Technology and Economics of High-Efficiency c-si PV

Transcription

1 Technology and Economics of High-Efficiency c-si PV Doug Rose, SunPower Corp. Presented at Silicon Valley PV Society meeting, 9/9/09

2 Safe Harbor Statement This presentation contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of Forward-looking statements are statements that do not represent historical facts and may be based on underlying assumptions. The company uses words and phrases such as "expects," believes, plans, anticipates, "continue," "growing," "will," to identify forward-looking statements in this presentation, including forward-looking statements regarding: (a) our plans and expectations regarding our cost reduction roadmap, (b) cell manufacturing ramp plan, (c) financial forecasts, (d) future government award funding, (e) future solar and traditional electricity rates, and (f) future percentage allocation of SunPower solar panels within our systems business. Such forward-looking statements are based on information available to the company as of the date of this release and involve a number of risks and uncertainties, some beyond the company's control, that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated by these forward-looking statements, including risks and uncertainties such as: (i) the company's ability to obtain and maintain an adequate supply of raw materials and components, as well as the price it pays for such; (ii) general business and economic conditions, including seasonality of the industry; (iii) growth trends in the solar power industry; (iv) the continuation of governmental and related economic incentives promoting the use of solar power; (v) the improved availability of third-party financing arrangements for the company's customers; (vi) construction difficulties or potential delays, including permitting and transmission access and upgrades; (vii) the company's ability to ramp new production lines and realize expected manufacturing efficiencies; (viii) manufacturing difficulties that could arise; (ix) the success of the company's ongoing research and development efforts to compete with other companies and competing technologies; and (x) other risks described in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 28, 2008, and other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing the company's views as of any subsequent date, and the company is under no obligation to, and expressly disclaims any responsibility to, update or alter its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. 2

3 SunPower Over 550 systems on 4 continents Over 85 patents and 25 years of R&D Over 600 dealers and growing rapidly Over 400 MW/yr production rate 5,000 Employees; 100% solar 2008 Revenue of $1.4 bil Residential Largest residential install base in North America Commercial Largest commercial install base in North America Power Plants Largest solar power plants in North America 3

4 SunPower Product Families Highest efficiency mass-produced cells and modules in the world Panels 225 W 230 W 315 W > 22% Efficiency SunPower Solar Cell Roof Integrated Systems PowerGuard Patented all-backcontact cell SunTile Fixed Tilt Systems T5 Roof Tile T10 Roof Tile SunPower Trackers T0 Tracker T20 Tracker 4

5 Global PV Market = 2.82 GW 2008= 5.95 GW Germany Spain Japan USA RO Europe RO World Source 2007 data: Solarbuzz, 2008 Source 2008 data: Solarbuzz,

6 Global Annual PV Market Outlook (MW) Source: EPIA,

7 $2002B Historical Semiconductor and PV Module Annual Sales 1000 Semic. 100 PV 10 PV uses more silicon than the IC industry Year 7

8 Area comparison of PV to Semiconductor now Semiconductor 2008: 5.2 km 2 of chips ICs Photovoltaics 2008: 42.5 km 2 of PV PV... Semiconductor details mil in 2 km 2 Q Q Q Q PV details Assumed average of 14% efficiency Assumed Solarbuzz 2008 value of 5.95GW (is market #, production was higher; other market estimates as high as 7GW) Source: SEMI.org 8

9 Module Average Sales Price (ASP), 2008$ Module ASP (2008$) c-si PV industry back on cost learning-curve $33/W 81% Progress Ratio Large decreases in balance of system cost during this time period 10 1 Silicon Shortage Cumulative Production (MW) 2012 $1.40/W 2008 $3.17/W Here, PV is competing for baseload (in the 7 to 10 years it takes to build a nuclear plant, PV installed over that same time frame will be lower cost) Last 4 data points are forecast by the Prometheus Institute By most estimates, PV LCOE without incentives using these modules will be lower than peaking natural gas LCOE. Best-in class thin film and high efficiency PV power plants will give even lower LCOE. 9

10 Solar PV Power Plants Are Cost Competitive LCOE by Resource $/MWh: Solar PV Renewables $ Solar Thermal $ Wind $ Gas Peaking Conventional $ Gas Combined Cycle Prices include 30% federal incentive Source: Lazard Capital Markets 3/18/ $ Levelized Cost ($/MWh) 10

11 Resource Generation Profiles Source: Hal LaFlash, PG&E Source: CEC PIER-funded study by GE Energy, July 2006 (Temporal Pattern: July 2003 Average Day) 11

