GreentechSolar: Projects

Guardian Glass Spreading Across Value Chain in CSP, PV, BIPV and Electrochromics

2012-05-31T14:45:05+00:00

Solar products from flat photovoltaic (PV) modules to concentrated solar power (CSP) mirrors to the ever-and-always emerging BIPV (building-integrated photovoltaics) sector will be using glass in their bill of materials (BoM) for the foreseeable future. Flexible solar in a non-glass encapsulant might have its place in the market someday, but for now it is a tiny piece of the market.

Guardian Industries builds glass for the automotive and building industries. The firm was on the Forbes Top 100 Private Companies list recently, with $4.48 billion in 2009 revenues and 18,000 employees across the globe. I spoke with a few grizzled veterans in the building trade and heard only respectful views of the firm.

So when Guardian takes notice of a market like solar and makes a variety of glasses for a range of solar sub-sectors -- it's a good sign that solar has hit a respectable size.

Here's a rundown of some of Guardian's activity in solar:

BrightSource Energy's 392-megawatt Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) in California's Mojave desert will be using mirrors from Guardian. (We've covered BrightSource at length and will report on their forthcoming April 11 IPO.) Guardian began shipping the first of 160,000 of its Solar Boost mirrors to ISEGS in November 2011. The mirrors have to withstand desert temperature swings and conditions while providing extreme reflectivity.
Guardian and Israel-based Pythagoras Solar are collaborating to manufacture and sell a solar PV window, meant to replace standard vision and spandrel glass or skylights. Pythagoras will provide production-ready units to Guardian, which will perform the final assembly. The startup has found a strong partner in Guardian, but the building materials and window business is a ruthless and difficult one in which to innovate (see the saga of Serious Materials). Pythagoras cites a total market for BIPV glass "estimated to reach $6.4 billion in revenues in 2016," but that number is hallucinatory in the view of this reporter.
Guardian also provides float glass and patterned glass in a variety of flavors for a range of PV absorber materials: low-iron float glass to maximize solar transmission, molybdenum-coated glass to optimize the conductive characteristics of PV panels using copper indium sulfide (CIS) and copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS) solar cells, and coated glass designed to optimize the conductive characteristics of PV panels using CdTe solar cells.

If that wasn't enough for Guardian in trying to get in front of new industries, the firm has added electrochromic glass for dynamic window shading as part of its portfolio, partnering with Soladigm. Guardian will incorporate Soladigm’s Dynamic Glass product into its architectural glass offering: a glass that can switch from clear to tinted on demand, allowing control of heat and glare in buildings. Soladigm just raised another $4.5 million in debt. Previous investors in Soladigm include Khosla Ventures, DBL Ventures, Sigma Partners, The Westly Group, Navitas Capital, Nano Dimension, and GE Energy Financial Services.

The electrochromic glass sector has seen some action lately -- French glass giant Saint-Gobain recently acquired Sage Electrochromics for its dynamic glass.

Guest Post: Germany Faces a Growing Risk of Disastrous Power Blackouts

2012-05-30T18:00:46+00:00

With a steep growth of power generation from photovoltaic (PV) and wind power and with 8 GW base load capacity suddenly taken out of service, the situation in Germany has developed into a nightmare for system operators.

The peak demand in Germany is about 80 gigawatts. The variations of wind and PV generation create situations which require long distance transport of huge amounts of power. The grid capacity is far from sufficient for these transports. The result is a remarkably large number of curtailments of RES (renewable energy sources).

Reports from the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E)[1] and the German Grid Agency[2] reflect concern for the operational security of the power system. The risk of a prolonged and widespread power blackout was earlier recognized by the German Bundestag and discussed in an interesting report[3].

This note will present the main conclusions from the three reports combined with data, collected from the German system operators.

A New Operating Pattern

Since January 2012, all four German system operators have published estimated photovoltaic generation based on representative samples. The data will give research environments a new opportunity to analyze the impact of RES in Germany.

Some observations are possible from the charts above and other evidence:

Wind power peaks seem not to be simultaneous with PV peaks. This means that PV does not add its full peak capacity to the grid problems during high wind periods.
Most German wind power is installed in the northern part of the country, while most PV capacity is installed in Bavaria. The nuclear moratorium has created the most serious supply problems in the southern part of Germany. This observation suggests additional PV generation is needed to relieve the supply problems.
PV generation cannot reduce the need for peak capacity. The reason is that there is no PV generation during the evening peak load.
The regulating work which must be made by controllable power sources grows considerably with the growth of wind power and PV. TenneT is one of Germany’s four main grid operators. In the TenneT area, a calculation for April 2011 has shown that wind power alone would extend the regulating range by more than 50 percent, while the actual combination of wind power and PV has doubled the regulating range.

Although PV may be able to give some relief to the grids, PV cannot reduce the need for peak capacity and additional PV will cause a considerable growth in the need for regulating capacity.

The German Grid Is a Backbone in Europe

On November 4, 2006, a German 380-kilovolt line had to be temporarily disconnected. Due to insufficient coordination of protection systems, a circuit tripped and started cascading outages. The result was that the continental grid in Europe was divided into three islands and about 17 gigawatts of load was shed. The case demonstrates how a local event in Germany can turn into a widespread European disturbance.

In April 2012, the president of ENTSO-E[4], Daniel Dobbeni, stated his concern about security of power system operation in Europe in a letter to the European Commissioner for Energy, Günther Oettinger.

ENTSO-E: “As long as RES generation in certain regions expands faster -- partly as a function of national support schemes -- than the transmission network can accommodate, the risk of insecure system operation coupled with costly generation curtailments will rise significantly.”

A recent briefing paper gives an overview of the current situation. The rapid increase of wind power and other renewable energy sources (RES) without a corresponding reinforcement of the electric grids has caused the problems. The paper explains: “Heavy ‘unplanned’ transit flows added to scheduled flows cause severe loading on southern interconnectors (PL/CZ, PL/SK, DE/CZ, and also SK/HU and SK/UA) and lead to non-compliance with fundamental network security criteria. The high level of flows on the interconnectors leads to overloading of the network in Germany and neighboring countries Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary.”

