Is CIGS Turning the Corner?
PV Tech, perhaps the best web newsletter out there, and Tom Cheyney (ditto for kudos for him, individually), had a valuable article on Solibro’s CIGS status and plans. For the first time, it seems that CIGS could be becoming mainstream and predictable. Solibro is at 45 MW of production and is finishing 90 more, for 135 MW total in 2010. Their modules are at about 11% (like First Solar’s CdTe) but aim to surpass 12%, and may even reach 15% with steady progress in a five or so years. (These are very similar to First Solar’s recent projections, too.) In the past, such projections from the CIGS start-ups were purely speculative. Now at least we are getting a firmer set of actual manufacturers.
The other steady producer is Wurth, also evaporation of the elements onto glass. This is the traditional method developed over the last 25 years in the US and Europe, with the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, CO, still the world record holder at almost 20% cell efficiency. Lars Stolt works at Solibro, and he is one of the long-term contributors to the CIGS technology.
Global Solar of Solon makes CIGS on flexible foil; Ascent had recent success making integrated CIGS modules on flexible plastic; and a few others such as Showa are working on glass.
Interestingly, we have not seen the new breed of VC-backed companies emerge from the tunnel yet. Similarly, the ones with tangible production and expansion are working on glass. Ten years later, all the famous talk in the late 1990s about the new breed of CIGS start-ups was either the ignorance of new entrants or the spin of those raising money.
Solibro didn’t tell us what cost they are making CIGS modules for now, but they told us their goals of about 0.8 euros/W. I will guess this means about $1.1/W based on a wildly fluctuating dollar-euro price (of course, it is closer to $1.2/W now). It wasn’t clear what their projected efficiencies assumed were, but let’s take a round number 12% for comparison sake, and $1.3/W for right now.
Using our own spreadsheet estimates (and uniform 30% module margins and near-10% integrator margins), we can stack up Solibro’s CIGS modules against the field and see how they rate. These are engineering estimates, and not purchasable prices – they do not account for the margins and middle men between us and our hardware. But at least they are on a common basis, which allows for comparisons.
Before looking at their goals, let’s look at Solibro using their assumed efficiency of 11% and $1.27/W total, today. This may be too kind to them (perhaps in terms of yield and current equipment costs).
Figure 1. Comparing technologies at the large-ground mounted system level using today’s assumed Solibro numbers: 11% modules and $1.27/W direct cost.
Note that they are only competitive against amorphous silicon on glass using these numbers. Now let’s look at their goal of 12% and $1.1/W.
Figure 2. Solibro’s goals: 12% modules and $1.1/W. Still not competitive with either today’s CdTe or better silicon producers, but closer.
In the past, lack of cost competitiveness was not as much an issue, as every module made was sold, and those who were cheaper had larger margins. Today it is different. Still, these are good numbers for an emerging technology, and it would be healthy for consumers if markets were robust enough to support the continued progress of CIGS to keep up the competitive pressure on the incumbents.
Dr. Stolt made the remark that 1% of module improvement was worth as much as halving the capital cost. This actually allows one to back out their capital costs. 1% module improvement from 11% to 12% is a 1/11th , or 9% cost reduction. 9% of their area cost is about $12/m2. This means their capital cost is about $24/m2, which at 11% and 7 years depreciation is about $1.5/W. This seems like a reasonable assumption for their factories, now that they are being simplified. It used to be $3/W, so this is big progress.
Is CIGS turning the corner. Alright, maybe it is still a little too soon, but it is good to see them reach a point where it makes sense to actually calculate their place in the competitive landscape.
