Sei sulla pagina 1di 396

EQUITY RESEARCH AMERICAS

Solar Energy Handbook


TECHNOLOGY Solar Energy SECTOR VIEW
Rating: 1 - POSITIVE

The Second Growth Phase of Solar Era


We expect the solar market to triple in the next four years as ongoing government incentives and accelerated cost reductions make solar electricity attractive in several regions of the world. We expect supply to exceed demand in 2009 potentially driving weaker manufacturers out of business. But we expect potential resolution of financing/permitting bottlenecks to mark the beginning of the second growth phase of the solar era as we believe new incentives in multiple markets and greater supply of lower priced panels should lead to accelerated shipment growth from 2010. We expect companies with strong balance sheets, low cost structure, and geographic diversification to emerge as winners during the second growth phase. In this extensive report, we examine the global solar market and investigate the market sizes, growth rates, market shares, and principal drivers for each of the major segments. The focus of this report is to provide a longer-term framework for industry and company analysis. We provide detailed updates on global solar incentives and updates on key areas of solar supply chain, solar equipment, and solar thermal markets. Solar currently represents less than 0.5% of global electricity generation. However, as renewable electricity gains importance in the $1 trillion global electricity market, we forecast solar photovoltaic shipments to rise at a compound annual growth rate of 50% for the next four years. We expect an increasing number of countries to promote s olar energy as the cost gap between solar and fossil fuel generated electricity closes.

Vishal Shah
1.212.526.4378 vishal.shah1@barcap.com BCI, New York

Analyst Certification
I, Vishal Shah, hereby certify (1) that the views expressed in this research report accurately reflect my personal views about any or all of the subject securities or issuers referred to in this research report and (2) no part of my compensation was, is or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views expressed in this research report.

We expect development of financing to remain the primary constraint during the second growth phase. Our base case forecast assumes $55 billion of financing in 2012 to support worldwide installations of more than 14 gigawatts at $4 per watt average system price. This compares with an estimated $40 billion of capital consumed by the industry in 2008 to install 6 gigawatts of solar capacity at $7 per watt average system price.

Barclays Capital does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Customers of Barclays Capital in the United States can receiv e independent, third-party research on the company or companies covered in this report, at no cost to them, where such research is available. Customers can access this independent research at www.lehmanlive.com or can call 1-800-253-4626 to request a copy of this research. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision.

May 01, 2009

PLEASE SEE IMPORTANT DISC LOSURES BEGINNING ON P AGE 391

Solar Energy Handbook

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Investment Thesis ...........................................................................19 Chapter 2: Solar Background ..........................................................................59 Chapter 3: How to Screen Solar Stocks .............................................................69 Chapter 4: Solar PV Supply Chain Analysis ........................................................75 Chapter 5: Solar Equipment Market ................................................................101 Chapter 6: Solar Thermal Market ...................................................................115 Chapter 7: Key Solar PV Markets ...................................................................123 Chapter 8: Overview of U.S. Renewable Portfolio Standards ...............................175 Chapter 9: Solar Energy Project Development Process Overview ...........................201 Chapter 10: Solar Energy Basis ......................................................................215 Chapter 11: Glossary ...................................................................................233 Chapter 12: Performance Valuation & Financial Statistics ......................................239 Chapter 13: Earnings Models ........................................................................245 Chapter 14: Private Solar Companies ..............................................................289 Chapter 15: Company Descriptions .................................................................299 Chapter 16: Solar Energy 101 .......................................................................311 Table of Figures............................................................................................378

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Executive Summary "We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century" President Barack Obama (Presidential Address to Congress, 2/24/09) While the near-term outlook for the solar sector may be considered bleak, we believe longterm prospects have never been this encouraging. As global economies take action to mitigate climate change, we expect an era of fundamental reshaping of the global energy infrastructure to create a prominent role for the renewable energy sector. Renewable electricity represented 2.5% of worldwide electricity generation in 2008 and we believe it could represent more than 20% of worldwide electricity generation, as policies to promote renewable energy are implemented globally over the next 20 years. In this report, we provide insights into what we believe may turn out to be one of the brightest new renewable energy sectors to emerge in the coming years. Sola r Power has historically been viewed as an expensive source of alternative energy generation. However, we expect ongoing transformation of the industry supply chain to cut solar electricity prices by half in 2009. More importantly, as the United States and other countries create mechanisms for pricing the external costs of carbon dioxide emissions into the marketplace, we expect the cost differential between solar power and other conventional sources of energy to diminish in an increasing number of markets globally . Solar industry shipments have increased at a 40% compound annual growth rate over the last five years primarily due to attractive incentive programs in markets such as Japan, Germany, and Spain. In our opinion, we are about to enter what we call The second growth phase of the solar erawhere we expect demand for new solar installations to be generated from multiple markets. We see three key factors potentially driving demand during the second growth phase: 1) greater supply of lower priced solar panels; 2) new incentives in several emerging solar markets; and 3) potential resolution of permitting/financing bottlenecks that have impaired growth in several emerging solar markets so far. We expect the total subsidy pool for the solar industry to continue to grow as more countries provide a greater amount of incentives. During the second growth phase, we expect supply and availability of financing to drive demand. During the first growth phase, polysilicon prices in the spot market increased from $25 to $400 per kg and companies with relatively low reliance on spot market emerged as strong Wall Street's performers. We expect the following trends to potentially emerge as powerful differentiators between winners and losers during the second growth phase: 1) balance sheets; 2) capital intensity; 3) cost structure; and 4) geographic diversification. Given the early stage nature of this sector, we believe a lot of uncertainties remain about the execution capabilities of individual companies and government policies among all major markets. Having said that, we remain confident of the following: 1) growth will likely be significant; 2) volatility will likely be high as investor sentiment changes between investing in growth sectors (there are very few in this environment) and being concerned about valuation; and 3) market structure, business models, and strategies will likely change rapidly.
May 01, 2009 3

Solar Energy Handbook

We recommend investors take a long-term portfolio approach and build positions over time in order to mitigate some of the execution, macro, and sentiment risks. Someday soon, green energy will no longer be an alternative; it will be the standard ahead. We mass-produced the car, and American manufacturing built the middle class. We sparked the IT revolution, and our high-tech industry fueled American prosperity for years. Today, being one step ahead means developing the green energy economy of the future before anybody else does. U.S Senator Tom Udall, (D-NM) (US Senate, 2/2/09) How to Read This Report This report is focused on long-term themes in the solar sector and is written with several audiences in mind. Our aim is to examine broader sector trends in the rapidly growing solar sector as opposed to picking stocks in the near term. This report is lengthy and certain sections of the report may not be of interest to all readers; consequently, we suggest the following: BeginnerVery little understanding of the solar and alternative energy sector. Read Chapters 1, 2 and 16 first in order to familiarize with industry basics, then read Chapters 3 to 15. IntermediateAlready familiar with what solar is and believe in the potential, but not sure how solar fits into the overall renewables investment framework. Read Chapters 1 through 15. ExpertAlready read several other solar primersread Chapters 1 and 8. Below, we provide brief thoughts on key topics of interest to investors. Grid Parity Given the sharp decline in oil and natural gas prices, we are often asked if solar is still a feasible alternative to conventional fossil fuels.

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 1: Relationship Between Solar System Price and Natural Gas Prices
6000 5000

Solar System Pri ce ($/M W)

4000 3000 2008 N atural Gas Price $5W system cost required to reach grid parity

2000 1000 0 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 Current Natural Gas Price $3/W system cost required to reach grid parity

Natural Gas Price ($/MM BTU)

4.4

4.7

5.1

5.5

5.9

6.3

6.6

7.0

7.4

7.8

8.2

8.5

8.9

9.3

Source: Barclays Capital research

We believe the prospects for solar are still promising and our grid parity outlook has not deteriorated for the following reasons: 1) although we agree that average natural gas electricity prices are likely to decline by nearly 50% year over year in 2009 due to a decline in fuel costs, the price premium of solar electricity over natural gas electricity is likely to remain constant or even decrease somewhat if module prices decline to $2/W. More importantly, forecasts from Barclays Capital commodities and utilities teams suggest power prices are likely to increase during 201015, potentially leading to grid parity by 2012 in a scenario where no carbon tax is implemented in the U.S.; 2) if we assume a $15/MWhr carbon tax is implemented in the U.S. from 2011, we believe grid parity for California utilities is likely by 2011; and 3) we note that several utilities generally purchase renewable energy at a premium to conventional energy using the Market Price Referent (MPR) (which is typically $20/MWh premium to the natural gas generated electricity price) and by applying a Time of Delivery (TOD) multiplying factor. As shown in Figure 2, assuming PG&E purchases solar using TOD / MPR, solar has the potential to reach grid parity by 2010.

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 2: Potential Solar Grid Parity Scenarios


250

Powe r Price s ($/MWh) Solar Price ($/MWh)

200

Powe r Price s w ith Carb on T ax ($/M Wh) MPR Including T OD ($/MWh)

150

$/MWh
100 50 0 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

Source: Barclays Capital research

Pricing We forecast module prices to decline from $3.70/W in 2008 to $1.00/W in 2015. We forecast balance of system costs for large systems to decline to $0.80/W by 2015 from the current levels of $1.50/W. Finally, we expect balance of system costs for small systems to decline from $2.50/W in 2008 to $1.35/W in 2015. Figure 3: Solar Module and Balance of System Pricing Trend
4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50
$/ W

BOS Cost - Small Systems Module Price BOS Cost - Large Systems

2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E

Source: Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

We believe the best-in-class solar module companies have the capability to produce solar panels for $1.15/W, sell at $1.50/W, and make 25% gross margins in a $50/kg poly price scenario. We believe approximately 40% of the solar industry has the capability to produce and sell modules at $1.50/W today. The median cost producers, many of which are European players, generally have non-silicon costs of $2.00/W. We estimate the cost structure and profitability of some of these companies would be challenged if poly prices decline to $50/kg. We believe the Japanese companies typically have a relatively high cost structure and may not be able to sell products for $1.50/W. Assuming the median solar companies cut costs and reduce their poly input costs even further, we see downside risk to $2/W panel prices in 2009. Thin Film Versus Silicon In our opinion, silicon technology would continue to lead the growth wave for the following reasons: 1) capital intensity of thin film players ($2/W) is higher than that of silicon players ($0.50$1/W). We expect relatively low levels of vertical integration in the silicon space especially since upstream/midstream segments have more than adequate capacity to support near to medium term growth; and 2) new thin film technologies could find it difficult to scale and achieve bankability status. We believe companies such as Sharp that have strong balance sheets and have made significant technology advancements stand to potentially lead the thin film growth wave along with First Solar. For other start-ups particularly funded by equipment suppliers such as Applied Materials, success would depend to large extent on subsidy programs and manufacturing incentives of local governments. Where Will Growth Come From? During the first growth phase, markets such as Japan and Germany led most of the installation growth. Growth was largely within the small/medium size rooftop segment. Over the next three to five years, we see the potential for large commercial rooftops and ground mounted systems to achieve superior growth as the U.S. utilities become more aggressive with solar PV programs. In the near term until financing conditions improve, we expect growth to be limited to the small/medium size rooftop segment. In addition to the traditional markets such as Germany, Italy, and Spain, we expect Japan, China, U.S., Canada, and India to be the key swing markets with potential upside surprise in the 201012 timeframe. Growth Strategies During the first growth phase, the focus of most companies was to procure as much polysilicon supply as possible. During the second growth phase, we expect the focus of most companies to identify end markets for product deployment. To that extent, we expect execution strategies of companies to be defined by downstream acquisitions. Companies with larger contract wins should be able to scale their operations and increase market share. We expect more downstream M&A activity over the next three to five years as companies look to diversify geographically and establish new downstream channels.

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

We also see the potential for strategic alliances to emerge between large-scale solar power developers with strong financial backing and upstream polysilicon players with relatively strong balance sheets. We expect downstream players to lead the industry transformation as the power development market is localized as inherently more complex industry constraints have shifted from upstream to downstream. As cell/module players reach efficiency development limits, we expect scale to be the primary cost differentiator and consequently we expect the emergence of EMS type business models in the mid-stream segment. We acknowledge that it is early to identify obvious winners in the race toward market leadership. We expect a combination of business models to dominate the sector over the next three to five years as: 1) midstream players aggressively diversify downstream through power developer M&A; and 2) large-scale downstream companies (there are only a handful at present) strike alliances with upstream players. Long-Term Margin Outlook and Valuation Framework for the Sector Within the silicon value chain, we expect gross margins of the midstream players to improve in the near term as silicon costs decline faster than ASPs. For thin film companies, we expect margins to decline depending upon their ability to achieve cost reductions. We expect companies with downstream integration to better manage margins compared with companies without sufficient downstream integration. Although downstream vertical integration could potentially negatively impact margins, we believe by controlling the downstream channels, solar manufacturers with superior cost structure would be able to scale and also protect margin erosion. Unlike a unified P/E valuation approach used by many today, we expect two separate frameworks to emerge over the next three to five years: 1) for companies with EMS type business models, we expect investors to assign a relatively low P/E multiple; and 2) for companies with downstream integration (mostly the case for market leaders), we expect investors to assign a sum-of-parts valuation with EBITDA multiple for systems integration business and a growth P/E multiple for module segment. Ten Reasons Select Solar Stocks Could Participate in the Near-Term Market Rally 1) Street Estimates Fully Discounting Near-Term Weakness; Earnings Momentum Could Potentially Turn Positive As shown in Figures 4 and 5, Street 2009 estimates for select Chinese solar stocks have declined from peak levels of $23 per share in September 2008 (beginning of the solar meltdown) to $3.45 per share in March 2009. Although the decline in U.S.-based companies has not been this severe, we believe U.S.-based solar companies have also seen nearly a 45% reduction in EPS estimates during the corresponding period. We believe Street estimates are fully discounting the near-term weakness in fundamentals (or perhaps one to two quarters away from bottoming) and potentially have room for upside as a result of recently announced incentive programs in Japan, China, and several other markets. We believe we are about to enter a phase of positive earnings momentum once estimates are reset over the next one to two quarters. Some of the factors that could cause positive earnings momentum include: 1) upside to 2009 and 2010 pricing expectations;
8 May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

2) upside to 2009 margin expectations; and 3) upside to 2010 volume expectations (we discuss these three points in more detail in this report). Solar stocks have historically seen significant P/E multiple expansion during periods of positive earnings momentum. We believe a combination of positive earnings momentum and valuation multiple re-rating could potentially lead to meaningful upside catalysts for selective solar stocks. Figure 4: China versus U.S. Consensus EPS Estimates
$25.0
-44%

Figure 5: 2009 EPS Es timate Reductions From Peak Levels


-1 0% Fir s t Solar U Solar C om panies S SunPow er Ener gy Conv er s ion De vice s Yingli Gre e n Ene rgy Tr ina Sola r R ne Sola e SunTec h Pow e r MEM C Chine s e Solar C om panies JA Solar LDK Solar

$20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $0.0 1/1/2007 4/1/2007 7/1/2007 10/1/2007 1/1/2008 4/1/2008 7/1/2008 10/1/2008 1/1/2009 2009 US Companies 2009 Chinese Companies
-5 9% -60% -78% -80% -8 3% -84% -85 % -8 9% -90%

-49%

Note: Numbers are an aggregate of companies under coverage Source: Barclays Capital research, FactSet

Source: Barclays Capital research, FactSet

Figure 6: Suntech Power Earnings Momentum


$4.00 $3.50 3 0x

2 5x

$3.00 2 0x $2.50 $2.00 2 010 EPS 1 0x 2 009 P/E 1 5x

$1.50 $1.00

5x 2009 EPS x 3/200 9 2/200 9 1/200 9 12 /20 08 11 /20 08 10 /20 08 9/200 8 8/200 8 7/200 8 6/200 8 5/200 8 4/200 8 3/200 8 2/200 8 1/200 8 12 /20 07 11 /20 07 10 /20 07 9/200 7 8/200 7 7/200 7 6/200 7 5/200 7 4/200 7 3/200 7 2/200 7 1/200 7 12 /20 06 11 /20 06 10 /20 06

$0.50

Source: Barclays Capital research, FactSet

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

2) New Incentives in China, Japan, and the U.S. Could Lead to Potential Demand Upside With the recent introduction of new incentives in China and Japan in addition to the U.S. incentives, we expect the 2010 demand outlook to improve significantly. We see upside potential to our and consensus 2010 demand estimates leading to a potentially more stable ASP environment compared with more than a 30% ASP decline baked into consensus estimates. We present three scenarios for the supply/demand outlook: 1. Bull case scenario where China, Japan, and the U.S. upside leads to relatively flat demand in 2009 (5.6 gigawatts) and nearly 65% growth in 2010 (9.2 gigawatts); 2. Base case scenario where demand declines by 25% in 2009 (4.5 gigawatts), demand increases by 55% in 2010 (6.8 gigawatts); and 3. Bear case scenario where demand declines by 40% in 2009 (3.5 gigawatts), and increases by 60% in 2010 (5.6 gigawatts). We assume that supply cuts continue in 1Q09 and 2Q09 such that supply decreases to 6.9 gigawatts in 2009 (versus current plans of approximately 7.5 to 8 gigawatts), and 8 gigawatts in 2010. We also assume that the tier 2/tier 3 supply is not consumed by the industry due to concerns over warranty. In this analysis, we assume that the top solar companies continue to gain market share led by bankability and cost structure. We assume the market share of leading solar companies increases from 55% in 1Q09 to 80% in 4Q10. Our analysis shown in Figure 7 suggests that the industry has the potential to reach supply/demand balance by 3Q09 in the bull case scenario (Japan installs 600 megawatts and 1 gigawatt in 2009 and 2010, respectively; China installs 200 megawatts and 500 megawatts in 2009 and 2010, respectively). We believe potential for supply/demand balance by 4Q09 exists in the base case scenario (Japan installs 330 megawatts and 570 megawatts in 2009 and 2010, China installs 60 megawatts and 100 megawatts in 2009 and 2010). Finally, we believe the industry could reach supply/demand balance in bear case scenario in 4Q10 if Japan/China demand does not pick up as expected in 2010 (Japan installs 270 megawatts and 500 megawatts in 2009 and 2010, China installs 40 megawatts and 80 megawatts in 2009 and 2010).

10

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 7: Quarterly Supply Demand Outlook


3,000

Bull Demand

2,500
Supply-Dem and balance by Q309 in Bull S cenar io if Japan, China dem and picks up

Supply-Demand balance by Q409 in B ase Scenario Supply

2,000

B ase Demand

MW

1,500
Bear Demand

1,000
S cenar io analys is as sumes Japan, China and the U.S demand accelerates from 2H09 and also ass um es 1-2 m ore round of s upply c uts (in Q109/Q209) by all solar companies. B ull case assumes 600MW/1GW demand in J apan in 2009/10, 200MW/ 500MW demand in China in 2009/10. Base case ass um es 330MW/ 570MW demand in Japan in 2009/10, 60MW/100MW dem and in China in 2009/2010. Bear case assumes 270MW/500MW in Japan in 2009/10 40M W/80MW demand in China in 2009/10.

500

0 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09E

3Q09E

4Q09E

1Q10E

2Q10E

3Q10E

4Q10E

Source: Barclays Capital research

3) Low Poly Costs Could Aid Margins Poly prices for most companies have declined and we expect leading solar companies to take advantage of this environment and report strong margins. We do not forecast an uptick in poly prices anytime soon. In our view, consensus estimates (including our estimates) do not completely factor the $40/kg poly price scenario in 2010. As shown in Figure 8, our 2010 estimates are based on blended poly price assumption of $75 $100/kg. As discussed previously, our estimates are based on 30%40% year-over-year ASP declines and as such we believe consensus margins, which in many cases are comparable to our margins and are also based on similar blended poly price assumption. In a scenario where poly prices decline to $40/kg, we believe potential 10%20% gross margin upside exists for all these stocks.

May 01, 2009

11

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 8: 2010 Gross Margin Scenario Analysis


Gross Margins - 2010 Barcap STP CSIQ CSUN JASO LDK SOLF TSL YGE SOL 28% 11% 11% 17% 19% 8% 11% 26% 15% Consensus 16% 12% 13% 15% 21% 12% 19% 24% 16% Current Poly Price ($/kg) 74 80 69 1.09 98 69 85 108 84 Poly Price Potential ($/kg) 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 2010 GM Potential 28% 24% 28% 21% 48% 19% 33% 46% 40%

Note: JASO Poly Price is in $/W cost for Wafers


Source: Barclays Capital research, Company reports

4) Estimates Appear Reflect the Worst Case Scenario for Pricing Our 2010 estimates are based on 30%40% ASP declines, a scenario that we believe accurately reflects the potential pricing backdrop in Japan/China/U.S. subsidy environment. We believe project IRRs in several markets have the potential to reach inflection point at 30%40% lower panel prices. We disagree with the argument that panel prices could continue to drop if financing conditions do not improve and elasticity does not kick in. In our opinion, volume, not pricing, would be impacted in such a scenario. Our pricing assumptions are also supported by the fact that non-silicon costs of several European manufacturers (that make up nearly 40% of worldwide capacity) are near $2/W. We do not foresee a scenario where panel prices decline below cash cost levels of European players. 5) Inventory Correction Underway Checks suggest module prices have stabilized over the past month or so suggesting that channel inventory may be reaching normalized levels. Checks with installers suggest that inventory levels have declined to reasonably low levels through a combination of reduced purchases, write-downs, and sell-through demand. We do not expect much product from 4Q081Q09 to remain in the channel uninstalled until 3Q09. We believe inventory levels at the end of 1Q were potentially around 900MW and could likely decline to a more normalized 400MW to 500MW levels by 3Q09. 6) Investor Capitulation Underway We also expect rotation out of the European stocks to the Chinese solar stocks. As shown in Figure 9, solar stocks have seen significant downward estimate revisions reflecting the fact that expectations may be approaching a bottom soon. As fundamentals start to improve, we expect to see an upward trend with respect to rolling EPS. We also expect investor rotation out of structurally challenged stocks (companies with high non-silicon cost structures) into market leaders in the U.S. and China.

12

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 9: Suntech Power Es timate Revisions

2.50

Ph ase 1

Phase 2

Pha se 3

40 30 20 10

2.00

Supp ly con stra ine d en viron ment, sta ble to ri sin g prici ng . EPS, valu ation m ultip le e xp an sion

Oversu ppl y. EPS red uctio n, val uatio n mul ti ple d estructio n

-1 0 Esti mates, Mul ti ple s b otto med ? Ove rsup ply con cern s. EPS gro wth, va lua ti on mu ltipl e comp ressi on -2 0 -3 0 -4 0 In vestor, Ma nag eme nt Cap itul ation -5 0 -6 0
Jan -06 Ap r -0 6 Jul 06 Oc t- 0 6 J an - 07 Ap r-0 7 J ul - 07 Oc t- 0 7 Jan -08 Ap r -0 8 Jul 08 Oc t -0 8 J an - 09 Ap r-0 9

1.00

0.50

0.00

Source: FactSet, Barclays Capital

7) Financing Conditions Set to Improve We continue to expect financing to be the biggest bottleneck for the industry in 2010; however, we believe a combination of 1) rising project IRRs (such that solar IRRs are greater than wind); 2) new sources of funds (pension, hedge funds); and 3) government injected capital (such as KfW, U.S. loan guarantee program) could likely lead to more stable financing conditions in 2010. 8) Exchange Rate From Headwind to Potential Tailwind Solar fundamentals are highly correlated to exchange rate fluctuations since most demand is generated in Europe and costs are either in U.S. dollars/RMB. In addition to tighter credit markets, appreciation of the U.S. dollar against the Euro acted as a significant headwind for solar industry fundamentals. Barclays Capital currency strategist David Woo expects the U.S. dollar to depreciate against the Euro and approach 1.45 by 4Q10. We expect potential U.S. dollar depreciation to act as potential tailwind for solar fundamentals in 2010. Our current forecasts are based on the assumption of a relatively constant exchange rate. Our FSLR forecasts assume that the foreign exchange rate declines from 1.37 in 1Q09 to 1.20 in 3Q09 and remains constant at 1.20 through all of 2010.

May 01, 2009

Net r evisions

1.50 N TM EPS

13

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 10: Foreign Exchange Could Act As Potential Tailwind


1.60

1.50

FX Poten tial Tailwind FX Headwind Barclays FX Team Forecast Chin a Solar Mode l Assumptions

1.40 EUR/USD

1.30

1.20 FSLR Model Assumptions 1.10

1.00 Q108 Q208 Q308 Q40 8 Q1 09 Q209 Q309 Q409 Q110 Q210 Q310 Q41 0

Source: Barclays Capital research, FactSet

9) Bear Thesis Appears Overblown A common investor concern we have heard is that solar panel prices could decline to cash cost levels. We disagree with this view. In our opinion, although margin pressure could persist as balance of power shifts downstream, we find it difficult to see a scenario where project investor returns increase from $3 per watt (assuming $10 per watt net present value of government incentives, $7 per watt system price) to $7 per watt (assuming $10 per watt incentives, $3 per watt system price). 10) Balance Sheet Risks Diminishing, Potential for Free Cash Generation in 2010 Within our coverage universe, Chinese solar stocks have a high net debt position and are likely most at risk. However, the recent introduction of a stimulus package in China demonstrates broad-based government support for the leading Chinese solar firms. Most companies have slowed down and/or halted capacity expansion plans and with declining poly prices and improving margins we believe the outlook for free cash generation in 2009 has improved. 2009 Outlook We believe near-term fundamentals continue to remain challenging. We expect 2009 industry shipments to decline 25% year over year for a number of reasons. 1. We believe 1Q installation activity was negatively impacted by severe weather conditions in Germany and other key European solar markets. First quarter shipments of the eight leading solar companies are expected to decline 13% year over year. We believe over 60% of 1Q shipments occurred in March and were mostly for installation

14

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

activity in late April. Inverter manufacturer SMA also guided 1Q shipments to decline 30%35% year over year supporting our view of worse than normal 1Q seasonality. 2. Checks suggest credit conditions in the U.S. commercial segment continue to remain challenging. The number of tax equity financing firms has declined from nearly 10 in 2008 to only three to four in 2009. Most of these firms are supporting existing clients and even incremental relatively low risk projects are finding it difficult to achieve sufficient financing. In addition, our checks suggest that several projects are on hold until further clarity over DOE loan guarantee program and ITC cash grants becomes available. New project announcements from several leading U.S. commercial players such as SunPower have decreased significantly. 3. Declining new home construction activity and a deep recession are likely to impact residential installation activity in the U.S. and Germany. 4. Although German lending conditions for solar are somewhat better than rest of Europe, we believe KfW's renewables financing budget is flat compared with 2008 budget of EUR4 billion. Checks suggest KfW is allocating more funds to wind versus solar. Assuming wind/solar allocations are unchanged from 2008, higher equity portion (30% in 2009 versus 20% in 2008), 15% lower system pricing is likely to result in about 20%30% incremental shipments growth. Figure 11: System Pricing vs. Shipments Growth
2008 Total KfW Financing (Euros MM) Portion for Solar (50%) Portion for Wind (50%) Debt to Equity Ratio Total Funding for Solar Sys tem Cost per Watt Total Shipments 2009 Total KfW Financing (Euros MM) Portion for Solar (50%) Portion for Wind (50%) Debt to Equity Ratio Total Funding for Solar Sys tem Cost per Watt - 15% Decline YoY Total Shipments
Source: Barclays Capital estimates

4,000 2,000 2,000 80% 2,500 4.50/W 556MW

4,000 2,000 2,000 70% 2,857 3.83/W 747MW

5. We believe financing of large commercial/ground mounted projects (about 20% of market) in Germany is still very challenging as KfW funding is not readily available.

May 01, 2009

15

Solar Energy Handbook

Furthermore, even in this segment, we believe it is difficult for c-Si module players to compete effectively as incentives are significantly lower in 2009 (only First Solar can effectively compete in this segment). 6. We believe financing conditions in Italy/France still remain difficult. We expect these markets to grow, but we believe growth could be constrained by permitting issues as well. Finally, we believe the Japanese market may remain weak ahead of the implementation of new incentive program and the South Korean market could be impacted by over 40% depreciation of the Won against the U.S. dollar. What does all this mean? We believe the U.S. and German markets could end up being flat in 2009. In our view, growth in other emerging solar markets may not be sufficient to offset the expected Spanish market decline (over 2 gigawatts) in 2009. In terms of market segments, we forecast the residential segment (approximately 45% of shipments) to show some growth (500,000 households installing solar in 2009 versus 415,000 in 2008), commercial segment (approximately 30% of shipments) to decline by 25% and ground mounted segment (approximately 25% of shipments) to decline by 50%. Our view is that both wind and solar technologies would experience similar growth curves. Wind technology may have achieved its full potential in terms of cost reduction. We believe solar will get there over the next three years and has the potential to even surpass wind's cost structure if new disruptive low-cost technologies are commercialized. The promise of solar is in distributed generation especially in areas where transmission access is limited. Take the example of China. Installation costs in China can end up being less than $1 per watt (cheap labor, home grown inverters). Solar module prices can drop to $1 per watt if companies like YGE and STP can achieve scale and poly drops below $50 per kg. At $2 per watt system price in rural China, solar on roof-tops (distributed generation) would be cheaper than wind. We believe solar programs targeted for rural China/India would be a key focus for those governments. Figure 12: Global Wind vs. Solar Shipments
30GW
Wi nd Insta lled (MW ) Sola r Install ed (MW)

25GW 20GW 15GW 10GW 5GW GW 2001 2002 200 3 20 04 2 005 2006 200 7 20 08

Source: Barclays Capital Research, Global Wind Energy Council, Solarbuzz

16

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 13: Global Solar Company Valuations (As of April 30, 2009)
C ompany Sol ar C ell Manufacturers C hina Sunergy Energy C onversion Devices ErSol E-Ton Ev ergreen Solar First Solar J A Solar Motech Q-C ell s SunPow er SunTech P ow er Ticker CS UN EN ER B0LGLV4 B06BMV ESLR FSLR JASO 660944 QC E-D E SPW RA STP Rating 2-EW 3-UW NR NR 2-EW 2-EW 1-OW NR 2-EW 2-EW 3-UW S ector R ating 1-Pos 1-Pos NR NR 1-Pos 1-Pos 1-Pos NR 2-Neu 1-Pos 1-Pos Local C urrency U SD U SD E UR TWD U SD U SD U SD TWD E UR U SD U SD Price 4/30/2009 3.04 18.38 104.00 95.60 2.43 187.29 3.51 93.00 16.23 27.38 14.93 Mean Median Pol ysili con M anufacturers LDK Sol ar MEMC R eneS ola Shin-Et su Chemical Sino-American Silicon Sumco Tokuyama Corporation Topc o Sc ientif ic OCI W ac ker Market Cap ($M) 120 784 1,434 279 393 15,442 547 699 1,719 2,344 2,535 2,390 784 Enterprise Value ($M) 195 701 1, 422 560 666 14,924 640 742 1, 751 2, 662 3, 653 2, 538 742 Price to Sales 2009E 2010E 0. 5 2. 3 2. 9 0. 6 1. 2 8. 1 0. 7 1. 1 0. 8 1. 7 1. 3 1. 9 1. 2 0.3 1.6 2.1 0.6 0.8 5.9 0.5 0.9 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.4 0.9 EV to Sales 2009E 2010E 0. 7 2. 0 2. 8 1. 1 2. 1 7. 9 0. 8 1. 2 0. 8 1. 9 1. 9 2. 1 1. 9 0. 5 1. 4 2. 1 1. 2 1. 4 5. 7 0. 6 1. 0 0. 6 1. 3 1. 6 1. 6 1. 3 Pri ce to Earnings 2009E 2010E NM 25.8 26.1 7.4 NM 28.6 23.8 14.9 14.0 23.0 30.2 21.5 23.8 10. 1 14. 2 18. 4 6. 6 7. 6 22. 0 9. 5 10. 7 7. 9 13. 1 16. 4 12. 4 10. 7 PEG 2009E NM 0.7 0.5 0.2 NM 0.6 1.2 1.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.7 2010E NM 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4

LDK W FR SOL 4063 633527 3436 4043 625408 649700 B 11Y56

2-EW 1-OW 2-EW NR NR NR NR NR NR 1-OW

1-Pos 1-Pos 1-Pos NR NR NR NR NR NR 2-Neu

U SD U SD U SD JP Y TWD JP Y JP Y TWD KRW E UR

8.00 16.20 3.47 4,760.00 79.10 1,436.00 584.00 25.35 225, 000.00 78.38 Mean Median

894 3,647 227 21,992 518 3,894 1,722 104 3,331 4,999 4,133 2,526

1, 899 2, 778 478 19,994 601 6, 089 2, 157 112 4, 259 5, 087 4, 346 2, 468

0. 7 3. 3 0. 4 1. 9 1. 7 1. 4 0. 5 0. 5 2. 2 1. 0 1. 4 1. 2

0.6 2.3 0.4 1.8 1.4 1.2 0.5 0.5 1.6 0.9 1.1 1.1

1. 5 2. 5 0. 8 1. 7 2. 0 2. 3 0. 7 0. 5 2. 8 1. 0 1. 6 1. 6

1. 2 1. 8 0. 8 1. 6 1. 6 1. 8 0. 6 0. 5 2. 0 0. 9 1. 3 1. 4

17.5 30.4 8.2 16.3 14.6 NM 28.6 10.6 11.0 17.3 17.2 16.3

7. 2 11. 2 6. 5 14. 2 11. 8 NM 13. 5 9. 4 6. 9 11. 6 10. 3 11. 2

0.9 1.8 0.3 1.6 5.9 NM 1.1 NM 0.1 1.2 1.6 1.1

0.4 0.7 0.3 1.4 4.7 NM 0.5 NM 0.1 0.8 1.1 0.6

Module Manufacturers aleo s olar C anadian Solar Solar-Fabrik Solarf un Solart ron Solon AG

B189YN CS IQ 739438 SOLF B06XP07 7450738

NR 3-UW NR 3-UW NR 3-UW

NR 1-Pos NR 1-Pos NR 2-Neu

E UR U SD E UR U SD TH B E UR

5.91 6.55 4.50 4.29 0.92 9.48 Mean Median

99 233 68 222 8 153 130 126

128 274 NM 2, 334 10 401 629 274

0. 2 0. 5 0. 2 0. 4 NM 0. 1 0. 3 0. 2

0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 NM 0.1 0.2 0.2

0. 3 0. 5 NM 4. 0 NM 0. 4 1. 3 0. 4

0. 2 0. 4 NM 3. 4 NM 0. 3 1. 1 0. 4

7.1 NM 13.0 NM NM 6.8 9.0 7.1

5. 4 13. 1 12. 5 0. 0 NM 5. 2 7. 2 5. 4

0.4 NM NM NM NM 0.2 0.3 0.3

0.3 0.7 NM 1.1 NM 0.1 0.6 0.5

System I ntegrators C armanah Technologies C entros olar AG C onergy Solars trom Sunways

*C MH B0LL75 706672 566211 703682

NR NR 2-EW NR NR

NR NR 2-Neu NR NR

C AD E UR E UR E UR E UR

0.80 2.84 0.78 1.79 2.31 Mean Median

42 53 197 28 34 71 42

33 148 NM 35 56 68 45

0. 6 0. 1 0. 2 0. 2 0. 1 0. 2 0. 2

0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1

0. 5 0. 3 NM 0. 2 0. 2 0. 3 0. 3

0. 4 0. 3 NM 0. 2 0. 1 0. 3 0. 2

22.0 4.8 NM 8.0 15.7 12.6 11.9

7. 7 3. 1 37. 0 5. 9 2. 8 11. 3 5. 9

NM NM NM NM NM N/A N/A

NM NM 13.1 NM NM N/A N/A

Verti call y I ntegrated Manufacturers R EC Solar World Trina Solar Yingli Green Energy

REC-NO 581986 TS L YGE

1-OW NR 2-EW 1-OW

2-Neu NR NR NR

N OK E UR U SD U SD

60.50 21.65 14.14 6.98 Mean Median

4,403 3,105 401 903 2,203 2,004

5, 598 2, 898 667 3, 634 3, 199 3, 266

2. 3 2. 3 0. 5 1. 3 1. 6 1. 8

1.5 1.8 0.5 1.1 1.2 1.3

3. 0 2. 2 0. 9 5. 3 2. 8 2. 6

1. 9 1. 7 0. 8 4. 5 2. 2 1. 8

13.5 16.5 12.7 9.5 13.0 13.1

7. 6 13. 1 6. 6 6. 2 8. 4 7. 1

0.2 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3

0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2

Sol ar E qui pment C omposi te GT Solar R ot h & Rau C entrot herm Oerlik on Spire BTU International Manz Automat ion Meyer Burger

S OLR B142TD4 B 2885W 6 4612757 SP IR B TU I B1D XPB B1HDMD

2-EW 3-UW 2-EW NR NR NR 2-EW 2-EW

1-OW 2-Neu 2-Neu NR NR NR 2-Neu 2-Neu

U SD E UR E UR SW F U SD E UR E UR SW F

7.09 18.08 29.35 66.00 7.00 3.74 34.78 158.80 Mean Median

1,021 316 727 770 61 45 161 428 358 372

928 203 615 NM 59 23 79 394 229 203

1. 4 1. 0 1. 1 0. 3 0. 7 0. 6 0. 7 1. 2 0. 9 0. 9

1.3 0.9 1.0 0.2 NM 0.4 0.6 1.1 0.8 0.9

1. 4 0. 7 1. 0 NM 0. 7 0. 3 0. 3 1. 1 0. 8 0. 7

1. 1 0. 6 0. 9 NM NM 0. 2 0. 3 1. 0 0. 7 0. 7

8.6 13.5 13.2 NM 13.7 NM 13.7 18.7 13.6 13.6

7. 5 11. 9 11. 4 36. 5 NM 9. 1 10. 7 15. 4 14. 6 11. 4

0.2 0.9 0.6 NM NM NM 0.2 2.7 0.9 0.6

0.2 0.8 0.5 -9.6 NM 0.6 0.2 2.2 -0.7 0.5

Source: FactSet, Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

17

Solar Energy Handbook

18

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Chapter 1: Investment Thesis

May 01, 2009

19

Solar Energy Handbook

The Long-Term Investment Case for Renewable Energy We believe new investments in the global renewable energy sector should accelerate due to several potential long-term secular growth drivers: 1) increasing energy demand particularly resulting from strong growth of emerging economies such as India and China; 2) depleting supply of traditional energy sources; 3) increasing trend toward using carbonneutral solutions to address the climate change problem; 4) improved renewable energy cost economics; and 5) geopolitical factors such as energy security creating a positive shift in the energy policy of major governments globally. Figure 14: Potential Renewable Energy Investment Drivers
SECULAR TREND CYCLICAL TREND

ENERGY DEMAND

LOW INTEREST RATES

ENERGY SUPPLY

WEAK DOLLAR JOB CREATION

ENERGY I MPACT

ENERGY ECONOMICS

ENERGY SECURITY

Strong/ Positive
Source: Barclays Capital research

Weak/ Nega tive

1. Rising energy demand particularly from emerging economies such as India and China. Although we do not expect India and China to become large solar energy users anytime soon, we expect overall demand growth in those regions to cause upward pressure on overall energy demand. We also see significant potential for India and China to become large solar energy demand centers once solar achieves grid parity.

20

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 15: GDP Growth versus Per Capita Elec tricity Consumption
10% 9% 8% 7% GDP G rowth 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Per Capita Consum ption (kWh) Mex ico Brazil Russia OECD Europe Japan India South Korea Australia United St ates Canada China

Source: Barclays Capital research

2. Depleting energy supply, particularly traditional sources of energy such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Assuming the solar achieves grid parity in 2012, we see the potential for new solar supply to influence peak power generation demand. We see the potential for natural gas resources to be readily replaced by solar PV technologies and once appropriate low-cost storage solutions are developed, we see the potential for further solar penetration in coal-based electricity markets. Figure 16: Reserve Period (Number of Years) of Traditional Energy Resources
Years 250 US Coal Reserve Period 200

150

World Coal Reserve Period

100 W orld Natural Gas Reserve Peri od 50 World Oil Reserve Period 0 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% Europe Natural Gas Reserve Period

Annual Rate of Dep letion

Source: World Energy Council

May 01, 2009

21

Solar Energy Handbook

3. Environmental impact such as climate change from the use of traditional fossil fuel generated sources of energy. It is widely understood that traditional sources of electricity generation such as coal are the greatest source of carbon emissions globally. We believe solar is the cleanest form of alternative energy solution and could be most effectively used by several countries to solve the carbon problem. Solar could potentially contribute to 21% of Italys CO 2 reduction goal by 2012. Solars forecast contribution to CO 2 reduction would be 14% in Greece, 12% in France, and 8% in Spain. Figure 17: Potential Solar Contribution to Carbon Emissions Reduction By 2012E

21% 14%

12% 8% 1% U. S. 3% South Korea 4% Japan Spain France

G reece

I taly

Source: Barclays Capital research

22

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 18: European Union Target Shares of Renewables by 2020


Ma lta L uxembor g Belg ium 0.0% 0.9 % 2.2% 1 0.0% 1 1.0% 13 .0 % 1 3.0% 13 .0 % 13 .0 % 1 4.0% 1 4.0% 15.0% 1 5.0% 1 6.0% 9 .4 % 5.2% 5 .8% 6 .9 % 8.7% 10 .3 % 15.0 % 1 7.8% 1 6.0% 18 .0 % 1 7.0% 20.5% 2 3.3% 2 8.5% 3 4.9% 39 .8 % Sh are o f Re newa ble s (2 005 ) T arg et sh are o f Re ne wa ble s ( 202 0) 16 .0% 1 7.0% 1 8.0% 18.0 % 2 0.0% 23.0% 23 .0 % 24 .0 % 2 5.0% 25 .0 % 3 0.0% 31.0% 3 4.0% 3 8.0% 4 2.0% 4 9.0%

Cypr us 2 .9 % Hu nga ry T he C ze ch Rep ubl ic 4 .3 % 6 .1 %

T h e Nether lan ds 2 .4 % T he Slo vak Rep ubl ic Unite d Ki ngd om Pol an d 6.7% 1.3% 7 .2 %

Irel an d 3 .1 % Bulg ari a Ita ly G er ma ny G ree ce Spai n F ran ce L ithu ani a Ro ma ni a Slo veni a Esto ni a Den ma rk Po rtuga l Austri a F inl an d La tvi a Swe de n

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

4. Decreasing solar energy costs and increasing fossil fuel generated energy costs leads to improved economics for solar energy sector. We expect grid parity, or the point at which solar electricity is competitive with fossil fuel generated electricity, to be achieved by the 201012 time frame. In fact, solar is already competitive in several regions of the world with high solar insolation and relatively high fossil fuel electricity costs.

May 01, 2009

23

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 19: Percentage of U.S. Consumer Wallet Spent on Electricity


2.1% 2.0%

1.9%

1.8%

1.7%
Estimates

1.6%

1.5%

1.4%

1.3%

1.2%

1.1%

1.0% 196 0

1964

1 968

19 72

197 6

1980

1984

198 8

1992

1996

2 000

20 04

200 8

2012

Source: Dan Ford, Barclays Capital U.S. Utili ty Sector Analyst

5. Geopolitical factors such as energy security creating a positive shift in the energy policies of all major governments globally. Countries with government solar incentives have one thing in common: high net energy imports as a percentage of energy use. We expect an increasing number of countries to look at solar energy as costs of solar modules decline and as prevailing high oil prices result in a greater focus on energy independence. America has just 3% of the world's natural gas reserves, but we consume 25% of the world's supply. That increasingly means sending American dollars to Russia and Iran, two countries that sit on more than 43% of the world's gas reserves and two countries that have shown their willingness to use energy as an instrument of coercion. U.S Senator Tom Udall, (D-NM) (US Senate, 2/2/09) Figure 20: Electricity-Genera ting Assets in Key Solar Markets
Co untry
Germ any Japan US Fr ance S pain P or tugal Italy Greec e Irel and South K or ea

Net En erg y Impo rts as a % o f Ene rgy Use


61% 84% 28% 50% 76% 83% 85% 67% 87% 82%

Pr imar y Ele ctr icity So urce


Coal (60%) Oil Coal (33%)

T otal Installed Capac ity (GW)


120 248 960 113 67 12 77 12 6 62

In sta lled Solar Capacity (G W)


2.6 1.7 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.05

Nucl ear (60%) Coal Coal Oil Coal Oil Coal

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital research

In addition to the long-term growth drivers, we believe the following near-term trends could also positively influence clean energy demand growth:

24

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Lower interest rate environment potentially creating a favorable capital cost outlook for several technologies such as solar thermal (approximately 80% of cost of solar thermal projects is capital cost). Figure 21: Interes t Rate Environment Acts As a Tailwind for Solar Fundamentals
21% High Interest Rate Environment 18% Cost of capital and expected rate of return often represent the largest cost component of solar electricity costs. Lower interest r ate environment plays an impor tant role in overall solar electr icity cost r eduction

15%

12%

9% Low Inter est Rate Environment 6%

3%

0% Jan-71

Jan-74

Jan-77

Jan-80

Jan-83

Jan- 86

Jan- 89

Jan-92

Jan-95

Jan-98

Jan-01

Jan-04

Jan- 07

Interest Rates

Source: FactSet

Job creation potential in a weak global economic outlook. As shown in Figure 22, job creation potential of solar is the highest among electricity generation technologies. Figure 22: Job Creation Potential of Various Electricity Genera tion Technologies
40

Number of Jobs per MW

30

20

10

C oal

Na tura l Gas

Nucl ear

Tidal

Wind

Geothe rmal

Bioma ss Ded icated Stea m

Solar PV

Source: INEEL, BC Sustainable Energy Association, Renewable Energy Policy Project, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

25

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 23: Microsoft Employees versus Market Cap


em ployees , '000 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 mar ket c ap, $b n 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

Figure 24: Solar Employees versus Market Cap


em ployees , '000 mar ket c ap, $b n 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008

employ ees market c ap

employees market cap

Source: Thomson Financial, Company reports, Barclays Capital research

Source: Thomson Financial, Company Reports, Barclays Capita l research

Some individuals say the solar boom was a result of high oil prices. As a different perspective, we highlight the following two points: Government policies in Germany, Spain, and Japanthe three primary drivers of solar energy todaywere put in place when oil prices were near $30/bbl. Figure 25: Oil Price and Government Incentives
Date of initial solar incentives Japan Germany Jan-94 Jan-04 Oil Price ($/bbl) $14.50 $33.00

Price Outlook

Spain

Aug-05

$66.00

Strong

W eak

Source: Barclays Capital research, Factset

Solar sector has no fundamental correlation to oil prices. Electricity price increases are not just a function of high oil prices. There are several other variables that influence electricity prices. For instance, aging transmission capacity, higher capital expenditures for coal, natural gas plants and increasing lead times are just a few variables. As we discuss in detail in this report, we believe solar electricity has the potential to be competitive with fossil fuel-generated electricity even if oil prices reach $30/bbl.

26

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Bottom Line: We believe that wind and ethanol represented the first wave of investments to address the changing macro energy trends. In our opinion, we are currently in the second wave of investments in the global clean energy sector. We believe solar today is where wind was five years ago. We expect the third wave of investments to be characterized by second generation solar PV technology, solar thermal and storage technologies. We see a number of potential new solutions by 2011. Finally, we expect the fourth wave of solar investments to be influenced by solar applications such as electric cars. Just as killer apps such as email and the Internet accelerated growth of the technology sector, we believe the pervasiveness of solar technology will drive several new applications once solar reaches grid parity. Figure 26: Solar Energy Investment Potential Growth Drivers

Revenue

Solar P V Wind Ethanol

Gen 2 Solar PV S olar Thermal Storage

Electric Cars S olar "killer apps"

2001

2006

2010

2014

Time

Source: Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

27

Solar Energy Handbook

Three Phases of Solar Investing We believe the solar industry is currently transitioning from the first growth phase where demand was driven by two to three major markets such as Germany, Japan, and Spain to the second growth phase, where demand could potentially be driven by multiple markets. We expect grid parity to be achieved in several key markets by 201012, which could potentially mark the beginning of the third growth phase for the solar sector. Forecasting Solar Demand Demand forecasting has been the biggest challenge for almost all growth sectors. Solar is no different. Figure 27 shows oil forecasting trends and Figure 28 shows the U.S. mobile subscribers forecasting trends. The difference between actual demand and forecasts was surprising in both these cases. We believe solar energy demand forecasts are also likely to be wrong. The forecasting errors for solar demand will be of even greater magnitude in our view, as development depends on subsidy, oil price, and financing development. Figure 27: Oil Forecasting Trends
50 F orecast F orecast

Actual

Act ual

45

Oil Price in $/Barrel

40 5 Year F orecast Error Forecast 30 Actual F orecast 25 Forecast 20 Act ual Act ual 1985 Act ual 1990 1995 2000 Forecast Actual 10 Year F orecast Error

35

Forecast

15

Source: Vinod Khosla, Khosla Ventures, May 2008; Barclays Capital research

Figure 28: U.S. Mobile Subscribers Forecasting Trends


Source Fortune (1984 - 1989) Herschel Shostek Associates McKinsey for AT&T (1980 - 2000) McK insey on Solar 2008-2020 McKinsey Quarterly June 2008 Forecasts 1 million 60-90 million 0.9 million Actual 3.5 million 180 million 109 million % Annual Error 70% 20-30% 606%

160GW cumulative demand by 2020. 20GW annual installations by 2020

???

Source: Vinod Khosla, Khosla Ventures, May 2008; M cKinsey Quarterly , June 2008, Barclays Capital research. Note McKinsey solar estimates are for Photovoltaic base case scenario only. Aggressive growth scenario predicts tota l solar installed capacity of 400GW by 2020.

So how do we forecast demand? Our demand forecasting framework is based on two primary growth drivers for solar: development of government subsidies and development of

28

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

financing. We believe that, as long as these two growth drivers are intact, the solar market (the entire value chain) in dollar terms should grow at a robust pace. In our view, as long as solar is not at grid parityi.e., as long as solar demand is driven by government subsidiesinvestors should focus on volumes times price, not just on volumes or on price. The upper limit to market growth is likely to be defined by government subsidies: as long as government subsidies grow, solar market size should grow. If volumes increase rapidly, prices should decrease in a similar proportion, such that the overall market size is the same. We believe that, once solar achieves grid parity, the solar market is likely to be driven by the pure economics of supply/demand and is likely to have one less growth driver (no government subsidies).
We believe solar market growth in a subsidy-driven environment is likely to be driven primarily by execution and development of financing.

We expect solar market growth to be determined by how quickly or slowly the solar value chain takes advantage of government subsidies. In our view, solar market growth would be faster if the subsidies are spent in fewer years and it would be slower if the subsidies are spent in more years. For instance, if a 1W solar system costs $9 and the government incentives are approximately $13/W, the net profit to the customer is approximately $4/W. Although the $13 government incentive is provided over a period of 20 or 25 years, the solar ecosystem receives $7$9/W up front. We believe solar market growth is likely to depend on how quickly these solar incentives provided by the government are transferred to the solar value chain through the customer. Figure 29: Solar Subsidies Should Provide Significant Catalyst for Solar Demand
Profits Accumulated Over 20-25 Years

Subsidies of ~$13/W Paid Over 20-25 Years

=
Upfront Purchase of $7-9/W by Customer

Demand /Reven ue Growth for Solar Value C hain

Source: Barclays Capital research

In general, during the next five years, we expect the following factors to affect solar industry shipments: Supply of silicon and solar cells. We expect the supply of solar cells to increase rapidly, as a result of an increase in production from new and existing silicon players, as well as successful commercialization by new thin-film solar manufacturers. Government support in the form of improved levels of subsidies in existing and new markets. Although we believe Germany will remain an important market for solar energy demand, we expect increased support from new governments in the form of more attractive solar subsidies to drive demand.
May 01, 2009 29

Solar Energy Handbook

Favorable solar system ASP trends. We expect solar ASPs to decline approximately 50% in 2009 and another 30% in 2010, which should improve the economics of promoting solar for several prospective new governments. Moreover, we expect the development of a solar ecosystem in the form of better customer awareness, greater availability of solar modules, and the reduction of installation costs to drive additional solar demand. Development of local fossil fuelgenerated electricity rates. As the cost of oil, natural gas, and coal-based electricity increases from 2010, we expect the gap between the solar electricity price and fossil-fuel-generated electricity price to narrow. Development of interest rates and other financial instruments driving solar demand. Last, we believe the low interest rate environment should result in favorable economics for project developers, leading to strong demand. Figure 30: Potential Solar Demand Drivers
Silicon/Solar Supply

Solar AS Ps

Government Subsidies

Solar Demand (Volume)

Int erest Rates/Financial Incentives

Local E lectricity Rates

Source: Barclays Capital research

Figure 31: Solar Multistage Growth Cycle

Sta ge of Grid Pa rity

Economics takeover p ost grid parity Greater subsidies ne ar grid pa rity

Subsidies primary growth driver

We believe we are here


Time

Source: Barclays Capital research

30

May 01, 2009

Figure 32: Solar Market Development


Dem and from sm all num ber of markets Grid Par ity

US G er many G ermany

Relative M arket Size Potential

US

Italy

Japan

Italy France

Spain South Kor ea Japan Canada Australia Belgium Netherlands Portugal Netherlands Austria Cyprus Israel Belgium Austria

France India Greece China Czec h Republic Switzerland

Germany

South Korea China

Gr eece India Czec h Republic Is rael

Aus tralia

Spain

Canada Spain

Portugal

Japan
P hase 1 S ubsidiz ed Demand

Cy pr us Switz erland

Phase 2 Subsidized Dem and

P hase 3 Unsubs idized Dem and

Source: Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009 31

Solar Energy Handbook

Solar Energy Handbook

Growth Phase 1: Demand from Small Number of Markets We define growth phase 1 for the solar sector as the period for the solar industry through 2008 when demand was generated only from two to three major markets such as Germany, Japan, and Spain. We believe the key factors determining growth during this phase were polysilicon or solar supply and development of subsidies. Due to the relatively small overall impact of subsidies on overall electricity bills during growth phase 1, we saw very little push back from governments. During phase 1 of industry growth, we believe the German government committed to spend an estimated $1.5 billion per year of net subsidies over 20 years and the Spanish government committed to spend an estimated $600 million per year of net subsidies over 25 years. The period through 2008 was mainly a seeding stage for emerging solar markets as during this period the emerging markets added a cumulative 3,450MW of solar shipments and represented 26% of installations in 2007. We believe an estimated $103 billion of market cap was created during phase 1 of solar industry growth. Poly prices increased from $25 to $400 per kg during the first growth phase and companies with relatively low reliance on spot poly emerged as Wall Street's top performers. Figure 33: Effect of Incentives in Major Markets on PV Shipments
6000

Spain 5000

4000 Japan, Germany and Spain were the primary industry growth drivers. Solar industry installed base grew from less than 1GW in 1990 to over 10GW by 2008

Megawatts

Germany

3000

2000

Japan 1000

0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital research

32

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 34: Market Cap Crea tion by Solar Companies in Growth Phase 1 (Ending August 2008)
Company First Solar Meyer Burger Manz Automation Akeena Solar Rene sola JA Solar Ascent Solar Roth & Rau SunPower Evergreen Sino-American SolarW orld L DK Timminco DC Chemical Q-cells REC Solon ECD ErSol Trina Solar Suntech MEMC CSI Wacker Spire Motech Sumco Topco Scientific BTU Internat ional Carman ah Tokuyam a Corp Solar-Fabrik Oerlikon Yingli Shin-Etsu Ch emical Sunways E-Ton aleo Solar Solarfun Conergy Solarstrom Centrosolar China Sun ergy Solartron GT Solar Total Beginning Market Cap (M ) $1,388 115 63 $21 79 $658 $29 64 $1,077 $12 NT$1 ,129 76 $2,699 C$ 42 159 ,274 1, 403 kr 2 8,635 30 $132 412 $392 $2,117 $808 $409 3, 518 $21 NT$15, 176 391,950 NT$2 ,135 $39 C$ 20 93,830 62 3, 968 $1,688 1, 854,563 67 NT$24, 304 137 $600 428 43 185 $421 1,963 $2,376 $61,029 Market Cap (8/10/08) $20,5 98 889 576 $110 408 $2,24 9 $142 333 $5,92 9 $1,01 8 NT$40,119 4,083 $4,71 0 C$ 1,959 7,219,212 4,672 kr 73,935 662 $2,61 5 1,081 $672 $4,97 2 $10,6 84 $714 6,167 $114 NT$40,025 622,00 8 NT$7,029 $111 C$ 45 203,28 7 107 6,618 $1,81 4 2,791,8 42 80 NT$24,548 129 $566 346 21 117 $328 5 52 $1,72 5 $164,22 2 Years 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.6 2.1 2.3 2.7 7.8 7.2 8.3 1.2 8.6 8.6 2.9 2.3 8.3 8.6 2.9 1.6 2.7 8.6 1.9 2.3 8.4 5.2 2.7 7.9 8.4 8.6 8.6 6.1 8.4 1.2 8.6 7.5 2.4 2.1 1.6 3.4 8.3 2.9 1.2 3.4 0.1 Market Value Creation (M) $19,210 773 513 $89 329 $1,592 $113 270 $4,852 $1,006 NT$38,990 4,007 $2,011 C$ 1,917 7,059,938 3,269 kr 45,300 631 $2,482 670 $280 $2,855 $9,876 $305 2,648 $93 NT$24,849 230,058 NT$4,894 $72 C$ 25 109,457 45 2,650 $125 937,279 13 NT$244 ( 8) -$34 ( 82) ( 22) ( 68) -$93 -1, 411 -$651 $103,193 % change in Market Ca p 1384% 670% 821% 420% 417% 242% 390% 424% 451% 8313% 3454% 5276% 74% 4582% 4433% 233% 158% 2090% 1878% 163% 71% 135% 1222% 75% 75% 449% 164% 59% 229% 184% 129% 117% 72% 67% 7% 51% 19% 1% -6% -6% -19% -50% -37% -22% -72% -27% Maket Cap CAGR 374% 228% 224% 133% 126% 115% 115% 108% 87% 77% 65% 61% 59% 56% 56% 52% 52% 45% 41% 40% 39% 38% 35% 35% 27% 22% 20% 18% 16% 13% 10% 9% 9% 6% 6% 5% 2% 0% -3% -4% -6% -8% -15% -18% -31% -99% -

Source: Bloomberg, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

33

Solar Energy Handbook

Growth Phase 2: Subsidized Demand from Multiple Markets We Expect the Second Growth Phase for the Solar Sector to Begin in 2010 During the second growth phase, we expect demand from several markets to pick up the slack of demand in Spain. We see three potential main drivers resulting in strong growth in several emerging solar markets during the second growth phase: 1. Greater supply of lower priced solar panels. Our view is that as more supply becomes available and as project returns exceed certain thresholds, new downstream channels would develop to take advantage of the incentives. We are currently forecasting below $2 per watt prices in 2010 and at these price levels, we expect IRRs to increase substantially in emerging solar markets. In our view, investing in solar is equivalent to investing in a government bond. We believe the government incentives in the form of feed-in tariffs act as an annuity stream for project investors, similar to interest earned on a government bond. Consequently, we expect project investors to add leverage and increase returns.

34

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 35: Comparison of Solar IRRs versus Government Bond Yields

18. 1%

17.2% 17.4% 12.3% 12.0% 9. 4% 8. 5% 9. 1% 9.4% 6.4% 4. 0% 3. 2% 4.2% 4.3% 4. 4% 2.2% Belgium P ort ugal Czech Republic S wi tzerland A ust rali a Bond Yi el ds Spain I taly South Korea Greece I srael 4.0% 4.6% 5. 4% 4. 8% 5.6% 12.4% 13. 7%

3.7%

Germany

France

2009 IRRs (at $2.50/W AS P)

20.2%

19.6% 15.6%

19. 2%

14.1% 14. 8% 13.2% 13. 6%

9.8%

10. 7% 9. 4%

6.9%

6.4%

3 .2%

4 .0 %

4 .2 %

4.3% 4 .4 % 2.2% 4.0 %

4.6%

5 .4 % 4 .8 % 3.7% Greece Israe l Fran ce

Ge rmany

Bel giu m

P ortuga l

C zech Re pub lic

Swi tze rlan d

Australi a

S pai n

Ital y

Sou th Korea

2009 IRRs (at $2.00/W AS P)

Bond Yi el ds

Note: The implied time period varies based on the countrys Feed in Tariff policy. Source: Bloomberg, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

35

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 36: Germany IRR Trends


2012 16. 7% 2011 14. 2% 2010 10.9% 2009 8.1% 2008 7. 8% 2007 7.1% 2006 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16% 17% 18%

Figure 37: Italy IRR Trends


2012
35. 5%

2011

2 8.7 %

2010

21 .3%

2009

15 .8%

2008

12 .1%

2007

10. 4%

2006 10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Source: Barclays Capital research

Source: Barclays Capital research

2. New incentive programs from 200809. We expect new incentive programs announced in several markets in 200809 to act as potential major catalysts for demand from 2010. Global awareness of solar energy is increasing and we see that translate into attractive feed-in tariff in several markets over the next few years. For perspective, Spain emerged as the fastest growing market when a new law was passed in 2007. We believe Italy, U.S., Japan, China, India, South Korea, Greece, and Canada have the potential to emerge as large markets with new incentive program announcements made in 200809. Figure 38: New Incentives Announced in 2008
Country Australia South Korea India Greece Israel UAE China Canada Japan France
Source: Country Reports, Barclays Capita l research

Figure 39: Incentives News by Region200809


25

New Incentive in 2008/2009

20

15

10

0 G erma ny A str alia u I ndia Rest of Eur ope Re st of t he Wor ld US

Source: Country Reports, Barclays Capita l research

36

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 40: Incentives News by Month (2008-09)


10

Figure 41: Deals by Month (200809)

43

23 17 11 10 13 20 20 20

26 21 14 7

0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan

Jan

F eb

M arch

A pril

May

June

July

A ug

S ept

Oct

Nov

Dec

J n '09 a

Source: Company Reports, Barclays Capital research

Source: Company Reports, Barclays Capital research

Figure 42: Deals by Country ( in MW) 2008Jan. 2009)


1,855

Figure 43: Deals by Country (2008Jan. 2009)

1,588

238

73 531 385 329 317 50 31 27

25 10

4 Cz ech Republic

2 J apan

60 Germany US It aly Rest of t he World Spain Franc e Belgium

47 South Korea

28 Japan

11 Greec e

3 Cz ec h Republic

US

Germ any

Spain

Rest of the World

It al y

South Korea

Greec e

Franc e

Belgium

Source: Company Reports, Barclays Capital research

Source: Company Reports Barcla ys Capital research

3. Potential resolution of permitting and financing bottlenecks. In general, solar energy project time ranges from nine months to three years. Factors that cause time difference include 1) maturity of solar energy marketsboth permitting and financing durations vary significantly among solar markets; 2) type of land required to build solar energy projects; and 3) type of financing required. We believe the permitting and financing requirements in several markets could become less stringent and more supportive of demand growth from 2010. How Large Is the Potential Solar Opportunity in the Second Growth Phase? We estimate $200 billion of government spending on gross subsidies in the second growth phase. Our calculations are based on a what we believe is a conservative
May 01, 2009 37

Solar Energy Handbook

scenario, where we assume that governments take note of the increasing subsidy burden and enforce annual cap on installations. We use this scenario to calculate the minimum growth of installations during phase 2 of solar industry growth. Our scenario analysis does not take into consideration potential upside from solar programs in new markets and possibility of no annual caps in several solar markets. Recall, our demand forecasting framework: subsidy equals customer profit plus solar industry revenue. We assume that $50 billion of the $200 billion incentives constitute profits for end customers and $150 billion constitute solar industry revenue. In addition to the subsidized markets, we see at least 5 gigawatts of utility scale market opportunity during the second growth phase. We see most of the demand coming from U.S. utilities with some initial traction from European utilities as well. Figure 44: Net Present Value of Subsidies in Select Solar Markets ($/W)
$1 2

$1 0

$8

$6

$4

$2

$0
Netherlands Canada A ustria India Portugal Belgium S w itze and rl Czech Republic A ustrali a Germany S pai n Ialy t Gr eece Israel S outh Kor ea France

Source: Barclays Capital research

Key assumptions in our subsidy-driven demand forecasting are as follows: We assume governments provide subsidies in three stages. We assume that in stage 1 most of the countries such as Greece, Italy, and South Korea meet the caps put in place by their governments for solar installations. We assume that these governments then put in place an annual cap in each of these markets from stage 2 (2011 in many cases) in order to reduce their subsidy burden and stabilize the growth in the sector. We calculate the cap for these markets by considering the examples of Germany and Spain and using the metric Solar subsidy as a percentage of GDP. This metric is calculated by using the net present value of subsidies for 2009 installations in Germany and Spain and comparing this metric with the current GDP of Germany and Spain. We assume Germany's solar subsidy as a percentage of GDP to represent the bull case scenario, Spain's solar subsidy to represent the bear case scenario and take the average of these to represent the base case scenario.

38

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Using this metric we arrive at the base case, bear case and bull case estimates for the caps put into place by the various governments in stage 2. For smaller markets such as Austria, Australia, Switzerland, Belgium, and Netherlands we consider our shipments estimates as the base case; 20% downside to those numbers as the bear case and a 20% upside as the bull case. For stage 3, we assume that governments increase installation caps by 15% year over year. We further assume that governments reduce feed-in tariffs in these markets by 15% in stage 3 after a 15% reduction in stage 2. In our opinion, the solar industry would likely reach grid parity by the end of the second growth phase and as such this could potentially represent the maximum amount of subsidy burden for the government. Figure 45: Insta llations Used In Calculating Growth Phase 2 Subsidies
9,000

8,000

S tep 3
7,000

6,000

M e ga a tts w

5,000

S tep 2
4,000

3,000

2,000

S tep 1
1,000

0 S tep 1 Germ any Italy Fran ce Fr ance S tep 2 S outh K orea Spain n i Ida Canada Step 3 Oth er

5,000

10,000
Me ga wa tts

15,000 B ear Bas e B ul l

20,00 0

25,000

Source: Barclays Capital research

Figure 46: Total Subsidy Amount Allocated by Various Countries


90 00 80 00 70 00 60 00
50 0 45 0 40 0 35 0

G er man y

Po rt ug al

Ins ta ll at ions (MW )

I nsta ll at ions ( MW)

50 00 40 00 30 00 20 00 10 00 Ca na da 0 $0 S ou th Ko re a G ree c e $1 0, 00 0 $2 0 ,0 00 $3 0, 00 0 S ubs idy ($ M) $ 40 ,0 00 $ 5 0,0 0 0 $6 0, 00 0 Ind ia S pa in It aly

30 0 25 0 20 0 15 0 Au str ia I sr ae l Be lgiu m Au str alia Cze ch R ep ub lic

Fra nc e

10 0 50 0 $0 $ 50 0 $ 1, 00 0 $1 ,50 0 $ 2 ,00 0 $2 ,50 0 $3 ,00 0 Ne the rla nd s

Subsi dy ($ M)

Source: Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

39

Solar Energy Handbook

How Much Would Subsidies Really Cost? In the previous section, we estimated the gross subsidy burden for all governments during the second growth phase to be $200 billion. Although this number seems very large, we believe a more appropriate number for the government to consider should be net subsidy burden which takes into consideration factors such as local fossil fuel generated electricity costs among other things. We estimate the net cost burden of solar subsidies assuming $0.10/kWh of traditional fuel costs to be $125 billion during the second growth phase. Figure 47: Net Present Value of Gross and Net Subsidies
Ca na da

Neth er lan ds

In dia

Aus tria

Gr eec e

B elgiu m

Sp ain

Sw itze rla nd

Sou th Ko re a

Cze ch R ep ub ic l

Fr anc e

Au st ra ia l

Italy

Isr ae l

Ge rma ny $0 $1 0,0 00 $ 20 ,00 0 $ 30 ,00 0 $ 40 ,0 00 $ 50 ,00 0 $ 60 ,00 0

Po rt ug al $0 $ 50 0 $1 ,0 00 N et Sub sid y ($ M) $1 ,50 0 G ro ss Sub sid y ( $M) $ 2,0 00 $2, 50 0

Net Subs idy ($ M)

Gr os s Su bs idy ( $M)

Source: Barclays Capital research

In our opinion, a $125 billion cost burden is not that large especially after taking into consideration that it would be shared by more than 12 different countries. As shown in Figure 48, the net solar subsidies as percentage of GDP are significantly less than health care and education spending in all of these countries. Note that the Figure compares total subsidy cost over three to five years to GDP whereas health care/education spending estimates are for one year only. The bottom line is that we believe the net subsidy burden is insignificant for governments to potentially scale back solar programs. In our view, solars job creation potential and the promise of producing electricity at lower prices than natural gas once grid parity is achieved should lead to continued government support during the second growth phase.

40

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 48: Comparison of Net Subsidy Burden to Health Care and Education Spending
14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Germany Italy France So Korea uth Sp n ai Greece Indi a Canada Po rtugal Israel Au stral ia Czech R epubli c Sw tzerl and i Be gium l Net sub sidy % GDP Heal thca re spe ndin g % GDP Education spe nding % GDP

Ne t subsidy % GDP ca lcula ted using total subsidy amount ove r growth phase 2. N ote, subsidy is a lloca ted ove r 20-25 years and real spe nding pe r annum is likely to be 1/20th of the estimate d amount.

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital research

Below we present some details on subsidy burden in Germany. Germany Subsidy Scenario Analysis According to the German Electricity Association, the share of renewable energy (not just solar, includes wind, biofuels, etc.) in electricity prices is only approximately 4% or EUR0.80/kWh. In Germany, the monthly extra costs per consumer due to the premium tariff for solar electricity are currently EUR0.20. Other sources of taxes such as concession fee, electricity tax, value-added tax add up to approximately 36% of German electricity bill. More specifically, the costs to the electricity consumer resulting from the differential costs of electricity covered by the Renewable Energy Sources Act were estimated to be EUR5.5 billion in 2007 whereas the potential economic benefits of the Renewable Energy Sources Act were estimated to be EUR12.0 billion. In addition, the EUR5.5 billion includes all renewable energy types (wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, etc.). Solar-generated electricity was estimated to be less than 2% of overall renewable electricity in 2007 and based on those estimates, we believe the proportion of government expenditure on solar was less than 20% of EUR5.5 billion (or less than EUR1,100 million).

May 01, 2009

41

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 49: Annual Solar Incentives in Germany (EUR Millions)


2004 Cumulative Installed Capacity (MW) Solar Electricity Generated (BkWh) Feed-in tariff ( cents/kW h) Differential cos ts ( cents /kWh) Incremental Electricity (BkWh) Incentives Burden (EUR MM)
Source: Barclays Capital research

2005 1715 1.28 48.4 38.4 0.61 325

2006 2675 2.00 46 36 0.72 651

2007 4003 3.46 43 33 1.46 1101

900 0.67 51 41 0.23 95

Analyzing Potential Impact for Every 1GW Increase in Shipments We believe every 1GW increase in solar shipments could result in approximately EUR200 million of incremental annual incentives in Germany. Our analysis assumes that 1GW of shipments generate 1.1 billion kWh of electricity and our calculation for the potential impact from incentives takes into account the differential costs of solar electricity. We believe the present value of cash flows over the 20 year period is EUR3.0 billion, assuming solar panel efficiencies decline at 2.5% per annum and assuming a discount rate of 5%. Another way to look at is to understand the potential impact of 1GW increase in shipments on the German electricity bill. We believe the impact of every 1GW increase in shipments on the German electricity bill is about EUR0.05/kWh. Figure 50: Potential Increase in German Elec tricity Bills for Every 1GW Increase in PV Shipments (2009E)
PV Shipments (GW) PV Utilization (Hours) PV Electricity Generation (billion, kWh) Feed-in tariff (/kWh) Replaced fossil fuel costs (/kWh) Differential costs (/kWh) Incremental funds (, Million) German Electricity Output (Billion, kWh) Incremental Impact (/kWh)
Source: Barclays Capital estimates

1.0 1100 1.1 0.368 0.10 0.268 295 540 0.05

42

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 51: 2009 German Incentive Program: Net Present Value A nalysis for 1GW Shipments
2 009 E 200 9 In centives (ce nts/kWh) Sola r El ectricity (GWh/yr) In cremen ta l fu nds (Eur M) 36 .8 1 095 29 3 2 019 E 200 9 In centives (ce nts/kWh) Sola r El ectricity (GWh/yr) In cremen ta l fu nds (Eur M) Net Presen t Val ue of In cremen ta l Fu nds (EUR Mil lio ns) 36 .8 85 0 22 8 20 10E 36.8 10 68 286 20 20E 36.8 829 222 $3,02 4 201 1E 3 6.8 1041 2 79 202 1E 3 6.8 8 08 2 17 20 12E 36 .8 10 15 272 20 22E 36 .8 788 211 201 3E 36.8 9 90 2 65 202 3E 36.8 7 68 2 06 2 014 E 36 .8 96 5 25 9 2 024 E 36 .8 74 9 20 1 20 15E 36.8 941 252 20 25E 36.8 730 196 2 016 E 3 6.8 91 7 24 6 2 026 E 3 6.8 71 2 19 1 20 17E 36.8 894 240 20 27E 36.8 694 186 201 8E 3 6.8 9 72 2 34 202 8E 3 6.8 6 77 1 81

Source: Barclays Capital research

Scenario Analysis for German Electricity Bills We have outlined a few scenarios for solar incentives in Germany, where solar could potentially become a larger-than-expected proportion of overall electricity generation in 2009. In each of these scenarios, we have evaluated the impact of incentives on an electricity bill of a German consumer. In the base case scenario, we assume that solar electricity represents about 1.4% of German electricity generation with 2.4GW of annual shipments in 2009 and EUR0.39/kWh impact on German electricity bill. In the bull case scenario, we expect 9.0 billion kWh of solar electricity generated representing about 1.6% of German electricity market and resulting in EUR0.45/kWh impact on the German electricity bill. In the bear case scenario, we assume solar represents 1.1% of electricity generation with 1.2GW of annual shipments in 2009 and EUR0.33/kWh impact on German electricity bill. Figure 52: 2009 Solar Electricity Scenarios (Germany)
2009 Solar El ectricity Scenarios (Germany) Solar elec. (Billion kW h) Overall elec. (Billio n kW h) Solar % of overall e lec. Solar Shipments (M W) Potential Incentives (, MM) Cumulativ e Solar Subsidies in Ele c. Bill (/kWh)
Source: Barclays Capital research

Base 7.62 550 1.4% 2400 2123 0.39

Bull 9.00 550 1.6% 3660 2643 0.45

Bear 6.19 550 1 .1% 1200 1792 0.33

May 01, 2009

43

Solar Energy Handbook

Growth Phase 3: Solar Investments Post Grid Parity We expect the third growth phase for the solar industry to be characterized by the period from when solar achieves grid parity or the point at which solar electricity price matches fossil fuel generated electricity price. Figure 53: Solar System Price versus Natural Gas Price
6000 5000

Solar System Pri ce ($/M W)

4000 3000 2008 N atural Gas Price $5W system cost required to reach grid parity

2000 1000 0 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 Current Natural Gas Price $3/W system cost required to reach grid parity

Natural Gas Price ($/MM BTU)

4.4

4.7

5.1

5.5

5.9

6.3

6.6

7.0

7.4

7.8

8.2

8.5

8.9

9.3

Source: Barclays Capital research

Given the sharp decline in oil and natural gas prices, we are often asked if solar is still a feasible alternative to conventional fossil fuels. We believe the prospects for solar are still promising and our grid parity outlook has not deteriorated for the following reasons: 1) although we agree that average natural gas electricity prices are likely to decline by nearly 50% year over year in 2009 due to a decline in fuel costs, price premium of solar electricity over natural gas electricity is likely to remain constant or even decrease somewhat if module prices decline to $2/W. More importantly, forecasts from Barclays Capital commodities and utilities teams suggest, power prices are likely to increase during 201015 timeframe, potentially leading to grid parity by 2012 in a scenario where no carbon tax is implemented in the U.S.; 2) if we assume a $15/MWhr carbon tax is implemented in the U.S. from 2011, we believe grid parity for California utilities is likely by 2011; and 3) we note that several utilities generally purchase renewable energy at a premium to conventional energy using the Market Price Referent (MPR) (which is typically $20/MWh premium to the natural gas generated electricity price) and by applying a Time of Delivery (TOD) multiplying factor. As shown in Figure 54, assuming PG&E purchases solar using TOD / MPR, solar has the potential to reach grid parity by 2010.

44

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 54: Grid Parity Timeline


2 50 Power Pr ic es ($/MWh) Solar Pr ic e ($ /MWh) 2 00 Power Pr ic es with Ca rbon Tax ($/MWh) MPR Including TOD ($/MWh) 1 50

$/MWh
1 00 50 0 2 006 2007 20 08 2 009E 201 0E 20 11E 2 012E 201 3E 20 14E 2 015E

Source: Barclays Capital research

We see two different grid parity price points: 1) grid parity at the utility level; and 2) grid parity at the residential level. In general, the two grid parity price points are likely to be differentutility price point is likely to be lower than residential price point. We expect residential markets to have a much higher solar energy price point due to elimination of transmission and distribution costs. Grid Parity at Utility Level Several countries generate the bulk of electricity from natural gas and coal. We expect grid parity at the utility level to be reached in the 201012 time frame depending on the development of fossil fuel generated electricity prices. The common belief is that solar energy is not competitive without government subsidies and would never be used by utilities for large-scale electricity generation. In fact, we believe that solar electricity is already competitive with peak power generation capacity in a number of regions. Base-load power generation capacity meets approximately 65% of global electricity demand. Because baseload generators, which are mostly coal-based generators, run at 100% utilization, baseload electricity costs are very low. Solar is unlikely to compete with base-load generation capacity anytime soon. However, utilities must provide the more expensive intermediate load power using part-time natural gas generators. Approximately 30% of global electricity supply is estimated to be met by intermediate-load generators during the daylight hours, when solar economics are the best. Solar PV in the sunnier locations of Europe, where sunlight totals more than 1,800 hours a year, is already competitive with intermediate and peak load power requirements. In the United States, several utilities have announced deployment of large scale solar panels from 2010.

May 01, 2009

45

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 55: Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)Combined Cycle Gas Plants versus Solar
Installed capacity Constr uction cost Plant life Load factor Pr oduction Expected ROCE Required investment Required return Return EUR per MWh Fixed Costs Fixed O&M USD per MWh produced CO2 Costs CO2 Conver sion rate Total emissions % of pass through Pr ice per ton Tot. Cost USD per MWh produced Fuel Costs Fuel Price Heat Rate USD per MWh produced Total Generation Cost Distribution & Transmission Permanent Cost Total Electricity Cost Units MW $ / MW Yrs % GW h $M % $M $ / MW h $ / MW $ / MW h Tons / MWh Metr ic Tons % $ / tn $M $ / MW h $ / MM BTU BTU / MW h $ / MW h $ / MW h $ / MW h $ / MW h $ / MW h CCGT - Now 100 1005 40 40 350 100.5 7 7.0 20.1 2.5 7.2 0.40 140 100% 37.5 5.3 15.0 3.5 10,500 36.8 79.0 25.5 15.0 119.5 CCGT @ 25%100 1005 40 40 350 100.5 7 7.0 20.1 2.5 7.2 0.40 140 100% 37.5 5.3 15.0 2.6 10,500 27.6 69.8 25.5 15.0 110.3 CCG T @ 25%+ 100 1005 40 40 350 100.5 7 7.0 20.1 2.5 7.2 0.40 140 100% 37.5 5.3 15.0 4.4 10,500 45.9 88.2 25.5 15.0 128.7 Solar TF - '08 100 4050 25 35 307 405 7 28.4 92.5 16.2 52.8 Solar c Si - '08 Solar c Si- '09 100 100 8000 5600 25 25 35 35 307 307 800 7 56.0 182.6 32.0 104.4 560 7 39.2 127.9 22.4 73.1 Solar c Si - '10 100 3920 25 35 307 392 7 27.4 89.5 15.7 51.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 145.3 0.0 0.0 145.3

0.0 287.0 0.0 0.0 287.0

0.0 200.9 0.0 0.0 200.9

0.0 140.6 0.0 0.0 140.6

Source: Barclays Capital research

The bottom line is that we see an increasing number of utilities using solar to generate renewable electricity.

46

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 56: Levelized Cost of Electricity Using Various Technologies (Total Electricity Cost)
In sta ll ed cap acity Con stru ction co st Plan t l ife Loa d fa ctor Produ cti on Expecte d ROCE Req uire d inve stm ent Req uire d return Return USD per MWh Fixe d Costs Fi xed O&M USD per MWh produc ed CO 2 Costs CO 2 Con versio n rate To ta l emi ssion s % of pass throu gh Price pe r to n To t. Cos t USD per MWh produc ed Fuel Costs Fu el Pric e Hea t Ra te USD per MWh produc ed Total Ge ne ration C os t Distribution & Tra ns mission Perm anent Cost Total Ele ctricity Cost U nits MW $ / MW Y rs % GWh $M % $M $ / MWh $ / MW $ / MWh To ns / MWh Me tri c Ton s % $ / tn $M $ / MWh $ / MM BTU BTU / MWh $ / MWh $ / MWh $ / MWh $ / MWh $ / MWh CC GT 100 10 05 40 40 350 10 0.5 7 7 .0 20.1 2 .5 7 .2 0.40 140 10 0% 37.5 5 .3 15.0 3 .5 1 0,500 36.8 79.0 25.5 15.0 11 9.5 C oa l 100 27 00 40 70 613 270 7 18 .9 30 .8 6.8 11 .0 0.80 491 10 0% 37 .5 18 .4 30 .0 3.8 11,50 0 43 .1 1 15.0 25 .5 15 .0 1 55.5 Clea n Coal 1 00 45 00 40 70 6 13 4 50 7 31.5 51.4 11.3 18.3 0.00 0 100 % 37.5 0 .0 0 .0 3 .8 1 3,500 50.6 12 0.3 25.5 15.0 16 0.8 Nuc le ar 1 00 510 0 60 85 7 45 5 10 7 3 5.7 4 7.9 1 2.8 1 7.1 0 .0 0 0 1 00% 3 7.5 0.0 0.0 Wind - On 10 0 2 400 20 30 26 3 24 0 7 16 .8 63 .9 12 .0 45 .7 Wind - Off 100 40 50 20 40 350 405 7 28 .4 80 .9 20 .3 57 .8 Solar c -Si - '0 9 Solar TF - '09 1 00 10 0 560 0 4 050 25 25 35 35 3 07 30 7 5 60 7 3 9.2 127 .9 2 2.4 7 3.1 40 5 7 28 .4 92 .5 16 .2 52 .8

0.0

0 .0

0.0

0.0

4.0 6 9.1 2 5.5 1 5.0 109 .6

0.0 1 09.6 25 .5 15 .0 1 50.1

0 .0 13 8.7 25 .5 15 .0 17 9.2

0.0 200 .9 0.0 0.0 200 .9

0.0 1 45.3 0.0 0.0 1 45.3

Source: Barclays Capital research

Grid Parity in Several Residential Markets before 2012 Is Likely


We expect solar to achieve grid parity at $4 system prices likely before 2012.

Another way to think about grid parity is to consider the residential markets. As demonstrated in Figure 57, grid electricity prices in some of the key solar markets are much more than the average grid electricity prices of $0.05$0.10 per kilowatt hour. According to the EIAs August 2008 update, average household electricity prices in markets such as Germany were greater than $0.25 per kilowatt hour in 2007. Furthermore, according to the report, electricity prices increased at a CAGR of 7%14% in the past five years in Spain, Italy, and Germany. We believe if electricity prices continue to increase at an historical CAGR in the next five years, solar could potentially become competitive well before 2012. In Figure 58, we show that based on current grid electricity prices, solar could achieve grid parity in some of the high-sun-intensity regions of these markets at prices less than $6 per watt. We expect solar system prices to reach these levels potentially before 2012.

May 01, 2009

47

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 57: Household Electricity Price Trend and Projections In Key Solar Markets
18 % 16 % 14 % Electricity Pri ces C AGR ('01 - '06))
Netherlands C zec h Republic

12 % 10 %
Greece

Portugal Germany It aly Austria Franc e Spain Canada South K orea

8% 6% 4% 2% 0%
$$ 0.0 5

I ndia

USA

S witz erland

$0.10

$0.15

$0.20

$0 .25

$0.30

2 007 El ectricity Prices ($ce nts/kWh)

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital

Figure 58: Grid Parity in Several Markets Likely Before 2012


Average power price per households, $ per kWh
0.4 Denmark Italy 0.3 Norway Netherlands Ger many Austr ia New Yor k California F inland France Switzerland Canada Gr eece Texas South Korea Cyprus Israel Mexico Spain Portugal Japan Hawaii Australia California Tier 5 California Tier 4

Cost per watt at peak hours, $ per W

Size of electricity market in TWh/year System Price Forecast 2009: $5.00 per watt 2010: $4.00 per watt 2011: $3.50 per watt 2012: $3.00 per watt 2015: $2.00 per watt 2020: $1.50 per watt

Sweden 0.2

UK

Belgium Czech Republic

0.1

3
China India 0 500

2
2000

1000

1500

Average I nsolation (kWh/sq.mtr/yr)


Source: Barclays Capital research, McKinsey Global Institute, C IA countr y files, European Photovoltaic Policy Group, Pacific Gas & Electric, Public Policy Institute of New York State

48

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Grid Parity in the U.S. Market


We believe that solar has the potential to reach grid parity in a number of states over the next three to five years.

Grid parity in the U.S.: We examine grid parity price points assuming commercial solar projects offer 8% to 10% IRRs in the U.S. With a debt/equity ratio of 40%:60%, 7% interest rate, and 30% ITC, we believe solar has the potential to reach grid parity in a number of states over the next three to five years. Grid parity timeframe in various states: We expect commercial projects to generate competitive returns in 2009 (8%10% IRRs assuming ITC, no state incentives) in TX, NJ, NY, DC, and HI. Taking CA state incentives into consideration, we expect commercial solar returns to be the highest in CA in 2009. Without state incentives, we expect four more states to generate competitive commercial project returns in 2010.

Figure 59: Commercial Solar Grid Parity Timeline


$0.30 Hawaii

Connect icut $0.20 New York New Jersey Alaska Massachuset ts Delaware Pennsylvania M ichigan Wisconsin Ohio M ai ne M aryland G eorgia Illinois Nort h Carol ina I daho Nort h Dakota Nebraska Utah K ansas A rizona F lori da Oklahom a Colorado NM Cali fornia Nevada Texas

$7.0/W

$6.0 /W $5.0 /W $3.0/W

$0.10

System Price F orecast 2007 : $6.50 2008 : $6.00 2009 : $5.00 2010 : $4.00 2011 : $3.50 2012 : $3.00 per per per per per per watt watt watt watt watt watt

Si ze of el ectricity ma rket in T Wh /year

$2.0/W $1 .5/W

$0.00 1000

1300

1600

1900

2200

Averag e Inso lation (kW h/sq.mtr /yr)

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 60: Commercial Solar Grid Parity Timeline


$12,000 $11,000 $10,000 $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 MO IN ND WA ID WV NC AS FL UT PA WI LA IL NB SC AL MS IA VA MT AK AR GA MI MN OH KY WY SD TN NM OR AZ MA CO DE OK VT KS NH ME MD TX DC NJ NY CA CT NV RI HI 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 pre 2008

Source: Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

49

Cos t per wa tt at p eak hou rs, $ per W

Averag e p ower p rice, $ pe r kW h

Solar Energy Handbook

Screening Potential Long-Term Winners So which companies do we believe stand to win in the long run? The common view is that solar is a commodity with relatively low barriers to entry. Our view is that barriers to entry are low for high cost/low efficiency panelsit is relatively easy to make an undifferentiated product for the incentive markets where IRRs are still very attractive. We expect two long-term trends to potentially influence solar industry development. First, we see innovation leading to increased technology and therefore cost differentiation. Second, we see competitive dynamics and changing industry landscape leading to increased cost differentiation. Anyone who thinks that solar companies are relatively undifferentiated should, in our opinion, think about Applied Materials and First Solar. How many successful thin film companies besides First Solar have we seen so far? Why is the world not producing solar cells in volume production for unsubsidized markets when the semiconductor industry has figured out a way to mass produce 45nm products? Why is everyone skeptical of Applied Materials ability to lower costs and improve efficiency? The bottom line is that efficiency improvement requires major breakthroughs. Not everyone can or will get there. The companies that can successfully reduce costs and improve efficiency stand to dominate the solar sector, in our view. Simply put, we believe the winning formula for success would be a combination of SunPower's high efficiency technology and First Solar's low cost structure. Now let's think about a scenario where First Solar executes to its 12% efficiency target and SunPower reduces costs by 50%. We continue to see room for both silicon and thin film technologies and, at this point, we see First Solar as being the lowest-cost thin film solution. In the silicon space where there is only gradual efficiency improvement, we believe market share will play an important role in cost differentiation. In addition to economies of scale, we see the ability to access low-cost silicon being influenced by market share. For instance, until recently, the bargaining power has been with the silicon suppliers. Over time, as new entrants from China bring additional silicon supply on-stream, we see a shift in the bargaining power in the solar value chain. In our view, the capital intensity of poly suppliers is highest among all industry participants. Consequently, we see a greater need for poly suppliers and their solar partners to access capital markets for new capex or for pre-payments. We believe solar companies with scale and a strong balance sheet are likely to receive more favorable terms from their suppliers compared to smaller tier 2 solar players.

50

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 61: Silicon-Based Solar Industry Competitive Dynamics


Solar Value Chain Profitability
Strong supplier Weak supplier

NOW
Downstream Downs tream Midstream

FUTURE
Downstream Downs tream

NOW

Midstream

Strong customer

FUTURE

Upstream Weak c ustomer Ups tream

Source: Barclays Capital research

Although we are not saying it is easy to make silicon, we believe the barriers to entry in silicon business are decreasing. Over time we expect the knowledge pool of silicon industry to increase. Until the emergence of the solar industry, the silicon industry was a fairly concentrated industry with manufacturing only in about five locations. As more companies learn to make silicon, we see decreasing barriers to entry in the silicon industry. On the other hand, we believe barriers to entry in the mid-stream segment are likely to increase. First, we believe access to low-cost supply will be the primary challenge. Second, downstream players are likely to require greater reward for taking the same risk in an uncertain supply/demand environment. Module manufacturers provide 20- to 25-year warranties and financial stability would likely be the key focus for several large downstream installers.