Among the countermeasures of the transmission system operators (TSOs) is the use of the HVDC links across the Baltic Sea for a redistribution of power flows. A common procedure has been developed by German and Polish TSOs and two Nordic TSOs (Energinet.dk and Svenska Kraftnät). However, the remedial actions cannot be guaranteed, as they depend on prevailing system conditions.

The countermeasures have cost implications and cannot be implemented without cost sharing agreements.

ENTSO-E makes reference to its Ten-Year Network Development Plans (TYNDP). The timely implementation of the projects will require the active support of European policy makers.

The paper estimates the necessary investment for reinforcement of the western and the eastern transport corridors in Germany to be 30 billion euros for the next decade. The German reinforcements must be coordinated with investments in neighboring countries.

Efficient market arrangements are important for efficient congestion management, secure grid operation and overall market efficiency. Therefore, the organization of more consistent markets and redefinition of bidding areas deserve consideration.

The ENTSO-E paper concludes: “If this infrastructure does not materialize in due time, then the rate of RES increase should be examined under a more pragmatic prism."

A German Performance Report for Winter 2011-2012

The Federal German Grid Agency has confirmed the assumption of a strained grid in a 120-page report on the supply situation for electricity and gas in Germany during the winter season of 2011-2012.

It is useful for the general understanding of the significance of the infrastructure when an authority evaluates actual system conditions and publishes annual reports for better or for worse. Unfortunately, that sort of report is rare in the electricity business.

This is my translation of the 10 points of the summary:

The situation of the power grid was very strained during winter 2011-2012.
Besides the scenarios described in the Grid Agency report of August 31, 2011 the shortage of natural gas in February 2012 was followed by an unexpected event which added to the load on the electric grids and required additional measures from the transmissions system operators for maintaining system security.
In addition to that, an unusually large number of forecast errors caused an exhaustion of the regulating reserves. Therefore, the transmissions system operators had to resort to additional measures. The Grid Agency will create incentives for improvements of the forecasts by adaptation of the price system for balancing power.
The synchronous compensator Biblis was commissioned in February 2012 and provided the expected relief of the voltage problems.
German and Austrian power plant reserves were used in several cases for the relief of power lines and as a supplement to already exhausted regulating capacity. About the same magnitude of power reserves will be needed next winter.
The power plant capacity has developed unfavorably. Planned extensions have been delayed. Further decommissioning of conventional power plants cannot be defended in Germany for the time being. The prevention of decommissioning of power plants for conventional production will require regulating and legal measures. If more power stations nevertheless should be decommissioned in southern Germany, the needed reserve capacity would increase correspondingly. Besides, the need for capacity mechanisms should be intensively investigated in the medium term.
The supply of more power from renewable sources than can actually be transferred by the grid would add to overloading of the grid, because the price signals would displace conventional power plants in the merit order and the electricity export from Germany in the internal market would increase. It is the understanding of the grid agency that the existing legal framework allows the transmission system operators to use measures which can reduce the supply to a level that can be transferred by the grid. Nevertheless, a normative clarification seems to be expedient.
The cooperation between grid operators for electricity and gas must be improved in order to take account of the growing significance of gas power plants and gas supply to the security of supply of the electric grids. Even here, changes of the legal framework are recommended.
No technical valid measures can replace grid extensions. A consistent use of the established instruments for acceleration of the reinforcement of the grids is required.
The reduced supply of gas in February 2012 has revealed the weak points of the gas grids. Action is needed for the gas grids. Fortunately, this need is clearly inferior to the need for action in the electricity grids.

The general view seems to be concern for the future capacity of power plants, regulating power and reserves. The rigid point 9 seems surprising, but it may reflect a typical view of a grid agency. A strong grid is important, but several other integration measures deserve careful consideration.

The increasing trend in the use of §13.1 of the German Energy Industry Act (EnWG) for re-dispatch and in the use of §11 of the RES Act (EEG) and §13.2 of EnWG for reduction of feed-in of power is demonstrated in report. The data is valid for the transmission grid.

Re-dispatch is used for the relief of highly loaded grid components.

For both years, most re-dispatch concerned the Remptendorf-Redwitz line between Germany and Austria.

Feed-in reduction was initiated 197 times during the winter season of 2011-2012, compared to 39 times the previous year.

In 184 cases, wind power caused high feed-in from distribution grids into the transmission grids. Five cases were remarkable and affected the entire grid:

This information confirms that the German electricity supply had narrow margins during the winter of 2011-2012 without room for additional heroic political decisions. Hopefully, the messages of the Grid Agency will be understood, so a better harmony between the transition of the production facilities toward green solutions and the necessary adaptation of the infrastructure can be achieved.

A Critical Case

Welt Online has reported on “alarm level yellow” for German power grids on March 28-29, 2012[5].

German grid operators are obliged to report all operational interventions aimed at avoiding overloads or power failures. The grid operator for the eastern Germany, 50Hertz, has published a very brief report on the event in German. More details are given in the Grid Agency report.

At 8:48 p.m., one of two circuits of the 380-kilovolt Wolmirsted-Helmstedt line tripped. The other followed 12 minutes later. The reason was a technical defect in TenneT’s substation Helmstedt. Wolmirsted-Helmstedt is the northernmost link between the 50Hertz area (the former DDR) and the other German system operators.

The wind power peak level was not extreme. Nevertheless the remaining links had to be relieved and 50Hertz had to activate comprehensive measures. This is probably the reason why this event caught the attention of the media.

The interventions included about 2,000 megawatts of re-dispatch and about 4,000 megawatts in feed-in reductions.

The case reveals the vulnerability of the German power system. Through April 9, 50Hertz has issued 23 similar reports on strained grid conditions in 2012.

23 Percent of the Hours in Q1 2012 Affected by Interventions

The number of interventions has increased dramatically in Germany from 2010-2011 to 2011-2012. In spite of the obligation to publish information on all interventions, it is difficult to form an overview.

The practical administration of the rules and the compensation is quite complex. There are four grid operators for the primary level (380 kV) and a number of grid operators at lower voltage levels. Bottlenecks are often detected in local grids. It makes no difference to the owner of a wind turbine if local or national grids are congested.

