and for others it becomes more challenging. However, despite the turbulence in the industry, consumers will benefit in the near-term as solar PV prices fall and government incentive fuel growth in solar PV deployment.

To get a better perspective on the solar PV industry, let’s examine inventory levels for some of the leading solar PV suppliers. The following chart, Figure 1, compares inventory levels in relationship to sales volume. While inventory levels have increased, the level of inventories to sales is not egregious

Figure 1 Sales and Inventory levels

While it is important to control inventory levels in relationship to sales, revenue growth is predicated upon price, performance, and return on investment for prospective customers. Thin-film PV has emerged as the low-cost solar solution even with its lower efficiency levels in comparison to mono-and poly-crystalline PV panels. Thin-film still offers a lower cost/watt than crystalline PV, see Solar Shootout in the San Joaquin Valley , but prices for crystalline PV are falling as a result of rising production capacity and inventory levels.

Figure 2 Market Value

In Figure 2 Green Econometrics is comparing the market value of some of the leading PV suppliers as measured by their respective stock prices. In the valuation of solar PV suppliers, the stock market appears to be betting heavily on thin-film PV, as First Solar (FSLR), the leading thin-film PV supplier, enjoys a market value that accounts for over half the value of the entire solar industry. FSLR is positioned as the low-cost supplier in the solar industry with its announcement of $1 per Watt reducing its production cost for solar modules to 98 cents per watt, thereby braking the $1 per watt price barrier. However, new panel suppliers, mainly from China are pushing prices lower for poly-and mono-crystalline panels suppliers. ReneSolar (SOL) is seeing average selling prices for wafers at $0.93 per watt and bring PV panels prices to under $2.00 per watt.

There appears to be a lot riding on the success of thin-film PV and as prices fall for crystalline PV, the closer we get to grid parity. In the following chart, Figure 3, price for crystalline PV have declined quite dramatically in the last 30 years. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 1956 solar PV panels were $300 per watt, and in 1980, the average cost per solar modules was $27/watt and has fallen precipitously to approximately $2/watt in October 2009. As the installed cost of solar PV falls closer to $4/watt, pricing per kilowatt-hour (KWH) (depending on your climate and geography), equates to approximately $0.16/KWH that would be inline with utility rates after rates caps are removed.

Figure 3 Solar PV Prices

The bottom line is that despite the lower PV panel costs; we are still not at parity with hydrocarbon fuels such as coal and oil. Carbon based taxes or renewable energy incentives as well as more investment into alternative energy should improve the economics of solar and wind and bring us to grid parity.

Last month First Solar (FSLR) achieved a milestone in the solar industry with its announcement of $1 per Watt reducing its production cost for solar modules to 98 cents per watt, thereby braking the $1 per watt price barrier.. While the achievement is great news for the solar industry some studies suggest more work is needed. An article in Popular Mechanics $1 per Watt talks of university studies questioning the scalability of solar given the immense global needs for energy. Last year our post included an article Solar Energy Limits – Possible Constraints in Tellurium Production? discussing possible limits on tellurium production on thin film solar photovoltaic (PV) suppliers.

In addition, Barron’s published an article (March 30, 2009)_ Nightfall Comes to Solar Land providing unique insight into the economics of solar PV suppliers. High oil prices and soaring stock prices on solar PV companies fueled silicon suppliers to ramp production capacity that has now transitioned, according to the Barron’s article, into an over supply of polysilicon used in the production of PV panels and subsequently, eroding the cost advantage established by thin film PV companies such as First Solar and Energy Conversion Devices (ENER) over polysilicon PV firms such as SunPower (SPWRA).

However, the PV panels typically represent approximately half the cost of a solar energy system. The following figure, Solar Installation Costs compares the total cost of installing a solar energy system which includes labor and supporting matertials.

Figure 1 Solar Installation Costs

As illustrated in Figure 1, the panels represent a significant cost of installation, but the labor and support brackets for the PV panels are significant as well. While thin film PV enjoys significantly lower panel costs and is easier to install, the supporting brackets are sometimes more expensive. As prices for silicon fall, the cost disparity between thin film and silicon PV will narrow.

Figure 2 Solar Energy Economics

In Figure 2 Green Econometrics is comparing PV efficiency as measured by watts per square meter versus cost per watt. The selected companies represent a small portion of the global PV suppliers, but do illustrate the position of the leading US suppliers. The ideal model is to lower cost per watt while improving PV efficiency. But be cognizant that PV module cost per watt may not be indicative of the total system costs.

A comparison of wind and solar energy costs is demonstrated by Detronics and offers a useful framework to compare wind and solar costs by kilowatt-hour (KWH). As a caveat, wind and solar resources will vary dramatically by location. In the Detronics example, the costs per KWH represent the production over one year and both wind and solar have 20-year life spans. Over twenty years the 1,000-watt wind systems cost per KWH of $7.35 would average approximately $0.36 per KWH and the 750-watt solar systems cost of $10.68 would amount about $0.53 per KWH over the investment period.