May 01, 2009

51

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 62: Conversion Efficiency and Cost Trends

Europe Solar Tier 2 Increasing costs

China Solar Tier 2 Chin a Solar Tier 1

Europe Solar Tier 1

SunPow er A MA T Thin Film First Solar Next Gen Solar

Increasing Efficiency

Source: Barclays Capital research

If our industry outlook proves to be correct, we see two long-term trends shaping the siliconbased solar sector: 1) we see a profitability shift from upstream to midstream; 2) within midstream, we see a wide range of marginscompanies with scale should enjoy aboveaverage margins and tier 2 companies should have weak margins due to high poly cost and lower ASPs. Figure 63: Solar Market Share versus Margins
Increasing market share Increasing market share

Decreasing market share

Upstream

Midstream

Down stream

Lo

Hi

Differential margins

Lo

Hi

Source: Barclays Capital research

52

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Our focus would be on companies that are well positioned to increase scalewe believe that companies that can scale rapidly without sufficient need for growth capital are likely to emerge as long-term winners. Although we like vertically integrated companies, we believe companies focused on the capital intensive polysilicon manufacturing segment may be unable to scale rapidly enough compared with companies focused on cell and module manufacturing. In the long run when companies start generating free cash flow, we see the potential opportunity for fully vertically integrated companies to emerge as long-term winners. Figure 64: Solar Industry Competitive Analysis
JA Solar Yingli Suntech

Low non-silicon costs

Chin a Sunergy Solarf un Trina Solar SunPow er

Evergreen Solar REC Solarw orld Q-Cells

Be neficiary of Abundant Polysilicon Supply


Source: Barclays Capital research

Long-Term Industry Profitability Outlook In our opinion, solar industry profits should continue to increase as the industry revenue pool increases and as overall costs decline due to technology improvements and economies of scale. We expect a redistribution of profits from upstream to midstream and downstream. Within the midstream segment, we expect profits per installed capacity to decrease in the long run such that the industry leaders achieve return in excess of cost of capital. In other words, although overall industry profitability should improve, increased competition in a grid parity and abundant silicon supply scenario should result in declining overall profitability. However, we expect costs to decline faster than ASPs, enabling gross margin expansion for some leading solar cell/module manufacturers. We believe the following factors should result in gross margin expansion for midstream players in the intermediate term: 1) a more than 50% decline in polysilicon and raw material costs; 2) lower silicon consumption per cell because of greater silicon efficiency by

May 01, 2009

53

Solar Energy Handbook

cell manufacturers; 3) about 2% improvement in cell efficiencies, resulting in about 600 basis points of gross margin expansion on constant ASPs; and 4) production efficiencies driven by economies of scale and improved manufacturing methods. Return on Invested Capital Analysis We believe as the solar industry profits move toward the normalized $1/W profits, only the tier 1 silicon-based solar companies with economies of scale (and First Solar) are likely to generate returns greater than cost of capital. We believe the current industry profits are still well above the normalized industry profits of $1/W. Figure 65: Normalized Industry Profits Pool
$/W Input Cost Processing Polysilicon $0.32 NA Wafers $0.40 $0.28 Cells $0.80 $0.19 Modules $1.10 $0.28 Insatllers $1.45 $1.95 Total Normalized Industry Profits ($/W) Price $0.40 $0.80 $1.10 $1.45 $4.00 Profits $0.08 $0.12 $0.11 $0.07 $0.60 $0.98 Gross Margin 20% 15% 10% 5% 15%

Note: Normalized Profits model assume poly price of $40/kg and 8g/W silicon consumption Source: Barclays Capital research

We calculate the ROIC of cell and module manufacturer in two scenarios: 1) large economies of scale (mostly the case for tier 1 solar companies); and 2) relatively small size operations (tier 2, tier 3 sola r companies). For tier 1integrated module manufacturers, we expect the normalized ROIC to decrease from over 40% currently to about 8%, roughly equal to the cost of capital. Assuming no difference in gross margins and higher operating expenses, net working capital requirements, we believe ROIC of tier 2 module manufacturers is likely to decrease to roughly (1%) in the long term. Similarly, we believe ROIC of tier 1 cell manufacturers is likely to decrease to about 16% from over 50% currently whereas ROIC of tier 2 cell manufacturers is likely to decrease to about 4% in the long term.

54

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 66: ROIC Integ rated Module Manufacturer Current versus Normalized
Integrated Module Mfg. Module ASP ($/W) Module Cost ($/W) Gross Profit ($/W) Opex ($/W) Operating Profit ($/W) Taxes ($/W) Return ($/W) Invested Capital Net Work ing Capital ($/W) Net Operating Fixed Assets ($/W) Operating Invested Capital ($/W) ROIC
Source: Barclays Capital research

Current 3.00 2.40 0.60 0.08 0.52 0.05 0.47

Normalized Tier 1 1.45 1.38 0.07 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.05

Normalized Tier 2 1.45 1.38 0.07 0.08 -0.01 0.00 -0.01

0.50 0.60 1.10 42.5%

0.25 0.40 0.65 8.3%

0.45 0.55 1.00 -0.9%

Figure 67: ROIC Integ rated Cell Manufacturer Current vs. Normalized
Integrated Cell Mfg. Cell ASP ($/W) Cell Cost ($/W) Gross Profit ($/W) Opex ($/W) Operating Profit ($/W) Taxes ($/W) Return ($/W) Invested Capital Net Work ing Capital ($/W) Net Operating Fixed Assets ($/W) Operating Invested Capital ($/W) ROIC
Source: Barclays Capital research

Current 2.00 1.50 0.50 0.10 0.40 0.04 0.36

Normalized Tier 1 1.10 0.99 0.11 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.08

Normalized Tier 2 1.10 0.99 0.11 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.03

0.40 0.30 0.70 51.4%

0.25 0.25 0.50 16.2%

0.40 0.30 0.70 3.9%

May 01, 2009

55

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 68: Normalized ROIC: Thin Film, Polysilicon Manufacturers


Normalized ENER 1.40 1.30 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.04 Normalized FSLR 1.00 0.70 0.30 0.10 0.20 0.04 0.16 Poly Mfg. Poly ASP ($/W) Poly Cost ($/W ) Gross Profit ($/W ) Opex ($/W ) Operating Profit ($/W) Taxes ($/W ) Return ($/W ) Invested Capital Net W orking Capital ($/W ) Net Operating Fixed Assets ($/W ) Operating Invested Capital ($/W ) ROIC Current 2.00 0.32 1.68 0.20 1.48 0.44 1.04 Normalized 0.40 0.32 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.02

Module ASP ($/W) Module Cost ($/W ) Gross Profit ($/W) Opex ($/W ) Operating Profit ($/W ) Taxes ($/W) Return ($/W) Invested Capital Net Working Capital ($/W) Net Operating Fixed Assets ($/W ) Operating Invested Capital ($/W) ROIC
Source: Barclays Capital research

0.50 1.00 1.50 3.0%

0.50 0.70 1.20 53.3%

1.00 1.00 2.00 51.8%

0.40 0.90 1.30 1.6%

56

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Cash Is King in Solar In our view, access to capital is likely to emerge as the most important differentiating factor for solar companies. Most silicon-based solar companies raise capital for two purposes silicon pre-payments and capex. As shown in Figure 69, the silicon-based solar players have raised $10.1 billion of capital so far, of which 46% has been dedicated toward polysilicon prepayments and the remainder for capex investments. We believe companies with access to capital should be better positioned to enter into strategic partnerships and/or make equity investments in return for low cost reliable supply. Figure 69: Prepayments and Capex Breakdown
CSUN C SIQ SO LF T SL SO L ENER YGE SPWR ESLR JASO F SLR STP $0 $20 0 $ 400 $6 00 Cap ex ($ M) $80 0 $1 ,0 00 $1 ,2 00 $ 1,400 $ 1,600 $1 ,8 00

Prep ayme nts a nd/or Othe r Uses ($M)

Source: Company data, Bar clays Capital research

What if the solar industry used fully depreciated equipment? Unlike the semiconductor industry, which is driven by Moores Law, the solar industry does not require any changes to manufacturing equipment sets over intermediate periods. Most of the technological improvements within the solar industry occur at the cell level (in the form of improved conversion efficiency) and these changes do not necessarily require a change in the equipment sets. Consequently, we assume the solar industry can continue to use fully depreciated equipment to make solar products without really changing the manufacturing economics. Although new technologies such as improved automation, lower breakage rate are likely to be developed and used, we believe these technologies that reduce silicon consumption may not necessarily have the same competitive advantage to warrant high capex investments in a low cost environment.

May 01, 2009

57

Solar Energy Handbook

DRAM versus SolarShrinking Revenue Pool versus Rising Revenue Pool The solar industry is often compared with the DRAM industrycommon comparisons include 1) commodity nature of both DRAM and solar industry, 2) relatively low technology barriers to entry, 3) low-cost manufacturing as the key differentiating factor among companies. We believe the solar industry is different from DRAM for the following reasons: 1. Solar industry revenue pool is growing whereas DRAM industry revenue pool is shrinking. 2. Fixed costs for DRAM manufacturers are high whereas fixed costs for solar companies are low. 3. DRAM industry has no pricing floor, solar industry has pricing floor. 4. Capital intensity of DRAM industry is twice that of solar industry. 5. No Moores Law within solar industrywhere is the need for replacement capex every few years? Within Solar Industry Value Chain, Polysilicon Industry Perhaps Represents the Closest to the DRAM Industry In our view, there is a high level of similarity between the polysilicon industry and the DRAM industry as both industries are characterized by high capital intensity levels. We believe due to the relatively high fixed cost structure, polysilicon manufacturers are likely to continue to run factories at nearly full utilization rates as long as the polysilicon price is greater than marginal cost. We believe this competitive dynamic is likely to result in significant polysilicon price declines, just as we have observed in the DRAM industry in the prior cycles.

58

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Chapter 2: Solar Background

May 01, 2009

59

Solar Energy Handbook

Robust Secular Growth Story Over the past decade, the photovoltaic (PV) solar industry has emerged from being a niche cottage industry to a commercially viable stand-alone industry, primarily due to the efforts and programs of governments of Germany and Japan. Worldwide solar PV installations have grown at a 32% annual rate from about 80MW in 1995 to approximately 5.9GW in 2008. During the corresponding period, solar PV module prices have declined from roughly $11 per watt to about $4 per watt. In our view, solar PV demand is highly elastic and if the pace of cost reductions continues, making the prospects of achieving grid parity brighter in some regions, we expect solar PV demand growth (in the form of new installations) to accelerate further. Although the solar PV would be insignificant compared with the more than $1 trillion global electricity market today, our top-down scenario analysis suggests that the potential upside to our 2012 forecast would be a factor of 2x 3x if the industry cost reductions accelerate. Solar Contributes Less Than 1% of Global Electricity Generation Despite the robust secular growth over the last decade, solar PV electricity accounted for only about 0.1% of the global electricity generated in 2008. Figure 70: Global Electricity Genera tion Mix
Nucl ear, 15%

Figure 71: U.S. Electricity Generation Mix

N uc le ar, 1 9%
Coa l, 4 0% Hydroe lec tric, 16 .00 %

R enewa bles 18 %

Coal, 50 %
Sola r & Wind, 0 .40 % B iopowe r, 1 .40 %

Re new able s 8. 7%

Hy droe lec tric , 6. 50 % Sola r & W ind, 0 .4 5%

Oi l, 3 % B iopow er, 1.3 5% G eot he rmal, 0. 36 %

O il, 7% Ge ot hermal, 0 .30 %

Nat ura l G as, 20 %

Na tural Ga s, 19 %

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital

60

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 72: Cumulative Ins talled Capacity (2008)


ROW 23% Japan 12%

Figure 73: New Solar PV Ins tallations (2008)

Germany 27%

US 7% Germany 38%

Spain 45%

ROE 9%

Spain 20%

ROW 9%

Japan 4%

USA 6%

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital research

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

61

Solar Energy Handbook

Solar Demand Outlook What drives solar demand? In our view, solar demand is driven by favorable economics resulting from two equally important factors: 1) government incentives; and 2) continued cost reductions. Government Incentives Should Continue to Grow, in Our View
Government incentives in Germany, Spain, and the United States should be the main growth drivers.

We believe Government incentives are still the primary demand driver for solar energy as the unsubsidized cost of solar electricity is significantly greater than the cost of fossil fuel electricity. We believe the role of incentives is to make current solar photovoltaic (PV) costs competitive with fossil electricity costs in order to achieve economies of scale necessary to drive down solar PV costs. The incentives typically take the form of preferential feed-in tariffs/net metering (where the utilities buy PV electricity from the producer at a certain guaranteed rate), investment subsidies (where the government refunds part of system installa tion costs), ta x rebates, and R&D support. Below, we highlight some of the common incentive programs: Feed-in Tariffs. Utilities pay customers a guaranteed rate typically for 2025 years for the amount of solar electricity generated by the solar power system. Tax Credits. End user/installer does not pay sales tax on purchase of solar systems. Capital Cost Rebates. End user/installer receives a cash rebate on the initial solar panel system cost. Net Metering. End user is charged only for the net amount of energy used from the utility grid. Net metering is calculated as energy used from the grid less energy generated from a solar system. The most commonly used incentives include preferential feed-in tariffs and net metering (by which the utilities buy PV electricity from the producer at a certain guaranteed rate). In markets such as the U.S., investment subsidies (where the government refunds part of system installation costs), tax rebates, and R&D support are common.

62

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Role of Government Incentives Figure 74: Solar Subsidy Demand Relationship

ion ct du Re st Co

Hi gh

De m an d

Solar Demand Drivers

Go vern ment Sup port

Source: Barclays Capital research

Continued Cost Reductions The price of solar electricity has been declining over timein 1976 it was about $2.00 per kilowatt-hour, and today it is $0.15 to $0.40 per kilowatt-hour. But this is still far too high to make solar energy broadly viable. Since the costs of solar electricity are currently high, demand is mainly driven by government incentives in a few countries (which we discuss in greater detail in the next few sections) that are aimed at generating economies of scale. As the industry drives down costs over the next three to five years, we expect an increasing number of governments to look at solar as a potentially attractive source of renewable electricity. Consequently, we believe continued cost reduction is likely to be one of the most significant growth drivers for the industry over the next three to five years. Figure 75: Costs of Various Sources of Energy
So lar 1 5 .0 40 .0

Ge o th e rma l

4.0

30 .0

N uc le ar

11 .1

1 4 .5

Hy d ro ele c tr ic

5 .1

1 1.3

Win d

4.0

6.0

Co a l

4 .8

5 .5

N atu ra l Gas

4.4

4 .9 Min imum Co st ($ c/kWh ) Ma xi m m Cos t ($ c/kWh ) u

Source: Industr y sources, Barclays Capital research

The price of solar electricity is largely dependent upon location. For instance, solar electricity in Spain costs $0.26/kWh whereas in Germany it costs $0.36/kWh.

May 01, 2009

63

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 76: Solar Electricity Costs ($/kWh) in Key Regions


$0.40 $0.35 $0.30
Re tail ele c. cost 20 07 solar cost

$0.25 $0.20 $0.15 $0.10 $0.05 $0.00 1000 1300 1600


Annua l Insolation (kWh/sq.mtr) 2 012 solar c ost

Germany

Italy Japan Spain California

1900

2200

Source: Barclays Capital research

Two main factors are driving the high cost of solar electricity: 1) low rates of efficiency of solar cells; and 2) the high cost of the substrate material being used. As we explain in detail in the next few sections of the report, the solar PV supply chain is focused on improving the cost of solar electricity by increasing watt/m2 (or cell efficiency) and decreasing cost/m2 (manufacturing costs). Figure 77: Key Cost Per Watt Reduction Drivers

COST COST WATT = SQ. MTR WATT SQ. MTR

COST/ SQ. MTR REDUCTION Economies of Scale Competition Wafer Price Reduction Wafer Thickness Reduction Automation Next Generation Technologies

WATT/ SQ. MTR IMPROVEMENT Cell Efficiency Improvement


Source: Barclays Capital research

64

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Main Types of Solar PV Technologies There are two main types of solar PV technologies: crystalline silicon and thin film silicon. Each of these technologies has distinct advantages and disadvantages. Crystalline Silicon About 90% of solar cells manufactured today are crystalline silicon-based solar cells. These cells use silicon wafers as the raw material, much like those used in semiconductor manufacturing. There are two main types of crystalline silicon cells: mono-crystalline and multi-crystalline. Mono-crysta lline cells are more efficient in the conversion of sunlight into electricity; however, their manufacturing cost is higher. Multi-crystalline cells are lower in cost to manufa cture, but they are less efficient than mono-crysta lline cells. The advantage of crystalline silicon cells is high conversion efficiency (about 14%21%) and proven high volume manufacturing processes. Thin Film Thin film technology is a relatively new next generation solar PV technology that has the potential to grow faster than conventional solar technology. Thin film solar panels are manufactured by depositing a layer of semiconductor/non-semiconductor material on glass or other flexible substrate. Thin film solar panels represent less than 10% of solar PV cells manufactured today; however, they are likely to grow rapidly to represent almost 20% of solar cells over the next three to five years. The main advantage in the thin film approach is the elimination of the use of expensive polysilicon; however, the disadvantage is lower conversion efficiency (6% to 11%) and lack of proven manufacturing technology. Figure 78: Module and Cell EfficienciesCrystalline versus Thin Film Solar Technologies
Technology Thin Film Amorphous Cadmium Silicon (a-Si) Telluride (CdTe) 6-7% 8-10% Crystalline Wafer Based CIS a-Si/m-Si Monocrystalline 16-17% 10-11% 8% 13-15% 15 sq. mtr 11 sq mtr . 10 sq. mtr 12 sq. mtr app. 7 sq. mtr Multicrystalline 14-15% 12-14% app. 8 sq mtr

Cell Efficiency at STC* Module Efficiency Area needed per kWp** (f or modules)
Source: EPIA

*: Standard Testing Co nditions 25 deg. C, light intensity of 1,000W/sq. m tr, air mass=1.5 ** kWp=kilowatt peak, solar products are rated by the power they generate at S tandard Testing Conditions

May 01, 2009

65

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 79: Life Cycle Positions of Alternative Energy Technologies


Research Development Demonstration Deployment Mature Technology

Dish-Stirling STE Anticipated Cos t of Full-Scale A pplic ation B iomass gasification Wave Concentrating P V

Central receiver STE

Geother mal Offshore wind Parabolic- trough S TE Thin-film PV

Tidal & riv er turbines

Silicon PV

Cofired biom ass

Nano-s tr uctured PV

Direct-fired biomass Onshor e wind Hydro

Time

Source: Electric Power Research Institute, Bar clays Capital research

Figure 80: Comparison of Thin Film Technologies


Effic ie nc y Cost Ability to Sca le Ca pital Costs Substra te

Amorphous Silicon - U nisolar - Shar p - K aneka C admium Tellur ide - Fir st Solar

CIGS - N anosolar - Mias ole - Solyndra TH ERMAL EXPLOR ATION

Strong/ Positive
Source: Company Reports, Barclays Capital research

Weak/ Negative

66

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Thin Film TechnologyCIGS CIGS or copper indium gallium de-selenide appears to be the most promising technology in terms of efficiency and cost improvement. However, large scale volume production has been challenging due to the complexity involved in the layering and mixing of the different CIGS components to make cells. There are currently four techniques for the deposition of CIGS material onto a cell: Electroplating: An electrically charged cell is dipped in a CIGS solution which is of the opposite charge. The advantage of this process is that this is a proven process technology on industrial scale for other applications. However, this process can result in very uneven deposition (causing lower efficiency and higher material loss). Nano-particle printing: Ink solution with nano-particles of CIGS composites is printed using ink-jet printer like technology onto the cell. Although the process seems very easy, formulating and constantly maintaining the right ink mix can be very expensive and is often the most challenging step. Nano-particle printing could result in very uneven deposition of CIGS materials and results in lower efficiency. Thermal evaporation: In this process, base materials are vaporized and gradually deposited onto the cell substrate. This is the most common process used for lab level CIGS cell manufacturing. Uniform deposition is difficult for larger substrates making scaling a challenge. Sputtering: In our view, this is the most technically challenging process after nano-particle printing as it involves high temperatures and a vacuum environment. We believe sputtering has the potential to achieve the highest throughput and lowest material loss of all the processes. Figure 81: CIGS Technology Matrix
Process Technology Control / Process F lexibility High Vol Mf g Technology High Throughput No Hazardous Waste Uniformity Batch / Continuous

SPUTTERING

Continuous

ELECTROPLATING

Batch

NANO-PARTICLE PRINTING

Batch

THERMAL EXPLORATIO N

Batc h

Source: Industr y sources, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

67

Solar Energy Handbook

Thin Film TechnologyAmorphous Silicon Layers of amorphous silicon are deposited as light-absorbing materials on rigid or flexible substrates instead of traditional crystalline silicon layers. The main advantage of this technology is that amorphous silicon absorbs solar radiation 40 times more efficiently than traditional crystalline silicon and, consequently, only a 1-micron thick layer needs to be deposited as compared with about 200-micron thick layers in the case of crystalline silicon. The main disadvantage with this technology is that module efficiencies are typically between 6% and 8%, well below the 14%16% levels of crystalline silicon. In the early 1970s, scientists found a use for a-Si in PV technology by controlling the conditions under which it is deposited and carefully modifying its composition. The material has long been popular in small consumer devices with low power requirements, such as wristwatches and calculators. Now, a better understanding of certain unique a-Si characteristics make it appealing for solar electric systems and today is the leading thin-film PV material. It can also be produced at lower temperatures and deposited on inexpensive substrates such as plastic, glass, and metal. Employing a-Si thin-film does present some challenges. Instability is arguably the biggest obstacle. The mechanism of degradation, known as the Staebler-Wronski effect, causes conversion efficiency to decrease considerably during initial exposure to sunlight. Although output gradually stabilizes, losses of 20% can occur before this happens. Multi-junction designs can help to lessen this effect, as can capital equipment reduction, a faster rate of material deposition, and better module packaging to make the material less susceptible to glass breakage or moisture ingress in outdoor environments. Current layers in the amorphous silicon market include Energy Conversion Devices, Sharp, United Solar Systems, ersol Thin-Film, Schott Solar, and a growing number of others. Thin Film TechnologiesCadmium Telluride CdTe is a stable and inert semiconductor made from cadmium and telluride which are byproducts of mining and the production of metals such as zinc and copper. CdTe is a direct bandgap semiconductor and is thus able to more efficiently convert solar energy into electricity than indirect bandgap semiconductors. Thus, while it uses about 1% of the semiconductor material used generally, it is able to provide comparable efficiency levels. CdTe cells are also less affected than traditional silicon based cells, by cell temperature increases. Elemental Cadmium and certain of its compounds are considered hazardous and regulated but the risks of exposure from CdTe are not considered as serious as those from elemental Cadmium. These can also be mitigated by the encapsulation of the modules. CdTe has been recognized by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to have the potential for achieving the lowest production costs among thin film technologies.

68

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Chapter 3: How to Screen Solar Stocks

May 01, 2009

69

Solar Energy Handbook

Solar Stocks Are Volatile and Tend to Trade More on Sentiment than on Fundamentals We believe the following eight metrics (in order of importance) are likely to play a key role in determining relative fundamental performance of solar companies: 1) balance sheet; 2) cost structure; 3) control of downstream channels; 4) product differentiation; 5) technology roadmap; 6) poly advantage; 7) scalability; and 8) financial metrics.
We prefer companies with strong access to capital.

Balance Sheet (20%): We base our balance sheet rating on available cash position, potential to fund near term capacity expansion plans, debt/equity ratios, convertible debt (if any) repayment schedule, and our forecasts for free cash flow. We believe over the next 12 to 18 months, bala nce sheet strength could potentially emerge as the most powerful differentiator for companies as customers/financial institutions seek to minimize warranty risks. In our opinion, First Solar and MEMC have relatively strong balance sheets followed by SunPower, Energy Conversion Devices, JA Solar, and Trina Solar. Cost Structure (20%): In our opinion, levelized cost of energy (LCOE) (which is dependent on both overall cost structure (module cost/W) and balance of systems cost requirements) is likely to be important in determining relative fundamental performance of solar companies. For our cost structure analysis, we use non-silicon costs as the basis for our screening methodology. To that extent, First Solar, Yingli, and JA Solar screen as top companies in our coverage universe. Control of Downstream Channels (15%): We believe companies with strong access to downstream channels in key growth markets such as the U.S., Germany and Italy are likely to see relatively strong shipments growth. In our opinion, SunPower has relatively strong control of downstream channels, followed by First Solar.

LCOE and Balance of Systems costs are important in determining relative fundamental performance.

We like companies with strong access to downstream channels.

Companies with differentiated products are likely to experience strong fundamentals.

Product Differentiation (10%) Companies with differentiated products (low cost, high efficiency, BIPV) are likely to experience relatively strong fundamentals in our view. In our opinion, First Solar, SunPower, MEMC, and Energy Conversion Devices have differentiated product offerings followed by China Sunergy. Technology Roadmap (10%): Companies that have well-defined technology roadmap to improve conversion efficiencies/costs are likely to show relative fundamental outperformance, in our view. We base our ratings by examining R&D expenses and historical track record on technology roadmap execution. In our opinion, First Solar, SunPower, MEMC and China Sunergy screen favorably on this metric. Poly Advantage (10%): As spot poly prices continue to decline, we expect companies with high exposure to the spot market to outperform thin film companies. Yingli, Trina Solar, and China Sunergy screen favorably on this metric. Scalability (10%): We believe scalable business models are important to gain market share and reduce costs through economies of scale. In our opinion, JA Solar and China Sunergy have the most scalable business models followed by First Solar and SunPower. Financial Metrics (5%) We use operating margins, ROE, and ROIC to rate companies. First Solar and MEMC screen as companies with top financial metrics.

We prefer companies with well defined technology roadmaps to improve costs.

We prefer companies with high exposure to the spot poly market. We believe scalable business models are important to gain market share.

We use ROE and ROIC to rate companies.

70

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 82: Using Stock Screening Methodology for Coverage Stocks


FSLR Balance Sheet SP WR WFR YGE JASO TSL STP CSUN ENER ESLR LDK CSIQ SOL SOLF

Cost Structur e

Downstr eam

Differentiation

Technology Roadmap

Pol y Advantage

Scal abi lity

Financial M etrics

Overall Screen

Strong

Weak

Source: Barclays Capital

May 01, 2009

71

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 83: Using Stock Screening Methodology for Coverage Stocks


2-EW FSLR 5 5 4 5 5 1 4 5 4.35 2-EW SPWR 4 3 5 5 5 2 4 5 4.00 1-OW WFR 5 5 1 5 5 1 1 5 3.60 1-OW YGE 1 5 3 4 3 5 4 4 3.45 1-OW JASO 3 5 1 3 3 4 5 3 3.40 2-EW TSL 3 3 3 1 3 5 3 4 3.05 3-UW STP 1 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3.00

Balance Sheet Cost structure Downstream Differentiation Tec hnology roadmap Poly advantage Scalability Financial metric s Overall screen

20% 20% 15% 10% 10% 10% 10% 5% 100%

Balance Sheet Cost structure Downstream Differentiation Tec hnology roadmap Poly advantage Scalability Financial metric s Overall screen

20% 20% 15% 10% 10% 10% 10% 5% 100%

2-EW CSUN 1 3 1 4 5 5 5 1 2.90

3-UW ENER 3 3 3 5 3 1 1 4 2.85

2-EW ESLR 1 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 2.30

2-EW LDK 1 3 1 3 1 4 3 4 2.25

3-UW CSIQ 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 2.10

3-UW SOLF 1 3 1 1 1 4 3 1 1.90

2-EW SOL 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 4 1.85

Source: Barclays Capital Research; Scale from 1 to 5; 1= weak; 5 = Strong

72

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Key Risk Factors


Incentives in the U.S., Spain, and Germany are likely to be important demand drivers. Wind, geothermal, and solar thermal may restrain solar PV demand.

Government subsidies in key solar markets: Solar PV demand is highly elastic and is currently largely dependent on government incentives in key solar markets such as Germany, Japan, Spain, U.S., and Italy. Government subsidies are important as the cost of unsubsidized solar electricity is still two to five times higher than conventional electricity and greater volumes or economies of scale are necessary to lower the cost of solar electricity. Any reduction in government subsidies is likely to cause a big impact on adoption of solar PV technology. Overall competitiveness of solar energy versus other alternative energy sources such as wind, geothermal: We believe solar PV energy holds the promise of being the most widely used form of distributed renewable energy source over the next few years; however, it may likely face significant competition from other renewable sources such as wind, geothermal, and solar thermal energy if cost reduction efforts in other renewable sources gain momentum. For instance, electricity generated from la rge-scale wind energy fa rms today costs between $0.03 and $0.06/kWh, making wind energy a more attractive option for large-scale industrial/utility electricity generation.

Large scale efficiency improvement remains key challenge.

Execution risks associated with cost/watt reduction efforts: We believe continued cost per watt reduction of solar PV electricity is the key to enabling robust market growth. Although most solar manufacturers have been able to improve cell efficiency levels for small volume applications, successful transition to high volume manufacturing at improved efficiency rates remains the key risk factor. Additional risks include successful execution of manufacturing cost roadmap such as improving equipment throughput, driving economies of scale. Next-generation technology risks: The mainstream solar cell manufacturing technology today is based on crystalline silicon and there is extensive development work on next generation technologies that consume significantly less silicon, thereby reducing overall solar cell cost. Such technologies include thin film, ribbon technology, spherical silicon among others. Successful development of any of these alternative technologies could potentially result in significantly lower demand for crystalline silicon based manufacturers. Slower-than-expected demand growth due to lack of solar ecosystem development in potential demand regions: Solar module costs represent only about 60% of overall solar system costs with the remainder of costs comprised mainly of balance of systems such as installation, inverters, and storage. In addition to solar module cost reductions and government incentives, we believe availability of well-trained system installers and cost reduction of the balance of system components is equally important for the development of the solar market. Global economic slowdown and tighter credit markets: Solar PV market is very much dependent on global economic conditions and the availability of relatively affordable financing. A continuation of a global economic slowdown and general tightening of credit markets could significantly impact demand.
May 01, 2009 73

Successful development of alternative technologies could result in significa ntly lower demand for c-Si solar cells.

Availability of trained installers and balance of system cost reduction is important for solar market development.

Housing market slowdown and tightening of credit markets could significantly impact demand.

Solar Energy Handbook

74

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Chapter 4: Solar PV Supply Chain Analysis

May 01, 2009

75

Solar Energy Handbook

The Case for Solar Grid Parity by 2012 Our analysis shows that fully installed solar systems selling at $4 per watt have the potential to compete cost effectively with peak electricity rates in several regions. Furthermore, our analysis shows that at these grid parity cost points, the available market for solar electricity increases by a factor of 2x3x. In our view, the fully installed system cost of $4.00$4.50 per watt can be achieved if we assume that over the next three to five years, the cost per watt of the various components in the value chain declines as shown in Figure 84. In general, the potential for solar to achieve grid parity in a particular region will depend upon 1) the prevailing grid electricity prices; 2) the amount of solar radiation per square meter; and 3) the balance of system costs in that region. Figure 84: Solar Value Chain Cost and ASP Assumptions
2008 POLY $0.70/watt (C ontract) $3 .0 0/w att (spot) $ 0.30/watt WAFER $2.10/watt CELL $ 2.90/watt MODULE $3.70 /wa tt SYSTEM $7.00/watt

Price

Cost

$1.50/wa tt (blen ded cost)

$ 0.30/watt

$2.40/watt

$0 .3 0/w att

$3 .3 0/w att

$2.40 /wa tt

$6.10/wa tt

2010 POLY $0.35/watt (C ontract) $0 .4 5/w att (spot) $ 0.20/watt WAFER $0.90/watt CELL $ 1.40/watt MODULE $1.75 /wa tt SYSTEM $4.00/watt

Price

Cost

$0.60/wa tt (blen ded cost)

$ 0.20/watt

$1.10/watt

$0 .2 0/w att

$1 .6 0/w att

$1.75 /wa tt

$3.50/wa tt

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital

76

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 85: PV Supply Chain and Major Players


Silico n Wa fer Ce ll
R EC Group, Solarwor ld AG ME MC, Wa ck er , Luoy ang Silicon H emlock , Tokuy am a Mitsubis hi Mate rials S umitom o Titanium Eve rgre en Solar, s har p, Ky oce ra, Ers ol Sc hott Solar, BP Solar , Yingli Gre en Ene rgy Photowatt Mits ubis hi Ele ctr ic , sa nyo, Solar Wa tt SunPowe r, S unwa ys , Is ofoton, A le o Solar , Suntec h Solon

M o du le

System

Se kisui C hem ic al C oner gy Phoenix Sonnenstr om AG S AG Solar strom E-Ton Motec h JA Solar S inonar Ginte ch N eo Solar Q-Ce lls

Nu mb er o f C ompan ie s (5-10) T e chn olog y: Siemens (Tric hlorosila ne) F luidised Bed Reactor Upgra ded Metal lurgical Silico n Vapor to Liqui d De position

N umbe r of Comp anies (~ 50) T e chn olog y: Monocrystalline Multicrystal line Strin g Ri bbon

N umbe r of Comp anies (~ 100) T ec hn olog y: Crystalline T hin-Fi lm - C IGS - C dTe - a-Si

Nu mb er o f Co mpan ie s (>4 00) T ech no lo gy: Relatively Lo w D ifferentiation

Nu mbe r o f C ompan ie s (>5 ,000) Te ch nolo gy: R elative ly Low Di fferenti atio n

Source: Barclays Capital research, company reports

May 01, 2009

77

Solar Energy Handbook

Polysilicon Suppliers Polysilicon Prices and Grid Parity Assuming an average polysilicon content of 9g/watt and average polysilicon contract price of $80/kg, we estimate that polysilicon today accounts for roughly $0.72/watt. At about $2/watt module prices, solar cells would be competitive to grid electricity and for that to happen we believe polysilicon costs need to decline from $0.72/watt today to $0.24/watt. As shown in Figure 86, this could be possible by lower polysilicon prices driven by competition and cost reduction efforts as well as by the use of thinner wafers. Figure 86: Polysilicon Cost Per Watt Projection (200712E)
$9 0 $8 0 $7 0 $6 0 $5 0 $4 0 $3 0 $2 0 $1 0 $0 20 07 2 008 2 009 E 2 01 0E 2 01 1E 2 01 2E
$70 $0.70 10g /w 9g /w 8 g/w $ 0.48 $ 40 7g/w 6.5g /w $0.2 8 $0.26 $0.2 4 6g/w $40 $0 .72 $ 60 $8 0

$1 .00 $0 .90 $0 .80 $0 .70 $0 .60 $0 .50


$40

$0 .40 $0 .30 $0 .20 $0 .10 $0 .00

Poly silicon Contr ac t Pr ic e ($/kg)

Cell E ffic ie nc y (G/W)

P olys ilicon C ontra ct Price ($ /W)

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, Company da ta, Industry sources

There are two types of polysilicon available: 1) EG (electronic grade) polysilicon, which is a high purity, more expensive silicon generally used in the manufacture of semiconductors; and 2) SG (solar grade) polysilicon, which is generally a somewhat lower quality, lower cost option. Prior to the robust demand growth in the solar industry, SG polysilicon was often seen as a by-product of recycled (out-of-spec) EG polysilicon, as major polysilicon manufacturers focused on the higher value added (and hence higher price) EG polysilicon. However, over the past few years, strong demand within the solar PV industry has resulted in robust pricing trends within the SG polysilicon market and created incentives for a number of China-based companies to enter the market. Polysilicon manufacturing is currently concentrated among eight major manufacturers that have the capability to produce both EG and SG polysilicon in large volumes. We estimate the total polysilicon supply in 2008 was approximately 54,250MT, of which approximately 26,214MT of silicon was consumed by the semiconductor industry and 28,036 MT of high-purity silicon was available for the solar industry.

78

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 87: Polysilicon Supply Breakdown, 2008E

Solar, 28,03 6MT

Semicondu ct or, 26, 214MT

Source: Barclays Capital research

The solar industry consumed approximately 50,500MT of silicon in 2008 assuming 5.5GW of shipments, 2% cell to module efficiency loss and 9.0g/W of silicon consumption. Figure 88: Solar Polysilicon Breakdown, 2008

Scrap, 22,501MT High purity silicon, 28,036MT

Source: Barclays Capital research

We estimate that the incumbent poly manufacturers supplied 26,000MT to the semiconductor industry and 10,800MT to the solar industry. In order to calculate the spot market size, we assume that all of the semiconductor demand was previously contracted. Furthermore, we assume that 55% of the solar polysilicon was previously contracted, and the remaining was sold to the spot market. This means that approximately 26,000MT of semiconductor poly and 15,400MT of solar poly was previously contracted. This leaves 12,600MT of poly sold in the spot market. This represents roughly 23% of all polysilicon sold was on the spot market.

May 01, 2009

79

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 89: New Entrants Polysilicon Supply Projections, 200312E


250,000
53% 48%

60% 50% 40%


36% 30% 34% 25% 31%

200,000 Supply (MT)


41% 43%

150,000 100,000 50,000


6% 1% 7%

30% 20%

22%

10%

10% 0%

0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Total Poly Suppl y New Entrants % of Total Supply

New Entr ants Poly Supply New entrants as % of overal l supply inc.

Source: Barclays Capital research

80

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 90: Worldwide Polysilicon Capacity


Year End Capacity (MT) INCUMBENT POLY SUPPLIERS Hemlock Semic onductor Tokuyam a Mitsubis hi Materials Sum itom o Titanium Mitsubis hi Polysilic on REC Wac ker MEMC Incumbents - Tot al NEW ENTRANT POLY SUPPLIE RS NON - CHINA POLY SUP PLY DC Chemic al M.SETEK Nitol Group HOKU M ater ials Solarworld Others (Rus sia, New entrants) Non - CHINA Total CHINA POLY SUPPLY Asia S ilicon Daqu Group Emei Sem iconductor Luoyang Semiconductor LDK S olar Jiangsu Zhongneng (gcl) Wux i Zhongc ai Sichuan Xinguang Shenzhen Nanbo Shunda Yunnan Aix in Ningx ia Yangguang Others (China) China - Total Met allurgical Silicon Elkem Solar Timm inc o Dow Corning Globe Speciality JACO Solarsi JFE Others Met allurgical Silicon - Total New E nt rants - Total Total ( excl. M et Poly) Total ( incl. Met Poly) 2003 6,100 4,800 1,600 700 1,200 4,400 4,200 3,700 26,700 2004 6,800 5,000 1,600 800 1,200 4,800 5,000 3,700 28,900 2005 7,700 5,200 1,600 860 1,200 5,300 5,500 4,000 31,360 2006 10,000 5,500 1,750 900 1,300 5,900 6,900 4,400 36,650 2007 10,000 5,800 1,900 1,000 1,400 6,500 9,450 6,200 42,250 2008 19,000 6,300 2,100 1,050 1,550 7,500 11,800 8,000 57,300 2009E 23,000 7,500 2,300 1,100 1,600 11,800 15,150 12,000 74,450 2010E 28,000 8,200 2,600 1,300 1,800 19,000 25,150 15,000 101,050 2011E 36,000 9,200 3,000 1,500 2,000 21,000 35,150 18,000 125,850 2012E 40,000 10,200 3,400 1,700 2,200 24,000 35,150 21,000 137,650

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,700 26,700

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28,900 28,900

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,360 31,360

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500 0 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 1,000 500 37,150 38,150

0 1,500 0 0 100 500 2,100 0 0 300 700 0 1,000 300 200 0 0 0 0 0 2,500 0 0 3,000 360 500 500 0 4,360 4,600 46,850 51,210

5,000 5,000 500 0 200 700 11,400 0 1,500 300 1,000 2,000 1,500 500 1,250 500 700 300 500 500 10,550 4,000 6,000 5,000 1,000 500 500 0 17,000 21,950 79,250 96,250

7,500 7,500 2,000 700 750 800 19,250 2,000 3,300 300 3,000 2,000 6,000 1,000 2,000 500 2,200 300 600 450 23,650 7,500 14,400 7,000 2,000 2,500 1,500 1,000 35,900 42,900 117,350 153,250

10,000 13,200 2,000 500 950 500 27,150 6,000 3,300 350 3,300 6,000 6,000 1,000 1,500 500 3,000 300 600 450 32,300 10,000 16,000 10,000 5,000 3,500 3,500 2,000 50,000 59,450 160,500 210,500

12,500 15,000 1,000 0 1,100 0 29,600 6,000 3,300 350 3,300 6,000 6,000 1,000 1,500 500 3,000 300 600 450 32,300 12,500 18,000 15,000 8,000 4,500 4,500 5,000 67,500 61,900 187,750 255,250

15,000 17,000 0 0 1,250 0 33,250 6,000 3,300 350 3,300 6,000 6,000 1,000 1,500 500 3,000 300 600 450 32,300 15,000 21,000 18,000 8,000 7,500 8,500 8,000 86,000 65,550 203,200 289,200

Source: Barclays Capital research, company reports

May 01, 2009

81

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 91: Worldwide Polysilicon Supply


Annual Supply ( MT) INCUMBENT P OLY SUPP LIE RS Hemloc k Semiconduc tor Tok uyama Mitsubishi Mater ials Sumitomo Titanium Mitsubishi Polys ilicon RE C Wacker MEMC INCUMBENT P OLY SUPP LIE RS - Tot al NE W ENT RANT PO LY SUPPLIERS NON - CHINA POLY S UP PLY DC Chemic al M.SETE K Nitol Gr oup HOK U Mater ials Solar world Others (Rus sia, New entrants ) Non - CHINA Total CHINA POLY SUPP LY Asia Silic on Daqu Group Emei Semiconductor Luoyang Semiconduc tor LDK Solar Jiangsu Zhongneng - GCL Wuxi Zhongc ai Sic huan Xinguang Shenzhen Nanbo Shunda Yunnan Aix in Ningxia Yangguang Others (China) China - Tot al Metallurgical Silicon Elk em Solar Timminco Dow Corning Globe Speciality JACO Solarsi JFE Others Metallurgical Silicon - Total NE W ENT RANTS - T otal Total (excl. Met P oly) Total (incl. Met Poly) 2003 6,100 4,080 1,360 700 1,200 4,400 4,200 3,700 25,740 2004 6,450 4,165 1,360 750 1,200 4,600 4,600 3,700 26,825 2005 7,250 4,335 1,360 830 1,200 5,050 5,250 3,850 29,125 2006 8,850 4,548 1,424 880 1,250 5,600 6,200 4,200 32,951 2007 10,000 4,803 1,551 808 1,148 5,270 8,175 3,465 35,219 2008 12,325 5,143 1,700 871 1,254 5,950 11,800 3,800 42,843 2009E 17,850 5,865 1,870 914 1,339 8,203 15,150 4,800 55,990 2010E 21,675 6,673 2,083 1,020 1,445 13,090 17,128 9,450 72,563 2011E 27,200 7,395 2,380 1,190 1,615 17,000 25,628 11,550 93,958 2012E 32,300 8,245 2,720 1,360 1,785 19,125 29,878 13,650 109,063

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,740 25,740

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,825 26,825

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,125 29,125

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 125 250 33,201 33,326

0 750 0 0 50 250 1,050 0 0 250 500 0 500 150 100 0 0 0 0 0 1,500 0 0 250 150 500 250 0 1,150 2,550 37,769 38,919

2,125 4,680 0 0 150 600 7,555 0 750 300 510 100 2,000 400 725 250 0 150 250 250 5,685 200 1,100 500 200 500 500 0 3,000 37% 13,240 56,083 59,083

5,313 5,313 300 100 404 900 12,329 500 1,440 300 1,000 2,000 4,500 700 1,625 500 800 300 600 450 14,715 1,000 2,500 1,500 500 1,500 1,000 200 8,200 27,044 83,034 91,234

7,438 10,350 2,000 600 850 650 21,888 4,000 3,300 325 3,150 4,000 6,000 1,000 1,750 500 2,600 300 600 450 27,975 2,000 5,000 2,500 1,000 3,000 2,000 500 16,000 31% 49,863 122,425 138,425

9,563 14,100 1,500 250 1,025 250 26,688 6,000 3,300 350 3,300 6,000 6,000 1,000 1,500 500 3,000 300 600 450 32,300 2,500 7,000 3,000 1,500 4,000 3,000 750 21,750 32% 58,988 152,945 174,695

11,688 16,000 500 0 1,175 0 29,363 6,000 3,300 350 3,300 6,000 6,000 1,000 1,500 500 3,000 300 600 450 32,300 3,500 9,500 4,000 2,000 6,000 4,000 1,000 30,000 32% 61,663 170,725 200,725

Source: Barclays Capital research, company reports

There are a number of ways to manufacture solar-grade polysiliconthe most common process is the trichlorosilane-based Siemens process. A large number of solar manufacturers currently use this process to produce SG silicon. However, some other low-cost production methods such as fluidized bed technology, vapor-to-liquid technology and metallurgical silicon have been tested recently. Siemens Process: The Siemens process utilizes trichlorosilane (or silane) gas as a starting material and converts it to polysilicon through chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process. This is the oldest and most common process used in polysilicon manufacturing. The advantages of using this process are proven reliability and durability. The main disadvantages include high time and energy requirements. Fluidized Bed Reactor Process: In this process, small seed particles are introduced and a silane/hydrogen mixture is then fed into a fluidized bed reactor. The silane decomposes around the seed particles increasing their average size to around 1,000

82

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

microns. The main advantages of FBR process include lower operating temperature, higher throughput, lower energy consumption and consistent product quality. Metallurgical Silicon: Metallurgical silicon is less pure than silicon and consequently although it is cheaper than traditional polysilicon, it was not used in the manufacture of polysilicon based solar cells. Recently, Elkem and Q-Cells signed a long-term agreement which suggests a potentially wider scale usage of Metallurgical silicon. QCells plans to use the Metallurgical silicon along with a new process in the manufacture of solar cells. Other Methods: Tokuyama is working on a vapor to liquid deposition (VLD) method for manufacture of solar grade silicon. Other methods in pilot production include tube deposition technology, direct reduction, and purification technology. Figure 92: Barclays Capital Polysilicon Demand Model
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

New PV Installation (MW) Inventory Requirement (MW) Total PV Module Shipments (MW) Efficiency Loss Total PV Cell Shipments (MW) Thin Film Supply (MW) Polysilicon Consumed (ton/MW) Total Solar Po ly Reqd (MT ) Po ly deman d from Semis (MT) Total p oly d em an d (MT) Po ly supp ly (MT) - excluding scrap/UMG

1,460 150 1,610 2.0% 1,789 50 10.5 18,258 25,323 43,582 29,125

1,808 200 2,008 2.0% 2,231 75 10.0 21,561 26,023 47,584 33,201

2,677 350 3,027 2.0% 3,363 300 9.5 29,099 26,446 55,546 37,769

5,950 425 6,375 2.0% 7,083 500 9.0 59,248 26,214 85,462 56,083

4,454 500 4,954 2.0% 5,504 1,700 8.5 32,337 20,799 53,136 83,034

6,837 400 7,237 1.5% 7,824 2,200 8.0 44,994 27,406 72,399 122,425

10,109 450 10,559 1.5% 11,415 3,500 8.0 63,320 29,657 92,977 152,945

14,151 500 14,651 1.5% 15,839 4,500 8.0 90,712 30,218 120,929 170,725

Source: Barclays Capital research, Solarbuzz

Polysilicon Demand Polysilicon usage per Watt: Silicon substrates typically account for almost 50% of the cost of solar panels and in instances where polysilicon is sourced from the spot market, silicon substrates account for almost 70% of the cost of solar panels. The three primary techniques adopted to reduce the cost of silicon substrates are: 1) reduce the cost of silicon crystal; 2) reduce kerf loss during silicon wafer formation; and 3) enable the use of thinner wafers. Silicon Crystal Cost Reduction: Silicon crystal formation is the first step in making the wafers that are ultimately converted into solar PV cells. To improve the economics of silicon crystal production, the industry has developed technologies that are capable of increasing the size and throughput of silicon ingots. For instance, a private company called Solaicx has a proprietary crystal growing technology that is capable of producing ingots about five times faster than conventional technologies.

May 01, 2009

83

Solar Energy Handbook

Kerf Loss (Silicon Waste) Reduction: The next step once the silicon ingots are formed is to convert these ingots into bricks that are ultimately cut into wafers. During the brick formation process, a significant amount of silicon is wasted and is this known in the industry as Kerf Loss (roughly 11kg of silicon is lost out of a total size of about 260kg during the brick formation step). New brick cutting technologies that have the potential to significantly reduce the kerf loss are under development. Thinner Wafers: During the final step of wafer formation, the bricks are cut into wafers. The thinner the wafer, the less the polysilicon usage. The current industry standard thickness is about 200 microns and the industry roadmap is to reduce the thickness to about 120 microns over the next three to five years by using new wafer cutting techniques/equipment. Usage of thinner wafers is the most effective way of lowering production costs, without sacrificing cell efficiencies. For instance, a reduction of wafer thickness from 200 microns to 120 microns is estimated to result in a 12.5% reduction in the required number of grams of silicon per watt. Solar Cell Efficiency Ratings: We assume average cell efficiencies will increase from 16.5% in 2008 to 18.5% by 2012. Most of the solar cell manufacturers have announced plans to improve cell efficiencies over the next three to five years and are currently in the process of transferring the lab based higher efficiency cells into volume production, which could ultimately result in improved cost performance. Furthermore, solar module efficiencies are about two percentage points lower than cell efficiencies due to: 1) efficiency loss resulting from cell packaging and module frames; 2) efficiency loss resulting from glass absorption; and 3) resistive loss resulting from conductive ribbon used as an interconnect between cells and modules. The industry is working on incorporating the use of multilayer interconnect ribbons of aluminum and copper that could potentially improve module efficiencies.

84

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Polysilicon Supply/Demand We believe one of the key swing factors for the polysilicon industry supply/demand is likely to be semiconductor industry demand and upgraded metallurgical silicon adoption. Figure 93: Polysilicon Demand Drivers Semiconductor Industry
2005 200 6 2007 20 08 2009 E 2010 E 2 011E 20 12E

Millions of Waf ers 2 inches 3 inches 100mm 125mm 150mm 200mm 300mm Total Wafers Millions of Square Inches 2 inches 3 inches 100mm 125mm 150mm 200mm 300mm Total MS I Metric Tons Polysilicon 2 inches 3 inches 100mm 125mm 150mm 200mm 300mm Total Poly Demand

0.0 0.2 13.9 23.3 59.1 67.4 12.3 176.1

0.0 0.2 11.0 21.0 52.0 63.0 18.0 165.2

0.0 0.0 10.0 21.0 50.0 55.0 23.0 159.0

0.0 0.0 9.0 20.0 48.0 53.0 24.0 154.0

0.0 0.0 8.0 18.0 45.0 40.0 18.0 129.0

0.0 0.0 6.5 16.0 43.0 50.0 30.0 145.5

0.0 0.0 5.0 14.0 41.0 48.0 37.0 145.0

0.0 0.0 4.0 12.0 39.0 46.0 40.0 141.0

0.0 1.4 168.6 443.0 1617.2 3278.2 1349.1 6,858

0.0 1.5 133.9 399.4 1423.8 3066.2 1972.1 6,997

0.0 0.0 121.7 399.4 1369.0 2676.9 2519.9 7,087

0.0 0.0 109.5 380.4 1314.2 2579.5 2629.4 7,013

0.0 0.0 97.4 342.4 1232.1 1946.8 1972.1 5,591

0.0 0.0 79.1 304.3 1177.3 2433.5 3286.8 7,281

0.0 0.0 60.9 266.3 1122.6 2336.2 4053.7 7,840

0.0 0.0 48.7 228.2 1067.8 2238.8 4382.4 7,966 Gram Per S q. Inch 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.8 3.9

0.0 4.1 522.7 1417.6 5660.0 12457.1 5261.7 25,323

0.0 4.3 415.0 1278.1 4983.2 11651.6 7691.1 26,023

0.0 0.0 377.3 1278.1 4791.5 10172.0 9827.5 26,446

0.0 0.0 339.5 1217.3 4599.8 9802.1 10254.8 26,214

0.0 0.0 301.8 1095.6 4312.4 7397.8 7691.1 20,799

0.0 0.0 245.2 973.8 4120.7 9247.3 12818.5 27,406

0.0 0.0 188.6 852.1 3929.0 8877.4 15809.5 29,657

0.0 0.0 150.9 730.4 3737.4 8507.5 17091.4 30,218

Source: Barclays Capital research, Industry Sour ces

Figure 94: Worldwide Polysilicon Demand (Metric Tons)


Worldwide P oly Demand (MT) Semis Solar Cells Total 2003 19,291 8,024 27,316 2004 23,518 14,276 37,794 2005 25,323 18,258 43,582 2006 26,023 21,561 47,584 2007 26,446 29,099 55,546 2008 26,214 59,248 85,462 2009E 20,799 32,337 53,136 2010E 27,406 44,994 72,399 2011E 29,657 63,320 92,977 2012E 30,218 90,712 120,929

Worldwide P olysilicon Demand % Change Year-over-Year 2003 Semis Solar Cells Total Worldwide P olysilicon Demand as a % of Tot al 2003 Semis Solar Cells Total 71% 29% 100% 2004 62% 38% 100% 2005 58% 42% 100% 2006 55% 45% 100% 2007 48% 52% 100% 2008 31% 69% 100% 2009E 39% 61% 100% 2010E 38% 62% 100% 2011E 32% 68% 100% 2012E 25% 75% 100% 2004 22% 78% 38% 2005 8% 28% 15% 2006 3% 18% 9% 2007 2% 35% 17% 2008 -1% 104% 54% 2009E -21% -45% -38% 2010E 32% 39% 36% 2011E 8% 41% 28% 2012E 2% 43% 30%

Source: Barclays Capital research, Industry sources

May 01, 2009

85

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 95: Polysilicon Capacity, Supply, and Demand

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Year End Capacit y (MT)

Annual Supply (MT )

W orldwide Poly Demand (M T)

Source: Barclays Capital research, Company reports

Polysilicon Spot and Contract Pricing Polysilicon prices are driven mainly by supply/demand balance, and as lead times to bring a new polysilicon production facility are around two years, we expect the supply tightness to continue into 2009. In 2008, spot prices for polysilicon were as high as $400/kg, higher than the $250$300/kg price in 2007, and well above the 2003 levels of $25/kg. Figure 96: Polysilicon Spot and Contract Pricing Trends

$600

Spot Pr ices
$ 500

Contract Prices

$500

$400 $350 $300

$27 5

$200

$100 $35 $0 2003 2004 $ 50 $25 $35

$75 $45

$50

$65

$85

$100 $ 75 $5 0 $70 $30 $60 $30 $ 50

20 05

2006

2007

2 008E

200 9E

2010E

2 011E

201 2E

Source: Barclays Capital research

86

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Upgraded Metallurgical Silicon (Solar Grade Silicon) Currently, the solar industry uses polysilicon or semiconductor grade silicon which is extremely pure of the magnitude of 99.99999%. Solar applications do not require such high purity levels to function effectively. Removal of the major impurities in metallurgical silicon makes it effective to use for solar applications. This is referred to as upgraded metallurgical silicon (UMG). UMG is generally 99.9%99.999% pure. Most of the impurities from metallurgical silicon, such as iron, aluminum, calcium, titanium, magnesium and carbon, are removed by directional solidification although additional actions are required to remove boron and phosphorous impurities. Metallurgical Grade Silicon Metallurgical grade silicon is also called silicon metal. It is 98%98.5% pure silicon. It is usually produced in electric arc furnaces from quartz. Quartz and carbon materials are inserted into an electric furnace heated to high temperatures in the range of 19000 2100 C. The carbothermic reduction of the silica (quartz) results in molten silicon which collects at the bottom of the furnace from where it is removed periodically. The main impurities in the liquid crude silicon are iron (0.2%1.0%), aluminum (0.4%0.7%), calcium (0.2%0.6%), titanium (0.02%0.1%), and carbon (0.1%0.15%). The liquid crude is treated with oxidative gases in order to oxidize impurities like aluminum and calcium. The liquid silicon is then separated mechanically from the slag formed.
0

Refining of Metallurgical Silicon to Produce UMG The first step for refining the metallurgical silicon is to heat it in a molten state under vacuum in order to remove the vola tile elements. This reduces the phosphorous concentration as well as other volatile impurities such as magnesium. Impurities such as iron, magnesium, phosphorous and boron are removed through the formation of volatile molecular species by having them react with externally added agents containing oxygen, hydrogen, and chlorine. The agents are introduced either in the form of solid powders added to the metallurgical silicon prior to the melting or as reactive gases added to the molten silicon. Further refining requires oxidation of the impurities to form species which are removed as slag or as vapor. Boron and phosphorous are removed using oxidation. A synthetic slag can also be added for further refining. The slag is then removed to leave high purity solar grade silicon.

May 01, 2009

87

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 97: Schematic Approach for the Refining Process

As-received, commercially available MG Silicon Modified HEM Furnace

Melting

Slag

Refining

Gases and Moisture

Directional Solidification

Solar Grade Silicon

Source: Barclays Capital research , Timminco

Cost Differential Between Polysilicon and UMG The costs of producing polysilicon are much higher than the cost of producing upgraded metallurgical silicon. The major reasons for this cost differential are: Polysilicon plants are extremely capital intensive, requiring investments of up to $100 per kilogram. Conventional polysilicon methods also create a large amount of toxic substances which need to be effectively recycled. The recycling process is also extremely capital intensive. UMG capital costs are considerably lower, with Timminco investing less than $50 million to build a 3,600MT capacity plant. Polysilicon production is also energy intensive and could require 100kWh135kWh per kg making electricity one of the largest input costs during production. UMG production on the other hand only requires a fraction of this electricity. Timminco uses 2kWh per kg to produce its products.

88

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Polysilicon is created by refining metallurgical-grade silicon. The process leads to the wastage of 75%80% of the silicon as by-products which cannot be used, leading to an increase in the price of the end product, polysilicon. The increase in the prices of raw materials required for production has also raised production costs for polysilicon more than it has affected UMG producers. Long-term successful development of the metallurgical silicon market would depend on the following four factors, in our view: 1. Capacity ramps of UMG suppliers. 2. Technology adoption by downstream installers. We see downstream installers readily adopting this technology as long as module manufacturers provide them the requisite warranty. Furthermore, we see the installers readily accept UMG products as long as the financial institutions provide them the relevant financing. 3. Quality improvement by UMG suppliers. Reliability issues should continue to restrain the quality conscious solar manufacturers from adopting UMG. According to UMG companies, lifetime testing results are inconclusive and tests conducted so far have resulted in scrapping of reasonable material. The poly suppliers, on the other hand, believe that based on the lifetime test results, degradation/reliability concerns are likely to potentially increase instead of solve the industry problem. 4. Polysilicon price development. We think the potential adoption of UMG is likely to ultimately depend upon poly prices. Our preliminary analysis suggests that UMG becomes less attractive as poly prices decline to below $200/kg We assume that UMG increases processing costs (i.e., poly to module conversion costs) in the following ways: Poly to ingots. The most significant issue with UMG processing is dealing with waste. Casting yields are significantly lower (around 60% after recycling compared with regular silicon casting yield of 85%). We believe these lower yields result in an increase in silicon costs of approximately $15/kg. In other words, if 1,000 grams of silicon produced 100W of modules (assuming 850 grams of silicon were used to produce 100W of modules), using UMG, 1,000 grams would yield only 600 grams of silicon and result in 70W of modules. Silicon consumption would increase from 10g/W to 14g/W. If the UMG silicon price was $60/kg, it would increase by $24/kg. Wafers to cells. Usage of UMG increases breakage rate from less than 5% for regular silicon to almost 15%. Cells to modules. Cell to module processing cost for UMG modules is $0.02 to $0.03/W higher than regular silicon modules.

May 01, 2009

89

Solar Energy Handbook

Solar Wafer Manufacturers Figure 98: Wafer Price Forecast


$3 .00

$2 .50
2.20 2.01 2.06

2.45 2.35

$2 .00
ASP ($/W s

2.00

1.83

1.88

$1 .50

1.40

1.30

1.25

1.20

1.15

1.10

1.05

$1 .00

1.00

$0 .50

$0 .00 Q10 7 Q20 7 Q30 7 Q40 7 Q10 8 Q20 8 Q30 8 Q40 8E Q10 9E Q20 9E Q30 9E Q40 9E Q1 1 0E Q2 1 0E Q3 1 0E Q4 1 0E

Source: Barclays Capital estimates

Mono-Crystalline Versus Multi-Crystalline Wafer Technology In general, multi-crystalline wafers offer several compelling advantages over monocrystalline wafers. First, the processing cost of multi-crystalline wafers is generally lower than that of mono-crystalline wafers. Second the size of multi-crystalline wafers is larger than that of mono-crystalline (156mm x 156mm vs. 125mm x 125mm) which means multi-crystalline wafers can produce higher wattage cells (3.6W compared to 2.4W for mono). Finally, multi-crystalline wafers can be manufactured by using lower cost scrap and metallurgical grade silicon increasing the potential to lower manufacturing costs. Some of the disadvantages of multi-crystalline silicon technology include lower conversion efficiency compared to mono-crystalline technology, limited multi-crystalline technology equipment suppliers (GT Solar and ALD), and long lead times for multi-crystalline equipment versus relatively short lead times for mono technology.

90

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Solar Cell Manufacturers We Prefer Companies with Cost/Watt Advantage, Clear Efficiency Improvement Roadmap, and Secure Low Cost Polysilicon Supply Given our conservative outlook on pricing and polysilicon input costs, we believe companies that have a cost-per-watt advantage are likely to better withstand the competitive market dynamics and likely emerge as market share leaders in 2009. As such we prefer companies that we believe have the potential to lower manufacturing costs and a strong R&D effort to improve conversion efficiencies. Silicon Solar Cell Manufacturing Process There are typically five major steps in the production of silicon solar cell, namely: 1. Etching and Polishing. Etching removes an unusable layer on the silicon wafer after the wire-sawing process. The polishing steps removed the particles on the wafer surface. 2. Cleaning. The polished wafer is then cleaned with DI water to remove all impurities on the surface. 3. Diffusion. The silicon wafer produced is usually p-typed. As explained in an earlier section, solar cell needs an n-type layer in order to create an electric field inside the cell. An n-type dopant is usually deposited on the surface of p-type substrate through a heat diffusion process, creating a p-n junction between the p-type and n-type layer. 4. Anti-reflective coating. To avoid any energy losses by reflection; an anti-reflective coating is applied on the surface of the silicon wafer. The major chemical used in this process is either silicon nitride or titanium dioxide. The layering is conducted through a socalled plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process. 5. Screen Printing. A grid-like metal contact made up of fine-fingers is screen printed onto the front surface through the use of silver paste. The rear side of the wafer is also formed by screen printing a metal paste, typically aluminum. The metal contacts on the surface and rear side then act as electrodes of the solar cell, which can then be interconnected for further assembly into a solar module.

May 01, 2009

91

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 99: Multi-Crys talline Solar Cell Manufacturing Process


Raw Material Casting Cutting- Slicing

Polysilicon

P-type silicon mass

Wafer Slicing

Junction formation

Sur face Tr eatment

Multicr ystalline Si P-type wafer

P-N Fusion

surface etching

Back side junction P-layer

Anti- reflection Anti-reflection coating

Electrode formation front (- )

Solder Immersion Solder Solder

back(-)

Source: Kyocera, Barclays Capital research

Solar Cell Pricing Figure 100: Cell Price Forecast

$4 .00 $3 .50 $3 .00 $2 .50


AS ($/W Ps

3.21 2.95 2.92 3.02 3.01

3.31

3.42

2.50

$2 .00 $1 .50 $1 .00 $0 .50 $0 .00 Q10 7 Q20 7 Q30 7 Q40 7 Q10 8 Q20 8 Q30 8 Q40 8E

1.70

1.60

1.55

1.50

1.45

1.40

1.35

1.30

Q10 9E

Q20 9E

Q30 9E

Q40 9E

Q1 1 0E

Q2 1 0E

Q3 1 0E

Q4 1 0E

Source: Barclays Capital research

92

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 101: Barclays Capital Global Solar Installed Capacity Model (MWp)
Europe BP S olar Q-Cel ls Sol arworld REC Ersol Isofoton Schott Sol ar Sol land Sol ar Other Total Europe Solar % Change Y/Y Japan Sharp Kyocera Mitsubishi Sanyo Other Total Japan Solar % Change Y/Y US SunPower Fi rst Solar Evergreen Sol ar EverQ Nanosolar Mias ole Energy Conversion Devices Other Total US Solar % Change Y/Y China Suntech Power JA Solar Yingli Green Energy Chi na S unergy Canadian Sol ar Sol arfun Tri na Solar Other Total China Solar % Change Y/Y Taiwan E-Ton Motech Green E nergy Tech Total Taiwan Solar % Change Y/Y Other Regions Worldwide Solar Capacity % Change Y/Y 40 170 40 15 15 25 0 0 0 305 90 292 90 35 60 70 50 10 0 697 129% 450 150 130 100 17 847 66% 50 25 14 0 0 0 20 10 119 261% 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 400% 70 100 0 170 113% 0 1,983 107% 200 420 140 45 60 90 60 30 10 1,055 51% 600 240 230 160 20 1,250 48% 108 75 14 30 0 0 32 20 279 134% 270 30 50 30 0 50 50 0 480 220% 100 240 0 340 100% 20 3,424 73% 250 645 185 55 120 130 80 40 20 1,525 45% 650 280 260 240 34 1,464 17% 174 309 15 100 5 10 118 25 756 171% 540 210 200 80 100 240 150 0 1520 217% 200 240 0 440 29% 50 5,755 68% 360 950 250 80 180 170 163 170 50 2,373 56% 710 330 315 300 50 1,705 16% 414 622 40 180 25 20 178 45 1,524 102% 1,000 600 400 320 270 360 350 30 3,330 119% 320 560 30 910 107% 80 9,922 72% 440 1,100 450 100 280 210 223 170 100 3,073 29% 710 400 375 400 70 1,955 15% 574 1,293 160 250 40 40 300 60 2,717 78% 1,000 800 600 400 270 400 450 20 3,940 18% 440 560 30 1,030 13% 120 12,835 29% 500 1,575 450 150 280 250 300 200 100 3,805 24% 1,710 475 570 475 90 3,320 70% 814 1,738 160 250 50 50 300 60 3,422 26% 1,000 1,000 900 400 500 500 550 100 4,950 26% 500 600 30 1,130 10% 180 16,807 31% 450 1,700 450 250 500 350 350 200 200 4,450 17% 2,000 500 800 600 120 4,020 21% 1000 3,426 200 600 480 100 450 130 6,386 87% 1,400 1,200 1,200 450 550 800 650 140 6,390 29% 600 600 50 1,250 11% 240 22,736 35% 350 1,700 600 250 800 500 400 200 200 5,000 12% 2,500 700 1,200 800 150 5,350 33% 1200 4,816 200 900 480 200 600 170 8,566 34% 1,800 1,400 1,500 500 700 1,000 750 170 7,820 22% 700 700 70 1,470 18% 310 28,516 25%

300 70 90 50 0 510

30 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 33

30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30

30 50 0 80 0 958

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

93

Solar Energy Handbook

Solar Module Manufacturers Figure 102: Module Pricing

$4 .50
4.12

$4 .00 $3 .50 $3 .00


AS ($/W Ps

3.95 3.78 3.78 3.68 3.61

3.94

3.26 2.77 2.60 2.51 2.40 2.10 1.94

$2 .50 $2 .00 $1 .50 $1 .00 $0 .50 $0 .00 Q1 07 Q2 07 Q3 07 Q4 07 Q1 08 Q2 08 Q3 08 Q4 E 08 Q1 E 09 Q2 E 09 Q3 E 09

1.83

1.73

Q4 E 09

Q1 10 E

Q2 10 E

Q3 10 E

Q4 10 E

Source: Barclays Capital research

Fragmented Market Due to Low Barriers to Entry The solar module market is fragmented with low barriers to entry and relatively low valueadded technology. As a result, there are more than 400 module makers worldwide serving the key solar PV markets. We believe that over time the number of standalone module manufacturers will decline as most of the companies aim to move up the value chain into the higher-margin cell manufacturing business.

94

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 103: Module Market Share (2007)


Sunt ech 14%

Rest o f the Wo rld 18%

Canadian So lar 3% Sun Po wer 4% So lo n 5% B P So la r 5% M it subish i Electric 5% So larwo rld 5% Yin gli Gree n Energy 6% San yo 6%

Sharp 14%

Kyo cera 8%

First So lar 8%

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital research

Vertical Integration Is Key to Increasing Profitability, in Our View In general, the margins of module manufacturers are about 300 to 500 basis points lower than that of cell manufacturers. Consequently, we expect an increasing number of module manufacturers to move into the cell business over time as the polysilicon bottleneck eases and barriers to entry in the cell business decline. Overall, we expect margins in both the cell and module business to decline going forward; however, we believe that the difference between cell and module margins will decrease as more cell capacity becomes available. Due to the relatively commoditized nature of the module manufacturing business, we expect vertically integrated companies to generate higher margins and consequently trade at a premium to the stand-alone module manufacturers.

May 01, 2009

95

Solar Energy Handbook

System Integrators We Expect System Integrators with Strong End Market Presence to Benefit from Low Cell/Module Pricing The system integration companies operate at the very end of the value chain and are generally involved in setting up the solar systems at the end user, which include several tasks such as site preparation, systems design and analysis, financial analysis, and maintenance. We believe regional trends will continue to dominate the systems integration market and will likely remain the biggest factor influencing solar market development in certain regions, particularly as cell and module prices decline. As barriers to entry in the systems installation market remain relatively low, we expect companies with strong regional expertise and established relationships to emerge as potential winners. We Expect System Integrator Margins to Increase as Potential Bottleneck Arises in 2010 As cell and module prices decline over time, we expect systems integration costs to become a larger proportion of the overall systems costs. In our view, lowering balance of systems costs would remain the biggest challenge in the industry as many of the components have very little potential for any significant cost reduction. As a result of high cell/module pricing and relatively low entry barriers, systems integrators generate the lowest margins in the value chain. However, as cell/module prices decline over time and as demand in certain markets such as the U.S. increases significantly, we expect the bargaining power to shift toward system integrators that have the scale and the relationships with key end customers. Solar System Components There are three major elements of a solar PV system: solar modules; inverter; and battery (optional). Solar modules are the basic building blocks of a solar PV system. Any number of modules can be interconnected for providing the required electrical outp ut. Since the electricity produced by PV modules is in DC (direct current), it has to be converted into AC (alternate current) through the use of an inverter before connection to the AC power grid is possible. Depending on the users energy consumption requirement, a battery may be necessary to store the sola r electricity produced during the daytime. This is particularly the case if the system is off-grid. If the PV system is connected to the power grid, excess electricity produced during the daytime can be sold to the grid and brought back in the evening. A battery is usually required only for off-grid solar PV system. PV modules normally can be used for 20 to 30 years, but inverters and batteries have to be replaced every five to 10 years. The PV module is still the major cost component of a PV system, representing over 60% of the total system cost in general. Solar PV systems are less expensive in Germany as it represented the largest market in 2005 (53% of global PV installation in 2005) which enjoyed economies of scale in terms of lower module input price and system integration

96

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

costs. It should also be noted that low-priced thin film modules in Germany, particularly in large ground-mounted projects, have also played their part. Inverters Solar PV cells produce and store direct current (DC) that flows in a single direction. In contrast, alternating current (AC) reverses its course at regular intervals. Utilities provide AC electricity, the type required to run most household appliances and electronic devices. A system inverters role is to convert the supplied DC into the desired AC. While a small amount of energy is lost through the process, this conversion allows PV electricity to be sold back to the utility or used for everyday applications such as personal appliances, computers, or lights. Inverters are available in two different classes: sine wave and modified sine wave. Sine wave inverters supply utility-grade power and are required for grid-tied systems. Those that are grid-tied are called synchronous inverters. The output of modified sine wave inverters is not as clean, but they are less expensive and can usually function fine in many standalone applications. Batteries Batteries collect and store energy produced during periods when there is no sunshine, an essential component for off-grid or emergency backup systems. Several batteries linked together form a bank, enclosed by the battery box for security and ventilation purposes. A battery banks size depends on the electric load, duration of required reserve power, and availably of a backup power source. Solar electric systems use two types of batteries: leadacid and gel cell. Lead-acid batteries are less expensive but require more frequent maintenance. Sealed gel cell batteries require almost no maintenance but are bigger in size and can cost twice as much.

May 01, 2009

97

Solar Energy Handbook

Charge controllers A charge controller directs the energy flow, and prolongs the battery life of a system. Its role is essentially voltage regulating, or preventing the battery from overcharging, which can be detrimental to system performance. California System Integrator Market The California Solar Initiative, also known as "Million Solar Roofs Program, "is a 10-year, $2.2 billion incentives program aiming to add 3,000MW new solar electricity by 2017. Since the program's inception, it has received nearly 20,000 applications (including all active applications), encompassing nearly 350MW of solar insta llations. During this time, approximately 660 companies participated in the installation of solar systems in California. In the non-residential segment, SunPower is currently the largest installer on a per MW basis with 17% market share followed by SunEdison and Chevron Energy Solutions. In the residential segment, Solarcity is currently the largest installer on a per MW basis with 13% market share followed by REC Solar and Akeena Solar. Figure 104: Active Residential Installers (MW Basis)

SolarCity 13% REC Solar, Inc. 8% Akeena Solar, Inc. 6% Borrego Solar Systems Inc. 3% Other 70%

Source: California Solar Initiative, Barclays Capital research

98

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 105: Active Non-Residential Installers (MW Basis)


SunPower 17%

Chevron 9%

Other 58%

SunEdison 9% SPG Solar, Inc. 7%

Source: California Solar Initiative, Barclays Capital Research

May 01, 2009

99

Solar Energy Handbook

100

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Chapter 5: Solar Equipment Market

May 01, 2009

101

Solar Energy Handbook

The Solar Equipment Market Solar EquipmentNo Moore's Law Here Semiconductor equipment industry growth over the past 20 years was defined by Moore's Lawas the semiconductor companies continued to drive down line widths to continuously improve performance of semiconductor devices, investments in new manufacturing equipment followed, which triggered the boom and bust cycles as well as significant growth of the semiconductor equipment industry. Unlike semiconductor industry, we do not expect any Moore's Law in the solar industry. We expect solar equipment sector growth to be defined by unit volumes. We estimate the solar industry could spend approximately $18 billion on equipment capex (not including land and building capex) over the next four years to add approximately 20GW of capacity. As shown in Figures 106 and 107, we expect the silicon based equipment market to increase from $2.5 billion in 2009 to $5.5 billion in 2012. As shown in Figures 108 and 109, the revenue generated over the depreciated life of a solar fab is substantially greater than the revenue generated over the depreciated life of a semiconductor fab. Similarly, we believe the profits generated over the life of a solar fab more than cover the profits generated over the life of semiconductor fab.

Figure 106: EBITDA Return over Capital Investments


45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 DRA M Solar 3 9x

Figure 107:EBITDA Return over Capital Investments


6.0 4 .9 x

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0
2x

0 .3 x 0.0 DRAM Solar

Source: Barclays Capital research

Source: Barclays Capital research

102

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 108: Solar Equipment Capex ($, Million)


$5,505 $4,939 $4,653 $4,668

$2,570 $2,374

$1,433 $1,016

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009E

2010E

2011E

2012E

Source: Barclays Capital research

Figure 109: Crysta lline Cell Capacity Utilization (MW versus % utilization)
40,000 90%

75% 30,000 60%

20,000

45%

30% 10,000 15%

2007 2008E
Cel l/Modul e Capacity

0% 2009E 2010E 2011E


Capacity Util ization

2012E

Ce ll/Modu le Prod uction

Source: Barclays Capital research, Company data

May 01, 2009

103

Solar Energy Handbook

Solar Equipment Market Landscape The solar cell equipment market is fragmented and, in most cases, dominated by regional players. Figure 110: Thin Film Equipment Landscape
Company Thin Film Equipment Plasma enhanced chemical vapor depos ition equipment, equipment for depositing various silicon-based layers, CVD equipment for depositing various transparent conducting oxides (TCOs), PVD systems for depositing metals. CVD equipment for depositing T CO films, PVD equipment for depos iting metals, equipment for depos iting special c oatings. CVD equipment for depositing T CO films, CVD equipment for depositing back contacts, Laser patterning equipment. PECVD systems used on production line, PECVD systems use one substrate at a time, PVD equipment for single substrate. Modular process systems capacble of PECVD (for depositing silic on based materials), or PVD systems for depositing metals.

Applied Materials

Leyvold Optics

Oerlik on Solar

Ulvac

Von Ardenne
Source: Company data

Most of the thin film equipment companies compete directly against each other in the areas of silicon and metal deposition equipment. The general trend is to have the ability to produce (or partner with others to produce) integrated turnkey solar panel production lines. This means many of the tools for an entire facility might come from one vendor, or one group of affiliated vendors. Figure 111: Crysta lline Silicon Equipment Landscape
Company Applied Materials Baccini Centrotherm Crystalline Silicon Equipment Sputtering equipment for silic on nitride and anti-reflec tive coatings Solar cell s creen printing lines to deposit thick film conductive paste Diffusion, oxidation, firing and drying furnaces, depos ition equipment, environmental abatement equipment W afer manufacturing furnaces , turnk ey solar c ell and module production lines, wet etching systems, c ustomer furnaces and test equipment Automation equipment for solar panel production, including substrate handling systems, equipm ent for drawing and cutting silicon tubes, automated loading and unloading equipment for crystalline s ilicon photovoltaic c ell plants. PECVD equipment for silicon nitride and anti-reflec tive c oating, plas ma etching equipment and plasma proces sing systems for R&D Solar cell testing and sorting equipment, solar panel module m anufacturing and test equipment

GT Solar

Manz Automation

Roth & Rau

Spire
Source: Company data

104

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 112: Overall 2008 Solar Equipment Market Breakdown


Wafering, 15%

Module, 15%

c -Si Cell, 60% TF Cell, 10%

Source: Barclays Capital estimates

Figure 113: Solar Cell Production Process Flow Chart


R ins ing

Ri nsin g is th e proce ss duri ng wh ich ul tra soni c cl ean ing i s p erforme d on sil icon w afers, fo llo wed b y ch emica l tre atmen t of th e water surfac e, wh ich red uces the ce lls refle cti on of sunl igh t an d imp roves sun lig ht a bsorp ti on ca paci ty

Dif fusion

Di ffus ion is the p rocess du ring w hich ce rtain im puri ti es are in tro duce d into the si lico n wafer throu gh a therm al pro cess to e nab le the forma ti on of an el ectric fiel d within the PV ce ll

Et ching

Etchin g is th e proce ss th at i s a ppl ied o n th e bord er of th e wafers to preve nt d irect ele ctri cal sh orting b etwee n th e fro nt a nd the ba ck of e ach PV cell

Secondary R insing

Seco nda ry R insi ng is the pro cess du ring w hich the w afer surface i s ch emica lly cle ane d to re move the si lico n dio xide tha t may ha ve fo rmed o n the surfac e of the w ater in ord er to i mpro ve th e cell 's c apa city to abso rb lig ht

PEC VD

PECVD i s the p roces s w hich p rodu ces sili con ni tri de film o n th e wafer' s su rfa ce in the fron t, whi ch impro ves th e PV c ell' s ca paci ty to abso rb sun lig ht

Screen P rinting

Throu gh the scre en pri nting p rocess , ne gative a nd po sitive metal co ntacts, o r e lectrod es, a re prin te d on the fron t an d back su rfa ces of th e PV cel l.

Firing

Sil icon a nd metal e lectro des are co nne cte d th roug h an e lectrod e fi ring p ricess in a conve yo r b elt fu rna ce at h igh temp eratu re

Test ing and Sort ing

PV cell s a re te ste d to d etermi ne thei r e lectrica l perfo rmance a nd so rte d base d on thei r co nvers ion ra te

Source: Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

105

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 114: Solar Module Production Process Flow Chart


Welding

Multiple PV cells are interconnected based on the desir ed electrical configur ations through welding.

Lam ination

The interconnected cells ar e then laid out and laminated in a vacuum thr ough a heating pr ocess. Thr ough lamination, PV modules are sealed in weather pr oof packages that can withstand high levels of ultraviolet readiation and moistur e

Framing

Assembled PV modules are packaged in pr otective aluminum frames pr ior to testing

Testing

PV modules ar e tested to determine their electr ical performance

Source: Barclays Capital research

The approximate breakdown of equipment spending among the various equipment categories is as follows: Figure 115: Crysta lline Cell Equipment Market Breakdown
Wafer Handling, 25% Anti-reflecting Coating , 25%

Printer Lines , 15% Wet Chemis try , 25%

Diffusion Furnac es , 10%


Source: Barclays Capital estimates

106

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Silicon Crystal Growth There are three dominant equipment categories for crystallizing molten silicon feedstock. At this step of the PV value chain, ingot structure can be either multi or mono-crysta lline. Directional Solidification Systems (DSS). Multi-crystalline ingots are cast by solidifying smelt inside a DSS furnace. Controlled cooling ensures that this happens in a single direction. Czochralski Systems (CZ). The CZ process is employed by solar companies to commercially produce mono-crystalline ingots, using sophisticated pullers and rigorous process controls. Although its use reduces manufacturing flexibility, the process enhances a solar cells quality and power output. Float Zone Systems (FZ). Mono-crystalline silicon ingots can also be grown directly from a polysilicon rod using the FZ process, which eliminates the need for crucibles. The high cost of such rods largely deters its use on an industrial scale. Market Players Aside from the multi-crystalline silicon companies that make their equipment in-house or hold exclusive products, such as Norways REC, the most widely utilized furnace across the entire PV industry is still provided by GT Solar. More recently, European and Japanese manufacturers have begun offering similar systems in the DSS market. Notable challengers include Ferrptec Corp., PVA Tepla AG, and Frances ECM. Unlike DSS, the CZ segment is currently dominated by Chinese manufacturers, with Jinyungtong Corp. claiming to hold a 50% market share in its domestic market. If this is true, the company is far outpacing the big western names. As for the FZ systems, there are currently only two manufacturers worldwide: Germanys Steremat Elektrowrme GmbH and PVA Tepla Danmark. Figure 116: DSS Furnace and Silicon Ingot

Source: GT Solar

May 01, 2009

107

Solar Energy Handbook

Ingot and Wafer Sawing Band Saws. Band saws, with diamond-coated bands, have traditionally been used for precision slicing of multi and mono-crystalline ingots into bricks. A major disadvantage is relatively higher kerf loss. Wire Saws. There has been growing demand for ingot slicing wire saws, a threat to conventional band saws, because they consist of many parallel wires that perform at a faster rate. Slurry-based wire saws are always used to then process ingots into thin wafers for the construction of solar cells. Market Players Although global wafer manufacturers are expanding production at record rates, there remains a small handful of sawing equipment suppliers. It is difficult to estimate their market shares as most are disinclined to provide sales numbers. HCT Shaping Systems, now acquired by Applied Materials, is likely still the largest. Switzerlands Meyer Burger AG is a leader in the band saw market. In FY2007, its market share rose to 86% from 74% the previous year. Nippei Toyama Corp. is believed to have gained considerable market share in both Japan and China. Wafer Cleaning There are many cleaning methods, including acid rinse baths and texturing processes, to ensure that the silicon wafers are free of contaminants, and that damage caused by wire saws is removed, as they undergo the fabrication process. In the U.S., Applied Materials entered the wet clean market with their innovative Oasis system several years ago. There are also currently many Chinese and German wafer cleaning equipment manufacturers. Diffusion In-line Furnace. Either a metal conveyor belt or ceramic rollers is used to transport wafers through a high temperature profile for the in-line diffusion of phosphorous dopant into silicon wafers on their way to assembly into solar cells. Tube Furnace. These diffusion furnaces have an outer tubular structure, and may be preferable for start-ups that want flexible cell process development. Market Players It is difficult to determine market share for diffusion furnace manufacturers because sales numbers are rarely disclosed. The cheapest tube furnace is manufactured by Sevenstar Huachuang in China, while the most expensive tube furnace is offered by Semco Engineering in France. Other market players include Koyo in Japan, Tempress in Holland, SVCS in Czech Republic, and MRL in the U.S. Inline furnace makers include American companies SierraTherm, Despatch and BTU, as well as Germany-based Centrotherm. Etching In wafer fabrication, etching is employed to separate front and back surface contacts along the edge, in what is known as edge isolation.

108

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Wet Etching. Wet etching for solar cell production is possible through the reaction between a liquid chemical and a solid substrate. It is often the fastest and most costeffective way to remove material from the wafer. Dry Etching. Polysilicon plasma etching is believed to have many advantages over wet etching. It may finally enable solar cell manufacturers to bridge the gap between diffusion and deposition processes, resulting in thinner wafers and a reduction in breakage losses. Other dry etching processes, including saw damage removal, surface texturing, and PSG removal, are also becoming more popular as water and chemical waste disposal costs, as well as the demand for integrated in-line solutions for value chain equipment, increases. Anti-Reflective Coating The basic semiconductor material, silicon, can reflect more than 30% of the sunlight it is exposed to. To improve a solar cells conversion efficiency, cell coating equipment serves to achieve surface passivation using silicon nitride (SiN). In March 2008, Q-Cells and Singulus Technologies announced the development of a superior coating system, both in quality and cost value, using the familiar vacuum coating process. In general, there are many different coating equipment providers throughout the U.S. and Europe. Screen Printers PV screen printing is the standard technique for metallization of solar cells in industrial fabrication, metallization being the application of contact metals on the front and back side of the solar cell. Market Players Manufacturers with high-accuracy screen printing platforms include Italys Baccini, which was acquired by Applied Materials in January 2008, and Japans DEK, which introduced a new printer model with better throughput and advanced automated features in March 2008. Other printer providers include Affiliated Manufacturers and Unichem Industries in the U.S., and Essemtec AG in Switzerland. Testers & Sorters To achieve optimal cell efficiency, it is essential for the module to be comprised of cells with simila r electrical characteristics. Therefore, at the end of the PV production line, the cells are evaluated, under simulated sunlight, on a range of parametersfor instance, efficiency level. They are then divided into batches with similar characteristics, with each batch holding the cells required to make a module. This is the role of cell testers and sorters. There are many solar cell tester and sorter equipment manufacturers on the market, including Spire Corp. and GT Solar in the United States. Tabbers & Stringers A single solar cell generates relatively low electric output. Tabber/stringer machines are used to interconnect these cells to form modules or panels, using tiny strips of metal called stringers in a soldering process. The stringers conduct the electricity produced by the cells.

May 01, 2009

109

Solar Energy Handbook

Tabber/stringer machine makers include GT Solar and Spire Solar in the U.S., P. Energy in Italy, NCP in Japan, and SunWare GmbH in Germany. Figure 117: Tabber/Stringer

Source: GT Solar

Module Laminators Panel laminators encapsulate solar modules with controlled heat and pressure to form a homogeneous, environmentally stable structure. This production step ensures that the cell strings are protected from weathering for many years. For now, EVA is the dominant material used in encapsulation foils. EVA resin is manufactured by various chemical companies, such as DuPont or Kaneka Corp. Market Players Two German companies, Meier Vakuumtechnik GmbH and newcomer Robert Brkle GmbH, are expected to summon in the next generation of encapsulation equipment. Meier, Germanys largest PV laminator provider, has been advertising this concept since 2003. Other major laminator manufacturers include Boostsolar, Hindivac, NPC, P. Energy, SpireNisshinbo, and 3S Swiss Solar Systems. Panel Simulators Simulators are essential for determining the electrical output, and other parameters, of modules. There are three categories, distinguished by the technology used to generate light: Steady State. Used primarily by testing institutions and R&D labs, this simulator is characterized by a constant light source, allowing for slow and accurate currentvoltage (IV curve) measurements, as well as the study of light soaking effects. Single Pulse. This simulator measures VI curves by emitting a short pulse of light that lasts several milliseconds. It consumes much less energy than steady-state, but can result in more flawed measurements.

110

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Multi Flash. This simulator emits a sequence of very short flashes, each lasting less than a millisecond. During each flash, only one discrete data point is measured, not the complete IV curve. This is considered the least accurate method. Market Players Steady-state system manufacturers like Solaronix are gaining market share due to the large number of start-up thin-film companies that require light soaking tests. Single-pulse remains the dominant design, and may increase in numbers with growth in solar concentrator modules. Berger Lichttechnik GmbH is a leader in this space. Multi-flash solar simulators, on the other hand, are becoming obsolete.

May 01, 2009

111

Solar Energy Handbook

Thin Film Cell Equipment Market Breakdown Figure 118: Thin Film Cell Equipment Market Breakdown

Back-end Testing, 33%

TCO Machines , 25%

Las er Scribing , 25%

Coaters , 17%

Source: Barclays Capital estimates

Figure 119: Thin Film Production Process


Deposition
Prepa re G lass Substr ate Depo sit Semicon ducto r L ayer s Re- crysta iza tion l

Depos t Inte r-film Laye r i

La ser Scr ibe F ront Conta ct

Cell Insu lation

Las er Scrib e Cell Iso a tion l

Cell Defi nit ion

Meta li a tion z

Laser Scribe Re ar Co ntact I solation

Post H at T rea tmen t e

T est

Assem bly & Test

100% Solar Simulat or & Curre nt Le akag e Te sting

Ele ctrical L ead Asse mbly

La mina te

M odule Bu ssing

Source: First Solar, Barclays Capital research

TCO Machines The front contact of most thin film silicon solar cells is a transparent conductive oxide (TCO) layer. The optical qualities of the materials used affect the required thickness of the silicon absorber layer, as it facilitates the absorption of the required amount of irradiation. The amount of the layer depends on the substrate used. In a glass substrate the TCO layer has to remain chemically stable during plasma deposition along with showing electrical and optical properties. In opaque substrates, the TCO layer is on top and light enters the cell from the semiconductor layer.

112

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Most companies use chemical vapor deposition (CVD) to deposit the materials on the substrate. Chemical vapor deposition uses vapor phase chemical reaction to deposit thin film on a substrate. This deposition is done using the TCO machines. The other popular method is the use of physical vapor deposition (PVD), this deposits thin films by condensing vaporized material onto the substrate. Modifications to the CVD technology include the use of plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) and atmospheric pressure chemical vapor deposition (APCVD). The major suppliers of CVD based TCO machines include Applied Materials, Leybold Optics and Oerlikon Solar. Applied Materials, Ulvac and Von Ardenne also produce PECVD-based TCO machines. Coaters Solar cells are coated with an antireflective to reduce the amount of reflection of light of its surface. This is done to reduce the portion of light reflected of the cells surface and ensure that more of the light gets absorbed. Coaters are also used to apply antireflective such that it admits only the useful wavelengths while reflecting the rest. This is done in order to reduce the heating up of the solar modules. Leybold Optics provides equipment for special coatings for thin film cells. Laser Scribing Laser scribing is used to isolate individual solar cells. These isolated cells are then interconnected through laser welding to form the solar panels. The conducting and semiconducting layers on the modules are also removed using the lasers. Laser scribing is also used on the metal back contact layers on glass substrate. It is possible to fabricate entire modules using laser scribing. Laser scribing is seen as one of the key processes as it enables the production of highvolume next-generation thin-film devices. Scribe lines are of the order of tens of microns in width compared to cell widths of less then 10mm. Despite this, it is essential to reduce this further in order to maximize conversion efficiencies. It is also essential to maintain smooth edges in the scribes, without recast debris as conversion efficiencies are affected by micro cracks in the cells. Oerlikon Solar provides laser patterning equipment. Back-end Equipment for Testing Cells This is one of the most crucial steps in the production process. The solar cells and modules produced need to be tested to ensure that they will be able to work under not only normal but also extreme conditions. Cells need to be tested for impurities on the surface as surface contamination can affect the level of light absorbed, leading to reduced conversion efficiencies for the cells and modules. The cells also need to be temperature tested to ensure that they do not degrade under slightly elevated temperatures. Solar simulators have now started to be used for testing cells to ensure consistency in the level of conversion efficiencies and to check their degradation over time and in effect the life of the cells. The cells should also undergo testing to check for leakage.

May 01, 2009

113

Solar Energy Handbook

114

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Chapter 6: Solar Thermal Market

May 01, 2009

115

Solar Energy Handbook

Solar Thermal Background This source of energy is based on the fact that the sun heats up water contained in a dark vessel. Thus, the energy is harvested from the heat directly from the sun. Domestic water heating is the most common use of the solar thermal technology worldwide. Solar thermal technologies can also provide solar energy for other applications such as space heating in residential and commercial buildings and solar assisted cooling. Solar thermal is currently one of the most cost effective sources of renewable energy. The technology has further scope as potential for further economies of scale is substantial due to the moderate penetration levels even in its large markets. The US Energy Information Agency characterizes solar thermal collectors as low, medium or high temperature. The low and medium collectors are used to heat water for domestic and other basic uses. High temperature collectors are used for electric power generation through concentrating the incident sunlight using mirrors or lenses. This is called concentrated solar power (CSP). Solar thermal power plants follow the concept of CSP and use sunlight to produce steam, which is then used to generate electricity. As the heat can be stored, these plants are unique because they can generate power when it is needed, day or night in any weather. Solar thermal plants are large utility-scale projects that generate enough power to serve tens of thousands of homes. Their power is usually sold to public utilities, which then sell it to its customers. Solar thermal technology requires the following four main elements: concentrator; receiver; storage; and power conversion. The three most common solar thermal technologies are: parabolic trough; central receiver; and parabolic dish. Parabolic trough systems use trough-shaped mirror reflectors to concentrate sunlight on to receiver tubes through which a thermal transfer fluid (typically oil) is heated to roughly 400oC and then used to produce superheated steam. They represent the most mature solar thermal power technology, with 354 MWe of plants connected to the Southern California grid since the 1980s and more than 2 million square meters of parabolic trough collectors. These plants supply an annual 800 million kWh at a generation cost of about $0.14$0.17/kWh. Further advances are now being made in the technology, with utility- scale projects planned in Spain, Nevada (USA), Morocco, Algeria, Italy, Greece, Israel, Egypt, India, Iran, South Africa and Mexico. Electricity from trough plants is thus expected to fall to $0.07-$0.08/kWh in the medium term. Combined with gas-fired combined cycle plantsso-called ISCC (Integrated Solar Combined Cycle) systemspower generation costs are expected to be in the order of $0.06-$0.07/kWh in the medium term and $0.05/kWh in the long term.