In an attempt to establish an impression of the extent of interventions in Germany, EON Netz will be used as an example. EON Netz is operating the largest secondary grid in Germany. The primary grid in the same area is operated by TenneT.

The control area is divided into a number of local areas (Landkreise). An intervention concerning EEG § 11 is valid for electricity production in one local area. The severity is indicated in steps between 0 percent and 100 percent.

Each intervention record specifies start time and duration. Interventions for different local areas are usually overlapping. One of the main purposes of the lists of interventions is to support the calculation of economic compensations for the owners of the affected power plants.

During the first quarter of 2012, EON Netz has issued 257 interventions. The average length was 5.7 hours. Up to 10 interventions have been issued for the same hour. A total of 504 hours had one or more interventions.

Thus, there have been interventions active for 23.1 percent of the hours during the first quarter of 2012.

The total amount of curtailed energy from wind and CHP is probably modest, but the observations seem to indicate that German grids are frequently loaded to the capacity limits. Strained grids have a higher risk of cascading outages caused by single events.

What Happens During a Blackout?

The Federal political system in Germany has for some time been conscious of the risk of a large blackout.

In 2011, the Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag (TAB) published an interesting report on the consequences of blackouts lasting up to two weeks.

The following infrastructure sectors are considered:

Information technology and telecommunications
Transport and traffic
Water supply and wastewater disposal
Food supply
Health care system
Financial services
Public institutions (e.g., a case study on prisons)

The conclusion is that an interruption of the power supply will be tantamount to a national disaster after only a few days. Though the probability of this event is very low, the report recommends further efforts at all levels in order to “increase the resilience of critical infrastructure sectors in both the short and medium term and also to further optimize the capacities of the national system for disaster control.”

Planning for blackouts is often neglected. One reason for this is the optimistic assumption that blackouts can be avoided. Another reason is the high cost of measures which are supposed to be superfluous.

However, large blackouts do occur. They cannot be completely avoided, but the restoration process can be more or less well prepared. Therefore, vital infrastructure sectors should be prepared for power failures and the necessary facilities for a black start of the power system should be installed and ready for action.

***
[1] Interconnected system operation conditions in Continental Central Europe: A briefing paper to the European Commission, EMTSO-E, 13 Mar 2012.

[2] Bericht zum Zustand der leitungsgebundenen Energieversorgung im Winter 2011/12 Bundesnetzagentur, 3 May 2012 (in German)

[3] What happens during a blackout?, Office of Technology Assessment by the German Bundestag, 7 Apr 2011,translated from: “Was bei einem Blackout geschieht.”

[4] The European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity

[5] http://www.welt.de/dieweltbewegen/article106143921/Stromnetz-geht-ploetzlich-auf-Alarmstufe-gelb.html

***

This is a guest post by Paul-Frederik Bach. Paul-Frederik has more than 40 years experience in power system planning. He worked with grid and generation planning at ELSAM, the coordinating office for west Danish power stations, until 1997. As Planning Director at Eltra, Transmission System Operator in West Denmark, he was in charge of West Denmark's affiliation to the Nordic spot market for electricity, Nord Pool, in 1999. Until his retirement in 2005, his main responsibility was the integration of wind power into the power grid in Denmark. He is still active as a consultant with an interest in safe and efficient integration of wind power. Check his website for more information.

This article was originally posted on The Oil Drum.

Update: First Solar ‘Furloughs’ Half Its AVSR1 Workforce

2012-05-30T04:00:40+00:00

The 230-megawatt Antelope Valley Solar Ranch One (AVSR1) photovoltaic power plant being built for Exelon Corporation (NYSE: EXC) by First Solar (Nasdaq: FSLR) is facing some challenges.

Exclusively to GTM, Assistant Los Angeles County Supervisor Norm Hickling confirmed rumors of “a large layoff” affecting the AVSR1 workforce on Friday. “I also understand that negotiations continue,” Hickling added about attempts to settle the dispute between First Solar and LA County that has put the project six weeks behind schedule, with “little progress.”

Approximately 120 of the current 240-person workforce was “furloughed,” according to First Solar Public Relations Director Alan Bernheimer.

This is a severe blow to an already jobs-poor Los Angeles-adjacent community where recent studies found as many as one in three homeowners behind and/or underwater with their mortgages.

Negotiations began in early April after an LA County safety inspector discovered that electrical connections on the 3.7 million First Solar cadmium telluride (CdTe) thin-film photovoltaic panels that were to be used at the site could not be approved by LA County Building and Safety officials, according to County spokesperson Kerjon Lee.

The Conditional Use Permit granted to First Solar by LA County specifies that electrical installations “shall be designed in accordance with the National Electric Safety Code [NESC] or in accordance with other standards or regulations acceptable to the building official.”

The NESC, Bernheimer informed GTM by email, “recognizes IEC certifications for 1000 V systems. First Solar modules are IEC 61646 and IEC 61730 certified for such use.”

Neither the company nor the county would specify how these facts led to work being stopped at AVSR1 or why the impasse has lasted six weeks.

The inspector was reportedly doing a routine site visit, in service to the County’s conditional use permit (CUP) for the solar power plant, when he discovered the problem with the panels’ electrical connections. The problem has apparently not been at issue or was not noticed in other states, such as Nevada, where First Solar has done thin film installations, and it is also a standard to which First Solar has not been held at installations it has done elsewhere in California.

Neither the County nor First Solar have offered many details. “The Los Angeles County Public Works Department,” County spokesperson Bob Spencer told GTM when negotiations began, “is working with First Solar to address its plan check comments relative to the rating of the modules and the applicable electrical safety regulations.”

“First Solar is in discussions with Los Angeles County Public Works regarding electrical codes and standards interpretations as they relate to utility-scale, solar photovoltaic (PV) installations,” First Solar spokesperson Ted Meyer told GTM at that time. “We are confident these discussions will result in a satisfactory resolution.”

That was six weeks ago.

“Our discussions with the county are ongoing and we are working to resolve the issue so we can put people back to work,” Bernheimer told GTM Saturday.