Figure 3 Alternative Energy Pricing

The Alternative Energy Pricing chart was base on research from Solarbuzz which is one of the leading research firms in solar energy. The cost per KWH that Solarbuzz provides is a global average. Even with cost per watt falling below $1.00, the system costs after installation are closer to $5.00 according to Abound Solar (formerly known as AVA Solar) and is still higher than parity with grid with a cost of $0.21 per KWH.

The bottom line is that despite the lower PV panel costs; we are still not at parity with hydrocarbon fuels such as coal and oil. Carbon based taxing or alternative energy stimulus and more investment into alternative energy is required to improve the economics of solar and wind.

Solar energy is gaining considerable attention from Wall Street and countries looking to achieve energy independence. Solar energy represents one of the most significant energy solutions to help eradicate our addiction to oil. Despite the tremendous success offered with solar photovoltaic (PV), more research is required to sustain further deployment and achieve energy independence. Some semiconductor materials used to develop photovoltaic devices are scarce and may limit PV from achieving mass penetration. Let’s review the current solar PV market to better understand the dynamics of this market.

Figure 1 PV Production by Year

Figure 1 demonstrates the rapid market growth of solar PV and Solarbuzz is astute to point out some critical data points: cumulative PV deployment is still less than 1% of global electric usage, PV industry faces capacity constraints, and Germany and Spain account for 47% and 23% of total PV deployment in 2007. With the significant growth in both the production and deployment of solar PV devices, the stock price of some of the leading PV suppliers have appreciated dramatically even despite a recent pull back in the beginning of the year.

Figure 2 PV Production of Leading Suppliers

Despite the turbulence on Wall Street in 2008 with the NASDAQ down 14% year-to-date, and Dow Jones Industrial Average down 7.3% YTD, investor appetite for clean technology stocks remains robust. First Solar (FSLR), a leading supplier of thin film solar PV remains in positive territory and is up nearly ten-fold from its IPO in November 2006. Thin film PV offers a cost advantage over traditional crystalline PV cells. PV devices employ various elements with different band gap properties to achieve improving solar efficiencies. (See our post on semiconductor band gaps: What’s Pushing Solar Energy Efficiency?, October 1st, 2007)

Figure 3 Market Capitalization Solar PV Suppliers

There are several elements used in thin film PV production. Among the elements used include cadmium and tellurium (CdTe), copper, indium, and selenium, (CuInSe), and copper, indium, gallium, and selenium (CIGS). These various elements are used to improve operating efficiencies and lower production costs of PV devices. In general, crystalline PV devices have higher solar efficiencies, but cost more due to their material thickness of 200-to-300 microns. Whereas, thin film PV are usually about 3 microns deep offering significantly lower production costs. However, SunPower (SPWR) the leading polycrystalline silicon PV supplier offers the highest solar efficiency a rating of 22.7% that started shipping in 2007.

Figure 4 FSLR and SPWR Solar PV Production

FSLR and SPWR are the two leading PV players as measured by Wall Street in terms of market valuation. The cost-efficiency tradeoff between these two PV suppliers offers an interesting framework to evaluate the solar PV market.

Figure 5 PV Cost-Efficiency

The stock market appears to be betting on FSLR given its market capitalization of $22 billion and trading at 43 times 2007 revenues of $504 million. FSLR employs CdTe in its solar modules. In several postings on Seeking Alpha starting back in November 2007, Anthony and Garcia de Alba have provided valuable insight into material constraints in the production of PV devices.

Tellurium is a rare metalloid element that is used in producing semiconductor materials because it does not conduct electricity. Tellurium is recovered as a by-product in refining and processing of gold and copper as well as other ores. Tellurium was primarily used to create metal alloys that enable easier machining of end products.

Because of its unique properties, Tellurium and cadmium (CdTe) have been used in thin film PV production since the 1980’s. According to a comprehensive study by Fthenakis and earlier work by Moskowitz “The Life Cycle Impact Analysis of Cadmium in CdTe PV Production”, CdTe is deposited on a thin film substrate using electrodeposition, chemical surface deposition, and vapor transport deposition. FSLR reports in their 10K that they employ a proprietary vapor transport deposition process for CdTe PV production.

A thin film of CdTe is deposited on a substrate at a thickness of 3 microns. According to the Fthenakis and Moskowitz, back in the 1980’s, a 10 megawatt (MW) PV facility employing vapor transport deposition of CdTe uses 3,720 kilograms (kg) of CdTe to achieve a10% efficiency at 3 microns. A one-one bond of CdTe with an atomic weight of Cd at 112.41 and Te at 127.60 suggests Te comprises 53% of the weigh of CdTe. With 3,720 kg of CdTe used at 10MW, the amount of Tellurium used is estimated at 1,978 kg or 197.8 kg/MW.