116

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 120: Parabolic Trough Technology


from East Sunpath to West

Par abolic Mir ror Heat Collec ting Element Dir ect Normal Ra diation

D rive Motor

Source: Abengoa Solar, Barclays Capita l research

Central receiver: A power tower system uses a large field of mirrors, called heliostats, to concentrate sunlight onto the top point of a tower. There a receiver sits, and the molten salt that is inside it is heated. This heat is then used to produce electricity through a conventional steam generator, or it is stored for days before conversion. Following completion of the first 10 MWe PS-10 demonstration tower plants, currently under construction in Spain, and with further scaling up to 3050 MW capacity, solar tower developers are confident that grid connected tower power plants can be built up to a capacity of 200 MWe solar-only units with power generation costs then comparable to those of parabolic troughs. Use of thermal storage will also increase flexibility. Although central receiver plants are considered to be further away from commercialization than parabolic trough systems, solar towers have good long-term prospects for high conversion efficiencies. Projects are under construction in Spain and under preparation in South Africa. In the future, we expect central receiver plant projects should benefit from similar cost reductions to those expected from parabolic trough plants. The anticipated evolution of total electricity costs is that they will drop to $0.07/kWh in the medium term and to $0.05/kWh in the long term.

May 01, 2009

117

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 121: Central Receiver Technology

Source: European Solar Energy Association, Barclays Capital research

Parabolic dish systems are comparatively small units which use a dish-shaped reflector to concentrate sunlight, with superheated fluid being used to generate power in a small engine at the focal point of the reflector. A dish/engine system is an electric generator that burns sunlight instead of gas or coal. The large dish-shaped surface collects and concentrates the suns direct heat into a cavity receiver, which transfers the energy to fluid within a heat engine/generator. The heat causes the fluid to expand against a piston or turbine, producing mechanical power, which is then used to run a generator that makes electricity output possible. Their potential lies primarily in decentralized power supply and remote, standalone power systems. Projects are currently planned in the United States, Australia, and Europe. In terms of electricity costs, an attainable near-term goal is a figure of less than $0.15-$0.20/kWh, depending on the solar resource. Current trends show that two broad pathways have opened up for large-scale delivery of electricity using solar thermal power. One is the ISCC-type hybrid operation of solar collection and heat transfer combined with a conventional power plant. The other is solar-only operation, with increasing use of a storage medium such as molten salt. This enables solar energy collected during the day to be stored then dispatched when demand requires.

118

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 122: Parabolic Dish Technology

Receiver Concentrator

Source: Research Institute for Sustainable Energy, Barclays Capital research

Advantages The primary advantage of solar thermal technology is that it offers heat storage capability unlike photovoltaic technology, solar energy collected during the day can also be stored in liquid or solid medium such as molten salts, concrete, ceramic or phase changing salt mixtures. Solar heat can be extracted from the storage medium at night, thereby maintaining continuous turbine operation. The second advantage is that solar thermal plants can be designed for solar only or for hybrid operation, where a fossil fuel can be used in case of lower radiation intensity to secure reliable peak-load supply. Finally, the costs of solar thermal electricity are lower than that of photovoltaic technology and further cost reductions are likely. Solar thermal generation costs in California range between $0.14 and $0.17/kWh today and are expected to decline to between $0.07$0.08/kWh in the future. Limitations Solar thermal technology requires direct sunlight and as a result, power plants are usually cited in regions with high direct solar radiation. Technological Advancements The glass mirrors used have gone to flat from curved and are thus less expensive. Steam can now be produced directly from solar energy by attaching solar boilers to the solar thermal panels.

May 01, 2009

119

Solar Energy Handbook

The steam is also at a much higher temperature and is thus more effective and efficient in producing electricity. Mirrors reflecting sunlight move in two dimensions instead of one thereby absorbing sunlight more effectively. Major Solar Thermal Projects Brightsource Energy and Pacific Gas & Electric are building one of the largest solar thermal plants in the Mojave Desert in the United States. The 500MW concentrated solar power plant is expected to start operations in 2011. Stirling energy is also building a 500MW plant in the Mojave Desert in collaboration with San Diego Gas & Electric. The plant which will use parabolic dishes is also expected to begin operations in 2011. The Mojave Desert is also home to the over 500MW plant being built by Solel in collaboration with Pacific Gas & Electric and the over 300MW plant being built by Florida Power & Light and Southern California Edison. The 11MW plant in Seville, Spain is currently one of the largest solar thermal plants and is expected to increase in size to 300MW by 2013. Other major projects include Solar Partners 400MW plant in California, the 280MW plant being built by Abengoa in Arizona, and a 250MW plant being planned by Israel in the Negev Desert. Florida Power & Light has a 300MW plant in Florida, and a 250MW plant in the Mojave Desert, USA. Both these plants are scheduled to start operations in 2011 and help Florida reach its target of 20% energy through wind and solar. Major Demand Centers The solar thermal market is dominated by China, Europe, Japan, and India. China is by far the largest market but is almost entirely driven by solar water heaters which have flourished without any government incentives. A major reason for the popularity of solar water systems in China is because of their low capital cost, which is nearly a fourth of the cost in Europe. The total installed capacity in China is estimated to have been more than 50GWth in 2007 with over 30 million households expected to have a solar water heater. Despite this, China continues to have significant scope to grow due to its low penetration levels. The European Solar Thermal market grew by 9% in 2007, reaching 1.9GW of new capacity with total capacity reaching 15.4 GW. Germany continued to be the largest market in Europe but growth shrank 37% in 2007 to 658MW of new capacity. The other major markets in Europe were Austria with 197MW and Spain with 183MW of new capacity. Europes per capita capacity was 3.8kW per 1,000 people in 2007 bringing its total solar thermal capacity in operation to 30.7kW per 1,000 people. Cyprus continued to have the highest installations per 1,000 people in 2007 at 32kW followed by Austria (23.7kW) and Greece (17.7kW).

120

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 123: European Solar Thermal Market (2007)

Rest of Europe, 17% Germany, 35% Italy, 9%

France, 9%

Spain , 10% Austria, 10%

Greece, 10%

Source: ESTIF, Barclays Capital research

Concentrating solar power systems are applied in centralized power productions. They convert the suns energy into heat first, then mechanical power, and finally electricity using conventional generators. Although CSP produced energy currently costs more than other renewable resources like wind, production using this method can be much more closely aligned with periods of peak demand. Solar intermittency problems are alleviated with thermal storage or hybridization with natural gas. The year 2007 was pivotal for solar CSP development with 65 MW of parabolic-trough systems brought on line in the U.S. Further growth is highly dependent upon the duration and parameters of the Investment Tax Credit. We believe CSP is an especially attractive renewable energy option for large-scale power generation in the Southwest, where 15 of the 20 fastest-growing metro areas in the U.S. are located. The abundance of sunshine in these areas provide flexibility in building solar plants close to existing or planned transmission lines, making it easier to dispatch the generated power when it is needed. Technical and Market Challenges The CSP technologies described above primarily face capital cost reduction challenges. Performance improvement is desired for system components like concentrators and solar receivers. More relia bility is needed to reduce hig h operation and maintenance expenses. Volume production can also help to bring down outlays through standardization of engineering, materials procurement, and manufacturing. The scaling-up of plant and project sizes, for greater dispatch of power, is anticipated. Several other factors can intervene with cost goals, even if technical targets are met. These include: developers real cost of capital; ROI required by investors; difficulty of getting construction approval; cost of commodity materials; and currency exchange rates. Although the DOE has identified power towers as the lowest-cost CSP technology, they have been absent from the countrys solar R&D portfolio for the last five years. The Solar Program

May 01, 2009

121

Solar Energy Handbook

stopped funding this area due to non-existing activity in U.S. power towers, and instead focused resources on the other two CSP categories where large projects were in the works. CSP systems require direct sunlight. While the Southwest holds adequate resources, the limitations of transmission capacity restrict the amount of power that can be exported to other regions of the country. Also, while energy from the sun is deemed free fuel, the cost of conversion equipment is high but necessary for the commercial production of electricity. Taxation of solar energy equipment as real property further increases the cost of using this particular renewable energy source. At present, the number of installed systems in the U.S. is relatively low. Until 2006, no commercial solar thermal electric systems had seen installation since 1991. Two parabolictrough systems were completed last year. No commercial dish-engine or power tower system has ever been built in the states, although two years ago an 11 MW tower began operation in Spain, where three more power towers are under construction.

122

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Chapter 7: Key Solar PV Markets

May 01, 2009

123

Solar Energy Handbook

Germany
Government support has propelled Germany into the biggest solar market.

With 6,000 MW of cumulated capacity, Germany remains the largest market for solar PV systems. Mainly in the form of feed-in tariffs, government incentives have favored strong market growth and sustained the development of the photovoltaic industry that currently generates 0.8% of the countrys electricity. The governments goal is to generate about 27% and 45% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 2030, respectively, from about 13% currently. The German governments support for solar industry started in 1999, when it sponsored a 100,000-rooftop program that offered EUR0.50/kWh of feed-in tariff on solar PV electricity for 20 years, in addition to low-interest financing. This program resulted in a tenfold increase in solar installed capacity. The tariff program was revised in 2004, further stimulating the market with annual solar installations tripling to 540MW in 2004 from 170MW in 2003. In addition, Germany introduced new incentives for large-scale solar hot-water installations, with low interest loans and 30% capital cost subsidies, for systems greater than 40 square miles.

124

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 124:German Incentive Program


Feed In Tariff <= 30 kW Degression ct/kWh Rate 46.75 8% 8% 9% 43.01 39.57 36.01 8% 8% 9% Rooftop > 30 kW > 100 kW Degression Degression ct/ kWh ct/kWh Rate Rate 44.48 40.91 37.64 34.25 10% 10% 9% 43.99 39.58 35.62 32.42 25% 10% 9% > 1,000 kW Degression ct/kWh Rate 43.99 33 29.7 27.03 10% 10% 9% Ground Mounted All Sizes Degressi on ct/kWh Rate 35.49 31.94 28.75 26.16

2008 2009 2010 2011

FIT are granted for 20 years If the growth of the PV market (new installations) in a year is stronger or weaker than the defined growth corridor, the degression in the foll owi ng year will increase or decrease a percentage point respectivel y. Degression A bove: +1% Below: -1% 2009 1500 100 2010 1700 1100 2011 1900 1200

Upper limit in MWp Lower limit in MWp

Tax Credits

Further Support Programs Investment costs for commercial systems (incl. Planning and installation) can be depreciated over a 20 year period and other costs can be considered as operations cost Commercial systems are VAT exempted (VAT is at 19% in Germany) In exceptional cases for some commercial systems which operate closely to producing or manufacturing facilities 12,527,5 % of invest ment can be claimed as t ax credit KFW P rogram Solarstrom Erzeugen (No. 140) f or private investors: Up to 100% invest, max 50. 000, up t o 10 years with 1-2 years free of redemption or up t o 20 years with up to 3 years free of redemption at nominal int erest rates of 4,15-4,45% depending on duration, except investors under direct supervision of local authorities

KFW ERP-Umwelt- und Energiesparprogramm for commercial investors: 50% for SME s, other companies up to 35% of Beneficial max. 500.000 invest (in old f ederal stat es) alt ernatively 1 Mio. Invest (in new f ederal stat es), duration 10 years with 2 Credi t Terms years free of redemption (in old federal states) alternatively 15 years with 5 years free of redemption , nominal int erest rates between 4-7% (depending on location, duration and credit risk evaluation) KFW Umweltprogramm for commercial investors: 75% of invest of max 10 mio. per I nstallation 96% net payment, up to 20 years duration, with up to 3 years free of redemption, nominal interest rates between 4-7, 72% Investment Grant Some regional programs exist

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 125: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)

Figure 126: Solar Electricity per Capita


250 S olar El ect ricit y P er Capit a (W/ person) 12. 0%

3000

200 S olar as % of Renewables

10. 0%

8.0% 150

1500
100

6.0%

4.0% 50

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E


0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

2.0%

0.0%

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

125

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 127: Elec tricity Market Breakup

Figure 128: Solar Penetration


6.0% % Household P enet rati on

Nuclear, 8%

5.0%

S olar as % of Overall E lectrici ty

Conventional Thermal, 23%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0%

Solar, wind, etc, 69%


1.0%

0.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

126

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Spain With among the highest solar insolation in Europe and favorable legal and fiscal incentives, Spain was the fastest-growing sizable solar PV market in 2008. The Spanish government incentives are fixed for the first 25 years of operation and decrease 20% thereafter. Figure 129: Spain Incentive Program
Power Plan Limit Size Type 1 - Rooftop Type 1 - Cap F eed in Tariffs Type II - Gro und Mo unted To tal Cap 10MW 0.32 /kWh < 20 kW > 20 kW 2MW Tariff 2009 0.34 /kWh 0.32 /kWh Cap 2009 27 MW 240 MW 267 MW 233 MW (133+100) 500 C ap 2010 30 MW 265 MW 295 MW 207 MW (133+60) 502 Cap 2011 33 MW 292 MW 325 MW 162 MW 488

Tariff and Cap Variation

Tariffs and caps are adjusted quarterly according to demand in previous quarter: If at least 75% of the cap for the previous quarter is reached, rates decrease by a maximum of 2.5%, and the cap is increased by the same amount. Conversely, if less than 50% of the cap is reached, rates increase and caps decrease by the same amount. If between 50 and 75% of the caps are reached, incentive levels and caps remain the same. The annual digression rate is capped at 10%. Annual caps adjust in inverse proportion to digression (e. g. If rates decrease by 8%, caps will increase by 8%). Law 35/2006 establishes a tax rebate of 6% (2008), 4% (2009), 2% (2010) from the annual benefits of the PV system.

Tax Incentives

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 130: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)


1500

Figure 131: Solar Electricity per Capita


12 0 So lar Elect ricity Per Cap ita (W/p ers on) 7. 0% 10 0 So lar as % of Re newa bles 6. 0% 80 5. 0% 60 4. 0% 3. 0% 2. 0% 20 1. 0% 8. 0%

1200 900 600 300 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E
40

0 200 2 200 3 2 004 20 05 20 06 200 7 2 008 200 9E 2 010 E 2 011E 20 12E

0. 0%

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

127

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 132: Elec tricity Market Breakup

Figure 133: Solar Penetration


3 .0% % House hold Pen etra tion So lar as % of O v rall Ele ctr icity e

2 .5%

Nuclear, 18%

Solar, wind, etc, 19%

2 .0%

1 .5%

1 .0%

0 .5%

0 .0% 20 02 2 003 20 04 2 005 200 6 2 007 200 8 20 09E 2 010E 20 11E 2 012 E

C onventional

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

128

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

United States The federal investment tax credit (ITC) was extended in October 2008 for eight years. The bill removed the $2,000 cap for residential installations, and allows public utilities to take advantage of the federal incentives. Furthermore, the new proposal eliminates the public utility exemption to the ITC and allows the credits to be taken against the alternative minimum tax (AMT). In February 2009, Congress passed an economic stimulus package that included support for solar installations. The stimulus provided incentives for the production of green technologies in the United States, as well as providing a 30% grant to install renewable energy systems such as solar. In addition to the support at the federal level, the states and municipal governments provide rebates for PV system purchases and have a feed-in tariff system established in states such as Washington. Net metering is available in 42 states across the country. Most of these states offer statewide net metering for all utility types. In addition, some 26 states have already implemented renewable portfolio standards in a market-driven approach to ensure a minimum and growing percentage of electricity to be sourced from renewables. These include Nevada (20% by 2015), New Jersey (22.5% by 2021), and Colorado (20% by 2020). There is a provision for solar in the renewables policy, with Nevada planning 1% solar by 2015, New Jersey planning 2.12% by 2021, and Colorado 0.8% by 2020. The bottom line is that we believe statewide solar programs are likely to make the U.S. one of the fastest-growing markets over the next three to five years. Figure 134: U.S. Market Annual Solar PV Ins tallations (MW)
140 120 100 80 60 40
27 39 18 22 15 13 4 4 3 3 3 4 2 3 1 2 1 1 97 1 16 2007 200 8

20 0

rn ia

rs ey

aw ai

ct i cu

on

ts

ad

ad

Yo r

se t

al if o

ol or

N ev

ew

on ne

Ne

Source: Barclays Capital research, Photon International

May 01, 2009

M as

sa c

O re

A r iz

Je

hu

go

129

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 135: U.S. Incentives


United States: % of States having introduced incentives Net Metering Direct Incentives Sales/Property Tax Loan Tax Credit
Source: DSIRE

82% 80% 64% 46% 34%

Figure 136: Renewable Portfolio Standard Incentives


State Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware D.C. Hawai Illinois Iowa Maine Maryland Massachusetts Minnesota Montana Nevada New Ham pshire New Jersey New Mexico N ew York North C arolina Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island Texas W ashington W isconsin Total Generation Requirement By When '07
(' 000 kWh)

104,392,528* 490,795,218 205,960,167 53,756,522 7,182,179* 81,467* 11,960,090 197,795,429 89,007,047 30,196,422 252,759,444 79,574,968 70,259,509 348,007,286 65,130,407 46,536,608 66,303,400 27,632,793 1,418,258,950 322,801,400 867,839,634 435,900,727 8,175,579 350,862,367 2,076,777,949 130,525,091

15% 20% 20% 23% 20% 11% 20% 25% 105 MW 30% 9.5% 4% 25% 15% 20% 25% 22.5% 20% 25% 12.5% 25% 18% 16% 5,580 MW 15% 10%

2025 2010 2020 2020 2019 2022 2020 2025 2022 2009 2025 2015 2015 2025 2021 2020 2013 2021 2025 2020 2019 2015 2020 2015

* Does not include hydro. Source: Barclays Capital research, DSIRE

130

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 137: Renewable Portfolio Standards


MN: 25% by 2025 *WA: 15% by 2020
ND: 10 % by 20 15 (Xcel: 30 % by 2020)
VT: (1) RE m eets any inc reas e in ret ail s al es by 2012; (2) 20% by 2017

ME : 30% by 2000
10% by 2017 - new RE

NH: 23.8% in 2025


MA: 4% by 2009 +
1% annual increase

OR: 25% by 2025 (large util ities)


5% - 10% by 2025 (small er uti li ties)

M T: 15% by 2015
SD: 10% by 2015

WI: requirement varies by utilit y; 10% by 2015 goal

RI: 16% by 2020 CT: 23% by 2020

*NV: 20% by 2015


* UT: 20% by 2025

IA: 105 MW IL: 25% by 2025


MO : 11% by 2020

NY: 24% by 2013 NJ: 22.5% by 2021 PA: 18% by 2020 M D: 9.5% in 2022 *DE: 20% by 2019 DC: 11% by 2022
*VA: 12% b y 2022

CA: 20% by 2010

CO: 20% by 2020 (I OUs) *10% by 2020 (co-ops & large muni s)

NC: 12.5% by 2021 AZ: 15% by 2025 NM : 20% by 2020 (IOUs)


10% by 2020 (co-ops)

(I OUs) 10% b y 2018 (co -ops & m unis)

TX: 5,880 MW by 2015 HI: 20% by 2020 Minimum solar or custo mer-sited RE requirement * Increased credit for solar o r custo mer-sited RE PA: 8 % Tier I / 10 % Tier II (includes non-renewables)
Sta te RPS Sta te Go al So la r water hea ting e ligible

Source: DSIRE

Figure 138: Net Metering Rules


100 50
25/2,000

* * 25 * 2,000 *

100 * 40

VT: 250

1 00

25/100

* 20 *

1,000 1,000

* * 25/2,000

* 500
100

30
no limit

40 10 *

15

* *

25 20/100

varies 80,000

100 * 25/300

* 50

10/100 25/100

NY: PA : NJ: DE: MD: DC: VA:

10/25/125/400 50/3,000/5,000* 2,000* 25/500/2,000* 2,000 100 10/500*

100
(KIUC: 50)

FL: 2,000*

S ta te-wid e net metering for a ll utility typ es

S ta te-wid e net metering for certain u tili ty types only (e .g., in vestor-owned utilities) c ertain utili investor-owned N et metering o ff ered voluntarily by one or more ind ividual utilities ffered volun tarily

Net metering is available in 42 states + D.C.

(Note: Numbers indicate individual sys tem s iz e limit in kilowatts. Some states limits vary by c ustomer type and/or technology)

Source: DSIRE

May 01, 2009

131

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 139: State Incentives for PV Projects


State Alabama Alaskak Arizona Arkansas Cal ifornia Col orado Connecticut Del aware F lorida G eorgi a Hawaii Idaho Illi nois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Loui si ana Maine Maryl and Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississi ppi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota O hio O kl ahoma O regon Pennsyl vani a Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota T ennessee T exas Utah Vermont Virgini a W ashington W est Virgini a W isconsin W yoming Resid ential Direct In centive Resid ential T ax Credit 25% $1,000 35% $5,000 100% deduction $20,000 50% $12,500 20-25% incremental cost(mul ti fam. green buildi ng) 15% $1,000 $500 30% $9,000 25% $5,000 PV i n multi fam. green building: $3/W maximum 35% 10,500 15% $3/W 50% $6,000 25% 3,750 25% 2,000 Non -residen tial Direct Incen tive Commercial Tax Credit Net Meterin g Sales Tax Prop erty Tax Lo an Local Government Loan SMUD: 7.5% 10 yrs Aspen (Residential): 0% 5 yrs Gunnison: $25k 10 yrs 5% CHIF (Residential): 1%-6% 10 years DPUC: financing terms vary > 50kW Sati lla RBMC (Resi dential): $25k for 10 yrs IDWR Loan: 4% for 5yrs. $100k AERLP: 50% rate reducti on over 20 years. $250k IEB Non-Profit/Government Loan HELP (Residential): 2%. $6k MEA Community Loan: 3% for 7 yrs. $600k MEA State Agency Loan: 0% MDA Business Loan 3% < prime 85% $300k 7 years DNR Non-profit/Government Loan AERLP: 5% $40k 10yrs Energy Loan: 50% rate reduction $175K 10 yrs NHBRC (Com.): $10K mi nimum 7yrs NYSERDA: 4% below market 10 yrs (Non-residential ) SELP 4.9-6.95% 5-15yrs. $20K - 20M Regional Clean Energy Funds Keystone (Residential): 6.99% - 8.99% $10K 10 yrs DECD (Smal l Business): 0% - 3% $300K 7 yrs Clall um Cty (Residential), Clark PUD(Residenti al) Frankl in Ci ty (Residenti al), Grays Harbor Ferry County PUD(Residenti al) Kli ckitat PUD(Residenti al) WPPI (Participating Municipalities) $2.5K - $20K 1.99% 10yrs EILP: 1% 10 yrs $500K

Source: DSIRE, Barclays Capital research

132

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 140: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)


4000

Figure 141: Solar Electricity per Capita


30 Sola r E lect ric ity Per Ca pita ( W/ per so n) 25 Sola r a s % o f Re newa ble s 1.6 % 1.4 % 1.2 % 1.0 %

3000 2000 1000

20

15

0.8 % 0.6 %

10 0.4 % 5 0.2 % 0.0 % 20 02 2 00 3 2 004 20 05 20 06 200 7 2 008 20 09 E 201 0E 2 011 E 20 12 E

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Source: US Solar Energy Association, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

Figure 142: Elec tricity Market Breakup


Renewable (In cl Hydro), 7% Coal, 22% Nuclear, 8%

Figure 143: Solar Penetration


0. 5% % Household Penetrat ion 0. 4% S olar as % of Overall Elect ric ity 0. 4%

0. 3%

0. 3%

0. 2%

Natural Gas, 23%


0. 2%

0. 1%

0. 1%

Petroleum, 40%
0. 0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

133

Solar Energy Handbook

Japan The Japanese governments target is to increase solar installed capacity to 4.8GW by 2010 from less than 2GW in 2008, representing more than 140% growth. High grid electricity rates as a result of lack of domestic energy resources (Japan imports 75%80% of energy) and directed government incentives have historically resulted in strong growth of solar installations in Japan. Government support for solar PV has been in the form of subsidies. Recently the Japanese government announced a plan to reinstate its solar subsidy program. The current plan is for utilities to purchase surplus electricity at 50/kWh (about $0.50)/kWh. The plan is expected to be introduced by 2010 at the latest. Figure 144: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)
900

Figure 145: Solar Electricity per Capita


40 35 30 S olar Elect ricit y P er Capit a (W/person) S olar as % of Renewables 3. 0%

2. 5%

600

25 20

2. 0%

1. 5%

300

15 10 5

1. 0%

0. 5%

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

0. 0%

Source: US Solar Energy Association, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

Figure 146: Elec tricity Market Breakup

Figure 147: Solar Penetration


3.0% % Household Penetration 2.5% Solar as % o f Overall El ectri city

Solar, wind, etc, 3% Nuc lear, 19%

2.0%

Hydro, 7%

1.5%

1.0%

Thermal, 71%

0.5%

0.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2 007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

134

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

South Korea
Government targets 1.3GW of PV capacity by 2011.

South Koreas government has set a target of 5% energy generation from renewables (compared with approximately 1% in 2007) and 1.3GW of PV installed capacity by 2011 (cumulative installed capacity was less than 100MW in 2008). South Korea has a feed-in tariff of EUR0.40/kWh for less than 30KW systems all the way up to EUR0.30/kWh for systems greater than 3MW. In addition, new public buildings larger than 3,000m are required to spend 5% of the total budget on installation of renewable facility. The government also provides support to the PV industry through joint R&D projects coordinated by the Korean Development Organization (KPVDO) since 2004. Figure 148: South Korean Feed-In Tariff Program
Period 15 Years 20 Years <30 kW 30- 200kW 200kW 1MW 1MW - 3 MW > 3MW

0.4/kWh 0.39/kWh 0.37/kWh 0.35/kWh 0.3/kWh 0.37/kWh 0.35/kWh 0.34/kWh 0.32/kWh 0.27/kWh

Note: Tariffs in /kWh, numbers converted from Korean Won to Euros


Source: Barclays Capital research, Solarbuzz

Figure 149: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)

Figure 150: Solar Electricity per Capita


90 Solar Elect ric it y Per Capit a (W/ pers on) 10. 0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 50 5.0% 40 4.0%

1500

80 70 60 Solar as % of R enewables

1000

500

30 20 10

3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

135

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 151: Elec tricity Market Breakup

Figure 152: Solar Penetration


3. 5% % Hou se hold Pe net ra tion

Solar, wind, etc, 0%

3. 0%

S olar a s % of Overa ll Ele ct ricit y

2. 5%

2. 0%

1. 5%

Nuclear, 37%

1. 0%

0. 5%

Thermal, 62%
0. 0% 2 00 2 20 03 2 00 4 200 5 20 06 200 7 20 08 20 09E 20 10 E 201 1E 2 012 E

Hydro, 1%
Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

136

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

France
Government offers attractive feed-in tariff scheme with a special bonus for BIPV installations and a n income tax credit for private individuals.

The primary incentive mechanism in France is in the form of a feed-in tariff for a duration of 20 years, with the annual tariff increase pegged to inflation. France is making a renewed effort to increase the renewable share of the countrys total energy consumption from 10.3% in 2005 to 20% by 2020. The European Union has further increased this target to 23% by 2020. The government plans to increase the installed capacity for PV power to 3,000 MW by 2020. In addition, 5 million solar thermal units are to be installed in buildings by 2020, with 80% of these in homes. France benefits from very favorable solar irradiation conditions, especially in the south and in overseas territories. With what we believe is an attractive feed-in tariff scheme, combined with a special bonus for building integrated PV (BIPV) installations and an income tax credit for private individuals, the French government paved the way to rapid growth in PV installations. The current feed-in ta riff program favors BIPV systems. The majority of the large-scale installations take place in overseas territories and the south of France (where average insolation is greater than it is in the rest of the country). In addition to the feed-in tariffs, the small private system market receives a 50% income tax credit, which at times represents approximately 50% of the solar module investments (excluding labor costs). France recently increased subsidies for commercial buildings to EUR0.45/kWh. A EUR0.55/kWh subsidy is still provided for Building Integrated throughout France. Figure 153: South Korean Feed-In Tariff Program
Continental F rance Granting Perio d Roof Top an d G roun d Mo unted Feed in T ariff BIPV Commercia l Cap Other In fo rmatio n Ben eficia l Credit Terms 0.55 /kW h 0.45 /kW h Installed peak capacity x 1500 full load hoursT hereafter 0.05 /kWh Tariff annually revised on inflation 20 Years 0.30 /kW h

The government does subsidize green loans through financial institutions. The exact terms of the green loans vary pe r insti tution but interest rates fa ll between 3 and 5% over 5-10 years (20 in some ca ses). Private tax reduction of 50% on material costs at mai n residence, max 8.000 for si ngles and 16.000 for coupl es, val id until end of 2012. System si ze < 3 kWp (if > 3 kWp, not cu mulative with FIT). Reduced VAT (5.5%) on material and installation cost. Accommodation is more than 2-year and system size < 3 kW p.

Tax Credit Tax In centives Reduced VAT

Source: Barclays Capital research, Solarbuzz

May 01, 2009

137

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 154: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)

Figure 155: Solar Electricity per Capita


30 So lar Ele ct ric ity Pe r C ap ita (W /p er son ) So lar a s % o f Re ne wab les 0 .9 % 0 .8 % 0 .7 % 0 .6 % 0 .5 %

1000 800 600 400 200

25

20

15 0 .4 % 10 0 .3 % 0 .2 % 5 0 .1 % 0 0 .0 % 200 2 2 00 3 20 04 20 05 20 06 2 00 7 20 08 2 00 9E 2 01 0E 20 11 E 20 12E

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

Figure 156: Elec tricity Market Breakup


Solar, wind, etc, 12%

Figure 157: Solar Penetration


0 .7 % % Ho us eho ld Pe ne tra tion 0 .6 % Sola r a s % of Over all Ele ctr icit y 0 .5 %

Conventional Thermal, 11%

0 .4 %

0 .3 %

0 .2 %

0 .1 %

Nuclear, 77%

0 .0 % 200 2 2 003 20 04 200 5 2 006 20 07 200 8 20 09E 201 0E 2 011 E 20 12E

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

138

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Italy
Italys goal is to reach 3GW of installed capacity by the end of 2016.

The Italian governments goal is to reach 3GW of solar PV installed capacity by the end of 2016. The primary incentive program is what we believe to be an attractive feed-in tariff, which is inspired by the German model, and projects receive fixed remuneration for the first 20 years. The tariffs are declining 2% every year for new applications. This new program, which was implemented in February 2007, is aimed to provide tariffs until a cap of 1.2GW is reached. The government has simplified the process of accessing the grid by the introduction of the new program in February 2007. Some of the measures taken are as follows: 1) All partially/fully integrated systems and installations below 20KW are no longer subject to environmental impact assessment and authorization process; 2) Developers are no longer required to wait for long periods to receive accession rights from the Gas and Electric Authority. We believe large IPP projects and medium-large commercial systems offer strong potential in the near term.

May 01, 2009

139

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 158:Italian Solar Incentives


BIPV Feed In Tariff 1-3 kWp > 3 - 20 kWp > 20 kWp 0.49 /kWh 0.46 /kWh 0.44 /kWh BAPV 0.44 /kWh 0.42 /kWh 0.40 /kWh Non Integr ated 0.40 /kWh 0.38 /kWh 0.36 /kWh

Cap

The maximum cumulative power supportable is 1200 MW. However, the plants that will enter into force no later than 14 months - for private owners - and 24 months - for public owners - after the reaching of the cap they will benefit from both the tariffs and the premium. Bonuses, not cumulative, equal to a 5% premium are provided in these cases: - the electricity producer if he/she uses at least 70% of the electricity generated, - public schools and public health c enters; - Installations integrated to building substituting asbestos roofs ; - Municipalities with less than 5.000 inhabitants. Increase in the energy efficiency: If the consumption of energy of the building is reduced by at least 10% , an increase in the incentive tariff is awarded in a percentage equal to half of the percentage of electricity saved, but not exceeding 30% of the standard tariff.

Bonuses on top of the FIT

Other Infor mation

2% degression of 2008 tariffs starting from 2009, and so on for the forthcoming years. The target set by the government is 3.000 MW by 2016. FIT payment duration fix for 20 years

Further Suppor t Program s Net Metering: (Alternative to the sell of electricity and cumulative with FIT) Tax Credits Net-metering does not provide for direct payments. Is based on a balance of the value of the electricity produced, consumed and not consumed but fed into the grid. This can lead to a surplus on behalf of the system operator that will be holder of a credit, that is refundable, in terms of electricity, within 1 year. Reduction of VAT from 20% to 10% Reduction in property tax that amounts to less than 4 per mille Owner of plants producing renewable electricity may decide to sell it; Three options are available:

Sell of the Electricity (Alternative to net-metering and Indirect Sell: Convention with the GSE (Italian Authority in charge of the Photovoltaic incentives system). cumulative with FIT) Direct Sell - Sell it to the "electric stock exchange" or to a wholesaler

Other Information

From January 2009 the net metering system will change significantly. The big change consists in the payment of the obtained credits by the GSE. The pric e that will be applied will be an average of the values of the national prices per area (prezzi zonali orari).

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

140

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 159: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)

Figure 160: Solar Electricity per Capita


90 8.0% 7.0% S olar Elect ric ity Per Capit a (W /person) 70 6.0% S olar as % of Renewables 5.0% 50 4.0% 40

1800

80

1200

60

600

30 20

3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

10 0

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

Figure 161: Elec tricity Market Breakup

Figure 162: Solar Penetration


4.0%

Solar, wind, etc 16%

3.5%

% Household Penetr a on ti S ola as % of Ov r erall E le ric ct ity

3.0%

2.5%

2.0%

1.5%

1.0%

0.5%

Conventional Thermal 84%


Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital estimates

0.0% 2002 2003 200 4 200 5 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

141

Solar Energy Handbook

Greece
Natural conditions make Greece an ideal market but the government must take measures to aid solar installations.

The European Union wants Greece to increase its share of renewables in energy from 6.9% in 2005 to 18% in 2020. The government introduced a RES (Renewable Energy Sources) law in June 2006 which offered a special tariff for PV energy and set the basic permitting procedures. Under the new feed-in tariff law, the government had set a target of 840MW of solar PV installations by 2020, with 640MW of these installations on the mainland and 200MW on the islands. On January 15, Greece passed an amendment to the tariff, eliminating the 840MW cap that was originally included in the law. There is currently no cap associated with the feed in tariff. Under the current feed-in tariff program, which is guaranteed for 20 years, new tariffs are adjusted annually based on retail price increases and inflation. In addition, PV systems for commercial applications are eligible for a state grant, accounting for 20% to 40% of installed cost depending on the size and region of the investing company. Lastly, small enterprises are eligible for a subsidy that covers four units of the interest contracted to finance PV installations. Small domestic applications receive a 20% tax deduction capped at EUR700 per system in addition to the feed-in tariff.

Figure 163:Greek Solar Incentives


Mai nl and Feed in Tari ff Tax Credits Beneficial Credit Terms Investment Grant < 100 kWp > 100 kWp ct 45. 28 /kWh ct 40. 28 /kWh I slands ct 50.28 / kWh ct 45.28 / kWh

Income t ax reduction by 20% of the installation costs, max 700,- on-grid as well as off -grid systems Interest rate support of 4% for credits of 10, 000 350,000, durat ion unt il end of 2008 20-40% of syst em cos ts depending on region and type of company FIT payment duration fix for 10 years, ext ension of furt her 10 years possible inst allations of max. 150 kWp on own ground do not require an operating license. The new proposal which was submit ted to the parliament in November, fores ees new Feed-in Tariff which will be guaranteed f or 20 years and the degress ion rat e will be f ixed and known for 5 years.

Other Informati on

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital Research

142

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 164: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)

Figure 165: Solar Electricity per Capita


80 18 .0 % So lar Elec tr icity Pe r Ca pit a (W/ pe rso n) So lar as % of Re ne wab les 16 .0 % 14 .0 % 12 .0 % 50

500
70

375 250 125 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

60

10 .0 % 40 8. 0% 30 6. 0% 20 4. 0% 2. 0% 0. 0% 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 200 7 200 8 2 009 E 2 010 E 20 11 E 20 12 E

10

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

Figure 166: Elec tricity Market Breakup


Solar, wind, etc 8%

Figure 167: Solar Penetration


4 .0% % Ho us eho ld Pen etr at ion 3 .5% Sola r as % o f O v ral l Elec tr icit y e 3 .0% 2 .5% 2 .0% 1 .5% 1 .0% 0 .5% 0 .0%

Thermal 92%

200 2

20 03

20 04

2 00 5

20 06

2 00 7

2 008

2 009 E

20 10 E

201 1E

20 12 E

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

143

Solar Energy Handbook

China
China plans to install 450MW of solar capacity by 2010 and 1.8GW by 2020.

The Chinese government plans to increase the development of renewable energy to curb its reliance on oil and gas. The share of non-hydro renewables is planned at 1% of total power generation by 2010 and 3% by 2020. China wants to increase its installed capacity of renewable energies to 60GW by 2010. This would include 450MW of solar energy generating capacity. The government has set a target of 1.8GW cumulative installed capacity of solar by 2020. China has also set national goals for solar hot water, with a target of 150 million square miles by 2010 and 300 million square miles by 2020. China passed the Renewable Energy Law in January 2006, which made State Councils responsible for the development of the renewables industry. Under the law, renewable power generation projects are required to obtain administrative permits to proceed and are required to follow an open tendering process for this permit should there be more than one applicant. The law guarantees connection to the grid and purchase of all output at a preapproved price. Grid operators pass on the additional cost of using renewables to the end users. The Chinese government recently introduced 25RMB/W incentive for BIPV roof-top projects in China. Although there is no formal cap, we expect the government to allocate small budget to test the PV market development and follow-up with additional incentives from 2010. Several provincial governments have also expressed interest in promoting solar. The Jiangsu province for instance has announced additional incentives for solar projects with a cap of 240MW.

Figure 168: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)

Figure 169: Solar Electricity per Capita


0.6 Solar E lect ric it y Per Capit a (W/ person) 0.5 0. 1% Solar as % of R enewables 0.4 0.3 0.2 0. 1% 0. 1% 0. 0% 0. 0% 0. 0% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 0. 1%

200

100

0.1 0.0

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E


Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

144

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 170: Elec tricity Market Breakup

Figure 171: Solar Penetration


0.0 %

Nuclear, 2% Hydro, 17%

Solar, wind, etc , 0%

% Hous ehold Pe netr ation 0.0 % Solar as % of Overall Elec tricit y

0.0 %

0.0 %

0.0 %

0.0 %

Thermal, 81%
0.0 % 2002 200 3 2004 2005 20 06 2007 2008 2009 E 2010E 2 011E 201 2E

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

145

Solar Energy Handbook

India
Steps taken by the central and state governments in 2008 should provide a tailwind to the Indian solar industry.

The Indian government plans to subsidize the running of solar power plants to develop a renewable energy infrastructure. The main incentive announced in January 2008 is to provide financial assistance amounting to Rs12 (US$0.30)/kWh for solar PV and Rs10 (US$0.25)/kWh for solar thermal power fed to the electricity grid. The government will allow a maximum capacity of 10MW in each of the countrys states and a maximum of 5MW per developer under this initiative. The Indian government estimates that the private sector will invest about Rs10 billion (US$253.7 million) in solar plants, which could apply for aid under the initiative during the five years to 2012. The government seeks to increase its renewable capacity to 35GW in 2012 from 11GW currently. The state of West Bengal has set a target to generate 500MW from renewable sources by 2015 for commercial purposes; 50MW of this is expected to be generated from solar power. The state of Punjab plans to offer 100MW of solar PV power projects.

Figure 172: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)

Figure 173: Solar Electricity per Capita


0. 8 2 .5% Sola r Ele ctric ity Pe r Ca pita (W/ pers on) 2 .0% 0. 6 Sola r a s % o f Rene wables

400 300 200 100 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

0. 7

0. 5 0. 4 0. 3 0. 2

1 .5%

1 .0%

0 .5% 0. 1 0. 0 20 02 20 03 200 4 200 5 200 6 200 7 2008 2009 E 2 010 E 2 011E 20 12E 0 .0%

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

146

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 174: Elec tricity Market Breakup


Solar, wind, etc, 1%

Figure 175: Solar Penetration


0 .6% % Hous eho ld Pe net rat ion 0 .5% So lar as % of Overa ll Elec tric ity

Nuclear, 2% Hydro, 15%

0 .4%

0 .3%

0 .2%

0 .1%

0 .0% 2 002 20 03 20 04 200 5 200 6 200 7 20 08 200 9E 2 010 E 2 011 E 20 12E

Thermal, 82%

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

147

Solar Energy Handbook

Australia Australia currently generates about 8% of its electricity from renewable sources, almost completely through hydropower. The new government has currently set a goal for renewable sources to generate 20% of the countrys energy needs by 2020. Currently, the different states have their own renewable energy targets. As part of its climate change strategy introduced in 2004, Australia set up a Solar Cities Program. The Australian government created a Photovoltaic Rebate Program (PVRP) in 2000 through which cash rebates were provided for the installation of grid-connected or standalone PV systems. The program was extended by five years in May 2007, with an allocation of A$150 million. The rebate for solar panels is A$8 per watt, up to a maximum of A$8,000. The government has decided to test the rebate and limit it only to households earning less than A$100,000. It has also decided to put a cap on the rebate payout to 6,000 households. State governments have also taken steps to promote solar through feedin tariffs. Figure 176: Australia Capital Territory Estimated Financial Return (AUD)
Sy stem Size Estim ated pu rchase price aft er rebate a nd RECs Annual inco me from electricity generated Approximate return on investment (ROI) annually Total net return in today's do llars af ter p ay off on initial investmen t
Source: Energymatters.com.au

1,05 0 kW with gross fe ed-in-tariff $ 4,000 $777 19.4 3% $1 7,410

1,62 0 kW with gross feed-in tariff $1 0,800 $ 1,227 11.3 6% $2 4,810

1,980 kW wi th gross feed-in-tariff $12,00 0 $1,554 12.95% $33,42 0

Figure 177: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)

Figure 178: Renewable Electricity Market Breakdown


Other 15% Biomass 1%

100 80 60 40 20 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E


Solar 21% Landfill G as 8% W ind 25% Hydro 30%

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: Australian Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator, Barclays Capital research

148

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Austria Renewable energy sources produced 64.9% of Austrias electricity consumption in 2006, with hydropower having the largest share (57.4% of the total). The new Austrian government plans to increase the share of renewables in electricity production to 80% in 2010 and to 85% by 2020. To achieve this goal, it has amended the countrys 2003 Eco-electricity Law, which provided feed-in tariffs between EUR0.47 and EUR0.60/kWh over a guaranteed 13 years. The original PV capacity cap of 15MW was also eliminated. The amendment set a target of 10% electricity generation from new renewables by 2010 and an annual budget of EUR17 million. Eight percent of this funding, or EUR1.36 million, is allocated to solar PV, and there are plans to expand the overall budget share for ecoelectricity, excluding large hydropower, to 15% by 2015. Funding volume for renewable energy systems is to be increased to EUR21 million annually, while the share for PV is to be increased to 12%. The new feed-in tariffs became effective on October 1, 2006. PV tariffs between EUR0.30 and EUR0.46/kWh are to be paid over 10 years, with 75% paid in the eleventh year further reduced by 50% in the twelfth year. The PV segment is funded through a surcharge on each kWh for electricity dealers and end-customers (flat rate for each metering point) and a share of 50% by the states. Together, the PV Austria organization and the Ministry for Environment have created an additional 10,000 roofs program that became effective in April 2008, on top of the amended Eco-electricity Law. Subsidies to private investors of EUR2.7/W or EUR2.8/W are available for rooftop installations and EUR3.5/W is available for faade installations, both applicable to systems of up to 5 kW. Figure 179: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) Figure 180: Elec tricity Market Breakdown

50 40 30 20 10 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E


Solar, wind, etc, 67% Thermal, 33%

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

149

Solar Energy Handbook

Canada The Canadian market was mainly driven by off-grid customers until 2006. The PV industry underwent a significant change after the state of Ottawa launched a Standard Offer Program in 2006. The program has no overall cap, but there is a 10MW cap on an individual project size. Solar and other renewable sources such as wind, biomass, and hydro are eligible under the program. The state has also set a target of installing 100,000 solar roofs through the Go Solar program. The program extended the retail sales tax rebate on solar equipment to January 1, 2010. The SOC program has mostly generated demand for large projects, while there have only been a small amount of residential and small commercial installations. The application process and the following procedures are said to be overly complex. In March, Ontario proposed a Feed-in-Tariff for Various forms of renewable energy production, including onshore and offshore wind, hydroelectric, solar, biogas, biomass, and landfill gas. For rooftop solar installations less than 10KW, system owners will receive CAD 0.802/kWh. The incentives decrease as the installation size increases, maxing out at CAD 0.539/kWh for rooftop systems greater than 500KW. The feed in tariff for ground mounted installations less than 10MW is CAD 0.443/kWh. Figure 181: Ontario Proposed Feed-in-Tariff
Inst allation Type Feed in Tarif f <10kW Rooftop 80.2 10kW - 100kW Rooftop 71.3 100kW- 500kW Rooftop 63.5 >500kW Rooftop 53.9 <10MW Ground Mounted 44.3

Source: PowerAuthority.on. ca

Figure 182: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)

Figure 183: Elec tricity Market Breakdown

400 300 200 100 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Hydro, 59% Nuclear, 15%

Solar, wind, etc, 2%

Thermal, 24%

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital research

150

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Israel Israel has one of the highest solar insolations worldwide, ranging from 1,700kWh to 2,200kWh. PV installations in Israel are dominated by remote homes, agriculture, and exterior lighting. As the country has almost universal access to grid-electricity, which is relatively cheap and dependable, little grid-connected PV was reported before 2006. In August 2006, Israel initiated a feed-in tariff for solar technologies, and the cost analysis of solar thermal plants was the basis for the tariffs. The tariffs were established for two sizes, a tariff of 87.6 agorot ($0.242)/kWh was paid for installations between 100kW and 20MW and a tariff of 70.25 agorot ($0.194)/kWh was paid for installations of more than 20MW. These tariffs are paid for 20 years and are updated annually. Producers are allowed to sell electricity directly to a private customer or to the Israel Electricity Corporation. At the end of 2007, Israel was estimated to have only 1.7MW of PV capacity with only 60kW connected to the grid. The Public Utilities Association introduced a tariff structure of 2.04 ILS ($0.564)/kWh for installations up to 15kW for residential installers and up to 50kW for commercial installers, and these tariffs will be provided for 20 years. From 2010, a 4% reduction in tariffs would occur every year. This structure is expected to be funded by a surcharge of about 0.5%/kWh on electricity bills. A cap of 50MW or seven years, whichever comes first, is put in place for the program. Figure 184: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)
40 30 20 10 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Figure 185: Elec tricity Market Breakdown


Hy dro, 0% Solar, w ind, etc , 0%

Thermal, 100%

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

151

Solar Energy Handbook

Portugal Among the EU countries, Portugal has historically had one of the highest dependencies on oil-generated electricity. Hydropower contributes 15%30% of total electricity generation. A National Energy Strategy for renewable energy was initiated in 2006, introducing plans for resources such as biomass and solar hot water. The country now plans to expand its share of electricity generated from renewables to 39% by 2010. Wind power, as the main focus, is projected to reach installed capacity of 3,750MW by that time. Portugal has had a feed-in tariff system in place since 2005, with varying incentives for the different clean technology forms. There is a 150MW cap for solar PV capacity by 2010, and two ways for system operators to access funding. The first option is to become an Independent Power Producer in a licensing process administered by the DGGE. IPPs receive EUR0.445/kWh for systems below 5kW and EUR0.315/kWh for systems above 5kW. They are either subsidized for 15 years or for total production of 21GWh/MW (for larger systems). The second option consumers have is to sell half of the electricity they generate to the utilities, which are required to buy 50% at slightly below 100% of the feedin tariff for 10 years. This latter option is usually not as financially attractive as the IPP option, and thus far has not been widely used. In general, constrained DGGE licensing and prevailing bureaucracy has kept the process long and difficult to navigate. As a result, Portugals renewables market has not seen highly substantial growth, even with the attractive tariffs. An amendment to the law was set in late 2007. The government will provide a feed-in tariff of EUR0.65/kWh for systems of up to 3.68kW for a maximum of five years. An annual installation volume cap of 10MW exists; after it is reached, the tariff will be reduced by 5%. The approval procedure is expected to be simplified as well. Figure 186: Portuguese Solar Incentives
Law: DL 363/2007 Feed in Tariff Cap <= 3.68 kWp 12MW After this period, for more 10 complete years, the tariff will be reduced by 5% for each 10MW connected until that date. 0.65 /kWh

Payment Fix

Valid for the year of c onnection + 5 complete years

All the installations must have, at least, 2m of solar thermal installed to get the FIT. The law 312/2001 that es tablished the previous FIT was s uspended in January 2005. Law Other Information 363/2007 only allow to get licenses for systems up to 5,75KW. By the way s ys tems with power higher than 3,68 kWp and up to 5,75kWp will be paid with the tariff equal to the domestic house owner's buying price (0,11 kWh) and wont benefit from the FIT. VAT Reduction Beneficial Credit Terms Reduction of VAT from 21% to 12% 100% reduction on interest rates. Started on 2007 and ends on 2013. Applicable only to SMEs to a maximum of 75 000 per project loan for 5 years and 2 years for c apital " carncia". Support level equals to 35% of the total investment. Start year 2007End year 2013 Applicable only to SMEs to a maximum of 250 000 per project. (Portaria 1463/2007)

Investm ent Subsidy

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

152

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 187: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)


60

Figure 188: Elec tricity Market Breakdown

40

Solar, wind, etc, 32%

20

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E


Conventional Thermal, 68%

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

153

Solar Energy Handbook

Switzerland In 2005, 57% of Switzerlands electricity was generated by hydropower and 38% by nuclear power. Renewable energy sources were not sufficiently funded until parliament amended the countrys Energy Law the following year. PV-specific programs had been funded largely by many of the cantons and local communities. Beginning in 2006, the Swiss Federal Council opened discussion on the amendment regarding feed-in tariffs for renewable technologies. The new law came into effect on January 1, 2009. The incentive structure for PV installations is shown below. The feed-in tariff is expected to last for 25 years from the time system operation begins, and then decline by 8% annually applicable to all new insta lla tions in the respective year. The aforementioned cap is dependent on the electricity surcharge billed to end-customers. Figure 189: Switzerland Solar Incentives
Power <10 Ground Based < 30 < 100 > 100 <10 Rooftop < 30 < 100 > 100 Feed In Ta riff Integrated (BIPV) <10 < 30 < 100 > 100 16 Mio CHF Cap This cap will be raised to 32 Mio, as soon as the average price of fe d-in solar electricity of new installations will be lower than abo ut 0.62 CHF Tariff for 25 years. Other Information Tariff Digression rate for new plants of 8% from 2010. Swiss Franc (01/09/2008): 1franc= 0.62
Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Tari ff Swiss Franc (ct/kWh) 2008 0.65 (40.2) 0.54 (33.4) 0.51 (31.6) 0.49 (30.3) 0.75 (46.4) 0.65 (40.2) 0.62 (38.4) 0.60 (37.1) 0.90 (55.7) 0.75 (46.4) 0.67 (41.2) 0.62 (38.4)

154

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 190: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)

Figure 191: Elec tricity Market Breakdown


Solar, wind, etc, 8%

Conventional Thermal, 4%

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Nuclear, 88%
Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

155

Solar Energy Handbook

The Netherlands Electricity in the Netherlands is generated mainly from gas and coal. The government has announced plans to invest EUR800 million in the coming years on renewable energy and energy efficiency. The Dutch solar PV industry has been declining ever since its highest point of 20MW in 2003. At the time, there was extremely favorable support under subsidy schemes such as the Energy Premium Incentive. The simultaneous ending of the EPR and the utility subsidies framework resulted in a dramatic drop in PV investments. The introduction of a EUR0.33/kWh solar PV feed-in tariff came on January 30, 2008, and became effective in April. It will be paid over 15 years for solar electric systems between 0.6 and 3kW. A EUR0.234/kWh, tariff for net-metering will be accompanying it. Figure 192: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW) Figure 193: Elec tricity Market Breakdown
Nuclear, 4% Solar, wind, etc, 4%

15

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Conventional Thermal, 92%


Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital research

156

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

United Kingdom Seventy-six percent of electricity in the United Kingdom is generated from conventional sources and 16% is generated from nuclear. Renewable energy comprises 4% of total generation, with hydropower having a 1.2% share. With low incentives, the United Kingdoms PV market has had only modest activity. The government, however, has set a target of 10% electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and an ambitious 20% by 2020. Although the focus is largely on new nuclear capacity, we believe there will be a more consistent commitment to focus on other clean technologies. To achieve these goals, the government plans to reform the Renewables Obligation and reduce grid-access barriers. Figure 194: UK Solar Incentive Program
1 ROC is delivered for each MWh of green (e.g. PV) electricity produced. The generated electricity can be self-consumed or fed into the grid. The R OCs can be sold to energy suppliers according the quota obligation(increasing each year) they need to fulfill. Average price of ROC is between 35 and 50 . Reduced VAT: 5%

Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC's)

Tax Credits

Investment Grants

Low Carbon Buildings Programme (Phase I and II) Residential: 2,000/kW; 2,500 max. or 50% of project cost, whichever is lower. Public sector buildings and non-profits: 50% of total project cost s; 1.0 million max, 0,5-50 kWp

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

157

Solar Energy Handbook

Other European Regions Belgium On the national level in Belgium, solar electricity producers that are taxpayers are refunded 50% of investment costs of up to EUR3 per watt. Net-metering reduces electricity bills by the amount of produced PV electricity at the normal retail price of EUR0.15/kWh. On the regional level, Flanders green certificates place a EUR0.45/kWh value on solar electricity for 20 years from the date of installation. Net-metering compensation is available as well. The Ecology Premium program still exists to provide commercial PV investors grants that recover a portion of costs. Subsidies are also offered by some municipalities. Figure 195:Belgium Solar Incentives
Brussels Duration Up to 20 m2 (B) Up to 5 kWp (W) No Si ze Limitation (F) Green Certificates Next 40m2 (B) Next 5 kWp (W) No Si ze Limitation All further m2 (B) 10-250 kWp(W) No Si ze Limitation All Further kWp (W) Pri vate Households 50% of investment (max 3/Wp) 0.15 /kWh 20% of investment (max 3500) 20%/10% of additional costs f or SME/ larger companies, max 1.5 Mio until resources are used up, currently 25 Mio. ) 0. 15 - 0.32 /kWh 0.15 - 0.36 /kWh 0. 15 - 0.50 /kWh 0.32 - 0.45 /kWh 0.45 / kWh 0. 15 - 0.65 /kWh 0.45 - 0.63 /kWh 10 Years Wallonia 15 Years Flanders 20 Years

Investment Grants

Companies

Max 50% or 200,000

Max 50% of invest ment f or SMEs, 20% for larger companies

Public bui ldings and non commercial entities Tax Credi ts Net Metering
Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

30% of invest ment for public and non commercial entities Privat e: Tax Reduction of 40% of Invest ment, max 3440 / residence (2008) Companies: 13.5% of inst allation cost deductible from profit t ax Possible for Installations <= 10kW

158

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 196: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)

Figure 197: Elec tricity Market Breakdown


Solar, wind, etc, 3%

25

Conventional Thermal, 43% Nuc lear, 54%

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital research

Bulgaria Bulgaria has a 25-year feed-in tariff for solar installations. For systems less than 5kWp, the government will pay approximately EUR0.40/kWh. This number falls to EUR0.37/kWh for systems greater than 5kWp. There is no cap on installations, but the maximum system size is 10MW for all systems installed after March 31, 2009. For systems installed before this date there is no limit on system size. Figure 198: Bulgaria Feed in Tariff
<= 5 kWp Feed in Tariff 0,782 BGN/kW h (~ 0,40 /kWh) Duration > 5 KwP 0,718 BGN/kWh (~0,37 /kW h) 25 Years

Other Information

Tariff Annual Review S ystem Limit Cap

The tariff is regulate every y ear (by 31st M arch) based on the following: The FIT rate is derived from a portion of 80% of the average elec tricity price in the previous year. A variable sur charge is added that cannot be les s than 95% of the previous years level. That means the PV FIT c ould also inc reas e as electricity prices have ris en s harply in Bulgaria in the past years. 10 MW Plant (Any Size for plants installed before March 31st, 2009) None

FIT Legal duration until end of 2010 Beneficial Credit Terms Up to 20% of the project inves tm ent from the Bulgarian E ner gy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Credit Line (B EERECL)

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital Research

Cyprus The PV market is still very young in Cyprus, but the countrys strong radiation profile provides solid conditions for solar. Ninety percent of private households already have solar hot water systems. In 2007, the grid-linked market reached 1MW. The incentive structure in Cyprus distinguishes between on-grid systems for homes and enterprises not engaged in economic activities, systems for companies, and off-grid systems. Households can either receive a grant of 55% of total system cost up to EUR64,927, with the option to

May 01, 2009

159

Solar Energy Handbook

sell generated electricity to the Electricity Authority of Cyprus (EAC) at EUR0.205/kWh in tariffs, or else receive remuneration at an increased tariff of EUR0.383/kWh. Companies are not eligible for PV grants, but can sell generated electricity at EUR0.333/kWh in tariffs. Stand-alone systems receive a grant of 55% of costs. Figure 199: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)
50 40 30 20 10 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E
Thermal, 100%

Figure 200: Elec tricity Market Breakdown

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital research

Czech Republic There are two incentive options for system operators, the first being a 20 year feed-in of EUR0.52/kWh. A green bonus system is also available, where electricity is sold directly to customers or dealers and the grid operator adds a green bonus. The bonus system provides incentives of EUR0.48/kWh. The remuneration lasts 20 years and is adjusted to electricity prices annually. Figure 201: Czech Republic Solar Incentives
Fixed FIT Fe ed in Tariff and/ or Green Premium Tax Credi ts 0,512/kWh (13,460 CZK/MW h) Green Bonus 0,481 / kW h (12, 650 CZK/MWh)

Income is exem pt from taxes (Act No. 5 86/1992, on I ncom e Ta x) Operators m ay receive subsidies unde r the European Structural Funds or the natio nal progra mme. State Environmental Fund. The national programm e con sists of several su b-programm es, im plem ented by the Ministry of Environm ent which allows fo r the p romotion of all technologies use d in t he generation of rene wable ele ctricity. In 2007, o nly PV systems whose capacity d id not exceed 5 kW p were promot ed.

I nvestment Subs idy

ECO-ENERGY program me of th e Op erational Programme Enterprise and Innovation s. I t gives entreprene urs the oppo rtunity to apply for investme nt grant s or low-interest loan s fo r projects in the field of renewable energy within. This program me is funded by th e ERDF (European Regiona l Developme nt Fund ). Operational Programme Environm ent. It allocates investment grants from the Cohesion Fund t o projects in t he field o f renewa ble en ergy. The am ount of prices for elect ricity from renewable sources and gree n bonuses are yearly determined by the Energy Regulatory office. The purchase prices are adjuste d related to inflation.

Other Information

The FIT is granted for 20 years. Values at December 16: 1.00 CZK=0 .0380595 EUR 1.00 EUR=26.2 620 CZK

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital Research

160

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 202: Annual Solar Installa tions (MW)


100

Figure 203: Elec tricity Market Breakdown

Solar, wind, etc, 3%

50

Nuclear, 30%

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Conventional Thermal, 67%

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital estimates

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

161

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 204: Solar Demand Scenario (200512E)


MW 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Japan y/y (%) Germany y/y (%) Italy y/y (%)


Spai n

292 14% 837 53%


6

292 0% 960 15%


60

230 -21% 1,328 38%


87

230 0% 1,860 40%


240

334 45% 1,897 2%


480

567 70% 2,277 20%


816

737 30% 2,732 20%


1,224

848 15% 3,278 20%


1,591

NM
35

900%
110

45%
428

45%
2,460

100%
300

70%
360

50%
432

30%
518

y/y (%)
Franc e

40%
7

214%
11

289%
16

475%
33

-88%
98

20%
196

20%
392

20%
785

y/y (%)
Greec e

43%
1

56%
1

50%
12

100%
30

200%
44

100%
87

100%
200

100%
460

y/y (%)
Czec h Republi c

-3%
0

20%
0

900%
4

150%
7

45%
42

100%
55

130%
71

130%
92

y/y (%)
Aus tri a

NM
3

NM
2

NM
3

100%
6

500%
19

30%
24

30%
32

30%
41

y/y (%)
Por tugal

-29%
0

-47%
0

56%
12

150%
18

200%
27

30%
35

30%
46

30%
59

y/y (%)
Swi tzerl and

-20%
4

-100%
3

NM
3

50%
6

50%
7

30%
9

30%
12

30%
15

y/y (%)
The Nether lands

90%
2

-35%
2

15%
1

100%
2

15%
10

30%
13

30%
17

30%
22

y/y (%)
Bel gium

-53%
0

-12%
0

-33%
2

100%
4

400%
12

30%
16

30%
20

30%
26

y/y (%)
Cyprus

NM
0

NM
0

NM
1

100%
2

200%
12

30%
18

30%
27

30%
41

y/y (%)
Rest of Eur ope

NM
40

NM
74

NM
107

100%
202

500%
124

50%
148

50%
178

50%
213

y/y (%)
US

-9%
105

85%
140

45%
220

131%
360

-50%
360

20%
1,080

20%
2,052

20%
3,488

y/y (%)
Canada

25%
3

33%
4

57%
4

64%
9

0%
53

200%
158

90%
238

70%
356

y/y (%)
China

33%
15

36%
20

16%
24

100%
29

500%
58

200%
104

50%
166

50%
232

y/y (%)
South K or ea

200%
5

33%
21

20%
42

20%
280

100%
392

80%
588

60%
1,088

40%
1,414

y/y (%)
Indi a

100%
16

324%
12

100%
17

560%
31

40%
63

50%
119

85%
226

30%
384

y/y (%)
Aus trali a

23%
8

-25%
10

45%
16

80%
20

100%
40

90%
56

90%
72

70%
88

y/y (%)
Isr ael

24%
0

17%
0

65%
0

25%
0

100%
9

40%
14

29%
21

22%
32

y/y (%)
Others

-75%
101

200%
107

0%
164

50%
121

2000%
75

50%
98

50%
127

50%
165

y/y (%) Total y/y (%)


Sourc e: Sol arbuzz , B arc lay s Capital Es tim ates

-3% 1,460 34%

6% 1,808 24%

54% 2,677 48%

-9% 5,950 122%

-38% 4,454 -25%

550% 6,837 54%

534% 10,109 48%

449% 14,151 40%

162

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 205: New PV Installations Breakdown

16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000

140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40%

6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E y/y (%) 2012E

20% 0% -20% -40%

NEW PV INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN (MW)

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, Solarbuzz

May 01, 2009

163

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 206: Germany Solar PV Demand Model


Germany Annu al Sol ar In stal latio ns (MW) y/y (%) Cumul ati ve So lar Capaci ty (M W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/y (%) Renewabl e Electrici ty Gen erated (Bi ll ion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Renewab les Overal l I nstall ed Capacity ('000 M W) y/y (%) Overal l Electrici ty Generated (Bill io n kWh) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelectric Power Nucl ear Power Ot her Renewables (Geo., Sol ar, Wi nd and Waste Electric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of Overal l El ectri city Renewabl es as % o f Overall El ectr icity ELECTRI CI TY PRI CE PARAMETERS Annu al I nsol ati on (kWh /sq. m) Con versi on Efficiency (%) Solar System Pri ces ($/W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) - Unsubsi dized Subsi dies ($/ kWh) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) - Su bsidi zed Retail Electricity Price ($/ kWh) y/y (%) I NVESTM ENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal I nvestment I RR (%) Payb ack Peri od (Years) L AND AREA PARAMETERS Solar El ectri city Land Availab le (sq. km) Area (sq. km)/kWh Requi red % Lan d Covered with Sol ar SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN Resid enti al y/y (%) C&I Roofto p y/y (%) Util ity Scal e/Grou nd-Mou nted y/y (%) PER CAPI TA PARAMETERS Popul ation (mi ll ion ) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Per Capita (W/ person) # Ho usehol ds (mil lio n) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househol ds (kW) Average Solar In stal lation Requi red Per Househol ds (kW) % Househo ld Penetration # Incremental Ho usehold s I nstal li ng Sol ar ('000)
2002 2003 170 2004 546 2005 837 2006 960 2007 1, 328 2008 1,860 2009E 1,897 2010E 2, 277 2011E 2,732 2012E 3,278

83 5%
278

105%
448

221%
994

53%
1,831

15%
2, 791

38%
4, 119

40%
5,979

2%
7,876

20%
10,153

20%
12, 885

20%
16,163

43%
0.27

61%
0.43

122%
0. 88

84%
1.58

52%
2.42

48%
3.57

45%
5.18

32%
6.82

29%
8.79

27%
11.15

25%
13. 99

43%
50

61%
51

103%
61

79%
62

52%
74

48%
81

45%
89

32%
98

29%
108

27%
119

25%
131

14% 0. 5%
116

2% 0. 8%
122

19% 1.5%
121

2% 2. 5%
120

19% 3.3%
123

10% 4.4%
125

10% 5.8%
128

10% 6. 9%
130

10% 8.1%
133

10% 9.4%
136

10% 10.7%
138

2%
536 329 23 157 28

5%
563 355 19 157 32

-1%
577 357 21 159 40

0%
579 362 19 155 43

2%
592 359 21 159 53

2%
604 366 21 162 54

2%
616 374 22 165 55

2%
628

2%
641

2%
654

2%
667

-3% 0.05% 9.41%

5% 0.08% 9.11%

2% 0.15% 10.56%

0% 0.27% 10. 74%

2% 0. 41% 12.49%

2% 0. 59% 13.47%

2% 0.84% 14.53%

2% 1.09% 15. 67%

2% 1. 37% 16.90%

2% 1. 71% 18.22%

2% 2.10% 19. 65%

1,250 16% 11. 0

1,250 16% 11.0

1,250 16% 10.5

1,250 16% 10. 0

1, 250 16% 9.5

1, 250 16% 6.5

1,250 16% 6.0

1,250 16% 5.0

1, 250 16% 4.0

1,250 16% 3.5

1,250 16% 3. 0

-8%
$0. 50 $0. 00 $0. 50 $0. 00 $0.48 $0.47 $0. 46 $0. 47 0% $0. 50 $0. 14 10% $0. 50 $0. 18 29% $0.01 $0.20 13% ($0.01) $0. 21 7% $0.43 $0.49 4% ($0.06) $0.22 $0.30 $0.57 17% ($0.28) $0.22 $0.27 $0.54

-16%
$0. 23 $0. 49

-20%
$0.18 $0.46

-12%
$0.16 $0.43

-15%
$0. 14 $0. 40

-7%
($0.26) $0.22

-9%
($0.26) $0. 23

-7%
($0.27) $0.23

-7%
($0. 27) $0.24

-7%
($0.26) $0. 24

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

$44, 000

$44, 000

$42,000

$40, 000

$38,000

$26,000

$23,920

$20, 093

$16,074

$14,145

$12, 024

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

3.9% NA

4.1% NA

4. 5% NA

7. 7% 13

7. 9% 13

8.5% 12

9. 9% 10

10.6% 9

11. 6% 9

357, 868

357, 868

357,868

357, 868

357,868

357,868

357,868

357, 868

357,868

357,868

357, 868

1.3 0. 000%

2. 2 0. 001%

4. 4 0.001%

7. 9 0. 002%

12. 1 0.003%

17. 8 0.005%

25. 9 0. 007%

34. 1 0. 010%

43. 9 0.012%

55.8 0.016%

70.0 0. 020%

42 25 17

85 51 34

273 164 109

419 251 167

480 288 192

664 398 266

930 558 372

854 569 474

1,024 683 569

1, 229 820 683

1,475 984 820

82. 2

82.3

82.4

82. 4

82.5

82. 6

82. 6

82. 7

82. 8

82.8

82.9

0.08%
3.4 39. 1

0.08%
5. 4 39.1

0.08%
12.1 39.1

0.08%
22. 2 39. 2

0. 08%
33.8 39.2

0. 08%
49. 9 39. 2

0.08%
72. 4 39. 3

0.08%
95. 2 39. 3

0. 08%
122.7 39. 3

0. 08%
155. 6 39.4

0.08%
195.0 39.4

0.08%
3.6 4.0

0.08%
5. 7 4. 0

0.08%
12.7 4.0

0.08%
23. 4 4. 0

0. 08%
35.6 4.0

0. 08%
52. 5 4.0

0.08%
76. 1 4.0

0.08%
97. 8 4.0

0. 08%
123.8 4.0

0. 08%
154. 9 4.0

0.08%
192.2 4. 0

0.09%

0.14% 21

0.32% 68

0.58% 105

0. 89% 120

1. 31% 166

1.90% 232

2.45% 213

3. 09% 255

3. 87% 306

4.81% 368

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, EIA, Solarbuzz

164

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 207: Spain Solar PV Demand Model


Spai n Ann ual So lar I nstall ation s (MW) y/ y (%) Cumul ative Sol ar Capaci ty (M W) y/ y (%) Sol ar Electrici ty Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/ y (%) Renew able El ectri city Gen erated (Bil lio n kWh ) y/ y (%) Sol ar as % o f Renewabl es Overal l Instal led Capacity ('000 MW) y/ y (%) Overal l El ectri city Gen erated (Bil li on kWh ) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelect ri c Power Nuclear Power Ot her Renewabl es (Geo. , Sol ar, W ind and W ast e Electric Power) y/ y (%) Sol ar as % o f Overall Electri city Renew ables as % of Over al l El ectrici ty ELECT RI CIT Y PRICE PARAMETERS Ann ual Inso latio n (kWh/ sq. m) Con ver si on Effici ency (%) Sol ar System Prices ($/ W) y/ y (%) Sol ar Electrici ty Pri ce ($/kWh ) - Unsub si di zed Subsi di es ($/kWh) y/ y (%) Sol ar Electrici ty Pri ce ($/kWh ) - Subsid ized Retail Electri ci ty Pri ce ($/ kWh ) y/ y (%) I NVESTM ENT RET URN PARAM ETERS T otal Investment I RR (%) Payback Period (Years) L AND AREA PARAMET ERS Sol ar Electrici ty Land Avai lab le (sq. km) Area (sq. km)/ kWh Req uired % L and Co vered wi th Sol ar SOLAR I NSTALL ATI ONS BREAKDOWN Resi dential y/ y (%) C&I Rooftop y/ y (%) Util ity Scale/ Groun d-Moun ted y/ y (%) PER CAPITA PARAMET ERS Popu latio n (mil li on) y/ y (%) Sol ar Electrici ty Per Cap ita (W/ person) # Househol ds (mi ll ion ) y/ y (%) Average Sol ar Capaci ty Per 1000 Househ olds (kW) Average Sol ar I nstall ati on Requi red Per Hou sehol ds (kW) % Hou sehol d Penetrati on # In cr emental Househ old s In stal li ng So lar (' 000)
2002 5 2003 15 2004 25 2005 35 2006 110 2007 428 2008 2,460 2009E 300 2010E 360 2011E 432 2012E 518

NM
5

200%
20

67%
45

40%
80

214%
190

289%
618

475%
3,078

-88%
3,378

20%
3, 738

20%
4, 170

20%
4, 688

NM
0. 00

300%
0.00

125%
0.08

78%
0.14

138%
0.34

225%
1. 10

398%
5.47

10%
6. 01

11%
6.65

12%
7.41

12%
8.33

NM
34

NM
55

NM
50

78%
43

138%
55

225%
63

398%
73

10%
84

11%
94

12%
103

12%
114

-30% 0.0%
51

62% 0. 0%
58

-10% 0.2%
66

-14% 0.3%
67

30% 0. 6%
68

15% 1.7%
70

15% 7. 5%
71

15% 7.2%
72

12% 7.1%
74

10% 7.2%
75

10% 7.3%
77

4%
229 135 23 60 12

15%
245 131 41 59 15

15%
260 150 31 60 18

1%
270 173 19 55 23

2%
283 171 25 57 30

2%
289 174 26 58 30

2%
295 178 26 59 31

2%
301

2%
307

2%
313

2%
319

3% 0. 00% 14.99%

7% 0.00% 22. 63%

6% 0. 03% 19.11%

4% 0. 05% 15.73%

5% 0.12% 19. 46%

2% 0. 38% 21.94%

2% 1.86% 24. 74%

2% 2. 00% 27.89%

2% 2. 17% 30.63%

2% 2. 37% 33.03%

2% 2. 61% 35.62%

1,950 16% 11.0

1,950 16% 11.0

1, 950 16% 10. 5

1, 950 16% 10. 0

1,950 16% 9.5

1,950 16% 6.5

1,950 16% 6. 0

1,950 16% 5.0

1, 950 16% 4.0

1, 950 16% 3.5

1, 950 16% 3.0

0%
$0.32 $0.00

0%
$0. 32 $0. 00

-5%
$0.31 $0.47

-5%
$0.29 $0.47 0% ($0.18) $0.15 1%

-5%
$0. 28 $0. 49 4% ($0.21) $0. 17 7%

-32%
$0.19 $0.57 17% ($0. 38) $0.17

-8%
$0. 18 $0. 57

-16%
$0.15 $0.43

-20%
$0.12 $0.43

-12%
$0.10 $0.39

-15%
$0.09 $0.35

0%
($0.40) $0. 17

-25%
($0. 28) $0.18

0%
($0.31) $0.18

-10%
($0.28) $0.18

-10%
($0.26) $0.19

$0.32 $0.11 5%

$0. 32 $0. 14 20%

($0.16) $0.15 11%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

$33,000

$44, 000

$42,000

$40,000

$38, 000

$26,000

$23, 920

$20,093

$16,074

$14,145

$12,024

0. 0% NA

0.0% NA

6. 1% 16

6. 4% 16

7. 1% 14

12. 1% 8

13.1% 8

11.7% 9

14.6% 7

15.0% 7

15.8% 6

504,782

504, 782

504,782

504,782

504, 782

504,782

504, 782

504,782

504,782

504,782

504,782

0.0 0.000%

0. 0 0. 000%

0.3 0.000%

0.5 0.000%

1.1 0. 000%

3. 5 0.001%

17. 5 0. 003%

19.2 0.004%

21. 3 0.004%

23. 8 0.005%

26. 7 0.005%

0 1 4

0 3 12

1 5 20

1 7 27

2 22 86

9 86 334

49 492 1,919

90 30 180

108 36 216

130 43 259

156 52 311

39.3

39.7

40. 2

40. 6

41. 1

41.6

42. 0

42.5

43. 0

43. 5

43. 9

1. 12%
0.1 14.3

1.12%
0. 5 14.5

1. 12%
1.1 14. 7

1. 12%
2.0 14. 8

1.12%
4.6 15. 0

1. 12%
14.9 15.2

1.12%
73. 2 15. 3

1. 12%
79.5 15.5

1. 12%
87. 0 15. 7

1. 12%
96. 0 15. 9

1. 12%
106.7 16. 0

1. 12%
0.0 3.0

1.12%
0. 0 4. 0

1. 12%
0.1 4.0

1. 12%
0.1 4.0

1.12%
0.3 4.0

1. 12%
0.8 4.0

1.12%
4. 0 4. 0

1. 12%
9.8 4.0

1. 12%
16. 6 4.0

1. 12%
24. 5 4.0

1. 12%
34. 0 4.0

0. 00%

0.00% 0

0. 00% 0

0. 00% 0

0.01% 1

0. 02% 2

0.10% 12

0. 24% 22

0. 41% 27

0. 61% 32

0. 85% 38

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, EIA, Solarbuzz

May 01, 2009

165

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 208: Italy Solar PV Demand Model


I tal y Annu al Sol ar In stal latio ns (MW) y/y (%) Cumul ati ve So lar Capaci ty (M W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/y (%) Renewabl e Electrici ty Gen erated (Bi ll ion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Renewab les Overal l I nstall ed Capacity ('000 M W) y/y (%) Overal l Electrici ty Generated (Bill io n kWh) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelectric Power Nucl ear Power Ot her Renewables (Geo., Sol ar, Wi nd and Waste Electric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of Overal l El ectri city Renewabl es as % o f Overall El ectr icity ELECTRI CI TY PRI CE PARAMETERS Annu al I nsol ati on (kWh /sq. m) Con versi on Efficiency (%) Solar System Pri ces ($/W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) - Unsubsi dized Subsi dies ($/ kWh) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) - Su bsidi zed Retail Electricity Price ($/ kWh) y/y (%) I NVESTM ENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal I nvestment I RR (%) Payb ack Peri od (Years) L AND AREA PARAMETERS Solar El ectri city Land Availab le (sq. km) Area (sq. km)/kWh Requi red % Lan d Covered with Sol ar SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN Resid enti al y/y (%) C&I Roofto p y/y (%) Util ity Scal e/Grou nd-Mou nted y/y (%) PER CAPI TA PARAMETERS Popul ation (mi ll ion ) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Per Capita (W/ person) # Ho usehol ds (mil lio n) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househol ds (kW) Average Solar In stal lation Requi red Per Househol ds (kW) % Househo ld Penetration # Incremental Ho usehold s I nstal li ng Sol ar ('000)
2002 0 2003 0 2004 0 2005 6 2006 60 2007 87 2008 240 2009E 480 2010E 816 2011E 1,224 2012E 1,591

NM
0

NM
0

NM
0

NM
6

900%
66

45%
153

45%
393

100%
873

70%
1, 689

50%
2,913

30%
4,504

NM
0.00

NM
0.00

NM
0. 00

NM
0.00

1000%
0.09

132%
0.21

157%
0.54

122%
1.19

93%
2.30

72%
3. 97

55%
6.14

NM
49

NM
45

NM
52

NM
47

NM
51

132%
56

157%
62

122%
68

93%
75

72%
82

55%
90

-11% 0. 0%
69

-8% 0. 0%
70

16% 0.0%
71

-9% 0. 0%
77

7% 0.2%
79

10% 0.4%
80

10% 0.9%
82

10% 1. 8%
84

10% 3.1%
85

10% 4.8%
87

10% 6. 8%
89

1%
263 214 39 0 10

1%
268 223 33 0 12

3%
278 225 39 0 13

8%
279 231 33 0 14

2%
292 241 36 0 15

2%
297 245 36 0 15

2%
303 250 37 0 16

2%
309

2%
316

2%
322

2%
328

2% 0.00% 18. 62%

2% 0.00% 16. 79%

3% 0.00% 18.88%

0% 0.00% 17. 05%

5% 0. 03% 17.47%

2% 0. 07% 18.84%

2% 0.18% 20.31%

2% 0.38% 21. 91%

2% 0. 73% 23.62%

2% 1. 23% 25.48%

2% 1.87% 27. 48%

1,650 16% 11. 0

1,650 16% 11.0

1,650 16% 10.5

1,650 16% 10. 0

1, 650 16% 9.5

1, 650 16% 6.5

1,650 16% 6.0

1,650 16% 5.0

1, 650 16% 4.0

1,650 16% 3.5

1,650 16% 3. 0

0%
$0. 38 $0. 00

0%
$0. 38 $0. 00

-5%
$0.36 $0.00

-5%
$0. 35 $0. 00

-5%
$0.33 $0.00

-32%
$0.23 $0.67

-8%
$0.21 $0.65

-16%
$0. 17 $0. 64

-20%
$0.14 $0.63

-12%
$0.12 $0.62

-15%
$0. 10 $0. 60

-2%
$0. 38 $0. 16 5% $0. 38 $0. 19 19% $0.36 $0.19 3% $0. 35 $0. 20 4% $0.33 $0.20 ($0.44) $0.21 ($0.45) $0.21

-2%
($0.47) $0. 21

-2%
($0.49) $0.22

-2%
($0. 49) $0.22

-2%
($0.50) $0. 23

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

$33, 000

$33, 000

$31,500

$30, 000

$28,500

$19,500

$17,940

$15, 070

$12,056

$10,609

$9,018

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0. 0% NA

11.9% 8

12.6% 8

14.7% 7

18.1% 6

20.1% 5

23. 2% 4

301, 245

301, 245

301,245

301, 245

301,245

301,245

301,245

301, 245

301,245

301,245

301, 245

0.0 0. 000%

0. 0 0. 000%

0. 0 0.000%

0. 0 0. 000%

0.3 0.000%

0.8 0.000%

2.0 0. 001%

4.5 0. 001%

8.7 0.003%

15.0 0.005%

23.3 0. 008%

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

4 1 1

42 9 9

61 13 13

168 36 36

264 72 144

449 122 245

673 184 367

875 239 477

57. 0

57.1

57.2

57. 2

57.3

57. 4

57. 4

57. 5

57. 6

57.7

57.7

0.13%
0.0 22. 9

0.13%
0. 0 22.9

0.13%
0.0 22.9

0.13%
0. 1 23. 0

0. 13%
1.2 23.0

0. 13%
2.7 23. 0

0.13%
6.8 23. 1

0.13%
15. 2 23. 1

0. 13%
29. 3 23. 1

0. 13%
50.5 23.1

0.13%
78.0 23.2

0.13%
0.0 3.0

0.13%
0. 0 3. 0

0.13%
0.0 3.0

0.13%
0. 2 3. 0

0. 13%
2.0 3.0

0. 13%
4.7 3.0

0.13%
11. 9 3.0

0.13%
23. 3 3.0

0. 13%
42. 7 3.0

0. 13%
71.8 3.0

0.13%
109.4 3. 0

0.00%

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.01% 1

0. 07% 14

0. 16% 20

0.40% 56

0.78% 88

1. 42% 149

2. 39% 224

3.65% 291

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, EIA, Solarbuzz

166

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 209: France Solar PV Demand Model


F ran ce Annu al Sol ar In stal latio ns (MW) y/y (%) Cumul ati ve So lar Capaci ty (M W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/y (%) Renewabl e Electrici ty Gen erated (Bi ll ion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Renewab les Overal l I nstall ed Capacity ('000 M W) y/y (%) Overal l Electrici ty Generated (Bill io n kWh) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelectric Power Nucl ear Power Ot her Renewables (Geo., Sol ar, Wi nd and Waste Electric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of Overal l El ectri city Renewabl es as % o f Overall El ectr icity ELECTRI CI TY PRI CE PARAMETERS Annu al I nsol ati on (kWh /sq. m) Con versi on Efficiency (%) Solar System Pri ces ($/W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) - Unsubsi dized Subsi dies ($/ kWh) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) - Su bsidi zed Retail Electricity Price ($/ kWh)
2002

3 27%
17

2003 4

2004 5

2005 7

2006 11

2007 16

2008 33

2009E 98

2010E 196

2011E 392

2012E 785

18%
21

26%
26

43%
33

56%
44

50%
60

100%
93

200%
191

100%
387

100%
780

100%
1,564

24%
0.01

23%
0.01

23%
0. 01

27%
0.02

33%
0.03

37%
0.03

54%
0.05

106%
0.11

103%
0.22

101%
0. 45

101%
0.90

24%
65

23%
64

23%
65

27%
57

33%
63

37%
69

54%
76

106%
83

103%
92

101%
101

101%
111

-17% 0. 0%
112

-2% 0. 0%
112

2% 0.0%
112

-12% 0. 0%
113

9% 0.0%
115

10% 0.1%
117

10% 0.1%
120

10% 0. 1%
122

10% 0.2%
124

10% 0.4%
127

10% 0. 8%
129

0%
528 48 60 415 5

0%
535 52 59 419 6

0%
542 51 59 426 6

1%
544 57 51 429 6

2%
542 52 55 428 7

2%
553 53 56 436 8

2%
564 54 57 445 8

2%
576

2%
587

2%
599

2%
611

1% 0.00% 12. 34%

1% 0.00% 11. 97%

1% 0.00% 12.00%

0% 0.00% 10. 57%

0% 0. 00% 11.54%

2% 0. 01% 12.45%

2% 0.01% 13.42%

2% 0.02% 14. 47%

2% 0. 04% 15.61%

2% 0. 07% 16.83%

2% 0.15% 18. 15%

1,250 16% 11. 0

1,250 16% 11.0

1,250 16% 10.5

1,250 16% 10. 0

1, 250 16% 9.5

1, 250 16% 6.5

1,250 16% 6.0

1,250 16% 5.0

1, 250 16% 4.0

1,250 16% 3.5

1,250 16% 3. 0

-8%
$0. 50 $0. 00 $0. 50 $0. 00 $0.48 $0.00 $0. 46 $0. 00 $0.43 $0.66 $0.30 $0.77 17% ($0.47) $0.15 $0.27 $0.75

-16%
$0. 23 $0. 74

-20%
$0.18 $0.72

-12%
$0.16 $0.71

-15%
$0. 14 $0. 70

-2%
($0.48) $0.15

-2%
($0.51) $0. 15

-2%
($0.54) $0.16

-2%
($0. 55) $0.16

-2%
($0.56) $0. 16

$0. 50 $0. 11

$0. 50 $0. 13

$0.48 $0.14

$0. 46 $0. 14

($0.23) $0.14

2% I NVESTM ENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal I nvestment I RR (%) Payb ack Peri od (Years) L AND AREA PARAMETERS Solar El ectri city Land Availab le (sq. km) Area (sq. km)/kWh Requi red % Lan d Covered with Sol ar SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN Resid enti al y/y (%) C&I Roofto p y/y (%) Util ity Scal e/Grou nd-Mou nted y/y (%) PER CAPI TA PARAMETERS Popul ation (mi ll ion ) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Per Capita (W/ person) # Ho usehol ds (mil lio n) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househol ds (kW) Average Solar In stal lation Requi red Per Househol ds (kW) % Househo ld Penetration # Incremental Ho usehold s I nstal li ng Sol ar ('000)

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

$33, 000

$33, 000

$31,500

$30, 000

$28,500

$19,500

$17,940

$15, 070

$12,056

$10,609

$9,018

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

6. 1% 16

10.4% 10

11.0% 9

12.9% 8

15.8% 6

17.6% 6

20. 3% 5

543, 965

543, 965

543,965

543, 965

543,965

543,965

543,965

543, 965

543,965

543,965

543, 965

0.0 0. 000%

0. 1 0. 000%

0. 1 0.000%

0. 1 0. 000%

0.1 0.000%

0.2 0.000%

0.3 0. 000%

0.5 0. 000%

1.1 0.000%

2.2 0.000%

4. 5 0. 001%

1 1 2

1 1 2

1 2 3

2 2 4

3 3 6

5 5 9

10 10 18

29 31 54

59 62 108

118 124 216

235 247 432

59. 4

59.7

59.9

60. 2

60.4

60. 6

60. 9

61. 1

61. 4

61.6

61.9

0.41%
0.3 24. 5

0.41%
0. 4 24.6

0.41%
0.4 24.7

0.41%
0. 5 24. 8

0. 41%
0.7 24.9

0. 41%
1.0 25. 0

0.41%
1.5 25. 1

0.41%
3.1 25. 2

0. 41%
6.3 25. 3

0. 41%
12.6 25.4

0.41%
25.3 25.5

0.41%
0.2 3.0

0.41%
0. 3 3. 0

0.41%
0.3 3.0

0.41%
0. 4 3. 0

0. 41%
0.5 3.0

0. 41%
0.7 3.0

0.41%
1.1 3.0

0.41%
2.3 3.0

0. 41%
4.6 3.0

0. 41%
9.2 3.0

0.41%
18.4 3. 0

0.01%

0.01% 0

0.01% 0

0.01% 1

0. 02% 1

0. 02% 2

0.04% 3

0.08% 10

0. 15% 20

0. 31% 39

0.61% 78

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, EIA, Solarbuzz

May 01, 2009

167

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 210: Greece Solar PV Demand Model


Greece Annu al Sol ar In stal latio ns (MW) y/y (%) Cumul ati ve So lar Capaci ty (M W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/y (%) Renewabl e Electrici ty Gen erated (Bi ll ion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Renewab les Overal l I nstall ed Capacity ('000 M W) y/y (%) Overal l Electrici ty Generated (Bill io n kWh) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelectric Power Nucl ear Power Ot her Renewables (Geo., Sol ar, Wi nd and Waste Electric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of Overal l El ectri city Renewabl es as % o f Overall El ectr icity ELECTRI CI TY PRI CE PARAMETERS Annu al I nsol ati on (kWh /sq. m) Con versi on Efficiency (%) Solar System Pri ces ($/W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) - Unsubsi dized Subsi dies ($/ kWh) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) - Su bsidi zed Retail Electricity Price ($/ kWh) y/y (%) I NVESTM ENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal I nvestment I RR (%) Payb ack Peri od (Years) L AND AREA PARAMETERS Solar El ectri city Land Availab le (sq. km) Area (sq. km)/kWh Requi red % Lan d Covered with Sol ar SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN Resid enti al y/y (%) C&I Roofto p y/y (%) Util ity Scal e/Grou nd-Mou nted y/y (%) PER CAPI TA PARAMETERS Popul ation (mi ll ion ) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Per Capita (W/ person) # Ho usehol ds (mil lio n) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househol ds (kW) Average Solar In stal lation Requi red Per Househol ds (kW) % Househo ld Penetration # Incremental Ho usehold s I nstal li ng Sol ar ('000)
2002

0 -10%
2

2003 0

2004 1

2005 1

2006 1

2007 12

2008 30

2009E 44

2010E 87

2011E 200

2012E 460

-10%
2

186%
3

-3%
4

20%
6

900%
18

150%
48

45%
91

100%
178

130%
378

130%
838

-1%
0.00

18%
0.01

44%
0. 01

30%
0.01

27%
0.01

215%
0.04

171%
0.12

91%
0.23

96%
0.45

112%
0. 95

122%
2.10

-1%
4

18%
6

44%
6

30%
6

27%
7

215%
8

171%
9

91%
10

96%
11

112%
12

122%
13

22% 0. 1%
10

64% 0. 1%
11

0% 0.1%
11

7% 0. 2%
12

17% 0.2%
12

10% 0.5%
12

10% 1.3%
12

10% 2. 3%
13

10% 4.1%
13

10% 7.9%
13

10% 15.9%
13

1%
51 47 3 0 1

6%
55 49 5 0 1

5%
56 50 5 0 1

3%
56 50 5 0 1

2%
55 48 6 0 2

2%
57 49 6 0 2

2%
58 50 6 0 2

2%
59

2%
60

2%
61

2%
62

2% 0.01% 7.10%

8% 0.01% 10. 83%

2% 0.02% 10.70%

1% 0.02% 11. 37%

-1% 0. 03% 13.47%

2% 0. 08% 14.53%

2% 0.21% 15.67%

2% 0.39% 16. 90%

2% 0. 74% 18.22%

2% 1. 55% 19.65%

2% 3.36% 21. 19%

1,500 16% 11. 0

1,500 16% 11.0

1,500 16% 10.5

1,500 16% 10. 0

1, 500 16% 9.5

1, 500 16% 6.5

1,500 16% 6.0

1,500 16% 5.0

1, 500 16% 4.0

1,500 16% 3.5

1,500 16% 3. 0

-8%
$0. 42 $0. 00 $0. 42 $0. 00 $0.40 $0.00 $0. 38 $0. 00 $0.36 $0.54 $0.25 $0.63 17% ($0.38) $0.12 $0.23 $0.64