First Solar's Adam Eventov told the Oso Town Council on Thursday night a settlement was expected by mid-June but noted, in the same statement, that problems with dust were preventing the company from continuing to grade land and prepare racks for panel installation at the project site. A proposal to use decomposed granite to minimize dust had been blocked by the County, Eventov said, leaving them with only the expensive alternative of hydroseeding.

Eventov also said that First Solar has, as promised, made a $140,000 donation to Antelope Valley College on behalf of the AVSR1 project but continues to hold a matching donation to the local communities until panel installation can continue.

At the same meeting, elected members of the Oso Town Council Richard Skaggs and Gerry Conroy, just back from the annual First Solar shareholder meeting in Phoenix, reported to the community that they thought the County was more responsible for impediments to continued construction than the company.

Panel installation was scheduled to begin at AVSR1 by mid-April. If the panels cannot be approved until UL certification is obtained or replacement with another technology becomes necessary, the financial consequences for First Solar could be problematic to the already financially hamstrung company. First Solar’s share price was as high as $140 in July 2011 but now hovers around $15.

First Solar continues to be in charge of engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) at the site. It is also in charge of EPC at the NRG Energy Alpine Solar project located a few miles away, which, like AVSR1, would use the problematic panels and is subject to provisions of an LA County CUP.

The total number of panels that will require some kind of attention or adjustment is well in excess of four million.

Neither the County nor First Solar would comment on whether corrections at other First Solar projects in development or retroactive corrections of panels at other California sites will be necessary.

Also under development with First Solar as panel supplier and in the EPC role and -- therefore potentially affected by this issue -- are the 550-megawatt Topaz Solar Farm in San Luis Obispo County owned by MidAmerican Holdings and the 550-megawatt Desert Center Solar Farm in Riverside County owned by NextEra Energy and GE.

The 21-megawatt Blythe Solar Project in Riverside County owned by NRG Energy may also be affected.

With a power supply uncertainty looming due to the safety issues that took the 2,200-megawatt Son Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) off-line, it would have been a positive result for Southern California if AVSR1 was coming on-line this summer.

BrightSource: The Rumors of Concentrating Solar Power’s Demise Are Wrong

2012-05-24T15:00:52+00:00

The seemingly endless stream of cars coming out of BrightSource Energy’s 370-megawatt Ivanpah solar power plant complex bolsters the company’s recent declarations about its growth and the progress of the U.S. concentrating solar power (CSP) sector.

“We’ve got 1,700 [people] at work,” said BrightSource Vice President for Government Affairs and Communications Joe Desmond. He added, many are from California’s Inland Empire, where unemployment reached 15 percent at the height of the Great Recession. “These are family-wage jobs. They’re electricians, pipefitters, welders, heavy equipment operators, engineers and biologists.” There is also a helmets-to-hardhats program designed for veterans.

“People talk about the CSP industry being dormant or paused,” explained BrightSource Communications Director Keely Wachs. “Last year, PV had a banner year. The industry installed 868 megawatts in the U.S.,” said Wachs. “Now, there are 1,200 megawatts of CSP under construction in the U.S. alone, which will mean a 120 percent increase by 2013 over the 530 megawatts of operational CSP in the U.S. today.” And that, he added, “is not including the 3,000-plus megawatts under development.”

Competitors SolarReserve (which has projects under way in Nevada and California) and Abengoa (which is developing in Arizona) would agree. But BrightSource is the biggest. A 29-megawatt plant is on-line, doing enhanced oil recovery (EOR) for Chevron. The three-tower, 370-megawatt Ivanpah project, in Ivanpah, CA, near Las Vegas, is on schedule to go on-line in 2013. And both its three-tower, 500-megawatt Hidden Hills project and its three-tower, 750-megawatt Rio Mesa project are under permitting review by the California Energy Commission, with decisions expected by the middle of 2013.

Altogether, BrightSource expects to have thirteen plants, totaling 2,377 megawatts of capacity, on-line by 2017.

The BrightSource solar power tower technology was developed by the builders of the original CSP trough technology at the nine Solar Energy Generating Stations (SEGS) still in operation today -- and not far from Ivanpah.

“We produce high-temperature, high-pressure steam to turn a turbine,” Desmond explained. And, where it is contracted for, “we transfer heat from the solar field through a heat exchanger to molten salt for storage.” The technology is sophisticated enough that multinational engineering giant Bechtel was brought on at Ivanpah for engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) duties.

The Ivanpah facility without storage, said Desmond, has a 32 percent capacity factor. “A PV panel might have a 21 percent capacity factor,” Desmond went on. “If we add between two and six hours of storage, the capacity factor will be above 50 percent.” More importantly, Desmond added, “when you increase the capacity factor, you’re not necessarily increasing your cost at the same rate. You’re taking your fixed costs and spreading them out over more hours, which helps drive down cost.”

BrightSource is concerned about costs. To minimize transport expense, it has built a heliostat assembly plant at the Ivanpah facility where a union workforce turns flat mirrors into heliostats at the rate of 500 per day.

Moving to air cooling also promises cost savings. With trough technology, he explained, “there was a preference not to go to dry cooling because there was an efficiency loss.” But the tower operates “at a higher temperature and pressure that allows us to offset some of that efficiency change.”

“That is the conversion of thermal energy to electricity -- photon to electron -- efficiency,” Wachs added. “The troughs were about 36 percent. Ivanpah is 42 percent with air cooling. Hidden Hills goes up to almost 44 percent. And when you get to supercritical levels, you get to 46 percent. Like a super-efficient coal plant. That is where we are headed, because of our heliostat design and our ability to understand the sun.”

Water use is also minimized, Wachs added, because the entire system is a closed loop. The steam is condensed to water and recirculated. “We don’t require external water for cooling purposes.”

BrightSource engineers are using on-the-ground experience to find new design efficiencies. “As we go from one project to the next,” Desmond said, “we are figuring out how to do it faster, better, and cheaper. We see that already at Ivanpah. We are ahead of schedule on unit three based on what we’ve learned with work done so far on units one and two.”