The electrodeposition CdTe process using a mixture of cadmium sulfate and tellurium dioxide used 880 kg of tellurium dioxide, which amounts to approximately 696.8 kg of Te for 10 MW PV productions. The electrodeposition CdTe process would equate to about 69.7 kg of Te per MW. For a 100 MW PV production approximately 7 tons of Te are consumed.

One would assume the PV production process would improve significantly from the 1980’s and the amount of Te consume would decline with improving efficiencies. This would suggest that FLSR at 200 MW PV capacity in 2007 would consume somewhere between 14 and 38 metric tons of tellurium. This figure is significantly higher than the estimates derived from the FSLR tellurium posts on Seeking Alpha that are closer to10 tons per 100 MW (100 kg/MW).

Figure 6 Te Production

Let’s proceed with the conservative figure of 100 kg/MW (10 tons at 100 MW) to assess the tellurium constraints. Tellurium production is a by-product of gold, copper and other ores. We have found Te production estimates ranging from 132 metric tons (MT) to 300 MT per annum. In a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report Assessment of Critical Thin Film Resources in 1999 estimated Te production between 200 and 300 metric tons per year in 1997 and indicated under utilization of capacity for the production of tellurium.

Let’s compare our conservative estimate of 100kg/MW Te usage for FSLR to the optimistic production forecast of 300 MT to evaluate capacity constraints for FSLR. With 300 MT (300,000 kg) global Te production and FSLR using 80% of the Te production, capacity of PV tops out at 2,400 MW (2.4 GW).

The U.S. electric energy usage in 2006 was 4,059.91 billion kilowatt hours (KWH) which translates into 463,460 MW (divide 4060 by 365 days x 24 hours). So without significant investment into research and development for PV FSLR could be constrained at 2,400 MW representing only 0.5% of the U.S. electric usage in 2004. Further more, if FSLR were to be constrained at 2.4 GW annual production, revenues ($2.60 per watt Q4/07) would peak at approximately $6.24 billion, a price-to-sales multiple of 3.4x with its market capitalization of $22 billion.

However, in comparison to leading companies in energy, pharmaceuticals, technology and finance, FSLR’s market capitalization is relatively small. Perhaps with improving production processes, FSLR could reduce the amount of Te per panel and improving mining and metal refinement process could increase Te production to expand the market for CdTe thin film PV devices.

Figure 7 Market Capitalization of Leading Companies

The bottom line is that more research and investment into alternative energies is required to ameliorate the world from being held hostage to oil and hydrocarbon fuels that are directly linked to rising CO2 levels and climate change.

Improving economics and high market valuations should help drive research for alternative energy. With the release of Q3/07 financials, it’s clear that the economics of solar photovoltaic (PV) suppliers is improving. Some of the leading pure play publicly traded PV stocks are demonstrating significant improvements in financial performance that should drive further investment into solar and green technology. The improving economics of solar should continue to drive further investment into alternative energy companies as venture capital firms and Wall Street find that alternative energy is a significant secular trend with sustainable economic foundation.

Most visible among the solar PV suppliers is First Solar (FSLR) with y/y revenue growth for Q3/07 increasing 290% and gross margins exceeding 50% and operating margins above 30%. FSLR’s management was clear in articulating that these strong Q3 numbers reflect ramping on of its German manufacturing facility and would not be sustainable. However, with gross margins exceeding 50% and operating margins above 30% Wall Street takes notice and rewards the firm with valuation multiple envious of leading technology companies such as Google (GOOG) and Cisco Systems (CSCO).

Figure 1 Revenues, Margins, and Capacity

The stronger financial performance of solar PV suppliers is significant because it improves the viability of the solar PV business model thereby attracting more investors and in turn drives funding for alternative energy start up companies. FSLR went public in November 2006 with a closing price of $24.74 on its first day. With a closing price one year later of $212.63, FSLR offers investors a yearly return of 759%. The attractive return generated by solar stocks tends to attract more investors and drives market valuations higher thus feeding the flow of additional venture capital funding.

In terms of market valuation FSLR trades at a significant premium to most companies in the S&P 500 as well as leading technology companies including GOOG and CSCO. . Most solar PV companies trade at higher market valuation multiples than CSCO and GOOG. Both FSLR and Sun Power (SPWR) trade at premium price-to-sales (P/S) and price/earnings-to-growth (PEG) multiples in comparison to some leading technology stocks. In terms of PEG ratios, FSLR and SPWR trade at 2.9x and 2.2x respectively while CSCO and GOOG trade at 1.3x and 1.2X, respectively. In comparison, the S&P 500 index trades at a PEG of 0.8x while the technology and energy segments trade at 0.6x and 2.2x, respectively. These high market valuations prove the venture capital community with high exit values on their current crop of alternative energy investments. Please see Figure 2.