12 TWH/yr 2050 View 450ppm / 80% CO2 Reductions by 2050 PV and other other renewables and energy efficiency can easily reach the goal. 2040: What is needed from PV: 2000 TWH/yr What is possible from PV: 5000 TWH/yr (Moderate Growth case) PV Moderate Growth Case DPV: Distributed PV CPV: Central PV 2000 TWH/yr 5000 TWH/yr Sources: McKenzie Report, 2007 for starting points and energy efficiency; AWEA for wind; internal SunPower calculations for DPV, CPV, CSP 12

13 Diversity is needed for maximum success of PV Energy market > 1 trillion $ / yr Diverse applications require diverse product characteristics Competition drives cost reduction Multiple approaches will give greater total volume (reduced impacts from material limits, exponential scaling limits, etc.) 13

14 OVERVIEW Economics of High Efficiency PV

15 High Efficiency and the Value Chain How can high efficiency cells be cost effective? Spend a little more in cell processing Polysilicon Ingot Wafer Solar Cell Solar Panel System more W/g more W/$ more W/$ more W/m 2 to deliver savings across the value chain 15 15

16 Value Chain for conventional Si: Polysilicon Ingot Wafer Solar Cell Solar Panel System Rough percentages for conventional c-si*: 10% 6% 7% 12% 21% 43% With high efficiency: Lower $/g Si Lower $/W module conversion and installation Invest here to get saving across the whole value chain * Value chain distribution percentages are for new Centrotherm 347MW turnkey plant as reported in Dec Photon International, with 30% GM added to all steps and system costs of $1.65/W (including margin), using average of U.S. and China locations and $1.32/euro exchange rate. 16

17 Example: Lower area-related costs High efficiency can: Reduce materials costs Less module area: Glass, silicon, encapsulant, frames Less system materials: Wiring, mounting Reduce installation costs (even with an easy to install, nonpenetrating mount) Reduce shipping costs (even with high density shipping of full system) 305 Wp per tile 22 tiles per pallet 14 pallets per truck 93-kWp per truck 17

18 Levelized cost of energy: An LCOE Equation Initial investment Area related costs Grid interconnection costs Project related costs Depreciation Tax/ other Public Benefit Is the present value of the benefit over the financed life of the project asset. Annual Costs Annual system operating and maintenance costs ( inverter maintenance, panel cleaning, monitoring..) System Residual Value Present value of the end of life asset value is deducted from the total life cycle cost in the LCOE calculation. System energy production First year energy generation (kwh/kw p ) then degrading output over the system life based on an annual performance degradation rate n = the system s financing term (which will determine the duration of cash flows) For additional information on LCOE see Minimizing utility-scale PV power plant levelized cost of energy using high capacity factor configurations by Matt Campbell, SunPower Corp. (in the fourth print edition of Photovoltaics International Journal, and available on SunPower web site). 18

19 The LCOE Sensitivity to Input Variables Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 System Price 100% 100% 100% kwh/kwp 100% 100% 100% Annual Degradation 1.0% 0.5% 0.3% System Life Annual O&M $/kwh $ $ $ Discount Rate 9% 7% 5% LCOE $/kwh $ 0.23 $ 0.13 $ 0.09 Same installed Price($/Wp) but different LCOE ($/kwh) A PV Power Plant with the same installed price and first year performance can yield LCOE values of a tremendous range 19

20 LCOE: System Cost vs. Capacity Factor Sample Range of Equivalent LCOE Values Capacity Factor 40% 38% 36% 34% 32% 30% 28% 26% 24% 22% 20% $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 System Price - $ / Wp LCOE Equivalence $3.41/W at 33% CF is equivalent to $2.50/W at 24.2% CF 20