A better understanding of the plant’s power block has produced a new design for the Hidden Hills project that, Desmond said, is expected to cost 40 percent more but double the output. Overall, he added, Hidden Hills is projected to be 20 percent less expensive to build.

“This is our roadmap for driving down costs,” Desmond said. “When the original SEGS plants were built here in California 25 years ago, from the construction of the first to the ninth plant, the costs came down 50 percent. Our long-term goal is a 50 percent cost reduction from where we are now. That is different from PV. They have already had an opportunity to achieve the volumes that have led to their cost reduction.”

The Bad News in CPV: Amonix Layoffs and Soitec Losses

2012-05-23T17:30:21+00:00

Earlier this week, we reported on some of the positive news in the world of concentrating photovoltaics (CPV): efficiency gains, venture funding, and some decent-sized deployments.

Today we report on some bad news at CPV system vendors Amonix and Soitec.

Amonix plans to lay off 76 employees, according to a filing it made with a state agency, as reported in Dow Jones. We've reported on Amonix's world-record 30-megawatt Alamosa solar farm and the tragic loss of its CEO Brian Robertson in December of last year. The layoff notice came from a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, filed by Amonix with the California Employment Development Department earlier this month.

Amonix has raised approximately $140 million in venture capital from Kleiner Perkins, Adams Street Partners, Angeleno Group, New Silk Route, PCG Clean Energy & Technology Fund, Vedanta Capital, Westly Group, and MissionPoint Capital Partners. The Alamosa CPV site is funded by a $90 million DOE loan guarantee to developer Cogentrix.

Cogentrix is a subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group and most of its previous projects have been for fossil fuel plants. Ben Kortlang, the KPCB partner on the Amonix board of directors, spent eight years at Goldman Sachs prior to his investment in Amonix at KP.

In a 2010 interview, the amiable Mr. Kortlang told me, "The denominator in all solar is efficiency," and Amonix is the most efficient solar system available at 25 percent AC efficiency. Kortlang concluded with the observation, "This is cheaper than First Solar."

Amonix doesn't cite a CEO on its website, and onetime interim CEO, Jan van Dokkum, a Kleiner Perkins partner, is no longer listed on the website. Vahan Garboushian, the founder, CTO, and chairman of Amonix, shepherded the firm through its earlier stage of steady organic growth.

Soitec has large CPV plants in the works, as well as over 150 megawatts of PPAs with San Diego Gas & Electric and a 50-megawatt plant in South Africa.  But the firm's solar division (gained from its acquisition of Concentrix) is bleeding cash. With a small increase of year-to-year sales, Soitec's 2011 losses have almost doubled to 44.9 million euros.

Have Wind, CSP, and PV Turned Against Each Other?

2012-05-21T15:00:03+00:00

The three major investor-owned utilities (IOUs) in California are well on their way to meeting their obligations to provide a third of their power from renewable sources by 2020. As a result, they and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), their regulators, are no longer thinking only about the quantity of the renewables they want. They are starting to think more carefully about the quality of the renewables and how they will fit into utility portfolios.

As of May 2012, according to the CPUC, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) had procured renewables capacity equal to 20.09 percent of its 2011 electricity. San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) had procured 20.80 percent, and Southern California Edison (SCE) had 21.07 percent. At recent conferences in San Francisco, San Diego, and Phoenix, renewables investors repeated, off-the-record, that the IOUs may have as much as three-quarters of their 2020 obligations under contract.

To determine the best economic choices to fill out the remainder of the renewables portfolio, the CPUC is considering a new formula. In his April 5 Rulemaking, Commissioner Mark Ferron described a redefinition of the 2004 “least cost, best fit” formula for capturing the full range of costs and benefits of renewables selected to meet the RPS.

In it, the Net Market Value (R) of a generation source is defined as [Energy Value (E) + Capacity Value (C)] – [Post-Time-of-Delivery Adjusted Power Purchase Agreement Price (P) + Transmission Network Upgrade Costs (T) + Congestion Costs (G) + Integration Costs (I)].

For an Adjusted Net Market Value (A), the CPUC would sum that Net Market Value (R) and Ancillary Services Value (S).

There is not yet agreement on what these terms entail. Scientists and researchers at places like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) are still helping to better define and quantify the factors most useful in planners’ decision-making processes.

“What the CPUC might be trying to do there,” speculated LBNL’s Andrew Mills, is formalize the “least cost, best fit methodology used for procurement” and to “look at those individual components and make sure they’re using the best approach for quantifying them.” Those components, Mills said, include benefits like capacity value and energy value and costs like transmission upgrades and integration of variable renewables.

The term 'capacity value,' he explained, is an attempt “to quantify the ability of a resource to avoid the need to build other peaker plants.” A peaker plant, he said, is built to supplement generation at peak demand periods. It is “the resource you would build if you need something that just provides capacity [and] the ability to meet peak loads.”

Resources that reduce the need to build fossil-fueled peaker plants provide capacity benefit and therefore have capacity value, Mills said.

In explaining the value of BrightSource Energy’s concentrating solar power (CSP) plants with thermal energy storage (TES) capability, the company's Vice President for Government Affairs and Communications Joe Desmond described a 2006 California “heat storm” during which “the California ISO reached its all-time maximum demand” and had “about 3,000 megawatts of wind available,” but “the amount of wind delivering electricity into the system when it hit its peak demand was 1 percent.”

Desmond was attempting to characterize CSP with TES as valuable but some in wind thought he made wind’s contribution sound trivial, whereas, Mills pointed out, it was delivering 30 megawatts of capacity value at the time. Because a small peaker plant might be no more than 50 megawatts, that contribution from wind avoided 60 percent of the cost of building one.

Mills’ calculations would suggest to planners, however, that Desmond might have a point about CSP with TES being more likely to provide a higher capacity value.

“Energy value,” Mills said, “is thinking more broadly about the entire year.” It asks the value of the fuel saved when renewables generation allows the backing off of power plants.

Mills’ work has focused not only on quantifying these values but also on understanding how they change with increasing penetrations into a transmission system’s overall portfolio.

The challenge, Mills said, is in making procurement decisions. That should include the benefit of renewable resources as defined in the least cost, best fit methodology. But it must also consider the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for those resources.