It is this premium market valuation multiple that suggests the importance of alternative energy. Wall Street tends to be a leading indicator and keen in its ability to identify secular trends. Major trends command premium valuations and reward venture capital with attractive exist strategies. Wall Street rewards cash flow growth fueling further venture capital funding that in turn, fuels the flow of intellectual and financial capital. The value migration measured by price-to-sales multiples and illustrated by A. Slywotsky in his book Value Migration provide a framework to gauge the significance of trend towards alternative energies. Capital gravitates to the business model that creates economic value and is measured by a stock’s price-to-sale ratio. By that measure solar stocks is where the value is headed.

Figure 2 Price-to-Sales Ratio

The bottom line is that high market valuations attract research funding and brain power. Rising oil prices, rapid industry growth, and high public market valuations of solar PV companies, should act to attract further venture capital funding of alternative energy companies. Increased solar funding should translate into increased research and talent migration that could improve solar efficiency and reduce costs that in turn could bring solar to electric grid parity.

With the Solar Decathlon is taking place in Washington DC today promoting commercially available solar energy technology and oil prices pushing to an all time high of $84/barrel, where are we in terms of cost parity with hydrocarbon fuels. Advances in solar energy technology, lower production costs, and rapidly rising oil costs could bring solar energy into parity with hydrocarbon fuels within five years.

The cost of solar energy remains prohibitively high at about $0.45 per kilowatt-hour (KWH) for an installed system. (a kilowatt-hour equals a 100-watt light in operations for 10 hours and equals 3,412.14 British Thermal Units – BTU) As a reminder, there is significant variance in cost per KWH ($0.23-to-$0.68) because a solar energy system is dependent upon daily available sunlight, which varies from about two hours a day in Alaska to almost six hours in Arizona. Solar energy costs are based on data from solar photovoltaic (PV) supplies SunPower (SPWR) and Sharp Solar.

In comparison to hydrocarbon fuels, one gallon of gasoline has an energy value equal to approximately 125,000 BTUs and cost around $3.00/gallon. The energy value of a gallon of gasoline equates to 36.6 KWH, therefore its price is about $0.08 per KWH. So there is significant disparity between gasoline at $0.08/KWH and solar energy at $0.45.

Fortunately, there are a number of initiatives seeking to improve the economics of solar energy. When we measure the cost of solar energy in dollars per watt we find a complete solar energy systems cost around $8.90/watt. (If we amortize the $8.90/watt over a twenty year expected life of a solar energy system, it amounts to $0.45/KWH) To improve the economic value of solar energy we can lower production costs and/or improve solar efficiency in terms of raising the KWH of electric produced per solar panel.

From the Lewis Group. at Caltech, we learned about several technological approaches to improving solar energy efficiency. Among some of the leading solar technologies are multi-junction semiconductor cells and solar concentrators. In a multi-junction cell, individual cells are made of layers, where each layer captures part of the sunlight passing through the cell. One of the key limits to solar efficiency are the semiconductor band gaps where excess solar energy is lost to heat instead of being converted to electric. Solar concentrators amplify available sunlight and increase the watts per square meter per solar panel.

Last year the Department of Energy reported that solar energy achieved a new record in efficiency performance. The news release, New World Record Achieved in Solar Cell Technology. suggesting that solar concentrators and multi-junction PV cells could surpass the Shockley-Queisser single-junction solar efficiency limit of approximately 31% for single layer solar cell. The multi-junction, concentrator solar cell produced by Boeing-Spectrolab (a Boeing company BA) achieved a world-record conversion efficiency of 40.7% in lab experiments while commercial products operate at 26.5%-to-28.3% efficiency range.

The DOE believes breakthroughs in solar efficiency such as these may lead to systems with an installation cost of only $3 per watt, which translates into a cost of $0.15/KWH. In addition, solar PV cell suppliers are diligently working to reduce production costs. SunPower is targeting a 23% solar efficiency as a goal to reduce its solar energy system cost by 50% by 2012. Semiconductor solar cells benefit from economies of scale, which could reduce cost by 20% for each doubling of production. These solar initiatives should act to reduce solar energy costs.

Meanwhile, as energy costs rise with oil at $84/barrel, the cost of gasoline is expected to increase. If gasoline at the local filling station rises to $6.00/gallon, its cost in KWH jumps to $0.16/KWH. At that price gasoline would be above those achievable through solar energy advancements of $0.15/KWH.