21 12:00:00 AM 1:00:00 AM 2:00:00 AM 3:00:00 AM 4:00:00 AM 5:00:00 AM 6:00:00 AM 7:00:00 AM 8:00:00 AM 9:00:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 11:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 1:00:00 PM 2:00:00 PM 3:00:00 PM 4:00:00 PM 5:00:00 PM 6:00:00 PM 7:00:00 PM 8:00:00 PM 9:00:00 PM 10:00:00 PM 11:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 1:00:00 AM 2:00:00 AM 3:00:00 AM 4:00:00 AM 5:00:00 AM 6:00:00 AM 7:00:00 AM 8:00:00 AM 9:00:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 11:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 1:00:00 PM 2:00:00 PM 3:00:00 PM 4:00:00 PM 5:00:00 PM 6:00:00 PM 7:00:00 PM 8:00:00 PM 9:00:00 PM 10:00:00 PM 11:00:00 PM 80% Higher 60% Capacity Factor 40% Mid-to-high-efficiency modules 20% enable cost-effective tracking 0% Captures up to 30% more sunlight than fixed tilt systems Tracking has higher capacity factor (so reduces the $/kwh costs of the electrical BOS costs) Better matching of energy production with summer load (time of day and total) 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 40.0% 38.0% 36.0% 34.0% 32.0% 30.0% 28.0% 26.0% 24.0% 22.0% 20.0% Fixed Tilt CF - Mojave T0 Tracker - Mojave Cal ISO Load 7/15/08 Load Fixed tilt T0 tracker PV Power Plant Output vs. Summer Utility Demand Annual CF Summer CF Curve Fixed Tilt T20 Tracker T0 Tracker Summertime capacity factor with SunPower modules and T0 tracker in Las Vegas is ~39% 21

22 Major contributors to LCOE: Capital cost Module $/W Area-related BOS Electrical BOS Project-related $ Efficiency & GCR Watts / project Example: For area-constrained applications, high efficiency allows more Watts for the project (which has value to the customer and further reduces $/W by amortizing fixed costs, like sales and permitting costs, across more watts) Capacity Factor Environmental conditions Total solar radiation Diffuse/direct & spectrum Ambient temperature, wind, soiling conditions Mounting Tracking vs. fixed Tilt angle GCR and shading Performance Response to solar radiation conditions Operating temp & temp coef; Soiling Degradation rate System availability Cost of capital Perception of risk Average financing conditions O & M Reliability x number of components Operation (cleaning, ) 22

23 Simplified LCOE (eliminated discount rate, converted O&M to capital expense, ) LCOE Panel + Balance of Plant + O&M Costs Sunlight Collection x Conversion Efficiency Some of the levers used by SunPower (plus experience and reliability to decrease financing costs): Balance of Plant High efficiency reduces materials (modules, wiring, mounting, etc), installation, and shipping costs Low cost 1-axis tracking where applicable Integrated value chain engineering Lower $/W fixed costs for area-constrained Sunlight collection 1-axis tracker adds up to 30% energy (this reduces the $/kwh costs of modules, inverters, wiring, monitoring, etc. by up to 23%) O&M Costs High efficiency reduces O&M costs (e.g. less to clean and upkeep) Grouped trackers reduce number of motor / controls Experience & Closed loop learning Conversion efficiency Higher panel power density Superior performance in high temperature, low light, and range of spectral conditions Low degradation / year 23

24 Use of LCOE Do NOT compare calculated LCOE to current average electricity prices! LCOE should only be used to compare to the LCOE of alternatives, preferably after correcting for differences in the value of the energy, value of assured price, and impact on the country Why only compare PV LCOE to LCOE of alternatives instead of current electric rates? Traditional fuel prices are expected to increase from general inflation, scarcity, and internalization of environmental impact. General inflation will also increase non-fuel operating costs. This impacts the LCOE of traditional fuel energy sources, but does not affect current electric rates. LCOE discounts the value of future energy generation (so a high expected inflation rate will increase the discount rate, thus increasing the LCOE). But, with high inflation, you would want to put in a hard asset like PV with very little costs other than the up-front costs. Why correct for value of the energy? Energy value at peak times is significantly higher than at off times (and PV matches the load curve well) If possible, should also correct for other value/impact to the customer (e.g., carport shade, assured power) Why correct for value of assurance of the future cost of energy? LCOE of PV reflects a firm guarantee at a known cost (the hard asset of the PV array backs that guarantee to the first order, with the risk premiums included in the financing providing a backstop should the array underperform). In contrast, current conventional energy prices include no guarantee of future prices. Can correct for this difference by adding the cost of a guarantee on the alternatives prices over the same contract length, backed by multiple layers of insurance. Why correct for value of impact on the country? The differences in non-internalized environmental impact, job creation, and the value of accelerated cost reduction of PV on future costs can be significant. If you include subsidies for one technology, include them for the others (e.g., insurance for nuclear industry). 24

25 SunPower Central Station Competes with MPR $ Market Price Referent by Contract Start Year ($/kwh) $0.18 $0.16 $0.14 $0.12 $ Source: 2008 CA MPR, 25 year contract: CPUC Resolution E-4214 December 18, ) Time of Delivery Multipliers vary by utility 25