-16%
$0. 19 $0. 66

-20%
$0.15 $0.67

-12%
$0.13 $0.68

-15%
$0. 11 $0. 70

2%
($0.41) $0.12

2%
($0.46) $0. 12

2%
($0.52) $0.12

2%
($0. 55) $0.13

2%
($0.58) $0. 13

$0. 42 $0. 08

$0. 42 $0. 10

$0.40 $0.11

$0. 38 $0. 11

($0.18) $0.11

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

$33, 000

$33, 000

$31,500

$30, 000

$28,500

$19,500

$17,940

$15, 070

$12,056

$10,609

$9,018

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

6. 0% 17

10.2% 10

11.3% 9

13.7% 7

17.5% 6

20.2% 5

24. 3% 4

131, 957

131, 957

131,957

131, 957

131,957

131,957

131,957

131, 957

131,957

131,957

131, 957

0.0 0. 000%

0. 0 0. 000%

0. 0 0.000%

0. 0 0. 000%

0.1 0.000%

0.2 0.000%

0.5 0. 000%

0.9 0. 001%

1.9 0.001%

3.9 0.003%

8. 7 0. 007%

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 1 0

0 1 0

0 1 0

3 8 1

8 20 3

11 28 4

22 57 9

50 130 20

115 299 46

10. 9

10.9

10.9

11. 0

11.0

11. 0

11. 1

11. 1

11. 1

11.1

11.2

0.26%
0.2 3.8

0.26%
0. 2 3. 8

0.26%
0.3 3.8

0.26%
0. 4 3. 8

0. 26%
0.5 3.8

0. 26%
1.6 3.8

0.26%
4.3 3.8

0.26%
8.2 3.8

0. 26%
16. 0 3.8

0. 26%
33.9 3.8

0.26%
75.0 3. 9

0.26%
0.1 3.0

0.26%
0. 2 3. 0

0.26%
0.2 3.0

0.26%
0. 3 3. 0

0. 26%
0.4 3.0

0. 26%
1.2 3.0

0.26%
3.1 3.0

0.26%
5.9 3.0

0. 26%
11. 6 3.0

0. 26%
24.6 3.0

0.26%
54.3 3. 0

0.00%

0.01% 0

0.01% 0

0.01% 0

0. 01% 0

0. 04% 1

0.10% 2

0.20% 4

0. 39% 7

0. 82% 17

1.81% 38

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, EIA, Solarbuzz

168

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 211: Japan Solar PV Demand Model


Jap an Ann ual Solar In stallations (MW) y/y (%) Cu mu lative So lar Capacity (M W) y/y (%) Solar Electricity Gen erated (Billion kWh) y/y (%) Ren ewable Electricity Generated (Billion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Ren ewables O ver all Installed Capacity ('000 MW) y/y (%) O ver all Electricity Generated (Billion kWh) Conventional Therm al Hydroelectric Power Nuclear Power Other Renewables (Geo., Solar, W ind and Waste El ectric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of O ver all Electricity Ren ewables as % of Overall Electricity ELECTRICITY PRICE PARAMETERS Ann ual Insolation (kWh/sq. m) Co nversio n Efficien cy (%) Solar System Prices ($/W) y/y (%) Solar Electricity Price ($/kWh) - Unsub sidized Sub sidies ($/kWh) y/y (%) Solar Electricity Price ($/kWh) - Subsidized Retail Electricity Price ($/kWh ) y/y (%) INVEST MENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal In vestment IRR (%) Payback Period (Years) L AND AREA PARAM ETERS Solar Electricity Lan d Availab le (sq . km) Area (sq.km)/kWh Requ ired % L and Covered with Solar SOLAR INST AL LATIONS BREAKDO WN Residential y/y (%) C&I Roo ftop y/y (%) Utility Scale/Gro und-M oun ted y/y (%) PER CAPITA PARAM ETERS Pop ulation (million ) y/y (%) Solar Electricity Per Capita (W/person) # Househ old s (million) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househ olds (kW) Average Solar In stallation Required Per Ho useho lds (kW) % Ho usehold Pen etration # In cremental Ho useho lds In stalling So lar ('000)
2002 2003 218 2004 256 2005 292 2006 292 2007 230 2008 230 2009E 334 2010E 567 2011E 737 2012E 848

161 32%
378

35%
596

17%
852

14%
1,144

0%
1, 436

-21%
1,666

0%
1,896

45%
2,230

70%
2, 796

30%
3,533

15%
4, 381

74%
0.51

58%
0.80

43%
1.07

34%
1.36

26%
1. 71

16%
1. 98

14%
2. 25

18%
2.65

25%
3.32

26%
4. 20

24%
5.21

74%
102

58%
115

33%
115

27%
101

26%
106

16%
117

14%
129

18%
142

25%
156

26%
171

24%
188

0% 0.5%
237

13% 0.7%
241

0% 0.9%
244

-13% 1.3%
248

6% 1.6%
253

10% 1.7%
258

10% 1.8%
263

10% 1.9%
268

10% 2.1%
274

10% 2.5%
279

10% 2.8%
285

1%
999 617 82 280 21

2%
987 643 94 228 21

1%
1, 015 631 93 268 22

2%
1,025 646 77 278 23

2%
1, 007 612 87 289 20

2%
1,027 624 89 295 20

2%
1,048 637 90 301 20

2%
1,069

2%
1, 090

2%
1,112

2%
1, 134

2% 0.05% 10.22%

-1% 0.08% 11.67%

3% 0.11% 11.37%

1% 0.13% 9.83%

-2% 0.17% 10.56%

2% 0.19% 11.39%

2% 0.22% 12.28%

2% 0.25% 13.24%

2% 0.30% 14.28%

2% 0.38% 15.40%

2% 0.46% 16.61%

1, 500 16% 9.5

1, 500 16% 9.0

1, 500 16% 8.5

1,500 16% 8. 0

1, 500 16% 7.5

1,500 16% 6.5

1,500 16% 6.0

1,500 16% 5. 0

1, 500 16% 4.0

1,500 16% 3. 5

1, 500 16% 3.0

-5%
$0.36 $0.00

-5%
$0.34 $0.00

-6%
$0.32 $0.00

-6%
$0. 30 $0. 00

-6%
$0.29 $0.00

-13%
$0.25 $0.00

-8%
$0.23 $0.00

-16%
$0. 19 $0. 00

-20%
$0.15 $0.00

-12%
$0. 13 $0. 00

-15%
$0.11 $0.00

0%
$0.36 $0.17 -7% $0.34 $0.19 7% $0.32 $0.20 5% $0. 30 $0. 19 -4% $0.29 $0.19 $0.25 $0.20 $0.23 $0.20

0%
$0. 19 $0. 20

0%
$0.15 $0.21

0%
$0. 13 $0. 21

0%
$0.11 $0.22

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

$28,500

$27,000

$25,500

$24, 000

$22,500

$19,500

$17,940

$15, 070

$12,056

$10, 609

$9,018

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

377,727

377,727

377,727

377, 727

377,727

377,727

377,727

377, 727

377,727

377, 727

377,727

2.1 0.001%

3.3 0.001%

4.5 0.001%

5.7 0.001%

7.1 0.002%

8.3 0.002%

9.4 0.002%

11.0 0.003%

13.8 0.004%

17.5 0.005%

21.7 0.006%

129 8 24

174 11 33

205 13 38

234 15 44

234 15 44

184 12 35

184 12 35

267 17 50

454 28 85

590 37 111

678 42 127

126.9

127.2

127.4

127.6

127. 8

128. 0

128. 2

128.5

128.7

128.9

129. 1

0.17%
3.0 48. 2

0.17%
4.7 48. 3

0.17%
6.7 48. 3

0.17%
9. 0 48.4

0.17%
11.2 48.5

0.17%
13.0 48.6

0.17%
14.8 48.7

0.17%
17.4 48.7

0.17%
21. 7 48. 8

0.17%
27.4 48.9

0.17%
33. 9 49. 0

0.17%
6.3 3.0

0.17%
9.9 3.0

0.17%
14. 1 3.0

0.17%
18.9 3. 0

0.17%
23.7 3.0

0.17%
27.4 3.0

0.17%
31.2 3.0

0.17%
36.6 3. 0

0.17%
45. 8 3.0

0.17%
57.8 3. 0

0.17%
71. 5 3.0

0.21%

0.33% 58

0.47% 68

0.63% 77

0.79% 77

0.91% 61

1.04% 61

1.22% 88

1.53% 150

1.93% 195

2.38% 224

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, EIA, Solarbuzz

May 01, 2009

169

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 212: South Korea Solar PV Demand Model


South Ko rea Annu al Sol ar In stal latio ns (MW) y/y (%) Cumul ati ve So lar Capaci ty (M W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/y (%) Renewabl e Electrici ty Gen erated (Bi ll ion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Renewab les Overal l I nstall ed Capacity ('000 M W) y/y (%) Overal l Electrici ty Generated (Bill io n kWh) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelectric Power Nucl ear Power Ot her Renewables (Geo., Sol ar, Wi nd and Waste Electric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of Overal l El ectri city Renewabl es as % o f Overall El ectr icity ELECTRI CI TY PRI CE PARAMETERS Annu al I nsol ati on (kWh /sq. m) Con versi on Efficiency (%) Solar System Pri ces ($/W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) - Unsubsi dized Subsi dies ($/ kWh) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) - Su bsidi zed Retail Electricity Price ($/ kWh) y/y (%) I NVESTM ENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal I nvestment I RR (%) Payb ack Peri od (Years) L AND AREA PARAMETERS Solar El ectri city Land Availab le (sq. km) Area (sq. km)/kWh Requi red % Lan d Covered with Sol ar SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN Resid enti al y/y (%) C&I Roofto p y/y (%) Util ity Scal e/Grou nd-Mou nted y/y (%) PER CAPI TA PARAMETERS Popul ation (mi ll ion ) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Per Capita (W/ person) # Ho usehol ds (mil lio n) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househol ds (kW) Average Solar In stal lation Requi red Per Househol ds (kW) % Househo ld Penetration # Incremental Ho usehold s I nstal li ng Sol ar ('000)
2002 1 2003 1 2004 3 2005 5 2006 21 2007 42 2008 280 2009E 392 2010E 588 2011E 1,088 2012E 1,414

-25%
5

0%
6

317%
9

100%
14

324%
35

100%
77

560%
357

40%
749

50%
1, 337

85%
2,425

30%
3,839

13%
0.00

11%
0.00

42%
0. 00

59%
0.00

157%
0.01

122%
0.01

363%
0.06

110%
0.12

78%
0.21

81%
0. 38

58%
0.61

13%
4

11%
5

42%
5

59%
4

157%
4

122%
4

363%
5

110%
5

78%
6

81%
6

58%
7

-11% 0. 0%
54

29% 0. 0%
57

-8% 0.0%
58

-14% 0. 1%
62

-5% 0.1%
63

10% 0.3%
65

10% 1.2%
66

10% 2. 3%
67

10% 3.7%
69

10% 6.1%
70

10% 8. 8%
71

5%
312 195 3 113 1

4%
324 196 5 123 0

3%
346 217 4 124 0

7%
366 223 4 139 0

2%
383 238 3 141 1

2%
390 242 3 144 1

2%
398 247 4 147 1

2%
406

2%
414

2%
423

2%
431

17% 0.00% 1.27%

4% 0.00% 1.58%

7% 0.00% 1.36%

6% 0.00% 1.11%

5% 0. 00% 1. 01%

2% 0. 00% 1. 09%

2% 0.01% 1.17%

2% 0.03% 1.27%

2% 0. 05% 1. 37%

2% 0. 09% 1. 47%

2% 0.14% 1.59%

1,850 16% 11. 0

1,850 16% 11.0

1,850 16% 10.5

1,850 16% 10. 0

1, 850 16% 9.5

1, 850 16% 6.5

1,850 16% 6.0

1,850 16% 5.0

1, 850 16% 4.0

1,850 16% 3.5

1,850 16% 3. 0

0%
$0. 34 $0. 00

0%
$0. 34 $0. 00

-5%
$0.32 $0.58

-5%
$0. 31 $0. 58 0% ($0.28) $0. 09

-5%
$0.29 $0.61 4% ($0.32) $0.10

-32%
$0.20 $0.71 16% ($0.51) $0.10

-8%
$0.18 $0.71

-16%
$0. 16 $0. 68

-20%
$0.12 $0.65

-12%
$0.11 $0.63

-15%
$0. 09 $0. 60

0%
($0.52) $0.10

-4%
($0.52) $0. 10

-4%
($0.53) $0.11

-4%
($0. 52) $0.11

-4%
($0.51) $0. 11

$0. 34 $0. 07

$0. 34 $0. 07

($0. 26) $0.08

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

$33, 000

$33, 000

$31,500

$30, 000

$28,500

$19,500

$17,940

$15, 070

$12,056

$10,609

$9,018

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

7.2% 14

7.6% 13

8. 3% 12

14.1% 7

15.3% 7

17.5% 6

21.0% 5

22.9% 4

25. 9% 4

99,274

99,274

99, 274

99,274

99,274

99,274

99,274

99,274

99,274

99, 274

99,274

0.0 0. 000%

0. 0 0. 000%

0. 0 0.000%

0. 0 0. 000%

0.0 0.000%

0.0 0.000%

0.2 0. 000%

0.4 0. 000%

0.7 0.001%

1.3 0.001%

2. 0 0. 002%

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 0 1

2 1 2

8 3 10

17 6 19

112 42 126

157 59 176

235 88 265

435 163 490

566 212 636

47. 2

47.4

47.6

47. 8

48.0

48. 2

48. 4

48. 6

48. 8

49.0

49.2

0.40%
0.1 16. 7

0.40%
0. 1 16.8

0.40%
0.2 16.9

0.40%
0. 3 16. 9

0. 40%
0.7 17.0

0. 40%
1.6 17. 1

0.40%
7.4 17. 1

0.40%
15. 4 17. 2

0. 40%
27. 4 17. 3

0. 40%
49.5 17.3

0.40%
78.1 17.4

0.40%
0.1 3.0

0.40%
0. 1 3. 0

0.40%
0.2 3.0

0.40%
0. 3 3. 0

0. 40%
0.8 3.0

0. 40%
1.8 3.0

0.40%
8.3 3.0

0.40%
17. 4 3.0

0. 40%
31. 0 3.0

0. 40%
55.9 3.0

0.40%
88.2 3. 0

0.00%

0.00% 0

0.01% 0

0.01% 1

0. 03% 3

0. 06% 6

0.28% 37

0.58% 52

1. 03% 78

1. 86% 144

2.94% 187

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, EIA, Solarbuzz

170

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 213: U.S. Solar PV Demand Model


US Annu al Sol ar In stal latio ns (MW) y/y (%) Cumul ati ve So lar Capaci ty (M W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/y (%) Renewabl e Electrici ty Gen erated (Bi ll ion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Renewab les Overal l I nstall ed Capacity ('000 M W) y/y (%) Overal l Electrici ty Generated (Bill io n kWh) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelectric Power Nucl ear Power Ot her Renewables (Geo., Sol ar, Wi nd and Waste Electric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of Overal l El ectri city Renewabl es as % o f Overall El ectr icity ELECTRI CI TY PRI CE PARAMETERS Annu al I nsol ati on (kWh /sq. m) Con versi on Efficiency (%) Solar System Pri ces ($/W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) - Unsubsi dized Retail Electricity Price ($/ kWh) y/y (%) I NVESTM ENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal I nvestment I RR (%) Payb ack Peri od (Years) L AND AREA PARAMETERS Solar El ectri city Land Availab le (sq. km) Area (sq. km)/kWh Requi red % Lan d Covered with Sol ar SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN Resid enti al y/y (%) C&I Roofto p y/y (%) Util ity Scal e/Grou nd-Mou nted y/y (%) PER CAPI TA PARAMETERS Popul ation (mi ll ion ) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Per Capita (W/ person) # Ho usehol ds (mil lio n) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househol ds (kW) Average Solar In stal lation Requi red Per Househol ds (kW) % Househo ld Penetration # Incremental Ho usehold s I nstal li ng Sol ar ('000)
2002 2003 66 2004 84 2005 105 2006 140 2007 220 2008 360 2009E 360 2010E 1, 080 2011E 2,052 2012E 3,488

57 54%
169

16%
235

27%
319

25%
424

33%
564

57%
784

64%
1,144

0%
1,504

200%
2, 584

90%
4,636

70%
8,124

51%
0.55

39%
0.53

36%
0. 58

33%
0.55

33%
0.73

39%
1.02

46%
1.48

31%
1.95

72%
3.35

79%
6. 02

75%
10. 54

2%
357

-4%
369

8%
366

-4%
370

33%
399

39%
439

46%
482

31%
531

72%
584

79%
642

75%
706

19% 0. 2%
885

3% 0. 1%
928

-1% 0.2%
942

1% 0. 1%
957

8% 0.2%
976

10% 0.2%
995

10% 0.3%
1,015

10% 0. 4%
1,036

10% 0.6%
1, 056

10% 0.9%
1,077

10% 1. 5%
1,099

7%
3,867 2,730 264 780 93

5%
3,892 2,759 276 764 94

2%
3,979 2,825 268 789 97

2%
4,062 2,910 270 782 100

2%
4, 060 2, 874 288 787 110

2%
4, 141 2, 931 294 803 113

2%
4,224 2,990 300 819 115

2%
4,308

2%
4, 395

2%
4,482

2%
4,572

3% 0.01% 9.23%

1% 0.01% 9.49%

2% 0.01% 9.19%

2% 0.01% 9.11%

0% 0. 02% 9. 82%

2% 0. 02% 10.59%

2% 0.04% 11.42%

2% 0.05% 12. 32%

2% 0. 08% 13.28%

2% 0. 13% 14.32%

2% 0.23% 15. 45%

2,000 16% 11. 0

2,000 16% 11.0

2,000 16% 10.5

2,000 16% 10. 0

2, 000 16% 9.5

2, 000 16% 6.5

2,000 16% 6.0

2,000 16% 5.0

2, 000 16% 4.0

2,000 16% 3.5

2,000 16% 3. 0

-8%
$0. 31 $0. 08 $0. 31 $0. 09 $0.30 $0.09 $0. 29 $0. 10 $0.27 $0.10 $0.19 $0.11 $0.17 $0.11

-16%
$0. 14 $0. 11

-20%
$0.11 $0.11

-12%
$0.10 $0.11

-15%
$0. 09 $0. 12

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

$55, 000

$55, 000

$52,500

$50, 000

$47,500

$32,500

$29,900

$25, 116

$20,093

$17,682

$15, 029

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0. 0% NA

0. 0% NA

0. 0% NA

0.0% NA

0. 0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

9,372,610

9, 372, 610

9, 372,610

9,372,610

9,372,610

9,372,610

9,372,610

9,372,610

9,372,610

9,372,610

9,372, 610

1.7 0. 000%

1. 7 0. 000%

1. 8 0.000%

1. 7 0. 000%

2.3 0.000%

3.2 0.000%

4.6 0. 000%

6.1 0. 000%

10. 5 0.000%

18.8 0.000%

33.0 0. 000%

9 43 6

10 50 7

13 63 8

16 79 11

21 105 14

33 165 22

54 270 36

108 180 72

324 810 108

616 1, 539 205

1,047 2,616 349

285.8

288.5

291.3

294.1

297. 0

299.9

302.8

305.7

308.7

311. 7

314.7

0.97%
0.6 106.0

0.97%
0. 8 107.1

0.97%
1.1 108.1

0.97%
1. 4 109.1

0. 97%
1.9 110. 2

0. 97%
2.6 111.3

0.97%
3.8 112.3

0.97%
4.9 113.4

0. 97%
8.4 114.5

0. 97%
14.9 115. 6

0.97%
25.8 116.8

0.97%
0.5 5.0

0.97%
0. 6 5. 0

0.97%
0.7 5.0

0.97%
0. 8 5. 0

0. 97%
1.0 5.0

0. 97%
1.3 5.0

0.97%
1.8 5.0

0.97%
2.7 5.0

0. 97%
5.5 5.0

0. 97%
10.8 5.0

0.97%
19.6 5. 0

0.01%

0.01% 2

0.01% 2

0.02% 3

0. 02% 4

0. 03% 6

0.04% 11

0.05% 21

0. 11% 64

0. 22% 122

0.39% 207

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, EIA, Solarbuzz

May 01, 2009

171

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 214: China Solar PV Demand Model


Chi na Annu al Sol ar In stal latio ns (MW) y/y (%) Cumul ati ve So lar Capaci ty (M W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/y (%) Renewabl e Electrici ty Gen erated (Bi ll ion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Renewab les Overal l I nstall ed Capacity ('000 M W) y/y (%) Overal l Electrici ty Generated (Bill io n kWh) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelectric Power Nucl ear Power Ot her Renewables (Geo., Sol ar, Wi nd and Waste Electric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of Overal l El ectri city Renewabl es as % o f Overall El ectr icity ELECTRI CI TY PRI CE PARAMETERS Annu al I nsol ati on (kWh /sq. m) Con versi on Efficiency (%) Solar System Pri ces ($/W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) - Unsubsi dized Retail Electricity Price ($/ kWh) y/y (%) I NVESTM ENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal I nvestment I RR (%) Payb ack Peri od (Years) L AND AREA PARAMETERS Solar El ectri city Land Availab le (sq. km) Area (sq. km)/kWh Requi red % Lan d Covered with Sol ar SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN Resid enti al y/y (%) C&I Roofto p y/y (%) Util ity Scal e/Grou nd-Mou nted y/y (%) PER CAPI TA PARAMETERS Popul ation (mi ll ion ) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Per Capita (W/ person) # Ho usehol ds (mil lio n) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househol ds (kW) Average Solar In stal lation Requi red Per Househol ds (kW) % Househo ld Penetration # Incremental Ho usehold s I nstal li ng Sol ar ('000)
2002 0 2003 0 2004 5 2005 15 2006 20 2007 24 2008 29 2009E 58 2010E 104 2011E 166 2012E 232

NM
0

NM
0

NM
5

200%
20

33%
40

20%
64

20%
93

100%
150

80%
254

60%
420

40%
652

NM
0.00

NM
0.01

NM
0. 02

300%
0.02

100%
0.05

60%
0.08

45%
0.11

62%
0.18

69%
0.30

65%
0. 49

55%
0.77

NM
274

NM
281

30%
330

29%
399

100%
439

60%
483

45%
532

62%
585

69%
643

65%
707

55%
778

5% 0. 0%
339

2% 0. 0%
357

18% 0.0%
391

21% 0. 0%
442

10% 0.0%
451

10% 0.0%
460

10% 0.0%
469

10% 0. 0%
479

10% 0.0%
488

10% 0.1%
498

10% 0. 1%
508

6%
1,570 1,271 272 25 2

5%
1,807 1,484 279 42 2

10%
2,080 1,702 328 48 2

13%
2,372 1,922 397 50 2

2%
2, 419 1, 961 405 51 2

2%
2, 468 2, 000 413 52 2

2%
2,517 2,040 421 53 3

2%
2,567

2%
2, 619

2%
2,671

2%
2,724

11% 0.00% 17. 46%

15% 0.00% 15. 55%

15% 0.00% 15.87%

14% 0.00% 16. 84%

2% 0. 00% 18.16%

2% 0. 00% 19.58%

2% 0.00% 21.12%

2% 0.01% 22. 77%

2% 0. 01% 24.56%

2% 0. 02% 26.49%

2% 0.03% 28. 56%

1,450 16% 11. 0

1,450 16% 11.0

1,450 16% 10.5

1,450 16% 10. 0

1, 450 16% 9.5

1, 450 16% 6.5

1,450 16% 6.0

1,450 16% 5.0

1, 450 16% 4.0

1,450 16% 3.5

1,450 16% 3. 0

-8%
$0. 43 $0. 07 $0. 43 $0. 07 $0.41 $0.07 $0. 39 $0. 07 $0.37 $0.07 $0.26 $0.07 $0.24 $0.07

-16%
$0. 20 $0. 07

-20%
$0.16 $0.07

-12%
$0.14 $0.08

-15%
$0. 12 $0. 08

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

$33, 000

$33, 000

$31,500

$30, 000

$28,500

$19,500

$17,940

$15, 070

$12,056

$10,609

$9,018

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0. 0% NA

0. 0% NA

0. 0% NA

0.0% NA

0. 0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

9,560,900

9, 560, 900

9, 560,900

9,560,900

9,560,900

9,560,900

9,560,900

9,560,900

9,560,900

9,560,900

9,560, 900

0.0 0. 000%

0. 1 0. 000%

0. 1 0.000%

0. 1 0. 000%

0.2 0.000%

0.3 0.000%

0.5 0. 000%

0.8 0. 000%

1.3 0.000%

2.1 0.000%

3. 3 0. 000%

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 1 4

1 2 12

1 3 16

1 4 19

1 4 23

3 9 46

5 16 83

8 25 133

12 35 186

1,279.7

1,288.0

1,296.4

1,304.8

1, 313. 3

1, 321.8

1,330.4

1,339.1

1, 347.8

1,356.5

1,365.4

0.65%
0.0 368.4

0.65%
0. 0 370.8

0.65%
0.0 373.2

0.65%
0. 0 375.7

0. 65%
0.0 378. 1

0. 65%
0.0 380.6

0.65%
0.1 383.0

0.65%
0.1 385.5

0. 65%
0.2 388.0

0. 65%
0.3 390. 5

0.65%
0. 5 393.1

0.65%
0.0 3.0

0.65%
0. 0 3. 0

0.65%
0.0 3.0

0.65%
0. 0 3. 0

0. 65%
0.0 3.0

0. 65%
0.0 3.0

0.65%
0.0 3.0

0.65%
0.0 3.0

0. 65%
0.0 3.0

0. 65%
0.1 3.0

0.65%
0. 1 3. 0

0.00%

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0. 00% 0

0. 00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 1

0. 00% 2

0. 00% 3

0.00% 4

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, EIA, Solarbuzz

172

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 215: India Solar PV Demand Model


I ndi a Annu al Sol ar In stal latio ns (MW) y/y (%) Cumul ati ve So lar Capaci ty (M W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Generated (Bil li on kWh) y/y (%) Renewabl e Electrici ty Gen erated (Bi ll ion kWh) y/y (%) Solar as % of Renewab les Overal l I nstall ed Capacity ('000 M W) y/y (%) Overal l Electrici ty Generated (Bill io n kWh) Convent ional Thermal Hydroelectric Power Nucl ear Power Ot her Renewables (Geo., Sol ar, Wi nd and Waste Electric Power) y/y (%) Solar as % of Overal l El ectri city Renewabl es as % o f Overall El ectr icity ELECTRI CI TY PRI CE PARAMETERS Annu al I nsol ati on (kWh /sq. m) Con versi on Efficiency (%) Solar System Pri ces ($/W) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) - Unsubsi dized Subsi dies ($/ kWh) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Price ($/ kWh ) - Su bsidi zed Retail Electricity Price ($/ kWh) y/y (%) I NVESTM ENT RETURN PARAM ETERS T otal I nvestment I RR (%) Payb ack Peri od (Years) L AND AREA PARAMETERS Solar El ectri city Land Availab le (sq. km) Area (sq. km)/kWh Requi red % Lan d Covered with Sol ar SOLAR INSTALLATIONS BREAKDOWN Resid enti al y/y (%) C&I Roofto p y/y (%) Util ity Scal e/Grou nd-Mou nted y/y (%) PER CAPI TA PARAMETERS Popul ation (mi ll ion ) y/y (%) Solar El ectri city Per Capita (W/ person) # Ho usehol ds (mil lio n) y/y (%) Average Solar Capacity Per 1000 Househol ds (kW) Average Solar In stal lation Requi red Per Househol ds (kW) % Househo ld Penetration # Incremental Ho usehold s I nstal li ng Sol ar ('000)
2002 2003 11 2004 13 2005 16 2006 12 2007 17 2008 31 2009E 63 2010E 119 2011E 226 2012E 384

NM
0

NM
11

18%
24

23%
40

-25%
52

45%
69

80%
101

100%
163

90%
282

90%
509

70%
893

NM

NM
0.14

118%
0. 16

67%
0.18

30%
0.24

33%
0.31

45%
0.46

62%
0.74

73%
1.28

80%
2. 30

76%
4.04

NM
68

NM
80

13%
90

14%
107

30%
117

33%
129

45%
142

62%
156

73%
172

80%
189

76%
208

-12% 0. 0%
122

18% 0. 2%
126

13% 0.2%
131

19% 0. 2%
138

10% 0.2%
140

10% 0.2%
143

10% 0.3%
146

10% 0. 5%
149

10% 0.7%
152

10% 1.2%
155

10% 1. 9%
158

9%
565 480 63 18 4

3%
601 504 75 16 5

4%
632 527 84 15 6

5%
662 539 99 16 8

2%
675 550 101 16 8

2%
688 561 103 16 8

2%
702 572 105 17 8

2%
716

2%
731

2%
745

2%
760

3% 0.00% 11. 99%

6% 0.02% 13. 29%

5% 0.03% 14.24%

5% 0.03% 16. 12%

2% 0. 03% 17.39%

2% 0. 05% 18.75%

2% 0.06% 20.22%

2% 0.10% 21. 81%

2% 0. 18% 23.52%

2% 0. 31% 25.36%

2% 0.53% 27. 35%

1,500 16% 11. 0

1,500 16% 11.0

1,500 16% 10.5

1,500 16% 10. 0

1, 500 16% 9.5

1, 500 16% 6.5

1,500 16% 6.0

1,500 16% 5.0

1, 500 16% 4.0

1,500 16% 3.5

1,500 16% 3. 0

-8%
$0. 42 $0. 00 $0. 42 $0. 00 $0.40 $0.00 $0. 38 $0. 00 $0.36 $0.00 $0.25 $0.00 $0.23 $0.30

-16%
$0. 19 $0. 30

-20%
$0.15 $0.30

-12%
$0.13 $0.30

-15%
$0. 11 $0. 30

0%
$0. 42 $0. 04 $0. 42 $0. 04 $0.40 $0.04 $0. 38 $0. 04 $0.36 $0.04 $0.25 $0.04 ($0.07) $0.04

0%
($0.11) $0. 05

0%
($0.15) $0.05

0%
($0. 17) $0.05

0%
($0.19) $0. 05

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

$22, 000

$22, 000

$21,000

$20, 000

$19,000

$13,000

$11,960

$10, 046

$8,037

$7, 073

$6,012

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0.0% NA

0. 0% NA

0. 0% NA

5. 3% 19

6.3% 16

7. 8% 13

8.9% 11

10. 5% 10

3,287,263

3, 287, 263

3, 287,263

3,287,263

3,287,263

3,287,263

3,287,263

3,287,263

3,287,263

3,287,263

3,287, 263

0.0 0. 000%

0. 6 0. 000%

0. 7 0.000%

0. 8 0. 000%

1.0 0.000%

1.3 0.000%

1.9 0. 000%

3.1 0. 000%

5.3 0.000%

9.6 0.000%

16.9 0. 001%

0 0 0

1 9 1

1 11 1

1 14 2

1 10 1

1 15 2

2 27 3

3 53 6

6 101 12

11 192 23

19 327 38

1,016.7

1,032.4

1,048.4

1,064.7

1, 081. 2

1, 098.0

1,115.0

1,132.3

1, 149.8

1,167.6

1,185.7

1.55%
0.0 190.8

1.55%
0. 0 193.8

1.55%
0.0 196.8

1.55%
0. 0 199.8

1. 55%
0.0 202. 9

1. 55%
0.1 206.0

1.55%
0.1 209.2

1.55%
0.1 212.5

1. 55%
0.2 215.8

1. 55%
0.4 219. 1

1.55%
0. 8 222.5

1.55%
0.0 2.0

1.55%
0. 0 2. 0

1.55%
0.0 2.0

1.55%
0. 0 2. 0

1. 55%
0.0 2.0

1. 55%
0.0 2.0

1.55%
0.0 2.0

1.55%
0.0 2.0

1. 55%
0.1 2.0

1. 55%
0.1 2.0

1.55%
0. 2 2. 0

0.00%

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0. 00% 0

0. 00% 0

0.00% 1

0.00% 2

0. 00% 3

0. 01% 6

0.01% 9

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, EIA, Solarbuzz

May 01, 2009

173

Solar Energy Handbook

174

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Chapter 8: Overview of U.S. Renewable Portfolio Standards

May 01, 2009

175

Solar Energy Handbook

U.S. Renewable Portfolio Standards The Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) require retail electricity suppliers to procure a minimum amount of eligible renewable energy. The Renewable Portfolio Standards encourages competition among developers to meet targets in a least cost manner. RPS have been in existence at the state level since the 1990s. Currently 28 states and Washington, DC have RPS in place. Three states passed Mandatory RPS laws in 2008, Missouri, Michigan and Ohio. In addition, five states have non binding goals North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Vermont. Policies are backed by various compliance enforcement mechanisms, including the trading of renewable energy certificates (RECs). Figure 216: Mandatory and Non Binding Renewable Energy Goals
WA: 15% by 2020 MN: 25% by 2025 Xcel: 30% by 2020 WI: 10% by 2015 ME: 40% by 2017 VT: 20% by 2017 NY: 24% by 2013 NH: 23. 8% by 2025 MA: 4% by 2009 +1%/yr RI: 16% by 2019 CT: 23% by 2020 DE: 20% by 2019 DC: 11% by 2022 MD: 20% by 2022 V A: 12% by 2022

MT: 15% by 2015

ND: 10% by 2015 OR: 25% by 2025 (large utilities) 5-10% by 2025 (smaller utilities) NV: 20% by 2015 UT: 20% by 2025 CA: 20% by 2010 CO: 20% by 2020 (IOUs) 10% by 2020 (co-ops and munis) SD: 10% by 2015

PA: 8.5% by 2020 NJ: 22.5% by 2021 OH: 12.5% by 2024

IA: 105 MW by 1999 IL: 25% by 2025 MO : 11% by 2020

AZ: 15% by 2025

NM: 20% by 2020 (IOUs) 10% by 2020 (co-ops)

NC: 12.5% by 2021 (IOUs) 10% by 2018 (co-ops and munis)

HI: 20% by 2020

TX : 5,880 MW by 2015

Mandatory RPS Non-Binding Goal

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Note: Michigan and Missouri has since passed a mandatory RPS law

176

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 217: State Description of RPS Policies

State AZ CA

Description
Arizona Corporate Commission Decision No. 69127 requires 15 percent of electricity sales to be renewable by 2025, with interim goals increasing annually. A specific percentage of the target must be from distributed generation. Multiple credits may be given for solar generation and in-State manufactured systems. Public Utilities Code Sections 399.11-399.20 mandate that 20 percent of electricity sales must be renewable by 2010. There are also goals for the longer term. Renewable projects with above-market costs will be funded by supplemental energy payments from a fund, possibly limiting renewable generation to less than the 20-percent requirement. House Bill 1281 sets the renewable target for investor-owned utilities at 20 percent by 2020. There is a 10-percent requirement in the same year for cooperatives and municipals. Moreover, 2 percent of total sales must be from solar power. In-State generation receives a 25-percent credit premium. Public Act 07-242 mandates a 27-percent renewable sales requirement by 2020, including a 4-percent mandate from higher efficiency or CHP systems. Of the overall total, 3 percent may be met by waste-to-energy facilities and conventional biomass. Senate Bill 19 determined the RPS to be 20 percent of sales by 2019. There is a separate requirement for solar generation (2 percent of the total), and compliance failure results in higher penalty payments. Solar technologies receive triple credits, and offshore wind receives 3.5 times the credit amount. Senate Bill 3185 sets the renewable mandate at 20 percent by 2020. All existing renewable facilities are eligible to meet the target, which has two interim milestones. Public Act 095-0481 created an agency responsible for overseeing the mandate of 25-percent renewable sales by 2025. There are escalating annual targets. and 75 percent of the requirements must be generated from wind. The plan also includes a cap on the incremental costs added from renewable penetration. An RPS mandating 105 megawatts of renewable energy capacity has already been exceeded. In 2007, Public Law 403 added to the States RPS requirements. Originally, a mandate of 30 percent renewable generation by 2000 was set to be lower than current generation. The new law requires a 10-percent increase in renewable capacity by 2017, and that level must be maintained in subsequent years. The years leading up to 2017 also have new capacity milestones. House Bill 375 revised the RPS to contain a 20-percent target by 2022, including a 2-percent solar target. Penalty payments for Tier 1 compliance shortfalls were also raised to 4 cents per kilowatthour under the same legislation. The RPS has a goal of a 4-percent renewable share of total sales by 2009, with subsequent 1-percent annual increases to 2014. The State also has necessary payments for compliance shortfalls. Public Act 295 established an RPS that will require 10 percent renewable generation by 2015. Bonus credits are given to solar energy. Senate Bill 4 created a 30-percent renewable requirement by 2020 for Xcel, the States largest supplier, and a 25percent requirement by 2025 for others. Also specified was the creation of a State cap-and-trade program that will assist the programs implementation. Proposition C, approved by voters, mandates a 2-percent renewable energy requirement in 2011, which will increase incrementally to 15 percent of generation by 2021. Bonus credits are given to renewable generation within the State.

CO CT DE

HI IL

IA ME

MD

MA MI MN MO

Source: EIA

May 01, 2009

177

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 218: State Description of RPS Policies

State MT NV

Description
House Bill 681 expanded the RPS provisions to all suppliers. Initially the law covered only public utilities. A 15percent share of sales must be renewable by 2015. The State operates a REC market. The State has an escalating renewable target, established in 1997 and revised in 2005, that reaches 20 percent of total electricity sales by 2015. Up to one-quarter may be met through efficiency measures. There is also a minimum requirement for PV systems, which receive bonus credits. House Bill 873 legislated that 23.8 percent of electricity sales must be renewable by 2025, and 16.3 percent of total sales must be from renewable facilities that begin operation after 2006. Compliance penalties vary by generation type. In 2006, the RPS was revised to increase renewable energy targets. The current level for renewable generation is 22.5 percent of sales by 2021, with interim targets. There are different requirements for different technologies, including a 2-percent solar mandate. Senate Bill 418 directs investor-owned utilities to have 20 percent of their sales from renewable generation by 2020. The renewable portfolio must consist of diversified technologies, with wind and solar each accounting for 20 percent of the target. There is a separate standard of 10 percent by 2020 for cooperatives. The Public Service Commission issued RPS rules in 2005 that call for an increase in renewable electricity sales to 24 percent of the total by 2013, from the current level of 19 percent. The program is administered and funded by the State. Senate Bill 3 created an RPS of 12.5 percent by 2021 for investor-owned utilities. There is also a 10-percent requirement by 2018 for cooperatives and municipals. Through 2018, 25 percent of the target may be met through efficiency standards, increasing to 40 percent in later years. Senate Bill 221 requires 25 percent of electricity to be produced from alternative energy resources by 2025, including low-carbon and renewable technologies. One-half of the target must come from renewable sources. M i i l d ti t In June 2007, Senate Bill 838 required renewable targets of 25 percent by 2025 for large utilities and 5 to 10 percent by 2025 for smaller utilities. Any source of renewable electricity on line after 1995 is considered eligible. Compliance penalty caps have not yet been determined. The Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard has an18-percent requirement by 2020. Most of the qualifying generation must be renewable, but there is also a provision that allows certain coal resources to receive credits. The program requires that 16 percent of total sales be renewable by 2020. The interim program targets escalate more rapidly in later years. If the target is not met, a generator must pay an alternative compliance penalty. Senate Bill 20 strengthened the State RPS by mandating 5,880 megawatts of renewable capacity by 2015. There is also a target of 500 megawatts of renewable capacity other than wind. Voters approved Initiative 937, which specifies that 15 percent of sales from the States largest generators must come from renewable sources by 2020. There is an administrative penalty of 5 cents per kilowatthour for noncompliance. Generation from any facility that came on line after 1999 is eligible. Senate Bill 459 strengthened the State RPS with a requirement that, by 2015, each utilitys renewable share of total generation must be at least 6 percentage points above the renewable share from 2001 to 2003. There is also a non-binding goal.

NH NJ

NM

NY

NC

OH OR

PA RI TX WA

WI

Source: EIA

178

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 219: Qualifying Renewable Energy Resources


Stat e Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delawar e Distr ict of Columbia Hawaii Illinois Iowa Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missour i Montana Nevada New Hampshire New Jer sey New Mexico New Yor k Nor th Carolina Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island Texas Washington Wisconson Wind Photo volt aics Solar Thermal Biomass Geotherm al Small Hydro electric Fuel Cells Land Fill G as Tidal/ O cean Wave/ T hermal Energy Eff iciency

Source: Barclays Capital Research

Figure 220: Life Cycle Positions of Various Technologies

Resea rch

Developm ent

Demonstration

De ployment

Mature Technolo gy

Dish-Stirling STE Biomass gasification Anticipated Cost of Full-Scale Application Wave Concentrating PV

Central receiv STE er

Geot hermal O ffshore wind Parabolic-trough STE Thin- film PV

Tidal & river turbines

Silicon PV

Cofired biomass

Direct-fired biomass Onshore wind Nano-structured PV Hydro

Time

Source: Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

179

Solar Energy Handbook

Additions in RPS States by Clean Technology Type Of the more than 8,900 MW of new non-hydro renewable energy capacity that come on line in RPS states from 19982007, roughly 93% has come from wind power alone. Although renewable resource diversity has so far been limited, it is expected to increase. Figure 221:Annual Capacity Additions

Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory

Figure 222:Total Capacity Additions (19982007)

Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory

180

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Capacity Required to Meet State RPS Policies It is estimated that 71 GW of cumulative new capacity will be needed to fully meet policies by 2025. This is the equivalent of 5.5% of projected 2025 electricity generation, or 18% of projected electricity demand growth. This includes 14GW of required capacity by 2010 and 34GW by 2015. The largest markets in terms of capacity growth requirements are California, Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, Texas, New Jersey, and Arizona. Each of these states require over 3,000MW of new capacity. In terms of additions as a percentage of expected retail sales in 2025, Minnesota, Oregon, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Delaware each require more than 15% of statewide load. Figure 223: New Renewable Capacity needed by 2025 (Nameplate MW)
California Illinois Ohio Minnesota Te xa s New Jerse y Arizona Maryla nd Pennsylva nia Wa shingto n Ma ssachuset ts Orego n Co lo rado Ne w Yo rk No rth Carolina Conne cticut W isconsin N ew M exico Nevada Delawa re New Hampshire M ontana Ma ine Rhode Isla nd Haw aii I owa D.C .
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

Figure 224: New Renewable Generation Needed by 2025 as a Percent of Projected Statewide Retails Sales
Minnesota Orego n M assachuset ts Conne cticut New Jerse y New Hampshire New Mexico Delaw are Rhode Isla nd Illinois Ma ryland Nevada Ohio California Wa shingto n Co lo rado Arizona M ontana Ma ine Pennsylva nia W isconsin Ne w Yo rk Haw aii Texa s No rth Carolina Iowa D.C .
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory

Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory

2020 Different Renewable Mix Across Regions The Southwest region of the U.S. is expected to produce the most renewable energy as a percentage of regional electric generation. Wind power is facing increasing competition in California (WSCC/CNV) from solar and geothermal. States expected to have most electricity generated from wind include Texas, Minnesota, and New Mexico. The impact of the RPS is expected to be greater in sta tes located in the Midwest and the West.

May 01, 2009

181

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 225: Different Renewable Mix Across Regions


Wi nd 100% % of Capacity Additions (Nameplate MW) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
New England New York & Mid(CT, MA, ME, NH, Atlantic RI) (DC, DE, MD, NJ, PA)
Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory

B iomass

Geothermal

Solar

To tal MW (right axis) 5,000 Capacity Additions (Nameplate MW) 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0

California

Non-CA W est (AZ, CO, HI, MT, NM, NV)

Midwest (IA, IL, MN, WI)

Texas

Figure 226: RPS Impacts on Residential Electricity Bills

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Barclays Capital Research

182

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 227: Carbon Reduction and Displacement Rate


Displaced Emissions Rate in 1st Peak Target Yr. (MTCO2/MWh) 1.00 US Electric Sec tor Average Emissions Rate Conventional Coal Plant E mis sions Rate 30 25 20 0.50 NGCC Plant Em issions Rate 15 10 0.25 5 0.00 WA (Tellus) NY (DPS) NY (CCAP ) CO (PPC) TX (UCS) NY (ICF) AZ RI (PIRG) (Tellus) OR (Tellus) MA (SE A) VA (CEC) CA (UCS) CA ( Tellus ) CO (UCS ) WI (UCS) 0 CO2 Reductions in 1st Peak Target Yr. (Million metric tons)

0.75

Displaced Em issions Rate CO2 Reduc tions

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Barclays Capital research

State RPS Policies Continue to Differ Widely The individual state policies are tailored to satisfy individual state objectives. Variations exist in terms of renewable energy resource purchase targets and timeframes, eligibility of various clean technologies, compliance flexibility, and types of enforcement applied. Tiered targets or set-asides are often used to support preferred resources, instead of the least cost option. Eligibility rules for geographic location and electricity delivery are used to stimulate new resource development in particular regions. Other state by state variations include allowance of unbundled RECs, whether and what types of cost caps exist, and the role of state funding mechanisms. Federal RPS Proposal In February 2009, Senators Tom and Mark Udall introduced legislation calling for a Federal Renewable Electricity Standard that would require utilities to generate 25% of their electricity from wind, solar and other renewable energy sources by 2025. The bill would require utilities to initially provide 6% of their electricity from renewable resources by 2012, and increase that level to 25% by 2025. While this legislation is still being debated in congress, industry and political experts are optimistic that it will be eventually be enacted into law.

May 01, 2009

183

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 228: States Enacting Renewable Portfolio Standards

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Barclays Capital Research

184

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 229: State RPS Ex emptions

Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory , Barclays Capita l research

Unbundled RECs and Electronic Tracking Systems Renewable Energy Credits are now widely used as the preferred means of demonstrating RPS compliance. There are multiple state and regional markets, and contracting practices vary greatly among them. The separate market of unbundled RECs are easier to trade but do not protect local generation. Most states have opted to allow use of unbundled RECs. States are increasingly using electronic certificate tracking systems to issue, record, track, and retire RECs.

May 01, 2009

185

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 230: States Allowing Unbundled RECs

Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory , Barclays Capita l Research

Compliance Outcome Thus Far In 2006, the weighted average compliance level was 94% (nine states had over 95% compliance). It has become evident that a number of states struggled to meet their targets including Arizona, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, and New York. Some of the reasons for this include insufficient funding, difficult project development climates, targets not met on schedule, and changing regula tory treatment of RECs. In addition, sta tes with specific solar requirements also had mixed success. In the case of states that do not meet their target, alternative compliance payments (ACPs) are required instead. These payments are recycled to support renewable energy through other means. In 2006, $18.2 million was paid in the form of ACPs. In addition to ACPs, some states have compliance waivers and opportunities to make up purchase shortfalls in later years. Only in Connecticut in 2006 and Texas in 2003 and 2005 had there been examples of explicit enforcement actions. A key barrier to achieving these RPS ta rgets is adequate transmission lines. California does not believe it will be able to reach the states 20% RPS by 2010 due to insufficient transmission. In addition, Nevada power has expressed a need for new transmission lines, while New Hampshire has enacted legislation requiring the Public Utilities Commission to conduct a study on expanding transmission. At this point Texas, Colorado, California, and Minnesota have plans to rebuild their transmission. In addition, seven states have formed transmission infrastructure authorities to issue revenue bonds for new transmission.

186

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Differential Support for Solar Energy in State RPS Policies Currently set asides are used to support central and distributed solar energy in 13 of the 28 states and Washington DC. In 2007, new solar or distributed generation set asides were created in Delaware, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, and the already established set aside in Colorado was expanded. In 2008, Massachusetts and Ohio created solar set asides. From 200007, 102MW of grid connected PV capacity was added in states with setasides. This represents 22% of all grid PV installations in the country over this period, as well as 75% of all grid PV installations outside of California, the largest U.S. market. Of states with set asides, only Arizona, Nevada, and New Jersey have four or more years of operational experience. Figure 231: States with Solar or DG Set Asides
WA: 2x multip lier fo r DG NH: 0.3 % solar ele ctr ic by 2014 NY: 0.1542% customer -s ited DG by 2013 NV: 1% so lar by 2015 2.4x multipl ier for central PV 2.45x mul tipl ier for d istributed PV MA: % TBD for DG NJ: 2.12% s olar electric b y 202 1 PA: 0 .5% PV by 2020 OH: 0.5% solar elec tr ic by 2024 MD: 2% so lar electric b y 2022 AZ : 4.5% c ustomer -sited DG by 2025 (hal f from reside ntia l) CO: 0.8% so lar electric by 2020 (half from customer-site d proje cts) 1.25x multipli er for in -state projects 3x mul tipl ier for co-ops and muni s for solar insta lled before July 2015 NM: 4 % solar electric by 2020, 0.6% DG by 2 015 DE: 2.0 05% so lar electric by 20 3x multiplier for solar instal led before 2015

DC: 0.386% so lar electric b y 2021 1.1x multipl ier for sola r 2007-09 NC: 0.2% s olar b y 20 18

Set-aside Set-aside with multiplier Multiplier

TX: 2x multip lier fo r a ll n on-w in d

Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory , Barclays Capita l research

Figure 232: States with Solar Set Aside


State
Arizona Colorado Delaware Maryland Massachusetts Nevada New Hampsh ir e New Jersey New Mexico New York Nor th C ar olin a Ohio Pennsylvania Washington D.C.

First Compliance Year


20 01 20 07 20 08 20 08 TBD 20 03 20 10 20 04 20 11 20 06 20 10 20 09 20 06 20 07

Photovoltaics

Resourc e Eligibility Solar Thermal Solar Heating Electric and/or Cooling


Non-PV D ist. Generation

Source: Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory , Barclays Capita l Research

May 01, 2009

187

Solar Energy Handbook

Solar Capacity Required to Meet Existing Set Asides A cumulative 560 MW of solar capacity is required by these policies by 2010. This number will grow to 2,450MW by 2015, 5,870 MW by 2020, and 7,550MW by 2025. In order for these targets to be met, there must be an average of 100MW/year in solar capacity additions from 200810, followed by 300MW/year from 2011 to 2014 and 600 MW/year from 201521. Figure 233: Timeline of Annual and Cumulative Solar Additions
8,000 900 AZ

Cumulative Solar Capacity (MW)

Annual Solar Additions ( MW)

7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Ann ual Capaci ty (ri ght axis) Cum ulative Capacity (l eft axis)

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

NJ MD OH PA NM NC MO DE NV CO DC NH NY

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Barclays Capital research

States with the Highest Capacity Potential The largest set aside driven solar markets in terms of required capacity are Arizona, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. In the next several years, significant growth will also be required in New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. Solar Generation as a proportion of expected 2025 statewide load, may be as high was 3.1% in New Mexico, and 2% or more in Arizona, Maryland, and New Jersey, assuming full compliance is achieved.

188

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 234: States with the Highest Capacity Potential

State
Arizona Colorado Delaware Maryland Nevad a New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania Washington D.C. Total

2010 Capacity
110 MW 29 MW 0.5 MW 14 MW 76 MW 4 MW 210 MW 64 MW 10 MW 5 MW 14 MW 25 MW 0.5 MW 5 60 MW

2025 Capacity
1,60 0 MW 160 MW 190 MW 1,50 0 MW 180 MW 35 MW 1,60 0 MW 420 MW 15 MW 280 MW 820 MW 690 MW 54 MW 7,550 MW

2025 Solar Generation as a % of State Load


2.0% 0.4% 1.4% 2.0% 0.6% 0.3% 2.1% 3.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% n/a

Note: Data are presented in direct-current units, at Standard Test Conditions


Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

189

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 235: Projecting the Future Market Impacts of Existing State Solar Set Asides (Assuming Full Compliance with Existing RPS Standards)
1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 NC NM PA OH MD NJ AZ 2010 2015 2020 2025

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Barclays Capital research

Current Necessity for Solar Set Asides Traditional RPS policies with no differential support for solar are unlikely to provide meaningful increases in solar electric generation, particularly customer-sited PV, due to the cost and solicitation barriers stemming from their small individual size. States that only have credit multipliers for solar, but no share requirements, have not yet seen significant solar additions. This reflects the fact that credit multipliers have not been large enough to spur heightened interest. California may be one of the only exceptions where meaningful solar activity is occurring without specified solar set-asides. There, utilities have already signed contracts with 4+GW of solar thermal electric capacity as of February 2009. In conclusion, for an RPS to substantially benefit solar, especially PV, a solar share requirement or set-aside appears necessary, or else multipliers must be set at higher levels, with an overt action to remove contracting barriers for small, customer-sited projects.

190

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 236: U.S. Annual PV Solar Radiation

Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

May 01, 2009

191

Solar Energy Handbook

U.S. State RPS Developments Figure 237: New Renewable Capacity Needed by 2025 (Nameplate MW)
Californi a I ll inoi s M innesota Texas New Jersey Ari zon a P enn sylvani a Washington Oregon Connecti cut Nevad a 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Source: Barclays Capital research, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Arizona Date Enacted: 11/14/2006 Effective Date: 6/15/2007 Renewables requirement: 15% by 2025 Set-asides, tiers, minimums: By 2012, 30% of requirement (about 2,000 MW) must be derived from distributed generation, half of which must come from residential projects. Highest potential/focus: PV and solar water heating. Several 250+ MW solar thermal electric power plants are expected to be built by 2013. One, by Abengoa of Spain, is currently going through the approval process and has a target operation date in 2011. Challenges: Funding is the biggest challenge as solar projects are the focus. Also, unlike surrounding states, Arizona has mostly class 3 and 4 wind resources, which is not promising for wind energy generation. However, some utilities are already buying wind generated electricity from New Mexico. Land and Radiation: The distributed requirement ensures that most of the residential and small commercial solar systems will be installed on rooftops. Much of Arizona is federal, tribal, state, or county land, but there is plenty to meet RPS in the southwestern

192

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

region of the state, near Yuma. There, solar radiation is most intense and is the best in the country. California Date enacted: 2002 (amended 2003, 2006) Effective Date: 1/1/2003 Renewables requirement: increase renewable retail by at least 1% per year to reach 20% by 2010 Set-asides, tiers, minimums: None Highest potential/focus: The majority of 2010 RPS generation will likely come from geothermal and wind energy, but solar energy will see a large percentage increase in the coming years. California led the country in installed wind capacity until 2006. Wind continues to be poised for more near-term capacity growth than any other resource. A planned build-out of transmission in the Tehachapi region is expected to give access to 4,500 MW of new wind capacity between 2008 and 2013. Challenges: Californias very early RPS deadline coincides with cost escalation. Wind turbine manufacturers are scrambling to ramp up their capacity, but are getting hit with high steel prices, creating delays as long as 18 months for delivery of turbines. Constrained transmission and distribution infrastructure continues to be a problem as well. The California Solar Initiative, also known as Million Solar Roofs, is a 10-year, $2.2 billion incentives program aiming to add 3,000 MW of new solar electricity by 2017. Connecticut Date enacted: 06/04/2007 Effective Date: 10/01/2007 Renewables requirement: 27% by 2020 (20% Class I resources, 3% Class II, 4% Class III) Set-asides, tiers, minimums: Minimum % each year from Class I renewables. Highest potential/focus: Wind energy in Connecticut has the most potential. Studies indicate that the state has good biomass and vast low-temperature geothermal heat pump potential as well. Challenges: Inconsistencies and variations in states policies, changing statutory requirements by CT legislature, acceptance of higher prices by the public, and avoiding double counting of attributes. Also, some sub-regions such as southwest

May 01, 2009

193

Solar Energy Handbook

Connecticut are severely threatened with supply deficiencies and voltage instability problems due to insufficient transmission within the region. Land and Radiation: The best windy land resources in Connecticut are on the ridge crests in the northwestern part of the state. Small wind turbines may have applications in some areas. For flat-plate collectors, Connecticut has a mid-range solar resource at around 4,000 Whr/m2 /day, potentially effective in certain applications. For solar concentrating collectors, the state has a relatively poor resource. This probably is not the best renewable energy technology for the state. Illinois Date enacted: 08/28/07 Effective Date: 08/28/07 Renewables requirement: 25% by 2020 Set-asides, tiers, minimums: 75% wind Highest potential/focus: To the extent that is available, at least 75% of the renewable energy resources used to meet these standards shall come from wind generation. The state also has excellent biomass resource potential as well as some low to moderate temperature resources that can be tapped for direct heat or for geothermal heat pumps. However, electricity generation from geothermal is not possible. Challenges: With the Illinois energy market the fifth largest in the country, it is estimated that the RES will require more than 4,000MW of new renewable energy to be delivered to bundled customers. However, challenges include: significant coal fired generation, low cost electrical generation, wind regime not the strongest, and lack of strong solar potential. Land and Radiation: Illinois has good windy land resources in its central and northern regions. For flat-plate collectors, it has useful solar resources throughout most of the state at 4,5005,000 Whr/m2 /day. For concentrating collectors, Illinois could make use of certain types of technologies, mainly in the southwestern region, but large-scale thermal electricity systems will not be effective. Minnesota Date enacted: 02/22/2007 (amended May 2007) Effective Date: 02/22/2007 Renewables requirement: Xcel energy: 30% by 2020, other utilities: 25% by 2025

194

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Set-asides, tiers, minimums: Of the 30% renewables required of Xcel Energy by 2020, at least 25% must be generated by wind power and the other 5% by other eligible renewables. Highest potential/focus: Wind is the first focus for Minnesota, but the state also has excellent biomass and vast low-temperature geothermal heat pump potential. Challenges: Because it aims to take advantage of good wind resources, the main challenges for Minnesota, like those of other wind states, largely involve siting and transmission difficulties. Land and Radiation: Minnesota has significant windy land resources, especially in the southwest region of the state. Small wind turbines may have applications in some areas. For flat-plate collectors, Minnesota has useful resources throughout the state where radiation is around 4,0004,500 Whr/m2 /day, especially in the western regions. For concentrating collectors, Minnesota could pursue some types of technologies, with 3,5004,000 Whr/m2 /day, but large-scale thermal electricity systems will not be effective. New Jersey Date enacted: 2001; amendments adopted 2004, 2006 Effective Date: 9/01 Renewables requirement: 22.5% by 2021 (2.12% from solar; 17.88% from other Class I renewables; 2.5% from Class II or additional Class I renewables) Set-asides, tiers, minimums: 2.12% of retail electricity supply must be generated using solar by 2021 (approximately 1500 MW solar) Highest potential/focus: New Jersey has been one of the most aggressive states in the use of a sola r set-aside. These development ta rgets are the la rgest in the country on a per capita basis and are now driving the high growth in PV installations in the state. Land and Radiation: The highest windy land resource areas in New Jersey are found along the Atlantic Ocean and Delaware Bay coastal areas, and on ridges of western and northwestern New Jersey. For flat-plate collectors, the state has a useful amount of solar resource averaging at 4000 to 5000 Whr/m2 /day, in the southern regions. For concentrating collectors, solar resources are only marginal at 3000 to 4000 Whr/m2 /day. Although certain technologies may work in specific applications, most concentrating collectors are not effective. New Jersey also has low to moderate temperature resources that can be tapped for direct heat or for geothermal heat pumps. New York Date enacted: 9/24/2004

May 01, 2009

195

Solar Energy Handbook

Effective Date: 9/24/2004 Renewables requirement: 24% by 2013 Set-asides, tiers, minimums: 2% of total incremental RPS requirement is set-aside for Customer-Sited Tier, for a total of 0.1542% of customer-sited generation. Highest potential/focus: The first, or Main Tier, consists of medium- to large-scale electric generation facilities that sell their electrical output into the wholesale power market administered by the NYISO. The second or Customer-Sited Tier consists of smaller, behind-the-meter resources such as solar and small wind projects that produce power for use on site. Challenges: Delays in the on line date of one of the states largest new renewable energy facilities, and higher REC prices than initially anticipated and budgeted. Land and Radiation: New York has excellent wind resources in some areas of the state. Small wind turbines may have applications in some areas. For flat-plate collectors, New York has useful resources throughout the state. For concentrating collectors, it has relatively poor radiation resources, at below 3000 Whr/m2 /day. The state also has good low to moderate temperature geothermal potential as well as good hydropower resource as a percentage of the states electricity generation. Oregon Date enacted: 6/6/2007 Effective Date: 6/6/2007 Renewables requirement: 25% by 2025 Set-asides, tiers, minimums: goal for community-based and small-scale renewables Highest potential/focus: The state offered a ta x credit for solar energy use 30 years ago, and now it is trying to take the lead again, with cash incentives for PV and thermal systems, and the passage of seven clean-energy bills in 2007. Green collar jobs are getting a boost from four PV component-manufa cturers moves into the sta te. Solar World AG announced plans to establish a solar silicon wafer and solar cell production plant in Hillsboro that it expects to become the largest in the U.S. by 2009. Oregon also has excellent biomass resource potential, as well as hightemperature geothermal resources that are suitable for electricity generation, as well as direct use and heat pump applications. Land and Radiation: Oregon has good windy resources, and the best areas are concentrated on ridge crests throughout the state. In addition, areas of the coast offer some of the worlds best wave energy and tidal power potential. For flat-plate collectors, Oregon has useful resources in most of the state, with the best resources falling in the eastern region of the state. For concentrating collectors, Oregons
196 May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

resource varies significantly across the state. In the eastern region, the resources are useful for most technologies at around 4000 Whr/m2 /day. Along the coastline, though, most concentrating collectors would not be effective. Pennsylvania Date enacted: 11/30/2004 Effective Date: 2/28/2005 Renewables requirement: 18% by 2020 (8% Tier I and 10% Tier II) Set-asides, tiers, minimums: Solar PV set-aside of 0.5% for June 1, 2020 and thereafter Highest potential/focus: Tier I resources include wind, low-impact hydro, solar energy and biomass. Challenges: Defining the boundaries from which renewable energy can be counted toward the PA standard has been a major challenge. Because the sta tes energy efficiency plan included coal mine methane, and other environmentally controversial sources such as waste coal and municipal trash, several state environmental groups characterized the proposal as the dirtiest RPS in the nation and urged opposition. Land and Radiation: Pennsylvania has windy land resources consistent with utilityscale production, with the best areas concentrated on ridge crests in the southwestern region, southwest of Altoona and southeast of Pittsburgh. Small wind turbines may have applications in some areas. There are useful resources across the state for flatplate collectors but relatively poor resources for concentrating solar. In the southeast corner of the state, certain technologies might be applicable, but most concentrating collectors are not effective. Texas Date enacted: 6/18/1999 Effective Date: 9/1/1999 (amendments effective 9/1/2007) Renewables requirement: 5880 MW by 2015 Set-asides, tiers, minimums: target of at least 500 MW from renewables other than wind Highest potential/focus: Wind power development in Texas has more than quadrupled since the RPS was established. While it will continue to be the bulk of renewable energy expansion under the states RPS, Senate Bill 20 was implemented in an effort to diversify the states renewable generation portfolio, requiring that Texas meet 500 MW with non-wind generation. This provision indirectly promotes solar

May 01, 2009

197

Solar Energy Handbook

power and biomass, and provides landowners with new from the use of crops and animal waste to produce energy. Challenges: The unexpected and rapid development of wind energy in remote sections of Western Texas has placed significant demands on the modest transmission systems that deliver electricity to areas of high demand, especially in peak wind periods. Land and Radiation: There is an abundance of exceptional wind resources in Texas. The state also provides very good solar resources for flat-plate collectors. In the southwestern region, radiation averages above 6500 Whr/m2 /day. For concentrating collectors, there are again very good resources in some areas, particularly in the Big Bend region. But they vary significantly across the state, and concentrating collectors along the Gulf Coast would be much less effective. Washington Date enacted: 11/7/2006 Renewables requirement: 15% by 2020 Set-asides, tiers, minimums: None Highest potential/focus: So far the focus as been on wind, but there is growing interest in solar. SB 5101 is especially responsible for growing solar PV demand. The law establishes a renewable energy feed-in production incentive, the first such application of this approach in a U.S. state. While it would represent a paradigm shift for solar legislation domestically, this has long been effective in Germany. Washington also has excellent biomass resource potential, as well as high-temperature resources that are suitable for both electricity generation and direct use and heat pump applications. Land and Radiation: Washington has wind resources consistent with utility-scale production. The largest contiguous areas of excellent resource are located in the central part of the state. Small wind turbines may have applications in some areas. For flat-plate collectors, Washingtons resource varies across the state, but is more or less average. For concentrating collectors, there is again a widely varied resource. The western region of the state could pursue some of the technologies, but the state does not have enough of a resource (averaging 2000 to 3500 Whr/m2 /day) for largescale thermal electricity systems. Nevada Date enacted: 1997 Effective Date: 2002 Renewables requirement: 20% by 2015

198

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Set-asides, tiers, minimums: 5% of the energy portfolio must be solar, PV credit multipliers. Highest potential/focus: Geothermal, concentrating solar plants, and PV. Challenges: A big challenge in implementation has been the financial woes of the state's two primary electricity suppliers, Sierra Pacific and Nevada Power. Their credit has delayed potential renewable energy investors who would need to enter into longterm contracts with the utilities in order to meet RPS requirements. There is also the need for direct transmission connection between North and South Nevada. Access to wind resources is limited, except for in Eastern Nevada. Land and Radiation: Much of the renewable energy resource base is located in isolated areas. Nevada is the seventh largest sta te in terms of land area, however, over 80% of the state is Federal land. It is the driest state in the nation, so sufficient water is always a concern (issue in CSP). The solar radiation profile is good in southern Nevada. Several CSP plants are in a planning phase in that area including Tonopah, NV.

May 01, 2009

199

Solar Energy Handbook

200

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Chapter 9: Solar Energy Project Development Process Overview

May 01, 2009

201

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 238: Solar Energy Project Development Process Overview


Life of Plant (e.g. 20 years)

4-24 weeks

17-25 weeks

12-108 weeks

3-5 weeks

3-4 weeks

Contractor Selection

Project Development

Authoriz ation

Pre -Construction

Construction & Testing

Operations & Maintenance

Design Internal Speci fications Review Bids Compile Shortlist Sign Binding Letter of Intent

Design Blueprints and floor plans Obtain Power Grid Connection Sign Financing Contract with bank Sign Firm Contract

Municipal, County, Energy Commission, and BLM Permitting Get PPA approval from state utilities commission

Purchase or lease land Clear and level ground site Receive equipment and supplies

Installation Perform commissioning to gauge initial perform ance

O&M agreement includes terms such as employees, reporting, and auditing

Source: Barclays Capital research

Solar Energy Project Process Development Overview The first step in the Solar Energy Project Development process is to construct the plant and decide whether to buy the energy through a PPA, or produce it independently. The Design and Engineering team needs to connect the plant to the power grid and provide blueprints. This is done early on in the process because: Permitting is a bottleneck and dependent on blueprints and Purchasing/leasing land is dependent upon power grid connection. The next step is to apply for financing through loans, or investment. Permitting for a solar project depends on location, type (PV or CSP), and Environmental Quality. Finally, eligibility requirements are needed for RPS/Feed-in Tariff/Incentives and to construct the solar power plant.

202

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

A typical sola r energy project takes anywhere from nine months to three years to complete construction. Factors impacting timeline of project development include: Size of project; Type of land planned to build upon (public or private); and Type of financing (debt, equity).

Four Solar Energy Project Models Model 1: Utility Buys Power to Fill RPS (U.S.) Description: Utility buys power from a supplier to fill a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). In order to choose a supplier, the utility must issue solicitations for the project, review bids and choose based on reliability standards and credit worthiness. Once the utility chooses the supplier they must negotiate a contract, which includes a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) and form a binding letter of intent to continue the subsequent steps in the process. Next the supplier and utility must plan grid connection and construction while obtaining permitting and financing. Next the project must secure financing and sign the PPA contract and submit for the approval of the Public Utility Commission. Finally, the project must secure the site for construction and produce the plant.

May 01, 2009

203

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 239: Model 1: Utility Buys Power to Fill RPS

Source: Barclays Capital research

204

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 240: Gantt Chart; Model 1

Source: Barclays Capital Research

Model 2: Utility Builds and Owns Plant Description: Utility builds solar energy plant and owns it as a subsidiary. In order for the utility to secure a developer, they must issue solicitations, review bids, and then begin negotiations with a developer. While the design and engineering is not required for financing, it is still required for permitting, which is still a bottleneck for this process. In this model, the contract negotiation and site acquisition overlap with the permitting process in order to prevent any further delay already caused by the permitting process. Once the PPA contract is agreed upon, the parent company and the subsidiary sign an LLC operating agreement and an O&M agreement that defines the relationship among owners. Once the PPA is approved by the public utilities commission, the developer can construct and install the plant.

May 01, 2009

205

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 241: Model 2: Utility Builds and Owns Plant

Source: Barclays Capital research

206

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 242: Gantt Chart: Model 2

Source: Barclays Capital Research

Model 3: Tax Advantage Project (U.S.) Description: Solar energy services provider installs plant on customers roof. Since an investor finances the project for the financial incentives, only the customer pays for the electricity and does not pay for the fixed assets. The financial incentives of this project are that the solar energy service provider owns the asset and can use accelerated deprecation while receiving tax credits. This process can be initiated by the investor, customer, or the solar energy service providers sales team. The Solar Energy Service Provider goes through the applications and only chooses those that would be good investments. Once these applications are approved they sign a binding letter of intent with the customer and send the PPA to be approved by the utilities commission. The process time for this model is less as the land rights do not need to be secured like they do in the previous two models. Once the PPA has been approved, the system is prepared and installed.

May 01, 2009

207

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 243: Model 3: Tax Advantage Project

Source: Barclays Capital research

208

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 244: Gantt Chart: Model 3

Source: Barclays Capital Research

Model 4: Solar Energy Project Process Development in Europe Description: Solar Project in Europe is initiated by an investor who works with a systems integrator to build the plant. Investors approach the systems integrator who conducts permitting, site acquisition, and design and engineering, while subcontracting project development, land and construction preparation and construction and after-site services. During the site acquisition, the systems integrator find a project developer and begins the design and engineering process, which includes connecting to the power grid, obtaining permits, and completing financing. Once the contract is complete the systems integrator hires the subcontractors for the land preparation and construction.

May 01, 2009

209

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 245: Model 4: General Solar Energy Project Process Germany

Source: Barclays Capital research

210

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 246: Model 4: General Solar Energy Project Process Spain

Source: Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

211

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 247: Model 4: General Solar Energy Project Process Italy

Source: Barclays Capital research

212

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 248: Model 4: General Solar Energy Project Process Greece

Source: Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

213

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 249: Europe Comparative Gantt Chart: Model 4


Best Case Months Co ntra ct Nego tiation 1 1 1 1 Develo per Acquisition 1 1 1 1 Site Acquisition 1 1 1 1 Design & Engineering 1 2 2 2 Permit ting 3 5 5 9 Financing 3 6 7 9 Co ntra ct Completion 1 1 1 1 Land Preparation 1 1 1 1 Co nstruct io n Prepa ration 1 1 1 1 Co nstruct io n 1 1 1 1 Aft er Site Services 1 1 1 1 Italy Greec e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Leg end:

Germany Spain

Source: Barclays Capital research

214

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Chapter 10: Solar Energy Basics

May 01, 2009

215

Solar Energy Handbook

Solar Energy What Is Solar Energy? Solar energy is described as the suns rays that reach the earth and can then be converted into either thermal (heat) or electricity. Solar energy converted into heat can be used to: heat water for use in homes and buildings and heat spaces. Solar energy can be converted into electricity in two ways: 1) photovoltaic cells; and 2) solar thermal plants (also known as concentrated solar power or CSP), which are essentially similar to coal and other fossil fuel power plants; however they use sunlight instead of coal or natural gas to generate electricity. According to the United States Department of Energy, sunlight falling on less than 0.5% of the mainland is sufficient to satisfy all U.S. electricity needs. What Is Photovoltaic Solar Energy? Photo = light and voltaic = electricity. In other words, photovoltaic technology which is essentially a scientific term used to describe solar energy referring to generation of electricity from light. Types of Solar Technology Although both solar PV and solar thermal technologies are capable of producing electricity on a large scale, the development of solar PV has been much faster than CSP over the past decade. The majority of the worlds CSP capacity is concentrated in the nine CSP power plants constructed in the Mojave Desert, California, during 19841990, and the worlds CSP capacity has increased at a very gradual pace since then. The different fate of these two solar technologies can be attributed to the relatively large space requirement for the construction of a solar farm under CSP (188,000 square meters per 30MW plant3), the higher operating cost compared with other renewable energy sources (10% of investment cost instead of less than 1% for sola r PV) and the la ck of government incentive in promoting CSP. History of the Solar Cell The first true solar cell, discovered in 1877 by Charles Fritts, was constructed from the semiconductor selenium coated with a nearly transparent layer of gold. Fritts cells were highly inefficient, converting less than 1% of absorbed light into electrical energybut it was a start. By the 1930s, selenium cells were used in light-sensitive photography devices. Russell Ohls breakthrough of the first silicon solar cell in 1941 was followed by the first c-Si solar panels in 1954, designed by AT&T Bell scientists Calvin Fuller, Daryl Chapin, and Gerald Pearson. They demonstrated a more refined silicon solar cell capable of 6% conversion efficiency. But at $300 per watt, the technology was considered far too expensive for widespread use. The Space Race of the 1950s and 1960s presented an opportunity for solar development, and satellites in both U.S. and Soviet space programs adopted this alternative energy source. The energy crisis and oil embargos of the 1970s led to greater national consciousness for reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil. This fueled the exploration of clean technology forms such as solar, wind, and geothermal. Solar PV costs
216 May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

began to decline as investments, subsidies, and research poured in. These cost savings opened the door to many novel solar applications, including: railroads, lighthouses, offshore oil rigs, remote homes, and more. In the late 1980s, silicon solar cells had a 20% conversion rate and concentrator cells had a 38% conversion rate. By the 1990s, solar energy costs had fallen as predicted, but fossil fuel costs had dropped to record low levels as well. This caused renewable energy industries in the United States to lose some degree of allure. However, rapid PV market growth was taking place overseas in countries such as Germany and Japan, where government incentives remained robust. How Solar Cells Generate Electricity The solar cell generates electric energy from light when solar radiation photons are absorbed by a semiconducting material, such as silicon, and electrons are shaken loose from their atoms. Separation of the charge carriers to a conductive contact transmits the electricity. The conversion of solar to electric energy is known as the photovoltaic effect, and the field of research around solar cells is photovolatics. During the PV process, light is first absorbed by the solar cell. The absorbed light causes electrons in the material to increase in energy, at the same time making them free to move around. However, electrons remain at this higher energy level for only a short time before returning to their original lower energy position. In order to create usable electricity current, the individual cell is designed with a positive and a negative layer to create an electric field. These two different layers are called p-type and n-type layer. In conventional polysilicon solar cell, the p-type and n-type layers are made by adding a small amount of impurities to the silicon. Boron is usually used for p-type layer, while phosphorous is used for n-type layers. Through doping the silicon with boron and phosphorus, p-type silicon contain holes, while n-type silicon contains extra electrons. When sunlight hits a solar cell, the electrons gain energy and start moving from p-type layer to the n-type layer. If we provide an external current path, electrons will flow through the path to their original side (the P side) to unite with holes that the electric field sent there, creating energy along the way. The solar cell industry has four generations of development. The first consists of silicon wafer-based solar cells, the dominant technology in commercial electricity production. The second generation is based on thin-film technologies. Here, amorphous silicon and Cadmium telluride (CdTe) are the most advanced technology. Copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) is a relatively new semiconductor material being tested. Thin-film has the advantages of lower cost per watt and flexible installation, but the disadvantage of reduced efficiency relative to wafer-based silicon. Technologies under development in thirdgeneration PV include nanocrystal (quantum dot), photoelectrochemical, and polymer solar cells. Fundamentally, they do not rely on the traditional p-n junction to separate photogenerated charge carriers. Finally, fourth-generation PV involves the mixture of polymers with nano particles to make mutispectrum-layered cells. It is important to compare the conversion efficiencies of different solar technologies, and see that the most efficient developments are not usually the most economical. There is
May 01, 2009 217

Solar Energy Handbook

generally a range of 6% efficiency for amorphous silicon cells to 40% efficiency for multijunction research lab cells. Somewhere in the middle, commercially available c-Si cells have efficiencies around 15%. Another important concept for the solar industry is distributed generation potential, defined as the production of energy close to the point of use. Central generation refers to large 5002,000MW plants that use the underlying transmission infrastructure for delivery to end-users. In contrast, distributed generation avoids the complexity of building new lines and can be configured to meet peak electricity needs. Figure 250: How Electricity Is Produced in a Solar Cell

(-)

anti-reflection coating front contac t emitter

External load electron hole pair

bas e

rear contact

(+)
Source: Miami University of Ohio, Barclays Capital research

Solar Cell Efficiency and the Concept of Watt Peak In order to judge whether a solar cell is good or bad, we consider an important parameter called cell efficiency, which is measured in terms of the following equation: = Pm Pin In simpler terms, cell efficiency measures how much energy from sunlight (Pin) can be converted into electricity (Pm ) by a solar cell. The higher the efficiency, the more electricity can be generated. Since different materials absorbs light with different energy levels, the materials used for cell manufacturing is one of the key determinants of cell efficiency level. The amount of electricity that can be generated not only depends on the cell efficiency, but also the level of sunlight and the surface area of solar cell. In order to make a meaningful comparison between solar cells, it is necessary to compare the power output under the same standard conditions. The rated power, expressed in watt peak (Wp), is a measure of the amount of energy that a solar panel can produce under optimal conditions. For comparison purposes, cell output is usually measured under standard test conditions (STC). Higher cell efficiency will result in a higher Wp. For example, a cell with an efficiency of 17% has a Wp of 170 watt per m2 under standard conditions. For a standard 5-inch solar cell (125mm x 125mm), the Wp is estimated at 2.66W. For mono-crystalline solar cell, the Wp may be even lower, as it is not a perfect square (the surface area is only 0.0147 m2). In this report, all units denominated in watt (W) refer to watt peak (Wp).

218

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Market Barriers Implications of Demand versus Supply Over the last few years, solar demand has entirely outpaced supply. This has imposed a bottleneck across the PV industry, driving spot prices as high as $450 per kilogram. The year 2009, however, will be a critical tipping point when supply continues to ease and exceed demand. Government support for solar will continue to be a critical driver of demand, which may slacken as subsidies in early-adopting countries such as Germany and Spain ramp down. But new markets like China and India may shift existing suppliers to new geographies. Interconnection Because we are still very early into the solar era, grid connection standards are not yet sufficiently streamlined. Considering the growth pace of renewable energy production in the nation, this presents a major market barrier to faster industry expansion. Solar is expected to contribute to instability of the electricity grid. The variable nature of most renewable energy forms presents new transmission needs in the nations overall distribution network. In spring 2007, the DOE launched the Renewable Systems Interconnection (RSI) study. Annual installations of grid-tied PV could reach a cumulative installed base of 7.524GW by 2015. One key finding of this study is that integration issues are likely to emerge much sooner than many experts believewithin the next five to 10 years for some regions of the country. Although national sentiment is generally receptive to solar development within the United States, many states and utilities currently have interconnection standards that inhibit PV adoption. Net Metering Similar to transmission complexities, a lack of standardization in netmetering regulations, and other policies affecting solar, has inhibited the escalation of U.S. installations. Moving ahead, it is critical for these market barriers to be addressed, alongside technological advancements. Net metering is intended to be made available for any consumer interconnecting their generator to the grid. A system owner receives retail credit for at least a portion of the electricity they generates. However, recovering credits and rebates have been highly difficult and inconsistent for renewable energy pioneers. Historically, policies have favored the entrenched conventional utilities, a hurdle for the industrial development of renewable resources such as solar and wind energy. Technical Challenges For crystalline silicon, the biggest technical challenge has been the thickness of solar cells leading to high material costs. Solar experts are exploring ways to enhance the use efficiency of silicon raw material, as well as the performance of cheaper, lower purity feedstock. Efforts to improve silicon efficiency include: reducing head and tail losses when pulling ingots, new wafer lift-off techniques to minimize kerf losses, and improving light trapping to ensure optimal absorption by solar cells. Again, a significant barrier to thin-film technology has been the low degree of module efficiency. Manufacturers currently are seeking ways to transition from prototype scale construction to commercially viable deployment. It is difficult to produce highly robust, yet

May 01, 2009

219

Solar Energy Handbook

transparent and moisture-proof material. Efforts have been made to use rigid glass encapsulated modules on the outset, in order to concentrate on cell performance, and to develop easily integrated products that allow for more frequent replacement cycles. Concentrating PV is not a new phenomenon, but historically, many manufacturers have been discouraged by the complications and costs associated with cell integration. Technical challenges include: dissipating heat from cells, sealing modules from moisture, and guaranteeing tracking precision. They were rarely able to reach the volume production necessary for these kinds of projects to be profitable. However, there has been a resurrection of interest in the CPV approach as multi-junction cell efficiency and power density levels reach new records. Cost of Solar Electricity Solar PV is currently the most expensive form of energy. Compared to conventional coalfired electricity, the total operating cost of a solar PV on a per kWh basis can be two to eight times more expensive. Even compared with other renewable energy sources such as wind power, solar energy is still much more expensive. For example, both solar PV and wind have minimal generation costs as no fuel is required. However, the investment cost per kW for solar PV is around US$6,000US$6,500 while wind power only costs about US$1,200US$1,400 per kW. The costs of solar PV have, however, historically fallen by around 20% for each doubling of installed capacity, or by about 5% p.a. According to the IEA Renewable Energy Outlook 2003, Solar Energys cost-cutting potential remains the most promising, with projected ASPs to fall by 15% for every doubling of installed capacity. The European Photovoltaic Association (EPIA) also projects a similar 15%18% cost-reduction factor, and expects PV module costs to come down from the current EUR4EUR5 per W to around EUR1 per W by 2020. By then, EPIA believes solar PV will become cost-competitive to peak load residential retail electricity prices and could be able to replace the peak load power usage by residential users in low sunshine regions (900 effective operating hours). A similar target and strategy was also introduced by the New Energy Development Organization (NEDO) in Japan, which aims to bring the PV electricity costs down from 50 per kWh currently to 23 by 2010, 14 by 2020, and 7 by 2030 through various next-generation production technology. For high-power band modules under 70 watts, prices have declined from $27/Wp to $4/Wp since the early 1980s. Prices will waver around this point depending on the order size. Note that the solar module typically makes up 40%50% of an entire solar systems total installed cost, although it varies depending on the nature of the application. There is little doubt that the solar industry will continue to see lower prices in the long term. Shortterm periods of price strength are indicative of solid interest in new installations. According to a June 2008 survey of 1,445 online retail prices, there were 74 price increases compared with29 last month, and 40 price decreases compared with 31 last month. The U.S. index was up one cent at $4.82 per watt.
220 May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

The price per delivered kilowatt-hour expresses economic costs of solar electric systems when taking solar conditions into consideration. Knowing the solar installations actual location is necessary to translate kWp to kWh. The amount of available sunlight in that region over the period of one year must be calculated. Solar electricity prices at present are around 30 cents/kWh, two to five times the average residential electricity tariff. Figure 251 takes a look at solar electricity generation costs compared with other energy sources available at present. Costs are expressed in cents/kWh. Figure 251: Benchmark Data for 2010 and 2015 Projections
Residenti al System T argets
$ 0.3 5 O &M $ 0.3 0 $ 0.2 5 $ 0.2 0 $ 0.1 5 $ 0.1 0 $ 0.0 4 $ 0.0 5 $ 0.0 0 200 6 Be nch mark 20 10 201 5 O the r Co sts In sta llatio n Bo S In ver ter Mod ules $ 0.1 2 $ 0.1 6 O &M O the r C osts I nsta llatio n Bo S I nve rte r Mod ule s $ 0.2 0

Commerci al System Targets

$ 0.0 8

$ 0.0 0 20 06 Ben chmar k 2 01 0 20 15

Source: U.S. DOE Publication, Barcla ys Capital research

Figure 252: Solar Technology Price Trends


40 Cost (cents/kWh)

30
Ins talled trough plants

Actual PV

20

Enhanced trough technology

Projected PV Advanced solar thermal largescale deployment

10

Actual solar water heating

Projected solar water heating 1998 2002 2006 2010

0 19 90

1994

Source: U.S. DOE Publication, Barcla ys Capital research

When the solar phenomenon was first born in the 1970s, in response to rising oil prices, the cost of solar electricity was about $2.00 per kWh. These costs have declined more than 90% in the last two decades due to technological progress, a trend that is expected to continue. Improvements in cost, O&M, and performance efficiency and reliability are expected to have the largest direct impact on the levelized cost of energy. These measures,
May 01, 2009 221

Solar Energy Handbook

if executed successfully, will accelerate the growth of PV systems production, and move the industry closer to its 2015 goals of cost parity and five to 10GW of U.S. generation capacity. These targets require a two- to threefold improvement in cost per kWh for modules/inverters, realized through lower module manufacturing costs and long inverter lifetime. Design enhancements and installation simplification are also crucial. Next-Generation Technology The Solar Energy Technologies Program in the United States has announced the selection of 25 exploratory research projects dubbed Next-Generation Photovoltaic Devices and Processes. If successful, these pipeline projects could drastically change current solar market paradigms and standards, bringing reduced costs and greater efficiencies. Prototype cells and processes are expected to surface by 2015, with full commercialization in 20202030. Several technology categories are discussed further. Figure 253: Next-Generation Fund Allocation
New R&D Investm ents in Companies and Univers ities Under SAI Nex t Generation ($21.7 Million)
Inter mediate Bands, 4%, $0.9M Multiple Exciton G eneration, 11%, $2.4 M Hybr id Organic/Inor ganic , 4%, $0.9M High- Efficiency Multi-Junction, 4%, $0.9M Advanced Thin Films-T andem Cells, 13%, $2.7M Advanced Thin Films-Single Junction Cells, 21%, $4.5M Advanced Concentrator Cells, 8%, $1.8M Other, 12%, $2.6M Plasmonics, 8%, $1.8M Sensitized Cells, 4%, $0.9M

PV In cu bator, 21% , $ 55 M

Te chnolo gy Pathway Partnershi ps, 70% , $18 0 M

Next Gene ra ti on, 9%, $2 1.7 M

Or ganic, 11%, $2.4M

Source: U.S. DOE, Barclays Capital research

Thin-Film Amorphous Silicon (a-Si): Layers of amorphous silicon are deposited as light-absorbing materials on rigid or flexible substrates instead of traditional crystalline silicon layers. The main advantage of this technology is that amorphous silicon absorbs solar radiation 40 times more efficiently than traditional crystalline silicon and consequently, only a 1-micron thick layer needs to be deposited as compared to about 200-micron thick layers in the case of crystalline silicon. The main disadvantage with this technology is that module efficiencies are typically between 6% and 8%, well below the 14%16% levels of crystalline silicon. In addition, efficiency loss occurs over a period of time due to the "Staebler-Wronksi" effect and in order to solve this problem a-Si cells usually have a three-layer structure. In the early 1970s, scientists found a use for a-Si in PV technology by controlling the conditions under which it is deposited and carefully modifying its composition. The

222

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

material has long been popular in small consumer devices with low power requirements, such as wristwatches and calculators. Now, a better understanding of certain unique a-Si characteristics makes it appealing for solar electric systems, and at present, it is the leading thin-film PV material. Bandgaps increase from 1.1 eV in c-Si to 1.7 eV in amorphous silicon. It can also be produced at lower temperatures and deposited on inexpensive substrates such as plastic, glass, and metal. Employing a-Si thin-film does present some challenges. Instability is arguably the biggest obstacle. The mechanism of degradation, known as the Staebler-Wronski effect, causes conversion efficiency to decrease considerably during initial exposure to sunlight. Although output gradually stabilizes, losses of 20% can occur before this happens. Multi-junction designs can help to lessen this effect, as can capital equipment reduction, a faster rate of material deposition, and better module packaging to make the material less susceptible to glass breakage or moisture ingress in outdoor environments. Current layers in the amorphous silicon market include Energy Conversion Devices, Sharp, United Solar Systems, ersol Thin-Film, Schott Solar, and a growing number of others. Figure 254: Amorphous Silicon Cell Structure
Flexible Stairless Substrate Back Reflector Film Layer Red Cell Green Cell Blue Cell Transparent Conductive Film Thickness of complete multi-j unction cell <m
A typical amorphous cell employs a p-i-n design, in which an intrinsic layer (i-layer) is sandwiched between a p-layer and an n-layer.

Source: EERE, Barclays Capital research

Thin-Film Cadmium Telluride (CdTe): Solar modules use cadmium telluride as the absorption layer. Advantages of using this technology are that CdTe has absorption properties that are matched to the solar spectrum and uses 1% of the semiconductor material used by traditional crystalline silicon solar modules. In addition, CdTe technology has a relatively high-energy performance in low light and high-temperature environments compared to traditional crystalline silicon technologies. Disadvantages include lower module efficiencies and use of toxic material (cadmium).

May 01, 2009

223

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 255: CdTe Solar Cell


Incident light Glass superstrate

Transparent conducting oxide Current out CdS (~100nm) Cd-Te (~10 m) Gold Contact

Source: Durham Physics, Barclays Capital research

Ribbon Technology Solar cell manufacturing using ribbon technology is highly similar to that of conventional crystalline silicon cell technology, except that the wafer manufacturing process is different. In conventional crystalline solar cell manufacturing, solar wafers are traditionally cut from a large ingot using wire saws. In ribbon technology, a two-dimensional polysilicon sheet or ingot is formed which can be cut into a silicon wafer by laser, reducing the material loss by almost 50%. Figure 256: String Ribbon Technology
Molten Silicon Growing Ribbon Solid-Melt Interface Silicon Feed Crucible String
Source: Altenergy S tore, Barclays Capital research

Dye-Sensitized Cell Although not in commercial production yet, this technology offers the promise of having a simple structure and low manufacturing costs. In this technology, a photo-sensitive dye is mixed with titanium dioxide and deposited on an iodide substrate using nanotechnology. Companies have been able to achieve lab efficiency rates as high as 10%; however, the cells decompose gradually under sunlight and as such have a much shorter life than conventional cells.

224

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 257: Structure of a Dye-Sensitized Cell

Dye e

count er el ectrode

e
TiO2 electrically conductive glass electrode

e e
Li ght

Source: Postech University, Barclays Capital research

Thin-Film Copper Indium Di-Selenide (CIGS): CIGS is the light-absorbing material of this thin-film technology. The main advantages of this technology are lower manufacturing costs, more efficient in low-light/low-angle applications. The main disadvantages are that the world's supply of indium is limited and in general the production process of such a multilayer structure is extremely complex. This technology can achieve lab efficiencies of 19.5%, although only about 9%13% efficiencies in commercial scale production. Figure 258: CIGS Solar Cell Structure

Source: Image provided courtesy of BP Solar

Compound Semiconductor (Crystalline Thin-Film Tandem Cell) In this case, a thin film of amorphous silicon is deposited over multi-crystalline silicon to form the p-n junction. Amorphous silicon is generally more efficient in absorbing visible light while multi-crystalline silicon is better absorbing the infra-red spectrum and the combination structure produces cells with efficiency levels as high as 21%. Thin-Film Micro-Crystalline Silicon: The technology is similar to the tandem cell technology, except that multi-crystalline silicon layer is completely replaced by microcrystalline silicon alloy. This process lowers material costs by as much as 99%; however, the efficiency reduces to about 14%.