“There has been a tendency to compare only on an LCOE,” Mills said. “It’s the combination of those two that you can use.”

At zero percent penetration of PV with a hypothetical value of $90 per megawatt-hour and a cost of $100 per megawatt-hour, Mills said, “the renewable premium, or what the PUC is calling Net Market Value is in the range of $10 per megawatt-hour.”

A CSP plant might provide the same value of $90 per megawatt-hour, but a hypothetical cost might be more like $200 per megawatt-hour. Then, he said, “the renewable premium is $110 per megawatt-hour.”

Useful definitions and the relative importance of components in the procurement equation like energy value, capacity value and transmission costs are emerging, Mills noted. But much uncertainty remains.

“Rather than say that you should change your portfolio and only go with wind or solar, we’re trying to draw attention to these issues,” Mills said. “We’re a couple of levels back from saying you should adjust your procurement, at the level of saying you should adjust where you’re focusing your analysis.”

GTM Research on Tariffs Levied Against Chinese Module Manufacturers

2012-05-18T15:00:28+00:00

The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) levied a second round of preliminary tariffs against Chinese solar module imports in the ongoing trade war between U.S. solar manufacturers and their Chinese counterparts. The following are the anti-dumping tariffs handed down in the ruling:

Suntech: 31.22 percent
Trina: 31.14 percent
Named Chinese firms: 31.18 percent
Firms that did not provide info to Dept. of Commerce: 249.96 percent

These anti-dumping tariffs will be compounded by the countervailing duties that the DOC levied on March 20. The countervailing duties are listed below:

Suntech: 2.90 percent
Trina: 4.73 percent
Everyone else: 3.59 percent

The following is a series of comments from GTM Research’s Senior Analyst, Shyam Mehta on how the tariffs will affect Chinese suppliers in the U.S.

“While the margins are not as high as those seen in many previous U.S.-China antidumping cases (electrical blankets, steel grating), they are certainly much higher than Chinese manufacturers would have hoped for,” said Mehta. “Stacked onto the margins for countervailing duties, they amount to levels of 35 percent to 36 percent, which is significant.”
“Keep in mind that this is a preliminary decision. We expect Chinese manufacturers and CASE representatives to contest the findings in the days ahead.”
“The margins were obviously driven in part by the Department of Commerce’s choice of the ‘proxy economy’ to estimate costs, as China is considered a ‘non-market economy.’”
“At these margins, China-based manufacturers would certainly have to raise U.S. prices to turn a profit. It is not feasible for them to maintain prices at tariff-free levels and still be profitable. In the short term, this is likely to lead to module price increases in the U.S. which would serve to dampen demand and installation growth. If the Chinese were to absorb the tariff, it would place their costs close to parity with many U.S.-based suppliers.”“However, Chinese firms are hardly likely to stand still. Broadly speaking, they have two strategies: set up cell manufacturing outside China, or use the tolling services of Taiwan-based suppliers to turn wafers into cells there, and then assemble the modules in China. Both strategies would allow the Chinese to bypass import tariffs. We estimate that tolling cells to Taiwanese firms would increase Chinese costs by 6 percent to 12 percent, which is meaningful but manageable.”
“Given this, we do expect that the decision will result in at least incremental investment in domestic manufacturing by Chinese firms. However, there are other, lower-cost manufacturing locations that these firms could set up manufacturing in, such as Mexico and Taiwan, for example that would still allow them to price their modules below that of U.S.-based suppliers. Therefore, we see the impact of this decision on U.S. manufacturing as positive, but spurring limited investment in the future and likely only temporary relief for existing U.S.-based suppliers.”

For further reading on the trade case from GTM Research and Greentech Media, visit here, and to read the Department of Commerce fact sheet, go here.

Text of Commerce Dept. Ruling on China Solar Trade Tariffs

2012-05-17T19:40:51+00:00

Here's a reprint of the fact sheet just issued by the Department of Commerce on the preliminary decision on the anti-dumping complaint from SolarWorld. (Click on the images to enlarge.)

Solar Industry Reaction to the Anti-Dumping Decision

2012-05-17T19:00:39+00:00

Shyam Mehta, Greentech Media's Senior Solar Analyst:

While the margins are not as high as those seen in many previous U.S.-China antidumping cases (electrical blankets, steel grating), they are certainly much higher than Chinese manufacturers would have hoped for. Stacked onto the margins for countervailing duties, they amount to levels of 35 to 36 percent, which is significant.
Keep in mind that this is a preliminary decision. We expect Chinese manufacturers and CASE representatives to contest the findings in days ahead.
The margins were obviously driven in part by the DOC's choice of the "proxy economy" to estimate costs, as China is considered a "non-market economy".
At these margins, China-based manufacturers would certainly have to raise U.S. prices to turn a profit. It is not feasible for them to maintain prices at tariff-free levels and still be profitable. In the short-term, this is likely to lead to module price increases in the U.S. which would serve to dampen demand and installation growth. If the Chinese were to absorb the tariff, it would place their costs close to parity with many U.S.-based suppliers.
However, Chinese firms are hardly likely to stand still. Broadly speaking, they have two strategies: set up cell manufacturing outside China, or use the tolling services of Taiwan-based suppliers to turn wafers into cells there, and then assemble the modules in China. Both strategies would allow the Chinese to bypass import tariffs. We estimate that tolling cells to Taiwanese firms would increase Chinese costs by 6 to 12 percent, which is meaningful but manageable.
Given this, we do expect that the decision will result in at least incremental investment in domestic manufacturing by Chinese firms. However, there are other, lower-cost manufacturing locations that these firms could set up manufacturing in, such as Mexico and Taiwan, for example that would still allow them to price their modules below that of U.S.-based suppliers. Therefore, we see the impact of this decision on U.S. manufacturing as positive, but spurring limited investment in the future and likely only temporary relief for existing U.S.-based suppliers.