26 CELLS: TECHNOLOGY

27 Basic solar cell operation Diode I Solar cell in light I Simple equivalent circuit Rs V Isc V Rsh Sunlight creates current in the opposite direction as the applied voltage. 27

28 SunPower vs. Conventional c-si Cell Lightly doped front diffusion Reduces recombination loss Texture + ARC Texture + ARC Gridlines N-Type diffused junction.. FRONT. BACK Backside Mirror Reduces back light absorption & causes light trapping Localized Contacts Reduces contact recombination loss Passivating SiO 2 layer Reduces surface recombination loss Backside Gridlines Eliminates shadowing High-coverage metal reduces resistance loss. Silver Paste Pad Aluminum paste 28

29 Cell Efficiency (%) SunPower cell efficiency 25% Laboratory Prototyping Results Gen 3 Note Gen 2 distribution is tighter than Gen 1 distribution 24% Production median (Gen 1 & 2) 23.4% 23% 22.0% 22.4% 22% 21% 20.6% 20.6% 21.3% 20% Median production cell efficiency > 22.4% 29 29

30 Efficiency (%) Analysis of losses in Gen 1&2 Technologies 30 N-Diffusion N-Metal N-Type bulk P-Diffusion P-Metal FSF ARC Gen 2 Improvements - thinner > 165 microns - improved processes - tighter pitch; smaller feature sizes - improved edge and pad design optical resistive recomb Gen 21 Gen 23 Simulation of loss breakdowns in Gen 1 and Gen 2 solar cells 30

31 CELLS: COST

32 Less silicon Higher efficiency proportionately lowers silicon usage (i.e., 20% efficiency cell uses half the silicon as a 10% cell). SunPower s back-contact architecture allows thinner wafers with no loss in efficiency Conversion Efficiency % Cost reduction Some changes to raise efficiency, for example a BSF, can reduce the loss from thickness reduction in conventional cells Cell Thickness (microns) SunPower solar cell efficiency improves as wafer thickness decreases versus conventional solar cells which become less efficient on thinner wafers. 32

33 Novel wafering (i.e., taking full advantage of ability high-efficiency cells to work well with thin wafers) Cleaved wafers (e.g., SiGen) Kerf-free 50 μm c-si wafer From SiGen.net: Thickness: 20µm 150µm Superior mechanical strength: 10X stronger Jet or laser sawing (e.g., Fraunhofer) Others (electrical discharge, thermal expansion delta, etc.) 33

34 Other cost reduction opportunities for high effic. cells (in addition to efficiency increase, thickness reduction, and lower ingot and wafering costs) Capital Cost Reduction Equipment for high efficiency cell manufacture mostly at first or second generation. Plenty of opportunity for: Value engineering; component standardization Tool availability improvement Throughput optimization and line balancing Improved automation (better yield, lower labor content) Consumables Reduction Process optimization Water and power conservation Process simplification Step elimination Increased scale Plant size Phase 1 34

35 ENERGY / RATED WATT

36 The cell features which make SunPower cells high efficiency also lead to more energy per rated watt Superior temperature performance Power coefficient of -0.38%/C vs. -0.5%/C for conventional silicon provides up to ~4% energy/w advantage (from high Voc vs. Eg) Also, runs cooler (from higher efficiency and better IR reflectance) Superior light capture Retains performance at high-angle illumination (from front texture) Single-junction with wide spectral response (nearly 100% spectral response from µm) Better low-light performance (from high shunt resistance) No light-induced degradation Avoid immediate 2 3% degradation after first exposure to light (n-type wafer, so no B-O defect complex) 36

37 More kwh/w Temperature Coefficient High efficiency cells have lower temperature coefficient Conventional panels have Tc of approximately -0.5%/ C High-efficiency panels can have Tc as low as -0.35%/ C Provides up to 4% kwh/w advantage in real world conditions Nuremberg, Germany Phoenix, AZ SunPower, %/C dp/dt Conventional silicon, %/C dp/dt SunPower advantage 0.40% 3.60% 37

38 Relative External Quantum Efficiency, % Number of Sunlight Photons (m -2 s -1 micron -1 ) E+19 More kwh/w Spectral response SunPower cell Conventional cell AM 1.5 global spectrum Wavelength, microns Panels are rated for a defined spectrum, but spectrum of light changes through the day. High efficiency cells have wider spectral response, hence better energy performance in real world conditions (which include morning, evening, clouds, and high-noon) Multi-junction 2-terminal cells are limited by the lowest current in the cell stack, so they can perform poorly at spectral conditions other than standard 0 38