May 01, 2009

225

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 259: -Si/a-Si Solar Cell Structure


Sunlight

a-Si Top cell MicrocrystallineSi bottom cell

Glass TCO A-Si p-layer A-Si i-layer A-Si n-layer Microcystalline-Si p-layer

Microcrystalline-Si i-layer Microcrystalline-Si n-layer ZnO Ag

Source: : Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Barclays Capital research

Spherical Silicon Cell Solar cells formed through this technology use combination of aluminum foil and spherical silicon. The main advantages of this technology are lower costs and material properties such as bendability and lightweight. In addition, the cells are capable of absorbing sunlight from different directions, thereby increasing the amount of electricity generated. The main disadvantages of this technology are lower efficiency levels (11%15%) and shorter life time (usually about three years, compared to more than 25 years for conventional cells). Figure 260: Spherical Silicon Solar Cell Production
Silicon Feedstock Front Foil

Refine Diffuse Etch Front Band

Shunt Pass ivation

Back Bond

Back Foil Aluminum Foil Perforation

Source: Spheral Solar Power, Barclays Capita l research

226

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Organic Photovoltaic As the name implies, organic materials such as carbon are used in the formation of solar cells. The main advantages of this technology are lower costs; however, this technology is still in the early-development stage. Multi-Junction Cells Multi-junction cells, also called cascade or tandem cells, achieve greater conversion efficiency through their stacked bandgap structure, which allows for more of the solar spectrum to be captured. Individual single-junction cells are stacked in such a way that high-energy photons, from solar radiation, not absorbed by the top cell are transmitted through the remaining transparent cell layers. Tandem Cells Tandem cells can be made two different ways: the mechanical stack and monolithic methods. In the first approach, two individual cells are independently made, one with a high bandgap and one with a lower bandgap, and then mechanically stacked. With the monolithic approach, one complete solar cell is made, with the second cell layers grown or deposited directly on top of it. A major challenge for todays multi-junction research lies in finding less expensive ways of making these structures. There has been a focus on gallium arsenide for component cells because of its 35% efficiency level under concentrated sunlighthigh for PV devices. Other materials being explored include amorphous silicon and copper indium diselenide. Multiple Exciton Generation When solar PV cells absorb photons from sunlight, some energy is converted to electrons but much of it is lost as heat. Multiple exciton generation, a way to reduce this wasteful heat, results in the formation of multiple excitons from the absorption of a single photon by the photovoltaic cell. This lends the advantage of higher sunlight-to-electricity conversion efficiency for single-junction solar cells, from 33.7% to 44.4%. Using MEG, semiconductor nanocrystals such as spherical quantum dots, rods, or wires can improve bulk semiconductor cell efficiencies. However, harvesting the energy is often difficult due to the short lifetimes of multiexcitons. Plasmonics Plasmons are density waves of electrons, generated when light hits the surface of a metal under specific conditions. Plasmonics, a new photonics branch of research, uses nanostructured materials to control light, allowing more of it to enter the absorber. These waves focus light into a PV cell that would not otherwise be absorbed, enhancing PV cell performance. CIT is also addressing plasmonics in earthabundant semiconductors through top cell and Si bottom cell integration. The project has a target efficiency of 25%. At University of California San Diego, researchers are combining plasmonics and III-V quantum well and nanowire solar cells for highefficiency PV. Expanding Photovoltaic Markets A more receptive U.S. solar market is manifesting, as supportive policy developments at both the federal and state level boost demand. New legislation concerning renewable portfolio standards has been passed or is pending in the majority of U.S. states. Residential and commercial installations tied to existing grid systems should continue to see rapid growth. According to the DOEs Renewable Systems Interconnection report of 2007, three
May 01, 2009 227

Solar Energy Handbook

key policies that are expected to have the best positive impact on solar demand in the United States include: improved interconnection standards; lifting net metering caps; and partial or full extension of the federal investment tax credit. The combination of all three policies is expected to increase overall U.S. installations to 24GW by 2015. Photovoltaic markets are taking off in several states thanks to cost reductions, record electricity prices, and attractive subsidies. The maps seen in Figure 261 and Figure 262 illustrate potential growth patterns for PV systems in various regions of the nation. Dark red areas pinpoint where solar has already or will achieve grid parity with conventional electricity sources. The map in Figure 261 shows PV and electricity price differences for the residential sector as they stood in 2007, reflecting existing incentives. Figure 261: PV and Electricity Price Difference for Residential Sector (2007)

Source: This map was generated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy

228

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 262: Solar Electricity Grid-Parity Scenarios in 2015 Due to Annual Electricity Price Escalation of 1.5%

Source: This map was generated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy

The map in Figure 262 shows 2015 PV and electricity price differences for residential systems under the assumption that the real price of electricity will grow at a 1.5% rate annually. Given current market trends, this 13% overall increase is a moderate forecast. In addition, 1,000 of the largest U.S. electricity service territories were evaluated. These utilities produce 95% of all residential electricity sales in the country. Under this scenario, PV technology reaches parity in the Southwest states, due to abundant solar resources coupled with high energy prices there. For about 250 utilities, solar electricity will actually be cheaper than conventional electricity. About 620 more utilities see a price difference of less than 5 cents per kWh. Consequently, 85% of residential sales should occur in locations where the cost of PV electricity is less than 5 cents per kWh higher than the prevailing rate.

May 01, 2009

229

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 263: Solar Electricity Grid-Parity Scenarios in 2015 Due to Annual Electricity Price Escalation of 2.5%

Source: This map was generated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy

The map in Figure 263 reflects a more aggressive price escalation rate of 2.5% annually. Now many of the Central, Midwestern, and Southeastern states have achieved grid parity. In this case, PV electricity is cheaper than retail electricity for about 450 utilities. The price difference is less than 5 cents per kWh for an impressive 950 utilities, reflecting 90% of residential demand. In both future scenarios, the extent of parity across the United States also depends on whether engineering break-throughs, volume productions, installation simplifications, etc., exceed current expectations. Incentives are not present in either scenario. So while PV is not expected to be cost-competitive in every single utility territory, it should expand through much of the country in a truly self-sustaining manner. Solar America Initiative The Solar America Initiative (SAI), initiated under former President Bush, is working to accelerate widespread commercialization of solar energy technologies by 2015. The goal is to make photovoltaic electricity cost-competitive with conventional grid electricity, through government partnerships with industry, universities, national laboratories, state municipalities, and other public entities. If SAI is able to reach its full potential by 2015, PV

230

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

technologies could provide at least five gigawatts of electric capacity and, at the same time, displace 7 million metric tons of CO 2 emissions annually. The DOE selected 13 cities in 2007 and an additional 12 cities in March 2008 to help lay the foundation for a domestic solar energy market.

May 01, 2009

231

Solar Energy Handbook

232

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Chapter 11: Glossary

May 01, 2009

233

Solar Energy Handbook

Glossary Amorphous Silicon: A thin-film solar photovoltaic (PV) cell material which has a glassy rather than crystalline structure. It is made by depositing layers of doped silicon on a substrate normally using plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition of silane. Anti-Reflection Coating: A thin coating of a material with a specific refractive index applied to a cell to reduce the reflection of light. Balance of System (BOS): All parts of a PV system excluding the solar module Base Load: The average amount of electric power that a utility must supply in any period. BIPV (Building-Integrated Photovoltaics): A term for the design and integration of PV technology into the building envelope, typically replacing conventional building materials. British Thermal Unit (BTU): The amount of heat energy required to raise one pound of water from a temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit to 61 degrees Fahrenheit at one atmosphere pressure. Cadmium Telluride (CdTe): A polycrystalline thin-film PV material. Cell Efficiency: The ratio of the electrical energy produced by a PV cell (under full sun conditions or 1 kW/m2) to the energy from sunlig ht fa lling upon the PV cell. Concentrator: A PV device that uses optical elements (e.g., mirrors or lenses) to increase the amount of light incident on a solar PV cell. Concentrator arrays track the sun and use only direct sunlight since the diffuse portion cannot be focused. Conversion Efficiency: The ratio of the electrical energy generated by a solar PV cell to the solar energy impacting the cell. Copper Indium Diselenide (CuInSe2, or CIS): A polycrystalline thin-film PV material (sometimes incorporating gallium (CIGS) and/or sulfur). Crystalline Silicon: A type of PV cell made from a slice of single-crystal silicon or polycrystalline silicon. Distributed Systems: Systems that are installed at or near the location where the electricity is used, as opposed to central systems that supply electricity to grids. A residential PV system is a distributed system. Electrical Grid: A network for electricity distribution across a large area. Electrochemical Cell: A device containing two conducting electrodes, one positive and the other negative, made of dissimilar materials that are immersed in a chemical solution
234 May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

(electrolyte) that transmits positive ions from the negative to the positive electrode and thus forms an electrical charge. Energy Payback Time: The time required for any energy producing system or device to produce as much energy as was required in its manufacture. Fixed Tilt Array: A solar PV array set at a fixed angle to the horizontal. Flat-Plate PV: A solar PV array or module that does not contain concentrating devices and so responds to both direct and diffuse sunlight. Fresnel Lens: A concentrating lens, positioned above and concave to a PV material to concentrate light on the material. Fuel Cell: An electrochemical device that converts the energy of a fuel directly into electricity and heat and is therefore highly energy efficient. Gigawatt (GW): A measurement of power equal to a thousand million watts. Gigawatt-Hour (GWh): A measurement of energy. One gigawatt hour is equal to one gigawatt being used for a period of one hour, or one megawatt being used for 1,000 hours. Grid-Connected System: A solar electric or PV system in which the PV array acts like a central generating plant, supplying power to the grid. Independent Power System: A power generation system that is independent of the mains grid. Inverter: An inverter converts DC power from the PV array/battery to AC power. Used either for standalone systems or grid-connected systems. Irradiance: The direct, diffuse, and reflected solar radiation that strikes a surface. Usually expressed in kilowatts per square meter. Kilowatt (kW): A unit of electrical power equal to one thousand watts. Kilowatt-hour (kWh): The amount of energy that derives from a power of one thousand watts acting over a period of one hour. The kWh is a unit of energy. 1 kWh = 3,600 kJ. Maximum Power Point Tracker (MPPT): A power conditioning unit that automatically operates the PV generator at its MPP under all conditions. Megawatt (MW): A measurement of power equal to one million watts.

May 01, 2009

235

Solar Energy Handbook

Mono-crystalline Solar Cell: A form of solar cell made from a thin slice of a single large crystal of silicon. Multi-crystalline: A material that has solidified at a rate such that many small crystals form. The multitude of grain boundaries in the material reduces the cell efficiency. Net Metering: The practice of exporting surplus solar power during the day to the electricity grid, which either causes the home owner electric meter to go backwards and/or simply creates a financial credit on the home owner's electricity bill. One-axis Tracking: A PV System structure that is capable of rotating on a single axis in order to track the movement of the sun. Orientation: Placement with respect to the cardinal directions N, S, E, W. Peak Sun Hours: The equivalent number of hours per day when solar irradiance averages 1,000 w/m2. Photocurrent: An electric current induced by radiant energy. Photoelectrochemical Cell: A type of photovoltaic device in which the electricity induced in the cell is used immediately within the cell to produce a chemical, such as hydrogen, which can then be withdrawn for use. Photovoltaic Cell: The smallest discrete element in a PV module that performs the conversion of light into electrical energy to produce a direct current and voltage. Photovoltaic Device: A solid-state electrical device that converts light directly into direct current electricity of voltage-current characteristics that are a function of the characteristics of the light source and the materials in and design of the device. Photovoltaic Module: The smallest environmentally protected essentially planar assembly of solar cells and ancillary parts, such as interconnections, terminals, intended to generate direct current power under unconcentrated sunlight. Photovoltaic Panel: refers to a physically connected collection of modules. Photovoltaic System: A complete set of components for converting sunlight into electricity by the photovoltaic process, including the array and balance of system components. Photovoltaic-Thermal System: A photovoltaic system that, in addition to converting sunlight into electricity, collects the residual heat energy and delivers both heat and electricity in usable form.

236

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Photovoltaic Effect: The effect that causes a voltage to be developed across the junction of two different materials when they are exposed to light. Polycrystalline Cell: A wafer of silicon with a multi-grained structure. All grains have the same atomic crystal lattice; however, each grain has a unique orientation in space, thereby producing a unique reflection of light. Power Conversion Efficiency: The ratio of output power to input power. Ribbon (Photovoltaic) Cells: A type of photovoltaic device made in a continuous process of pulling material from a molten bath of photovoltaic material, such as silicon, to form a thin sheet of material. Semiconductor: A material that has an electrical conductivity in between that of a metal and an insulator. Transistors and other electronic devices are made from semiconducting materials, and are often called semiconductors. Siemens Process: A commercial method of making purified silicon. Silicon: A chemical element with atomic number 14, a dark gray semi-metal. Occurs in a wide range of silicate minerals and makes up approximately 28% of the earth's crust (by weight). It is the most common semiconductor material used in making PV cells either traditionally in its crystalline form or more recently as an amorphous thin film. Solar Thermal: A form of power generation using concentrated sunlight to heat water or other fluid that may then used to drive a motor or turbine. Solar Thermal Electric: Method of producing electricity from solar energy by using focused sunlight to heat a working fluid, which in turn drives a turbogenerator. Thin Film: A layer of semiconductor material, such as copper indium diselenide, cadmium telluride, gallium arsenide, or amorphous silicon, a few microns or less in thickness, used to make photovoltaic cells. Tilt Angle: The angle of inclination of a solar collector or solar module measured from the horizontal. Tracker: Any device used to direct a PV array toward the sun. Tracking Array: A PV array that is moved to follow the path of the sun in order to maintain the maximum incident solar radiation on its surface. Two-Axis Tracking: A system capable of rotating independently about two axes (e.g., vertical and horizontal) and following the sun for maximum efficiency of the solar array.

May 01, 2009

237

Solar Energy Handbook

Wafer: A thin sheet of semiconductor (PV material) made by cutting it from a single crystal or ingot. Watt: The unit of electrical power commonly used to define the electricity consumption of an appliance. The power developed when a current of one ampere flows through a potential difference of one volt. Watt Hour: A unit of energy equal to one watt of power being used for one hour.

238

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Chapter 12: Performance, Valuation, and Financial Statistics

May 01, 2009

239

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 264: Barclays Capital Global Solar Comparable Valuation Metrics as of 4/30/2009
C ompany Sol ar C ell Manufacturers C hina Sunergy Energy C onversion Devices ErSol E-Ton Ev ergreen Solar First Solar J A Solar Motech Q-C ell s SunPow er SunTech P ow er Ticker CS UN EN ER B0LGLV4 B06BMV ESLR FSLR JASO 660944 QC E-D E SPW RA STP Rating 2-EW 3-UW NR NR 2-EW 2-EW 1-OW NR 2-EW 2-EW 3-UW S ector R ating 1-Pos 1-Pos NR NR 1-Pos 1-Pos 1-Pos NR 2-Neu 1-Pos 1-Pos Local C urrency U SD U SD E UR TWD U SD U SD U SD TWD E UR U SD U SD Price 4/30/2009 3.04 18.38 104.00 95.60 2.43 187.29 3.51 93.00 16.23 27.38 14.93 Mean Median Pol ysili con M anufacturers LDK Sol ar MEMC R eneS ola Shin-Et su Chemical Sino-American Silicon Sumco Tokuyama Corporation Topc o Sc ientif ic OCI W ac ker Market Cap ($M) 120 784 1,434 279 393 15,442 547 699 1,719 2,344 2,535 2,390 784 Enterprise Value ($M) 195 701 1, 422 560 666 14,924 640 742 1, 751 2, 662 3, 653 2, 538 742 Price to Sales 2009E 2010E 0. 5 2. 3 2. 9 0. 6 1. 2 8. 1 0. 7 1. 1 0. 8 1. 7 1. 3 1. 9 1. 2 0.3 1.6 2.1 0.6 0.8 5.9 0.5 0.9 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.4 0.9 EV to Sales 2009E 2010E 0. 7 2. 0 2. 8 1. 1 2. 1 7. 9 0. 8 1. 2 0. 8 1. 9 1. 9 2. 1 1. 9 0. 5 1. 4 2. 1 1. 2 1. 4 5. 7 0. 6 1. 0 0. 6 1. 3 1. 6 1. 6 1. 3 Pri ce to Earnings 2009E 2010E NM 25.8 26.1 7.4 NM 28.6 23.8 14.9 14.0 23.0 30.2 21.5 23.8 10. 1 14. 2 18. 4 6. 6 7. 6 22. 0 9. 5 10. 7 7. 9 13. 1 16. 4 12. 4 10. 7 PEG 2009E NM 0.7 0.5 0.2 NM 0.6 1.2 1.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.7 2010E NM 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4

LDK W FR SOL 4063 633527 3436 4043 625408 649700 B 11Y56

2-EW 1-OW 2-EW NR NR NR NR NR NR 1-OW

1-Pos 1-Pos 1-Pos NR NR NR NR NR NR 2-Neu

U SD U SD U SD JP Y TWD JP Y JP Y TWD KRW E UR

8.00 16.20 3.47 4,760.00 79.10 1,436.00 584.00 25.35 225, 000.00 78.38 Mean Median

894 3,647 227 21,992 518 3,894 1,722 104 3,331 4,999 4,133 2,526

1, 899 2, 778 478 19,994 601 6, 089 2, 157 112 4, 259 5, 087 4, 346 2, 468

0. 7 3. 3 0. 4 1. 9 1. 7 1. 4 0. 5 0. 5 2. 2 1. 0 1. 4 1. 2

0.6 2.3 0.4 1.8 1.4 1.2 0.5 0.5 1.6 0.9 1.1 1.1

1. 5 2. 5 0. 8 1. 7 2. 0 2. 3 0. 7 0. 5 2. 8 1. 0 1. 6 1. 6

1. 2 1. 8 0. 8 1. 6 1. 6 1. 8 0. 6 0. 5 2. 0 0. 9 1. 3 1. 4

17.5 30.4 8.2 16.3 14.6 NM 28.6 10.6 11.0 17.3 17.2 16.3

7. 2 11. 2 6. 5 14. 2 11. 8 NM 13. 5 9. 4 6. 9 11. 6 10. 3 11. 2

0.9 1.8 0.3 1.6 5.9 NM 1.1 NM 0.1 1.2 1.6 1.1

0.4 0.7 0.3 1.4 4.7 NM 0.5 NM 0.1 0.8 1.1 0.6

Module Manufacturers aleo s olar C anadian Solar Solar-Fabrik Solarf un Solart ron Solon AG

B189YN CS IQ 739438 SOLF B06XP07 7450738

NR 3-UW NR 3-UW NR 3-UW

NR 1-Pos NR 1-Pos NR 2-Neu

E UR U SD E UR U SD TH B E UR

5.91 6.55 4.50 4.29 0.92 9.48 Mean Median

99 233 68 222 8 153 130 126

128 274 NM 2, 334 10 401 629 274

0. 2 0. 5 0. 2 0. 4 NM 0. 1 0. 3 0. 2

0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 NM 0.1 0.2 0.2

0. 3 0. 5 NM 4. 0 NM 0. 4 1. 3 0. 4

0. 2 0. 4 NM 3. 4 NM 0. 3 1. 1 0. 4

7.1 NM 13.0 NM NM 6.8 9.0 7.1

5. 4 13. 1 12. 5 0. 0 NM 5. 2 7. 2 5. 4

0.4 NM NM NM NM 0.2 0.3 0.3

0.3 0.7 NM 1.1 NM 0.1 0.6 0.5

System I ntegrators C armanah Technologies C entros olar AG C onergy Solars trom Sunways

*C MH B0LL75 706672 566211 703682

NR NR 2-EW NR NR

NR NR 2-Neu NR NR

C AD E UR E UR E UR E UR

0.80 2.84 0.78 1.79 2.31 Mean Median

42 53 197 28 34 71 42

33 148 NM 35 56 68 45

0. 6 0. 1 0. 2 0. 2 0. 1 0. 2 0. 2

0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1

0. 5 0. 3 NM 0. 2 0. 2 0. 3 0. 3

0. 4 0. 3 NM 0. 2 0. 1 0. 3 0. 2

22.0 4.8 NM 8.0 15.7 12.6 11.9

7. 7 3. 1 37. 0 5. 9 2. 8 11. 3 5. 9

NM NM NM NM NM N/A N/A

NM NM 13.1 NM NM N/A N/A

Verti call y I ntegrated Manufacturers R EC Solar World Trina Solar Yingli Green Energy

REC-NO 581986 TS L YGE

1-OW NR 2-EW 1-OW

2-Neu NR NR NR

N OK E UR U SD U SD

60.50 21.65 14.14 6.98 Mean Median

4,403 3,105 401 903 2,203 2,004

5, 598 2, 898 667 3, 634 3, 199 3, 266

2. 3 2. 3 0. 5 1. 3 1. 6 1. 8

1.5 1.8 0.5 1.1 1.2 1.3

3. 0 2. 2 0. 9 5. 3 2. 8 2. 6

1. 9 1. 7 0. 8 4. 5 2. 2 1. 8

13.5 16.5 12.7 9.5 13.0 13.1

7. 6 13. 1 6. 6 6. 2 8. 4 7. 1

0.2 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3

0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2

Sol ar E qui pment C omposi te GT Solar R ot h & Rau C entrot herm Oerlik on Spire BTU International Manz Automat ion Meyer Burger

S OLR B142TD4 B 2885W 6 4612757 SP IR B TU I B1D XPB B1HDMD

2-EW 3-UW 2-EW NR NR NR 2-EW 2-EW

1-OW 2-Neu 2-Neu NR NR NR 2-Neu 2-Neu

U SD E UR E UR SW F U SD E UR E UR SW F

7.09 18.08 29.35 66.00 7.00 3.74 34.78 158.80 Mean Median

1,021 316 727 770 61 45 161 428 358 372

928 203 615 NM 59 23 79 394 229 203

1. 4 1. 0 1. 1 0. 3 0. 7 0. 6 0. 7 1. 2 0. 9 0. 9

1.3 0.9 1.0 0.2 NM 0.4 0.6 1.1 0.8 0.9

1. 4 0. 7 1. 0 NM 0. 7 0. 3 0. 3 1. 1 0. 8 0. 7

1. 1 0. 6 0. 9 NM NM 0. 2 0. 3 1. 0 0. 7 0. 7

8.6 13.5 13.2 NM 13.7 NM 13.7 18.7 13.6 13.6

7. 5 11. 9 11. 4 36. 5 NM 9. 1 10. 7 15. 4 14. 6 11. 4

0.2 0.9 0.6 NM NM NM 0.2 2.7 0.9 0.6

0.2 0.8 0.5 -9.6 NM 0.6 0.2 2.2 -0.7 0.5

Source: First Call, company reports, Barcla ys Capital estimates

240

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 265: Barclays Capital Global Solar Comparable Trading Statistics as of 4/30/2009
Com pa ny Sola r Cell Man uf actu re rs China Su nerg y Ener gy Conver sion Devices ErSol E-T on Everg reen So lar F irst Solar JA Solar M otech Q- Cells SunPower SunT ech Power CSUN ENER B0LG LV4 B06BMV ESLR FSLR JASO 6 60944 QCE-DE SPWRA STP 2-EW 3 -UW NR NR 2-EW 1- OW 1- OW NR 2-EW 1- OW 3 -UW 1-Pos 1-Pos NR NR 1-Pos 1-Pos 1-Pos NR 2 -Neu 1-Pos 1-Pos U SD U SD EUR T WD U SD U SD U SD T WD EUR U SD U SD 3 .04 1 8.38 10 4.00 9 5.60 2 .43 18 7.29 3 .51 9 3.00 1 6.23 2 7.38 1 4.93 M ean M edia n Polys ilico n M anu fac tur er s LDK Solar M EMC Ren eSo la Shin- Etsu Chemica l Sino- Am erican Silicon Sum co T okuyam a Corp orat o n i T opco Scien tific OCI Wacke r LDK WF R SOL 4063 6 33527 3436 4043 6 25408 6 49700 B11Y56 2-EW 1- OW 2-EW NR NR NR NR NR NR 1- OW 1-Pos 1-Pos 1-Pos NR NR NR NR NR NR 2 -Neu U SD U SD U SD JPY T WD JPY JPY T WD KRW EUR 8 .00 1 6.20 3 .47 4,760 .00 7 9.10 1,436 .00 58 4.00 2 5.35 2 25,00 0.00 7 8.38 M ean M edia n M odu le M anu fac tur er s ale o solar Can adian Solar Solar -Fa brik Solar fun Solar tron Solon AG B18 9YN CSIQ 7 39438 SO LF B06 XP07 74 5073 8 NR 3 -UW NR 3 -UW NR 3 -UW NR 1-Pos NR 1-Pos NR 2 -Neu EUR U SD EUR U SD THB EUR 5 .91 6 .55 4 .50 4 .29 0 .92 9 .48 M ean M edia n Syste m In teg ra tor s Car mana h Te chnolog ies Cen trosola r AG Con ergy Solar strom Sunways *CMH B0LL7 5 7 06672 5 66211 7 03682 NR NR 2-EW NR NR NR NR 2 -Neu NR NR C AD EUR EUR EUR EUR 0 .80 2 .84 0 .78 1 .79 2 .31 M ean M edia n Ver tical ly Int egr at ed M anu fac tur er s REC Solar World T rina Solar Yingli Gr een Ener gy REC-NO 5 81986 T SL YG E 1- OW NR 2-EW 1- OW 2 -Neu NR NR NR NOK EUR U SD U SD 6 0.50 2 1.65 1 4.14 6 .98 M ean M edia n Sola r Equ ipm en t Com p osit e GT Solar Roth & R u a Cen troth erm Oe rlikon Spire BTU I ntern ational M anz Autom ation M eyer Bur ger SOL R B14 2TD4 B2885 W6 46 1275 7 SPIR BT U I B1DXPB B1HDM D 2-EW 3 -UW 2-EW NR NR NR 2-EW 2-EW 1-OW 2 -Neu 2 -Neu NR NR NR 2 -Neu 2 -Neu U SD EUR EUR SWF U SD EUR EUR SWF 7 .09 1 8.08 2 9.35 6 6.00 7 .00 3 .74 3 4.78 15 8.80 M ean M edia n Nasd aq DAX T aiwan Nikkei COMP 1 87653 1 80530 NIK2K 1,021 3 16 7 27 7 70 61 45 1 61 4 28 4 41 3 72 # # 928 203 615 NM 59 23 79 394 329 203 1 .2 0 .2 0 .1 0 .1 0 .1 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .2 0 .1 4 .1 8 .3 1 .3 5 .6 5 .6 14 .4 -13. 1 8 .6 4 .3 5 .6 3 .9 5 .1 2 .0 -0.2 2.6 22.2 49.3 63.2 59.4 12.0 19.8 29.0 32.2 25.6 10.8 11.6 4.5 -0. 5 93 .5 34 .8 84 .8 53 .5 33 .4 -9.9 28 .6 77 .4 49 .5 44 .2 13 .5 7. 8 31 .9 -4.6 145.3 21.3 46.8 - 4.3 36.2 - 6.5 -1 6.7 32.4 31.8 26.9 8.6 - 6.6 19.2 -1 0.4 NA -59. 4 NA -84. 0 -51. 9 -63. 2 -78. 8 -57. 0 -65. 7 -61. 3 -29. 4 -41. 9 -43. 0 -34. 8 NA / 536. 39 NA / - 21.45 185. 63 35.9 2 587. 46 626. 96 325 .1 361 .0 9.8 22. 3 8.7 - 11.1 N/A -7 5.73 -7 3.33 -8 5.42 -7 8.27 -6 9.97 -7 3.30 -7 1.32 -7 5.3 -7 3.3 -4 0.5 -4 0.4 -4 6.0 -4 2.1 1 7.0 7 0.0 10 9.9 37 6.8 1 8.4 1 3.0 30 7.5 33 6.7 15 6.2 9 0.0 1.6 13.3 16.7 17.7 2.9 2.7 27.6 54.3 17.1 15.0 -58% -67% -66% -97% -62% -63% -85% -93% -0. 7 -0. 7 357% 75% 126% -4 5% 138% 81% 62% -5 7% 92% 78% 4,403 3,105 4 01 9 03 2,203 2,004 5,59 8 2,89 8 667 3,63 4 3,19 9 3,26 6 4 .6 1 .5 1 .1 3 .9 2 .8 2 .7 11 .0 9 .9 8 .8 8 .4 9 .5 9 .3 3.3 27.6 9.7 11.1 12.9 10.4 - 10.9 20 .4 72 .4 32 .4 28 .6 26 .4 - 6.2 43.4 52.2 14.4 26.0 28.9 -72. 8 -50. 3 -67. 4 -69. 9 -65. 1 -68. 7 142. 11 75.4 2 184. 66 NA / 134 .1 142 .1 -7 6.63 -6 3.83 -8 2.73 -8 4.24 -7 6.9 -7 9.7 3 6.2 5 7.0 5 3.5 2 8.0 4 3.6 4 4.8 5.7 13.5 5.6 2.5 6.8 5.7 -75% -51% -74% -75% -69% -74% 56% 105% 152% 179% 123% 129% 42 53 1 97 28 34 71 42 33 148 NA / 35 56 68 45 0 .1 0 .0 2 .3 0 .0 0 .0 0 .5 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 -1.3 -2.7 3 .1 -0.2 0 .0 27.0 5.1 13.0 0.8 39.4 17.1 13.0 14 .6 11 .2 3. 9 0. 9 16 .1 9. 3 11 .2 63.3 -1 6.2 -2 2.0 - 8.7 -2 1.4 - 1.0 -1 6.2 -15. 6 -73. 0 -84. 1 -17. 8 -68. 6 -51. 8 -68. 6 - 59.66 - 3.09 - 48.13 12.9 8 10.1 0 - 17.6 - 3.1 -5 8.82 -6 2.79 -8 7.95 -3 9.13 -6 2.02 -6 2.1 -6 2.0 1 .3 1 5.4 8 .2 5 .0 1 4.7 8 .9 8 .2 0.3 2.3 0.4 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.3 -21% -76% -88% -54% -80% -64% -76% 211% 60% 124% 76% 74% 109% 76% 99 2 33 68 2 22 8 1 53 1 30 1 26 128 274 NM 2,33 4 10 401 629 274 0 .0 2 .2 0 .0 3 .0 2 .4 0 .2 1 .3 1 .2 3 .5 11 .8 9 .8 4 .6 -2.1 5 .2 5 .5 4 .9 10.8 5.6 72.6 -13 .3 12.1 -18 .6 11.5 8.2 23 .2 13 .4 13 .8 - 17.7 4. 4 -7.6 4. 9 8. 9 -1 4.3 1.4 -1 1.6 -1 4.4 35.3 -3 3.9 - 6.3 -1 3.0 -60. 7 -75. 8 -59. 9 -69. 3 -69. 1 -85. 0 -70. 0 -69. 2 144. 64 168. 61 68.6 4 179. 30 - 33.03 204. 44 122 .1 156 .6 -5 9.65 -7 7.05 -6 7.93 -8 4.66 -7 6.71 -8 0.07 -7 4.3 -7 6.9 2 2.8 5 1.8 1 7.3 2 9.2 0 .1 9 6.6 3 6.3 2 6.0 5.0 3.0 2.4 2.3 0.0 6.8 3.3 2.7 -67% -87% -67% -85% -72% -87% -78% -79% 51% 118% 137% 89% 102% 78% 96% 95% 8 94 3,647 2 27 21,99 2 5 18 3,894 1,722 1 04 3,331 4,999 4,133 2,526 1,89 9 2,77 8 478 19,9 94 601 6,08 9 2,15 7 112 4,25 9 5,08 7 4,34 6 2,46 8 2 .9 6 .6 2 .4 2 .7 6 .0 1 .9 2 .7 0 .9 0 .3 0 .2 2 .7 2 .5 7 .4 10 .4 11 .9 -0.4 -3.8 -2.0 -6.4 -8.2 -5.5 20 .2 2 .4 -1.2 7.0 -17 .7 -14 .9 -8. 0 -8. 7 -12 .3 -11 .2 -13 .8 0.1 1.2 -7. 8 -9. 9 - 38.2 8. 1 - 11.8 1. 2 16 .9 2. 0 -2.0 18 .3 6. 5 16 .3 1. 7 4. 3 -3 9.0 13.4 -2 1.3 17.0 17.5 29.4 -2 1.7 17.1 2.3 4.9 2.0 9.2 -75. 7 -78. 2 NA -23. 0 -65. 5 -44. 7 -34. 0 -58. 1 -58. 5 -60. 2 -55. 3 -58. 5 NA / 126. 09 NA / - 11.92 195. 98 - 35.98 - 38.02 - 9.75 413. 29 100. 55 92. 5 45. 4 -7 2.09 -8 3.86 N/A -4 2.02 -7 3.16 -6 5.53 -3 3.57 -6 3.38 -1 2.35 -6 2.21 -5 6.5 -6 3.4 5 2.4 7 3.6 2 9.5 6 6.5 7 .4 2 9.4 9 .5 1 .8 42 3.9 26 3.9 9 5.8 4 0.9 3.8 10.0 2.0 36.3 1.3 8.0 3.9 0.5 104.2 57.1 22.7 6.0 -85% -78% -88% -23% -69% -48% -34% -59% -65% -62% -61% -63% 113% 62% 72% 41% 77% 93% 60% 35% 43% 76% 67% 67% 1 20 7 84 1,434 2 79 3 93 15,44 2 5 47 6 99 1,719 2,344 2,535 2,390 7 84 195 701 1,42 2 560 666 14,9 24 640 742 1,75 1 2,66 2 3,65 3 2,53 8 742 1. 17 2 .9 0 .0 1 .8 6 .4 4 .0 5 .8 4 .5 1 .5 2 .6 4 .9 3 .2 2 .9 14 .2 12 .8 0 .0 -11. 1 14 .1 30 .5 11 .8 -6.9 -0.1 5 .6 12 .9 7 .6 11 .8 -21 .49 8.8 6.9 -11 .6 -6. 0 2.9 -21 .9 -10 .4 -0. 4 -1. 0 22.2 -2. 9 -1. 0 - 13.20 - 31.1 3. 9 12 .0 0. 9 10 .8 16 .7 23 .2 - 18.1 - 12.7 51 .2 4. 0 3. 9 -2 3.0 -2 7.1 - 3.8 2.5 -2 3.8 35.8 -1 9.7 20.2 -3 5.8 -2 6.0 27.6 - 6.7 -1 9.7 -67. 6 -46. 7 3 1.9 -67. 5 -74. 1 -46. 8 -86. 7 -64. 2 -82. 1 -71. 4 -67. 7 -58. 4 -67. 6 NA / - 0.97 57.8 8 - 15.52 128. 14 795. 24 NA / - 10.27 186. 47 250. 79 142. 05 170 .4 128 .1 -7 6.09 -2 5.08 48.71 -5 5.42 -8 1.53 -4 8.36 -8 1.22 -6 8.79 -7 4.08 -7 1.62 -8 5.79 -5 6.3 -7 1.6 15 .66 8 3.3 16 2.1 9 .5 1 2.6 31 7.0 2 7.0 8 .0 13 8.7 9 8.6 4 9.6 8 3.8 4 9.6 1.33 12.9 87.3 2.1 1.0 85.3 1.6 1.5 12.0 18.5 5.1 20.8 5.1 -81% -78% -18% -71% -81% -41% -87% -67% -85% -72% -70% -68% -72% 129% 43% 53% 29% 143% 120% 126% 81% 73% 48% 193% 94% 81% T icker Ratin g Sec tor R tin g a Loc al Cur ren cy Pr ice 4/30/ 09 M ark et Cap ($M ) Ente rp ris e Value ($M ) A era ge v Daily Vo l (M ) Week M on th Qua rte r % R tur n e YT D L TM 2 007 20 08 52 week High Lo w % Chan ge F ro m 52W Hi 52W L o

Note : All f orward estima tes ba sed on First call conse nsus figu res Sour ce: Com pany r epor ts, Fir stCall, Barclays Ca pital re search

Source: First Call, company reports, Barcla ys Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

241

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 266: Barclays Capital Global Solar Comparable Financial Metrics as of 4/30/2009
L oca l Price Balan ce Sh ee t EBIT DA ($, M) Co ns ens us Reven u e ($ M) C n sen sus EPS ( $) o

Co mp an y Sol ar Cell M an uf act urers Ch ina Sun erg y Ene rgy Conver sion D vices e Er So l E- Ton Ever gre en So a r l F irst So lar J A Sola r M ote ch Q -Cells Sun Power Sun Te ch Power

Tic ker

Rati ng

C rren cy u

4/30 /09

Sh ares Ou t ('M )

Cas h ($ M)

De bt ($M )

Net Cash / Sh are ( $)

BV/Sha re ($)

20 08

20 09E

201 0E

200 8

2009 E

2 010E

2008

20 09E

20 10E

CSUN ENER B0LGL V4 B0 6BMV ESLR F SLR JASO 660 944 QCE-DE SPWRA ST P

2- EW 3-UW NR NR 2- EW 1-O W 1-O W NR 2- EW 1-O W 3-UW

USD USD EUR TWD USD USD USD TWD EUR USD USD

3 .04 1 8.38 10 4.0 0 9 5.60 2 .43 18 7.2 9 3 .51 9 3.00 1 6.23 2 7.38 1 4.93 Me an Me dia n

40 43 10 10 1 16 2 82 15 6 26 1 82 86 17 0 10 8 86

95 423 15 42 101 716 1, 929 120 1 149 508 373 120

169 339 3 323 374 198 2,0 23 162 34 468 1,6 26 520 323

- 1.88 1.9 5 1.1 4 - 2.77 - 1.69 6.2 8 - 0.60 - 0.09 - 0.40 - 3.76 - 6.58 - 0.8 - 0.6

7 .98 7 .98 3 2.20 0 .46 7 .98 1 7.94 2 9.29 1 .54 7 .98 7 .98 4 .55 1 1.4 8.0

-11 .2 36.6 1 29.9 46.7 -0 .2 5 23.8 1,14 6.3 93.5 3 96.9 2 27.9 1 70.7 2 51.0 1 29.9

2. 8 69 .1 141 .7 49 .8 22 .6 730 .7 75 .2 81 .8 328 .9 233 .0 167 .5 173 .0 81 .8

37. 0 109 .3 182 .6 76. 1 98. 6 994 .7 130 .1 90. 8 475 .7 382 .0 266 .2 258 .5 130 .1

35 1 25 5 39 8 41 0 11 2 1, 246 5, 458 65 6 1, 607 1, 435 1, 924 1, 259 65 6

26 4 34 5 50 0 49 1 31 7 1 ,895 79 0 63 9 2 ,066 1 ,397 1 ,889 96 3 63 9

386 489 680 460 473 2, 597 1, 051 759 2, 812 2, 071 2, 258 1, 276 759

- 0.5 7 0. 10 5. 64 0. 41 - 0.6 5 4. 34 3. 06 0. 27 2. 18 1. 15 0. 72 1. 51 0. 72

- 0.24 0.7 1 5.1 1 0.3 7 - 0.09 6.5 5 0.1 5 0.1 8 1.4 9 1.1 9 0.4 9 1.4 5 0.4 9

0.3 0 1.2 9 7.2 8 0.4 2 0.3 2 8.5 3 0.3 7 0.2 5 2.6 3 2.0 9 0.9 1 2.2 2 0.9 1

Pol ysili con M anu fac tu re rs L DK So lar M EMC Re neSola Shin -Etsu C em c al h i Sino -Ame rican Silico n Sum co T oku yama Corp ora tion T opc o Scien tific O CI Wa cker LDK WF R SO L 40 63 633 527 34 36 40 43 625 408 649 700 B11 Y5 6 2- EW 1-O W 2- EW NR NR NR NR NR NR 1-O W USD USD USD JPY TWD JPY JPY TWD KRW EUR 8 .00 1 6.20 3 .47 4 ,760 .00 7 9.10 1 ,436 .00 58 4.0 0 2 5.35 22 5,0 00.0 0 7 8.38 Me an Me dia n 11 2 22 5 65 43 0 22 8 25 2 27 4 14 3 22 50 18 0 18 4 256 898 112 2, 252 30 580 218 20 335 262 496 259 1,2 61 30 364 255 113 2,7 75 654 29 1,2 63 350 709 357 - 8.99 4.2 5 - 3.84 5.0 5 - 0.27 - 8.70 - 1.59 - 0.06 -4 1.59 - 1.76 - 5.8 - 1.7 5 .93 9 .25 7 .27 3 6.17 0 .83 1 4.44 7 .87 0 .76 3 2.50 5 2.82 1 6.8 8.6 2 06.3 6 90.8 -31 .5 4,00 2.4 78.9 1,45 0.1 5 21.2 15.2 4 83.9 1,38 6.6 8 80.4 5 02.5 185 .6 242 .6 32 .7 2, 840 .1 60 .9 429 .6 617 .9 10 .8 487 .2 932 .4 584 .0 336 .1 284 .5 528 .0 86. 9 3, 133. 9 72. 2 712 .2 623 .3 12. 7 783 .6 1, 197. 9 743 .5 575 .7 1, 643 2, 005 67 0 12 ,905 29 5 4, 212 3, 273 37 4 1, 843 5, 518 3, 274 1, 924 1 ,277 1 ,119 56 9 1 1,52 5 30 1 2 ,695 3 ,254 21 4 1 ,510 4 ,874 2 ,734 1 ,393 1, 622 1, 585 637 12 ,303 378 3, 312 3, 361 218 2, 126 5, 388 3, 093 1, 874 1. 42 1. 71 - 0.8 4 3. 89 0. 23 0. 80 - 0.2 4 0. 11 9. 62 11 .36 2. 81 1. 11 0.4 6 0.5 3 0.4 2 3.1 5 0.1 6 - 1.60 0.2 2 0.0 7 13. 62 5.8 3 2.2 8 0.4 4 1.1 1 1.4 5 0.5 3 3.6 0 0.1 9 0.0 0 0.4 7 0.0 8 21 .80 8.6 6 3.7 9 0.8 2

M od ule Ma nu fac turers a leo so lar Ca nadia n Solar Sola r-F abr ik Sola rfun Sola rtr on Solo n AG B189 YN CSI Q 739 438 SOL F B06XP07 745 0738 NR 3-UW NR 3-UW NR 3-UW EUR USD EUR USD T HB EUR 5 .91 6 .55 4 .50 4 .29 0 .92 9 .48 Me an Me dia n Syst em Int eg ra tors Ca rm anah Te chno o gies l Ce ntro solar AG Co ner gy Sola rstr om Sun ways *CMH B0 LL75 706 672 566 211 703 682 NR NR 2- EW NR NR CAD EUR EUR EUR EUR 0 .80 2 .84 0 .78 1 .79 2 .31 Me an Me dia n Vertic ally I nt egrat ed Man uf act urers REC Sola r Wo rld T rina Solar Ying li Gre en Ene rgy REC- NO 581 986 TSL YGE 1-O W NR 2- EW 1-O W NOK EUR USD USD 6 0.50 2 1.65 1 4.14 6 .98 Me an Me dia n 49 4 11 2 28 12 9 19 1 12 1 295 1, 074 132 1, 218 680 685 1 490 867 398 3 949 1 676 1 178 - 1.82 1.8 5 - 9.34 -2 1.10 - 7.6 - 5.6 3 .84 9 .28 1 4.99 3 0.18 1 4.6 1 2.1 7 97.7 3 62.2 92.0 1 70.0 3 55.5 2 66.1 728 .2 400 .8 65 .1 216 .6 352 .7 308 .7 1, 233. 5 507 .6 102 .4 292 .7 534 .0 400 .1 1, 206 1, 156 83 2 7, 553 2, 687 1, 181 1 ,877 1 ,346 73 4 1 ,121 1 ,269 1 ,233 2, 875 1, 745 888 1, 331 1, 710 1, 538 0. 91 1. 55 2. 45 5. 35 2. 57 2. 00 0.6 6 1.6 8 1.1 2 0.7 4 1.0 5 0.9 3 1.1 8 2.1 2 2.1 5 1.1 3 1.6 4 1.6 5 42 15 25 3 12 12 67 15 10 22 NM 3 5 10 7 0 117 NM 10 26 38 18 0.2 3 - 6.54 NM - 0.54 - 1.83 - 2.2 - 1.2 0 .81 2 .89 -0. 64 4 .19 4 .36 2.3 2.9 6.6 28.0 -29 8.9 5.6 3.9 -50 .9 5.6 3. 0 26 .0 22 .4 8. 5 17 .8 15 .5 17 .8 7. 6 37. 8 89. 4 11. 0 31. 0 35. 4 31. 0 76 42 7 1, 292 12 1 33 7 45 0.4 33 6.8 70 44 8 1 ,267 15 2 35 6 4 58.9 3 56.4 82 528 1, 512 170 418 54 2.2 41 8.2 - 0.2 8 0. 40 - 1.6 4 0. 14 - 0.2 1 - 0.3 2 - 0.2 1 0.0 5 0.7 6 - 0.14 0.2 9 0.1 9 0.2 3 0.1 9 0. 1 1. 2 0. 0 0. 4 1. 1 0.5 6 0.3 9 13 36 12 52 30 0 13 71 24 1 116 NM 411 0 6 107 6 30 157 NM 2 523 2 254 593 157 - 2.21 - 1.16 NM -4 0.85 - 0.01 -1 9.80 - 12.8 - 2.2 7 .82 1 0.70 6 .79 4 3.02 0 .08 3 5.54 1 7.3 9.3 34.2 21.0 0.3 -15 6.3 NM 1 17.0 3.2 21.0 28 .2 17 .6 13 .1 27 .5 NM 74 .1 32 .1 27 .5 36. 4 47. 6 16. 4 72. 0 NM 94. 6 53. 4 47. 6 46 3 70 9 27 9 4, 883 NM 1, 047 147 6 70 9 49 2 50 5 28 2 57 8 NM 1 ,133 59 8 50 5 583 684 272 685 NM 1, 329 711 684 1. 55 - 0.3 2 - 1.2 0 - 5.5 5 NM 3. 35 - 0.4 3 - 0.3 2 1.0 7 - 0.09 0.4 5 - 0.10 NM 1.7 8 0.6 2 0.4 5 1.4 1 0.5 0 0.4 6 0.2 6 NM 2.3 6 1.0 0 0.5 0

Sol ar Eq ui pmen t Co mp os ite G T Sola r Ro th & Rau Ce ntro ther m O erlikon Spir e BT U Inte rna tiona l M anz Au tom ation M eyer Burg er SOLR B142 TD4 B2 885W 6 461 2757 SPI R BTUI B1 DXPB B1HDMD 2- EW 3-UW 2- EW NR NR NR 2- EW 2- EW USD EUR EUR SWF USD EUR EUR SWF 7 .09 1 8.08 2 9.35 6 6.00 7 .00 3 .74 3 4.78 15 8.8 0 Me an Me dia n 14 4 NA 19 13 9 9 4 3 29 9 94 117 112 NM 6 34 88 39 70 88 0 5 0 NM 3 12 6 6 5 5 0.6 5 8.2 8 5.7 9 NM 0.3 1 2.4 9 22.7 2 11.0 9 7 6 0 .14 1 6.70 1 1.99 -41 .63 1 .49 6 .79 4 9.50 1 3.99 7 9 1 75.1 67.9 81.5 4 90.1 NM 3.3 46.0 71.2 13 4 71 186 .0 38 .4 93 .5 199 .6 NM -5.4 27 .5 48 .7 84 49 174 .8 43. 7 100 .4 361 .8 NM 8. 5 32. 7 53. 5 111 53 55 4 34 9 48 1 3, 709 69 93 30 4 41 4 74 7 38 2 68 2 31 2 64 4 3 ,020 82 77 23 8 35 2 67 6 33 2 811 338 712 3, 323 NM 107 263 386 849 386 0. 71 2. 33 2. 64 - 14.7 0 0. 57 - 0.1 5 6. 47 11 .29 1 2 0.8 2 1.7 2 2.8 6 - 12.7 0 0.5 1 - 0.76 3.2 7 7.6 1 0 1 0.9 4 1.9 6 3.3 1 1.6 2 NM 0.5 3 4.1 7 9.2 7 3 2

Not e: All for ward estim ates base d on Fir stcall co nsen sus fig ure s Sour ce: Comp any r epo rts, F irst Call, Barcla ys Cap t al est m ate s i i

Source: First Call, company reports, Barcla ys Capital estimates

242

May 01, 2009

Figure 267: Barclays Capital Global Solar Comparable Valuation Charts as of 4/20/2009
Solar Universe - 2008 price to earnings
25x 21 .5x 20x 17.2x 1 2.6x 9.x 13.x 1 3.6x

Solar Universe - 2009 price to earnings


16x 14x 12x 10x 8x 7.2x 12.4x 11.3x 10.3x 14.6x

15x

8.4x

10x

6x 4x 2x

5x

x
Solar Cell
1

Module

Syst em 3 Integrators

Vertically Integrated
4

Poly/Waf er

Solar Equipm ent Composite


6

x
S ol ar Cell
1

Module

Syst em 3 Int egrators

Vertically 4 Integrated

P ol y/ Waf er

S ol ar Equipment 6 Composi te

E xhibit 3

Exhibit 4

Solar Universe - 2008 price to sales


2.5x 2 .x 1.5x 1 .x .5x .x
S olar Cell
1

Solar Universe - 2009 price to sales


1.6 x 1.4x 1.2x 1.1x .8x

1 .9x 1.6x 1.4 x .9x

1.4 x 1.2 x 1.x .8 x .6 x .4 x .3 x .2x .2 x .x


M odule
2

.2x

.2x

Syst em Integrators
3

V ert icall y 4 I ntegrat ed

P oly/ Wafer

Solar E quipm ent 6 Com posit e

Solar Cell

Modul e

System 3 Int egrators

Vertically Integrated
4

Poly/Wafer

Solar E quipment Composit e


6

(1 ) So lar Ce ll co mp osit e in clud es : Ch ina Sun er gy, Ene rg y Co nv er sion De vice s, Er Sol So lar , E- To n, Ever gr ee n Solar , Fir st Sola r, JA So lar, Mote ch, Q- Ce lls, Su nPo wer , Su nte ch (2 ) Mo dule co mp os ite inclu de s: a leo so lar , CSI, Sola r- Fa br ik, Solar fu n, Solar tr on , Solo n AG (3 ) Sy ste m I nte gr ato rs comp osite in clud es: Ca rman ah Te ch no logie s, Cen tro so lar AG, Con er gy, Sola rs tro n n d Sun ways AG (4 ) Ve rt ically Int eg rat ed co mp osit e in clud es : REC, Sola rW or ld AG , Trin a So lar a nd Ying li Gr ee n Ene rgy (5 ) Po ly/W afe r c ompo site inc lude s: LDK Solar , MEMC, R en eSo la, Sin o- Ame ric an Silicon , Su mc o,To kuya ma, To pco Scien tific an d W ack er Ch emie (6 ) So lar Equ ipmen t C ompo site : inc lud es: GT So lar , Ro th & Ra u, C etr ot her m, Oe rlik on , Spir e, BTU In ter na tio nal, Man z Auto matio n, Meye r Bu rg er

May 01, 2009 243

Solar Energy Handbook

Source: First Call, company reports, Barcla ys Capital estimates

S OLF

CSI Q

S PWR

+ 10% + 9% + 8% + 7% + 6% + 5%

10% 5% 0%

-5% -10% -15%

- 1%

- 6%

- 13% - 18% - 21% - 22%

FSL R

ESL R

C SU N

ENER

TSL

STP

YGE

L DK

JASO

SPWR

SOLF

CSIQ

WFR

-20% -25% Exhibit 12

E xhibit 11

Price performance - last quarter


80% + 72%

Price performance - last t welve mont hs


0% ENER FSLR CSUN ESLR STP YGE SOLF LDK CSIQ -10% SPWR JASO TSL WFR

60%

+ 51% + 32% + 17% + 13%

-20% -30% -40%


+ 11% + 8% + 1%

40%

20%

-50% -60%

- 47% - 47%

0% ST P Y GE S PWR SOLF JA SO CS IQ FS LR WFR ES LR ENER CS UN LDK TSL - 13% - 13%

-20%

- 18%

-70% -80%

- 67% - 68% - 68% - 69% - 70%

- 71%

-40%

- 31% - 38%

- 74% - 76% - 76%

- 78% - 87%

-90% -100%

-60%

Source: FactSet ; Note in the last week/month/quarter/12 months, the N ASDAQ Composite has cha nged by +3.9%/+10.8%/13.5%/-29. 4%. Last week refers to the 7 da ys ending 4/30/09, Last mo nth refers to 4 weeks th ending 4/24/09 Quar ter refers to 12 weeks ending April 24 2009, Last 12 Months refers to the period ending April 24th 2009.

CSUN

JAS O

T SL

ENER

FSLR

E SLR

WFR

STP

YGE

LDK

244

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 268: Barclays Capital Absolute Price Performance U.S. Solar Energy as of 4/20/2009
Price performance - last week Price performance - last month
25% + 31% 30% 25% 10% 20% 15% + 14% + 14% + 13% + 13% 5% + 12% + 12% 0% 20% 15% + 11% + 22%

May 01, 2009

35%

+ 10%

+ 9%

+ 7%

+ 6% + 3%

Solar Energy Handbook

Chapter 13: Earnings Models

May 01, 2009

245

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 269: FSLR Earnings Drivers


FYE: December Q1 Fi scal 2008 Q2 Q3 Q4 Fiscal 2008 Q1E Fi scal 2009E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fi scal 2009E Q1E Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fi scal 2010E

Annual Capaci ty (MW) Qu arterl y Capacity (M W) Number of Li nes Ohio Germany M al aysia New Location 1 New Location 2 New Location 3 New Location 4 Annual Nameplat e Capaci ty per Line Ohio Germany M al aysia New Location 1 New Location 2 New Location 3 New Location 4 To tal Produ cti on (M W) Ohio Germany M al aysia New Location 1 New Location 2 New Location 3 New Location 4 To tal Compon ent Ship ments (M W) M odul e ASPs ($/W) Y/Y (%) Exchange Rate (Euros/ $) M odul e ASPs (Euros/ W) System Shi pmen ts (MW) System ASPs ($/ W) $ $

318. 3 79. 6 7. 0 3. 0 4. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 45. 5 45. 5 45. 5 NA NA NA NA 79. 6 34. 1 45. 5 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 79. 6 2.47 $ 7% 1. 48 1. 68 -6% 0. 0 $

456. 5 114. 1 9. 5 3. 0 4. 0 2. 5 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 48. 1 48. 1 48. 1 NA NA NA NA 114. 1 36. 0 48. 1 30. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 103. 2

548.1 137.0 11.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.8 49.8 49.8 NA NA NA NA 137.0 37.4 49.8 49.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 137.0

629.6 157.4 13.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.3 48.3 48.3 NA NA NA NA 157.4 36.2 48.3 72.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 182.4 488.1 143.7 191.6 152.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 502.2 #

845. 0 211. 2 17. 0 3. 0 4. 0 10. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 49. 7 49. 7 49. 7 NA NA NA NA 211. 2 37. 3 49. 7 124. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 206. 2

972.1 243.0 19.0 3.0 4.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.2 51.2 51.2 NA NA NA NA 243.0 38.4 51.2 153.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 218.0

1211. 2 302. 8 23. 0 3. 0 4. 0 16. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 52. 7 52. 7 52. 7 NA NA NA NA 302. 8 39. 5 52. 7 210. 6 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 237. 8

1257.7 314.4 23.0 3.0 4.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.7 54.7 54.7 NA NA NA NA 314.4 41.0 54.7 218.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 245.0 1071.5 156.2 208.2 707.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 907.1 $

1351.8 337.9 24.0 4.0 4.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.3 56.3 56.3 56.3 NA NA NA 337.9 56.3 56.3 225.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 337.9 1. 55 $ -19% 1. 20 1. 29 -8% 25.0 $ 3. 50 $

1392. 3 348. 1 24. 0 4. 0 4. 0 16. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 58. 0 58. 0 58. 0 58. 0 NA NA NA 348. 1 58. 0 58. 0 232. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 348. 1 1.50 $ -17% 1. 20 1. 25 -10% 25. 0 3.50 $

1687.9 422.0 28.0 4.0 4.0 16.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.3 60.3 60.3 60.3 NA NA NA 422.0 60.3 60.3 241.1 60.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 422.0 1. 46 $ -13% 1.20 1.22 -11% 25.0 3. 50 $

2004.4 501.1 32.0 4.0 4.0 16.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.6 62.6 62.6 62.6 NA NA NA 501.1 62.6 62.6 250.5 125.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 501.1 1609.1 237.3 237.3 949.0 185.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1609.1

2.59 $ 2. 53 $ 9% 2% 1. 53 1. 70 -7% 0. 0 1. 51 1. 68 -7% 0.4 $ 4. 00 $

2. 14 $2. 43 -18% 0% 1.32 1.46

$ 1.90 $ 1.82 $ 1.69 $ -23% -30% -33% 1. 36 1. 40 -17% 5. 0 $ 4.00 1.31 1.39 -18% 10.0 $ 3.50 1. 24 1. 36 -19% 10. 0 $ 3.50 $

1. 60 $ 1. 75 -25% -28. 0% 1.20 1.34 -18% 25.0 3. 50 1. 28 1. 37 -17. 8% 50.0

1.38 $ 1.47 -14% -15.9% 1.20 1.15 -14% 25.0 3.50 1.20 1.23 -10.5% 100.0

1.62 1.67 -13% -8. 4% 11.0 4. 00

Compon ent Revenues ($, M) Y/Y (%) System Revenues ($, M) To tal Revenues ($, M)

196. 9 194% 0. 0 196. 9

267. 0 246% 0. 0 267. 0

347.2 118% 1.5 348.7

389.9 1201.0 94% 138% 43.8 45.3 433.7 1246.3 #

391. 5 99% 20. 0 411. 5

396.3 48% 35.0 431.3

400. 8 15% 35. 0 435. 8

392.7 1% 87.5 480.2

1581.3 32% 177.5 1758.8

522.6 34% 87.5 610.1

522. 6 32% 87. 5 610. 1

616.0 54% 87.5 703.5

693.2 77% 87.5 780.7

2354.5 49% 350.0 2704.5

Tot al Cost/ Wat t Stock based com p ($/ W) Act ual st ock based comp ($, M) Ramp Im pact ($/W ) Act ual ram p cost s ($,M) Underl ying Cost/Watt BoS Cost/Watt System Cost/ Watt Cost o f Reven ues ($,M ) Component s Gross M argin (%) System Costs ($, M) Syst em s Gross Margin (%) To tal Costs ($, M) Overal l Gross M argi n Wat ts per module Conversion ef ficiency (%) # modules per product ion l ine Q/ Q (%) Nameplate cap aci ty per li ne (M W)

$ $ $ $ $ $

1.14 0.03 2. 0 0.03 2. 0 1.09 90. 7 0. 0 90. 7 53.9%

$ $ $ $ $ $

1.18 0.03 3. 0 0.06 6. 4 1.09 121. 8 0. 0 121. 8 54.4%

$ 1. 08 $ 0. 03 4.0 $ 0. 04 6.0 $ 1. 01

$ $ $ $

$ 1. 30 $ $ 2. 38 $ 148.0 0.9 148.9 57. 4%

0. 98 $1. 10 0. 02 -13% 3.0 0. 03 6.0 0. 93 $1. 03 -9% 1. 30 2. 28 178.8 54. 1% 20.9 52. 2% 199.7 539.2

$ 0.94 $ 0.01 2. 5 $ 0.02 0. 0 $ 0.91 $ 1.30 $ 2.24 193. 6 11. 2 204. 8 50.2%

$ 0.90 $ 0.01 1.5 $ 0.02 4.5 $ 0.87 $ 1.30 $ 2.20 196.7 22.0 218.7 49.3%

$ 0.87 $ $ 0.01 $ 1. 5 $ 0.02 $ 4. 5 $ 0.85 $ $ 1.30 $ $ 2.17 $ 207. 3 21. 7 229. 0 47.4%

0. 85 $ 0. 89 0. 01 -19% 1.5 0. 02 4.5 0. 83 $ 0. 86 -16% 1. 30 2. 15 209.0 53.8 262.8 45. 3% 806.5 108.8 915.3 49. 0%

$ $ $ $ $ $

0. 85 0. 00 1.5 0. 02 6.5 0. 83

$ $ $ $

0.83 0.00 1. 5 0.02 6. 5 0.81

$ $ $ $

0. 81 0. 00 1.5 0. 02 6.5 0. 79

$ $ $ $

0.78 $ 0.00 1.5 0.01 6.5 0.76 $ 1.30 2.08 390.8 52.0 442.8 43.3%

0.82 -8%

0.80 -8%

1. 30 $ 2. 15 $ 287.3 53.8 341.0 44. 1%

1.30 $ 2.13 $ 288. 9 53. 3 342. 2 43.9%

1. 30 $ 2. 11 $ 341.8 52.8 394.6 43. 9%

1308.8 211.8 1520.6 44.4%

54. 0% 55. 1% 73 10. 8% 664, 651 -4. 0% 48.3

71 10.6% 637, 672 3.0% 45. 5

72 72 10.7% 10. 7% 667, 642 692, 345 4.7% 3. 7% 48. 1 49.8

7%

73 74 75 76 10.9% 11.0% 11.1% 11. 3% 677,944 691,503 705, 333 719,440 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2. 0% 49. 7 51.2 52. 7 54.7

8%

76 11. 3% 741, 023 3. 0% 56.3

76 77 11.3% 11. 4% 763, 254 786, 151 3.0% 3. 0% 58. 0 60.3

77 11.5% 809,736 3.0% 62.6

13%

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

246

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 270: FSLR Income Statement


FYE: D ecember R evenue QoQ YoY C os t of Goods Gross Profit R &D Selling, General & Admin. Product ion St art-up Operating Expenses Operating Income N on operati ng (i ncom e) expense: Foreign currenc y gain (loss ) Int eres t inc ome (expense) Other inc ome (expense) Q1 $196. 9 -2.0% 194.1% $92.6 $104. 3 $4.8 $28.7 $12.8 $46.2 $58.1 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 $267.0 $348. 7 35. 6% 30. 6% 245.8% 119.3% $122.3 $144.7 $7.7 $43.6 $4.6 $56.0 $88.7 $153. 3 $195. 4 $10.0 $49.0 $6.3 $65.3 $130. 2 Q4 $433. 7 24. 4% 116.0% $199. 7 $233. 9 $11.1 $52.7 $8.8 $72.6 $161. 3 Q1E $411.5 -5.1% 109.0% $204.8 $206.7 $11. 5 $58. 0 $8.0 $77. 5 $129.2 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $431.3 $435.8 4. 8% 1.0% 61.5% 25.0% $218.7 $212.7 $12. 5 $62. 1 $1.0 $75. 6 $137.0 $229.0 $206.8 $12.6 $61.5 $1. 0 $75.1 $131.7 Q4E $480.2 10.2% 10.7% $262.8 $217.4 $12.5 $63.4 $4. 0 $79.9 $137.5 Q1E $610.1 27.0% 48.3% $341.0 $269.1 $14.0 $77.5 $0. 0 $91.5 $177.6 Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E $610.1 $703. 5 0.0% 15. 3% 41.5% 61. 4% $342.2 $268.0 $15.3 $78.1 $0. 0 $93.4 $174.6 $394. 6 $309. 0 $16.2 $84.4 $8.0 $108. 6 $200. 4 Q4E $780.7 11.0% 62.6% $442.8 $337.8 $17.2 $89.8 $8. 0 $115.0 $222.9 FY 2008 $1, 246.3 147.3% $567.9 $678.4 $33. 5 $174.0 $32. 5 $240.1 $438.3 FY 2009E $1, 758.8 41.1% $915. 3 $843. 6 $49. 2 $245. 0 $14. 0 $308. 1 $535. 4 FY 2010E $2,704.5 53.8% $1,520.6 $1,183.9 $62.6 $329.8 $16.0 $408.4 $775.5

$0.8 $6.7 ($0. 4)

$0.6 $4.9 ($0.4)

($1.9) $5.2 ($0.4)

$6.2 $3.8 $0.2

$0.3 $3.0 $0.0

$0.4 $3.0 $0.0

$0. 4 $3. 0 $0. 0

$0. 6 $3. 0 $0. 0

$0. 0 $3. 0 $0. 0

$0. 0 $3. 0 $0. 0

$0.0 $1.0 $0.0

$0. 0 $1. 0 $0. 0

$5.7 $20. 7 ($0.9)

$1.7 $12. 0 $0.0

$0.0 $8.0 $0.0

N on operati ng (i ncom e) expense Income (loss) before taxes Income Tax Expense N et Income (loss) Basic income (los s) per s hare D ilut ed income (los s) per s hare from Operations (i) Year-ov er-Year (%) W ei ghted average s hares used Avg Shares - Ful ly Di luted (M) Percent of Sales Gross Margin Incremental Gros s M argin R &D SG&A Operat ing I nc ome N et Income Tax R at e

($7. 1) $65.2 $18.6 $46.6 $0. 59 $0. 57

($5.1) $93.9 $24.2 $69.7 $0. 87 $0. 85

($2.9) $133. 1 $33.8 $99. 3 $1. 23 $1. 20

($10.3) $171. 6 $38.8 $132. 8 $1. 63 $1. 61

($3.3) $132.5 $6.9 5% $125.5 $1.52 $1.50

($3.4) $140.4 $16. 9 $123.6 $1.48 $1.40

($3.4) $135.1 $13.5 $121.6 $1.44 $1.38

($3. 6) $141.1 $11.3 $129.8 $1.52 $1.47

($3. 0) $180.6 $18.1 $162.5 $1.90 $1.84

($3.0) $177.6 $17.8 $159.9 $1.87 $1.81

($1. 0) $201. 4 $20.1 $181. 2 $2. 12 $2. 06

($1. 0) $223.9 $22.4 $201.5 $2.36 $2.29

($25.4) $463.7 $115.4 $348.3 $4.34 $4.24 203% 80.2 82.1

($13.7) $549. 2 $48. 6 $500. 6 $5.97 $5.75 36% 83.8 87.1

($8. 0) $783.5 $78.3 $705.1 $8.26 $8.00 39% 85. 3 88. 1

79. 1 81. 6

79.9 82.0

80.4 82.4

81. 3 82. 5

82.3 84.0

83.3 88.1

84.3 88.1

85. 3 88. 1

85. 3 88. 1

85.3 88.1

85. 3 88. 1

85. 3 88. 1

53. 0% 58. 7% 2.4% 14. 6% 29. 5% 23. 7% 28. 5%

54. 2% 57. 6% 2. 9% 16. 3% 33. 2% 26. 1% 25. 8% Fiscal Q2 $102.1 751.8% 49. 8% 38. 2% $313.5 $160. 0 59. 9% $13.4 11. 0% ($121. 6)

56. 1% 62. 1% 2.9% 14. 1% 37. 3% 28. 5% 25. 4% 2008 Q3 $147. 1 167.9% 44. 0% 42. 2% $405. 7 $95.7 27. 4% $16.9 11. 0% $9.9

53. 9% 45. 3% 2.6% 12. 2% 37. 2% 30. 6% 22. 6%

50.2% 17.9% 2. 8% 14.1% 31.4% 30.5% 14.0%

49.3% 29.9% 2. 9% 14.4% 31.8% 28.7% 12.0%

47.4% -131.0% 2.9% 14.1% 30.2% 27.9% 10.0%

45.3% 23.9% 2.6% 13.2% 28.6% 27.0% 8.0%

44.1% 35.8% 2.3% 12.7% 29.1% 26.6% 10.0%

43.9% -2665. 0% 2.5% 12.8% 28.6% 26.2% 10.0%

43. 9% 43. 9% 2.3% 12. 0% 28. 5% 25. 8% 10. 0%

43.3% 37.4% 2.2% 11.5% 28.6% 25.8% 10.0%

54.4% 2. 7% 14.0% 35.2% 27.9% 24.9% FY 2008 $499. 1 202% 40.0% $499.1 $485. 5 39.0% $60.8 10.7% $0.7

48.0% 2. 8% 13.9% 30.4% 28.5% 8. 8% FY 2009E $728. 9 301.1% 41.4% 728.9 $325. 0 18.5% $193. 5 21.1% $286. 7

43.8% 2.3% 12.2% 28.7% 26.1% 10.0% FY 2010E $910.7 378. 4% 33.7% 910.7 $500.0 18.5% $135.2 8.9% ($500.0)

FYE: D ecember Pro Forma E BITD A % Change Y/Y % Change Q/ Q % Sales LTM EB ITDA C apital S pending % of Sal es D epreci ation % of COGs FCF Ops E st. (C FO-Capex)

Q1 $68.2 584.5% -22.8% 34. 6% $223. 4 $101.1 51. 4% $10.1 10. 9% $77.4

Q4 $181. 7 105.8% 23. 6% 41. 9% $499. 1 $128.7 29. 7% $20.4 11. 0% $35.0

Q1E $174.4 155.8% -4.0% 42.4% $605.3 $81.3 19.7% $45.3 11.0% $3.7

Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $184.5 $179.6 80.6% 22.2% 5. 8% -2. 6% 42.8% 41.2% $687.7 $720.3 $81. 3 18.8% $47. 4 11.0% $90. 8 $81. 3 18.6% $47. 9 11.0% $88.5

Q4E $190.4 4.8% 6.0% 39.6% $728.9 $81.3 16.9% $52.8 11.0% $103.6

Q1E $208.1 19.3% 9.3% 34.1% $762.6 $125.0 20.5% $30. 5 8.9% $74.5

Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E $205.1 $235. 5 11.2% 31. 1% -1. 4% 14. 8% 33.6% 33. 5% $783.2 $839. 1 $125.0 20.5% $30. 5 8.9% $65.4 $125.0 17. 8% $35.2 8.9% $96.1

Q4E $261.9 37.6% 11.2% 33.6% $910.7 $125.0 16.0% $39.0 8.8% $119.4

Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

247

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 271: FSLR Balance Sheet


FYE: December
BAL ANCE S HE ET
Asset s Current Asset s: Cash and c as h equivalent s Shor t- term investment s Ac counts receivable, net % Sales Invent or ies % Sales Other curr ent as sets Total C urrent A sset s Net PP&E Rest ric ted investment s Other non-c ur rent assets

Q1

Q2

Fiscal 2 008 Q3

Q4

Q 1E

Fiscal 20 09E Q 2E Q 3E

Q 4E

Q1E

Fiscal 201 0E Q 2E Q 3E

Q4E

$591 $90 $18 9% $59 30% $41 $798.3 $529 $27 $122

$511 $122 $50 19% $107 40% $49 $838.6 $674 $30 $132

$582 $133 $41 12% $126 36% $79 $962.4 $750 $30 $117

$716 $76 $62 14% $122 28% $102 $1,077.4 $843 $30 $164

$721 $0 $62 15% $103 25% $62 $948. 1 $879 $15 $124

$812 $0 $65 15% $108 25% $62 $1,046.8 $912 $15 $124

$900 $0 $65 15% $109 25% $62 $1,137. 1 $946 $15 $124

$1,004 $0 $72 15% $120 25% $62 $1,258. 5 $974 $15 $124

$1,079 $0 $92 15% $153 25% $62 $1,385.0 $1,069 $15 $124

$1,144 $0 $92 15% $153 25% $62 $1,450. 4 $1,163 $15 $124

$1,240 $0 $106 15% $176 25% $62 $1,583.8 $1,253 $15 $124

$1, 359 $0 $117 15% $195 25% $62 $1, 734. 1 $1, 339 $15 $124

Total A sset s

-----------$1,477

-----------$1,675

-----------$1, 860

-----------$2,115

-----------$1,965

-----------$2,098

-----------$2,222

-----------$2,371

-----------$2,592

-----------$2,752

-----------$2,975

-----------$3, 212

LI AB. & SHRHL DRS' EQUIT Y


S- Ter m Debt Cur rent por tion of LT debt Accounts payable Note Pay able to Relat ed Part y Other c ur rent liabi lities Total C urrent Liabili ti es: Ac crued r ecyc ling L-Term D ebt Other non-c ur rent liabilit ies Total Liabili ti es Employee s tock options on r edeemable shares

======
$0 $18 $167 85% $0 $43 $228 $18 $70 $10 $326 $0

======
$0 $25 $42 16% $0 $212 $279 $24 $109 $13 $425 $0

======
$0 $27 $37 11% $0 $234 $298 $28 $141 $8 $475 $0

======
$0 $35 $46 11% $0 $301 $382 $35 $164 $21 $601 $0

======
$24 $15 $185 45% $0 $15 $239 $13 $69 $6 $327 $0

======
$24 $15 $194 45% $0 $15 $248 $13 $69 $6 $336 $0

======
$24 $15 $196 45% $0 $15 $250 $13 $69 $6 $338 $0

======
$24 $15 $216 45% $0 $15 $270 $13 $69 $6 $358 $0

======
$24 $15 $275 45% $0 $15 $329 $13 $69 $6 $416 $0

======
$24 $15 $275 45% $0 $15 $329 $13 $69 $6 $416 $0

======
$24 $15 $317 45% $0 $15 $371 $13 $69 $6 $458 $0

======
$24 $15 $351 45% $0 $15 $405 $13 $69 $6 $493 $0

% sal es

Sharehol ders' Equit y Total Li abil it ies & Sharehol ders' Equity

-----------$1,151

-----------$1,251

-----------$1, 385

-----------$1,513

-----------$1,639

-----------$1,762

-----------$1,884

-----------$2,014

-----------$2,176

-----------$2,336

-----------$2,517

-----------$2, 719

-----------$1,477

-----------$1,675

-----------$1, 860

-----------$2,115

-----------$1,965

-----------$2,098

-----------$2,222

-----------$2,371

-----------$2,592

-----------$2,752

-----------$2,975

-----------$3, 212

======
Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ C hange $70.2 - 25% ( $23.1)

======
$108.6 55% $38.4

======
$140.8 30% $32.2

======
$163. 5 16% $22.7

======
$93.3 -43% ($70.2)

======
$93.3 0% $0.0

======
$93.3 0% $0.0

======
$93.3 0% $0.0

======
$93.3 0% $0. 0

======
$93.3 0% $0.0

======
$93.3 0% $0.0

======
$93.3 0% $0.0

P erformance Metrics
Profi tabili ty Ratios R etur n On Equity R etur n on Avg Equit y R etur n On Ass ets R etur n On Net As sets R etur n On Sales Ef fi ci ency Rat ios Sales / Total As sets A/ R D ays Sales Out I nventor y Turns D ays of Inventor y Liquidit y Rat ios C ur rent Ratio Quic k R at io N et Work ing C apital ( $M) Long-Ter m Debt / Equity D ebt/C apital Total Debt / E quity EB ITDA/ Interest EB ITDA- Capex/I nt erest Op Inc / Ass ets , exc. Cash B ook & Cash Value Book Value Per Shar e C ash Per Shar e N et Cash Per Share Tangible Book value 16% 14% 13% 23% 24% 22% 19% 17% 27% 26% 29% 21% 21% 35% 28% 35% 24% 25% 40% 31% 31% 27% 26% 40% 31% 28% 28% 24% 38% 29% 26% 28% 22% 37% 28% 26% 26% 22% 38% 27% 30% 26% 25% 43% 27% 27% 25% 23% 40% 26% 29% 26% 24% 42% 26% 30% 27% 25% 44% 26%

0.53 8 6.3 58

0.64 17 4.6 80

0. 75 11 4.9 75

0.82 13 6. 6 55

0.84 14 8. 0 46

0.82 14 8. 1 45

0.78 14 8. 4 43

0.81 14 8. 8 42

0.94 14 9.0 41

0.89 14 9. 0 41

0.95 14 9. 0 41

0. 97 14 9.1 40

2. 4 3. 2 $738 6.1% 5.7% 6.1% 10. 2 -4.9 7.3% $14.11 $8. 34 $7. 48 $14.11

2. 0 2. 6 $602 8.7% 8.0% 8.7% 20. 7 - 11.7 8.5% $15.25 $7. 72 $6. 40 $15.25

2.0 2.8 $701 10.2% 9.2% 10.2% 28.3 9.9 11.4% $16. 80 $8.68 $6.97 $16. 80

1.8 2.5 $742 10.8% 9. 8% 10.8% 47.2 13.8 12.2% $18.35 $9.61 $7.63 $18.35

2.9 3.5 $894 4. 2% 5. 4% 5. 7% 58.1 31.1 10.4% $19.52 $8.59 $7.48 $19.52

3.1 3.8 $993 3. 9% 5. 0% 5. 3% 61.5 34.4 10.7% $19.99 $9.21 $8.15 $19.99

3.4 4.1 $1, 083 3. 7% 4. 7% 5. 0% 59.9 32.8 10.0% $21.37 $10.21 $9.16 $21.37

3.5 4.2 $1, 204 3. 4% 4. 4% 4. 6% 63.5 36.4 10.1% $22.84 $11.39 $10.33 $22.84

3.3 3.8 $1,331 3.2% 4.1% 4.3% 69.4 27.7 11.7% $24. 69 $12. 24 $11. 18 $24. 69

3.5 3.9 $1, 396 2. 9% 3. 8% 4. 0% 68.4 26.7 10.9% $26.50 $12.98 $11.92 $26.50

3.5 3.8 $1, 530 2. 7% 3. 6% 3. 7% 235.5 110.5 11.5% $28.56 $14.07 $13.01 $28.56

3.5 3.8 $1,680 2.5% 3.3% 3.4% 261.9 136.9 12.0% $30.84 $15.42 $14.36 $30.84

Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

248

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 272: SPWRA Earnings Drivers


FY E: December Q1 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 Q4 Fiscal 2008E Q1E Fi scal 2009E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fiscal 2009E Q1E Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fi scal 2010E

Annual Capaci ty (MW) Quarterl y Capaci ty (MW) Number of Lines Fab1 (lines 1-3) Fab1 (line 4) Fab2 (lines 5-6) Line 7 Line 8-12 Line 13-16 Line 17+ A nnual Nam eplate Capac ity per Line Fab1 (lines 1-3) Fab1 (line 4) Fab2 (lines 5-6) Line 7 Line 8-12 Line 13-16 Line 17+ Utili zation rate Total Producti on (MW) Fab1 (lines 1-3) Fab1 (line 4) Fab2 (lines 5-6) Line 7 Line 8-12 Line 13-16 Line 17+ Total Shipm ents (MW) I nt. Shi p to S ystem s (M W) % of int ernal modules Components Shi pments (M W) S ystem s Shi pments (MW)

214. 0 53. 5

254.0 63.5

334.0 83.5

414. 0 103. 5

454.0 113.5

494.0 123.5

534.0 133.5

574.0 143.5

654.0 163.5

734. 0 183. 5

774.0 193.5

814.0 203.5

3. 0 1. 0 2. 0 1. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 25. 0 33. 0 33. 0 40. 0 40. 0 0. 0 0. 0 80% 42. 8 15. 0 6. 6 13. 2 8. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 38. 5 9. 3 38% 29. 2 24. 6

3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 33.0 33.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 80% 50.8 15.0 6.6 13.2 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 43.7 18.5 50% 25.2 37.0

3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 33.0 33.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 80% 66.8 15.0 6.6 13.2 8.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 63.5 19.4 70% 44.1 27.7

3. 0 1. 0 2. 0 1. 0 5. 0 0. 0 0. 0 25. 0 33. 0 33. 0 40. 0 40. 0 0. 0 0. 0 80% 82. 8 15. 0 6. 6 13. 2 8. 0 40. 0 0. 0 0. 0 82. 8 21. 5 80% 61. 3 26. 9 243.2 60.0 26.4 52.8 32.0 72.0 0.0 0.0 228.5 68.7

3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 25.0 33.0 33.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 80% 90.8 15.0 6.6 13.2 8.0 40.0 8.0 0.0 45.4 14.6 80% 30.8 25.0

3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 2.0 0.0 25.0 33.0 33.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 80% 98.8 15.0 6.6 13.2 8.0 40.0 16.0 0.0 69.2 20.0 80% 49.2 25.0

3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 25.0 33.0 33.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 80% 106.8 15.0 6.6 13.2 8.0 40.0 24.0 0.0 90.8 44.0 80% 46.8 55.0

3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 0.0 25.0 33.0 33.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 80% 114.8 15.0 6.6 13.2 8.0 40.0 32.0 0.0 97.6 48.0 80% 49.6 60.0 411. 2 60. 0 26. 4 52. 8 32. 0 160. 0 80. 0 0. 0 302. 9 126. 6

3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 25.0 33.0 33.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 95% 155.3 17.8 7.8 15.7 9.5 47.5 38.0 19.0 132.0 40.0 80% 92.0 50.0

3. 0 1. 0 2. 0 1. 0 5. 0 4. 0 4. 0 25. 0 33. 0 33. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 95% 174. 3 17. 8 7. 8 15. 7 9. 5 47. 5 38. 0 38. 0 148. 2 44. 0 80% 104. 2 55. 0

3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 25. 0 33. 0 33. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 40. 0 95% 183.8 17. 8 7.8 15. 7 9.5 47. 5 38. 0 47. 5 156.3 48. 0 80% 108.3 60. 0

3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 25.0 33.0 33.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 95% 193.3 17.8 7.8 15.7 9.5 47.5 38.0 57.0 164.3 52.0 80% 112.3 65.0 706.8 71.3 31.4 62.7 38.0 190.0 152.0 161.5 600.8 184.0

159.8 116.1

176. 3 165. 0

416.8 230.0

Component ASPs ($/W) Y /Y (% ) Modu le ASPs ($/W) Y /Y (% ) S ystem ASPs ($/W) Y /Y (% )

3.64 $ -13% 4.31 $ 3% 7.27 $ 1%

3. 70 $ 0% 4. 31 $ 3% 7. 31 $ 3%

3.53 $ -8% 4.06 $ -5% 6.98 $ -3%

3.27 $ -9% 3.70 $ -15% 6.62 $ -8%

3.53

2. 91 $ -20% 3. 45 $ -20% 5. 82 $ -20%

2.77 $ -25% 3.23 $ -25% 5.78 $ -21%

2.71 $ -23% 3.12 $ -23% 5.31 $ -24%

2. 52 $ -23% 2. 85 $ -23% 5. 30 $ -20%

2.73 $ -23% 3.16 $ -23% 5.55 $ -21%

2. 21 $ -24% 2. 48 $ -28% 5. 06 $ -13%

2.38 $ -14% 2.65 $ -18% 5.08 $ -12%

2.42 $ -11% 2.69 $ -14% 4.99 $ -6%

2.35 $ -7% 2.65 $ -7% 4.88 $ -8%

2. 34 -7% 2. 62 -8% 5. 00 -6%

4.09

7.05

All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

249

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 273: SPWRA Earnings Drivers


FY E: December Revenues ($, M) Y /Y (% ) S ys tems Revenue Y /Y (% ) Components Rev enue Y /Y (% ) Cost of Revenues ($,M) S ystem s Internal Modules Ext ernal Modules BoS Components Gross Margin I nt ernal Modules E xternal Modules B oS Combi ned Systems Q1 273. 7 178. 9 94. 9 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 382.8 270.6 112.2 377.5 193.3 184.2 Q4 401. 0 177. 9 223. 1 Fiscal 2008 1434.9 820.6 614.3 Q1 213.8 106.1 107.7 Fi scal 2009E Q2E Q3E 280.7 144.4 136.3 418.9 291.9 127.0 Q4E 443.0 318.0 125.0 Fiscal 2009E 1356. 4 860. 4 496. 0 Q1E 456.6 253.1 203.5 Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E 528. 0 279. 6 248. 4 560.9 299.4 261.6 Q4E 580.3 316.9 263.4 Fi scal 2009E 2125.8 1148.9 976.9

208. 0 137. 2 24. 8 44. 4 68. 4 70. 8

281.7 205.1 47.2 54.7 113.2 76.6

267.3 155.3 43.0 24.9 89.0 112.0

281. 2 137. 6 46. 4 14. 9 83. 6 143. 6

1038.2 635.1 161.5 138.9 354.2 403.0

161.9 86.0 29.9 25.7 31.0 75.9

225.1 121.5 42.1 11.8 67.6 103.6

344.5 245.5 93.2 25.4 126.9 99.1

364.3 266.8 94.4 25.7 146.6 97.5

1095. 9 719. 8 259. 7 88. 6 372. 2 376. 1

377.8 215.0 70.8 18.8 125.4 162.8

430. 0 236. 3 81. 8 22. 3 132. 2 193. 7

458.7 254.6 90. 5 25. 2 138.9 204.0

475.4 270.0 95.1 26.8 148.0 205.5

1741.9 975.8 338.2 93.1 544.5 766.0

27.0% 20.0% 23.5% 23.3%

31. 0% 20. 0% 15. 4% 24. 2%

37.0% 15.0% 7.0% 19.6%

34.0% 15.0% 7.0% 22.7%

34.4%

29. 5% 15. 0% 7. 0% 19. 0%

24.0% 15.0% 10.0% 15.9%

22.0% 15.0% 11.0% 15.9%

22.0% 15.0% 12.0% 16.1%

24.2%

20. 0% 15. 0% 12. 0% 15. 1%

22.0% 15.0% 11.0% 15.5%

22.0% 13.0% 10.0% 14.9%

22.0% 12.0% 10.0% 14.8%

21. 6%

22.6%

16.3%

15. 1%

Costs ($/W) I nternal Modules S ilicon c ost s (incl . poly to wafer cos t) Non-s ilicon c osts Combi ned Systems S ili co n Co sts Breakdown P ol y t o waf er process ing cos t per Watt Grams per Watt P ol y c ost s ($/k g) P oly to ingot costs ($/ W) I ngot pull ing cost s ($/ kg) # of waf ers per k g Watt s per waf er poly to ingot process ing cos ts I ngot to wafer costs ($/W) Wafering cos ts ($/ kg) # of waf ers per i ngot Watt s per waf er ingot t o waf er c ost s E fficiency & Watts per wafer E ffic iency (%) Watt s per waf er Grams per Watt Calculation poly consumed in c ells k erf loss poly required Non-si licon Costs ($/ W) Wafer proc ess ing cost s ($/ wafer) # of waf ers (million) Watt s per waf er Fix ed/ ov erhead cos ts ($, M) Non-s ilicon c osts ($/W)

$ $ $ $

3.15 1.98 1.16 5.58

$ $ $ $

2. 97 1. 84 1. 14 5. 54

$ $ $ $

2.56 1.45 1.10 5.61

$ $ $ $

2.44 1.36 1.08 5.12

2.78

$ $ $ $

2. 43 1. 35 1. 08 4. 71

$ $ $ $

2.46 1.39 1.07 4.86

$ $ $ $

2.44 1.37 1.07 4.46

$ $ $ $

2. 22 1. 16 1. 06 4. 45

2.39

$ $ $ $

1. 99 0. 94 1. 05 4. 30

$ $ $ $

2.07 1.03 1.04 4.30

$ $ $ $

2.09 1.06 1.04 4.24

$ $ $ $

2.07 1.03 1.04 4.15

2. 05

$ $

0.49 $ 6. 3 237 $

0. 48 $ 6.1 221 $

0.47 $ 6.0 165 $

0.45 5. 8 156

$ $

0. 45 $ 5.8 155 $

0.45 $ 5.8 161 $

0.45 $ 5.8 158 $

0. 45 5.8 122

$ $

0. 45 $ 5.8 84 $

0.45 $ 5. 8 99 $

0.45 $ 5.8 104 $

0.45 5.8 99

70 60 3. 0 0.38 $

70 60 3.1 0. 37 $

70 60 3.2 0.36 $

70 60 3. 3 0.35

70 60 3.3 0. 35 $

70 60 3.3 0.35 $

70 60 3.3 0.35 $

70 60 3.3 0. 35

70 60 3.3 0. 35 $

70 60 3. 3 0.35 $

70 60 3.3 0.35 $

70 60 3.3 0.35

20 60 3. 0 0.11 $

20 60 3.1 0. 11 $

20 60 3.2 0.10 $

20 60 3. 3 0.10

20 60 3.3 0. 10 $

20 60 3.3 0.10 $

20 60 3.3 0.10 $

20 60 3.3 0. 10

20 60 3.3 0. 10 $

20 60 3. 3 0.10 $

20 60 3.3 0.10 $

20 60 3.3 0.10

20.3% 3. 0

20. 8% 3.1

21.4% 3.2

22.0% 3. 3

22. 0% 3.3

22.0% 3.3

22.0% 3.3

22.0% 3.3

22. 0% 3.3

22.0% 3. 3

22.0% 3.3

22.0% 3.3

5. 47 13% 6. 29

5.34 13% 6.14

5. 19 13% 5. 97

5.05 13% 5.81

5.05 13% 5.81

5. 05 13% 5. 81

5. 05 13% 5. 81

5.05 13% 5.81

5.05 13% 5.81

5. 05 13% 5. 81

5. 05 13% 5. 81

5. 05 13% 5. 81

$ $

1.00 $ 14.1 3. 0 7.0 $ 1.16 $

1. 00 $ 16.3 3.1 7.0 $ 1. 14 $

1.00 $ 20. 8 3.2 7. 0 $ 1.10 $

1.00 25.1 3. 3 7.0 1.08

$ $

1. 00 $ 27.5 3.3 7.0 $ 1. 08 $

1.00 $ 29. 9 3.3 7. 0 $ 1.07 $

1.00 $ 32. 4 3.3 7. 0 $ 1.07 $

1. 00 34. 8 3.3 7. 0 1. 06

$ $

1. 00 $ 47.1 3.3 7.0 $ 1. 05 $

1.00 $ 52.8 3. 3 7. 0 $ 1.04 $

1.00 $ 55. 7 3.3 7. 0 $ 1.04 $

1.00 58. 6 3.3 7. 0 1.04

All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

250

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 274: SPWRA Income Statement


Fiscal Year-end: D ec. R evenues QoQ YoY C os t of Goods Gros s Margin R &D SG&A St oc k Based Comp Amortiz at ion of Intangi bles Operating Income Other Income (Exp) Profit B efore Taxes Taxes Equity in Earnings of Unc onsolidated Invest ees (Net of Taxes) N et I ncom e Q1 $273.7 22.0% 91.2% $208.0 $65.7 $3. 8 $22.8 $18.2 $7. 5 $39.1 $3. 9 $43.1 $10. 52 $0.00 $32.6 Fi scal 2008 Q2 Q3 $382.8 $377. 5 39. 8% 119.9% $281.7 $101.1 $3.8 $29. 6 $23. 7 $6.9 $67. 7 ($1.4) $66. 3 $15.16 $0. 00 $51. 1 -1.4% 61. 1% $267. 3 $110. 2 $5.1 $31.8 $23.8 $7.1 $73.3 ($4. 5) $68.9 $22.19 $2.13 $48.8 Q4 $401.0 6. 2% 78.8% $281.2 $119.8 $4.8 $37. 5 $23. 4 $7.1 $77. 5 ($16. 2) $61. 4 $11.39 $10.07 $60. 1 Q1 $213.8 -46.7% -21.9% $161.9 $51.9 $6. 5 $33.8 $10.3 $6. 8 $11.5 ($7.6) $4. 0 $0.99 $1.25 $4. 2 Fi scal 2009E Q2E Q3E $280. 7 $418.9 31. 3% -26.7% $225. 1 $55.6 $6.0 $33.0 $10.0 $6.8 $16.6 ($7. 5) $9.1 $2. 19 $5.00 $11.9 49.2% 11.0% $344.5 $74. 4 $6.0 $30. 0 $9.0 $6.8 $38. 4 ($7.5) $30. 9 $7.41 $5. 50 $29. 0 Q4E $443. 0 5.7% 10. 5% $364. 3 $78.7 $6.0 $29.0 $9.0 $6.8 $43.7 ($7. 5) $36.2 $8. 68 $5.50 $33.0 Q1E $456.6 3.1% 113.6% $377.8 $78. 8 $7.0 $31. 0 $10. 0 $6.8 $40. 8 ($8.0) $32. 8 $8. 53 $5. 00 $24. 3 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E $528.0 $560.9 15.6% 88.1% $430.0 $98.0 $7. 0 $33.0 $11.0 $6. 8 $58.0 ($8. 0) $50.0 $13. 00 $5.00 $37.0 6.2% 33. 9% $458.7 $102.3 $7.0 $35. 0 $12. 0 $6.8 $60. 3 ($8.0) $52. 3 $13.59 $5. 00 $38. 7 Q4E $580. 3 3.5% 31. 0% $475. 4 $104. 9 $8.0 $37.0 $13.0 $6.8 $59.9 ($8. 0) $51.9 $13.49 $5.00 $38.4 Fi scal 2008 $1, 434.9 84.9% $1, 038.2 $396.8 $17. 5 $121.6 $89. 1 $28. 8 $257.7 ($18. 0) $239.6 59.3 $12.20 $192.6 Fiscal 2009E $1,356. 4 -5. 5% $1,095. 9 $260.5 $24.5 $125.8 $38.3 $27.4 $110.2 ($30.1) $80.1 19. 3 $17. 25 $78.1 Fiscal 2010E $2,125. 8 56. 7% $1,741. 9 $384. 0 $29.0 $136. 0 $46.0 $27.4 $219. 0 ($32.0) $187. 0 48.6 $20. 00 $138. 3

C ont. Fully D il uted EP S Total P rimary S hares Total Fully Dilut ed S hares Percent of Sal es Gros s Margin R &D SG&A Operating Income N et Inc ome Tax Rate