Figure 1 Photovoltaic Device: Efficiency/Cost

With pricing on PV cells falling below $3.00/watt (or $0.15/ kilowatt-hour), solar energy will be close to parity with conventional hydrocarbons. If the cost of gasoline rises to $6.00 a gallon, it would cost $0.16/KWH while current cost of electric is about $0.11/KWH because of the low cost of coal. The bottom line is innovative research initiatives have the potential to deliver disruptive technologies that significantly changes the economics of delivering an energy solutions to all nations.

Further review:
Please see research at California Institute of Technology’s division of Chemical and Chemical Engineering at The Lewis Group.
Imperial College, Jenny Nelson’s Third generation Solar Cells.
DOE’s National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) Third Generation Solar Photon Conversion (Exceeding the 32% Shockley(Exceeding the 32% Shockley—Queisser Limit)
Solar Energy Market Data Solarbuzz

With rising energy prices and growing concern over global warming, will advances in solar and alternative energies enable the development of affordable and efficient energy solutions. Caltech research on the energy conversion process may offer some insight.

Energy conversion, ways of converting sunlight to electric and chemical energy, offers promising advancements to make solar and hydrogen energies more practical and affordable. On the forefront of energy conversion research, the framework of developing disruptive energy technologies, is The Lewis Group, that is part of the California Institute of Technology’s division of Chemical and Chemical Engineering. The Lewis Group is working in several research areas some geared towards to better understanding of energy capture, conversion of light into electrical and chemical energy, and energy storage. These research projects include photo-electrochemical, which focuses on the chemistry of semiconductors and materials, surface modification of semiconductors to improve electrical properties, and nanocrystalline titanium dioxide that could potentially lead to significantly lower cost for converting sunlight to electrical energy. The Lewis Group research projects are much more than improving photovoltaic devices; they are also exploring ways to convert sunlight into stored fuel energy.

While we are providing a brief and very oversimplified view of the solar energy research, it is important to understand the dynamics of energy conversion because the conversion process impacts the efficiency and the production cost of photovoltaic (PV) devices and fuels cells. The Lewis Group has an interesting PowerPoint presentation available for download providing an overview of energy from consequences of CO2 emissions to the latest in new technologies to improve alternative energies. Of particular interest are the historical efficiency trends for various materials used in crystalline and thin-film solar cells, energy conversion strategies of turning light to fuel and electric, and the cost/efficiency tradeoff in photovoltaic devices.

Cost/Efficiency Tradeoff
Photovoltaic devices are limited in their practical efficiencies governed by the thermodynamic limits and production costs that involve tradeoffs in materials, production processes, and PV device packaging. The Lewis Group provides a thorough illustration of the efficiency trends for various PV devices materials such as crystalline silicon used in semiconductors as well as the new approaches to thin film PV including amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride (CdTe), copper indium deselenide (CIS) and copper indium gallium deselenide materials (CIGS). These thin film material could offer substantial PV devices price reductions as a result of higher efficiency or lower production costs.

Figure 1 Cost/Efficiency Tradeoff

There is a tradeoff between improving the efficiency of a PV device, that is the amount of electric energy per solar panel, and the cost to produce the PV device. The average efficiency for a PV device is between 15%-to-16% and the average cost between $100-to-$350 a square meter. The cost per square meter and PV efficiency measured in watts per square meter can equate to a cost per watt, which ranges from $1.25/watt to $2.00/watt. SunPower (SPWR), offers the leading PV single junction device efficiency of 22% employing crystalline silicon and is expected to reach 500 megawatts (MW) production capacity by late 2009 from 330 MW in 2007. First Solar (FSLR) is ramping its thin film cadmium telluride (CdTe) solar technology by leveraging its low cost advantage with high volume production with its 75 MW in operations Ohio and 100 MW coming online in Germany. Startup Nanosolar is focusing on thin film solar PVs with a blend of copper indium gallium deselenide (CIGS) materials along with a manufacturing process much like printing, by placing the material blend upon metal foil. Evergreen Solar (ESLR) employs an integrated manufacturing process from wafers to cells and panels based on its proprietary String Ribbon Wafer technology with production levels at 118 MW in 2007.

There is presently a practical limit to solar efficiencies of approximately 30% and a thermodynamic limit of about 83%. The Shockley-Queisser limit at 30% for single junction solar cell efficiency is a function photon absorption in a material. “Detailed Balance Limit of Efficiency of p-n Junction Solar Cells” (W Shockley and HJ Queisser, Journal of Applied Physics, 1961) found that photons delivering excitation energy above a threshold (the band gap) for charge carrier electrons is lost to heating, meaning excess photon energy generates heat and not electric current. Photons with energy levels below the band gap pass through the material and photons above the threshold are absorbed. The absorbed photons transfer their energy to excite the electrons in the material and create pairs of negative electrons and positive charges that, because of their repulsion, travel to opposite ends thereby generating electric current.