39 More kwh/w Low light performance Low light conditions occur in the morning, afternoon & cloudy weather conditions Loss at low light is dominated by loss mechanisms at low injection (e.g. shunt resistance) SunPower SPR-90 Mono Crystalline Silicon Poly Crystalline Silicon CuInSe 2 High-efficiency solar cells have better low light performance, which improves energy production / rated watt Sharper knee of curve at low light levels indicates better low light performance Amorphous Silicon 39

40 More kwh/w - No Light Induced Degradation (LID) Light induced degradation is caused by an interaction between boron doped silicon (used in p- type solar cells) and oxygen. This effect has been documented by many research institutes. * Excerpt from Photon International article, A Call for Quality, March,

41 Third Party Validation- Best Energy Performance Independent tests show that SunPower Solar Panels deliver the highest energy performance (kwhs/kw p ) at sites throughout the world 9% more than px-si 7% more than px-si ASU CREST University of Stuttgart (IPE) University of Cyprus 7% more than CdTe 6% more than px-si 12% more than a-si 7% more than CdTe 7% more than px-si 16% more than a-si For Stuttgart and Cyprus (3 year studies): SunPower modules listed as Suntechnics STM200FW Independent Sites 41

42 More kwh/w Field data Data from 3 year field test by the University of Stuttgart and University of Cyprus is showing superior energy per rated W performance of SunPower modules in Germany and Greece vs. other 13 technologies tested As with any single test using a relatively small sampling of modules, low performance by a company s modules should not be taken proof of typical performance Test methodology matters (e.g., an a-si module would receive an unfairly high kwh/kw result if the rated power is used as the baseline and the test is less than several years, and would receive an unfairly low kwh/kw result if the initial power before light soak is used as the initial value. The industry would benefit from more independent studies like this (long-term, carefully monitored and analyzed) Latest data at: Paper with methodology at: SunPower modules listed as Suntechics STM200FW Cyprus: June /13/09 Stuttgart, June /13/

43 MODULES

44 Rated Power (Watts) 20% Module cell, 165 mm, AR glass 96 cell, 150 mm, AR glass 96 cell, 150 mm 72 cell Module with Gen 2 cells: 96 cell, 165 mm, AR glass, 328 W Total area efficiency 20.1%* % 5% 10% 15% 20% Module Efficiency (%) Photon Buyers Guide, February 2008 * Verified by Sandia National Lab 44

45 Module-value enhancements cost less per Watt in high efficiency modules Anti-reflection (AR) Glass provides: 2.7% relative power gain 4.0% relative energy delivery gain Field site with checkerboard pattern of AR and no-ar coated modules Field test with AR and non-ar modules 45

46 Some of the other module impacts on LCOE Modules designed for downstream savings (and thus lower LCOE) Larger and/or easy mount on trackers or other applications Integration with end application solution Module cost reductions Design innovations Value-chain development Includes increased levels of automation 46

47 SunPower progress on panel ahead of schedule $ Panel Cost: $/W Without Imputed Efficiency & Energy Delivery Value <$2/W >20% efficiency module & <$1/W 0 Q Q

48 RELIABILITY

49 Importance of reliability Degradation rate, % failure rate, and financier confidence in reliability are important drivers of the LCOE Customer confidence in the reliability affects average selling price Passing the standard tests in necessary, but not sufficient to ensure world-class reliability. Typical minimum is: Retention of electrical, optical, and mechanical properties for 30 yrs 25 years with <20% efficiency loss Support for claim of reliability 49

50 Reliability: SunPower approach Standard tests (e.g., tests in IEC 61215; UL1703; IEC61730) HF10, DH1000, TC200, etc. Test to failure with standard tests then FA Non-standard tests to try to generate new failure modes Combination of stresses essential FMEA (Failure modes and effects analysis) Modes from previous learning, science, and tests Non-standard tests to develop acceleration factors Different stress levels; Measurement of continuous variable preferred Field tests with acceleration Extreme voltage, illumination, air quality, Field tests across a range of normal conditions 50

51 Reliability example: SunPower interconnects Field studies of traditional-cell modules revealed that interconnect failure (fracture and bond failure) was the #1 failure mode for modules New approach developed to eliminate interconnect fatigue failure Extended tests (past standard of 200 cycles) found no ribbon failure, but some solder creep Redesigned interconnect to reduce force on joint & changed to SnAg material system (less creep and no Pb) Validated expected improvements and >30yr life prediction Validation experiments included: Acceleration factors calculated by theory and estimated from different temperature and different dwell time thermal cycling Coupons with 4 point measurement of all joints with continuous monitoring during thermal cycling for >2000 cycles (10 times the industry standard) results well matched to prediction, with 0% failures with redesigned interconnect in +90/-40C 51