Suntech (NYSE: STP): "These duties do not reflect the reality of a highly-competitive global solar industry. Suntech has consistently maintained a positive gross margin as revenues are higher than our cost of production. We will work closely with the Department of Commerce prior to their final decision to demonstrate why these duties are not justified by fact," said Andrew Beebe, Suntech's Chief Commercial Officer. "As a global company with global supply chains and manufacturing facilities in three countries, including the United States, we are providing our U.S. customers with hundreds of megawatts of quality solar products that are not subject to these tariffs," continued Mr. Beebe. "Despite these harmful trade barriers, we hope that the U.S., China and all countries will engage in constructive dialogue to avert a deepening solar trade war. Suntech opposes trade barriers at any point in the global solar supply chain. All leading companies in the global solar industry want to see a trade war averted. We need more competition and innovation, not litigation," continued Mr. Beebe.

Yingli (NYSE: YGE) “We felt validated after the Department of Commerce’s preliminary CVD decision in March, which determined that we are not being substantially subsidized as the petitioners claim. Today’s preliminary anti-dumping tariff recommendation was not unexpected given the historical tariff levels in these types of cases. We will continue to aggressively defend ourselves and remain optimistic that we will persevere in the final determination,” said Robert Petrina, Managing Director of Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc., the Company’s operating subsidiary in the U.S. “The overwhelming majority of the U.S. solar industry supports access to affordable solar energy and fair market trade. We are grateful to the tens of thousands of U.S. solar installers, developers, manufacturers, and suppliers who stand behind us today.” “As we’ve stated before, tariffs are disruptive and destructive for the entire solar industry,” said Mr. Liangsheng Miao, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Yingli Green Energy. “We remain fully committed to serving the U.S. market irrespective of the outcome

“The verdict is in,” said Gordon Brinser, president of SolarWorld. “In addition to its preliminary finding that Chinese solar companies were on the receiving end of at least 10 WTO-illegal subsidies, Commerce has now confirmed that Chinese manufacturers are guilty of illegally dumping solar cells and panels in the U.S. market. We appreciate the Commerce staff’s hard work on this matter.”

Brinser further stated, ““Commerce today put importers and purchasers on notice about the consequences of importing illegally subsidized and dumped products from China. We understand U.S. Customs and other federal agencies are already aggressively enforcing the countervailing tariffs in order to prevent circumvention, and we expect they will be equally vigilant with the anti-dumping tariffs.”

Tom Hecht, president of SCHOTT Solar, which produces solar PV panels in Albuquerque, NM: “The solar industry has been awaiting today’s decision from the U.S. Department of Commerce – and for good reason. U.S. project developers and investors need clarity and confidence to make critical supply decisions. Today’s decision brings clarity – but creates another issue for U.S. developers. As they look to keep projects on track over the next three to four months, many will be trying to close on sources for PV panels not subject to the new tariff structure,” said Tom Hecht, President of SCHOTT Solar, which manufactures Buy-American compliant, high quality PV modules in Albuquerque, N.M. “SCHOTT has over 50 years’ experience in solar. With factory sites in the U.S., Europe and Asia, SCHOTT Solar has been preparing to supply modules to our customers without interruption, regardless of the government decision." Hecht also noted, “Longer term, the U.S. solar industry and government must focus on energy policies that will provide long-term certainty to the market and continue to encourage investment. Now is the time to support the industry in its efforts to create energy security for our nation and create additional jobs in manufacturing and services.”

Rhone Resch, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA): "The solar industry calls upon the U.S. and Chinese governments to immediately work together towards a mutually-satisfactory resolution of the growing trade conflict within the solar industry. While trade remedy proceedings are basic principles of the rules-based global trading system, so too are collaboration and negotiations. Importantly, disputes within one segment of the industry affect the entire solar supply chain--and these broad implications must be recognized. In addition, the U.S. solar manufacturing base goes well beyond solar cell and module production and includes billions of dollars of recent investments into the production of polysilicon, polymers, and solar manufacturing equipment, products which are largely destined for export. If the U.S.-China solar trade disputes continue to escalate, it will jeopardize these U.S. investments. Given these broader implications, it is imperative that the U.S., China, and other players in the dynamic global marketplace work constructively to avert or resolve trade disputes that will ultimately hurt consumers and businesses throughout the solar value chain."

Canadian Solar CEO Shawn Qu: “Canadian Solar is disappointed by today’s decision from the DOC. Imposing an obligation to post large bonds on solar imports at this preliminary phase of the antidumping investigation is unwarranted and will inflict losses on the entire solar industry. Limiting trade in solar products will cause panel prices to increase, defeating America’s goal of driving down costs and hindering its move toward a clean energy future. Our first priority should be to support the health of the industry as a whole through the financing and installation of solar, which is the key driver to expanding jobs in the US solar market.”

Jigar Shah, the President of CASE, stated, “Today SolarWorld received one of its biggest subsidies yet – an average 31 percent tax on its competitors. What’s worse, it will ultimately come right out of the paychecks of American solar workers. Fortunately, these duties are much lower than the 250 percent tax that SolarWorld originally requested. This decision will increase solar electricity prices in the U.S. precisely at the moment solar power is becoming competitive with fossil fuel generated electricity.”

“At the same time, CASE recognizes that today’s decision is ‘preliminary.’ Between now and a final decision before the end of the year, there are many issues that will be addressed and whose resolution would lead to a significantly lower tariff. CASE will continue to fight SolarWorld’s anti-consumer and anti-jobs efforts to ensure a better result for America’s solar industry,” continued Shah.

According to Kevin Lapidus, Senior Vice President Legal and Government Affairs for SunEdison, “The U.S. solar industry has been growing, adding new solar electric systems, creating jobs and investing billions of dollars in the U.S. energy infrastructure. By increasing the price of modules and therefore the price of solar energy, these tariffs will undermine the success of the U.S. solar industry and reduce the ability of solar energy to compete with electricity generated from fossil fuel.”

Ken Button, co-founder and President of Verengo Solar, stated, “As the second largest residential solar company in the country, Verengo has helped thousands of middle class families save money during tough economic times by installing solar. Because our customers are very price sensitive, today’s decision to increase costs for solar cells and panels will make it harder for American families to access solar.”