According to the Lewis Group, other factors that limit PV cell efficiency include reflective loss of approximately10% for a material like silicon and a fill factor constraint that peaks at 83%. The fill factor restraint is attributable to the current-voltage characteristics of a PV cell that deals with matching the photocurrent density and voltage.

NREL (DOE lab) and Spectrolab (a Boeing company BA) using a multijunction semiconductor approach along with solar concentrators have achieved solar cell efficiencies of 40.7% in lab experiments while commercial products operate at 26.5%-to-28.3% efficiency range. Solar cell suppliers could reduce costs through production improvements or improve PV efficiencies without adding to costs. PV cell suppliers should benefit from economies of scale to reduce production costs while advances in technology improve PV efficiencies.

Research conducted by the Lewis Group at Caltech indicates that materials selected for PV devices have unique properties in their ability to absorb sunlight and generate electricity. In their analysis of semiconductor materials, the Lewis Group research found two parameters, determined by the physical properties of the material, that influence the PV’s efficiency. One is the thickness of the material, measured in microns, required to absorb enough sunlight to bring particular atoms in the material to an excited state, thereby freeing the electron to generate an electric current. The second parameter in the PV material is length of time the excited electrons last before recombining to generate heat instead of electric. Some materials such as silicon require material thickness of 100 microns while gallium arsenide (GaAs) only 1-to-3 microns.

Energy Conversion
Conversion of energy into electric or fuel is advancing through research in photoelectrochemical materials for solid and liquid fuels. Improvements in efficiencies for PV devices and fuel cells offer tremendous potential for transportation and home electric use.

Figure 2 Efficiency of Photovoltaic Devices

From figure 2, it seams quite apparent that PV efficiency has improved substantially since the 1950’s. Please see the Department of Energy (DOE) Basic Research Needs for Solar Energy Utilization for detailed analysis of solar energy. Further progress in PV and fuel cell technologies is predicated upon successful funding of further research. The bottom line is that only through innovative research will a truly disruptive technology be developed that has the ability of changing the economics to deliver an energy solutions to all nations.

There is considerable variance in calculating the cost of solar energy. Using U.S. Solar Radiation Resource Maps from the National Solar Radiation Data BaseThe (NSRDB) we found the amount of kilowatt-hours (KWH) per days of solar radiation per square-meter varies from less than two for Northern Alaska to six KWH/m2 per day for parts of Arizona. Using these maps we found that the cost of solar varies from $0.23-to-$0.68 per KWH with a mean of approximately $0.45 per KWH. The cost of $0.23 per KWH equates to Arizona and $0.68 per KWH reflects the cost of the lower solar radiation in Anchorage, Alaska. These cost are based on data from solar photovoltaic (PV) supplies before tax benefits or rebates. Please see SunPower (SPWR) and Sharp Solar.

Green Econometrics provided a normalized solar energy cost per KWH of $0.38-to-$0.57 with a mean cost of $0.45 as reference for what most of the U.S. would expect for solar energy. We have referred to the Lewis Group at Caltech which has provided estimates of $0.25-to-$0.50 per KWH for the cost of electric production from solar with a mean of $0.38 per KWH. According to Solarbuzz the average price of solar electric is approximately $0.38 per KWH. The Solarbuzz index is based upon an average of 5.5 hours of sunshine per day over a year, which relates to locations such as the US Sunbelt, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, India and Australia. With large U.S. populations still residing in the North, we would still expect the average home in the U.S. to be paying closer to $0.45 per KWH.

There are a number of factors to consider such as total system cost, the use of concentrators and tracking systems to align the solar panel to be perpendicular with the sun during the day and the property location. There are factors to consider with property location such as whether the roof is facing south or towards the east or west. If the system rests on the ground, shading from building or trees becomes a factor. Other considerations include latitude, climate, weather, and time of day, season, local landscape, and temperature. The Department of Energy provides some information for home owners considering a solar energy system Small Solar Electric Systems

The cost for solar energy systems refers to the average efficiency of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels. The average efficiency for PV devices is between 15%-to-16%. According to SunPower, which has the leading PV device efficiency of 22% there is a practical limit to solar efficiencies of approximately 30%. SunPower is targeting a 23% solar efficiency as a goal to reduce its solar energy system cost by 50% by 2012. Sanyo is second with solar efficiency of 18%. SunPower claims to have patented solar PV architecture and production processes that enable the company to command a lead in solar efficiency.

For solar energy systems below 5 kilowatts, the cost of the inverters represents a substantial part of the system cost. An inverter is used to convert the direct current (DC) from the solar panels to alternating current (AC) used in your home. Inverters can cost from $400-to-$700 per 1000 watt adding to the total cost of deploying small solar energy systems. See Wholesale Solar

How long will it take before solar energy is at parity with hydrocarbon fuels? In terms of cost per Kilowatt-Hour (KWH), solar energy is four-to-ten times the cost of hydrocarbon fuels. Green Econometrics’ research estimates that solar energy cost about $0.38-to-$0.53 per KWH. (See Understanding the Cost of Solar Energy ) There are two significant market factors that should help reduce the cost of solar energy: strong market demand for solar energy driven by rapidly rising oil prices that should lead to new product developments and the economies of scale derived from experience curves in the production of solar panels.