$0.39 79. 0 83. 7

$0. 61 79.4 84.0

$0. 58 80.5 84.5

$0.70 79.4 85.6

$0.05 84. 2 86. 0

$0. 14 79.4 86.5

$0.33 79.4 86.5

$0. 38 79.4 86.6

$0. 28 79.4 86.6

$0.43 79. 4 86. 6

$0. 45 79.4 86.6

$0. 44 79.4 86.7

$2.28 79.6 84.4

$0.90 80. 6 86. 4

$1. 60 79.4 86.6

24.0% 1.4% 8.3% 14.3% 11.9% 24.4%

26. 4% 1.0% 7.7% 17. 7% 13. 4% 22. 9%

29. 2% 1.3% 8.4% 19. 4% 12. 9% 32. 2%

29.9% 1. 2% 9. 4% 19.3% 15.0% 18.6%

24.3% 3.1% 15.8% 5.4% 2.0% 24.9%

19. 8% 2.1% 11. 8% 5.9% 4.2% 24. 0%

17.8% 1. 4% 7. 2% 9. 2% 6. 9% 24.0%

17. 8% 1.4% 6.5% 9.9% 7.4% 24. 0%

17. 3% 1.5% 6.8% 8.9% 5.3% 26. 0%

18.6% 1.3% 6.3% 11.0% 7.0% 26.0%

18. 2% 1.2% 6.2% 10. 7% 6.9% 26. 0%

18. 1% 1.4% 6.4% 10. 3% 6.6% 26. 0%

27.7% 1. 2% 8. 5% 18.0% 13.4% 24.7%

19.2% 1.8% 9.3% 8.1% 5.8% 24.0%

18. 1% 1.4% 6.4% 10. 3% 6.5% 26. 0%

All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

251

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 275: SPWRA Balance Sheet


Fis cal Yea r-end: Dec. Ba la nce Sheet ASSETS Cash & Se curities Accounts R eceivab le % o f Sales Inventories Othe r Curre nt Assets Total Cu rre nt Assets Net PP&E PP&E Growth Rate Good will & Intan gibl es Vend or Prep ayments Othe r Assets Total Assets LIAB . & SHRHLDRS' EQUITY Accounts Pa ya ble % of COGS CY Inte rco mpany A/P Advan ce from CY Paymen t to C Y, Current Po rti on Oth er Total Curren t Lia bil iti es Cu stome r Advan ce s Lon g-Te rm Deb t Cu stome r Advan ce , LT Po rtio n Othe r Li abil ities Contributed Ca pital Retaine d Ea rn ings Shareh olde rs' Equ ity Total Li ab. a nd Equity Q1 $357 .3 $159 .1 58 % $188 .2 $ 68.8 $773 .4 $420 .1 11 % $245 .2 $164 .7 $ 88.6 $1,692 === === $152 .6 73% $0.0 $114 .7 $267 .3 $ 69.8 40% $425 .0 $ 28.3 $901 .6 --------$1,692 $0.0 VALUATION R ATIOS Profita bility Ratios Re tu rn On Equity Re tu rn o n Avg Equi ty * Net Margi n Asset Turn s Leverag e Re tu rn On Asse ts Re tu rn On Net Assets/R OIC Re tu rn On Sales * Avg Ove r La st 4 Qtrs Efficie nc y Ra tios Sal es/Total Assets A/R Days Sal es Out Inventory Tu rn s Da ys of Inve nto ry Liquidity Ratios Cu rrent Ra ti o Quick Ratio Ne t Working Cap ital L ong-term D ebt/Equ ity Total Deb t/Equity Op In c/Assets, exc. Cash Book & Ca sh Value Boo k Val ue Per Sha re Ca sh Pe r Sha re Fisca l 200 8 Q2 Q3 $3 35.7 $2 49.5 65% $2 00.3 $1 90.5 $9 76.0 $4 52.0 8% $2 41.6 $1 58.5 $ 0.0 $1 ,8 28 == === = $1 87.8 67 % $ 0.0 $1 38.9 $3 26.7 $75 .0 35 % $4 25.0 $33 .1 $9 68.2 --------$1 ,8 28 $ 0.0 $4 30.7 $1 95.3 52% $1 90.5 $1 90.7 $1,007 .2 $5 36.7 19% $24 0.6 $1 44.9 $ 0.0 $1 ,92 9 == === = $2 59.1 97 % $ 0.0 $1 22.7 $3 81.8 $1 16.6 31 % $4 25.0 $ 9.6 $9 96.4 --------$1 ,92 9 $ 0.0 Q4 $43 5.8 $19 4.2 61% $25 1.4 $20 0.7 $1,082.1 $61 2.7 14% $23 6.2 $16 2.6 $0 .0 $2,09 4 === == = $28 0.7 70 % $0 .0 $19 1.1 $47 1.8 $11 0.4 36 % $47 8.2 $11.8 $1,021.4 --------$2,09 4 $0 .0 Q1 $35 4.8 $14 9.2 6 0% $34 3.2 $22 1.7 $ 1,068.8 $68 7.2 5% $23 1.6 $15 4.5 $0 .0 $2,142 === === $27 2.6 72% $0 .0 $17 3.9 $44 6.5 $10 1.1 40% $46 7.6 $6 .9 $ 1,120.1 --------$2,142 $0 .0 Fisc al 20 09E Q2 E Q3E $ 15.0 $16 8.4 6 0% $51 2.1 $22 1.7 $91 7.2 $73 9.7 3% $231 .6 $15 8.0 $0 .0 $2,046 === === $15 3.1 68% $0 .0 $18 8.7 $34 1.7 $ 98.3 35% $46 7.6 $6 .9 $ 1,1 32.0 --------$2,046 $0 .0 ($ 38.0) $251 .4 60 % $541 .5 $221 .7 $976 .6 $829 .7 7% $231 .6 $163 .8 $0.0 $2,202 = == === $227 .4 66% $0.0 $204 .7 $432 .1 $134 .1 32% $467 .6 $6.9 $1 ,1 61.0 --------$2,202 $0.0 Q4E ($5 2.3) $269 .1 61 % $545 .5 $221 .7 $984 .0 $919 .7 5% $231 .6 $169 .8 $0.0 $2,305 = === == $255 .0 70% $0.0 $222 .1 $477 .1 $159 .5 36% $467 .6 $6.9 $1 ,1 94.0 --------$2,305 $0.0 Q1E $61 .6 $2 71.7 60% $6 30.9 $2 21.7 $1,185 .8 $9 96.1 5% $2 31.6 $1 74.8 $ 0.0 $2 ,5 88 == === = $2 72.0 72 % $ 0.0 $2 41.0 $5 13.0 $1 82.6 40 % $6 67.6 $ 6.9 $1,218 .2 --------$2 ,5 88 $ 0.0 Fis cal 2 010E Q2E Q3 E ($21.9) $3 16.8 60% $6 70.2 $2 21.7 $1,186 .7 $1,071 .8 3% $2 31.6 $1 78.3 $ 0.0 $2 ,6 68 == === = $2 92.4 68 % $ 0.0 $2 61.4 $5 53.9 $1 84.8 35 % $6 67.6 $ 6.9 $1,255 .2 --------$2 ,6 68 $ 0.0 ($ 78.8) $33 6.6 6 0% $69 3.4 $22 1.7 $ 1,172.8 $ 1,145.8 7% $23 1.6 $18 4.1 $0 .0 $2,73 4 === === $30 2.7 66% $0 .0 $28 3.7 $58 6.4 $17 9.5 32% $66 7.6 $6 .9 $ 1,293.9 --------$2,73 4 $0 .0 Q4E ($55.6) $3 52.5 61% $6 97.4 $2 21.7 $1,216 .0 $1,218 .6 5% $2 31.6 $1 90.1 $ 0.0 $2 ,8 56 == === = $3 32.8 7 0% $ 0.0 $3 07.8 $6 40.6 $2 08.9 3 6% $6 67.6 $ 6.9 $1,332 .3 --------$2 ,8 56 $ 0.0

1 4.4 % 1 2.7 % 11.9% 0.6 1.9 7.7% 9.8% 1 1.9 % 0.65 53 4.4 82 5.1 3.8 $620 .8 4 7.1 % 4 7.1 % 1 1.7 % $10.78 $ 4.2 7

21.1% 15.4% 1 3.4 % 0.8 1.9 11.2% 13.7% 13.4% 0 .8 4 59 5.6 65 5.2 4.1 $7 88.1 43.9% 43.9% 18.1% $1 1.52 $3.99

19.6% 16.9% 12 .9 % 0 .8 1 .9 10.1% 13.0% 12.9% 0.78 47 5.6 65 3.9 3.2 $7 48.1 42.7% 42.7% 19.6% $1 1.7 9 $5.10

23.5% 19.1% 15 .0% 0.8 2.0 11.5% 14.5% 15.0% 0.77 44 4.5 81 3.9 3.0 $80 1.4 46.8% 46.8% 18.7% $11 .9 3 $5.09

1.5% 1 5.3% 2.0 % 0.4 1.9 0.8% 0.9% 2.0% 0.40 64 1.9 193 3.9 2.7 $79 6.2 4 1.7% 4 1.7% 2.6% $13 .03 $ 4.13

4.2% 1 1.1% 4 .2 % 0.5 1.8 2.3% 2.3% 4.2% 0.55 55 1.8 207 6.0 2.6 $76 4.2 4 1.3% 4 1.3% 3.3% $13 .09 $ 0.17

1 0.0 % 9.2% 6 .9 % 0.8 1.9 5.3% 5.2% 6.9% 0.76 55 2 .6 143 4.3 1.9 $749 .2 4 0.3 % 4 0.3 % 6.9% $13.42 ($ 0.4 4)

11 .1 % 6.6% 7 .4% 0.8 1.9 5.7% 5.6% 7.4% 0.77 55 2 .7 136 3 .9 1 .7 $728 .9 39 .2 % 39 .2 % 7.4% $13.79 ($0 .6 0)

8 .0 % 8 .1 % 5.3% 0 .7 2 .1 3 .8 % 3 .8 % 5 .3 % 0 .7 1 54 2.4 15 2 4.4 2.0 $9 13.8 54.8% 54.8% 6 .5 % $1 4.07 $0.71

11.8% 10.0% 7.0% 0 .8 2 .1 5 .5 % 5 .5 % 7 .0 % 0 .79 55 2.6 14 2 4.1 1.8 $8 94.3 53.2% 53.2% 8 .6 % $1 4.49 ($0.25)

12.0% 10.4% 6.9 % 0.8 2.1 5.7% 5.5% 6.9% 0.82 55 2.7 138 3.9 1.6 $87 0.1 51.6% 51.6% 8.6% $14 .9 3 ($ 0.91)

11.5% 10.5% 6.6% 0 .8 2 .1 5 .4 % 5 .3 % 6 .6 % 0 .8 1 55 2.7 13 3 3.7 1.6 $8 83.2 50.1% 50.1% 8 .2 % $1 5.37 ($0.64)

All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

252

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 276: YGE Ea rnings Drivers


FY E: December Annual Capacity (MW) Quarterly Capacity (MW) Available Capacit y (MW) Q1 200.0 50.0 36.5 Fiscal 2008E Q2 Q3 200.0 50.0 35.3 400.0 100.0 77.8 Q4E 400.0 100.0 80.0 Fiscal 2008E Q1E 400.0 100.0 70.0 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E 450.0 112.5 101.3 600.0 150.0 135.0 Q4E 600.0 150.0 135.0 Fiscal 2009E Q1E 675.0 168.8 151.9 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E 750.0 187.5 168.8 825.0 206.3 185.6 Q4E 900.0 225.0 202.5 Fiscal 2010E

Revenues COGS Gross Profit Gross Margin (%) Out put (MW) S ilicon Breakdown S pot Contract Costs ($/W) S pot Contract P roc es sing Cos ts Chec k S ilicon P rices ($/kg) S pot Contract Conversion Efficiency Grams/Wat t ASP ($/Watt) P V Modules y /y ( %) q/q (%) $ $ $ $ $

227.5 171.5 55.9 24.6% 54.6

289.7 215.1 74.6 25.8% 68.2

325.5 252.9 72.6 22.3% 80.0

251.4 218.2 33.2 13.2% 78.8

1094.0 857.7 236.3 21.6% 281.6

203.4 172.8 30.6 15.0% 75.0

289.8 235.7 54.1 18.7% 112.5

391.5 304.4 87.1 22.3% 160.0

474.7 347.7 127.0 26.8% 200.0

1359.4 1060.7 298.8 22.0% 547.5 94% 53% 48% $ 2.01 $ $ $ $

451.7 324.7 127.0 28.1% 210.0

460.1 334.3 125.8 27.3% 230.0

465.1 347.8 117.3 25.2% 250.0

467.1

18 44.0

366.8 1373.6 100.3 470.4

21.5% 25.5% 270.0 96 0.0 75% 50% 50%

85% 15% 3.14 2.14 0.20 0.80 0.00 320.3 345.0 180.0 16.6% 7.30 $ $ $ $ $

85% 15% 3.15 2.15 0.21 0.79 0.00 337.7 362.0 200.0 16.6% 7.00 $ $ $ $ $

90% 10% 3.16 2.22 0.13 0.80 0.00 350.3 367.0 200.0 16.6% 6.73 $ $ $ $

94% 6%

89% 12% $ $ $ $

60% 40% 2.30 0.94 0.56 0.80 $ $ $ $

40% 60% 2.10 0.46 0.84 0.80 $ $ $ $

50% 50% 1.90 0.47 0.63 0.80 $ $ $ $

60% 40% 1.74 0.43 0.50 0.80

50% 50% 1.55 0.30 0.45 0.80 $ $ $ $

50% 50% 1.45 0.27 0.39 0.80 $ $ $ $

50% 50% 1.39 0.24 0.35 0.80 $ $ $ $

50% 50%

2.77 $ 3.05 1.89 0.08 0.80

1.36 $ 1.44 0.21 0.35 0.80 -28% 95.0 70.0 120.0 16.6% 5.88 107.5 85.0 130.0

307.6 314.5 200.0 16.6% 6.40

329.0 347.1 195.0

235.0 245.0 220.0 16.6% 6.40

204.0 180.0 220.0 16.6% 6.35

175.0 150.0 200.0 16.6% 6.30

149.0 115.0 200.0 16.6% 6.30

190.8 172.5 210.0

125.0 100.0 150.0 16.6% 5.97

110.0 90.0 130.0 16.6% 5.94

100.0 80.0 120.0 16.6% 5.91

$ 4.17 $ 4.25 $ 4.07 $ 3.19 $ 3.92 10% 12% 10% -18% 3% 6% 2% -4% -24%

$ 2.71 $ 2.58 $ 2.45 $ 2.37 $ 2.53 -35% -39% -40% -26% -36% -15% -5% -5% -3%

$ 2.15 $ 2.00 $ 1.86 $ 1.73 $ 1.94 -21% - 22% -24% -27% -23% -9% -7% - 7% -7%

All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

253

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 277: YGE Income Statement


Fi scal 2008E FY E: Decemb er Revenue QoQ YoY Cost of Goods Gross Profit R&D S ell ing, General & Admi n. Operati ng E xp enses Operati ng I ncome Non operating (i nco me) exp ense: I nterest income (expense) I ncome (Loss) from an aff iliate Forex and ot her gain (loss) Non operating (i nco me) exp ense I ncom e (loss) befo re taxes I ncom e Tax E xpense (Benefit) Net Income (l oss) Mi nority Interest Accretion of red eem abl e converti ble preferred sh ares Net income avail able to ordi nary sharehol ders B asic income (loss) per share Diluted incom e (loss) per share f rom Operations Weighted average shares used Avg Shares - Ful ly Dilu ted (M) P ercent of Sal es Gross Margin I ncrem ent al Gross Margin R&D S G& A Operat ing Income Net I ncome Tax Rat e Q1 $227.5 14.2% 309. 9% $171.5 $55.9 $1. 2 $14.4 $15.6 $40.3 Q2 $289. 7 27.4% 144. 7% $215. 1 $74.6 $0. 8 $16.1 $16.9 $57.7 Q3 $325. 5 12.3% 91.0% $252. 9 $72.6 $2. 9 $14.1 $17.0 $55.5 Q4 $258.1 -20.7% 29.6% $224.0 $34.1 $3. 4 $16.4 $19.8 $14.3 Q1E $203.4 -21.2% -10.6% $172.8 $30.6 $2. 5 $15.0 $17.5 $13.1 Fi scal 2009E Q2E $289. 8 42.5% 0.0% $235. 7 $54.1 $2.2 $16.0 $18.2 $35.8 Q3E $391. 5 35. 1% 20. 3% $304. 4 $87.1 $2.2 $18.0 $20.2 $67.0 Q4E $474. 7 21. 3% 83. 9% $347. 7 $127. 0 $2.1 $20.0 $22.1 $104. 9 Q1E $451.7 -4. 9% 122. 1% $324.7 $127.0 $2. 1 $30.0 $32.1 $94.9 Fi scal 2010E Q2E $460.1 1.9% 58. 8% $334.3 $125.8 $2.3 $33. 0 $35. 3 $90. 5 Q3E $465. 1 1.1% 18.8% $347. 8 $117. 3 $2. 4 $34.6 $37.0 $80.3 Q4E $467. 1 0.4% -1. 6% $366. 8 $100. 3 $2. 6 $36.8 $39.3 $61.0 Fiscal 2008A $1,100.8 102.6% $863.5 $237.3 $8.4 $61. 0 $69. 4 $167.9 Fiscal 2009E $1, 359.4 23.5% $1, 060.7 $298.8 $9.0 $69. 0 $78. 0 $220.7 Fi scal 2010E $1,844. 0 35.6% $1,373. 6 $470. 4 $9. 4 $134. 4 $143. 7 $326. 6

($4. 2) $0. 3 $9. 5 ($5. 6) $45.9 ($0. 1) $46.0 ($14. 1) $0. 0 $31.9 $0.25 $0.25 127.3 129.6

($4. 8) $0. 0 ($9. 8) $14.6 $43.1 ($0. 2) $43.3 ($13.1) $0. 0 $30.2 $0.24 $0.23 127.4 129.6

($4. 4) $0. 1 ($19.6) $23.9 $31.7 ($0. 0) $31.7 ($9. 5) $0. 0 $22.2 $0.17 $0.17 127.4 129.4

($6.6) $0. 1 $10.1 ($3.6) $17.9 ($2.5) $20.4 ($5.7) $0. 0 $14.7 $0.12 $0.12 127. 4 128. 1

($6. 0) $0. 0 $0. 0 $6. 0 $7. 1 $0. 7 $6. 4 ($6. 0) $0. 0 $0. 4 $0.00 $0.00 127.4 128.1

($6. 0) $0.0 $0.0 $6.0 $29.8 $3.0 $26.8 ($10.0) $0.0 $16.8 $0.13 $0.13 127.4 128.1

($6. 0) $0.0 $0.0 $6.0 $61.0 $6.1 $54.9 ($10.0) $0.0 $44.9 $0. 35 $0. 35 127.4 128.1

($6. 0) $0.0 $0.0 $6.0 $98.9 $9.9 $89.0 ($10.0) $0.0 $79.0 $0. 62 $0. 62 127.4 128.1

($4.7) $0. 0 $0. 0 $4. 7 $90.2 $11.3 $78.9 ($16. 2) $0. 0 $62.7 $0.49 $0.48 127. 4 129. 4

($4.7) $0.0 $0.0 $4.7 $85. 8 $10. 7 $75. 1 ($18.2) $0.0 $56. 8 $0. 45 $0. 44 127.4 129.4

($4. 7) $0. 0 $0. 0 $4. 7 $75.6 $9. 4 $66.1 ($19.3) $0. 0 $46.9 $0.37 $0.36 127.4 129.4

($4. 7) $0. 0 $0. 0 $4. 7 $56.3 $7. 0 $49.2 ($21.1) $0. 0 $28.1 $0.22 $0.22 127.4 129.4

($19. 9) $0.4 ($9.9) $29. 3 $138.6 ($2.9) $141.4 ($42. 4) $0.0 $99. 0 $0.79 $0.77 127. 4 128. 1

($24. 0) $0.0 $0.0 $24. 0 $196.7 $19. 7 $177.1 ($36. 0) $0.0 $141.1 $1.11 $1.10 127. 4 128. 1

($18.8) $0. 0 $0. 0 $18.8 $307. 8 $38.5 $269. 3 ($74.8) $0. 0 $194. 5 $1.46 $1.50 127.4 129.4

24.6% 23.5% 0. 5% 6. 3% 17.7% 20.2% -0. 2%

25.8% 30.0% 0.3% 5.6% 19.9% 14.9% -0. 6%

22.3% -5. 8% 0.9% 4.3% 17.1% 9.7% -0. 1%

13.2% 57.1% 1. 3% 6. 4% 5. 6% 7. 9% -13.9%

15.0% 6. 5% 1. 2% 7. 4% 6. 4% 3. 1% 10.0%

18.7% 27.2% 0.8% 5.5% 12.4% 9.3% 10.0%

22. 3% 32. 5% 0.6% 4.6% 17. 1% 14. 0% 10. 0%

26. 8% 47. 9% 0.4% 4.2% 22. 1% 18. 8% 10. 0%

28.1% 0. 1% 0. 5% 6. 6% 21.0% 17.5% 12.5%

27. 3% -14. 1% 0.5% 7.2% 19. 7% 16. 3% 12. 5%

25.2%

21.5%

21.6% 19.6% 0.8% 5.5% 15.3% 12.8% -2.1%

22.0% 23.8% 0. 7% 5. 1% 16.2% 13.0% 10.0%

25.5% 35.4% 0.5% 7.3% 17.7% 14.6% 12.5%

-169. 3% -832. 0% 0.5% 0.5% 7.4% 7.9% 17.3% 13.1% 14.2% 12.5% 10.5% 12.5%

FY E: Decemb er P ro Forma EBITDA % Change Y/ Y % Change Q/Q % S al es LTM EBITDA Capital S pending % of S al es Depreci atio n % of COGS FCF Ops E st. (PF EBITDA + NI -Capex)

Q1 $50.4 949. 7% 37.7% 22.1% $136.3 $68.0 29.9% $10.1 5. 9% ($18. 0)

Fi scal 2008E Q2 Q3 $67.8 349. 5% 34.5% 23.4% $184. 6 $68.0 23.5% $10.1 4.7% ($0. 3) $65.6 219. 4% -3. 2% 20.2% $220. 4 $68.0 20.9% $10.1 4.0% ($2. 5)

Q4 $24.4 66.7% -62.8% 9. 5% $208.2 $40. 0 15.5% $10. 1 4. 5% ($15. 7)

Q1E $23.4 46.5% -4. 0% 11.5% $181.2 $22.1 10.9% $10.4 6. 0% $1. 3

Fi scal 2009E Q2E Q3E $46.2 68.2% 97.1% 15.9% $159. 6 $22.1 7.6% $10.4 4.4% $24.1

Q4E

Q1E $106.2 453. 1% -7. 9% 23.5% $345.0 $19. 1 4. 2% $11. 3 3. 5% $87.1

Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E $101.8 220.5% -4.1% 22. 1% $400.7 $19.1 4.2% $11.3 3.4% $82. 7 $91.6 118. 5% -10.0% 19.7% $414. 9 $19.1 4.1% $11.3 3.3% $72.5

Q4E $72.3 62.7% -21.1% 15.5% $371. 9 $19.1 4.1% $11.3 3.1% $53.2

$77.3 $115. 3 117.8% 472.4% 67. 4% 19. 7% $171. 4 $22.1 5.6% $10.4 3.4% $55.2 49. 1% 24. 3% $262. 2 $22.1 4.7% $10.4 3.0% $93.2

Fiscal 2008E $208.2 91.0% 18.9% 208. 2 $272.2 24.7% $40. 3 4.7% ($64. 4)

Fiscal 2009E $262.2 26.0% 19.3% 262. 2 $88. 4 6. 5% $41. 5 3. 9% $173.8

Fi scal 2010E $371. 9 41.8% 20.2% 371.9 $76.4 4.1% $45.3 3.3% $295. 5

All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

254

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 278: YGE Balance Sheet


FYE: December Assets Current Assets: Cash Restric ted Cash Accounts recei vabl e from rel ated party Accounts recei vabl e, net % Sal es Inven tories % Sales Prepaymen t to suppl iers Prep aid expenses and Other current assets Deferred Income Taxes Due from related parti es Total Curr ent Assets Amount due from a related party Prepayment to suppl ier Property, pl an t an d equip men t, net Lan d use righ ts Good wil l and Intang ibl e assets, net Investment i n and advances to an affili ate and other assets Total Assets LIAB. & SHRHLDRS' EQUITY S-Term Debt Borro win gs fro m related parties Accounts payable % Sal es Accrued exp enses and other current li abi lities Advance pa yments from customers Divi dend payable Income taxes payabl e Other amounts due to related parties Total Curr ent Liabilities: Defe rred in come Ta xes Mandatory redee mab le a nd convertib le bon ds an d othe r l iab ili ties Total Liabilities Minority Interest Redeemable convertible pr efer red shares Shareholders' Equity Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change Check-sum Performance Metrics Pr ofitability Ratios Return On Eq uity Return on Avg Equity Return On Assets Return On Net A ssets Return On Sales Efficiency Ratios Sales / Total Assets A/R Days Sal es Out Inventory Turns Days of Inventory Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio Quick Ratio Net Working Capital ($M) Long-Term Debt / Equity Debt/Capi tal Total Debt / Equ ity EBITDA/Inter est EBITDA- Capex/Inter est Book & Cash Value Book Val ue Per Share Cash Per Share Net Cash Per Share Tangi ble Book value Q1 $84 $0 $0 $167 73% $ 203 89.2% $ 147 $72 $0 $0 $672 $0 $93 $ 255 $9 $ 101 $7 -----------$1,137 ====== $115 $0 $2 8 12.5% $19 $6 $2 $0 $1 $171 $11 $ 178 $361 $171 $0 -----------$605 -----------$1,137 ====== Q2 Fiscal 2008 Q3 Q4 Q1E Fiscal 2009 Q2E Q3E Q4E Q1E $40 3 $0 $0 $285 63% $ 18 1 40% $ 11 3 $83 $0 $0 $1,065 $0 $99 $55 1 $9 $98 $34 -----------$1,857 ====== $300 $0 $68 15% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $39 2 $8 $ 298 $69 8 $204 $0 -----------$95 5 -----------$1,857 ====== $597.7 0% $0.0 $0.0 Fiscal 201 0 Q2E Q3E $463 $0 $0 $291 63% $1 84 4 0% $113 $83 $0 $0 $1,134 $0 $99 $559 $9 $98 $34 -----------$1,933 ====== $300 $0 $69 1 5% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $393 $8 $2 98 $699 $204 $0 -----------$1,03 0 -----------$1,93 3 ====== $597.7 0% $0.0 $0.0 Q4E

$119 $13 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $151 $171 52% 53% $1 82 $ 282 6 2.7% 86.7% $2 60 $ 17 0 $86 $93 $0 $0 $0 $0 $798 $847 $0 $0 $104 $95 $3 27 $ 437 $9 $9 $1 01 $ 100 $6 $6 ------------ -----------$1,345 $1,494 ====== ====== $237 $0 $47 1 6.1% $21 $6 $2 $0 $1 $312 $14 $177 $504 $188 $0 $264 $0 $ 70 21.5% $24 $4 $2 $0 $1 $36 5 $ 15 $ 230 $610 $200 $0

$179 $231 $26 7 $288 $312 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $215 $159 $212 $267 $300 83% 78% 73% 68% 63% $2 99 $ 236 $ 17 4 $ 157 $1 90 115 .9% 116% 60% 40% 40% $113 $ 113 $ 11 3 $ 113 $113 $83 $83 $83 $83 $83 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $889 $821 $850 $908 $998 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $99 $99 $99 $99 $99 $4 96 $508 $52 0 $531 $5 43 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $98 $98 $98 $98 $98 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------$1,625 $1,570 $1,609 $1,680 $1,781 ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== $300 $0 $92 35 .7% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $416 $8 $2 98 $722 $204 $0 $300 $0 $3 1 15% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $354 $8 $ 298 $660 $204 $0 $300 $0 $4 3 15% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $36 7 $8 $ 298 $67 3 $204 $0 $300 $0 $59 15% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $383 $8 $ 298 $689 $204 $0 $300 $0 $71 15% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $395 $8 $2 98 $701 $204 $0 -----------$876 -----------$1,781 ====== $597.7 0% $0.0 $0.0

$517 $557 $0 $0 $0 $0 $294 $295 63% 63% $ 186 $ 187 40% 40% $ 113 $ 113 $83 $83 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,193 $1,235 $0 $0 $99 $99 $567 $574 $9 $9 $98 $98 $34 $34 ------------ -----------$2,000 $2,049 ====== ====== $300 $0 $7 0 15% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $394 $8 $ 298 $700 $204 $0 $300 $0 $7 0 15% $14 $8 $2 $0 $1 $394 $8 $ 298 $700 $204 $0

------------ -----------$653 $68 5 ------------ -----------$1,34 5 $1,494 ====== ====== $494.8 20% $81.0 $0.0

------------ ------------ ------------ -----------$699 $705 $73 2 $787 ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------$1,62 5 $1,570 $1,609 $1,680 ====== ====== ====== ====== $597.7 21% $102.9 $0.0 $597.7 0% $0.0 $0.0 $597.7 0% $0.0 $0.0 $597.7 0% $0.0 $0.0

------------ -----------$1,096 $1,145 ------------ -----------$2,000 $2,049 ====== ====== $597.7 0% $0.0 $0.0 $597.7 0% $0.0 $0.0

$292.9 $413.8 -16% 41% ($56.1 ) $120.9 $0.0 $0.0

30% 21% 16% 17% 20% 0 .80 67 3.4 108

27% 24% 13% 14% 15% 0.86 48 4.7 77

19% 22% 8% 9% 10% 0 .87 48 3.6 101

12% 20% 5% 6% 8% 0.64 76 3.0 122

4% 15% 2% 2% 3% 0.52 71 2.9 124

15% 12% 7% 8% 9% 0 .72 67 5.4 67

28% 14% 13% 16% 14% 0.93 62 7.8 47

41% 21% 20% 24% 19% 1.07 58 7.3 50

33% 27% 17% 22% 17% 0 .97 58 7.2 51

29% 30% 16% 20% 16% 0.95 58 7.3 50

24% 29% 13% 18% 14% 0.93 58 7.5 49

17% 24% 10% 13% 11% 0.9 1 58 7.9 46

1.9 2.7 $501 1.9% 32.6% 4 8.4% -12.1 4.2 $4.67 $0.65 ($1.62) $4.67

1.6 2.0 $486 2.2% 38.8% 63.4% -14.1 0.1 $5.04 $0.92 ($2.28) $5.04

1.4 1.5 $482 2.2% 42.0% 72.3% -15.1 0.6 $5.29 $1.01 ($2.82) $5.29

1.2 1.4 $473 1.1% 46.1% 85 .6% -3.7 2.4 $5.45 $1.39 ($3.27) $5.45

1.2 1.7 $467 1.1% 45.9% 8 4.8% -3.9 -0.2 $5.50 $1.80 ($2.86) $5.50

1.3 1.8 $482 1.1% 45.0% 8 1.7% -7.7 -4.0 $5.71 $2.09 ($2.58) $5.71

1.3 2.0 $525 1.0% 43.2% 7 6.0% -12.9 -9.2 $6.14 $2.25 ($2.42) $6.14

1.4 2.0 $603 0.9% 40.6% 68 .3% -19.2 -15.5 $6.83 $2.43 ($2.23) $6.83

1.5 2.3 $674 0.8% 38.5% 6 2.6% -22.6 -18.5 $7.38 $3.12 ($1.50) $7.38

1.6 2.4 $741 0.8% 36.7% 58 .1% -21.6 -17.6 $7.96 $3.58 ($1.04) $7.96

1.7 2.6 $799 0.7% 35.3% 5 4.5% -19.5 -15.4 $8.47 $4.00 ($0.62) $8.47

1.8 2.7 $841 0.7% 34.3% 5 2.2% -15.4 -11.3 $8.85 $4.30 ($0.32) $8.85

All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

255

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 279: WFR Earnings Drivers


Fiscal 2008E
FY E: December Q1E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fi scal 2008E

Fiscal 2009 E
Q1E Q2E Q3E Q4E

Fiscal 2009E

Fis 2010 cal E


Q1E Q2E Q3E Q4E

Fiscal 2010E

Pol ysil icon C apacity (Me tric Ton s/Year) Ca pacity Uti lization Pol y Output Inventory Pol y Capacity for Semis Pol y Capacity for Sol ar Spot Poly Market Spot Wafer Market Co ntract Market Semiconductor Rev enue D riv ers Total MSI (Milli on Squ are Inches) Y/Y (%) MEMC Market Share MEMC W afer Starts (MSI) Y/Y (%) Q /Q (%) W afer ASPs ($ per sq . inch) Y/Y (%) Q /Q (%) Semiconductor Rev enue Y/Y (%) Solar Rev enue Dr ive rs Pol y Output for Sol ar Spot Market Spot Wafer Market Co ntract Market Pol y Spot Pricing ($ pe r kg) Spot Wafer Pri ci ng ($ per Wa tt) Pol y Contract Pri ci ng ($ per W att) Pol y Spot Revenue Spot Wafer Revenue Sol ar W afer Con tract Revenu e Total Sola r Re venue Total MEMC Revenue Cost of Goods Semis ($ p er sq. i nch) Sol ar pol y ($ p er kg) Pol y to wafer toll ing ($/W ) G ross Mar gins Semis Spot poly Spot wafe r Sol ar contract G ross Profits Semis Spot poly Spot wafe r Sol ar wafer O vera ll G M

6,000 75% 1 125 0 30% 71% 10% 10% 80%

7,500 65% 1219 0 23% 77% 10% 10% 80%

8,0 00 65% 13 00 0 10% 90% 20% 10% 70%

8,000 90% 1807 160 15% 85% 5% 10% 85% 54 51

8,000 44% 880 100 5% 95% 0% 10% 90%

8,500 44% 935 200 10% 90% 0% 10% 90%

9,00 0 70 % 157 5 200 10 % 90 % 0% 0% 100 %

9,500 85% 2 019 200 10% 90% 0% 0% 100% 5 409

10,500 75% 1969 200 10% 90% 0% 0% 100%

11,000 80% 2200 200 10% 90% 0% 0% 100%

1 1,50 0 8 5% 244 4 20 0 10 % 90 % 0% 0% 100 %

12,000 90% 2700 200 10% 90% 0% 0% 100% 931 3

2335.9 235 4.6

2317.5 1225 .0

8233.0 -6%

91 8.8

918 .8

1 500.0

1700.0

5037.5 -39%

190 0.0

2100 .0

2 300.0

2700.0

9 000.0 7 9%

13% 303.7 16% 2% 1.03 -23% -21% 311.7

13% 30 6.1 11% 1% 0 .98 -18% -4% 30 1.1

13% 301.3 3% -2% 0.88 -25% -10% 265.9

13% 159 .3 -47% -47% 0.81 -38% -8% 129 .0 1070.3 -5%

13% 11 9.4 -61% -25% 0 .75 -27% -7% 8 9.5

13% 119 .4 -61% 0% 0.70 -29% -7% 83 .4

13 % 195.0 -3 5% 63 % 0.79 -1 0% 14 % 154.9

13% 221.0 39% 13% 0.79 -2% 0% 175.4 654.9 -39%

13% 24 7.0 107% 12% 0 .71 -5% -10% 17 5.8

13% 273 .0 129% 11% 0.73 5% 3% 200 .2

1 3% 299.0 5 3% 1 0% 0.8 3 5% 1 4% 249.3

13% 351.0 59% 17% 0.83 5% 0% 292.5 1 170.0 79 %

0.94 -25%

0.77 -18%

0.7 8 2%

1007.6 -29%

503.2 -50%

917.8 8 2%

793 79 79 635 350 $2.70 $1.70 27.8 26.8 134.8 189.4 501.0

941 94 94 753 400 $2 .80 $1 .70 3 7.6 3 2.9 15 9.9 23 0.5 53 1.6

11 70 2 34 1 17 8 19 3 00 $2.50 $1.70 70.2 36.6 174.0 280.8 546.7 183.4 0.61 25 $0.55

1376 69 138 1170 200 $2.00 $1.70 13 .8 34 .4 248 .6 296 .7 425 .7 105 .9 0.67 27 $0.55

42 80

736 0 74 662 80 $1 .20 $1 .17

642 0 64 577 80 $1.10 $1.10 0 .0 8 .8 79 .4 88 .2 171 .6 101 .5 0.85 30 $0.50

121 8 0 0 121 8 80 $1.1 0 $1.1 0 0.0 0.0 167.4 167.4 322.3 146.3 0.75 27 $0.5 5

1 617 0 0 1 617 80 $1.10 $1.10 0.0 0.0 222.3 222.3 397.7 154.7 0.70 25 $0.55

4 212

1572 0 0 1572 80 $1 .10 $1 .10

1780 0 0 1780 80 $1.05 $1.05 0 .0 0 .0 233 .6 233 .6 433 .8 163 .8 0.60 23 $0.45

199 9 0 0 199 9 70 $1.0 0 $1.0 0 0.0 0.0 249.9 249.9 499.3 170.4 0.5 7 23 $0.4 5

2230 0 0 2230 60 $0.95 $0.95 0.0 0.0 264.8 264.8 557.3 186.0 0.53 23 $0.45

758 1

149.4 130.7 717.4 997.4 2005.0

0.0 1 2.6 11 0.7 12 3.3 21 2.8 10 6.3 0 .89 30 $0 .55

0.0 21.4 579.8 601.3 1104.4

0.0 0.0 21 6.1 21 6.1 39 1.9 16 0.6 0 .65 23 $0 .45

0.0 0.0 964.5 964.5 1 882.3

0.57 25 $0.55

0 .55 25 $0 .55

45% 93% 72% 56% 259.1 139 26 19 75 51.7%

45% 94% 73% 56% 2 82.8 134 35 24 89 5 3.2%

31% 92% 70% 56% 269.6 82 64 26 97 49.3%

18% 87% 62% 55% 19 2.7 23 12 21 137 45 .3%

34% 91% 69% 56% 1,004.3 378.2 137.3 90.3 398.5 50.1%

-19% 63% 34% 32% 1 9.1 -17 0 4 36 9.0%

-22% 63% 33% 33% 7 .9 -18 0 3 26 4 .6%

6% 66 % 30 % 30 % 59.5 9 0 0 51 18.4%

12% 69% 32% 32% 91.4 21 0 0 71 23.0%

-6% 65% 32% 32% 177.9 (5.6) 0.0 7.2 183.5 16.1%

9% 71% 42% 42% 1 06.8 15 0 0 92 2 7.3%

18% 71% 40% 40% 12 9.0 36 0 0 93 29 .7%

32 % 67 % 37 % 37 % 170.4 79 0 0 91 34.1%

36% 62% 33% 33% 194.5 106 0 0 88 34.9%

24 % 68 % 38 % 38 % 600.7 237.0 0.0 0.0 363.7 31.9%

All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

256

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 280: WFR Income Statement


FYE : Decem ber R evenue QoQ YoY C os t of Goods Gros s P rofi t General, Admin. & Mk tg. R &D R es truc turing Operating E xpenses Operating I ncome N onoperati ng (income) expense: I nt erest expens e I nt erest income I nt erest expens e (inc ome) Other, net N onoperati ng (income) expense $0. 3 ($12. 8) ($12. 5) ($1.5) ($11. 0) $0.3 ($11.3) ($11.0) ($2. 5) ($8. 5) $251. 0 $37.7 $213. 4 $0.0 ($1. 4) $212. 0 $0.0 $212. 0 39. 9% $0. 92 $0. 04 $0. 88 $0. 76 228.3 230.7 $0.8 ($11. 2) ($10. 4) ($6.6) ($3.8) $231.3 $34. 7 $196.6 $0.0 ($0.8) $195.8 $0.0 $195.8 35.9% $0.86 $0.04 $0.82 $0.80 226. 3 227. 6 $0.4 ($11.1) ($10.7) ($9. 7) ($1. 0) $170. 3 $25.0 $145. 3 $0.0 $1.1 $146. 4 $0.0 $146. 4 34. 4% $0. 65 $0. 24 $0. 41 $0. 33 224.5 225.1 $0.3 ($11. 7) ($11. 4) ($2.7) ($8.7) ($17. 7) ($18. 9) $1.2 $0.0 $0.8 $2.0 $0.0 $2.0 0. 9% $0.01 $0.00 $0.01 $0.01 223. 6 224. 0 $0.3 ($9. 6) ($9. 3) ($2. 7) ($12.0) ($18.1) ($2. 9) ($15.2) $0.0 $0.0 ($15.2) $0.0 ($15.2) -8.9% ($0.07) $0. 04 ($0.11) ($0.19) 225.0 225.0 $0.3 ($10.6) ($10.3) ($2. 7) ($13.0) $34.5 $5.5 $28.9 $0.0 $0.0 $28.9 $0.0 $28.9 9.0% $0. 13 $0. 04 $0. 09 $0. 01 220.0 220.0 $0.3 ($10. 6) ($10. 3) ($2.7) ($13. 0) $65. 4 $10. 5 $55. 0 $0.0 $0.0 $55. 0 $0.0 $55. 0 13.8% $0.25 $0.04 $0.21 $0.13 220. 0 220. 0 $0.3 ($11.1) ($10.8) ($3. 2) ($14.0) $78.8 $11.8 $67.0 $0.0 $0.0 $67.0 $0.0 $67.0 17. 1% $0. 31 $0. 05 $0. 26 $0. 18 215.0 215.0 $0.3 ($12.1) ($11.8) ($3.2) ($15.0) $101.0 $15. 1 $85. 8 $0.0 $0.0 $85. 8 $0.0 $85. 8 19.8% $0.40 $0.04 $0.36 $0.28 215. 0 215. 0 $0. 3 ($13. 1) ($12. 8) ($3.2) ($16. 0) $141.4 $21.2 $120.2 $0. 0 $0. 0 $120.2 $0. 0 $120.2 24.1% $0.57 $0.04 $0.53 $0.45 210. 0 210. 0 $0.3 ($14.1) ($13.8) ($3. 2) ($17.0) $166. 5 $25.0 $141. 5 $0.0 $0.0 $141. 5 $0.0 $141. 5 25. 4% $0. 67 $0. 04 $0. 63 $0. 55 210.0 210.0 $1.8 ($46. 4) ($44. 6) ($20. 3) ($24. 3) $882.0 $131.8 $750.2 $0.0 ($2.2) $748.0 $0.0 $748.0 37.3% $3.27 $0.37 $2.90 $1.71 227 229 $1.2 ($42.5) ($41.3) ($10.8) ($46.7) $64.0 ($5. 8) $69.9 $0.0 $0.8 $70.7 $0.0 $70.7 6.4% $0. 32 $0. 12 $0. 20 ($0.04) 222 222 $1.2 ($50.4) ($49.2) ($12.8) ($62.0) $487.7 $73. 2 $414.5 $0.0 $0.0 $414.5 $0.0 $414.5 22.0% $1.95 $0.17 $1.78 $1.47 213 213 Q1 $501.4 -6. 4% 13.9% $242.1 $259.3 $30.6 $10.3 $40.9 $218.4 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 $531. 4 6.0% 12. 4% $248. 6 $282. 8 $30.3 $10.0 $40.3 $242. 5 $546.0 0. 0% 15.5% 110. 5 $276.3 $269.7 $31. 9 $10. 3 $42. 2 $227.5 Q4 $425. 7 -26.0% -20.6% 137.8 $232. 7 $193. 0 $13.5 $10.2 $23.7 $169. 3 $194.3 $19.7 $29.8 $9.6 $6.7 $46.1 ($26. 4) $163. 7 $7.9 $25.1 $12.9 $38.0 ($30.1) $262. 8 $59.5 $25.1 $12.9 $38.0 $21.5 $306.3 $91. 4 $25. 7 $13. 3 $39. 0 $52. 4 $285. 1 $106. 8 $27.7 $14.3 $42.0 $64.8 $304.9 $129.0 $28. 4 $14. 6 $43. 0 $86. 0 $328.9 $170.4 $29.7 $15.3 $45.0 $125.4 $362. 8 $194. 5 $29.7 $15.3 $45.0 $149. 5 $999.7 $1, 004.8 $106.3 $40. 8 $0.0 $147.1 $857.7 $927. 2 $178. 4 $105. 7 $48.7 $6.7 $161. 1 $17.3 $1, 281.6 $600.7 $115.5 $59. 5 $0.0 $175.0 $425.7 Q1 $214.0 0. 0% -57.3% Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $171. 6 5.0% -67.7% $322. 3 20. 0% -41.0% Q4E $397.7 20.0% -6.6% Q1E $391. 9 -4.0% 83. 1% Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E $433.8 2. 0% 152.8% $499.3 4.0% 54.9% Q4E $557. 3 4.5% 40. 1% 4. 3% -44.8% 70.3% FY 2008 $2, 004.5 FY 2009E $1,105. 6 FY 2010E $1, 882.3

Income (l oss) before taxes,equity income $229.4 C ash I ncom e Tax Income (l oss) before equity income JVs Equi ty i n income (loss) of JV s Minori ty i nterests N et I ncom e (l oss) C umulat ive pref erred s tock dividends N et I ncom e-Operations P ercent of R ev enue N on GAAP EP S (excludi ng opti ons) Options E xpens e N on GAAP EP S (inc options) GAA P EP S (inc options) Weighted average s hares used Avg S hares - Full y Di luted (M) Percent of S al es Gros s Margin Inc rement al Gros s Margin SG&A R &D Operating Income N et Inc ome Tax Rate 51.7% 71.7% 2.1% 6.1% 43.6% 38.7% 15.0% $34.4 $195.0 $0. 0 ($1.1) $193.9 $0. 0 $193.9 38.7% $0.84 $0.05 $0.79 ($0.18) 228. 5 231. 5

53. 2% 78. 3% 1.9% 5.7% 45. 6% 39. 9% 15. 0%

49.4% -89. 7% 1. 9% 5. 8% 41.7% 35.9% 15.0%

45. 3% 63. 8% 2.4% 3.2% 39. 8% 34. 4% 14. 7%

9. 0% 75.3% 4. 5% 13.9% -12.3% 0. 9% 16.0%

4.6% 27. 9% 7.5% 14. 6% -17.6% -8.9% 16. 0%

18. 4% 34. 2% 4.0% 7.8% 6.7% 9.0% 16. 0%

23.0% 42.4% 3. 3% 6. 5% 13.2% 13.8% 16.0%

27. 3% 49. 0% 3.6% 7.1% 16. 5% 17. 1% 15. 0%

29.7% 52.9% 3. 4% 6. 5% 19.8% 19.8% 15.0%

34.1% 63.3% 3.1% 5.9% 25.1% 24.1% 15.0%

34. 9% 41. 6% 2.7% 5.3% 26. 8% 25. 4% 15. 0%

50.1% 2. 0% 5. 3% 42.8% 37.3% 14.9%

16. 1% 4.4% 9.6% 1.6% 6.4% -9.1%

31.9% 3. 2% 6. 1% 22.6% 22.0% 15.0%

FILE: W FR wk sh.x ls FYE: D ec ember Pro Forma EBITDA % Change Y/Y % Change Q/Q % Sal es LTM EB ITDA Q1 $2 41 .2 1 2.7 % - 12 .5 % 4 8.1 % $9 65 .1

Fi sc al 20 08 E Q 2E $ 26 8.0 1 7. 8% 1 1. 1% 5 0. 4% $ 1,0 05 .6 Q3 E $25 4. 8 15 .4% - 4. 9% 46 .7% $1 ,03 9. 6 Q 4E $ 20 2.3 -2 6.6 % -2 0.6 % 4 7. 5% $ 96 6.3 Q1 E $ 1.6 - 99 .3% - 99 .2% 0 .7% $7 26 .7

Fis ca l 2 00 9E Q 2E ($ 0. 1) - 10 0. 0% - 10 7. 7% -0 .1 % $ 45 8.6 Q 3E $ 52 .5 -7 9.4 % -4 24 82 .9 % 1 6. 3% $ 25 6.2 Q4 E $8 5. 4 - 57 .8% 62 .9 % 21 .5 % $1 39 .3 Q 1E $ 92 .8 57 01 .2 % 8.7 % 2 3. 7% $ 23 0.6

Fisc al 20 10 E Q2 E $ 11 6. 0 - 93 80 1.0 % 24 .9% 26 .7% $ 34 6. 7 Q3 E $1 56 .4 19 8. 1% 3 4.9 % 3 1.3 % $4 50 .6 Q 4E $ 18 2.5 1 13 .7% 1 6. 7% 3 2. 8% $ 54 7.7

FY 2 00 8 $ 96 6. 3 3% 48 .2 %

FY 2 00 9E $ 1,4 34 .4 4 8% 1 29 .7%

FY 20 10 E $ 54 7.7 -6 2% 29 .1%

Ca pi ta l Spending % of Sale s De pre cia ti on % of COG s FCF Ops Est . ( CFO- Ca pe x)

$8 1.9 1 6.3 % $2 2.8 9 .4 % $1 15 .3

$ 87 .3 1 6. 4% $ 25 .5 1 0. 3% $ 11 7.7

$73 .1 13 .4% $27 .3 9 .9% $4 2.2

$ 63 .9 1 5. 0% $ 33 .0 1 4. 2% $ 32 1.6

$8 2.0 38 .3 % $2 8.0 14 .4 % $5 1. 8

$ 85 .0 4 9. 5% $ 30 .0 1 8. 3% ( $1 74 .2 )

$ 90 .0 2 7. 9% $ 31 .0 1 1. 8% $7 .8

$9 5.0 23 .9 % $3 3.0 10 .8 % $1 3. 9

$ 82 .0 2 0. 9% $ 28 .0 9.8 % $ 24 .0

$ 85 .0 19 .6% $ 30 .0 9. 8% $3 1.5

$9 0. 0 1 8.0 % $3 1. 0 9 .4 % $ 76 .5

$ 95 .0 1 7. 0% $ 33 .0 9.1 % $ 98 .6

$ 30 6. 2 15 .3 % $ 10 8. 6 10 .9 % $5 96 .8

$3 52 .0 3 1. 8% $1 22 .0 1 3. 2% ( $1 00 .7 )

$ 35 2.0 18 .7% $ 12 2.0 9. 5% $ 23 0. 5

All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

257

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 281: WFR Balance Sheet


FILE: WFRwksh .xls FYE: December BALANCE SHEET FILE: WFRwksh .xls FYE: December Assets Current Assets: Cash and cash equival ents Short-term investm ents Accounts receivable, l ess all ow for d.a. % Sales Inventories % Sales Deferred tax assets, net Prepaid and other current assets T otal Cu rrent Assets Net PP&E Investm ents in joint ventures Goodwill Deferred tax asset -- non-current Other assets T otal Assets LIAB. & SHRHLDRS' EQ UITY S-Term Debt & Borrowings Accounts payabl e % sal es Accrued liabilities Deferred tax l iabilities, net Customer deposits % sal es Deferred revenues Income taxes Accrued wages and sal aries T otal Cu rrent L iabilities: L-Term Debt Pension Li abilities % Sales Customer deposits % sal es Deferred tax liabilities Other liabilities T otal Liab ilities Minority interests Redeemable preferred stock Shareholders' Eq uity To tal L iabilities & Sh areholders' Equ ity To tal Debt % Change Q/Q $ Chang e Performance M etrics Profitability Ratios Return On Equity Return on Avg Equity Return On Assets Return On Net Assets Return On Sales Efficiency Ratios Sales / Total Assets A/R Days Sales Out Inventory Turns Days of Inventory Number of Em ployees Revenue / Em ployee Annuali zed ($K) Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio Quick Ratio Net Working Capital ($M) Long-Term Debt / Equity Debt/Capital T otal Debt / Equity EBITDA/Interest EBITDA- Capex/Interest Op Inc / Assets, exc. Cash Boo k & Cash Value Book Value Per Share Cash Per Share Net Cash Per Share T angi ble Book value Q1 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1E Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q 3E Q4E Q1E Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E

$980 $306 $217 43% $33 7% $0 $28 $1,564 $904 $132 $0 $110 $155 -----------$2,864 ===== = $6 $160 32% $53 $0 $164 33% $86 $60 $32 $559 $29 $60 12% $0 $0 $0 $204 $852 $34 $0.0 -----------$1,978 -----------$2,864 ===== = $35.0 $4.1

$1,111 $276 $231 43% $34 6% $0 $27 $1,678 $950 $110 $0 $101 $141 -----------$2,980 ====== $6 $148 28% $54 $0 $168 32% $86 $43 $33 $537 $25 $57 11% $0 $0 $0 $238 $857 $35 $0.0 -----------$2,089 -----------$2,980 ====== $30.1 ($4.9)

$932 $187 $240 44% $41 8% $0 $28 $1,429 $976 $318 $0 $90 $172 -----------$2,985 ====== $6 $141 26% $65 $0 $210 38% $90 $69 $32 $613 $25 $42 8% $0 $0 $0 $190 $869 $36 $0.0 -----------$2,080 -----------$2,985 ====== $30.3 $0.2

$988 $148 $202 47% $81 19% $0 $39 $1,459 $1,041 $285 $0 $68 $87 -----------$2,940 ====== $6 $162 38% $68 $0 $187 44% $0 $18 $32 $473 $26 $46 11% $0 $0 $0 $275 $820 $35 $0.0 -----------$2,085 -----------$2,940 ====== $32.2 $1.9

$898 $109 $169 79% $118 55% $0 $38 $1,333 $1,018 $292 $0 $76 $81 -----------$2,800 === === $6 $122 57% $45 $0 $150 70% $0 $18 $31 $372 $24 $45 21% $0 $0 $0 $278 $720 $34 $0.0 -----------$2,046 -----------$2,800 === === $30.1 ($2.1)

$915 $109 $70 41% $83 48% $0 $38 $1,214 $1,073 $292 $0 $76 $81 -----------$2,736 === === $6 $98 57% $46 $0 $150 87% $0 $18 $32 $349 $24 $47 27% $0 $0 $0 $278 $698 $34 $0.0 -----------$2,004 -----------$2,736 === === $30.1 $0.0

$887 $109 $131 41% $138 43% $0 $38 $1,303 $1,132 $292 $0 $76 $81 -----------$2,884 == ==== $6 $184 57% $46 $0 $150 47% $0 $18 $33 $437 $24 $48 15% $0 $0 $0 $278 $787 $34 $0.0 -----------$2,062 -----------$2,884 == ==== $30.1 $0.0

$865 $109 $161 41% $164 41% $0 $38 $1,338 $1,194 $292 $0 $76 $81 -----------$2,981 ====== $6 $227 57% $47 $0 $150 38% $0 $18 $34 $482 $24 $50 12% $0 $0 $0 $278 $834 $34 $0.0 -----------$2,113 -----------$2,981 ====== $30.1 $0.0

$854 $109 $159 41% $153 39% $0 $38 $1,313 $1,186 $292 $0 $0 $81 -----------$2,872 ====== $6 $224 57% $47 $0 $150 38% $0 $18 $35 $480 $24 $51 13% $0 $0 $0 $278 $833 $34 $0.0 -----------$2,004 -----------$2,872 ====== $30.1 $0.0

$849 $109 $176 41% $154 35% $0 $38 $1,326 $1,241 $292 $0 $0 $81 -----------$2,940 ====== $6 $248 57% $48 $0 $150 35% $0 $18 $36 $505 $24 $53 12% $0 $0 $0 $278 $860 $34 $0.0 -----------$2,046 -----------$2,940 ====== $30.1 $0.0

$890 $109 $202 41% $173 35% $0 $38 $1,413 $1,300 $292 $0 $0 $81 -----------$3,086 ====== $6 $286 57% $48 $0 $150 30% $0 $18 $37 $544 $24 $54 11% $0 $0 $0 $278 $901 $34 $0.0 -----------$2,151 -----------$3,086 ====== $30.1 $0.0

$953 $109 $226 41% $195 35% $0 $38 $1,521 $1,362 $292 $0 $0 $81 -----------$3,256 ====== $6 $319 57% $49 $0 $150 27% $0 $18 $38 $579 $24 $56 10% $0 $0 $0 $278 $937 $34 $0.0 -----------$2,285 -----------$3,256 ====== $30.1 $0.0

39% 46% 27% 49% 39% 0.70 40 29.2 12 5,225 $384 1.8 2.7 $1,165 1.5% 1.7% 1.8% -19.3 -12.7 49.1% $8.54 $5.55 $5.40 $7.88

41% 44% 28% 53% 40% 0.71 40 29.4 12 5,240 $406 2.0 3.1 $1,290 1.2% 1.4% 1.4% -24.4 -16.4 53.2% $9.05 $6.01 $5.88 $8.44

38% 40% 26% 42% 36% 0.73 40 27.0 14 5,255 $416 1.6 2.3 $957 1.2% 1.4% 1.5% -24.5 -17.5 42.0% $9.14 $4.92 $4.79 $8.38

28% 37% 20% 32% 34% 0.58 37 26.1 14 5,270 $323 1.8 2.9 $1,149 1.3% 1.5% 1.5% -18.9 -12.9 32.5% $9.26 $5.05 $4.91 $8.88

0% 27% 0% 0% 1% 0.31 37 7.4 49 5,285 $162 1.9 3.3 $1,084 1.2% 1.4% 1.5% -0.1 7.1 0.4% $9.13 $4.50 $4.36 $8.77

(3%) 16% -2% (4%) (9%) 0.25 37 7.9 46 5,300 $130 1.7 3.2 $963 1.2% 1.5% 1.5% 0.0 9.2 -3.6% $8.91 $4.55 $4.42 $8.54

6% 8% 4% 6% 9% 0.45 37 7.6 48 5,315 $243 1.7 2.7 $1,051 1.2% 1.4% 1.5% -5.1 3.6 6.1% $9.37 $4.53 $4.39 $9.01

10% 3% 7% 11% 14% 0.53 37 7.4 49 5,330 $298 1.6 2.4 $1,084 1.1% 1.4% 1.4% -8.3 0.9 11.0% $9.61 $4.43 $4.29 $9.24

13% 4% 9% 14% 17% 0.55 37 7.4 49 5,330 $294 1.6 2.4 $1,057 1.2% 1.5% 1.5% -8.6 -1.0 14.0% $9.32 $4.48 $4.34 $8.95

17% 8% 12% 17% 20% 0.59 37 7.9 46 5,345 $325 1.5 2.3 $1,069 1.2% 1.4% 1.5% -9.8 -2.6 17.3% $9.52 $4.46 $4.32 $9.14

22% 14% 16% 23% 24% 0.65 37 7.6 48 5,360 $373 1.6 2.3 $1,154 1.1% 1.4% 1.4% -12.2 -5.2 23.0% $10.24 $4.76 $4.62 $9.86

25% 19% 17% 26% 25% 0.68 37 7.4 49 5,375 $415 1.6 2.3 $1,261 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% -13.2 -6.3 25.8% $10.88 $5.06 $4.92 $10.49

All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

258

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 282: JASO Earnings Drivers


FYE: Dec embe r Number of lines Na meplate capacity per line Annual Ca pacity (MW ) Qua rterly Capa city (MW) Poly/Wa fer Capa city Secured (MW ) Total Shipments (MW ) Total Pr oduction (MW ) Internal Produ ction (MW ) Jing long M.SETEK Ren esola Shund a GCL Toll ing/Service (MW ) Ce ll Inventory (MW) ASPs ($/W ) Y/Y (%) Product Revenue s Third party re ve nues Y/Y (%) Re lated party revenu es Total product revenue s Y/Y (%) Ser vic e r evenues Total revenue s Y/Y (%) Cost of reve nues Produ cts (Cost/W att) Produ cts (Si licon wafers) Jing long M.SETEK Ren esola Shund a GCL Service Oth er (p ro cessing) Ce ll processing cost p er wa tt Total Gross Ma rgin Produ cts Service Total Q1 8.4 25.0 2 10.0 52.5 75.7 51.4 49.2 47.2 26.4 20.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.0 6.4 3.2 1 7% Fiscal 2 008 Q2 Q3 1 1.0 2 5.0 27 5.0 6 8.8 9 0.4 6 5.7 6 6.1 5 1.7 1 2.1 2 1.6 0.0 0.0 1 8.0 1 4.0 4.0 3 .31 6% 17.0 25.0 425.0 106.3 112.0 99.1 99.1 89.1 21.6 21.6 7.5 20.4 18.0 10.0 4.0 3.42 6% Q4 24 .0 25 .0 600 .0 150 .0 140 .8 61 .0 61 .0 53 .7 19 .4 7 .6 0 .0 17 .7 9 .0 7 .3 4 .0 2.54 -8% 418.8 277.2 275.4 241.7 79.5 70.9 8.1 38.1 45.0 33.3 4.0 3.12 5% Fiscal 20 08 Q1 E 24.0 25.0 600.0 150.0 168.2 50.0 50.0 35.0 29.6 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 15.0 4.0 1.92 -40% Fisc al 200 9E Q2E Q3E 27.0 25.0 800.0 200.0 168.2 85.0 85.0 65.0 29.6 22.2 2.0 0.0 11.1 20.0 4.0 1.82 -45% 36.0 25.0 900.0 225.0 253.4 135.0 135.0 110.0 29.6 37.1 5.2 0.0 38.1 25.0 4.0 1.78 -4 8% Q4E 40.0 25.0 1000.0 250.0 273.2 220.0 220.0 180.0 29.6 37.1 5.2 0.0 108.1 40.0 4.0 1.78 -30% 949.7 863.0 490.0 490.0 390.0 118.6 100.8 12.4 0.0 158.3 100.0 4.0 1.83 -41% Fisca l 2009 E Q1E 36.0 25.0 900.0 225.0 383.1 250.0 250.0 210.0 29.6 37.1 5.2 0.0 148.2 40.0 4.0 1.35 -3 0% Fiscal 2 010E Q2E Q3 E 40.0 25.0 10 00.0 2 50.0 3 83.1 2 50.0 2 50.0 2 05.0 29.6 37.1 5.2 0.0 1 48.2 45.0 4.0 1.2 7 -30 % 44.0 25.0 1100.0 275.0 390.5 285.0 285.0 235.0 29.6 37.1 5.2 14.9 148.2 50.0 4.0 1.25 -30% Q4E 4 8.0 2 5.0 120 0.0 30 0.0 39 0.5 32 5.0 32 5.0 27 0.0 2 9.6 3 7.1 5.2 4 9.9 14 8.2 5 5.0 4.0 1 .25 -30% 1547 .2 1110 .0 1110 .0 920 .0 118 .6 148 .2 20 .8 64 .8 592 .8 190 .0 4 .0 1.28 -30% Fisc al 201 0E

1 42.5 224 % 16.0 1 58.5 260 % 1.5 1 60.0 263 %

14 4.7 156 % 2 6.5 17 1.2 202 % 9.1 18 0.3 200 %

304.3 1 84% 0.0 304.3 1 82% 8.0 312.3 1 75%

136 .5 3% 0 .0 136 .5 -2% 7 .0 143 .5 0%

728.0 1 14% 42.5 770.4 1 21% 25.7 796.1 1 20%

67.4 -53% 0.0 67.4 -57% 10.1 77.5 -52%

118.4 -18% 0.0 118.4 -31% 12.7 131.1 -27%

195.4 -3 6% 0.0 195.4 -3 6% 15.5 210.9 -3 2%

320.3 135% 0.0 320.3 135% 24.9 345.2 141%

701.4 -4% 0.0 701.4 -9% 63.3 764.7 -4%

282.9 32 0% 0.0 282.9 32 0% 18.9 301.8 29 0%

2 61.3 121 % 0.0 2 61.3 121 % 20.1 2 81.4 115 %

294.2 51% 0.0 294.2 51% 21.9 316.1 50%

33 6.3 5% 0.0 33 6.3 5% 2 4.0 36 0.3 4%

1174 .8 67% 0 .0 1174 .8 67% 84 .8 1259 .6 65%

2.6 6

2 .61

2.59

2.79

2.66

1.89

1.72

1.57

1.49

1.66 617.2 159.5 146.7 19.9 0.0 193.6 34.8 97.6 0.28 652.0

1.28

1.1 5

0.99

0 .94

1.09

1 25.7 13 5.2 231.0 149 .7 641.7 66.2 2 9.8 53.9 51 .4 201.4 42.0 4 5.0 46.4 17 .6 151.0 1.6 0.0 19.3 0 .0 21.0 0.0 0.0 52.0 45 .9 97.9 0.0 4 1.6 41.6 20 .3 103.5 0.5 2.7 2.8 3 .2 9.2 15.8 1 8.7 17.8 14 .5 66.9 $ 0.2 0 $ 0.2 0 $ 0.20 $ 0 .27 $ 0.20 1 26.2 13 7.9 233.8 152 .9 650.8

66.1 111.6 172.2 267.3 46.9 42.4 36.0 34.3 7.2 32.9 53.3 53.3 0.0 3.2 8.3 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 15.0 47.1 130.0 5.6 7.0 8.5 13.7 10.5 18.2 27.5 41.4 0.30 $ 0.28 $ 0.25 $ 0.23 $ 71.6 118.6 180.7 281.0

269.1 2 35.1 233.0 25 2.5 989 .8 32.8 29.7 25.2 2 4.0 111 .6 42.0 38.3 37.3 3 7.3 155 .0 8.3 8.3 5.5 5.5 27 .6 0.0 0.0 12.8 3 9.1 51 .9 144.0 1 19.9 109.9 9 8.0 471 .8 12.3 13.0 15.3 1 6.8 57 .4 42.0 39.0 42.3 4 8.6 171 .9 $ 0.20 $ 0.1 9 $ 0.18 $ 0 .18 $ 0 .19 281.4 2 48.2 248.3 26 9.3 1047 .2

21 % 70 % 21.2%

21 % 70 % 2 3.5 %

24% 65% 25.1%

-10% 55% -6 .5%

17% 64% 18.3%

2% 45% 7.6%

6% 45% 9.5%

1 2% 4 5% 14.3%

17% 45% 18.6%

12% 45% 14.7%

5% 3 5% 6.8%

10 % 35 % 1 1.8 %

21% 30% 21.5%

25% 30% 25 .3%

16% 32% 16 .9%

All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

259

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 283: JASO Income Statement


Fiscal 2008 FYE : Decem ber Revenue QoQ YoY Q1 $160.0 11.0% 263. 4% Q2 $180. 3 12. 7% 200.3% Q3 $312. 3 73.2% 175. 2% Q4 $143.5 -54. 1% -0.5% Q1E $77.5 -46. 0% -51. 6% Fi scal 2009E Q2E $131.1 69.2% -27.3% Q3E $210. 9 60.9% -32.5% Q4E $345.2 63. 7% 140.6% Q1E $301.8 -12.6% 289.6% Fiscal 2010E Q2E $281. 4 -6.8% 114. 6% Q3E $316.1 12. 4% 49. 9% Q4E $360.3 14.0% 4. 4% 120.1% -4.0% 64. 7% Fi scal 2008E $796.1 Fiscal 2009E $764.7 Fiscal 2010E $1,259. 6

Cos t of Goods Gros s Prof it

$126.4 $33.6

$138. 2 $42.1

$244. 8 $67.5

$142.1 $1.4

$71.6 $5.9

$118.6 $12. 5

$180. 7 $30.2

$281.0 $64. 1

$281.4 $20. 4

$248. 2 $33.2

$248.3 $67. 8

$269.3 $91.0

$651.6 $144.6

$652.0 $112.6

$1,047. 2 $212. 4

R&D Selling, General & Admin. Operating Expenses

$0. 4 $9. 9 $10.3

$0.8 $9.7 $10.5

$1. 0 $2. 6 $3. 6

$2.0 $17. 2 $19. 2

$1.0 $8.0 $9.0

$1.0 $8.0 $9.0

$1. 0 $10.0 $11.0

$1.0 $10. 0 $11. 0

$1. 0 $10. 0 $11. 0

$2. 0 $10.0 $12.0

$2.0 $12. 0 $14. 0

$2. 5 $13.0 $15.5

$4.2 $39. 5 $43. 6

$4.0 $36. 0 $40. 0

$7. 5 $45.0 $52.5

Operating Income

$23.3

$31.5

$63.8

($17.8)

($3.1)

$3.5

$19.2

$53. 1

$9. 4

$21.2

$53. 8

$75.5

$100.9

$72. 6

$159. 9

Non operati n (income) expense: g I nt erest income (expens e) Ot her income (expens e) Forex gain (los s) Non operati n (income) expense g $1. 6 $3. 9 ($5.5) $0. 0 ($2. 7) ($23.8) ($5. 2) $31.8 ($7. 3) ($109.3) ($6. 0) $122. 6 ($7.2) $47. 2 ($2.0) ($38.0) ($5.0) $0.0 $0.0 $5.0 ($5.0) $0.0 $0.0 $5.0 ($5. 0) $0. 0 $0. 0 $5. 0 ($5.0) $0.0 $0.0 $5.0 ($4.6) $0. 0 ($2.0) $6. 6 ($4. 6) $0. 0 ($3. 0) $7. 6 ($4.6) $0.0 ($2.5) $7.1 ($4.6) $0. 0 ($2.0) $6. 6 ($15. 6) ($82. 0) ($18. 8) $116.4 ($20.0) $0.0 $0.0 $20. 0 ($18.4) $0. 0 ($9. 5) $27.9

I ncom e (l oss) before taxes I ncom e Tax Expense

$23.3

($0. 3)

($58.8)

$20. 3

($8.1)

($1.5)

$14.2

$48. 1

$2. 8

$13.6

$46. 7

$68.9

($15. 4)

$52. 6

$132. 0

$1. 3 $22.0

$0.8 ($1. 0)

$3. 0 ($61.7)

($1.5) $21. 8

($0.8) ($7.3)

($0.2) ($1.4)

$1. 4 $12.7

$4.8 $43. 3

$0. 4 $2. 4

$2. 0 $11.5

$7.0 $39. 7

$10.3 $58.5

$3.5 ($18. 9)

$5.3 $47. 4

$19.8 $112. 2

Net I ncome (loss)

Preferred S hare Adjustments

$0. 0

$0.0

$0. 0

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

$0. 0

$0.0

$0. 0

$0. 0

$0.0

$0. 0

$0.0

$0.0

$0. 0

Stock options expense

$1. 2

$1.2

$0. 0

$4.7

$1.2

$1.2

$1. 2

$1.2

$1. 2

$1. 2

$1.2

$1. 2

$7.1

$4.8

$4. 8

Bas ic inc ome (los s) per share Diluted income (los s) per share from Opera

$0.14 $0.14

$0. 30 ($0.01)

($0.13) ($0.36)

$0. 14 ($0. 10)

($0. 05) ($0. 05)

($0.01) ($0.01)

$0.08 $0.08

$0. 28 $0. 27

$0.02 $0.01

$0. 07 $0. 07

$0. 25 $0. 25

$0.38 $0.37

$0.45 ($0. 33)

$0. 30 $0. 30

$0. 72 $0. 70

EP S (ADS) Weight ed av erage shares used Avg Shares - Ful ly Dil uted (M) Percent of Sales Gros s Margin I nc remental Gross Margin R&D SG& A Operating I nc ome Net I nc ome Tax Rate

$0.13 154. 1 155. 8

($0.01) 154.5 163.7

($0.36) 155.8 169.9

($0. 10) 155.8 160.0

($0. 05) 155.8 160.0

($0.02) 155. 8 160. 0

$0.07 155.8 160.0

$0. 26 155.8 160.0

$0.01 155. 8 160. 0

$0. 06 155.8 160.0

$0. 24 155.8 160.0

$0.36 155. 8 160. 0

($0. 16) 155. 1 162. 3

$0. 27 155.8 160.0

$0. 67 155.8 160.0

21.0% 15.0% 0. 2% 6. 2% 14.6% 13.8% 5. 5%

23. 3% 41. 5% 0.4% 5.4% 17. 5% -0.6% 1.6%

21.6% 19.2% 0.3% 0.8% 20.4% -19.8% -5.0%

1. 0% 39. 1% 1. 4% 12. 0% -12. 4% 15. 2% -7.5%

7.6% -6.7% 1.3% 10. 3% -4.1% -9.5% 10. 0%

9. 5% 12.3% 0. 8% 6. 1% 2. 6% -1. 1% 10.0%

14.3% 22.2% 0.5% 4.7% 9.1% 6.0% 10.0%

18. 6% 25. 3% 0.3% 2.9% 15. 4% 12. 6% 10. 0%

6. 8% 100.8% 0. 3% 3. 3% 3. 1% 0. 8% 15.0%

11. 8% -62.7% 0.7% 3.6% 7.5% 4.1% 15. 0%

21. 5% 99. 6% 0.6% 3.8% 17. 0% 12. 6% 15. 0%

25.3% 52.5% 0. 7% 3. 6% 21.0% 16.3% 15.0%

18.2% 0. 5% 5. 0% 12.7% -2.4% -22. 5% Fi scal

14. 7% 0.5% 4.7% 9.5% 6.2% 10. 0% Fiscal 2009E $85. 7 -771.7% 11. 2% 85.7

16. 9% 0.6% 3.6% 12. 7% 8.9% 15. 0% Fiscal 2010E $180. 8 -10656.3% 14. 4% 180.8

Fi scal 2008E FYE : Decem ber Pro Forma EBITDA % Change Y /Y % Change Q/ Q % Sales LTM EBI TDA Q1E $25.2 219. 1% 27.2% 15.8% $81.3 Q2E $33.9 182.9% 34. 5% 18. 8% $103. 3 Q3E $67.3 177. 2% 98.3% 21.6% $146. 3 Q4E ($12.8) -164.3% -118.9% -8.9% $113.7 Q1E ($1.7) -106.8% -86. 6% -2.2% $86.8

Fi scal 2009E Q2E $5.8 -82.8% -440.7% 4. 5% $58. 7 Q3E $22.8 -66.2% 290. 3% 10.8% $14.1 Q4E $58. 8 -560.7% 158.0% 17. 0% $85. 7 Q1E $15. 0 -976.8% -74.4% 5. 0% $102.4

Fiscal 2010E Q2E $26.1 348. 1% 74. 1% 9.3% $122. 7 Q3E $58. 8 158.1% 124.8% 18. 6% $158.7 Q4E $80.9 37.6% 37.6% 22.4% $180.8

2008E $113.7 473.6% 14.3% 113. 7

Capi tal Spending % of Sales Depreciation % of COGS FCF

$9.9 6. 2% $1.9 1. 5% ($36. 0)

$38.5 21. 4% $2. 4 1.7% ($26.7)

$21.0 6.7% $3. 5 1.4% ($173.0)

$51.0 35. 5% $5.0 3. 5% $75. 9

$5.8 7.5% $1.4 2.0% $78.7

$9.8 7. 5% $2.4 2. 0% ($31. 2)

$15.8 7.5% $3. 6 2.0% ($44.1)

$25.9 7.5% $5.6 2.0% ($42.7)

$22. 6 7. 5% $5.6 2. 0% $45. 9

$21.1 7.5% $5. 0 2.0% $3. 6

$23.7 7.5% $5.0 2.0% $7.1

$27. 0 7. 5% $5.4 2. 0% $19.3

$120.4 15.1% $12. 8 2. 0% ($159.8)

$57.3 7.5% $13.0 2.0% ($39.4)

$94.5 7.5% $20.9 2.0% $75.8

All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

260

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 284: JASO Balance Sheet


F YE: December BALANCE SHEET Assets Curr ent Assets: Cash and cash equivalents Accounts receivable, net % Sales Inventories % Sales Value-added tax recoverabl e Advances to rel ated party suppli ers Advances to third party suppli ers Other current assets Total Cur rent Assets Net PP&E Intangib le assets, net Other non-current assets Total Assets L IAB. & SHRHLDRS' EQUITY S-Term Debt Advances from third party customers Accounts payabl e to third parties Other payables to third parties Payroll & welfare payable Accrued expenses Accounts payabl e to related pa rties Other payable to rel ated parties Tax payable Total Cur rent L iab ilities: L-Term Debt Other non-current liabil iti es Total L iabilities Sha reholders' Equ ity T otal Liabilities & Shareh old ers' Eq uity T otal Debt % Chan ge Q/Q $ Ch ange Check-sum Performan ce Metrics Profitability Ratio s Return On Equity Return on Avg Equi ty Return On Assets Return On Net Assets Return On Sales Efficiency Ratios Sales / Total Assets A/R Days Sal es Out Inventory T urns Days of Inventory L iqu id ity Ratios Current Ratio Q uick Rati o Net W orki ng Capital ($M) Long-T erm Debt / Eq uity Debt/Capi tal T otal Debt / Equity EBIT DA/In terest EBIT DA- Capex/Interest Bo ok & Cash Value Book Value Per Share Cash Per Share Net Cash Per Share T angible Book va lue 19.0 18.3 $452 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.5 9.4 $3 .91 $1 .43 $1 .43 $3 .91 2.0 23.8 $739 39.0% 28.1% 39.0% NM NM $4.22 $3.18 $1.53 $4.22 1.9 10.3 $641 40.9% 29.0% 40.9% NM NM $3.96 $1.93 $0.31 $3.96 1.5 3.7 $4 34 32.2% 29.8% 42.5% NM NM $4.36 $1.83 ($0.02) $4.36 1.5 4.1 $4 22 32.6% 30.1% 43.1% NM NM $4.30 $2.32 $0.47 $4.30 1.5 3.9 $413 32.8% 30.2% 43.3% -1.2 0.8 $4.28 $2.13 $0.27 $4.28 1.4 3.7 $414 32.3% 29.9% 42.6% NM NM $4.35 $1.85 ($0.00) $4.35 1.5 3.5 $437 30.4% 28.7% 40.2% -11.8 -6.6 $4.61 $1.58 ($0.27) $4.61 1.5 3.7 $422 30.4% 28.6% 40.1% -3.3 1.7 $4.62 $1.87 $0.02 $4.62 1.4 3.7 $418 30.0% 28.4% 39.6% -5.7 -1.1 $4.68 $1.89 $0.04 $4.68 1.5 3.8 $439 28.5% 27.4% 37.6% -12.8 -7.6 $4.92 $1.94 $0.08 $4.92 1.6 4.0 $476 26.6% 26.0% 35.1% -17.6 -11.7 $5.28 $2.06 $0.20 $5.28 $0 $6 $5 $3 $1 $3 $3 $0 $4 $25 $0 $0 $25 -----------$609 -----------$634 ===== = $0.0 ($27.4) $0.0 $0 $13 $3 $8 $1 $2 $0 $2 $3 $31 $269 $88 $389 -----------$690 -----------$1 ,079 == ==== $2 69.2 $269.2 $0.0 $0 $10 $7 $23 $3 $8 $2 $7 $4 $63 $275 $41 $379 -----------$673 -----------$1,052 == ==== $275.2 $6.0 $0.0 $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $18 $370 -----------$697 -----------$1,067 ==== == $296.5 $21.3 ($0.0) $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $19 $371 -----------$688 -----------$1,060 ==== == $296.5 $0.0 $0.0 $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $21 $373 -----------$685 -----------$1 ,058 == ==== $2 96.5 $0.0 $0.0 $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $22 $374 -----------$696 -----------$1,071 = ==== = $296.5 $0.0 $0.0 $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $24 $376 -----------$738 -----------$1,114 ==== == $296.5 $0.0 $0.0 $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $25 $377 -----------$739 -----------$1 ,117 == ==== $2 96.5 $0.0 $0.0 $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $27 $379 -----------$749 -----------$1,12 8 ===== = $296.5 $0.0 $0.0 $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $28 $380 -----------$787 -----------$1,168 ==== == $296.5 $0.0 $0.0 $72 $10 $17 $19 $2 $3 $1 $2 $1 $128 $225 $30 $382 -----------$844 -----------$1,226 == ==== $296.5 $0.0 $0.0 $222 $27 17% $21 13% $0 $52 $127 $27 $477 $85 $1 $71 -----------$634 ===== = $520 $25 14% $23 13% $0 $46 $148 $9 $770 $130 $1 $178 -----------$1 ,079 == ==== $329 $67 22% $53 17% $0 $78 $172 $6 $705 $161 $1 $185 -----------$1,052 == ==== $293 $52 36% $87 60% $17 $61 $39 $13 $561 $201 $2 $303 -----------$1,067 ==== == $371 $21 28% $27 35% $17 $61 $39 $13 $550 $205 $2 $303 -----------$1,060 ==== == $340 $26 20% $45 34% $17 $61 $39 $13 $541 $213 $2 $303 -----------$1 ,058 == ==== $296 $42 20% $73 35% $17 $61 $39 $13 $541 $225 $2 $303 -----------$1,071 = ==== = $253 $69 20% $112 33% $17 $61 $39 $13 $564 $245 $2 $303 -----------$1,114 ==== == $299 $45 15% $75 25% $17 $61 $39 $13 $550 $262 $2 $303 -----------$1 ,117 == ==== $303 $42 15% $70 25% $17 $61 $39 $13 $545 $278 $2 $303 -----------$1,12 8 ===== = $310 $47 15% $79 25% $17 $61 $39 $13 $566 $297 $2 $303 -----------$1,168 ==== == $329 $54 15% $90 25% $17 $61 $39 $13 $603 $319 $2 $303 -----------$1,226 == ==== Q1 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1E Fisc al 2009E Q 2E Q3E Q4E Q 1E Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q 4E

14% 12% 14% 21% 14%

(1%) 9% (0%) (1%) (1%)

(37%) (4%) (23%) (34%) (20%)

13% (3 %) 8% 11% 15%

(4 %) (7 %) (3 %) (4 %) (9 %)

(1%) (7%) (1%) (1%) (1%)

7% 4% 5% 7% 6%

23% 7% 16% 20% 13%

1% 8% 1% 1% 1%

6% 9% 4% 6% 4%

20% 13% 14% 19% 13%

28 % 14 % 19 % 26 % 16 %

1.0 1 16 24.2 15

0.67 13 24 .0 15

1.19 20 18.6 20

0.54 33 6.6 56

0.29 25 10.6 34

0.50 18 10 .7 34

0.79 18 9.9 37

1.24 18 10.0 36

1.08 14 15.0 24

1.00 14 14.2 26

1.08 14 12.6 29

1.17 14 12.0 30

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted

May 01, 2009

261

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 285: TSL Earnings Drivers


FY E: December Annual Capacity (MW) Q uarterly Capacity (MW) Available Capacity (MW) Q1 200.0 50.0 36.5 Fiscal 2008E Q2 Q3 250.0 62.5 44.1 300.0 75.0 58.4 Q4 350.0 87.5 39.4 Fiscal 2008 Q1E 400.0 100.0 45.0 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E 400.0 100.0 65.0 550.0 137.5 89.4 Q4E 750.0 187.5 121.9 Fiscal 2009E Q1E 850.0 212 .5 170.0 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E 850.0 2 12.5 170.0 Q4E Fiscal 2010E

900.0 1000.0 225 .0 180.0 2 50.0 200.0

Revenues P V Modules O ther COGS G ross P rofit G ross Margin (%) O utput (MW) S ilicon Breakdown S pot Contract Costs ( $/W) S pot Contract P rocessing Costs Chec k S ilicon Prices ($/kg) S pot Contract Conversion Ef ficiency G rams/Watt ASP ($/Watt) P V Modules y /y (%) q/q ( %) $ $ $ $ $

120.7 116.5 4.2 89.6 31.1 25.8% 29.5 45% 55% 3.04 1.03 0.98 1.02 0.00 203.0 231.0 180.0 16.6% 9.94 $ $ $ $ $

204.2 191.7 12.5 156.8 47.4 23.2% 47.6 45% 55% 3.29 1.29 0.98 1.02 0.00 228.6 288.0 180.0 16.6% 9.94

290.7 271.2 19.5 225.5 65.2 22.4% 66.4 45% 55% $ 3.40 $ 1.34 $ 1.04 $ 1.02 $ (0.00) 239.5 300.0 190.0 16.6% 9.94 $ $ $ $

216.3 196.8 19.5 195.5 20.8 9.6% 57.6 50% 50% 3.40 1.48 0.94 0.97

831.9

151.7 136.7 15.0 132.0 19.7 13.0% 50.0 40% 60% $ $ $ $ 2.64 0.60 1.07 0.97 $ $ $ $

184.3 169.3 15.0 160.0 24.4 13.2% 65.0 40% 60% 2.46 0.54 0.95 0.97 $ $ $ $

218.4 203.4 15.0 186.5 31.9 14.6% 80.0 40% 60% 2.33 0.50 0.86 0.97 $ $ $ $

245.3 230.3 15.0 203.9 41.5 16.9% 95.0 40% 60% 2.15 0.46 0.72 0.97

799.8

320.5 305.5 15.0 275.0 45.5 14.2% 140.0 50% 50% $ $ $ $ 1.96 0.50 0.50 0.97 $ $ $ $

336.2 321.2 15.0 298.3 37.9 11.3% 160.0 50% 50% 1.86 0.45 0.45 0.97 $ $ $ $

354.7 339.7 15.0 308.8 45.9 12.9% 180.0 50% 50% 1.72 0.35 0.40 0.97 $ $ $ $

369.4 354.4 15.0

138 0.8

667.5 164.4 19.8% 201.0 46% 54% $ 3.28

682.4 117.4 14.7% 290.0 44% 40% 60% $ 2.39

343.1 1225.2 26.3 7.1% 200.0 50% 50% 155.6 11.3% 68 0.0 134% 50% 50%

1.72 $ 1.81 0.35 0.40 0.97 -24% 75.0 70.0 80.0 85.0 82.5 87.5

244.0 298.0 190.0 16.6% 9.94

228.8 279.3 185.0

168.0 150.0 180.0 16.6% 9.94

150.0 135.0 160.0 16.6% 9.94

137.0 125.0 145.0 16.6% 9.94

118.3 115.0 120.5 16.6% 9.94

143.3 131.3 151.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 16.6% 9.94

90.0 90.0 90.0 16.6% 9.94

75.0 70.0 80.0 16.6% 9.94

16.6% 9.94

$ 3.95 $ 4.03 0% 2%

4.09 $ 3.42 $ 3.87 7% 7% 1% -16%

2.73 $ 2.61 $ 2.54 $ 2.42 $ 2.58 -31% - 35% -38% -29% -33% -20% -5% -2% -5%

$ 2.18 $ 2.01 $ 1.89 $ 1.77 $ 1.96 -20% -23% -26% -27% -24% -10% - 8% -6% -6%

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted

262

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 286: TSL Income Statement


F YE: December Revenu e QoQ YoY Cost of Goods Gross Profit R&D Selling, G eneral & Admin. And other costs Op erating Expen ses Op erating Income Non o peratin g (income) exp ense: Interest i ncome (expense) Oth er income (expense) Non o peratin g (income) exp ense Income (loss) before ta xes Income Tax Exp ense (Benefit) Net Inco me (lo ss) Net Inco me (lo ss) from d isco ntinu ed operations Net inco me available to ord inar y shareh old ers Basic income (loss) per share (i) Dilu ted income (l oss) per share from Operations W eighted average shares used Avg Sh ares - Fully Diluted (M) Percent of Sales Gross Margi n Incremental Gross Margi n R&D SG&A Operating Income Net Income T ax Rate 25.8% 18.0% 0.6% 8.4% 16.7% 10.7% 7.7% 23.2% 19.5% 0.7% 8.2% 14.3% 8.4% 3.5% 22.4% 20.6% 0.2% 6.2% 16.1% 11.0% 7.8% 9.6% 59.7% 0.1% 7.7% 1.8% -0.3% -46.3% 13.0% 1.7% 0.7% 9.2% 3.1% -0.4% 12.0% 13.2% 14.4% 0.8% 8.1% 4.3% 1.2% 12.0% 14.6% 22.0% 0.9% 7.3% 6.4% 3.4% 12.0% 16 .9% 35 .6% 1.0% 6.9% 9.0% 5.9% 12 .0% 14.2% 5.4% 0.8% 5.4% 8.1% 6.3% 12.0% 11.3% -48.8% 0.7% 5.2% 5.3% 3.9% 12.0% 12.9% 43.4% 0.8% 5.0% 7.1% 5.5% 12.0% 7.1% -133.1% 0.8% 4.9% 1.4% 0.5% 12.0% 19.8% 18.2% 0.4% 7.4% 12.0% 7.4% 7.0% F iscal 2008 $113.1 14.7% 146.4% 0.9% 7.8% 6.1% 2.9% 12.0% Fiscal 2009E $48.4 11.3% 6.6% 0.8% 5.1% 5.4% 4.0% 12.0% Fiscal 2009E $74.4 F iscal 2008 Q1 Q2 Q3 $120.7 $204.2 $290.7 19.0% 69.2% 42.4% 183.6% 171.1% 252.1% $89.6 $31.1 $0.7 $10.1 $10.9 $20.2 $156.8 $47.4 $1.5 $16.7 $18.2 $29.1 $225.5 $65.2 $0.5 $17.9 $18.4 $46.8 Q4 Q1E $216.3 $151.7 -25.6% -29.9% 113.4% 25.7% $195.5 $20.8 $0.3 $16.7 $16.9 $3.9 $132.0 $19.7 $1.0 $14.0 $15.0 $4.7 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $184.3 $218.4 21.5% 18.5% -9.7% -24.9% $160.0 $24.4 $1.5 $15.0 $16.5 $7.9 $186.5 $31.9 $2.0 $16.0 $18.0 $13.9 Q4E $245.3 12 .3% 13 .4% $203.9 $4 1.5 $2.5 $1 7.0 $1 9.5 $2 2.0 Q1E $320.5 30.6% 111.3 % $275.0 $45.5 $2.5 $17.2 $19.7 $25.8 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E $336.2 $354.7 4.9% 5.5% 82.4% 62.4% $298.3 $37.9 $2.5 $17.4 $19.9 $18.0 $308.8 $45.9 $3.0 $17.6 $20.6 $25.3 Q4E $369.4 50.6% $343.1 $26.3 $3.0 $18.0 $21.0 $5.3 F iscal 2008 $831.9 175.6% $667.5 $164.4 $3.0 $61.4 $64.5 $100.0 Fiscal 2009E $799 .8 -3.9% $682 .4 $117 .4 $7.0 $62.0 $69.0 $48.4 Fiscal 2010E $1,380.8 72.6% $1,225.2 $155.6 $11.0 $70.2 $81.2 $74.4

($2.2) ($4.0) $6.3 $13.9 $1.1 $12.9 $0.0 $12.9 $0.52 $0.51 25.0 25.1

($5.1) ($6.3) $11.4 $17.7 $0.6 $17.1 $0.0 $17.1 $0.68 $0.68 25.0 25.2

($7.2) ($4.9) $12.04 $34.8 $2.7 $32.05 $0.0 $32.1 $1.28 $1.13 25.0 28.4

($6.5) $2.1 $4.3 ($0.46) $0.2 ($0.7) $0.0 ($0.7) ($0.03) ($0.03) 25.1 25.1

($5.5) $0.0 $5.5 ($0.8) ($0.1) ($0.7) $0.0 ($0.7) ($0.03) ($0.03) 27.1 26.1

($5.5) $0.0 $5.5 $2.4 $0.3 $2.1 $0.0 $2.1 $0.08 $0.08 27.1 26.1

($5.5) $0.0 $5.5 $8.4 $1.0 $7.4 $0.0 $7.4 $0.26 $0.27 28.1 27.1

($5.5) $0.0 $5.5 $1 6.5 $2.0 $1 4.5 $0.0 $1 4.5 $0 .50 $0 .52 29.1 28.1

($3.0) $0.0 $3.0 $22.8 $2.7 $20.1 $0.0 $20.1 $0.65 $0.67 31.1 30.1

($3.0) $0.0 $3.0 $15.0 $1.8 $13.2 $0.0 $13.2 $0.42 $0.44 31.1 30.1

($3.0) $0.0 $3.0 $22.3 $2.7 $19.6 $0.0 $19.6 $0.61 $0.63 32.1 31.1

($3.0) $0.0 $3.0 $2.3 $0.3 $2.0 $0.0 $2.0 $0.06 $0.06 33.1 32.1

($21.0) ($13.0) $34.0 $66.0 $4.6 $61.4 $0.0 $61.4 $2.45 $2.28 25.01 26.91

($21.9) $0.0 $21.9 $26.6 $3.2 $23.4 $0.0 $23.4 $0.82 $0.85 24 .97 25 .19

($12.0) $0.0 $12.0 $62.4 $7.5 $54.9 $0.0 $54.9 $1.7 $1.80 25 .04 28 .39

F YE: December Pro Forma EBITDA % Chan ge Y/Y % Chan ge Q /Q % Sales L TM EBITDA Capital Sp ending % of Sales Depr eciatio n % of COGS F CF Op s Est. (PF EBITDA + NI -Capex)

Q1 $20.2

Fiscal 2008E Q2 Q3 $29.1 $53.6 672.7% 83.9% 18.4% $119.1 $67.4 23.2% $6.8 3.0% ($9.0)

Q4E $10.3 -36.7% -80.8% 4.7% $113.1 $28.0 12.9% $6.4 3.0% ($19.9)

Q1E $4.7 -76.8% -54.2% 3.1% $97.6 $15.0

Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $7.9 $13.9 -72.9% 67.9% 4.3% $76.4 $15.0 -74.1% 76.1% 6.4% $36.7 $0.0

Q4E $2 2.0 114.1% 58 .3% 9.0% $4 8.4 $0.0

Q1E $25.8 450.1 % 17.6% 8.1% $69.6 $62.5

Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E $18.0 $25.3 128.0% -30.4% 5.3% $79.7 $62.5 82.1% 40.7% 7.1% $91.1 $62.5

Q4E $5.3 -75.9% -79.1% 1.4% $74.4 $62.5

352.2% 260.2% 24.5% 44.2% 16.7% 14.3% $51.4 $72.5 $50.0 41.4% 0.0% ($25.8) $50.0 24.5% 0.0% ($14.6)

