Field Performance of. Forrest Collins juwi solar Inc. February 2 nd, 2010

Transcription

1 Field Performance of Thin-Film Forrest Collins juwi solar Inc. PHOTON 2nd Thin Film Conference February 2 nd, 2010

2 Overview Background on juwi Organization juwi Exprience with Thin-Film Data from the Field Efficiency, i Performance, and BOS Cost Impacts 2

3 juwi Organization Based in: juwi Holding AG (parent of juwi solar GmbH) Wörrstadt, Germany 2008 Revenue $900 million Founded/CEOs: Employees: Business Units: Based in: 1996, Fred Jung ( ju ) and Matthias Willenbacher ( wi ) 700 for wind, solar & biogas divisions Three renewable energy generation business units: Wind (450 MW) Solar Photovoltaic (400MW) Biogas (2MW) Wörrstadt, Germany juwi solar GmbH Employees: 350 3

4 juwi solar GmbH Over 400MW of Installed Projects juwi solar GmbH Wörrstadt, Germany North America France Czech Republic Greece Spain Italy 4

5 juwi solar Inc. juwi solar Inc., based in Boulder, Colorado and majority-owned by juwi Holding AG, serves the North American utility solar market. juwi solar Inc. Core Competencies Project Development & Acquisition Turn Key Installation (Engineering, Procurement & Construction) Strategic Partnerships Off-take/Sale Agreements Equity & Debt Financing Commercial Operations & Maintenance Equipment Supply Panels Inverters Racking Wiring/Electrical Target Customers/Off-takers Investor-Owned Utilities Municipalities Cooperatives Industrials/Commercial i l 5

6 juwi s Experience with Thin-Film First system installed in 2004 Worldwide juwi is an industry leader with >350 MW of thin-film installed -40 MW Waldpolenz Project MW Turnow-Preilack Project-2009 In the U.S. juwi solar Inc. has installed or has under construction >45 MW of thin-film projects Extensive experience working with thin-film module suppliers to improve design to reduce BOS costs juwi has worked with BOS component suppliers to optimize designs for thin-film modules Work with suppliers to become bankable -Bankability workshop at juwi headquarters in Germany -Pilot and side by side test projects to provide outdoor operational data 6

7 Benefits of Thin Film Higher Annual Performance -Lower temperature coefficient (CdTe, a-si) -Lowlight performance -Positive tolerance binning (when used) Lower LCOE potential than traditional crystalline -More efficient manufacturing process Potential to achieve comparable efficiencies as m-si Flexible substrates -Rooftop applications Potential to optimize current and voltage characteristics to reduce BOS costs Opportunity to optimize module size to reduce BOS costs 7

8 Benefits of Thin Film Source: U.S. Department of Energy 8

9 Disadvantages of Thin Film Lower efficiencies increase BOS cost -Requires lower module price and/or lower BOS cost per kwp to be cost competitive Unproven technology difficult to finance -Large scale, multi-megawatt megawatt projects require a performance track record Module degradation and long term performance unknown -Higher risk investment Modules can be more fragile -Handling of frameless glass modules onsite can be a challenge if not managed properly -Tracking applications are more difficult 9

10 Data from the Field: juwi Project Survey Survey of 88 juwi Projects -37 Thin-film (CdTe) -51 Crystalline Silicon (m-si, c-si) -Mix of roof top and free field projects -Over 70 MW s of projects installed from Located throughout Europe -Data collected in 2009 On average Thin-film Achieves a 5.4% Higher Annual Performance Ratio -Greater for rooftop applications -Greatest t during summer months -Affected by age of systems and inverter/bos efficiency improvements 10

11 Data from the Field: Project Survey 120.0% 0% 115.0% Comparison of Thin Film vs Crystalline Silicon Performance for 88 juwi Projects CdTe Thin-Film Relative Performance Ratio rformance Ra tio % Dif fference in Pe 110.0% 0% 105.0% 100.0% 95.0% 90.0% Baseline Combined m-si and c-si Performance Ratio 85.0% 80.0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 11

12 Data from the Field: Case Study I Case Study-Side by Side Comparison kw m-si kw CdTe -Project located in Central Germany -~1200 kwh/m 2 -yr of solar irradiance -SMA Sunny Boy SB1700 inverters -Ground mounted system with 25 degree tilt, oriented due south 12

13 Data from the Field: Case Study I CdTe Thin Film Achieves 3.2% Higher kwh/kwp Performance Comparison of m-si and CdTe Generation-Germany Germany m-si CdTe Normalized Energy Genera ation (kwh/kwp) Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 13

14 Data from the Field: Case Study II Case Study-Side by Side Comparison kw m-si 3.14 MW CdTe Located in Southern Italy ~1800 kwh/m 2 -yr of solar irradiance SMA Central Inverter (CdTe) and SB6000 Inverter (m-si) 25 degree tilt, due south orientation 14

15 Data from the Field: Case Study II CdTe Thin Film Achieves 5.7% Higher kwh/kwp Performance Comparison of m-si and CdTe Generation-Italy m-si CdTe Norm malized Generatio on (kwh/kwp) May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 15

16 Efficiency, Performance and BOS Impacts on PPA Analysis Assumptions -Hypothetical 10 MW plant in Texas with cost, PPA, and return based on actual 16 MW project -PPA price is equal between cases -Same investor return -BOS, land, and labor adjusted to reflect changes in efficiency -Modeled annual generation of technologies using PVSYST v5.01 -Varied CIGS and CdTe at efficiencies from 8%-14% and compared to 14% efficient polycrystalline VDC system with central inverters 16

17 Efficiency, Performance, and BOS Impact on PPA Effect of Efficiency and BOS on Module Price 110.0% 0% CdTe CIGS m-si 100.0% Mo odule Price (% of 14% Eff m-si i) 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 17

18 Efficiency, Performance, and BOS Impact on PPA 110.0% 0% Effect of Efficiency, BOS, and Performance on Module Price CdTe CIGS m-si 100.0% Mo odule Price (% of 14% Eff m-si i) 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 18

19 Conclusions Data from existing juwi projects has shown, depending on the location and system design, a % increase in annual generation using CdTe thin-film modules when compared to similar crystalline installations. Improved performance typically outweighs reductions in BOS costs for lowering PPA price Temperature coefficients play an important role in annual performance Positive tolerance binning helps visually improve annual performance 19

20 Thank You! For more information contact: Forrest Collins juwisolar.com