With oil harder to find and more costly to extract, energy prices should continue to rise. In the U.S. oil production continues to decline despite increased drilling activity. (See How vulnerable are we to energy shocks? ) These market factors should continue to drive demand for solar energy. With strong market growth rates we wanted to assess various solar energy cost assumptions for different experience curves found in the semiconductor industry.

The productions of solar photovoltaic cells are similar to semiconductors and enjoy cost reduction as production increases. We briefly mentioned experience curves, the production cost reductions associated with doubling production of semiconductors in our last post from an article from the Lockwood group TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: A PERSPECTIVE. These experience curves translate into cost reductions of 10%-to-30% as production volume doubles.

Our analysis attempts to develop a what-if scenario for the solar energy market by comparing energy costs for different experience curves and market growth rates. Research into new materials or processes could significantly reduce the cost of solar energy. Of course the funding of solar R&D is limited, but there are programs that appear promising such as The Lewis Group at Caltech

Figure 1 Cost per Kilowatt-Hour

Figure 1 illustrates the cost disparity between solar energy and hydrocarbon fuels. Our what-if scenario provides a framework to measure the number of years it will take before solar energy cost are at parity to oil and electric. Our assumptions are solar energy market growth rates of 40%-to-60% and experience curve of 10%-to-30%. Current growth rates for domestic solar suppliers such as SunPower (SPWR), First Solar (FSLR) and Evergreen Solar (ESLR) are current enjoying revenue growth rates of over 100%.

Figure 2 Solar Parity

Oil and electric prices are assumed to increase at a modest 2.6% per annum for electric and 3.3% for oil. In the most optimistic scenario of market growth of 60% and experience curve of 30%, suggest that it would take until 2014 or seven years before solar energy is equal to the price of electric. With 10% experience curve and 40% market growth it could take 20 years before parity. Increased funding into solar energy research and higher energy prices shorten the time.

The bottom line is that as solar energy reaches parity with hydrocarbon fuels, energy security is achieved for all countries.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s $23.6 Billion Spending Plan for FY’07 calls for $1.5 billion for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy where spending includes $28 million in solar, $16 million for thin-film photovoltaic manufacturing equipment to reduce the cost of solar panels, $23 million for researching ethanol, and $100 million for carbon sequestration research. However, more than half of the DOE spending is targeted towards research on weapons, defense, and security. Perhaps our national security would be better served if the U.S. were not dependent on foreign oil. Investment into alternative energies like solar and fuel cells could provide us with energy independence with less concern over protecting oil in foreign lands.

Solar energy is significantly more expensive than conventional hydrocarbon fuels. In Green Econometrics’ prior analysis of fuel efficiencies and costs, we found solar energy cost approximately $0.38-to-$0.53 per Kilowatt-Hour (KWH). See Understanding the Cost of Solar Energy
There is considerable variance in the cost of solar energy because sunlight availability varies by geography and climate. With limited sunlight solar costs could be over $1.00 per KWH. In terms of cost per KWH, solar energy is four-to-ten times the cost of hydrocarbon fuels.

Figure 1 Cost per Kilowatt-Hour

For solar energy to be at parity with conventional fuels solar energy needs to be subsidized through tax incentives, utility rebates, and research funding. Research is perhaps the most important aspect of improving the economics of solar energy because through research companies could dramatically lower production costs. The disconnect in solar energy research is limited funding. Funding is required to incubate ideas and new approaches to solar energy in order to develop a roadmap for commercialized products that in turn, could be embraced by venture capital.

The DOE’s research funding for solar is just a drop in the bucket or barrel that better correlates the magnitude disparity. Electric utilities companies are providing electric power generated mainly through coal, which contributes heavily to CO2 emissions, and yet they don’t spend on research and development towards alternative energies. Large energy companies like Exxon Mobil (XOM) don’t have R&D budgets like pharmaceutical or technology companies that spend 14%-to-20% of their revenues on R&D. Merck (MRK) and Genentech (DNA) spent 17% and 20%, respectively on R&D while Microsoft (MSFT) and Google (GOOG) spent 15% and 14%, respectively on R&D in 2006.

If Exxon Mobil were spending 10% of its 2006 revenues of $377.6 billion towards R&D to develop alternative energies, it would amount to over $37 billion, a figure that is larger than the DOE budget of $23.6 billion. DOE spending on solar energy research is approximately $28 million. According to the DOE, U.S. energy expenditures in 2004 were over $869 billion. So with that amount of money being spent on energy, how much should be spent to avoid dependence on foreign oil?