52 Relative Change in Efficiency SunPower interconnects Module results from both automated and manual manufacture: 2% 1% 0% -1% -2% -3% -4% -5% IEC passing threshold (5% loss in 200 cycles) Number of +90/-40C Temperature Cycles 52

53 SYSTEMS

54 Residential Building integrated Building applied Plus: Smart-mount system, monitoring, packaged systems 54

55 Residential Germany Italy United States Australia 55

56 Installed Cost Reduction Roadmap: 50% by 2012 $/Watt 2006 Downstream Target Reduction: 60% 25% Cell/Panel 10% Silicon 10% Efficiency % Residential Example 56

57 Commercial No roof penetrations; easy to install New integrated module/frame/mount, developed under DOE SAI program 57

58 Power plants Nellis AFB, 14.5MW FP&L, 25MW 58

59 SunPower Global Power Plant Presence 325+ MW by Q3 09 PG&E Contracted 250 MW CA Valley Solar Ranch HAWAII 1.5 MW Lanai NEVADA 15 MW Nellis AFB 3.1 MW Las Vegas WD GERMANY 10 MW Bavaria I 3.0 MW Bavaria II 1.6 MW Pfenninghof ITALY 2.3 MW Toletino 1.0 MW Ferentino 1.0 MW Siron/Soleto CALIFORNIA 1.7 MW Lake County 1.2 MW Peninsula Packaging 1.2 MW Napa Valley College 1.1 MW Rancho Water 1.1 MW Grundfos Pump 1.1 MW North Bay Reg. Water 1.1 MW Inland Empire Utility 1.1 MW Chico Water Recycling 1.1 MW Agilent Technologies 1.1 MW Skinner Water Facility 1.1 MW Gap Pacific Distr. Ctr. 1.1 MW Marine Corp AGCC 1.0 MW Sonoma County Water 1.0 MW Applied Materials EAST COAST U.S. 26 MW FPL Desoto 10 MW FPL SpaceCoast 1.6 MW Merck 1.0 MW FPL NASA 1.0 MW J & J 1.0 MW QVC Network 1.0 MW SAS Institute SPAIN 29 MW Naturener 23 MW Trujillo 23 MW Jumilla 18 MW Olivenza 14 MW Lorca 12 MW Almodovar 11 MW Magasquilla 11 MW Ciudad Real 9.9 MW Zaragoza 8.4 MW Isla Mayor 8.3 MW Guadarranque 6.9 MW Caceres 6.0 MW Atersa 4.8 MW Llerena 3.8 MW Lebrija PORTUGAL 11 MW Serpa 10 MW Ferreira KOREA 6.0 MW Samsung 2.2 MW Mungyeong 2.0 MW JeonJu 1.4 MW Hampyeong 1.0 MW Gwangju Australia 0.3 MW Marble Bar 0.3MW Nagline 59 59

60 Production in MWh Track record of energy production: Bavaria Solarpark Actual vs Expected Production: 106% 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2, Expected Energy Production Actual Energy Production 60 60

61 In summary, high efficiency silicon modules reduce LCOE by helping with: Capital cost Module $/W Reduced silicon, wafering, and module conversion in some cases can result in lower $/W module Area-related BOS Proportionate reduction of material, installation, and shipping can have very large impact. Electrical BOS Smaller footprint and fewer connections Project-related $ More Watts/project in area-constrained jobs means less $/kw fixed costs; Higher efficiency gives lower ground prep and other land costs Better response to low light, varying spectrum, and off-axis illumination Capacity Factor Environmental conditions Total solar radiation Diffuse/direct & spectrum Ambient temperature, wind, soiling conditions Mounting Tracking vs. fixed Tilt angle GCR and shading Performance Response to solar radiation conditions Operating temp & temp coef; Soiling Degradation rate System availability 30% increase in CF with low cost tracking Can decrease GCR while still meeting energy/area requirement Less power loss with partial shading; Ability to design around obstructions Cost of capital Perception of risk Average financing conditions Lower operating temp. and temp. coef; Reduced soiling with AR glass Lower degradation rate Experience; proven performance Solid financials backing good warranty Fewer components. Grouped trackers. Experience. O & M Reliability x number of components Operation (cleaning, ) High reliability modules and fewer connections 61

62 Thank you