Tore Torvund, CEO of REC Silicon, with 500 solar jobs in the United States, commented, “This decision is short-sighted in the extreme and a severe setback for President Obama’s clean energy program with its goal of expanding the use of solar and other renewables. Further, we are very concerned about the increased likelihood that China will retaliate with their own tariffs on polysilicon exports from U.S. producers such as REC Silicon. Triggering a solar trade war is not in the best interests of the U.S. solar industry or its customers.”

Tom Gutierrez, CEO of GT Advanced Technologies, with another 500 solar jobs in the United States, stated, “Today’s Department of Commerce decision subsidizes a German-owned company to the tune of an average 31% tax on its competitors and potentially harms U.S.-headquartered companies like GT Advanced Technologies, Dow Chemical, REC Silicon and MEMC. Ultimately, protectionism fosters dependence and high-cost business models, rather than the innovation and agile approaches required for companies to succeed in the global marketplace. Now is the time for the U.S. solar industry to move forward with the development of advanced technologies that create jobs and enhance our energy security—in spite of this new barrier. American solar manufacturing can compete without special protections.”

Jesse Pichel with Jeffries Group Inc., “Environmentalists and the unemployed should be equally disappointed with this decision because lower cost solar panels make solar more competitive with dirty fossil fuels. It should be clear by now that there are more U.S. jobs on the installation side of the solar business than on manufacturing. These cases have a chilling effect on business and it will linger for a long time. It’s unfortunate that SolarWorld has taken this scorched Earth approach and that they are distracting from the growth of U.S. jobs and affordable solar energy.”

Breaking News: Commerce Dept. Chinese Solar Panel Dumping Verdict Is Now In

2012-05-17T17:29:26+00:00

Although the official pronouncement has not been made, we've learned from sources close to the case that the Commerce Departments's preliminary decision on SolarWorld's solar dumping petition against China has been handed down in a case that had the potential to rock the U.S. solar market's status as an emerging growth market.

Here are the preliminary tariff numbers in the anti-dumping piece of the case:

Suntech: 31.22 percent
Trina: 31.14 percent
Everyone else: 31.18 percent

In short, China solar manufacturers have been accused of unfair trade practices in subsidizing solar panel manufacture and selling panels in the U.S. below their cost. Cheaper Chinese solar panel pricing has been a boon for consumers and solar installers, but a competitive challenge for the few crystalline solar manufacturers in the U.S.

SolarWorld accuses Chinese firms of dumping. Others suggest that China has a legitimate cost advantage. For the purpose of AD investigations, dumping occurs when a foreign company sells a product in the United States at less than fair value.

On March 20 of this year, The Department of Commerce's preliminary verdict on unfair subsidies for Chinese solar panels was handed down, along with what amounted to low tariffs for the Countervailing Duties (CVD). The preliminary determination indicated the DOC’s intention to impose a duty of 4.73 percent on U.S. imports from Trina Solar, 2.9 percent from Suntech, and 3.59 percent from all other remaining Chinese manufacturers.

The AD (Anti-Dumping) tariffs will be added to the CVD (Countervailing Duties) tariff.

The CVD tariffs are retroactive. We're waiting for word on the AD duties and whether they are retroactive.

Gordon Brinser, president of Oregon-based SolarWorld Industries America, had this to say: “This is a bellwether case. It underscores the importance of domestic manufacturing to the U.S. economy and provides a clear indication of whether our country will be a global competitor in clean technologies or outsource them to China. The Commerce Department has already determined that the U.S. solar industry has been harmed by China flooding the market with illegally subsidized goods, and we are in need of relief that counts.”

Clyde Prestowitz, president of the Economic Strategy Institute, added this: “The president has said he will insist on a level playing field for U.S. industry and has said that America always wins when the playing field is level. Well, this week is the week when the administration must decide how to respond to China's industrial policy for solar panels. This decision will tell us whether Obama means business or whether all the activity around the creation of a trade enforcement unit is just a mirage.”

An anti-dumping tariff of 30 percent together with the CVD tariff could mean a difference of roughly $0.30 per watt on solar panel prices. Chinese module manufacturers could ship cells and modules through Taiwan at a cost of $0.06 to $0.08 a watt, which might help Taiwanese solar cell makers like Neosolar or Motech.

A report from The Brattle Group looked at 50-percent and 100-percent tariff scenarios and found that a 50-percent tariff will effectively shut the majority of Chinese imports out of the U.S. and result in a job loss of 15,000 to 50,000 -- even accounting for production gains in the U.S. The report also considers the impact of Chinese retaliation in importing polysilicon, which could result in a loss of 11,000 jobs in 2012, for a total of up to 60,000 jobs lost by 2014. The author of the report did acknowledge that there would be some gains among U.S.-based module producers -- albeit at higher module prices.

The Center for American Progress (CAP), a left-leaning think-tank, put out a release yesterday that considered if the "U.S. solar market would be much better off if SolarWorld would drop the petition and allow the U.S. government to negotiate a private solution with China." Their analysts' take was that "if U.S. companies drop trade petitions in response to China’s real or implied threats, then capitulation wins out over negotiation -- and capitulation is a losing game. As a result of this proposed balancing exercise, CASE expects that a bilateral negotiation would result in much lower tariffs (compared to what the U.S. Department Commerce might impose) or a price floor, possibly in exchange for Chinese promises to reduce or eliminate the contested subsidies. But such a balanced outcome is highly unlikely, either in the case of the solar industry or in the many other cases in which U.S. companies face unfair Chinese trade competition."

CAP concludes that the U.S. cannot capitulate to China’s solar market ambitions.

Hari Chandra Polavarapu of Auriga Research released a research note on the trade case, saying, "We have written extensively on this issue as part of industry debate and our viewpoints largely converge with Gordon Brinser/CASM that the insidious and predatory nature of Chinese state support (via subsidies, mispricing/misallocation of capital) has emasculated global solar PV manufacturing while propping up its large domestic base, which is littered with uncompetitive/unviable companies. Free of rules, China's state-sponsored capitalism in solar PV manifests as a massive employment welfare scheme engaged in asymmetric/unrestricted warfare against overseas competition."

Note that these tariffs and decisions are preliminary and can be decreased, refunded or increased in a final review by the Commerce Department.