Figure 2 Historic Energy Spending

Solar energy and fuel cell technologies have the potential to ameliorate our energy dilemma of foreign oil dependence and risk of climate change from carbon emissions. While it’s hard to measure the economic impact of climate change, our dependence on foreign oil leaves us with growing $450 billion debt for our presence in Iraq and our national security vulnerable to vagaries of oil prices. The Cost of Iraq War The $450 billion the U.S. is spending in Iraq is almost enough money to equip the 124.5 million homes in the U.S. with a 1 KW solar energy system. The U.S. housing units rose to 126.7 million in 2006. Of course that may not cover your total electric usage that averages about 10,760 KWH per household according to data from the Energy Information Administration Electric Power Annual 2005 – State Data Tables

Can higher R&D spending on solar energy help?
Even some of the leading domestic solar photovoltaic cell suppliers are light on R&D spending. SunPower (SPWR) and First Solar (FSLR) are budgeting their R&D spending towards the single digits as a percentage of revenues. Despite relatively low R&D spending levels, SunPower intends to lower solar panels cost by 50% by 2012. Solar photovoltaic cells undergo the same production processes as semiconductors. Experience curves associated with semiconductor production indicate a 20%-to-30% cost reduction with doubling of production. See The experience curve or cost-volume curve article from the Lockwood group TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: A PERSPECTIVE The solar energy market is expected to grow at 80% over the next five years according to Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association Solar Leader Expects >80% Market Growth Even without new advances in photovoltaic materials, with a solar energy market growth of 25% and an experience curve of 30%, solar cost could decline by 30% every three years from about $8.90 a watt ($0.45 a KWH) to $2.14 a watt or $0.11 a KWH in 15 years equal to the current price of electricity. The bottom line is that faster market growth and/or increased funding of solar energy research could significantly improve the economics of solar energy and give the U.S. greater security and energy independence.

Solar and alternative energies represent a very small percentage of our total expenditures on energy. Energy Price and Expenditure Estimates by Source
So a substantial reduction of solar energy costs, assuming somewhat elastic demand, we should see significant growth in solar energy. In addition, if we tax hydrocarbon fuels by their respective carbon emissions, we might begin to see level energy playing field.

Figure 3 Energy Spending

Funding solar energy should be views as a strategic imperative at par with national surety. Energy security should equate to national security and alternative renewable energies should provide us with the means to our energy independence.

First Solar, Inc. Announces 2007 Second Quarter Financial Results
(FLSR) is leading market growth in thin-film solar with revenues increasing 177% year/year.A day after the dust settles on FSLR’s earnings call, let’s look at what’s doing well and maybe not so well.

Revenues increased 177% y/y in Q2/07 demonstrating that FLSR has a leadership position in the emerging thin-film solar energy market. Thin-film solar panels cost significantly less than crystalline solar panels which makes thin-film feasible for large solar array projects such as for electric utilities.

Please review the following pdf file
FSLR Financial Analysis

FSLR reported earnings of $0.58 per share for Q2/07 with a one time tax treatment benefit of $0.51 per share. Wall Street was expecting earnings of $0.03, so even factoring out the extra $0.51 from the tax benefit, FSLR produced $0.07 which is still more than double what analysts were expecting.

FSLR is also giving investors comfort with its ability to collect on its accounts receivable balance. Accounts receivable declined from $27 million in December 2006 to $14 million in June 2007 which together with strong revenues, pushed Days Sales Outstanding (DSO) to a low of 16 days from 149 days for 2006. Low DSO provide a level of comfort for investors because faster collection of cash assures the sustainability of cash flows – the most important factor in a company’s valuation.

In the not so well area, or at least what some investors viewed as negative in taking the stock price down from over $120 before FSLR’s earnings release to $107.50 the day after the release, we see that gross margins are lower and the incremental revenues growth is lower. Investors become nervous over any perception of weaker financial performance especially stocks with high PE ratios.

FSLR’s gross margins in Q2/07 were 37% versus 48% in Q4/06 and 45% in Q1/07. FSLR is in the process of adding to its solar panel production capacity. Production facilities need to operate close to full capacity to lower cost per unit and thereby, achieve higher gross margins. FSLR is significantly adding to its production capacity which adds costs ahead of production and detracts from profit potential.

FSLR’s incremental quarter over quarter revenue growth was an increase of $10.3 million in Q2/07 over Q1/07. Incremental revenue growth was however, $14.3 million in Q1/07 and $14.2 million in Q2/06. Investor are willing to pay a high multiple for a stock with strong growth potential. Any sign of weakness and investors flee. Given the long lead times in solar projects there is variability in revenues on a quarterly basis. So why it may be important to look at incremental growth, the trend for solar is just emerging and should provide future growth opportunities.