113.1 $195.4 23.5% $13.2 2.0% ($69.2)

48.4 $30.0 3.8% $0.0 0.0% $18.4

74.4 $250.0 18.1% $0.0 0.0% ($175.6)

($10.3)

($7.1)

$13.9

$2 2.0

($36.7)

($44.5)

($37.2)

($57.2)

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted

May 01, 2009

263

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 287: TSL Balance Sheet


BALANCE SHEET FYE : December Asset s Current Assets: Cash and cash equivalents Pledged bank deposits Accounts receivable, net % Sales Inventories % Sales Other receiv able, net Prepayment to suppliers Deferr ed E xpenses Other curr ent assets Total Current Assets Net PP&E Intangible assets, net Deferr ed inc om e tax assets Other non current ass ets Total Assets LIAB. & SHRHLDRS' EQUITY S-Ter m Debt Accr ued expens es Trade accounts payable % Sales Other payables Advance payments from c ustomers Income Tax payable Other curr ent liabilities Total Current Liabilities: L- Term Debt Other non-c urrent liabilities Total Liabilities Preferred shares Shareholders' Equity Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change Check- sum P erformance Metrics P rofitability Ratios Return On Equity Return on Av g Equity Return On Assets Return On Net A ssets Return On Sales E fficiency Ratios S ales / Total Assets A /R Days Sales Out Inventory Turns Days of Inventory Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio Quic k Ratio Net Working Capital ($M) Long-Term Debt / Equity Debt/Capital Total Debt / E quity E BITDA/Interest E BITDA- Capex/Interest Book & Cash Value B ook Value Per Share Cash Per Share Net Cash Per S hare Tangible Book value 14% 11% 7% 8% 11% 0.68 61 4.9 74 1.2 1.0 $85 3.9% 40.6% 68.4% -9.0 13.3 $15.16 $1.52 ($8.84) $15.16 17% 13% 8% 8% 8% 0.94 39 5.3 69 1.0 0.8 $32 4.5% 48.0% 92.3% -5.7 4.1 $15.88 $2.36 ($12.29) $15.88 30% 19% 13% 15% 11% 1.20 35 8.9 41 0.9 1.0 $113 34.1% 50.2% 101.0% -7.5 1.9 $15.24 $4.80 ($10.59) $15.24 (1%) 14% (0%) (0%) (0%) 0.92 44 9.2 40 0.8 1.0 $84 34.1% 47.8% 91.5% - 1.6 2.7 (1%) 11% (0%) (0%) (0%) 0.67 55 7.0 52 0.8 1.0 $68 34.2% 47.8% 91.7% -0.9 1.9 2% 8% 1% 1% 1% 0.81 55 7.0 52 0.8 0.9 $56 34.0% 47.7% 91.2% -1.4 1.3 $16.67 $4.26 ($10.94) $16.67 7% 2% 3% 4% 3% 0.94 55 6.9 53 0.8 0.9 $63 33.5% 47.3% 89.7% -2.5 -2.5 $16.32 $3.25 ($11.40) $16.32 13% 5% 6% 7% 6% 1.03 55 6.7 55 0.8 0.9 $78 32.4% 46.5% 86.9% -4.0 -4.0 $16.26 $2.78 ($11.34) $16.26 17% 9% 8% 8% 6% 1.26 37 5.7 64 0.7 0.6 $35 31.0% 45.4% 83.2% -8.6 12.2 $15.85 $1.07 ($12.11) $15.85 11% 11% 5% 5% 4% 1.30 37 5.9 62 0.7 0.4 ($14) 30.2% 44.7% 81.0% -6.0 14.8 15% 13% 7% 7% 6% 1.34 37 5.8 63 0.6 0.3 ($57) 29.0% 43.8% 77.8% -8.4 12.4 2% 11% 1% 1% 1% 1.39 37 6.2 59 0.5 0.1 ($118) 28.9% 43.7% 77.5% -1.8 19.1 $15.94 ($4.82) ($17.18) $15.94 Q1 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 $136 $49 $111 38% $102 35.1% $4 $69 $0 $14 $485 $355 $7 $3 $116 ------- ----$966 ====== $289 $18 $49 17% $0 $9 $7 $0 $372 $147 $14 $533 $0 ------- ----$433 ------- ----$966 ====== $436.9 18% $67.7 $0.0 Q4 Q1E Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E Q4E Q1E Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E

$38 $60 $126 $126 $80 $88 67% 43% $73 $118 60.6% 57.8% $4 $11 $64 $59 $0 $0 $5 $11 $391 $471 $245 $294 $6 $7 $1 $2 $64 $91 ---------- -- ------ -----$708 $865 ====== ====== $245 $9 $46 39% $0 $2 $3 $0 $306 $15 $6 $327 $351 $14 $56 27% $0 $14 $3 $0 $439 $18 $8 $465

$132 $153 $111 $88 $78 $32 -$28 -$84 -$155 $45 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $105 $91 $111 $131 $147 $128 $134 $142 $148 49% 60% 60% 60% 60% 40% 40% 40% 40% $86 $76 $92 $109 $123 $192 $202 $213 $222 39.6% 50% 50% 50% 50% 60% 60% 60% 60% $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $42 $42 $42 $42 $42 $42 $42 $42 $42 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $5 $420 $372 $366 $380 $400 $405 $360 $323 $266 $358 $373 $388 $388 $388 $450 $513 $575 $638 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $27 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $133 $133 $133 $133 $133 $133 $133 $133 $133 --- --------- ---------- -- ----- ------- ---------- -- ----- ------- ---------- -- ---- -------- --------- --- ---- -------$940 $907 $916 $930 $950 $1,017 $1,035 $1,060 $1,067 ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== $249 $18 $63 29% $0 $2 $4 $1 $336 $148 $23 $507 $249 $18 $30 20% $0 $2 $4 $1 $304 $148 $23 $475 $249 $18 $37 20% $0 $2 $4 $1 $310 $148 $23 $481 $249 $18 $44 20% $0 $2 $4 $1 $317 $148 $23 $488 $249 $18 $49 20% $0 $2 $4 $1 $322 $148 $23 $494 $249 $18 $96 30% $0 $2 $4 $1 $369 $148 $23 $541 $249 $18 $101 30% $0 $2 $4 $1 $374 $148 $23 $545 $249 $18 $106 30% $0 $2 $4 $1 $380 $148 $23 $551 $249 $18 $111 30% $0 $2 $4 $1 $384 $148 $23 $555

$0 $0 ---------- -- ------ -----$381 $400 ---------- -- ------ -----$708 $865 ====== ====== $260.4 52% $88.6 $0.0 $369.2 42% $108.8 $0.0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 --- --------- ---------- -- ----- ------- ---------- -- ----- ------- ---------- -- ---- -------- --------- --- ---- -------$433 $432 $435 $442 $456 $477 $490 $509 $511 --- --------- ---------- -- ----- ------- ---------- -- ----- ------- ---------- -- ---- -------- --------- --- ---- -------$940 $907 $916 $930 $950 $1,017 $1,035 $1,060 $1,067 ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== $396.4 -9% ($40.4) $0.0 $396.4 0% $0.0 $0.0 $396.4 0% $0.0 $0.0 $396.4 0% $0.0 $0.0 $396.4 0% $0.0 $0.0 $396.4 0% $0.0 $0.0 $396.4 0% $0.0 $0.0 $396.4 0% $0.0 $0.0 $396.4 0% $0.0 $0.0

$17.27 $16.58 $5.27 $5.88 ($10.54) ($9.32) $17.27 $16.58

$16.28 $16.39 ($0.93) ($2.70) ($14.12) ($15.46) $16.28 $16.39

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted

264

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 288: SOL Earnings Drivers


FY E: December Annual Capacity (MW) E ffective Capacity Quarterl y Cap aci ty (MW) Q1 378. 0 378 94. 5 Fi scal 2008 Q2 Q3 450.0 414 112.5 595. 0 523 148. 8 Q4 645.0 620.0 161.3 Fi scal 2008 Q1E 735. 0 690. 0 183. 8 F iscal 2009E Q2E Q3E 825.0 780.0 206.3 825. 0 825. 0 206.3 Q4E 825.0 825.0 206. 3 Fi scal 2009E Q1E 825. 0 825. 0 206. 3 Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E 825.0 825.0 206. 3 900. 0 862. 5 225.0 Q4E 1, 000. 0 950. 0 250. 0 Fiscal 2010E

Own Waf er Sales OEM To tal P roduction (MW)

45. 2 21. 3 66. 5

57.9 24.6 82.5

70. 2 32. 7 102. 9

58.0 43.0 101.0

231. 3 121. 6 352. 9

75. 0 25. 0 100. 0

100.0 25.0 125.0

150.0 25.0 175.0

150. 0 25. 0 175. 0

475. 0 100. 0 575. 0 63%

170. 0 35. 0 205. 0

180. 0 25.0 205. 0

190.0 25.0 215.0

200. 0 25. 0 225. 0

740. 0 110. 0 850. 0 48%

ASP s ($/W) Own Waf er Sales Q/Q % OEM Q/Q % P roduct Revenues Own Waf er Sales OEM To tal Revenues ($, M)

2. 53 0. 56 10.6%

2.60 0.72 28.2%

2. 73 0. 74 2. 0%

2.16 -27.0% 0.78 5.2%

2. 51 10.6% 0. 70 47.6%

1. 30 -40. 0% 0. 70 -10. 0%

1.19 -8.0% 0.67 -3.5%

1. 10 -8. 0% 0. 65 -3. 5%

1.04 -5.0% 0.63 -3.5%

1. 16 -53. 8% 0. 66 -5. 4%

0. 99 -5. 0% 0. 60 -4. 0%

0.94 -5.0% 0.57 -5.0%

0.92 -2. 5% 0.54 -5. 0%

0. 89 -2. 5% 0. 52 -5. 0%

0. 94 -19. 1% 0. 56 -15. 7%

114. 4 8. 6 123. 0

150.5 22.5 173.0

191. 6 24. 1 215. 8

125.3 33.3 158.6

581. 8 88. 5 670. 4

97. 2 17. 4 114. 6

119.2 16.8 136.1

164.5 16.2 180.8

156. 3 15. 7 172. 0

537. 3 66. 2 603. 5

168. 3 21. 1 189. 4

169. 3 14.3 183. 6

174.2 13.6 187.8

178. 8 12. 9 191. 7

690. 6 61. 9 752. 5

Cost of revenu es Blended Silicon P rice ($/ kg) Sil icon consumpti on (g/ W) Sil icon cost per wat t Non-silicon cost per watt Total Co sts per Watt Own Waf er Cogs OEM COGS Overall Cost o f Revenu es Gross Margi n

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

216 6.3 1.37 0.40

$ $ $ $

175 6.1 1.06 0.39 1.45 84.1 9.6 117.9 31. 9%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

250 6. 1 1. 52 0. 43

$ $ $ $

320 6.1 1.94 0.39 2.33 134.9 16.8 288.7 -82.0%

$ $ $ $ $

240 6.1 1.47 0.40 1.87

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

145 6. 0 0. 87 0. 36

$ $ $ $

130 6.0 0.78 0.36 1.14 114.0 9.0 123.0 9.6%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

110 6. 0 0. 66 0. 36

$ $ $ $

100 6.0 0.60 0.36

$ $ $ $

121 6. 0 0. 73 0. 36 1. 09

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

95 6. 0 0. 57 0. 32

$ $ $ $

85 6.0 0.51 0.32

$ $ $ $

80 6. 0 0. 48 0. 32

$ $ $ $

75 6. 0 0. 45 0. 32

$ $ $ $

84 6. 0 0.50 0.32 0.82

1.77 $ 79.8 $ 8.5 $ 88.32 $ 28.2%

1. 95 $ 136. 7 $ 14. 1 $ 150. 8 $ 30.1%

1. 23 $ 92. 3 $ 9. 0 $ 101. 3 $ 11.7%

1. 02 $ 153. 0 $ 9. 0 $ 162. 0 $ 10. 4%

0.96 $ 144.0 9.0 153.0 11.0%

0. 89 $ 151. 3 $ 11. 2 $ 162. 5 $ 14. 2%

0.83 $ 149.4 $ 8.0 $ 157.4 $ 14.3%

0. 80 $ 152. 0 $ 8. 0 $ 160. 0 $ 14. 8%

0. 77 $ 154. 0 8. 0 162. 0 15.5%

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted

May 01, 2009

265

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 289: SOL Income Statement


FYE: D ecem ber R evenue QoQ Yo Y C ost of Goo ds Gross Pro fi t R &D Se llin g, Gene ra l & Admi n. Ope rating Expe nse s Ope rating Income N on ope rating (income) expense: Interest i ncome (expe nse) Oth er income (expe nse) Forex gai n (l oss) N on ope rating (income) expense Incom e (loss) be fore tax es Incom e Tax Expense Minority Interes t N et Incom e (loss) Ba si c i ncome (loss) per ADS D iluted i ncome (loss) per ADS Ba si c i ncome (loss) per share D iluted i ncome (loss) per share Wei ghted Average ADS Used Avg ADS - Full y Di luted Wei ghted avera ge shares used Av g Shar es - Fully Diluted (M) Pe rcent of Sale s Gross Ma rgin Increme nta l Gross Margin R &D SG&A Opera ti ng In come N et Income Tax Rate Q1 $1 23.0 28.0% 24 2.4% $95 .7 $27 .2 $0.4 $3.6 $4.0 $23 .2 Fisca l 200 8 Q2 Q3 $ 173.0 $ 215.8 40 .7% 24 .7% 2 89.0% 1 97.4% $ 130.2 $4 2.8 $3.5 $4.7 $8.3 $3 4.5 $ 169.9 $4 5.8 $3.0 $5.9 $8.9 $3 6.9 Q4 $ 158.6 -26 .5% 65 .2% $ 288.8 ($ 130.1) $2.8 $8.2 $1 1.0 ($ 141.1) Q1E $ 114 .6 -27 .7 % -6.8% $ 101 .3 $1 3.4 $2.8 $8.2 $1 1.0 $2.4 Fisc al 20 09E Q2E Q3E $136 .1 $180 .8 18 .7 % 32 .9 % -21 .4 % -16 .2 % $123 .0 $1 3.1 $2.8 $8.7 $1 1.5 $1.6 $162 .0 $1 8.8 $2.8 $9.2 $1 2.0 $6.8 Q4 E $172 .0 -4.9% 8.4% $153 .0 $ 19.0 $2.8 $9.7 $ 12.5 $6.5 Q1 E $189 .4 1 0.1% 6 5.2% $162 .5 $ 26.9 $2 .8 $9 .7 $ 12.5 $ 14.4 Fis cal 2 010E Q2 E Q3 E $18 3.6 $18 7.8 -3.1% 2.3% 3 4.9% 3.9% $15 7.4 $ 26.2 $3 .3 $ 10.2 $ 13.5 $ 12.7 $16 0.0 $ 27.8 $3 .8 $ 10.7 $ 14.5 $ 13.3 Q4E $19 1.7 2.1% 1 1.5% $16 2.0 $ 29.7 $4 .3 $ 11.2 $ 15.5 $ 14.2 Fisca l 2 008 $67 0.4 169 .3 % $68 4.7 ($14.3) $9 .7 $22.5 $32.2 ($46.5) Fisca l 2 009E $6 03.5 -10.0% $5 39.3 $64.2 $11.1 $35.8 $46.9 $17.4 Fisca l 2 010 E $7 52.5 24.7% $6 41.9 $1 10.6 $14.1 $41.8 $55.9 $54.7

($1.8) $0.0 ($0.1) $1.9 $21 .3 $3.6 $0.1 $17 .7 $0.31 $0.28 $0.16 $0.14 57.0 62.2 113 .9 124 .5

($2.5) $0.0 ($0.8) $3.3 $3 1.2 $6.8 $1.1 $2 3.3 $0 .39 $0 .37 $0 .20 $0 .19 60.0 65.4 120 .2 130 .9

($3.0) $0.0 ($1.2) $4.2 $3 2.7 $5.5 ($5.1) $3 2.4 $0 .47 $0 .46 $0 .24 $0 .23 68.8 70.0 13 7.6 14 0.0

($2.8) $0.0 ($1.1) $3.8 ($ 144.9) ($1 7.9 ) ($0.4) ($ 126.6) ($1 .84 ) ($1 .84 ) ($0 .92 ) ($0 .92 ) 68.8 68.8 13 7.6 13 7.6

($6.0) $0.0 $0.0 $6.0 ($3.6) ($0.4) ($0.4) ($2.7) ($0 .0 4) ($0 .0 4) ($0 .0 2) ($0 .0 2) 68.8 68.8 13 7.6 13 7.6

($6.0) $0.0 $0.0 $6.0 ($4.4) ($0.5) ($0.4) ($3.5) ($0 .0 5) ($0 .0 5) ($0 .0 2) ($0 .0 2) 69.3 69.3 13 8.6 13 8.6

($6.0) $0.0 $0.0 $6.0 $0.8 $0.1 ($0.4) $1.1 $0 .0 2 $0 .0 2 $0 .0 1 $0 .0 1 69.8 69.8 13 9.6 13 9.6

($6.0) $0.0 $0.0 $6.0 $0.5 $0.1 ($0.4) $0.9 $ 0.0 1 $ 0.0 1 $ 0.0 1 $ 0.0 1 70.3 70.3 1 40.6 1 40.6

($6 .0) $0 .0 $0 .0 $6 .0 $8 .4 $1 .0 ($0 .4) $7 .8 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.06 70 .3 70 .3 1 40.6 1 40.6

($6 .0) $0 .0 $0 .0 $6 .0 $6 .7 $0 .8 ($0 .4) $6 .3 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 70 .8 70 .8 1 41.6 1 41.6

($6 .0 ) $0 .0 $0 .0 $6 .0 $7 .3 $0 .9 ($0 .4 ) $6 .8 $ 0.10 $ 0.10 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 71 .3 71 .3 1 42.6 1 42.6

($6 .0 ) $0 .0 $0 .0 $6 .0 $8 .2 $1 .0 ($0 .4 ) $7 .6 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 71 .8 71 .8 1 43.6 1 43.6

($10.1) $0 .0 ($3 .1 ) $13.2 ($59.7) ($2 .1 ) ($4 .4 ) ($53.2) ($0.84) ($0.84) ($0.42) ($0.42) 63 .6 63 .6 127.1 127.1

($24.0) $0 .0 $0 .0 $24.0 ($6 .6 ) ($0 .8 ) ($1 .6 ) ($4 .2 ) ($0.06) ($0.06) ($0.03) ($0.03) 69 .6 69 .6 139.1 139.1

($24.0) $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $24.0 $30.7 $ 3.8 ($ 1.6 ) $28.5 $0.40 $0.40 $0.20 $0.20 6 9.9 6 9.9 139.9 139.9

22.1% 22.7% 0.4 % 2.9 % 18.9% 14.4% 16.7%

24 .7% 31 .1% 2.0% 2.7% 20 .0% 13 .5% 21 .9%

21 .2% 7.1% 1.4% 2.7% 17 .1% 15 .0% 16 .7%

-82 .0% 3 08.0% 1.7% 5.2% -89 .0% -79 .8% 12 .4%

11 .7 % 32 .1 % 2.4% 7.2% 2.1% -2.4% 12 .4 %

9.6% -1.5% 2.0% 6.4% 1.2% -2.5% 12 .4 %

10 .4 % 12 .8 % 1.5% 5.1% 3.8% 0.6% 12 .4 %

1 1.0 % -2.3% 1.6% 5.6% 3.8% 0.5% 1 2.4 %

1 4.2% 9 4.2% 1.5% 5.1% 7.6% 4.1% 1 2.4%

1 4.3% 1 1.8% 1.8% 5.6% 6.9% 3.4% 1 2.4%

1 4.8% 3 8.4% 2.0% 5.7% 7.1% 3.6% 1 2.4%

1 5.5% 4 8.8% 2.2% 5.8% 7.4% 4.0% 1 2.4%

-2.1% 1.4% 3.4% -6.9% -7.9% 3.4% Fisca l

10.6% 1.8% 5.9% 2.9% -0.7% 12.4% Fisca l 2 009E $28.2

14.7% 1 .9% 5 .6% 7 .3% 3 .8% 12.4% Fisca l 2 010 E $67.5 13 9.9 % 9 .0% 6 7.5 $56.4 7 .5% $12.8 2 .0% $11.1

Fisca l 200 8 FYE: D ecem ber Pr o Forma EBITDA % Change Y/Y % Change Q/Q % Sales LTM EBITDA C apital Spending % of Sales D epr eciation % of COGS FCF Ops Es t. (PF EBITDA + NI -C ap Q1 $26 .4 25 2.3% 54.4% 21.5% $68 .0 Q2 $3 9.0 3 12.2% 47 .6% 22 .5% $9 7.5 Q3 $4 2.1 1 80.3% 8.0% 19 .5% $ 124.5 Q4 ($ 135.2) -8 90.9% -4 21.5% -85 .3% ($2 7.8 ) Q1E $4.5 -83 .1 % -1 03.3% 3.9% ($4 9.8)

Fisc al 20 09E Q2E $4.1 -89 .6 % -8.8% 3.0% ($8 4.7) Q3E $1 0.1 -76 .1 % 147.8% 5.6% ($116 .7 ) Q4 E $9.6 -107.1% -4.7% 5.6% $ 28.2 Q1 E $ 17.6 296.4% 8 4.2% 9.3% $ 41.3

Fis cal 2 010E Q2 E $ 15.9 290 .8% -1 0.1% 8.6% $ 53.2 Q3 E $ 16.5 6 4.4% 4.3% 8.8% $ 59.6 Q4E $ 17.5 8 2.5% 5.7% 9.1% $ 67.5

2 008E ($27.8)

-156 .7 % -20 1.2 % -4.1% -27 .8 $18 3.0 27.3% $18.7 2.7% ($21 0.8) 4.7% 28 .2 $1 76.5 29.3% $10.8 2.0% ($1 48.4)

$22 .3 18.2% $3.2 3.4 % $4.1

$50 .7 29 .3% $4.4 3.4% ($1 1.7 )

$7 1.1 33 .0% $5.2 3.0% ($2 9.1 )

$3 8.9 24 .5% $5.9 2.0% ($ 174.1)

$6 5.1 56 .8 % $2.0 2.0% ($6 0.7)

$8 3.2 61 .2 % $2.5 2.0% ($7 9.1)

$1 4.5 8.0% $3.2 2.0% ($4.4)

$ 13.8 8.0% $3.1 2.0% ($4.2)

$ 14.2 7.5% $3 .3 2.0% $3 .4

$ 13.8 7.5% $3 .1 2.0% $2 .1

$ 14.1 7.5% $3 .2 2.0% $2 .5

$ 14.4 7.5% $3 .2 2.0% $3 .1

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted

266

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 290: SOL Balance Sheet


FYE : December Asset s Current Asset s: Cash and cash equivalents Restric ted Cash Accounts rec eivable, net % Sales Inventories % Sales Advances to suppliers Amounts due from related parties Value added tax recoverable Other c urrent assets Total Current Assets Net P P&E Equity investment in J oint Venture Other non-current as sets Total Assets LIAB. & SHRHLDRS' E QUITY S-Term Debt Accounts payable Advances from customers Amounts due to related parties Other c urrent liabilities Total Current Liabilities: Conv ertible bond payable LT Debt Other non-current liabilities Total Liabilit ies Minority Interest Q1 Fiscal 2008E Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1E Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E Q4E Q1E Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E

$67 $274 $99 $112 $202 $117 $98 $93 $43 $61 $73 $68 $0 $0 $26 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $16 $3 $3 $43 $11 $14 $18 $17 $19 $18 $19 $19 13% 2% 2% 27% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% $156 $206 $320 $193 $69 $68 $72 $69 $114 $92 $75 $77 127% 119% 148% 122% 60% 50% 40% 40% 60% 50% 40% 40% $89 $100 $124 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $38 $36 $28 $6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4 $2 $1 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $15 $14 $12 $16 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $34 $382 $625 $596 $442 $376 $292 $282 $272 $269 $264 $260 $257 $172 $184 $261 $341 $405 $485 $496 $507 $518 $529 $540 $551 $0 $17 $23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $90 $101 $194 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 $222 -- ---------- -------- ---- ---- -------- ---------- -- ----- ------- ---------- -- ------ ------ - ----------- ------- ----- -- ---------- -------- ---- ---- -------$645 $927 $1,074 $1,005 $1,002 $999 $1,000 $1,001 $1,009 $1,015 $1,022 $1,029 ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== $89 $22 $72 $0 $12 $196 $134 $34 $1 $365 $134 $22 $94 $0 $17 $266 $137 $44 $2 $450 $167 $20 $152 $0 $28 $368 $139 $45 $8 $559.70 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621 $192 $38 $49 $12 $42 $333 $139 $33 $117 $621

$18 $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -- ---------- -------- ---- ---- -------- ---------- -- ----- ------- ---------- -- ------ ------ - ----------- ------- ----- -- ---------- -------- ---- ---- -------Shareholders' Equity $262 $476 $513 $383 $381 $377 $378 $379 $387 $393 $400 $408 -- ---------- -------- ---- ---- -------- ---------- -- ----- ------- ---------- -- ------ ------ - ----------- ------- ----- -- ---------- -------- ---- ---- -------Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Eq $645 $927 $1,074 $1,005 $1,002 $999 $1,000 $1,001 $1,009 $1,015 $1,022 $1,029 ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change Check- sum P erformance Metrics P rofitability Ratios Return On Equity Return on Av g Equity Return On Assets Return On Net As sets Return On Sales E fficiency Ratios S ales / Total Assets A /R Days Sales Out Inventory Turns Days of Inventory Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio Quick Ratio Net Working Capital ($M) Long-Term Debt / Equity Debt/Capital Total Debt / Equity E BITDA/Interest E BITDA- Capex/Interest Book & Cash Value B ook Value Per S hare Cash Per Share Net Cash Per S hare Tangible Book value $257.1 $39.3 $0.0 $315.3 $58.2 $0.0 $351.2 $35.9 $0.0 $363.7 $12.6 $0.0 $363.7 $0.0 $0.0 $363.7 $0.0 $0.0 $363.7 $0.0 $0.0 $363.7 $0.0 $0.0 $363.7 $0.0 $0.0 $363.7 $0.0 $0.0 $363.7 $0.0 $0.0 $363.7 $0.0 $0.0

27% 28% 11% 12% 14%

20% 19% 10% 14% 13%

25% 18% 12% 13% 15%

(132%) (12%) (50%) (57%) (80%)

(3%) (19%) (1%) (1%) (2%)

(4%) (26%) (1%) (2%) (3%)

1% (35%) 0% 0% 1%

1% (1%) 0% 0% 0%

8% 2% 3% 3% 4%

6% 4% 2% 3% 3%

7% 5% 3% 3% 4%

7% 7% 3% 3% 4%

0.76 12 2.5 149

0.75 1 2.5 144

0.80 1 2.1 171

0.63 25 6.0 61

0.46 9 5.9 62

0.54 9 7.3 50

0.72 9 9.0 41

0.69 9 8.9 41

0.75 9 5.7 64

0.72 9 6.9 53

0.74 9 8.5 43

0.74 9 8.5 43

1.0 1.2 $187 51.1% 49.5% 98.0% -14.4 -2.2

1.4 1.6 $358 28.9% 39.9% 66.3% -15.5 4.6

1.1 0.7 $228 27.1% 40.6% 68.4% - 14.2 9.8

0.7 0.7 $109 36.2% 48.7% 94.9% 48.9 63.0

0.6 0.9 $43 36.5% 48.9% 95.5% -0.7 10.1

0.5 0.7 ($41) 36.8% 49.1% 96.4% -0.7 13.2

0.5 0.6 ($51) 36.7% 49.0% 96.1% -1.7 0.7

0.4 0.6 ($61) 36.6% 49.0% 95.9% -1.6 0.7

0.4 0.5 ($65) 35.9% 48.4% 94.0% -2.9 -0.6

0.4 0.5 ( $69) 35.3% 48.0% 92.5% -2.6 -0.3

0.4 0.6 ($73) 34.7% 47.6% 90.9% -2.8 -0.4

0.4 0.5 ($76) 34.1% 47.1% 89.2% -2.9 -0.5

$2.11 $0.54 ($1.52) $2.11

$3.63 $2.09 ($0.31) $3.63

$3.67 $0.71 ($1.80) $3.67

$2.79 $0.82 ($1.83) $2.79

$2.77 $1.47 ($1.17) $2.77

$2.72 $0.84 ($1.78) $2.72

$2.71 $0.70 ( $1.90) $2.71

$2.70 $0.66 ($1.93) $2.70

$2.75 $0.30 ($2.28) $2.75

$2.78 $0.43 ($2.14) $2.78

$2.81 $0.51 ($2.04) $2.81

$2.84 $0.47 ($2.06) $2.84

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted

May 01, 2009

267

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 291: LDK Earnings Drivers


F YE: Dece mb er Ann ual Cap acity (MW) Effective Capacity Q uarterly Cap acity (MW) Q1 580.0 500 145.0 Fiscal 200 8 Q2 Q3 880 .0 730 220 .0 12 00.0 1040 3 00.0 Q4 1,460.0 1,330 3 65.0 Fiscal 2008 Q 1E 1,460.0 1,460.0 365.0 F iscal 2009E Q2E Q3E 1,460.0 1,460.0 365.0 1,460.0 1,460.0 365.0 Q4E 1,6 00.0 1,5 30.0 400 .0 F iscal 2009E Q1 E 2,450.0 2,025.0 6 12.5 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E 2,70 0.0 2,57 5.0 675.0 2 ,950.0 2 ,825.0 737.5 Q4E 3,200.0 3,075.0 80 0.0 F isca l 2010 E

Effective Utilization Ra te Own Wafer Sale s As a % of total shipments OEM T otal Prod uctio n (MW)

82% 100.1 84% 19.1 119.2

87% 160 .2 84% 31 .5 191 .7

84% 2 08.3 82% 44.4 2 52.7

70% 1 57.6 62% 96.7 2 54.3

626.2 191.7 817.9

47% 136.0 80% 34.0 170.0

74% 216.0 80% 54.0 270.0

99% 288.0 80% 72.0 360.0

100% 320 .0 80% 80 .0 400 .0

960.0 240.0 1200.0 4 7% 1.27 1.40 -39.8% 0.73 8.2% -3 6% 1490.0 -9%

85% 3 82.5 85% 67.5 4 50.0

85% 467.5 85% 82.5 550.0

85% 552.5 85% 97.5 650.0

85% 59 5.0 85% 10 5.0 70 0.0

1997.5 2350.0 96% 0.99 1.06 -24.4% 0.62 -15.7% -22% 2314.8 55%

ASPs ($/W) Own Wafer Sale s Q/Q % OEM Q/Q % Y/Y (%) Prod uct Revenue s Y/Y (%)

1.96 2.22 -2.9% 0.56 10.6% -5% 233.4 218%

2.16 2.44 7.7% 0.72 2 8.2% 10% 441 .7 346%

2.14 2.48 1.6% 0.57 -21.6% -1% 5 41.8 241%

1.68 2.18 -12.1% 0.86 51.7% -22% 4 26.7 121%

1.98 2.33 2.9% 0.68 43 .0% 2% 1643.6 214%

1.39 1.55 -29.0% 0.77 -10.0% -17% 236.8 1%

1.33 1.47 -5.0% 0.75 -3.5% -5% 357.9 -19%

1.20 1.32 -10.0% 0.72 -3.5% -9% 433.0 -20%

1.16 1.27 -4.0% 0.70 -3.5% -4% 462 .2 8%

1.07 1.14 -10.0% 0.67 -4.0% -7% 4 82.4 104%

1.02 1.09 -5 .0% 0.63 -5 .0% -5% 560.1 56%

0.97 1.03 -5.0% 0.60 -5.0% -5% 628.9 45%

0 .92 0 .98 -5.0% 0 .57 -5.0% -5% 64 3.4 39%

Co st of revenu es Blended Silicon Price ($/kg) Silicon consumption (g/W ) Silicon cost per watt Non-silicon cost per watt To tal Costs per Watt Own Wafer Co gs OEM COG S O ve rall Co st o f Revenu es G ross Mar gin

$ 199 $ 6.3 $ 1.26 $ 0.36 $ 1.62 $ 162.0 $ 6.9 $ 168.83 27.7%

$ 249 $ 6.1 $ 1.51 $ 0.33 $ 1.84 $ 2 94.8 $ 10.4 $ 3 29.4 25.4%

$ 265 $ 6.1 $ 1.61 $ 0.33 $ 1.94 $ 404.3 $ 14.7 $ 419.0 22.7 %

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

264 6.1 1.6 0 0.3 3 1.9 3 304.8 31.9 553.4 -29.7 %

$ 244 $ 6 .1 $ 1.50 $ 0.34 $ 1.83

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

205 6.0 1.23 0.33 1.56 211.9 11.2 223.1 5.8%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

175 6.0 1.05 0.33 1.38 297.4 17.6 315.0 12.0%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

145 6.0 0.87 0.33 1.20 344.2 23.4 367.6 15.1%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

125 6.0 0.75 0.32 1.07 3 43.5 25.9 3 69.4 20.1%

$ $ $ $ $

1 63 6.0 0.98 0.33 1.30

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

105 6.0 0.63 0.32 0.95 362.4 21.4 383.9 20.4%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

100 6.0 0 .60 0 .31 0 .91 42 6.2 2 5.7 45 1.9 19 .3%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

95 6.0 0.57 0.31 0.88 483.9 29.8 513.7 18.3%

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

90 6.0 0.54 0.30 0.84 499.8 31.5 531.3 17.4%

$ 98 $ 6.0 $ 0.59 $ 0.31 $ 0.89

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted

268

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 292: LDK Income Statement


FYE: December Revenue QoQ YoY Cost of Goods Gross Profi t R&D Selling, General & Admin. Operati ng Expenses Operati ng I ncome Non operatin g (i ncome) expense: Interest incom e (expense) Other income (expense) Forex gai n (loss) Non operatin g (i ncome) expense I ncome (loss) befo re taxes I ncome Tax Expense (Ben efi t) Net I ncome (loss) Accreti on of preferred shares to redemption val Deemed di vidend to preferred shareh older s Net i ncome avail able to ord inary sharehol ders Basic incom e (loss) per share Dilut ed income (l oss) per share from Operations Weight ed average shares used Avg Shares - Full y Di luted (M ) Percent of Sales Gross Margin I ncrement al Gross Margin R&D SG&A Operating Income Net Income Tax Rat e
(i)

Q1 $233. 4 21.1% 218. 0% $168. 8 $64.6 $0. 4 $11.7 $12.0 $52.5

F iscal 2008 Q2 Q3 $441.7 $541.8 89.2% 345.9% $329.4 $112.3 $0.4 $11. 6 $12. 0 $100.3 22.7% 241. 3% $419.0 $122.8 $2. 6 $12. 5 $15. 1 $107.7

Q4 $426. 7 -21. 2% 121. 4% $553. 4 ($126.6) $4. 1 $24.2 $28.3 ($154.9)

Q1E $236.8 -44. 5% 1.5% $223.1 $13. 7 $2.0 $17. 0 $19. 0 ($5.3)

Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $357. 9 $433. 0 51.1% -19.0% $315. 0 $42.9 $2. 0 $17.0 $19.0 $23.9 21.0% -20.1% $367. 6 $65.4 $2. 0 $17.0 $19.0 $46.4

Q4E $462.2 6.7% 8.3% $369.4 $92. 8 $2.0 $17. 0 $19. 0 $73. 8

Q1E $482. 4 4. 4% 103. 7% $383. 9 $98.5 $2. 0 $25.0 $27.0 $71.5

Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E $560. 1 $628. 9 16.1% 56.5% $451. 9 $108. 2 $2. 0 $25.0 $27.0 $81.2 12.3% 45.2% $513. 7 $115. 2 $2. 0 $25.0 $27.0 $88.2

Q4E $643. 4 2. 3% 39.2% $531. 3 $112. 1 $2. 0 $25.0 $27.0 $85.1

Fiscal 2008 $1,643. 6 214% $1,470. 5 $173.0 $7.5 $59. 9 $67. 4 $105.6

Fi scal 2009E $1, 490.0 -9% $1, 275.0 $214. 9 $8. 0 $68.0 $76.0 $138. 9

Fi scal 2010E $2, 314.8 55% $1, 880.8 $434. 0 $8. 0 $100. 0 $108. 0 $326. 0

($3. 9) $4. 4 $5. 3 ($5. 8) $58.3 $8. 5 $49.8 $0. 0 $0. 0 $49.8 $0.47 $0.45 106.5 111.8

($8.5) $65. 2 $5.8 ($62. 6) $162.9 $13. 3 $149.5 $0.0 $0.0 $149.5 $1.40 $1.29 106. 5 115. 9

($10. 4) $4. 8 $0. 0 $5. 6 $102.1 $13. 8 $88. 3 $0. 0 $0. 0 $88. 3 $0.78 $0.77 113. 1 114. 9

($7.3) $5. 9 $5. 0 ($3.6) ($151.3) ($18. 4) ($132.9) $0. 0 $0. 0 ($132.9) ($1. 25) ($1. 25) 106. 5 106. 5

($15. 0) $11. 0 $0.0 $4.0 ($9.3) ($1.1) ($8.2) $0.0 $0.0 ($8.2) ($0. 08) ($0. 08) 106. 5 106. 7

($15. 0) $10.0 $0. 0 $5. 0 $18.9 $2. 3 $16.6 $0. 0 $0. 0 $16.6 $0.16 $0.16 106. 5 106. 9

($15.0) $11.0 $0. 0 $4. 0 $42.4 $5. 2 $37.3 $0. 0 $0. 0 $37.3 $0.35 $0.35 106.5 107.1

($15. 0) $11. 0 $0.0 $4.0 $69. 8 $8.5 $61. 3 $0.0 $0.0 $61. 3 $0. 58 $0. 57 106. 5 107. 3

($20.0) $5. 7 $0. 0 $14.3 $57.2 $7. 0 $50.3 $0. 0 $0. 0 $50.3 $0.47 $0.43 106.5 115.9

($20.0) $6. 0 $0. 0 $14.0 $67.3 $8. 2 $59.1 $0. 0 $0. 0 $59.1 $0.55 $0.51 106.5 115.9

($20.0) $6. 3 $0. 0 $13.7 $74.5 $9. 1 $65.4 $0. 0 $0. 0 $65.4 $0.61 $0.56 106.5 115.9

($20.0) $6. 4 $0. 0 $13.6 $71.5 $8. 7 $62.8 $0. 0 $0. 0 $62.8 $0.59 $0.54 106.5 115.9

($30. 1) $80. 4 $16. 1 ($66. 3) $172.0 $17. 2 $154.7 $0.0 $0.0 $154.7 $1.40 $1.26 106. 4 112. 3

($60.0) $43.0 $0. 0 $17.0 $121. 9 $14.8 $107. 1 $0. 0 $0. 0 $107. 1 $1.01 $1.00 106.4 111.8

($80.0) $24.5 $0. 0 $55.5 $270. 5 $32.9 $237. 6 $0. 0 $0. 0 $237. 6 $2.23 $2.05 106.4 111.8

27.7% 16.1% 0. 2% 5. 0% 22.5% 21.3% 14.6%

25.4% 22.9% 0. 1% 2. 6% 22.7% 33.9% 8. 2%

22.7% 10.5% 0. 5% 2. 3% 19.9% 16.3% 13.5%

-29. 7% 216. 8% 1. 0% 5. 7% -36. 3% -31. 2% 12.2%

5.8% -73. 9% 0.8% 7.2% -2.2% -3.4% 12. 2%

12.0% 24.1% 0. 6% 4. 7% 6. 7% 4. 6% 12.2%

15.1% 30.0% 0. 5% 3. 9% 10.7% 8. 6% 12.2%

20. 1% 93. 9% 0.4% 3.7% 16. 0% 13. 3% 12. 2%

20.4% 28.3% 0. 4% 5. 2% 14.8% 10.4% 12.2%

19.3% 12.4% 0. 4% 4. 5% 14.5% 10.5% 12.2%

18.3% 10.1% 0. 3% 4. 0% 14.0% 10.4% 12.2%

17.4% -21.1% 0. 3% 3. 9% 13.2% 9. 8% 12.2%

10.5% 0. 2% 0. 5% 3. 6% 6. 4% 9. 4% 10.0%

14.4% -27.3% 0.5% 4.6% 9.3% 7.2% 12.2%

18.7% 26.6% 0. 3% 4. 3% 14.1% 10.3% 12.2%

FYE: December Pro F orma EBI TDA % Ch ange Y/Y % Ch ange Q/ Q % Sales LT M EBITDA Capi tal Spendi ng % of Sal es Depreciati on % of COGS FCF Ops Est. (PF EBIT DA + NI -Cap ex)

Q1 $58.2 123. 0% 24.8% 24.9% $178. 9 $205.4 88.0% $5. 7 3. 4%

F iscal 2008 Q2 Q3 $108.0 $118.3 250.4% 85.5% 24.5% $256.1 $263.6 59.7% $7.7 2. 3% 173. 9% 9. 5% 21.8% $331.2 $530.0 97.8% $10. 6 2. 5%

Q4 ($142.9) -406.2% -220.8% -33. 5% $141. 6 $490.7 115. 0% $12. 0 2. 2%

Q1E $1.6 -97. 3% -101.1% 0.7% $85. 0 $47. 4 20% $6.9 2.9% ($56. 8)

Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $34.3 $59.0 -68.2% 2065% 9. 6% $11.3 $71. 6 20% $10. 4 2. 9% ($47. 3) -50.1% 72.0% 13.6% ($48.0) $86.6 20% $12.6 2. 9% ($38.6)

Q4E $87. 0 -160.9% 47. 4% 18. 8% $181.9 $92. 4 20% $13. 2 2.9% ($16. 4)

Q1E $82.6 5114.0% -5. 0% 17.1% $263. 0 $83.0 17% $11.1 2. 3% ($6. 0)

Fi scal 2009E Q2E Q3E $94.1 $102. 6 174. 2% 13.9% 16.8% $322. 7 $96.3 17% $12.9 2. 3% ($8. 3) 73.9% 9. 1% 16.3% $366. 3 $108. 2 17% $14.5 2. 3% ($11.9)

Q4E $99.9 14.8% -2. 7% 15.5% $379. 2 $110. 7 17% $14.8 2. 3% ($17.2)

Fiscal 2008 $133.2 -17. 7% 8. 1% 133. 2 $1,489.7 90.6% $27. 6 1. 9% ($1,437)

Fi scal 2009E $196. 6 47.6% 13.2% 196.6 $298. 0 20.0% $57.7 4.5% ($144. 3)

Fi scal 2010E $396. 0 101. 4% 17.1% 396.0 $522. 6 22.6% $70.0 3. 7% ($151. 1)

($151.6) ($220.8) ($416.5) ($639.5)

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted

May 01, 2009

269

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 293: LDK Balance Sheet


Q1 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1E Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E Q4E Q1E Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E Assets Current Assets: Cash and cash equivalents $94 $84 $348 $256 $752 $690 $691 $763 Pledged bank depos its $142 $262 $115 $83 $5 $5 $5 $5 Accounts receivable, net $9 $35 $40 $95 $24 $29 $30 $23 % Sales 4% 8% 7% 22% 10% 8% 7% 5% Inventories $520 $656 $702 $704 $237 $304 $325 $300 % Sales 222.6% 148.6% 129.6% 165.1% 100% 85% 75% 65% Prepayment to suppliers $206 $254 $295 $84 $84 $84 $84 $84 Deferred Expenses $0 $0 $0 $32 $32 $32 $32 $32 Other current assets $40 $50 $50 $71 $71 $71 $71 $71 Total Current Asset s $1,010 $1,341 $1,550 $1,325 $1,204 $1,215 $1,238 $1,278 Net PP& E $501 $706 $1,139 $1,697 $1,738 $1,799 $1,873 $1,952 Depos it for pur chase of equipm ent $201 $222 $301 $233 $233 $233 $233 $233 Intangible assets , net $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 Land use rights $65 $79 $98 $99 $99 $99 $99 $99 Deferred inc ome tax assets and other non-current $75 $79 $93 $105 $105 $105 $105 $105 ------ ------ -- ---------- ------ ------ ------------ ------- ----- ------------ - ----------- ------ -----Total Assets $1,853 $2,428 $3,181 $3,461 $3,381 $3,453 $3,549 $3,669 ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== LIAB. & S HRHLDRS' E QUITY S- Term Debt $314 $376 $452 $666 $666 $666 $666 $666 Trade accounts payable $37 $67 $59 $124 $24 $36 $43 $46 % Sales 16% 15% 11% 29% 10% 10% 10% 10% Advance payments from customers $231 $243 $343 $256 $256 $256 $256 $256 Accrued expenses and other payables $150 $178 $332 $464 $464 $464 $464 $464 Total Current Liabilities: $732 $864 $1,186 $1,511 $1,411 $1,423 $1,430 $1,433 L-Term Debt Other non-c urrent liabilities Total Liabilit ies Redeemable convertible preferred shares $38 $303 $1,073 $11 $499 $367 $1,730 $11 $559 $436 $2,182 $11 $554 $533 $2,598 $11 $583 $533 $2,526 $11 $626 $533 $2,581 $11 $678 $533 $2,640 $11 $733 $533 $2,699 $11

$801 $5 $24 5% $241 50% $84 $32 $71 $1,258 $2,024 $233 $1 $99 $105 -----------$3,721 ====== $666 $48 10% $256 $464 $1,435 $733 $533 $2,701 $11 -----------$1,021 -----------$3,721 ====== $1,399.2 0% $0.0

$742 $5 $28 5% $280 50% $84 $32 $71 $1,242 $2,108 $233 $1 $99 $105 -------- ---$3,788 ====== $666 $56 10% $256 $464 $1,443 $733 $533 $2,709 $11 -------- ---$1,080 -------- ---$3,788 ====== $1,399.2 0% $0.0

$683 $5 $31 5% $314 50% $84 $32 $71 $1,220 $2,201 $233 $1 $99 $105 ----- ------$3,861 ====== $666 $63 10% $256 $464 $1,450 $733 $533 $2,715 $11 ----- ------$1,145 ----- ------$3,861 ====== $1,399.2 0% $0.0

$643 $5 $32 5% $322 50% $84 $32 $71 $1,189 $2,297 $233 $1 $99 $105 - ----------$3,925 ====== $666 $64 10% $256 $464 $1,451 $733 $533 $2,717 $11 - ----------$1,208 - ----------$3,925 ====== $1,399.2 0% $0.0

Shareholders' Equit y Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equit y

------ ------ -- ---------- ------ ------ ------------ ------- ----- ------------ - ----------- ------ -----$769 $687 $999 $863 $855 $872 $909 $970 ------ ------ -- ---------- ------ ------ ------------ ------- ----- ------------ - ----------- ------ -----$1,853.1 $2,428 $3,181 $3,461 $3,381 $3,453 $3,549 $3,669 ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== $351.7 22% $62.5 $874.8 149% $523.1 $1,011.4 $1,220.5 $1,248.9 $1,291.8 $1,343.8 $1,399.2 16% 21% 2% 3% 4% 4% $136.6 $209.0 $28.4 $43.0 $52.0 $55.5

Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change

Check-sum Performance Metrics Profitability Ratios Retur n On Equity Retur n on A vg Equity Retur n On Assets Retur n On Net As sets Retur n On Sales Ef ficiency Ratios Sales / Total Assets A/R Day s S ales Out Inv entory Turns Days of Inv entory Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio Quick Ratio Net Working Capital ($M) Long-Term Debt / Equity Debt/Capital Total Debt / E quity EBITDA/Interest EBITDA- Capex/Interest Book & Cash Value Book Value Per Share Cash Per Share Net Cash Per Share Tangible Book value

$0.0

$0.00

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

26% 23% 11% 11% 21%

87% 40% 25% 26% 34%

35% 40% 11% 12% 16%

(62%) 17% (15%) (17%) (31%)

(4%) 11% (1%) (1%) (3%)

8% (4%) 2% 2% 5%

16% (10%) 4% 5% 9%

25% 11% 7% 8% 13%

20% 17% 5% 7% 10%

22% 20% 6% 8% 11%

23% 21% 7% 8% 10%

21% 20% 6% 8% 10%

0.50 3 1.3 280 0.9 0.7 $278 4.9% 31.4% 45.7% -14.8 37.5

0.73 7 2.0 181 0.8 0.8 $477 72.7% 56.0% 127.3% -12.7 18.3

0.68 7 2.4 153 0.7 0.7 $364 56.0% 50.3% 101.2% -11.4 39.6

0.49 20 3.2 116 0.5 0.4 ($186) 64.2% 58.6% 141.4% 19.6 86.7

0.28 9 3.8 97 0.5 0.7 ($206) 68.1% 59.4% 146.0% -0.1 3.1

0.41 7 4.2 88 0.5 0.6 ($208) 71.8% 59.7% 148.2% -2.3 2.5

0.49 6 4.5 80 0.5 0.6 ($193) 74.5% 59.6% 147.8% -3.9 1.8

0.50 5 4.9 74 0.5 0.7 ($155) 75.5% 59.0% 144.2% -5.8 0.4

0.52 5 6.4 57 0.5 0.7 ($177) 71.8% 57.8% 137.1% -4.1 0.0

0.59 5 6.5 56 0.5 0.7 ($201) 67.9% 56.4% 129.6% -4.7 0.1

0.65 5 6.6 56 0.4 0.6 ($229) 64.0% 55.0% 122.2% -5.1 0.3

0.66 5 6.6 55 0.4 0.6 ($262) 60.7% 53.7% 115.8% -5.0 0.5

$6.88 $0.84 ($2.31) $6.88

$5.93 $0.72 ($6.82) $5.93

$8.70 $3.03 ($5.78) $8.70

$8.11 $2.40 ($9.06) $8.11

$8.01 $7.05 ($4.66) $8.01

$8.16 $6.46 ($5.63) $8.16

$8.49 $6.45 ($6.10) $8.49

$9.04 $7.11 ($5.93) $9.04

$8.81 $6.91 ($5.16) $8.81

$9.31 $6.40 ( $5.67) $9.31

$9.88 $5.89 ($6.18) $9.88

$10.42 $5.55 ($6.52) $10.42

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted

270

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 294: CSUN Earnings Drivers


FY E: December Annual Capacit y (MW ) Q uarterly Capacit y (MW) Available Capacity (MW) Q1 220.0 55.0 40.2 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 250.0 62.5 44.1 280.0 70.0 54.5 Q4 320.0 80.0 36.0 Fiscal 2008 Q1E 320.0 80.0 36.0 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E 320.0 80.0 52.0 400.0 100.0 65.0 Q4E 400.0 100.0 65.0 Fiscal 2009E Q1E 400.0 100.0 80.0 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E 400.0 10 0.0 80.0 400.0 100.0 80.0 Q4E 400.0 100 .0 80.0 Fiscal 2010E

Revenues COGS G ross Profit G ross Margin (%) O ut put ( MW) S ilicon Breakdown S pot Contract Costs ($/W) S pot Contract P roces sing Costs P oly to W afer Costs S ilicon Prices ($/kg) S pot Contract Conversion Eff iciency G rams/Watt ASP ( $/Watt) P V Modules y /y (%) q/q ( %) $ $ $ $ $

77.0 69.9 7.1 9.2% 24.0 50% 50% 2.64 1.39 0.65 0.30 0.30 205.0 280.0 130.0 16.6% 9.94 $ $ $ $ $

111.6 100.0 11.6 10.4% 35.0 50% 50% 2.69 1.44 0.65 0.30 0.30 210.0 290.0 130.0 16.6% 9.94 $ $ $ $ $

119.0 108.0 11.1 9.3% 34.2 45% 55% 2.68 1.27 0.81 0.30 0.30 209.4 285.0 147.5 16.6% 9.94 $ $ $ $ $

43.2 57.4 -14.2 -32.8% 14.8 55% 45%

350.9 335.3 15.6 4.4% 108.0 50% 50% $ $ $ $ $

30.5 32.9 -2.4 -7.8% 15.0 50% 50% 2.19 0.70 0.80 0.40 0.30 150.0 140.0 160.0 16.6% 9.94 $ $ $ $ $

48.8 48.1 0.8 1.6% 25.0 80% 20% 1.92 0.97 0.25 0.40 0.30 126.0 125.0 130.0 17.0% 9.71 $ $ $ $ $

75.4 67.2 8.3 10.9% 40.0 80% 20% 1.68 0.82 0.21 0.35 0.30 106.0 105.0 110.0 17.0% 9.71 $ $ $ $ $

106.9 94.3 12.6 11.8% 60.0 80% 20% 1.57 0.77 0.20 0.30 0.30 106.0 105.0 110.0 18.0% 9.17

261.6 242.4 19.2 7.4% 140.0 30% 73% 28% $ 1.84 $ $ $ $ $

75.7 66.9 8.8 11.6% 50.0 60% 40% 1.34 0.44 0.30 0.30 0.30 85.0
85.0

111.5 98.0 13.4 12.0% 80.0 60% 40% $ $ $ $ $ 1.23 0.36 0.26 0.30 0.30 72.0
70 .0

141.0 125.2 15.8 11.2% 110.0 60% 40% $ $ $ $ $ 1.14 0.31 0.23 0.30 0.30 62.0
60.0

195.6 175.2 20.4 10.4% 160.0 60% 40% $ $ $ $ $

52 3.8 465.4 58.4 11.2% 40 0.0 186% 60% 40%

3.17 $ 2.79 1.56 0.88 0.43 0.30 245.6 285.0 197.5 16.6% 9.94 217.5 285.0 151.3

1.10 $ 1.20 0.29 0.21 0.30 0.30 57.0


55 .0

122.0 118.8 127.5

85.0 19.0% 8.68

75.0 19.0% 8.68

65.0 19.0% 8.68

60.0 19.0% 8.68

69.0 67.5 71.3

$ 3.21 $ 3.19 - 1%

$ 3.48 $ 2.93 $ 3.20 9% -16%

$ 2.03 $ 1.95 $ 1.89 $ 1.78 $ 1.91 -37% -39% -46% -39% -40% -31% -4% -4% -6%

$ 1.51 $ 1.39 $ 1.28 $ 1.22 $ 1.35 -26% - 29% -32% -31% - 29% -15% -8% -8% -5%

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted

May 01, 2009

271

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 295: CSUN Income Statement


FYE: D ecember R evenue QoQ YoY C os t of Goods Gros s P rofit R &D Selling, General & Adm in. Operating E xpenses Operating I ncom e N on operating (income) expense: I nt erest inc ome (expense) Other inc ome (expens e) N on operating (income) expense Income (loss) before taxes Income Tax Expense (B enefi t) N et I ncome (l oss) D ividends on redeemable conv pref shares Series A Series B Series C N et i ncome available to ordinary shareholders Basi c income (loss ) per AD S D ilut ed inc ome (loss ) per AD S f rom Operations Weighted average AD S used Wei ghted A vg A DS - Fully D il uted (M) Percent of Sales Gros s Margin Inc rement al Gross Margin R &D SG&A Operating Income N et Income Tax Rate ($1.5) $0.2 $1.3 $0.9 $0.4 $0.5 ($1.3) ($1.2) $2.5 $3.5 $0.4 $3.1 ($1.7) ($4.5) $6.2 ($0.5) ($0.7) $0.3 ($1.9) ($6.6) $8. 5 ($28. 9) ($2.6) ($26. 3) ($1. 9) $0.0 $1.9 ($9. 4) ($1. 1) ($8. 3) ($1.9) $0.0 $1.9 ($6.3) ($0.8) ($5. 514) ($1.9) $0.0 $1.9 $1.2 $0.1 $1.1 ($1.9) $0.0 $1.9 $5.6 $0.7 $4.9 ($1. 9) $0. 0 $1. 9 $1. 2 $0. 1 $1. 0 ($1.9) $0.0 $1.9 $4.8 $0.6 $4.222 ($1.9) $0.0 $1.9 $6.1 $0.7 $5.4 ($1. 9) $0. 0 $1. 9 $9. 3 $1. 1 $8. 2 ($6. 4) ($12.1) $18.5 ($25.0) ($2. 6) ($22.4) ($7. 7) $0.0 $7.7 ($8. 9) ($1. 1) ($7. 8) ($7.7) $0.0 $7.7 $21. 4 $2.6 $18. 8 Q1 $77. 0 7. 8% 32.3% $69. 9 $7.1 $0.5 $4.4 $4.9 $2.2 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 $111.6 $119. 0 44.9% 6.6% 98.6% 143.2% $100.0 $11. 6 $0.5 $5.1 $5.6 $6.0 $108. 0 $11. 1 $0.4 $4.9 $5.3 $5.7 Q4 $43.2 -63.7% -39.6% $57.5 ($14. 3) $0. 4 $5. 7 $6. 1 ($20. 4) Q1E $30.5 -29.4% -60.4% $32.9 ($2. 4) $0.6 $4.5 $5.1 ($7. 5) Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $48. 8 $75. 4 60.2% 54.4% -56.3% -36. 7% $48. 1 $0.8 $0.6 $4.5 $5.1 ($4.3) $67. 2 $8.3 $0.6 $4.5 $5.1 $3.2 Q4E $106.9 41.8% 147.4% $94. 3 $12. 6 $0.6 $4.5 $5.1 $7.5 Q1E $75.7 -29.2% 148. 3% $66.9 $8. 8 $0. 7 $5. 0 $5. 7 $3. 1 Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E $111.5 $141. 0 47.2% 26. 5% 128.2% 87. 0% $98. 0 $13. 4 $0.7 $6.0 $6.7 $6.7 $125. 2 $15.8 $0.7 $7.0 $7.7 $8.1 Q4E $195.6 38.8% 83.0% $175.2 $20.4 $0. 7 $8. 5 $9. 2 $11.2 Fiscal 2008 $350. 9 49% Fiscal 2009E $261. 6 -25% Fiscal 2010E $523. 8 100%

$335. 5 $15.5 $1.9 $20.1 $22.0 ($6. 5)

$242. 4 $19.2 $2.4 $18.0 $20.4 ($1. 2)

$465. 4 $58. 4 $2.8 $26. 5 $29. 3 $29. 1

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5 0. 01 0. 01 39.6 39.8

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.1 0. 08 0. 08 39.6 39.9

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0. 26 0.01 0.01 39.7 40.4

$0. 0 $0. 0 $0. 0 ($26. 3) (0. 66) (0. 66) 39.8 39.8

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 ($8. 3) (0.20) (0.20) 40. 8 40. 8

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 ($5.5) (0. 13) (0. 13) 41.8 41.8

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.1 0. 03 0. 03 42.8 42.8

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4.9 0. 11 0. 11 43.8 43.8

$0. 0 $0. 0 $0. 0 $1. 0 0.02 0.02 44. 8 44. 8

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4.2 0.09 0.09 45.8 45.8

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.4 0.12 0.12 46.8 46.8

$0. 0 $0. 0 $0. 0 $8. 2 0.17 0.17 47. 8 47. 8

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 ($22.4) (0.56) (0.56) 39.7 40.0

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 ($7. 8) (0.20) (0.20) 42. 3 42. 3

$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $18. 8 0.40 0.40 46.3 46.3

(i)

9. 2% 45.0% 0. 7% 5. 7% 2. 8% 0. 7% 39.7%

10.4% 13.1% 0. 5% 4. 5% 5. 4% 2. 7% 12.4%

9.3% -7.7% 0.4% 4.1% 4.8% 0.2% 153.9%

-33.1% 33.4% 0. 9% 13.3% -47.3% -60.8% 9. 1%

-7.8% -93.9% 2.0% 14. 8% -24.5% -27.1% 12. 0%

1. 6% 17.1% 1. 2% 9. 2% -8. 9% -11.3% 12.0%

10.9% 28.2% 0. 8% 6. 0% 4. 2% 1. 4% 12.0%

11.8% 13.8% 0. 6% 4. 2% 7. 0% 4. 6% 12.0%

11.6% 12.1% 0.9% 6.6% 4.1% 1.4% 12.0%

12.0% 12.9% 0.6% 5.4% 6.0% 3.8% 12.0%

11. 2% 7.9% 0.5% 5.0% 5.7% 3.8% 12. 0%

10.4% 8.6% 0.4% 4.3% 5.7% 4.2% 12.0%

4.4% -2.2% 0.5% 5.7% -1.9% -6.4% 10. 3%

7.4% -4.2% 0.9% 6.9% -0.4% -3.0% 12. 0%

11. 2% 14. 9% 0.5% 5.1% 5.6% 3.6% 12. 0%

FYE: D ecember Pro Form a EBI TDA % Change Y/Y % Change Q/Q % Sales LTM E BITD A C api tal Spendi ng % of Sales D epreciati on % of COGS FC F Ops Est. (P F EB ITDA + N I -C apex)

Q1 $3.5 -59. 3% 10369.7% 4. 5% $0.3 $12.2 15.8% $1.3 1. 8% ($9.0)

Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 $7.3 -1323.1% 111.7% 6. 6% $8.2 $14.5 13.0% $1.3 1. 3% ($6.0) $7.1 -374.1% -2.7% 6.0% $17. 9 $8.7 7.3% $1.4 1.3% $2.9

Q4

Q1E

Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E ($3.6) -149.3% -48.6% -7. 4% ($23. 3) $7.3 15.0% $0.7 1. 5% ($10. 9) $4.3 -39. 8% -219.0% 5. 7% ($26.1) $11. 3 15.0% $1.1 1. 5% ($7.0)

Q4E

Q1E

Fi scal 2010E Q2E Q3E $8.4 -333.2% 98.1% 7.5% $26. 0 $11.1 10.0% $1.7 1.5% ($2.7) $10.2 137.4% 21. 1% 7.2% $31.9 $14.1 10. 0% $2.1 1.5% ($3.9)

Q4E $14.2 55.8% 39.3% 7.2% $37.0 $19.6 10.0% $2. 9 1.5% ($5. 4)

($19. 8) ($7. 0) -60024.0% -303. 0% -377.8% -64.5% -45.8% -23.0% ($1.9) ($12.4) $6.5 15.0% $0.6 1. 5% ($19. 7) $4. 6 15. 0% $0. 5 1.5% ($11.6)

$9.1 $4. 2 -146.0% -160. 5% 112.2% -53.4% 8. 5% 5.6% $2.8 $14.0 $16.0 15.0% $1.6 1. 5% ($6.9) $7. 6 10.0% $1. 1 1.5% ($3. 3)

Fiscal 2008E ($1. 9)

Fiscal 2009E $2.8

Fiscal 2010E $37. 0

-135. 4% -246. 3% 1239.4% -0.5% -1.9 $41.9 11. 9% $4.6 1.4% ($31.7) 1.1% 2.8 $39.2 15. 0% $3. 9 1.6% ($36.5) 7.1% 37.0 $52.4 10. 0% $7.9 1.7% ($15.4)

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted

272

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 296: CSUN Balance Sheet


BALANC E SHEET FYE: December Assets Cur rent Assets: Cash and cash e quivalen ts Restri cted Cash Acco unts receivabl e, net % Sale s Other Receivabl es In ve nto ri es % Sa les Advance to Suppli ers Amo unt due from rel ated compani es an d o ther current li abil iti es Tota l Cur rent Assets Property, p lant a nd e quipment, ne t Land use rights Deferred tax assets Other Long Te rm Assets Tota l Assets LIAB. & SHRHLDR S' EQU ITY S-Term Debt Notes Payabl e Trad e a ccou nts payable % Sa les Advance payme nts from customers Accrue d expe nses an d other payabl es Amo unt due to re lated parti es Tota l Cur rent Liabilities: L-Te rm Debt Coll ate ra l Account Pa yab le Convertible Bond Payable Deferred tax liab ility an d O th er non -cu rren t liab ilities Tota l Liabilities Minority Inter ests Redeemable convertible pre fe rred shares Shareholder s' Equity Total Liabilities & Shareholde rs' Equity Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change Check-sum Performanc e Metrics Profitability Ratios Return On Equity Return on Avg Equity Return On Assets Return On Net Assets Return On Sales Efficiency Ra tios Sales / Total Assets A/R Days Sal es O ut Invento ry Tu rn s Days o f In ve ntory Liquidity Ratios Current Rati o Qu ick Ratio Net W orking Capi tal ($M) Lon g-Term De bt / Equity Debt/Capital Total De bt / Equity EBITDA/Inte rest EBITDA- Ca pex/Interes t Book & C ash Value Book Va lue Per Share Cash Per Share Net C ash Per Sh are Tangibl e Boo k value Sources: Company reports & Barcla ys Capital estimates Note: All numbers in USD MM un less otherwi se noted Q1 Q2 Fiscal 2 008 Q3 Q4E Q1 E Q 2E Fis cal 200 9 Q3E Q 4E Q1E Q 2E Fisca l 2010 Q 3E Q 4E

$110 $2 6 $9 12 % $1 9 $5 4 69.4% $4 5 $1 $264 $6 6 $2 $0 $0 -----------$333 == === = $122 $0 $8 11 % $6 $3 $2 $140 $0 $0 $0 $1 $141 $0 $0 -----------$192 -----------$333 == === = $1 21.8 0% ($ 0.0 ) $ 0.0

$12 4 $29 $6 5% $16 $42 3 7.5 % $39 $4 $26 0 $84 $2 $1 $0 -----------$34 6 ==== == $12 3 $0 $11 10% $7 $4 $1 $14 6 $0 $0 $0 $1 $14 7 $0 $0 -----------$19 9 -----------$34 6 ==== == $123.2 1% $1.4 $0.0

$122 $57 $16 14% $11 $41 34.4% $34 $18 $300 $88 $2 $0 $42 -----------$432 == ==== $103 $15 $15 13% $2 $5 $1 $141 $1 $31 $55 $1 $230 $0 $0 -----------$202 -----------$432 == ==== $10 4.3 -15% ($18.9) $ 0.0

$1 42 $27 $15 40% $11 $29 80% $34 $18 $2 77 $93 $2 $0 $42 -----------$4 14 === === $1 03 $15 $5 15% $2 $5 $1 $1 32 $1 $31 $55 $1 $2 20 $0 $0 -----------$1 93 -----------$4 14 === === $104 .3 0% $0.0 $0.0

$ 148 $ 93 $27 $ 27 $8 $ 24 40% 4 0% $11 $ 11 $16 $ 47 80% 8 0% $34 $ 34 $18 $ 18 $ 264 $255 $95 $103 $2 $2 $0 $0 $42 $ 42 ------------ -----------$ 404 $403 === === = ==== = $ 103 $15 $3 15% $2 $5 $1 $ 129 $1 $31 $55 $1 $ 218 $0 $0 $103 $ 15 $9 1 5% $2 $5 $1 $135 $1 $ 31 $ 55 $1 $224 $0 $0

$73 $27 $27 35% $11 $53 70% $34 $18 $24 4 $11 4 $2 $0 $42 -----------$40 2 === === $10 3 $15 $11 15% $2 $5 $1 $13 8 $1 $31 $55 $1 $22 6 $0 $0 -----------$17 6 -----------$40 2 === === $104.3 0% $0.0 $0.0

$37 $67 $55 $27 $27 $27 $33 $15 $17 30% 10% 10% $11 $11 $11 $76 $62 $68 70% 40% 40% $34 $34 $34 $18 $18 $18 $ 236 $23 5 $231 $ 128 $14 2 $156 $2 $2 $2 $0 $0 $0 $42 $42 $42 ------------ ------------ -----------$ 409 $42 1 $432 == ==== = === == == ==== $ 103 $15 $16 15% $2 $5 $1 $ 142 $1 $31 $55 $1 $ 231 $0 $0 $10 3 $15 $23 15% $2 $5 $1 $14 9 $1 $31 $55 $1 $23 8 $0 $0 $103 $15 $26 15% $2 $5 $1 $152 $1 $31 $55 $1 $240 $0 $0

$ 43 $ 27 $ 18 1 0% $ 11 $ 73 4 0% $ 34 $ 18 $225 $172 $2 $0 $ 42 -----------$441 = ==== = $103 $ 15 $ 27 1 5% $2 $5 $1 $154 $1 $ 31 $ 55 $1 $242 $0 $0 -----------$199 -----------$441 = ==== = $ 104.3 0% $0.0 $0.0

$28 $27 $20 10% $11 $80 40% $34 $18 $219 $189 $2 $0 $42 -----------$452 == ==== $103 $15 $30 15% $2 $5 $1 $156 $1 $31 $55 $1 $245 $0 $0 -----------$207 -----------$452 == ==== $10 4.3 0% $ 0.0 $ 0.0

------------ -----------$ 186 $179 ------------ -----------$ 404 $403 === === = ==== = $104 .3 0% $0.0 $0.0 $ 104.3 0% $0.0 $0.0

------------ ------------ -----------$ 178 $18 3 $191 ------------ ------------ -----------$ 409 $42 1 $432 == ==== = === == == ==== $10 4.3 0% $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $104.3 0% $0.0 $0.0 $10 4.3 0% $ 0.0 $ 0.0

1% (5%) 1% 1% 1% 0 .92 11 5.2 70

6% (2 %) 4% 5% 3% 1.29 5 9 .6 38

1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1 .10 12 1 0.6 35

(17%) (2 %) (8 %) (12%) (23%) 0.35 37 5.1 71

(16%) (7%) (8%) (12%) (37%) 0.20 37 5.0 73

(1 4%) (1 2%) (6%) (8%) (1 0%) 0.5 9 37 4.9 75

(8 %) (14%) (4 %) (4 %) (5 %) 0.76 32 5.4 68

4% (9%) 2% 2% 2% 1.06 27 5.1 71

11% (2%) 5% 6% 3% 1.47 9 9 .1 40

17 % 6% 8% 9% 5% 1.58 9 9.0 41

15% 12% 7% 8% 4% 1.6 6 9 9.1 40

17 % 15 % 8% 8% 4% 1 .77 9 9.1 40

1.9 1.5 $124 0 .0% 38.8% 63.5% -2.3 5.9

1.8 1.5 $11 4 0.0% 3 8.2 % 6 1.9 % -5 .5 5 .4

1.3 1.8 $158 0 .4% 34.1% 51.8% -4.2 0.9

1.3 1.9 $1 45 0.5% 3 5.1 % 5 4.0 % 2.6 4.8

1.2 1.9 $ 135 0.5% 36.0% 56.2% 2.3 3.6

1.1 1.5 $120 0.5 % 36.8% 58.2% 1.5 5.0

1.1 1.4 $1 07 0.5% 3 7.2 % 5 9.3 % 0.2 4.7

1.0 1.1 $94 0 .5% 37.0% 58.7% -2.5 4.0

1 .0 1 .2 $86 0.5% 36 .3% 57 .1% -4.2 2 .0

1.0 1.1 $79 0 .5% 35.3% 54.6% -5.8 1.0

0.9 1.0 $ 72 0.5 % 34.4% 52.5% -5.6 1.7

0.9 0.9 $63 0 .4% 33.5% 50.3% -6.1 1.9

$4.82 $2.78 ($0.29) $4.82

$ 4.9 9 $ 3.1 1 $ 0.0 2 $ 4.9 9

$4.99 $3.02 $0.44 $4.99

$ 4.6 7 $ 3.4 3 $ 0.9 1 $ 4.6 7

$4.38 $3.50 $1.04 $4.38

$4.13 $2.15 ($0.25) $4.13

$ 3.9 6 $ 1.6 5 ($ 0.70 ) $ 3.9 6

$3.92 $0.81 ($1.49) $3.92

$3 .94 $1 .45 ($0 .80) $3 .94

$4.03 $1.17 ($1.03) $4.03

$4.10 $0.89 ($1.27) $4.10

$4.20 $0.58 ($1.54) $4.20

Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

273

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 297: STP Earnings Drivers


FYE: December Annual Capacity (MW) Quar ter ly Capacity (MW) Available Capacity (MW) Q1 540.0 135.0 98.6 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 660.0 165.0 116.5 750.0 187.5 145.9 Q4 1000.0 250.0 112.5 Fiscal 2008E Q1E 1000.0 250.0 125.0 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E 1000.0 250.0 174.0 1000.0 250.0 195.0 Q4E 1000.0 250.0 210.0 Fiscal 2009E

Revenues PV Modules Wafer to modules Cell to modules Other PV cel ls PV integrati on services Total revenue MSK revenue Total (ex-MSK) revenue COGS PV Modules Wafer to modules Cell to modules Other PV cel ls PV integrati on services Total COGS Gr oss Profit PV Modules Wafer to modules Cell to modules Other Total profit Gr os s Mar gin (%) PV Modules Wafer to modules Cell to modules Other Total Mar gin Output (MW) PV Modules Wafer to modules Cell to modules Other PV cel ls PV integrati on services Total output Silicon Breakdown Spot Contract Costs ($/W) Spot Contract Processing Cos ts Silicon Pr ices ($/kg) Spot Contract Conver sion Efficiency Gr ams/Watt Check ASP ($/Watt) PV Modules y/y (%) q/q (%) $ $ $ $ $

432.9 414.7 18.2 1.6 1.6 0.0 434.5 0.0 434.5 334.7 318.1 16.6 1.9 336.6 98.2 96.6 1.6 -0.3 97.9 22.7% 23.3% 8.8% -18.8% 22.5% 110.0 106.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 110.0 50% 50% 3.08 1.44 0.89 0.74 290.0 180.0 16.6% 9.94 3.06 3.95 $ $ $ $ $

480.0 480.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 480.0 0.0 480.0 364.3 364.3 0.0 0.0 364.3 115.7 115.7 0.0 0.0 115.7 24.1% 24% 7% 10% 24.1% 116.5 116.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 116.5 50% 50% 3.13 1.49 0.89 0.74 300.0 180.0 16.6% 9.94 3.13 4.12 $ 9% 4% $ $ $ $

594.5 574.8 19.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 594.5 0.0 594.5 469.0 450.7 18.3 0.0 469.0 125.5 124.2 1.4 0.0 125.5 21.1% 22% 7% 10% 21.1% 150.9 145.9 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 150.9 45% 55% 3.11 1.34 1.04 0.73 110.1 300.0 190.0 16.6% 9.94 3.11 3.94 $ 7% -4% $ $ $ $

414.3 414.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 414.3 0.0 414.3 411.8 411.8 0.0 0.0 411.8 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.6% 1% 7% 10% 0.6 % 120.1 120.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.1 25% 75% 3.43 $ 0.81 1.83 0.80 96.1 325.0 245.0 16.6% 9.94 3.43 3.45 $ -5% -12%

1921.7 1883.8 37.9 1.6 1.6 0.0 1923.3

350.6 350.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 350.6 0.0

480.3 480.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 480.3 0.0 480.3 405.9 405.9 0.0 0.0 405.9 74.5 74.5 0.0 0.0 74.5 15.5% 16% 9% 15% 15.5% 174.0 174.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 174.0 26% 74% $ $ $ $ 2.33 0.47 1.07 0.80 180.0 145.0 16.6% 9.94 2.33 2.76 $ -33% -2% $ $ $ $

522.5 522.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 522.5 0.0 522.5 436.3 436.3 0.0 0.0 436.3 86.2 86.2 0.0 0.0 86.2 16.5% 17% 9% 15% 16.5% 195.0 195.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 195.0 30% 70% 2.24 0.43 1.01 0.80 145.0 145.0 16.6% 9.94 2.24 2.68 $ -32% -3% $ $ $ $

550.5 550.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 550.5 0.0 550.5 451.4 451.4 0.0 0.0 451.4 99.1 99.1 0.0 0.0 99.1 18.0% 18% 9% 15% 18.0% 210.0 210.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 210.0 10% 90% 2.15 0.14 1.21 0.80 145.0 135.0 16.6% 9.94 2.15 2.62 $ -24% -2% $

1903.9 1903.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1903.9

1923.3 1579.8 1544.8 34.9 1.9 1581 .7 341.9 338.9 3.0 -0.3 341.6

350.6 303.2 303.2 0.0 0.0 303.2 47.3 47.3 0.0 0.0 47.3 13.5% 14% 9% 15% 13.5%

497.5 488.5 9.0

497.5 43% 58% 3.19 $ $ $ $

125.0 125.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 125.0 22% 78% 2.43 0.39 1.24 0.80 180.0 160.0 16.6% 9.94 2.43

704.0 704.0 0.0

704.0 22% 78% 2.29

162.5 146.3

3.87

2.80 $ -29% -19%

2.72 -30%

Sour ces: Company reports & Barc lays Capi tal es ti mates

Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted

274

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 298: STP Income Statement


FYE : Dece mber Rev enue QoQ Yo Y Cos t of Good s Gr oss Profit R&D Sell ing , Ge nera l & Admin . Ope rating Ex pe ns es Ope rating Income Non opera ting (inc ome) ex pe ns e: Intere st in come (e xpe nse) Oth er in come (e xpen se) ($ 4.0) $ 2.1 ($5 .2 ) ($3 .8 ) ($ 7.9) ( $19 .8 ) ($8 .0 ) ($2 2.9) ($ 8.0) $ 2.5 ($8 .0 ) $3.0 ($ 8.0) $ 3.0 ($8 .0 ) $3.0 ( $25 .0 ) ( $44 .4 ) ($3 2.0) $1 1.5 Q1 $4 34.5 9 .3 % 76.1% $3 38.1 $96 .4 $ 2.8 $31 .8 $34 .6 $61 .8 Fisc al 200 8 Q2 Q3 $ 480 .2 $5 94.4 10 .5% 23.8% 51 .3% 53.7% $ 364 .4 $ 115 .8 $3.3 $3 5.1 $3 8.4 $7 7.4 $4 66.1 $1 28.3 $ 4.7 $36 .6 $41 .3 $87 .1 Q4 $ 414 .4 -30 .3% 4.2% $ 412 .1 $2.4 $4.5 $4 1.6 $4 6.2 ($4 3.8) Q1E $3 50.6 - 15.4% - 19.3% $3 03.2 $47 .3 $ 4.0 $42 .4 $46 .4 $ 0.9 Fisc al 200 9E Q2 E Q3E $ 480 .3 $5 22.5 37 .0% 8 .8 % 0.0% - 12.1% $ 405 .9 $7 4.5 $4.5 $3 9.4 $4 3.9 $3 0.6 $4 36.3 $86 .2 $ 4.5 $41 .8 $46 .3 $39 .9 Q4 E $ 550 .5 5.4% 32 .8% $ 451 .4 $9 9.1 $4.5 $3 9.6 $4 4.1 $5 5.0 Fisc al 2 00 8 $ 1,92 3.5 42.7% $ 1,58 0.6 $3 42.9 $15 .3 $1 45.1 $1 60.4 $1 82.5 Fis ca l 20 09E $1 ,9 03.9 -1.0% $1 ,5 96.8 $ 307 .1 $1 7.5 $ 163 .2 $ 180 .7 $ 126 .3

Non opera ting (inc ome) ex pe ns e Inc ome (los s) before ta xes Inc ome Ta x Expens e Net Income (loss ) b4 minority int. Mino rity In te rest Equ ity i n (lo ss) e arn ing s of a ffi lia te s Net income EPS basi c i nco me (lo ss) p er ADS EPS dilute d income (loss ) per ADS Weig hted a vera ge sh ares u sed Avg Sha res - Fu lly Dilu te d (M) Per cent of Sa le s Gr oss Marg in In creme ntal Gro ss Ma rgi n R&D SG&A Op era ti ng Inco me Net Incom e Ta x Rate

$ 1.9 $60 .0 $ 5.5 $54 .5 $ 1.3 $ 0.0 $55 .8 $0.36 $0.33 153 .1 173 .8

$9.0 $6 8.4 $3.5 $6 4.9 $0.4 $0.0 $6 5.2 $0 .42 $0 .38 15 3.9 18 5.2

$27 .6 $59 .4 $ 3.7 $55 .8 $ 0.1 $ 0.0 $55 .9 $0.36 $0.33 155 .8 185 .5

$3 0.9 ($7 4.7) ($8 .9 ) ($6 5.8) ($0 .4 ) $0.3 ($6 5.9) ($0 .42) ($0 .42) 15 5.8 15 5.9

$ 5.5 ($ 4.6) ($ 0.5) ($ 4.1) $ 0.0 $ 0.0 ($ 4.1) ( $0.03 ) ( $0.03 ) 155 .8 156 .0

$5.0 $2 5.6 $2.8 $2 2.8 $0.0 $0.0 $2 2.8 $0 .15 $0 .15 15 5.8 15 6.1

$ 5.0 $34 .9 $ 3.8 $31 .1 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $31 .1 $0.20 $0.20 155 .8 156 .1

($2 .5 ) $5 7.5 $6.3 $5 1.1 $0.0 $0.0 $5 1.1 $0 .33 $0 .33 15 5.8 15 6.1

$69 .4 $1 13.1 $ 3.8 $1 09.3 $ 1.4 $ 0.3 $1 11.0 $0.72 $0.62 154 .7 175 .1

$1 3.0 $ 113 .3 $1 2.5 $ 100 .9 $0.0 $0.0 $ 100 .9 $0 .65 $0 .65 15 5.8 15 6.1

22.2% 34.2% 0 .6 % 7 .3 % 14.2% 12.5% 9 .2 %

24 .1% 42 .5% 0.7% 7.3% 16 .1% 13 .5% 5.1%

21.6% 11.0% 0 .8 % 6 .2 % 14.6% 9 .4 % 6 .1 %

0.6% 70 .0% 1.1% 10 .0% -10 .6% -15 .9% 11 .9%

13.5% 33.2% 1 .1 % 12.1% 0 .3 % -1 .2 % 11.0%

15 .5% 20 .9% 0.9% 8.2% 6.4% 4.7% 11 .0%

16.5% 27.9% 0 .9 % 8 .0 % 7 .6 % 5 .9 % 11.0%

18 .0% 46 .0% 0.8% 7.2% 10 .0% 9.3% 11 .0%

17.8% 22.6% 0 .8 % 7 .5 % 9 .5 % 5 .7 % 3 .3 % Fisc al 2 00 8 $2 21.8 30 3.8% 11.5% 221 .8 $3 47.9 18.1% $39 .3 2 .5 % ($1 19.5 )

16 .1% 0.9% 8.6% 6.6% 5.3% 11 .0% Fis ca l 20 09E $ 158 .3 -5 91.4 % 8.3% 15 8.3 $ 147 .0 7.7% $3 1.9 2.0% ($9 7.7)

FYE : Dece mber Pro Forma EBITDA % Change Y/Y % Change Q/Q % Sales LTM EBITDA Capital Spending % of S ales Depr eciation % of COGS FCF Ops Est. (CFO-Cape x)

Q1 $69 .5 12 1.4% 26.6% 16.0% $2 28.6 $63 .2 14.5% $ 7.7 2 .3 % ($1 37.8 )

Fisc al 200 8 Q2 Q3 $8 7.2 $97 .3 1 06.3 % 57.4% 25 .4% 11.5% 18 .2% 16.4% $ 273 .5 $3 09.0 $7 3.2 15 .2% $9 .8 2.7% ($4 0.9) $1 02.4 6 .5 % $10 .2 2 .0 % ($1 86.9 )

Q4 ($3 2.2) -1 58 .6 % -1 33 .1 % -7.8% $ 221 .8 $ 10 9.1 6.5% $1 1.6 2.0% $ 246 .1

Q1E $ 7.0 - 90.0% -12 1.6% 2 .0 % $1 59.3 $33 .0 6 .0 % $ 6.1 2 .0 % ( $96 .7 )

Fisc al 200 9E Q2 E Q3E $3 8.7 $48 .6 -55 .6% - 50.0% 4 54.8 % 25.7% 8.1% 9 .3 % $ 110 .7 $62 .1 $3 7.5 6.0% $8 .1 2.0% $4 4.0 $38 .4 6 .0 % $ 8.7 2 .0 % ( $41 .7 )

Q4 E $6 4.0 -2 98 .6 % 31 .5% 11 .6% $ 158 .3 $3 8.1 6.0% $9 .0 2.0% ($3 .2 )

Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

275

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 299: STP Balance Sheet


F YE: Decemb er
BALANCE SHE ET
Ass ets Current As sets: Cash and cash eq uivale nts Restricted Cash Accounts rece ivable , net % Sa les Inventories % Sales Valu e-added tax re co verable Advances to rel ated party suppl iers Other current assets Total Current A ssets Net PP&E Inta ngib le assets, net Other non -cu rre nt assets Total Ass ets

Q1

Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3

Q4

Q1E

Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E

Q4E

$1 ,02 0 $9 8 $271 62 % $178 41 % $109 $8 2 $151 $1 ,90 9 $329 $107 $396

$60 5 $11 6 $21 9 46% $18 3 38% $14 3 $49 $26 1 $1,575 $41 2 $15 8 $85 0

$ 395 $ 124 $ 233 39 % $ 248 42 % $ 202 $77 $ 301 $1,579 $ 575 $ 161 $1,025

$508 $ 71 $213 5 1% $232 5 6% $ 76 $ 57 $166 $ 1,3 22 $684 $177 $ 1,0 66

$4 11 $71 $2 11 60% $1 99 57% $76 $57 $1 66 $1,191 $7 11 $1 77 $1,066

$455 $7 1 $263 55 % $267 56 % $7 6 $5 7 $166 $1 ,35 4 $741 $177 $1 ,06 6

$41 3 $71 $28 6 55% $28 7 55% $76 $57 $16 6 $1,356 $77 0 $17 7 $1,066

$ 410 $71 $ 302 55 % $ 297 54 % $76 $57 $ 166 $1,378 $ 800 $ 177 $1,066

--- ------- -$2 ,74 2

------- ----$2,995

---- ------- $3,341

- ------- ---$ 3,2 49

------ -----$3,145

--- ------- -$3 ,33 7

------- ----$3,369

---- ------- $3,420

LIAB. & SHRHLDRS' EQUITY


S-Term De bt Accounts p ayable Other cu rre nt li abil ities Total Current Liabilities: L-Term Deb t Other non -cu rre nt li abil ities Total Liabilitie s Minori ty interest Shar eholders ' Equity Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity

======
$443 $7 3 $9 7 $612 $1 ,08 8 $5 8 $1 ,75 8 $1 8

======
$55 6 $76 $11 4 $74 6 $1,085 $80 $1,911 $6

======
$ 704 $85 $ 162 $ 950 $1,082 $ 166 $2,198 $8

======
$638 $117 $221 $977 $987 $179 $ 2,1 43 $8

======
$6 38 $1 17 $2 21 $9 77 $9 87 $1 81 $2,145

======
$638 $117 $221 $977 $987 $182 $2 ,14 6

======
$63 8 $11 7 $22 1 $97 7 $98 7 $18 4 $2,148

======
$ 638 $ 117 $ 221 $ 977 $ 987 $ 185 $2,149

--- ------- -$965

------- ----$1,077

---- ------- $1,135

- ------- ---$ 1,0 97

------ -----$1,000

--- ------- -$1 ,19 1

------- ----$1,221

---- ------- $1,271

--- ------- -$2 ,74 2

------- ----$2,995

---- ------- $3,341

- ------- ---$ 3,2 49

------ -----$3,145

--- ------- -$3 ,33 7

------- ----$3,369

---- ------- $3,420

======
Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change Che ck-su m $1,530.6 82 % $6 88.7 $ 0.0

======
$1 ,64 0.7 7% $110.1 $0.0

======
$1,786.0 9% $14 5.3 $0 .0

======
$1,625 .6 -9% ($ 160.5) $0.0

======
$ 1,6 25.6 0% $0.0 $0.0

======
$1,625.6 0% $ 0.0 $ 0.0

======
$1 ,62 5.6 0% $0.0 $0.0

======
$1,625.6 0% $0 .0 $0 .0

Perf ormance Metrics


Profitability Ratios Return On Equ ity Return on Avg Eq uity Return On Assets Return On Ne t Asse ts Return On Sal es Effic iency Ratios Sale s / Total Asse ts A/R Da ys Sale s Ou t Inventory Turns Days of Inventory 23 % 22 % 8% 13 % 13 % 24% 22% 9% 11% 14% 20 % 20 % 7% 8% 9% (24%) 1 0% (8%) (10%) (16%) (2%) 5% (1%) (1%) (1%) 8% 1% 3% 3% 5% 10% (1% ) 4% 4% 6% 16 % 8% 6% 7% 9%

0 .63 57 7.6 48

0.64 42 8 .0 46

0.71 36 7.5 48

0.5 1 47 7.1 51

0.45 55 6.1 60

0 .58 50 6.1 60

0.62 50 6 .1 60

0.64 50 6.1 60

Liquidity R atios Curre nt Ratio Quick Rati o Net Wo rki ng Capi tal ($M) Lo ng-Te rm Debt / Equity Deb t/Capi ta l Tota l Debt / Eq uity EBITDA/Intere st EBITDA- Capex/Interes t Book & Cash Va lue Book Value Per Share Cash Per Share Net Cash Per Sha re Tangi ble Book va lue
S ources: Company reports & B arclays Capital est imates Not e: Al l Num bers i n US D M M un less oth erwise not ed

1.1 2.8 $1 ,2 97 11 2.7% 61.3% 15 8.6% -1 7.5 -1.6

0 .8 1 .9 $8 29 100.7% 60 .4 % 152.3% -16.7 -2 .7

0.7 1.4 $ 629 95.4% 61.2% 157 .4% -12 .4 0.7

0.6 1.1 $34 5 90.0% 59.7% 1 48.2% 4.0 17.7

0.6 1.0 $2 14 9 8.7 % 6 1.9 % 162.5% -0.9 3.3

0.6 1.1 $378 82.9% 57.7% 13 6.4 % -4.8 -0.1

0 .6 1 .1 $3 79 80 .9% 57 .1% 133.1% -6 .1 -1 .3

0.6 1.1 $ 401 77.7% 56.1% 127 .9% -8.0 -3.2

$5.55 $5.87 ($2.94) $5.55

$5 .8 1 $3 .2 7 ($5 .59 ) $5 .8 1

$6.12 $2.13 ($7.50) $6.12

$7.04 $3.26 ($7.17 ) $7.04

$ 6.4 1 $ 2.6 4 ($ 7.7 9) $ 6.4 1

$7.63 $2.92 ($7.50) $7.63

$7 .82 $2 .65 ($7 .77 ) $7 .82

$8.14 $2.63 ($7.79) $8.14

276

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 300: ENER Ea rnings Drivers


Fiscal 2009E FY E: June Q1 Q2 Q3E Q4E Fiscal 2009E Q1E Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fiscal 2010E

Annual Capacity (MW)

178.0

178.0

200.0

200.0

200.0

300.0

360.0

420.0

Quart erly Capacity (MW)

44.5

44.5

50.0

50.0

50.0

75.0

90.0

105.0

Total Production (MW)

29.5

32.5

22.5

22.5

107.0 48%

30.0

41.3

72.0

89.3

232.5 117%

ASPs ($/W) Y /Y ( %)

3.04 $ - 26%

2.99 $ -11%

2.87 $ - 5%

2.77 -10%

2.92 $ -14%

2.71 -11%

2.63 $ -12%

2.50 -13%

2.33 $ -16%

2.54 -13%

S olar P roduct Revenues Q/Q (%) Y /Y ( %)

89.7 $ 17% 111%

97.3 $ 8% 89%

64.7 $ -34% - 1%

62.4 -4% -19%

314.1 $

81.2 30%

108.6 $ 34% 12%

180.1 66% 178%

207.9 $ 15% 233%

577.8

33%

-9%

84%

Ot her Revenues

6.1 $

5.8 $

4.0 $

4.0

19.9 $

4.0

4.0 $

4.0

4.0 $

16.0

Total Revenues

95.8 $

103.1 $

68.7 $

66.4

333.9 $

85.2

112.6 $

184.1

211.9 $

593.8

Cost per Watt Y /Y (%)

2.09 $ - 40%

1.94 $ -31%

1.98 $ -15%

2.14 -1%

2.04 $ -24%

1.99 -5%

1.92 $ -1%

1.88 -5%

1.88 $ -12%

1.92 -6%

Cost of revenues Cost of product revenues Cost of rev s fr om pdt dev agreements and other costs

$ $ $

63.7 $ 61.7 $ 2.0 $

66.0 $ 63.1 $ 2.9 $

47.4 $ 44.5 $ 2.9 $

50.9 48.0 2.9

228.0 $ $ $

62.5 59.6 2.9

$ $ $

82.2 $ 79.3 $ 2.9 $

138.2 135.3 2.9

$ $ $

170.6 $ 167.7 2.9

453.4

S olar Gross Margin

31.3%

35.2%

31.2%

23.0%

26.7%

27.1%

24.8%

19.3%

Total Gross Margin

33.6%

36.0%

31.0%

23.3%

26.7%

27.1%

24.9%

19.5%

S ources: Company reports & Barclays Capital estimates Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted

May 01, 2009

277

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 301: ENER Income Statement


FYE : June Revenue QoQ YoY Cos t of Goods Gross Profit General, A dmin. & Mktg. P reproduc tion costs R&D and Patents Res tr ucturing and other costs Operating Expenses Operating Income Nonoperating (income) expense: Interest expense (income) Other , net Nonoperating (income) expense Income (loss) before taxes,equity income JV s Cash Income Tax Income (loss) before equity income JV s Discont inued Operations M inorit y interests loss (income) Net Income (loss) Cumulative preferred stoc k dividends Net Income Percent of Revenue Basic EPS Diluted EPS Weighted av erage s hares used Avg Shares - Fully Diluted (M) P ercent of Sales Gross Margin Increm ental Gross Margin S G&A R&D Operating Income Net Income Tax Rate Q1 $95.8 16.2% 103.6% $63.1 $32.6 $14.4 $2.0 $2.2 $0.2 $18.8 $13.8 Fiscal 2009E Q2 Q3E $103.1 $68.7 7.7% -33.4% 82.7% -1.9% $66.0 $37.1 $17.2 $1.8 $2.0 $0.2 $21.2 $15.9 $47.4 $21.3 $14.0 $1.7 $2.0 $0.2 $17.9 $3.4 Q4E $66.4 -3.3% -19.4% $50.9 $15.4 $14.0 $1.0 $2.0 $2.0 $19.0 ($3.6) Q1E $85.2 28.4% -11.0% $62.5 $22.8 $15.0 $1.0 $2.0 $0.2 $18.2 $4.6 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E $112.6 $184.1 32.2% 63.4% 9.3% 168.0% $82.2 $30.5 $16.5 $1.0 $2.0 $0.2 $19.7 $10.8 $138.2 $45.8 $17.0 $2.0 $2.0 $0.2 $21.2 $24.6 Q4E $211.9 15.1% 219.1% $170.6 $41.3 $18.0 $2.0 $1.7 $0.2 $21.9 $19.4 FY 2009E $333.9 30.5% $227.5 $106.5 $59.7 $6.5 $8.1 $2.6 $77.0 $29.5 FY 2010E $593.8 77.8% $453.4 $140.4 $66.5 $6.0 $7.7 $0.8 $81.0 $59.4

$0.1 ($0.9) $1.1 $12.7 $0.1 $12.7 $0.0 $0.0 $12.7 $0.0 $12.661 13.2% $0.30 $0.29 42.2 43.1

$1.4 ($0.1) $1.5 $14.5 $0.2 $14.2 $0.0 $0.0 $14.2 $0.0 $14.2 13.8% $0.34 $0.33 42.4 43.3

$1.5 $0.0 $1.5 $1.9 $0.0 $1.8 $0.0 $0.0 $1.8 $0.0 $1.8 2.7% $0.04 $0.04 42.6 43.5

$1.5 $0.0 $1.5 ($5.1) ($0.1) ($5.0) $0.0 $0.0 ($5.0) $0.0 ($5.0) -7.5% ($0.12) ($0.11) 42.8 43.7

$1.5 $0.0 $1.5 $3.1 $0.5 $2.6 $0.0 $0.0 $2.6 $0.0 $2.6 3.0% $0.06 $0.06 43.0 43.9

$1.5 $0.0 $1.5 $9.3 $1.5 $7.8 $0.0 $0.0 $7.8 $0.0 $7.8 6.9% $0.18 $0.18 43.2 44.1

$2.0 $0.0 $2.0 $22.6 $3.6 $19.0 $0.0 $0.0 $19.0 $0.0 $19.0 10.3% $0.44 $0.43 43.4 44.3

$2.0 $0.0 $2.0 $17.4 $2.8 $14.6 $0.0 $0.0 $14.6 $0.0 $14.6 6.9% $0.33 $0.33 43.6 44.5

$4.5 ( $1.0) $5.5 $24.0 $0.2 $23.8 $0.0 $0.0 $23.8 $0.0 $23.8 7.1% $0.56 $0.55 42.5 43.4

$7.0 $0.0 $7.0 $52.4 $8.4 $44.0 $0.0 $0.0 $44.0 $0.0 $44.0 7.4% $1.02 $1.00 43.3 44.2

34.1% 38.0% 15.1% 2.3% 14.4% 13.2% 0.0%

36.0% 61.6% 16.7% 1.9% 15.4% 13.8% 1.5%

31.0% 46.1% 20.4% 2.9% 4.9% 2.7% 1.5%

23.3% 253.0% 21.1% 3.0% -5.4% -7.5% 1.5%

26.7% 9.0% 17.6% 2.3% 5.3% 3.0% 16.0%

27.1% 28.2% 14.6% 1.8% 9.6% 6.9% 16.0%

24.9% 21.5% 9.2% 1.1% 13.4% 10.3% 16.0%

19.5% -16.4% 8.5% 0.8% 9.1% 6.9% 16.0%

31.9% 17.9% 2.4% 8.8% 7.1% 0.9% FY 2009E $60.6 239% 18.1%

23.6% 11.2% 1.3% 10.0% 7.4% 16.0% FY 2010E $99.4 64% 16.7%

FYE : June P ro Forma EBITDA % Change Y/Y % Change Q/Q % Sales LTM EBITDA Capital Spending % of Sales Depreciation % of COGs FCF Ops E st. (CFO - CapEx)

Q1 $20.7 -431.3% 41.6% 21.7% $44.9 $46.9 49.0% $7.0 11.0% ($20.6)

Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E $24.0 $11.4 -1054.6% -5.0% 15.5% -52.4% 23.2% 16.6% $71.3 $70.7 $56.3 54.6% $8.0 12.2% ($72.0) $58.8 85.6% $8.0 16.9% ($35.6)

Q4E $4.5 -69.4% -60.7% 6.7% $60.6 $58.8 88.6% $8.0 15.8% ($54.9)

Q1E $14.6 -29.8% 225.2% 17.1% $54.4 $35.0 41.1% $10.0 16.0% ($29.7)

Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E $20.8 $34.6 -13.2% 204.0% 42.8% 66.6% 18.5% 18.8% $51.2 $74.5 $35.0 31.1% $10.0 12.2% ($27.8) $35.0 19.0% $10.0 7.2% ($33.6)

Q4E $29.4 556.4% -15.2% 13.9% $99.4 $35.0 16.5% $10.0 5.9% ($21.1)

$220.8 66.1% $31.1 13.7% ($183.1)

$140.0 23.6% $40.0 8.8% ($140.0)

Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

278

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 302: ENER Balance Sheet


FYE: June
B ALANC E SHEET As sets C urr ent As sets: C ash and cash eq uival ents Sh ort-term inve stmen ts R estri cte d Inve stmen ts Accou nts rece ivabl e, le ss al low for d.a. % Sal es Inven to ries % Sales Assets held for sale Pre paid a nd other current assets Tota l Curre nt Asse ts N et PP&E Other assets Tota l Ass ets LIAB. & SHRH LDR S' EQUITY S-Term D ebt & Borrow ings Accou nts pa yable % sal es Sa larie s, wag es a nd amou nts wi thh eld from emplo yees R estru ctu ring reserve D eferred reven ues C urrent portion o f deferre d patent licen se fee Tota l Curre nt Liabilities: L -Te rm De bt L T Restructurin g Reserve L T Deferre d patent licen cse fee D eferred tax l iab ilitie s N onrefun dabl e Ad vance Roya lties and othe r li abil ities Tota l Lia bilities Min ority i nterests Share holder s' Equity Tota l Liabilities & Shar eholde rs' Equity Tota l Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change C heck-sum

Q1

Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E

Q4E

Q1E

Fis cal 201 0E Q2E Q3E

Q4 E

$46 7 $ 11 $0 $ 63 6 6% $ 34 3 6% $2 $7 $58 4 $44 3 $ 47 -----------$ 1,0 75 ====== $0 $ 58 6 1% $4 $1 $3 $3 $ 68 $31 6 $0 $0 $0 $ 34 $4 18.851 -----------$65 6 -----------$ 1,0 75 ====== $ 316.3 ($1.1) $0.0

$423 $ 11 $0 $ 70 6 7% $ 44 4 3% $1 $0 $549 $486 $ 64 -----------$1 ,1 00 ====== $0 $ 74 7 2% $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 74 $349 $0 $0 $0 $0 $423 -----------$676 -----------$1,099.50 7 ====== $3 49.5 $33 .2 $ 0.0

$3 87 $11 $0 $46 67% $29 43% $1 $0 $4 75 $5 37 $64 -----------$1,077 ====== $0 $49 72% $0 $0 $0 $0 $49 $3 49 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 99 -----------$6 78 -----------$1,077 ====== $34 9.5 $0 .0 $0 .0

$3 32 $11 $0 $45 67% $28 43% $1 $0 $4 18 $5 88 $64 -----------$1,070 ====== $0 $48 72% $0 $0 $0 $0 $48 $3 49 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 97 -----------$6 73 -----------$1,070 ====== $349 .5 $0.0 $0.0

$30 2 $ 11 $0 $ 58 6 7% $ 36 4 3% $1 $0 $40 9 $61 3 $ 64 -----------$ 1,086 ====== $0 $ 61 7 2% $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 61 $34 9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41 0 -----------$67 6 -----------$ 1,086 ====== $ 349.5 $0.0 $0.0

$27 5 $ 11 $0 $ 76 6 7% $ 48 4 3% $1 $0 $41 1 $63 8 $ 64 -----------$ 1,114 ====== $0 $ 81 7 2% $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 81 $34 9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43 0 -----------$68 3 -----------$ 1,114 ====== $ 349.5 $0.0 $0.0

$24 1 $ 11 $0 $12 4 6 7% $ 79 4 3% $1 $0 $45 6 $66 3 $ 64 -----------$ 1,184 ====== $0 $13 2 7 2% $0 $0 $0 $0 $13 2 $34 9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $48 1 -----------$70 2 -----------$ 1,184 ====== $ 349.5 $0.0 $0.0

$220 $1 1 $0 $143 67 % $9 1 43 % $1 $0 $466 $688 $6 4 -----------$1 ,2 18 ====== $0 $152 72 % $0 $0 $0 $0 $152 $349 $0 $0 $0 $0 $501 -----------$717 -----------$1 ,2 18 ====== $3 49.5 $ 0.0 $ 0.0

Pr ofitability R atios R etu rn On Equ ity R etu rn on Avg Eq uity R etu rn On Assets R etu rn On Ne t Assets R etu rn On Sal es Efficiency Ratios Sal es / Total Asse ts A/R Days Sales Out Inven to ry Turns D ays o f Inventory Liquidity R atios C urrent Ratio Quick Ra tio N et Workin g Capi ta l ($M) L ong-Term Deb t / Equ ity D ebt/C apital Total De bt / Eq uity EBITD A/Interest EBITD A- Ca pex/In te rest Op Inc / Asse ts, exc. Ca sh B ook & Cash Va lue Boo k Va lue Per Share C ash Per Sh are N et Ca sh Pe r Sha re Tang ibl e Bo ok va lue Sou rces: Co mpany repo rts & Ba rclays Capi ta l e sti mate s

8% 4% 5% 8% 1 3% 0.3 6 60 7.4 49 1.4 8.0 $574 48.2% 32.5% 48.2% 162 .0 -204 .4 8.5% $ 15.24 $ 11.11 $3.76 $ 14.14

8% 7% 5% 9% 1 4% 0 .3 8 62 6.0 61 1.3 6.8 $549 51.7% 34.1% 51.7% 1 7.2 -2 3.2 8 .6 % $1 5.63 $1 0.03 $1.95 $1 4.14

1% 6% 1% 1% 3% 0.26 62 6.5 56 1.2 9.1 $ 475 5 1.5% 3 4.0% 5 1.5% 7.6 -31 .6 1.1% $15 .60 $ 9.16 $ 1.12 $14 .12

(3 %) 4% (2 %) (3 %) (7 %) 0.25 62 7 .2 51 1 .1 8 .2 $4 18 51 .9 % 34 .2 % 51 .9 % 3 .0 -36.2 -2.7% $15.42 $7 .8 6 ($0 .1 4) $13.94

2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 0.31 62 6.9 53 1 .0 6 .1 $40 9 51 .7% 34 .1% 51 .7% 9.7 -13.6 1.3% $ 15.41 $7 .15 ($0.82 ) $ 13.94

5% 1% 3% 4% 7% 0.40 62 6.8 53 1 .0 4 .5 $41 1 51 .1% 33 .8% 51 .1% 13.9 -9 .5 3.8% $ 15.51 $6 .49 ($1.45 ) $ 14.05

1 1% 4% 6% 8% 1 0% 0.62 62 7.1 52 0 .9 2 .9 $45 6 49 .7% 33 .2% 49 .7% NM NM 8.2% $ 15.87 $5 .70 ($2.20 ) $ 14.42

8% 6% 5% 6% 7% 0 .7 0 62 7.6 48 0.9 2.5 $466 48.7% 32.8% 48.7% NM NM 5 .9 % $1 6.13 $5.20 ($2.66) $1 4.68

May 01, 2009

279

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 303: GT Solar Revenue Drivers


FYE: March PV Business D SS Furnace Back log f or PV Produc ts ($MM) Orders ($MM) PV Revenues Pol y B usi ness C VD R eactors Back log f or Poly Produc ts ($MM) Orders ($, MM) Pol y R evenues Total revenues ($, MM) C ost of revenues C ost of PV % of Revenue C ost of Poly % of Revenues Total Gross Profits PV Poly Total Margin Q1 Fi scal 2008 Q2 Q3 Q4 Fiscal 2008 Q1 Fiscal 2009E Q2 Q3 Q4E Fiscal 2009E Q1E Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fiscal 2010E Q1E Fiscal 2011E Q2E Q3E Q4E Fiscal 2011E

447 240 15

505 140 82

670 180 15

648 77 99

648 637 244

598 7 57

541 83 140

493 63 109

411 68 150

411 221 457

359 68 120

315 76 120

316 76 75

335 84 65

335 304 380

351 100 65

383 100 68

417 104 70

449 108 76

449 412 279

200 23 0 15

300 100 0 82

418 118 0 15

659 241 0 99

659 482 0 244 0

664 5 0 57

873 209 0 140

837 58 96 205

837 0 0 150

837 272 96 552

837 0 0 120

887 50 0 120

838 50 99 174

765 75 148 213

765 175 247 627

725 75 115 180

670 75 131 199

611 75 134 204

545 75 140 216

545 300 520 799

10.0 61% 0. 0 66% 10.0

46.7 61% 0. 0 66% 46.7

46. 7 82% 0.0 66% 46. 7

46.7 61% -1. 7 66% 45.0

150. 0 61% -1. 7 66% #

33.2 58% -0. 4 60% 32.8

78.8 56% 0. 0 60% 78.8

55.8 51% 59.9 63% 115. 7

93. 0 62% 0.0 60% 93. 0

260. 8 57% 59.4 66% 320. 3 #

74. 4 62% 0.0 60% 74. 4

74. 4 62% 0.0 60% 74. 4

46.5 62% 59.6 60% 106.1

40.3 62% 88.7 60% 129. 0

235.6 65% 148.3 66% 383.9

40.3 62% 68.8 60% 109.1

42.2 62% 78.3 60% 120. 5

43.4 62% 80.3 60% 123. 7

47. 1 62% 84. 3 60% 131.4

173. 0 65% 311. 8 66% 484. 7

148. 4 #

5. 3 0. 0 5. 3 34.7%

35.1 0. 0 35.1 42. 9%

-31.9 0.0 -31.9 -216. 7%

52.2 1. 7 53.9 54.5%

94.0 1.7

23.9 0. 4

61.4 0. 0

53.6 35.9 89.5 43.6%

57. 0 0.0 57. 0 38. 0%

195. 8 36.4 232. 2 42.0% #

45. 6 0.0 45. 6 38. 0%

45. 6 0.0 45. 6 38. 0%

28.5 39.8 68.3 39.1%

24.7 59.1 83.8 39.4%

144.4 98.9 243.3 38. 8%

24.7 45.9 70.6 39.3%

25.8 52.2 78.0 39.3%

26.6 53.6 80.2 39.3%

28. 9 56. 2 85. 1 39.3%

106. 0 207. 8 313. 9 39.3%

95.7 # 24.3 61.4 39.2% 42.6% 43.8%

Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Barclays Capital estimates

280

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 304: GT Solar Income Statement


Numbers in Mi ll ions

FYE: March R evenue QoQ Yo Y C ost of Goods Gross Profit R &D Sel lin g a nd Marketing Genera l And Admini strative Amortization of Intangi ble Asse ts Ope rating Expense s Ope rating Income N on oper ating (income) ex pense: Interest inco me (expen se ) Othe r in come (expe nse) N on oper ating (income) ex pense Income (loss ) before taxe s Income Tax Ex pense N et Inc ome (loss) Basi c in come (lo ss) per share ( i) D iluted income (loss) per share from Opera tio ns W ei ghted average shares used Av g Share s - Fully Diluted (M)

Q1 $57.1

Fisc al 200 9E Q2 Q3 $ 140.2 $205 .2 1 45.6% 4 6.4 %

Q4E $ 150.0 -26.9%

Q1E $120 .0 -2 0.0 % 110.2% $ 74.4 $ 45.6 $2.4 $4.8 $3.6 $0.8 $ 11.6 $ 34.0

Fisca l 2010 E Q2E Q3E $1 20.0 $174.4 0 .0% 45 .3% -14.4% -15 .0% $74.4 $45.6 $ 2.4 $ 6.8 $ 6.8 $ 0.8 $16.8 $28.8 $106.1 $6 8.3 $3.5 $9.9 $9.9 $0.8 $2 4.1 $4 4.1

Q4E $2 12.8 22.0% 41.9% $1 29.0 $83.8 $ 4.3 $12.1 $12.1 $ 0.8 $29.3 $54.5

Fisca l 2008 $ 244.1 3 05.9% $ 151.7 $92 .3 $10 .5 $10 .5 $21 .4 $3.0 $45 .4 $46 .9

Fiscal 20 09E $552 .5 126.4% $320 .3 $232 .2 $ 16.2 $ 20.5 $ 27.4 $3.1 $ 67.2 $165 .0

Fis cal 20 10E $627 .2 1 3.5 % $383 .9 $243 .3 $ 12.5 $ 33.7 $ 32.5 $3.0 $ 81.8 $161 .5

$32.8 $24.3 $3.8 $3.8 $7.8 $0.8 $16.2 $8.1

$78 .8 $61 .4 $4.0 $5.0 $8.3 $0.8 $18 .2 $43 .2

$115 .7 $ 89.5 $5.3 $5.6 $6.8 $0.8 $ 18.5 $ 71.0

$93.0 $57.0 $3.0 $6.0 $4.5 $0.8 $14.3 $42.7

$1.8 ($1 .1) ($0 .7) $8.9 $3.4 $5.5 $0.04 $0.04 142.3 147.7

$2.4 ($1.7) ($0.7) $43 .9 $15 .9 $28 .0 $0.20 $0.19 142 .4 145 .1

$0.2 ($1.3) $1.1 $ 69.9 $ 26.8 $ 43.1 $ 0.3 0 $ 0.3 0 1 42.8 1 44.0

$1.0 $0.0 ($ 1.0 ) $43.7 $17.3 $26.4 $0.19 $0.18 142.3 147.7

$1.0 $0.0 ($1.0) $ 35.0 $ 13.9 $ 21.2 $ 0.1 5 $ 0.1 4 1 42.3 1 47.7

$ 1.0 $ 0.0 ($ 1.0 ) $29.8 $11.8 $18.0 $0.13 $0.12 142.3 147.7

$1.0 $0.0 ($1.0) $4 5.1 $1 7.9 $2 7.3 $0 .19 $0 .18 14 2.3 14 7.7

$ 1.0 $ 0.0 ($ 1.0 ) $55.5 $22.0 $33.5 $0.24 $0.23 142.3 147.7

$4.9 ($1.2) ($3.7) $50 .6 $14 .5 $36 .1 $0.25 $0.25 142 .3 144 .1

$5.4 ($4.1) ($1.4) $166 .4 $ 65.9 $100 .5 $ 0.7 1 $ 0.6 9 1 42.4 1 46.1

$4.0 $0.0 ($4.0) $165 .5 $ 65.5 $ 99.9 $ 0.7 0 $ 0.6 8 1 42.3 1 47.7

Percent of Sales Gr oss Margin Incremental Gross Margin R&D Selling and M arketing General and Administrative Oper ating Income Net Inc ome Tax Rate

42.6% 6.7% 6.6% 13.6% 14.2% 9.6% 38.0%

43.8% 7.1 % 8.8 % 14.6% 30.8% 20.0% 36.2%

4 3.6 % 9.3% 9.9% 1 1.9 % 3 4.6 % 2 1.0 % 3 8.3 %

38.0% 2.0 % 4.0 % 3.0 % 28.5% 17.6% 39.6%

3 8.0 % 2.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2 8.4 % 1 7.6 % 3 9.6 %

38.0% 2 .0% 5 .7% 5 .7% 24.0% 15.0% 39.6%

39 .1% 2.0% 5.7% 5.7% 25 .3% 15 .6% 39 .6%

39.4% 2 .0% 5 .7% 5 .7% 25.6% 15.8% 39.6%

37.8% 4.3 % 4.3 % 8.8 % 18.6% 14.8% 28.6%

4 2.0 % 2.0% 5.7% 5.7% 2 9.9 % 1 8.2 % 3 9.6 %

3 8.8 % 2.0% 5.7% 5.7% 2 5.7 % 1 5.9 % 3 9.6 %

FYE: Dece mber Pro Forma EB ITDA % Cha nge Y/Y % Cha nge Q/Q % Sale s LTM EBITDA C apital Spe nding % of Sales D epre cia tion % of COGS FCF Ops Est. (PF EBITDA + N I -Cape x)

$9.2

$44 .4 381% 31.7% $44 .4 $2.5 1.8 % $1.2 1.6 % $43 .6

$ 72.3 63% 3 5.2 % $ 72.3 $2.3 1.1% $1.3 1.1% $ 71.3

$45.7 -37 % 30.5% $ 171.7 $ 4.5 3.0 % $ 3.0 2.0 % $ 167.2

16.2% $9.2 $3.8 6.7% $1.1 3.4% $6.5

$ 36.4 294.8% -20% 3 0.4 % $198 .9 $3.6 3.0% $2.4 2.0% $195 .3

$31.2 -29.8% -14 % 26.0% $1 85.6 $ 3.6 3 .0% $ 2.4 2 .0% $1 82.0

$4 7.6 -34 .1% 53% 27 .3% $161.0 $5.2 3.0% $3.5 2.0% $155.7

$58.8 28.6% 23 % 27.6% $1 74.0 $ 6.4 3 .0% $ 4.3 2 .0% $1 67.6

$51 .0 2081 .1% 20.9%

$171 .7 236.8% 3 1.1 %

$174 .0 1.4% 2 7.7 %

$4.5 1.8 % $4.1 2.7 % ($3.3)

$ 13.1 3.0% $ 11.0 2.0% $164 .0

$ 18.8 3.0% $ 12.5 2.0% $159 .2

Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Barclays Capital estimates, Company reports

May 01, 2009

281

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 305: GT Solar Balance Sheet


Numbers in Mil lions

Fiscal 2009E Q1 Q2 Q3 Q 4E Q1E

F YE: March Assets Cu rrent Assets: Cash and cash equivalents Restricted Cash - Current Accounts recei va ble, net % Sale s Invento ri es % Sales Deferred Costs Advances to rela ted invento ry purcha ses Notes Recie vabl e Valu e Added tax recoverable/refundabl e fed and state tax Deferred Income Taxes O ther current a ssets To tal Curren t Assets Net PP&E O ther non-current assets Restricted Cash - Long T erm Due fro m Realized Parties Intangible assets, net G oodwill To tal Assets

Fiscal 2010E Q 2E Q 3E

Q4E

$112.21 $132.51 $38.37 67% $63.92 1 12% $143.60 $120.96 $0.00 $0.00 $48.64 $5.77 $665.97 $13.92 $0.08 $0.00 $0.00 $8.23

$6.40 $103.30 $ 46.00 33 % $88 15 % $162.70 $154.80 $0.00 $0.00 $ 61.60 $4.90 $627.70 $ 16.00 $1.10 $0.00 $0.00 $7.50

$93.67 $27.62 $83.51 41% $ 128 15% $160.86 $153.42 $0.00 $0.00 $69.00 $4.37 $720.33 $17.63 $1.01 $0.00 $0.00 $6.71

$220.47 $2 7.62 $3 9.00 26% $23 15% $160.86 $153.42 $0.00 $0.00 $6 9.00 $4.37 $697.23 $1 9.13 $1.01 $0.00 $0.00 $6.71

$2 44.46 $27.62 $31.20 26% $18 15% $1 60.86 $1 53.42 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $69.00 $ 4.37 $7 08.92 $20.33 $ 1.01 $ 0.00

$0 .0 0
$ 6.71

$260.79 $27.62 $31.20 26% $18 15% $160.86 $153.42 $0.00 $0.00 $69.00 $4.37 $725.26 $21.53 $1.01 $0.00 $0.00 $6.71

$274.47 $ 27.62 $ 45.34 26 % $26 15 % $160.86 $153.42 $0.00 $0.00 $ 69.00 $4.37 $761.24 $ 23.28 $1.01 $0.00 $0.00 $6.71

$30 1.51 $27.62 $55.33 26% $32 15% $16 0.86 $15 3.42 $0 .00 $0 .00 $69.00 $4 .37 $80 4.02 $25.40 $1 .01 $0 .00 $0 .00 $6 .71

$ 43.19
$731.39

$42 .6 0
$694.90

$ 42.60
$788.28

$42 .6 0
$766.68

$4 2.60
$7 79.57

$ 42 .6 0
$797.11

$42 .6 0
$834.83

$4 2.60
$87 9.74

LIAB. & SHR HLDR S' EQU ITY Notes Paya ble Accoun ts Pa ya ble % COGS
Accrued exp ense s Custome r Deposits Deferred Revenue Accrued Income Taxes To tal Curren t Liabilities : L -T erm Debt Deferred Income Taxes O ther non-current liabil iti es To tal Liabilities Sh areho ld ers' Eq uity T otal Liabilities & Sh areho lde rs' Eq uity

$0.00 $49.97 152.41% $12.72 $307.25 $234.78 $22.78 $627.51 $0.00 $3.08 $1.00 $631.59 $99.80 $731.39

$0.00 $41.50 52.65% $21 $311 $275 $11 $658.40 $0.00 $3.08 $1.00 $662.48 $ 32.42 $694.90

$0.00 $68.55 59.26% $22 $ 307 $ 292 $24 $713.56 $0.00 $2.80 $2.46 $718.82 $69.46 $788.28

$0.00 $ 23.25 25% $22 $307 $292 $24 $668.26 $0.00 $2.80 $2.46 $673.52 $9 3.16 $766.68

$ 0.00 $18.60 25% $22 $307 $292 $24 $6 63.61 $ 0.00 $ 2.80 $ 2.46 $6 68.87 $1 10.70 $7 79.57

$0.00 $1 8.60 25% $22 $307 $292 $24 $663.61 $0.00 $2.80 $2.46 $668.87 $128.24 $797.11

$0.00 $26.54 25 % $22 $307 $292 $24 $671.55 $0.00 $2.80 $2.46 $676.81 $158.02 $834.83

$0 .00 $32.25 25% $22 $307 $292 $24 $67 7.26 $0 .00 $2 .80 $2 .46 $68 2.52 $19 7.22 $87 9.74

T otal Debt % Cha nge Q/Q $ Ch ang e Check-sum

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$ 0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0 .00

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

$0.0

$ 0.0

$0.0

$0.0

Pe rformance Me trics
Pro fitability Ratio s Return O n Equity Return o n Avg Equity Return O n Assets Return O n Net Assets Return O n Sales Efficiency Ratios Sales / Total Assets A/R Days Sales O ut Inventory Turns Days o f Inventory L iq uidity Ratios Current Ratio Q uick Ratio Net W orking Capita l ($M) Lo ng-Term Debt / Equity Debt/Capita l T otal Debt / Equity EBITDA/Interest EBITDA- Cape x/Interest Bo ok & Cash Valu e Book Valu e Per Share Cash Pe r Share Net Ca sh Per Share T angible Book value

22% 3% 4% 39%

345% 1 6% 1 6% 8 0%

248% 22% 25% 84%

102% 12% 17% 63%

63% 9% 13% 58%

55% 9% 13% 58%

7 5% 1 4% 2 1% 6 8%

80% 18% 27% 74%

0.31 61 2.1 178

0.81 30 3.6 102

1.04 37 3.6 101

0 .78 24 1 6.5 22

0.62 24 16.5 22

0.60 24 16.5 22

0.84 24 16.2 22

0.97 24 16.2 23

1.2 1.1 $38 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0 7.2

1.0 0.9 ($31 ) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.7 43.3

1.1 0.9 $7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 308.9 62.5

1.1 1.1 $29 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4 1.2 3 6.7

1.2 1.1 $45 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.4 26.8

1.2 1.2 $62 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 30.4 26.8

1.2 1.2 $9 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 51.8 46.6

1.3 1.2 $127 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 68.2 61.8

$0.68 $0.76 $0.76 $0.70

$0.22 $0.04 $0.04 $0.23

$0.4 8 $0.6 5 $0.6 5 $0.4 9

$0.63 $1.49 $1.49 $0.65

$0.75 $1.65 $1.65 $0.78

$0.87 $1.77 $1.77 $0.90

$1.07 $1.86 $1.86 $1.11

$ 1.34 $ 2.04 $ 2.04 $ 1.39

Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Barclays Capital estimates, Company reports

282

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 306: CSIQ Earnings Drivers


Fi scal 2008 FYE: D ecem ber Annual I nternal Cell Capacity (MW ) Quarterly I nternal Capacity (MW ) Q1 100.0 25. 0 Q2 100.0 25.0 Q3 270.0 67.5 Q4 270. 0 67.5 Fiscal 2008 Q1E 270.0 67.5 Fiscal 2009E Q2E 270.0 67.5 Q3E 270. 0 67.5 Q4E 270.0 67. 5 Fiscal 2009E Q1E 300.0 75.0 Fiscal 2010E Q2E 375. 0 93.8 Q3E 450.0 112.5 Q4E 500.0 125.0 Fi scal 2010E

Total Shipments (MW) Internal P roducti on (MW ) Third Party C el ls (M ) W Tolli ng/Service (MW) ASP s ($/W ) Y/Y (% )

41. 8 16. 0 23. 0 2.8 4.10 -6%

47.1 17.0 27.9 1. 2 4.40 12%

59.0 24.0 24.0 1.0 4.17 11%

19.6 14.6 0.0 0.0 3. 93 -4%

167.5 71. 6 74. 9 5.0 4.15

18.0 6. 0 10.0 0. 0 2.90 -29%

36.0 15.0 10.0 1. 0 2.64 -40%

65.0 34.0 10.0 1.0 2. 50 -40%

81. 0 45. 0 10. 0 1.0 2.32 -41%

200.0 100.0 40.0 3. 0 2.59 -38%

106.0 50.0 15.0 1. 0 2.03 -30%

121. 0 60.0 15.0 1.0 1. 85 -30%

141.0 75. 0 15. 0 1.0 1.75 -30%

156.0 85.0 15.0 1. 0 1.62 -30%

524.0 270.0 60.0 4. 0 1.81

Total UMG Shipm ents (MW ) ASP s ($/W ) Y/Y (% )

0 -

2. 2 3.74

10.0 3.55

5.0 3. 14

17. 2 3.48

2. 0 2.46

10.0 2.24

20.0 2. 13

25. 0 1.97

57.0 2.20 -37%

40.0 1.42

45.0 1. 29

50. 0 1.23

55.0 1.13

190.0 1.27

Sil icon Product R evenues Y/Y (% ) UMG P roduct Revenues Y/Y (% ) Total Revenues Y/Y (% )

171.2 878% 0.0

204.4 238% 8. 2

200.6 106% 35.5

57.3 -55% 15.7

633.5 109% 59. 4

46.3 -73% 4. 9

66.3 -68% 22.4 173%

110. 5 -45% 42.6 20% 153. 0 -35%

127.6 123% 49. 2 213% 176.8 142%

350.6 -45% 119.2 101% 469.8 -32%

132.0 185% 56.8 1053% 188.7 268%

138. 8 109% 58.2 159% 197. 0 122%

158.0 43% 61. 4 44% 219.3 43%

162.2 27% 62.4 27% 224.6 27%

590.9 69% 238.7 100% 829.7 77%

171.2 878%

212.6 252%

236.1 142%

73.0 -43%

692.9 129%

51.3 -70%

88.7 -58%

Cost of revenues Sil icon Product C osts Y/Y (% ) Silic on C os t/W att Spot Contrac t Proc es sing Cost s Poly to Wafer Cost s Check UMG P roduct Costs Y/Y (% ) UMG C os t/W att Total Cost/W att

142.9 142.9 3.42 2.02 0.74 0.66 0.00 0.00 3.42

179.4 172.5 3.84 2.52 0.66 0.66 0.00 6.91 3.14 3.81

201.1 175.2 3.58 2.08 0.83 0.66 0.00 25.90 2.59 3.41

98.2 60.4 4. 14 1. 39 1. 79 0. 66 0. 30 0. 30 14.44 2. 89 5. 01

621.6

47.5 43.1

80.3 60.7 2.34 0.58 0.80 0.66 0.30 0.00 19.52 1.95 2.23

135. 2 98.1 2. 18 0. 52 0. 70 0. 66 0. 30 0. 00 37.04 1. 85 2. 08

155.2 112.4 2.01 0.48 0.57 0.66 0.30 0.00 42.81 1.71 1.92

418.1

163.2 117.8

174. 9 127. 1 1. 67 0. 35 0. 36 0. 66 0. 30 0. 00 47.73 1. 06 1. 45

194.8 143.9 1.58 0.30 0.32 0.66 0.30 0.00 50.93 1.02 1.38

207.3 154.9 1.53 0.27 0.30 0.66 0.30 0.00 52. 41 0.95 1.33

740.2

3.74

2.69 0.66 1.07 0.66 0.30 0.00 4.43 2.22

2.30

1.78 0.43 0.39 0.66 0.30 0.00 45.40 1.14

1.64

1.04 1.42

3.91

2.64

2.22

1.54

Sil icon Breakdown Spot Contrac t Sil icon Prices ($/kg) Spot Contrac t Blended Conversion Efficiency (Sili con) Grams/W att (Sili con) 289.0 245.0 275.8 15.7% 10. 00 325.0 295.0 318.3 15.7% 10.00 311. 0 253. 0 291. 9 15. 7% 10.00 350.0 300.0 320.0 15. 8% 9.94 318.8 273.3 301.5 150.0 198.0 176.4 16.0% 9. 81 135. 0 152. 5 144. 6 16.5% 9.52 125.0 138.0 132.2 17. 0% 9.24 115.0 112.0 113.4 17.0% 9. 24 131.3 150.1 141.6 90. 0 100. 0 94. 5 18.0% 8.72 75.0 95.0 84.0 18. 5% 8.49 65.0 85.0 74.0 18.7% 8. 40 60.0 81.0 69.5 19.0% 8. 26 72. 5 90. 3 80. 5 70% 30% 78% 23% 67% 33% 40% 60% 64% 36% 45% 55% 45% 55% 45% 55% 45% 55% 45% 55% 55% 45% 55% 45% 55% 45% 55% 45% 55% 45%

Gross Margi n Internal c ells Third-part y c ells Tolling UMG Total 16. 5% Source: Company R eport s and B arclays Capital Es timates 16. 5% 15. 0% 9.0% 15.6% 14.0% 5.0% 16.0% 15.6% 12.7% 10.0% 7. 0% 27.0% 14.8% -5. 5% 5.0% 6.0% 8.0% -34.5% 9.8% 11. 0% 6.8% 17. 0% 3.1% 7.1% 3.0% 6.0% 10.0% 7.4% 8. 3% 3. 0% 6. 0% 13.0% 9. 5% 11.2% 2.0% 6.0% 13.0% 11.7% 11. 9% 2.0% 6.0% 13. 0% 12. 2% 9.6% 2.5% 6.0% 12.3% 10.2% 10.8% 5. 0% 4. 0% 20.0% 13.5% 8.4% 5.0% 4.0% 18.0% 11.2% 8.9% 5.0% 4.0% 17. 0% 11. 2% 4.5% 5.0% 4.0% 16. 0% 7.7% 8. 1% 5. 0% 4. 0% 17.8% 10.9%

Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted

May 01, 2009

283

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 307: CSIQ Income Statement


($ , 0 00) FYE: Dec embe r Rev enue Q oQ YoY Cos t of Sales Gr oss Pr ofit Selling exp en ses Ge ner al a nd ad minis tra tive e xpe nse s Res ear ch a nd de velop me nt expe nse s Tota l ope ra ti ng ex pe ns es Operat ing Income Inte re st expense , net To tal in ter est exp ense Inte re st in com e Ot he r non- operat ing i nc ome (ex pe ns e) Lo ss o n ch ang e in fa ir va lue of d er ivative s Lo ss o n fin anc ial ins tru me nts rela ted to con vert ible not Oth er Inc ome ( Exp en ses) EBIT Earni ngs bef ore tax & e xt ra ordi na ry ite ms Income Tax Ex pe ns e Earni ngs a ft er ta x Sha re base d c om pen satio n Non- GAAP Net Income GAAP Ne t Income Non -G AAP EPS GAAP EPS (fu lly dilu ted) We igh ted Avera ge Ou tstan din g Sha re s ('0 00) Fully D lu ted Sha res ('00 0) i Perce nt of Sale s Gr oss Mar gin R&D Selling exp en ses G&A Op era ting inco me Net Inco me Tax Ra te 1 6.5 % 0.2 % 1.5 % 3.2 % 1 1.7 % 1 1.1 % 2 0.6 % 15. 6% 0.2 % 1.3 % 3.1 % 11. 0% 5.0 % -1 2.8 % 15. 5% 0.2 % 1.4 % 3.7 % 10. 2% 4.4 % -5 6.6 % -3 4.5 % 0.6 % 2.4 % 25. 3% -6 2.9 % -6 9.3 % -2 .4% 7.4 % 0.8 % 2.0 % 5.0 % -0 .4% -8 .3% 1 5.0 % 9.5 % 0.8 % 2.0 % 4.5 % 2.3 % - 2.7 % 15. 0% 1 1.7 % 0.8 % 2.0 % 3.0 % 5.9 % 2.2 % 1 5.0 % 1 2.2 % 0 .7% 2 .0% 3 .0% 6 .5% 3 .1% 1 5.0 % 13. 5% 1.0 % 1.5 % 3.0 % 8.0 % 4.3 % 15. 0% 11. 2% 1.0 % 1.5 % 3.0 % 5.7 % 2.5 % 15. 0% 11. 2% 1.0 % 1.5 % 3.0 % 5.7 % 2.7 % 15. 0% 7.7 % 1.0 % 1.5 % 3.0 % 2.2 % - 0.2 % 15. 0% 10 .6% 0. 3% 1. 5% 5. 6% 3. 3% - 1.4 % -2 371 .4% Fi sca l 200 8E $20 ,00 9.0 190 .3% 2. 8% 1 1.0 % 0 .7% 2 .0% 3 .5% 4 .8% 0 .4% 6 2.1 % Fisc al 20 09 E $3 0,7 71. 4 5 3.8 % 6 .5% 10 .8% 1 .0% 1 .5% 3 .0% 5 .3% 2 .2% 26 .3% Fisc al 20 10E $5 8,6 33. 3 90 .5% 7 .1% Q1 17 1,2 35 3 4.3 % 8 79. 1% ( 14 3,0 00) 28 ,23 5 (2 ,50 5) (5 ,42 6) (30 3) (8 ,23 4) 20 ,00 1 (2 ,14 4) (2 ,24 6) 10 2 8 ,17 4 0 0 8 ,17 4 28 ,17 5 26 ,03 1 (7 ,03 6) 18 ,99 5 (2 ,19 9) 21 ,19 4 18 ,99 5 $ 0.6 5 $ 0.6 1 27 ,39 1 32 ,39 2 Fi sca l 20 08 Q2 21 2,5 85 24. 1% 2 51 .9% ( 17 9,5 09) 33 ,07 6 (2 ,85 2) (6 ,48 5) (44 7) (9 ,78 4) 23 ,29 2 (3 ,10 3) (3 ,16 2) 59 (10 ,77 0) 0 (10 ,17 0) (60 0) 12 ,52 2 9 ,41 9 1 ,12 7 10 ,54 6 (2 ,33 6) 23 ,05 2 10 ,54 6 $ 0.7 8 $ 0.3 6 28 ,08 6 29 ,38 5 Q3 25 2,3 62 18. 7% 1 59 .0% (21 3,2 56) 3 9,1 06 (3 ,48 2) (9 ,26 7) (6 03) (1 3,3 52) 2 5,7 54 (2 ,56 0) (3 ,37 9) 8 19 (9 ,87 4) 7 ,42 4 0 (1 7,2 98) 1 5,8 80 1 3,3 20 (2 ,25 0) 1 1,0 70 (3 ,53 8) 1 4,6 08 1 1,0 70 $ 0.4 1 $ 0.3 1 3 4,8 02 3 5,5 80 Q4 73 ,01 3 -7 1.1 % -4 2.7 % (98 ,23 3) (25 ,22 0) (1 ,76 8) (18 ,45 5) (47 3) (20 ,69 6) (45 ,91 6) 73 (2 ,47 9) 2 ,55 2 (3 ,33 2) 7 ,03 1 0 (10 ,36 3) (49 ,24 8) (49 ,17 5) (1 ,44 5) (50 ,62 0) (1 ,02 9) (49 ,59 1) (50 ,62 0) -$1 .39 -$1 .42 35 ,68 6 35 ,58 0 Q1 E 51 ,25 3 -29 .8% -70 .1% ( 47 ,48 5) 3, 768 (1, 025 ) (2, 563 ) ( 38 4) (3, 972 ) ( 20 4) (4, 100 ) (4, 200 ) 10 0 0 0 0 0 ( 20 4) (4, 304 ) 31 (4, 274 ) (1, 500 ) (2, 774 ) (4, 274 ) - $0. 07 - $0. 11 35 ,68 6 40 ,58 0 Fi sca l 20 09 E Q 2E 88 ,70 4 73. 1% -5 8.3 % (80 ,26 2) 8 ,44 2 (1 ,77 4) (3 ,99 2) (66 5) (6 ,43 1) 2 ,01 1 (4 ,10 0) (4 ,20 0) 10 0 0 0 0 0 2 ,01 1 (2 ,08 9) (30 2) (2 ,39 1) (1 ,50 0) (89 1) (2 ,39 1) -$0 .02 -$0 .06 35 ,68 6 40 ,58 0 Q3 E 153 ,02 9 7 2.5 % -39 .4% ( 135 ,16 3) 17 ,86 7 (3, 061 ) (4, 591 ) (1, 148 ) (8, 799 ) 9, 068 (4, 400 ) (4, 500 ) 10 0 0 0 0 0 9, 068 4, 668 (1, 360 ) 3, 307 (1, 500 ) 4, 807 3, 307 $0 .12 $0 .08 35 ,68 6 40 ,58 0 Q4 E 176 ,80 8 1 5.5 % 14 2.2 % ( 155 ,19 4) 21, 613 ( 3,5 36 ) ( 5,3 04 ) ( 1,2 38 ) ( 10, 078 ) 11, 535 ( 4,4 00 ) ( 4,5 00 ) 100 0 0 0 0 11, 535 7,1 35 ( 1,7 30 ) 5,4 05 ( 1,5 00 ) 6,9 05 5,4 05 $0 .17 $0 .13 35, 686 40, 580 Q1E 18 8,7 10 6.7 % 268 .2% (16 3,1 64 ) 2 5,5 45 (2 ,83 1) (5 ,66 1) (1 ,88 7) (1 0,3 79) 1 5,1 66 (4 ,70 0) (4 ,80 0) 1 00 0 0 0 0 1 5,1 66 1 0,4 66 (2 ,27 5) 8 ,19 1 (1 ,50 0) 9 ,69 1 8 ,19 1 $ 0.2 4 $ 0.2 0 3 5,6 86 4 0,5 80 Fis cal 20 10E Q2E 19 6,9 97 4.4 % 122 .1% (17 4,8 72 ) 2 2,1 25 (2 ,95 5) (5 ,91 0) (1 ,97 0) (1 0,8 35) 1 1,2 90 (4 ,70 0) (4 ,80 0) 1 00 0 0 0 0 1 1,2 90 6 ,59 0 (1 ,69 4) 4 ,89 7 (1 ,50 0) 6 ,39 7 4 ,89 7 $ 0.1 6 $ 0.1 2 3 5,6 86 4 0,5 80 Q3E 21 9,3 25 11. 3% 43. 3% (19 4,8 27 ) 2 4,4 98 (3 ,29 0) (6 ,58 0) (2 ,19 3) (1 2,0 63) 1 2,4 35 (4 ,70 0) (4 ,80 0) 1 00 0 0 0 0 1 2,4 35 7 ,73 5 (1 ,86 5) 5 ,87 0 (1 ,50 0) 7 ,37 0 5 ,87 0 $ 0.1 8 $ 0.1 4 3 5,6 86 4 0,5 80 Q4E 22 4,6 26 2.4 % 27. 0% (20 7,3 34 ) 1 7,2 92 (3 ,36 9) (6 ,73 9) (2 ,24 6) (1 2,3 54) 4 ,93 7 (4 ,70 0) (4 ,80 0) 1 00 0 0 0 0 4 ,93 7 2 37 (7 41) (5 03) (1 ,50 0) 9 97 (5 03) $ 0.0 2 -$ 0.0 1 3 5,6 86 4 0,5 80 134 .2% (6 33, 998 ) 7 5,1 97 (1 0,6 07) (3 9,6 33) ( 1,8 26) (5 2,0 66) 2 3,1 31 ( 7,7 34) (1 1,2 66) 3,5 32 (1 5,8 02) 1 4,4 55 (1 0,1 70) (2 0,0 87) 7,3 29 (4 05 ) ( 9,6 04) (1 0,0 09) ( 9,1 02) 9,2 63 (1 0,0 09) $0. 46 -$ 0.1 4 3 5,6 86 3 5,5 80 - 33 .8% (4 18 ,10 4) 51, 690 ( 9,3 96 ) ( 16, 449 ) ( 3,4 35 ) ( 29, 280 ) 22, 409 ( 17, 000 ) ( 17, 400 ) 400 0 0 0 0 22, 409 5,4 09 ( 3,3 61 ) 2,0 48 ( 6,0 00 ) 8,0 48 2,0 48 $0 .20 $0 .05 35, 686 40, 580 76 .6% (7 40, 197 ) 8 9,4 60 (1 2,4 45 ) (2 4,8 90 ) ( 8,2 97) (4 5,6 31 ) 4 3,8 29 (1 8,8 00 ) (1 9,2 00 ) 4 00 0 0 0 0 4 3,8 29 2 5,0 29 ( 6,5 74) 1 8,4 55 ( 6,0 00) 2 4,4 55 1 8,4 55 $0. 60 $0. 45 3 5,6 86 4 0,5 80 Fi sca l 2 008 7 09, 195 Fisc al 20 09 E 4 69 ,79 4 Fisc al 20 10E 8 29, 658

FYE: Dec embe r Pro Forma EBI TDA % Change Y/Y % Change Q/ Q % Sa les LTM EBITDA Capit al Spendi ng % of Sa les Depreci ati on % of COGS FCF O ps Est . (PF EBITDA + N I -Ca pe x)

Q1 $ 31, 035 .0 -95 3.5 % 2 33. 7% 1 8.1 % $ 41, 563 .6 $1 3,6 98 .8 8.0 % $ 2,8 60.0 2.0 % $ 19, 480 .2

Fis cal 200 8E Q2 Q 3E $ 16 ,112 .2 - 10 87. 8% -4 8.1 % 7.6 % $ 59 ,307 .0 $1 7,0 06 .8 8.0 % $ 3,5 90. 2 2.0 % $2, 208 .4 $ 20 ,14 5.1 6 04 .7% 25. 0% 8.0 % $ 76 ,59 3.3 $ 20, 189 .0 8.0 % $ 4,2 65. 1 2.0 % $2, 516 .2

Q 4E ($4 7,2 83 .3) -60 8.4 % -33 4.7 % -6 4.8 % $ 20 ,009 .0 $2 0,0 00 .0 8.0 % $ 1,9 64. 7 2.0 % ($6 7,3 56 .3)

Q1 E $7 45 .5 -97 .6% - 10 1.6 % 1.5 % ( $1 0,2 80. 5) $4 ,61 2.8 9.0 % $9 49. 7 2.0 % $2 32 .8

Fi sca l 20 09 E Q 2E Q3 E $3, 616 .1 -7 7.6 % 3 85 .0% 4.1 % ($ 22, 776 .6) $ 8,8 70. 4 10. 0% $ 1,6 05. 2 2.0 % ($ 1,1 54. 3) $ 11, 770 .8 -41 .6% 2 25. 5% 7.7 % ( $3 1,1 51. 0) $2 2,9 54. 4 1 5.0 % $2 ,70 3.3 2.0 % ($6 ,78 3.6 )

Q4 E $1 4,6 39 .0 - 131 .0% 2 4.4 % 8 .3% $3 0,7 71 .4 $26 ,52 1.1 1 5.0 % $3 ,10 3.9 2 .0% ( $7 ,48 2.1 )

Q1E $18 ,42 9.7 2 37 2.0% 25. 9% 9.8 % $48 ,45 5.6 $ 15, 096 .8 8.0 % $ 3,2 63 .3 2.0 % $8, 032 .9

Fis cal 20 10E Q2E Q3E $14 ,78 7.8 308 .9% -1 9.8 % 7.5 % $59 ,62 7.3 $ 15, 759 .7 8.0 % $ 3,4 97 .4 2.0 % $3, 728 .1 $16 ,33 1.7 38. 7% 10. 4% 7.4 % $64 ,18 8.3 $ 17, 546 .0 8.0 % $ 3,8 96 .5 2.0 % $3, 485 .7

Q4E $9, 084 .0 -3 7.9 % -4 4.4 % 4.0 % $58 ,63 3.3 $ 17, 970 .1 8.0 % $ 4,1 46 .7 2.0 % ($ 4,1 86 .1)

$ 70 ,894 .6 10 .0% $ 12 ,680 .0 2. 0% ($ 43 ,151 .6)

$62 ,95 8.7 1 3.4 % $8 ,36 2.1 2 .0% ( $15 ,18 7.3 )

$66 ,37 2.6 8 .0% $14 ,80 3.9 2 .0% $1 1,0 60. 6

Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

284

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 308: CSIQ Balance Sheet


BALANCE SHE ET Q1 Assets Curren t Assets: Cash and cash Equivalents Restrict ed Cash Account s receivable, net % Sales Inventories % S al es Advances to relat ed party suppliers Ot her current asset s Total Current Assets Net PP& E Intangible assets, net Deferred tax asset s Ot her asset s Total Assets LI AB. & S HRHLDRS' EQUITY S-Term Debt Account s payabl e % Sales Advances from suppl iers and customers Income tax payable Other current liabilit ies Total Current Liabil ities: L-Term Debt Ot her non-current liabiliti es Total Li abi li ti es Minorit y int erest Shareh olders' E quity Total Li abil ities & Sharehol ders' Equi ty Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change Check-sum Performance Metrics Profi tabil ity Ratio s Return On Equity Return on Avg Equity Return On Assets Return On Net Asset s Return On Sales Efficiency Rati os Sales / Total A ssets A/ R Days Sales Out Invent ory Turns Days of Inventory Li quidi ty Rati os Current Ratio Quick Ratio Net Working Capital ($M) Long-Term Debt / Equity Debt /Capit al Total Debt / Equi ty EBITDA/ Interest EBITDA- Capex/Interest Book & Cash Value Book Value P er S hare Cash P er S hare Net Cash P er Share Tangibl e Book value $4. 70 $0. 99 ($4. 12) $4. 70 $8.56 $2.22 ($2.61) $8.56 $10.71 $3. 06 ($2. 32) $10.71 $9.32 $3.25 ($1.13) $9.32 $8. 06 $1. 52 ($2. 33) $8. 06 $8.01 $0.99 ($2.85) $8.01 $8.09 ($0.41) ($4.26) $8.09 $8. 22 ($0.87) ($4.71) $8. 22 $8. 42 ($1. 15) ($4. 99) $8. 42 $8. 54 ($1.47) ($5.31) $8. 54 $8.69 ($2.02) ($5.87) $8.69 $8.68 ($2. 46) ($6. 31) $8.68 1. 3 1. 8 $170,104 62. 3% 52. 1% 108.9% 14.5 8. 1 1.6 1.6 $193, 173 19.6% 36.1% 56.4% 5.2 -0.3 1. 6 1. 7 $258,134 16. 8% 33. 4% 50. 2% 7. 9 0. 0 1.4 1.5 $176, 548 16.9% 32.0% 47.1% 647.7 921.7 1. 0 1. 4 $73, 611 17. 2% 32. 3% 47. 7% 0. 2 -0.9 0.9 1.2 $63,955 17. 3% 32. 4% 48. 0% 0.9 -1.3 0.9 0.9 $47,012 17.1% 32.2% 47.5% 2.7 -2. 5 0. 8 0.8 $28, 999 16. 8% 31. 9% 46. 8% 3.3 -2.7 0. 8 0. 7 $25, 357 16. 4% 31. 3% 45. 6% 3. 9 0. 7 0. 8 0.7 $17, 992 16. 2% 31. 0% 45. 0% 3.1 -0.2 0.8 0.6 $10,212 15.9% 30.7% 44.3% 3.5 -0.3 0.7 0. 5 ($4,115) 16.0% 30.7% 44.3% 1. 9 -1. 9 1.86 64 7. 1 51 1. 76 60 8.0 46 1.48 55 8. 4 43 0. 51 63 4.3 86 0.45 110 9. 3 39 0.76 73 9.1 40 1.24 64 8.9 41 1.39 55 8.8 41 1.45 55 8. 7 42 1.50 55 8.9 41 1. 62 55 8.9 41 1.66 55 9. 3 39 50% 16% 21% 23% 11% 17% 18% 9% 10% 5% 12% 15% 7% 8% 4% -61% (3%) -36% -45% (69% ) -5% (10% ) -4% -4% (8%) -3% (14% ) -2% -2% (3%) 4% (17%) 3% 3% 2% 6% 1% 4% 4% 3% 10% 4% 6% 6% 4% 6% 6% 4% 3% 2% 7% 7% 4% 4% 3% -1% 5% 0% 0% (0% ) $70, 928 $17, 474 10% $7,094 $4,608 $10, 215 $110,319 $94, 814 $10, 012 $215,145 $0 $152,139 $367,284 $165,742 24. 4% $32, 502 $0.0 $92,727 $13,285 6% $11,314 $5, 212 $48,152 $170, 690 $49,217 $12,675 $232, 582 $0 $251, 664 $484, 246 $141, 944 -14.4% -$23,798 $0. 0 $127,234 $19, 086 8% $9,446 $5,502 $60, 580 $221,848 $64, 165 $13, 721 $299,734 $0 $380,902 $680,636 $191,399 34. 8% $49, 455 $0.0 $99,858 $29,957 41% $3, 571 $1, 283 $26,874 $161, 543 $56,164 $20,551 $238, 258 $0 $331, 541 $569, 799 $156, 022 -18.5% -$35,377 $0. 0 $99, 858 $17, 426 34% $3,571 $1,283 $26, 874 $149,012 $56, 164 $20, 551 $225,727 $0 $327,267 $552,995 $156,022 0.0% $0 $95,000.0 $99,858 $30,159 34% $3,571 $1,283 $26,874 $161, 745 $56,164 $20,551 $238, 460 $0 $324, 877 $563, 337 $156, 022 0.0% $0 $95,000.0 $99,858 $52,030 34% $3,571 $1,283 $26,874 $183,616 $56,164 $20,551 $260,331 $0 $328,184 $588,515 $156,022 0. 0% $0 $95, 000. 0 $99,858 $60,115 34% $3,571 $1,283 $26,874 $191,701 $56,164 $20,551 $268,416 $0 $333,589 $602,004 $156,022 0.0% $0 $95,000.0 $99, 858 $64, 161 34% $3,571 $1,283 $26, 874 $195,747 $56, 164 $20, 551 $272,462 $0 $341,780 $614,243 $156,022 0.0% $0 $95, 000.0 $99,858 $66,979 34% $3,571 $1,283 $26,874 $198, 565 $56,164 $20,551 $275, 280 $0 $346, 677 $621, 957 $156, 022 0.0% $0 $95,000.0 $99,858 $74,571 34% $3, 571 $1, 283 $26,874 $206, 157 $56,164 $20,551 $282, 872 $0 $352, 547 $635, 419 $156, 022 0. 0% $0 $95,000. 0 $99, 858 $76, 373 34% $3,571 $1,283 $26, 874 $207,959 $56, 164 $20, 551 $284,674 $0 $352,044 $636,718 $156,022 0. 0% $0 $95, 000. 0 $32, 195 $1,054 $119,398 70% $80, 784 47% $26, 211 $20, 781 $280,423 $62, 863 $133 $4,686 $19, 179 -----------$367,284 ====== $65,138 $19,393 $140, 935 66% $90,440 43% $19,134 $28,823 $363, 863 $92,095 $212 $6, 550 $21,526 -----------$484, 246 ====== $108,914 $28, 190 $153,117 61% $101,631 40% $44, 855 $43, 275 $479,982 $137,609 $230 $7,561 $55, 254 -----------$680,636 ====== $115, 661 $20,622 $50,678 69% $92,683 127% $24,654 $33,793 $338, 091 $165, 542 $263 $6, 998 $58,905 -----------$569, 799 ====== $61, 549 $20, 622 $61, 504 120% $20, 501 40% $24, 654 $33, 793 $222,623 $169,205 $263 $6,998 $58, 905 -----------$457,995 ====== $40,187 $20,622 $70,963 80% $35,482 40% $24,654 $33,793 $225, 701 $176, 470 $263 $6,998 $58,905 -----------$468, 337 ====== -$16, 774 $20,622 $107,121 70% $61,212 40% $24,654 $33,793 $230,628 $196,721 $263 $6,998 $58,905 -----------$493,515 ====== -$35,177 $20,622 $106,085 60% $70,723 40% $24,654 $33,793 $220,700 $220,139 $263 $6,998 $58,905 -----------$507,004 ====== -$46, 674 $20, 622 $113,226 60% $75, 484 40% $24, 654 $33, 793 $221,105 $231,972 $263 $6,998 $58, 905 -----------$519,243 ====== -$59,509 $20,622 $118, 198 60% $78,799 40% $24,654 $33,793 $216, 557 $244, 234 $263 $6,998 $58,905 -----------$526, 957 ====== -$82,026 $20,622 $131, 595 60% $87,730 40% $24,654 $33,793 $216, 369 $257, 884 $263 $6, 998 $58,905 -----------$540, 419 ====== -$99, 851 $20, 622 $134,776 60% $89, 850 40% $24, 654 $33, 793 $203,844 $271,707 $263 $6,998 $58, 905 -----------$541,718 ====== Fi scal 2008E Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1E Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E Q4E Q1E F iscal 2010E Q2E Q3E Q4E

Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

285

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 309: SOLF Earnings Drivers


FYE: December Annual Capacity (MW) Quarterly Capacity (MW) Available Capacity (MW) Q1 240.0 60.0 43.8 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 240.0 60.0 42.4 360.0 90.0 70.0 Q4 360.0 90.0 40.5 Fiscal 2008 Q1E 360.0 90.0 40.5 Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q3E 360.0 90.0 58.5 400.0 100.0 65.0 Q4E 400.0 100.0 80.0 Fiscal 2009E Q1E 500.0 125.0 106.3 Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q3E 500.0 125.0 106.3 500.0 125.0 112.5 Q4E 500.0 125.0 112.5 Fiscal 2010E

Revenues Product Revenue Toll ing Revenues Other Revenue COGS P roduct COGS Tolling COGS Additional Costs Gross Profit Gross Margin (%) M odule Gross Margins Tolling Gross Margins Total Shipments (MW) Internal M odules (MW) Tolling Modules (MW)

171.0 164.0 0.0 7.0 142.9 142.9 0.0 0.0 28.2 16.5% 16.5% 0.0% 40.3 40.3 0.0

197.1 179.7 0.0 17.4 152.7 152.7 0.0 0.0 27.0 13.7% 22.5% 0.0% 43.1 43.1 0.0

187.8 168.9 0.0 18.9 145.6 145.6 0.0 0.0 23.3 12.4% 22.5% 0.0% 41.8 41.8 0.0

164.6 160.4 0.0 4.2 219.9 172.1 0.0 47.8 -55.3 -33.6% -4.5% 0.0% 47.6 47.6 0.0

720.6

82.9 82.9 0.0 0.0 84.9 79.9 0.0 5.0 -2.0 -2.4% 3.7% 20.0% 30.0 30.0 0.0

123.9 111.9 12.0 0.0 116.6 107.0 9.6 0.0 7.3 5.9% 4.4% 20.0% 70.0 45.0 25.0

153.8 141.8 12.0 0.0 143.9 134.3 9.6 0.0 9.9 6.4% 5.3% 20.0% 85.0 60.0 25.0

146.7 134.7 12.0 0.0 134.3 124.7 9.6 0.0 12.4 8.5% 7.4% 20.0% 85.0 60.0 25.0

507.3

146.9 134.9 12.0 0.0 135.0 125.4 9.6 0.0 11.8 8.1% 7.0% 20.0% 95.0 70.0 25.0

175.0 163.0 12.0 0.0 161.2 151.6 9.6 0.0 13.9 7.9% 7.0% 20.0% 115.0 90.0 25.0

184.1 172.1 12.0 0.0 170.0 160.4 9.6 0.0 14.1 7.6% 6.8% 20.0% 125.0 100.0 25.0

191.8 179.8 12.0 0.0 177.2 167.6 9.6 0.0 14.6 7.6% 6.8% 20.0% 135.0 110.0 25.0

697.8

661.0

479.7

643.4

23.2 3.2%

27.6 5.4%

54.4 7.8%

172.8

270.0 195.0 75.0 56% 60% 40% $ 2.34 $ $ $ $ $

470.0 370.0 100.0 74% 70% 30% $ 1.65

S ilicon Breakdown S pot Contr act Costs ($/W) $ S pot $ Contr act $ W afer to modul e process ing Co $ P oly to wafer processi ng costs Check $ S ilicon P rices ($/kg) S pot Contr act Conversion Efficiency Grams/Watt ASP ($/Watt) P V M odules y/y (%) q/q (%) Tolli ng $

70% 30% 3.54 2.01 0.73 0.80 3.40 275.8 289.0 245.0 16.6% 9.94 $ $ $ $ $

78% 23% 3.95 2.54 0.60 0.80 0.35 316.5 330.0 270.0 16.6% 9.94 $ $ $ $ $

67% 33% 3.83 2.20 0.83 0.80 0.29 304.6 330.0 253.0 16.6% 9.94 $ $ $ $ $

40% 60%

64% 36% $ $ $ $ $

60% 40% 2.66 0.76 0.81 0.80 0.30 186.0 150.0 240.0 16.6% 8.40 $ $ $ $ $

60% 40% 2.38 0.58 0.70 0.80 0.30 153.0 115.0 210.0 16.6% 8.35 $ $ $ $ $

60% 40% 2.24 0.54 0.59 0.80 0.30 138.0 110.0 180.0 16.6% 8.25 $ $ $ $ $

60% 40% 2.08 0.49 0.49 0.80 0.30 120.0 100.0 150.0 16.6% 8.15

70% 30% 1.79 0.48 0.22 0.80 0.30 86.5 85.0 90.0 16.6% 8.00 $ $ $ $ $

70% 30% 1.68 0.39 0.19 0.80 0.30 73.0 70.0 80.0 16.6% 8.00 $ $ $ $ $

70% 30% 1.60 0.34 0.17 0.80 0.30 63.0 60.0 70.0 16.6% 8.00 $ $ $ $ $

70% 30% 1.52 0.28 0.14 0.80 0.30 53.0 50.0 60.0 16.6% 8.00

3.62 $ 3.73 0.97 1.49 0.85 0.30 248.0 245.0 250.0 16.6% 9.94 286.2 298.5 254.5

149.3 118.8 195.0

68.9 66.3 75.0

4.07

4.17 2%

4.04 -3%

$ 3.37 $ 3.91 -17% N/A

$ 2.76 $ 2.49 $ 2.36 $ 2.24 $ 2.46 -32% -40% -42% -33% -37% -18% -10% -5% -5% $ 0.48 $ 0.48 $ 0.48 $ 0.48 $ 0.48

$ 1.93 $ 1.81 $ 1.72 $ 1.63 $ 1.77 -30% -27% -27% -27% -28% -14% -6% -5% -5% $ 0.48 $ 0.48 $ 0.48 $ 0.48 $ 0.48

N/A

N/A

N/A

All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

286

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 310: SOLF Income Statement


Fiscal 2008 FYE: Decemb er Revenue QoQ YoY Cost of Goods Gross Profit R&D Selling, General & Adm in. Op erating Exp enses Op erating In come Non oper ating (income) exp en se: Interest income (expense) Other i ncom e (expense) Exchange gain (loss) Non oper ating (income) exp en se Income (loss) before taxes Income T ax Expense (Benefit) M ino rity Interest Net Income (loss) Net income available to ordinary sh areholders Basi c incom e (loss) per share (i) Diluted incom e (loss) per share from Operations EPS (ADS) EPS F ully Dilluted (ADS) ADSs used i n Computation - Basic ADSs used i n Computation - Diluted Wei ghted average shares used Avg Shares - Fully Diluted (M) Percent of Sales Gross Margin Increm ental Gross M argin R&D SG&A Operating Incom e Net Incom e T ax Rate 16.5% 11.1% 0.4% 4.0% 12.1% 8.9% 15.0% 13.7% -4.2% 0.6% 4.5% 8.6% 5.8% 9.0% 13.8% 216.0% 0.5% 5.2% -2.0% -3.5% 15.0% -33.6% 268.6% 0.4% 5.1% -39.1% -37.3% 12.5% -2.4% -65.4% 0.6% 10.9% -13.8% -16.4% 12.5% 5.9% 29.6% 0.4% 8.9% -3.5% -6.2% 12.5% 6.4% 8.3% 0.4% 7.1% -1.0% -4.9% 12.5% 8.5% -32.4% 0.4% 7.4% 0.7% -3.7% 12.5% 8.1% 3.8% 0.7% 6.8% 0.6% -3.3% 15.0% 7.9% 7.2% 0.6% 6.3% 1.1% -3.0% 15.0% 7.6% 2.4% 0.5% 6.5% 0.6% -3.2% 15.0% 7.6% 6.5% 0.5% 6.3% 0.8% -2.8% 15.0% 0.9% -12.2% 0.5% 4.7% -4.2% -5.7% -2.6% 5.3% -7.4% 0.4% 8.3% -3.4% -6.9% 12.5% 7.8% 12.9% 0.6% 6.4% 0.8% -3.1% 15.0% ($3.5) ($1.5) $2.8 $2.1 $18.5 $2.8 ($0.5) $15.3 $15.3 $0.06 $0.06 $0.32 $0.32 48.4 48.4 242.0 242.0 ($3.9) $0.6 ($0.2) $3.5 $13.4 $1.2 ($0.8) $11.4 $11.4 $0.05 $0.04 $0.24 $0.20 $48.27 $57.40 241.3 287.0 ($2.5) $4.9 ($4.4) $2.1 ($5.9) ($0.2) ($0.8) ($6.5) ($6.5) ($0.03) ($0.02) ($0.13) ($0.11) $51.70 $60.73 258.5 303.6 ($3.6) $8.0 ($4.2) ($0.2) ($64.2) ($2.8) $0.0 ($61.4) ($61.4) ($0.24) ($0.24) ($1.14) ($1.14) $53.86 $53.86 252.7 252.7 ($4.1) $0.0 $0.0 $4.1 ($15.6) ($1.9) $0.0 ($13.6) ($13.6) ($0.05) ($0.05) ($0.25) ($0.25) $53.86 $53.86 254.7 252.7 ($4.1) $0.0 $0.0 $4.1 ($8.0) ($1.0) $0.0 ($6.993) ($7.0) ($0.03) ($0.03) ($0.13) ($0.13) $53.86 $53.86 256.7 252.7 ($6.5) $0.0 $0.0 $6.5 ($7.9) ($1.0) $0.0 ($6.9) ($6.9) ($0.03) ($0.03) ($0.13) ($0.13) $53.86 $53.86 258.7 252.7 ($6.5) $0.0 $0.0 $6.5 ($5.6) ($0.7) $0.0 ($4.9) ($4.9) ($0.02) ($0.02) ($0.09) ($0.09) $53.86 $53.86 259.7 252.7 ($6.5) $0.0 $0.0 $6.5 ($5.7) ($0.8) $0.0 ($4.8) ($4.8) ($0.02) ($0.02) ($0.09) ($0.09) $53.86 $53.86 259.7 252.7 ($8.0) $0.0 $0.0 $8.0 ($6.1) ($0.9) $0.0 ($5.2) ($5.2) ($0.02) ($0.02) ($0.10) ($0.10) $53.86 $53.86 259.7 252.7 ($8.0) $0.0 $0.0 $8.0 ($6.9) ($1.0) $0.0 ($5.9) ($5.9) ($0.02) ($0.02) ($0.11) ($0.11) $53.86 $53.86 259.7 252.7 ($8.0) $0.0 $0.0 $8.0 ($6.4) ($1.0) $0.0 ($5.5) ($5.5) ($0.02) ($0.02) ($0.10) ($0.10) $53.86 $53.86 259.7 252.7 ($13.5) $12.1 ($6.1) $7.6 ($38.1) $1.0 ($2.1) ($41.2) ($41.2) ($0.17) ($0.15) ($0.71) ($0.73) 50.6 55.1 248.6 271.3 ($21.2) $0.0 $0.0 $21.2 ($37.1) ($4.6) $0.0 ($32.5) ($32.5) ($0.13) ($0.13) ($0.60) ($0.60) 53.9 53.9 257.4 252.7 ($30.5) $0.0 $0.0 $30.5 ($25.1) ($3.8) $0.0 ($21.4) ($21.4) ($0.08) ($0.08) ($0.40) ($0.40) 53.9 53.9 259.7 252.7 Q1 $171.0 Q2 $197.1 Q3 $187.8 -4.8% 86.6% $181.0 $6.8 $0.8 $9.8 $10.6 ($3.8) Q4 $164.6 -12.3% 15.7% $220.0 ($55.4) $0.6 $8.4 $9.0 ($64.4) Q1E $82.9 -49.6% -51.5% $84.9 ($2.0) $0.5 $9.0 $9.5 ($11.5) Fiscal 2009E Q2E $111.9 35.0% -43.2% $105.3 $6.6 $0.5 $10.0 $10.5 ($3.9) Q 3E $141.8 26.7% -24.5% $132.7 $9.1 $0.5 $10.0 $10.5 ($1.4) Q4E $134.7 -5.0% -18.2% $123.3 $11.4 $0.5 $10.0 $10.5 $0.9 Q1E $146.9 9.1% 77.2% $135.0 $11.8 $1.0 $10.0 $11.0 $0.8 Fiscal 2010E Q2E $175.0 19.2% 56.4% $161.2 $13.9 $1.0 $11.0 $12.0 $1.9 Q 3E $184.1 5.2% 29.8% $170.0 $14.1 $1.0 $12.0 $13.0 $1.1 Q4E $191.8 4.2% 42.4% $177.2 $14.6 $1.0 $12.0 $13.0 $1.6 Fiscal 2008 $720.5 119% Fiscal 2009E $471.3 -35% Fiscal 2010E $697.8 48%

20.2% 15.3% 594.3% 224.3% $142.9 $28.2 $0.7 $6.8 $7.5 $20.7 $170.1 $27.1 $1.1 $9.0 $10.1 $17.0

$713.9 $6.6 $3.3 $33.9 $37.1 ($30.6)

$446.1 $25.1 $2.0 $39.0 $41.0 ($15.9)

$643.4 $54.4 $4.0 $45.0 $49.0 $5.4

FYE: Decemb er Pro Forma EBITDA % Change Y/Y % Change Q/Q % Sales LT M EBIT DA Capital Spend ing % of Sales Depreciation % of COGS FCF Ops Est. (PF EBITDA + NI -Capex)

Q1 $20.7 48.3% 12.1% $46.7 $40.5 23.7% 0.0% ($18.4)

Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 $17.0 ($0.1)

Q4 ($61.1) -538.4%

Q1E ($9.8) -83.9% -11.8% ($54.0) $4.1 5.0% $1.7 2.0% ($14.0)

Fiscal 2009E Q2E Q 3E ($1.6) -83.3% -1.5% ($72.6) $5.6 5.0% $2.2 2.0% ($7.2) $1.4 -2595.2% -186.3% 1.0% ($71.1) $7.1 5.0% $2.8 2.0% ($5.7)

Q4E $3.6 -105.8% 151.9% 2.7% ($6.5) $6.7 5.0% $2.7 2.0% ($3.2)

Q1E $3.8 -138.6% 5.9% 2.6% $7.1 $7.3 5.0% $2.9 2.0% ($3.6)

Fiscal 2010E Q2E Q 3E $5.4 -426.3% 41.6% 3.1% $14.1 $8.8 5.0% $3.5 2.0% ($3.4) $4.8 235.5% -11.2% 2.6% $17.5 $9.2 5.0% $3.7 2.0% ($4.4)

Q4E $5.4 13.8% 2.8% $19.3 $9.6 5.0% $3.8 2.0%

Fiscal 2008E ($23.5)

Fiscal 2009E ($6.5) -72.5% -1.4% -6.5 $23.6 5.0% $9.4 2.1% ($30.0)

Fiscal 2010E $19.3 -399.0% 2.8% 19.3 $34.9 5.0% $14.0 2.2% ($15.6)

3651.4% 367.2% -100.7%

-147.5% -109.7%

51.6% -188.5% -3.3% -23.5 $129.9 18.0% $7.0 1.0%

-17.9% -100.3% 107346.4% 8.6% 0.0% -37.1% $60.0 $42.4 21.5% 0.0% ($26.0) $51.5 $16.0 8.5% $3.8 2.0% ($20.9) ($23.5) $31.0 18.8% $3.3 2.0% ($100.1)

($4.2) ($165.5)

Note: All numbers in USD MM unless otherwise noted Source: Company reports, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

287

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 311: SOLF Balance Sheet


FYE: December Assets Current Assets: Cash and cash equivalents Restricted Cas h Accounts receivable, net % Sales Inventories % S ales Advance to Supplier s Deferred Expens es Other current assets Total Current Assets Net Fixed Assets Intangible assets , net Other non-current assets Total Assets LIAB. & S HRHLDRS' EQUITY S -Term Debt Trade acc ounts pay able % S ales Advance payments from customers Accrued expenses and other payables Amount due to related parties Total Current Liabilities: L-Term Debt Deferred tax liability and Other non-current liabilities Total Liabilities Minority Interests Redeemable convertible preferred shares Shareholders' Equity Total Liabilities & Shareholders' Equity Q1 Fiscal 2008 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Fiscal 2009 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Fiscal 2010 Q2 Q3 Q4

$85 $81 $75 $68 $71 $58 $96 $64 $51 56% 33% 27% $108 $120 $111 63.4% 60.9% 59.0% $160 $176 $200 $0 $0 $0 $29 $46 $23 $540 $541 $541 $122 $165 $191 $13 $14 $25 $29 $29 $53 ---------- -- ------------ -----------$705 $750 $810 ====== ====== ====== $143 $27 16% $13 $20 $3 $206 $198 $1 $406 $16 $0 $160 $25 13% $11 $21 $2 $219 $202 $1 $422 $26 $0 $147 $26 14% $5 $51 $2 $230 $201 $4 $436 $2 $0

$60 $13 $47 28% $107 65.2% $199 $0 $51 $477 $219 $31 $27 -----------$753 ====== $172 $32 19% $1 $29 $6 $241 $198 $4 $442 $1 $0 -----------$311 -----------$753 ====== $369.8 6% $21.6 $0.0

$43 $4 $5 $5 $37 $50 45% 45% $54 $73 65% 65% $199 $199 $0 $0 $51 $51 $389 $382 $221 $225 $31 $31 $27 $27 ------------ ---- -------$668 $664 ====== ====== $172 $8 10% $1 $29 $6 $217 $198 $4 $419 $1 $0 $172 $11 10% $1 $29 $6 $220 $198 $4 $422 $1 $0

$20 $5 $57 40% $92 65% $199 $0 $51 $423 $229 $31 $27 -----------$710 ====== $222 $14 10% $1 $29 $6 $273 $198 $4 $475 $1 $0 -----------$283 -----------$758 ====== $419.8 14% $50.0 $48.0

$24 $5 $47 35% $88 65% $199 $0 $51 $414 $233 $31 $27 -----------$705 ====== $222 $13 10% $1 $29 $6 $272 $198 $4 $474 $1 $0 -----------$278 -----------$753 ====== $419.8 0% $0.0 $48.0

$4 $5 $51 35% $96 65% $199 $0 $51 $406 $237 $31 $27 ------- ----$701 ====== $222 $15 10% $1 $29 $6 $273 $198 $4 $475 $1 $0 ------- ----$273 ------- ----$749 ====== $419.8 0% $0.0 $48.0

$68 $5 $61 35% $114 65% $199 $0 $51 $498 $243 $31 $27 -----------$799 ====== $322 $18 10% $1 $29 $6 $376 $198 $4 $578 $1 $0 -----------$268 -----------$847 ====== $519.8 24% $100.0 $48.0

$49 $31 $5 $5 $64 $67 35% 35% $120 $125 65% 65% $199 $199 $0 $0 $51 $51 $488 $477 $248 $254 $31 $31 $27 $27 ---- -------- ---------- -$794 $789 ====== ====== $322 $18 10% $1 $29 $6 $377 $198 $4 $579 $1 $0 $322 $19 10% $1 $29 $6 $378 $198 $4 $580 $1 $0

---------- -- ------------ -----------$283 $302 $372 ---------- -- ------------ -----------$705 $750 $810 ====== ====== ====== $341.4 154% $207.0 $0.0 $361.8 6% $20.4 $0.0 $348.2 -4% ($13.6) $0.0

------------ ---- -------$297 $290 ------------ ---- -------$716 $712 ====== ====== $369.8 0% $0.0 $48.0 $369.8 0% $0.0 $48.0

---- -------- ---------- -$262 $257 ---- -------- ---------- -$842 $837 ====== ====== $519.8 0% $0.0 $48.0 $519.8 0% $0.0 $48.0

Total Debt % Change Q/Q $ Change Check-sum P erf ormance Metrics P rofitability Ratios Return On Equity Return on Avg Equity Return On Assets Return On Net A ssets Return On Sales E fficiency Ratios S ales / Total Assets A /R Day s S ales Out Inventory Turns Days of Inventory

22% 13% 9% 10% 9% 0.97 51 5.3 69

15% 15% 6% 7% 6% 1.05 30 5.7 64

(7%) 9% (3%) (4%) (3%) 0.93 25 6.6 56

(79%) (12%) (33%) (35%) (37%) 0.87 26 8.2 44

( 18%) ( 23%) (8%) (9%) ( 16%) 0.50 41 6.3 58

(10%) (30%) (4%) (4%) (6%) 0.67 41 5.8 63

(10%) (31%) (4%) (4%) (5%) 0.80 37 5.8 63

(7%) (12%) (3%) (3%) (4%) 0.76 32 5.6 65

(7%) (9%) (3%) (3%) (3%) 0.84 32 5.7 64

(8%) (8%) (3%) (3%) (3%) 0.88 32 5.7 64

(9%) (8%) (3%) (3%) (3%) 0.93 32 5.7 64

(9%) (8%) (3%) (3%) (3%) 0.97 32 5.7 64

Liquidity Ratios Current Ratio Quick Ratio Net Wor king Capital ($M) Long-Term Debt / Equity Debt/Capital Total Debt / E quity E BITDA/Interest E BITDA- Capex/Interest

1.3 2.1 $334 70.0% 54.6% 120.5% -6.0 5.7

1.3 1.9 $323 66.9% 54.5% 119.8% -4.3 6.5

1.2 1.9 $310 54.1% 48.3% 93.5% 0.0 6.3

1.1 1.5 $236 63.7% 54.4% 119.1% 16.9 25.5

0.9 1.5 $172 66.6% 55.5% 124.5% 2.4 3.4

0.9 1.4 $162 68.2% 56.1% 127.5% 0.4 1.8

0.9 1.2 $151 69.9% 59.7% 148.3% -0.2 0.9

0.9 1.2 $142 71.1% 60.2% 151.0% -0.5 0.5

0.9 1.1 $132 72.3% 60.6% 153.6% -0.6 0.5

0.9 1.0 $122 73.8% 66.0% 193.9% -0.7 0.4

0.8 1.0 $111 75.4% 66.5% 198.2% -0.6 0.6

0.8 0.9 $99 77.0% 66.9% 202.5% -0.7 0.5

Book & Cash Value B ook V alue Per Share $5.86 Cash Per Share $1.75 Net Cash Per Share ($5.30) Tangible Book value $5.86 S ources: Company reports & Barclays Capital estimates Note: All Numbers in USD MM Unless otherwise noted

$1.05 $0.28 ($0.98) $1.05

$1.23 $0.25 ($0.90) $1.23

$1.23 $0.24 ($1.23) $1.23

$1.18 $0.17 ($1.29) $1.18

$1.15 $0.02 ($1.45) $1.15

$1.12 $0.08 ($1.58) $1.12

$1.10 $0.10 ($1.56) $1.10

$1.08 $0.02 ($1.64) $1.08

$1.06 $0.27 ($1.79) $1.06

$1.04 $0.19 ($1.86) $1.04

$1.02 $0.12 ( $1.94) $1.02

288

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Chapter 14: Private Solar Companies

May 01, 2009

289

Solar Energy Handbook

Private Companies in America 6N Silicon 6N Silicon was founded in September 2006 by Scott Nichol. With headquarters in the Toronto area, 6N Silicon is in the heart of Canada's metal processing industry and is surrounded by Canada's extensive metal processing knowledge. 6N Silicon's mission is to become the leading global supplier of sola r grade silicon to the solar industry. 6N's goal is to be the first company to market with an affordable solar grade of silicon that does not require any mixing with electronic grade silicon to maintain optimum cell performance while allowing customers to maintain high overall production yields in their processes. Abound Solar (Formerly known as AVA Solar) is a producer of Thin Film CdTe modules used mainly in large scale and utility scale solar installations. Based in Colorado, Abound Solar broke ground on a new manufacturing facility in 2008 with commercial production beginning around April 2009. This facility should produce 200MW of solar modules at full capacity. Advent Solar is a leading innovator for the next generation silicon based solar technology. Advent Solar Ventura Technology provides the blueprint for high-performance solar modules that deliver the industrys best value for silicon PV modules. Advent Solars unique approach enables higher value at many levels, to shift solar from an alternative to a mainstream energy source. One of the worlds largest solar power companies, BP Solar International, Inc. designs, manufactures, supplies, and installs solar PV and solar thermal systems for a range of applications in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. The company was founded in 1999, is based in Frederick, Maryland, and has operation facilities in the United States, Spain, India, and Australia. Cool Earth Solar is a developer of utility-scale concentrated solar power plants. The company uses unique mirror concentrators in its systems. These inflatable balloon mirrors, suspended on metal and wire structures, reflect light onto a solar cell to generate electricity and are 400 times cheaper than polished aluminum mirrors, bringing radical reductions to material costs and the weight of CPV.

Abound Solar

Advent Solar

BP Solar

Cool Earth

Deeya Energy

Deeya has engineered a powerful energy storage platform for applications in the telecommunications, defense, and other mission critical industries. Deeya's ESP is a powerful complement to Wind, Solar, Biomass and other renewable energy generation platforms. By cost effectively storing Grid or Electricity Board (EB) power, wind, solar, and other renewable power, the ESP significantly reduces diesel generator usage thereby lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Envision Solar LLC provides solar power generation services, and is one of the only companies that specialize in solar shading structures. It was founded in 2006 and is based in San Diego, California. The company hopes to commercialize a variety of PV carport systems, including its popular Solar Grove, which consists of solar treescentral poles supporting a canopy of solar panels.

Envision Solar

290

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Private Companies in America eSolar eSolar, Inc. builds solar thermal power projects for utilities and renewable resource owner-operators, and provides heliostat mirrors. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in Pasadena, California. It announced in June 2008 a solar power tower contract with Southern California Edison to procure an additional 245MW of solar power ramp-up by 2013. The project, which will be built in California, is expected to begin delivery in 2011. Global Solar Energy, Inc. manufactures and distributes thin-film PV solar cells, portable solar chargers, and next-generation glass modules. It was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Tucson, Arizona. In January 2008, Global Solar Energy announced that its CIGS cells had achieved a 10% cell efficiency rate. At Intersolar, the company introduced a new thin-film product called PowerFlex Solar Strings that will simplify and accelerate the process for Building Integrated Photovoltaic, or BIPV, manufacturers. GreenVolts concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) solution is a state of the art technology designed to achieve the highest solar-to-electricity conversion efficiency through an innovative integration of optics and solar tracking. Similar to central station power plants, GreenVolts technology enables a low levelized cost of energy, and yet it can be built close to load, further increasing efficiency and reducing costs. GreenVolts is based in San Francisco. HelioVolt Corp. specializes in thin-film PV coatings, in particular, CIGS nanomaterial-based solar panel technology. It was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Austin, Texas. The company is known for its patented FASST manufacturing process based on semiconductor printing for CIGS synthesis, which reduces costs by building cells 10100 times faster than competitors processes. In May 2008, HelioVolt announced that it had reached 12.2% efficiency with its CIGS cells. Infinia Corp. develops and sells stirling generators and cryocoolers. The most notable feature of its technology is the thermodynamic cycling of air to produce energy. Infinia uses a hermetically sealed, single-piston design that reduces maintenance costs (24% efficiency), although efficiency is somewhat reduced. The company was founded in 1985 and is based in Kennewick, Washington. It received $50 million in funding in February 2008, and plans to begin dish production in November, building up to 200MW per year of manufacturing capacity by the end of 2009. Kyocera Solar, Inc. sells solar electric systems for use in rural homes, vehicle sites, telecom and pipeline monitoring equipment and traffic signal locations. It is located in Scottsdale, Arizona. The company has announced plans to increase its solar cell production to 500MW per year in 2010, more than three times its 2007 output of 180MW. It will reinforce production bases in the United States, Japan, Europe, and China, investing a total of 30 billion through the next two years. Miasol produces thin-film solar cells based on CIGS semiconductor, and is developing a new sputtering production process. It is based in Santa Clara, California. In September 2007, the company raised $50 million, bringing its total financing to $100 million. At the same time, Miasol received a $20 million grant from the Solar America Initiative.

Global Solar

GreenVolts

HelioVolt

Infinia Corporation

Kyocera

Miasol

May 01, 2009

291

Solar Energy Handbook

Private Companies in America MP2 Capital MP2 Capital, LLC is a leading renewable energy financial services firm focused on developing financing and investing in distributed generation and utility scale projects worldwide. MP2 works with a wide range of commercial and government customers, utilities, load serving entities, energy merchants, material suppliers, developers, service providers builders and investors. MP2 is based out of San Rafael California, with offices in New York. Nanosolar, Inc. manufactures and distributes solar electric panels using thin-film CIGS cells. It has commercialized a low-cost printable cell manufacturing process, and began selling panels midDecember 2007. Nanosolars products include nanosolar powersheet, solarply for commercial buildings, and utility-scale for ground-mounted plan installations. The company was founded in 2002, is based in Palo Alto, California, and has operation facilities in San Jose, California and Berlin, Germany. Hayward, California-based OptiSolar Inc. is a fully integrated solar energy company that manufacturers PV modules and uses amorphous silicon panels to produce power from its own planned large-scale solar farms. The company is working to build nine 10MW solar farms in southwestern Ontario by 2010. It has announced plans to build a 550MW solar plan in San Luis Obispo County, California a project with the capacity to power about 190,000 homes. Construction on this $1 billion project is expected to begin in 2010. Permacity Solar, Inc. has emphasized the design and installation of systems atop large commercial buildings, master planned communities, vertical high-rise structures, and individual homes. In January 2004, it built the first free-standing RWE Schott Solar array in Southern California and continues to building dynamic PV systems in the United States. The company is located in Los Angeles, California. Petra Solar designs and manufactures the innovative, turn-key SunWave solar electric system for utility, commercial, and residential installations. These systems scale from a single panel to multi-mega watts providing the most deployable, cost effective and intelligent solar solutions in the industry. The US Department of Energy recently recognized Petra Solars unique technology with the Energy Innovator Award. Petra Solar is located in South Plainfield, NJ. Recurrent Energy is a developer and owner of locally-sited solar power systems, selling clean electricity to their customers worldwide at competitive rates via a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) or Feed-in Tariffs (FiT). In return, utility, commercial, and government customers achieve energy independence, predictable pricing, and enhanced sustainability. Signet Solar, Inc. develops and manufactures thin-film PV modules. It was founded in 2006 and is based in Menlo Park, California, with a research development center in Mochau, Germany. The company fabricated the industrys first generation 8.5 (5.7 square meters) silicon thin-film solar PV module in May 2008 in a record 10 months. A ramp-up in production and shipment to customers will begin in the third quarter. Signet has existing customer commitments of over $400 million.

Nanosolar

Optisolar

Permacity Solar

Petra Solar

Recurrent Energy

Signet Solar

292

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Private Companies in America Solar City Solar City is a residential PPA provider that offers a comprehensive service package to customers. Solar City provides continuous 24/7 monitoring with the SolarGuard Monitoring System which continually tracks the performance of their systems. First Solar recently made an investment in Solar City a deal that allowed Solar City to use First Solar modules in their systems. Solar Depot, Inc. is a wholesale distributor and systems integrator of solar electric and solar thermal systems. Its products include PV power generation and pool-heating systems. The company was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Petaluma, California. Its customers include U.S. military, federal government, NASA, the states of California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Solar Power Partners, Inc. (SPP) develops, owns, and operates distributed solar energy facilities and sells solar-generated electricity through solar Power Purchase Agreements (sPPAs). Solar Power Partners is a leading solar energy developer in the United States with over 37 completed projects, equaling 12.8 MW of commercial solar systems in operation. SPP is based out of Mill Valley California. Solar Reserve builds power plants designed as Solar Power Towers. This configuration captures and focuses the sun's thermal energy with thousands of tracking mirrors (called heliostats) in a two square mile field. Their partners consist of companies such as Citi, Good Energies, US Renewables Group, and United Technologies among others. Founded in 1984, SolarCraft Services, Inc. designs and manufacturers solar systems. The company has installed over 4,000 systems in Northern California that account for over a million square feet of solar energy collectors. Solaria designs, develops, and manufacturers industry leading silicon PV products. The companys cell multiplication technology maximizes the energy yield of silicon PV, accelerating cost savings in order to help PV get closer to Grid Parity. The company was founded in 1998 and currently is located in Fremont, California, with facilities in the Philippines and Germany. Solfocus, Inc. develops and markets solar concentrator photovoltaic systems. The company was founded in 2005 and is based in Palo Alto, California. Last July it bought Madrid -based solar tracking company Inspira to help reduce tracker costs.

Solar Depot

Solar Power Partners

Solar Reserve

SolarCraft Services

Solaria

SolFocus

Soliant Energy

Soliant Energy, Inc. manufactures and sells concentrating solar panels for commercial rooftops and carports, developing tracking and concentrating PV Heliotube product platforms, selling its products through installers. The company was founded in 2005 and is based in Pasadena, California. At Soliant, engineers are working in partnership with members of NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory to develop solar panels that use 88% less PV material.

May 01, 2009

293

Solar Energy Handbook

Private Companies in America Solyndra Solyndra designs and manufactures PV systems for commercial rooftops. The company uses proprietary cylindrical modules and thin film technology in order to increase output while minimizing costs to purchasers of rooftop solar systems. Solyndra was founded in 2005 and is based in Freemont, California. Sopogy is a leader in MicroCSP technologies that bring the economics of proven large scale Concentrating Power Systems (CSP) to the distributed generation markets. MicroCSP technologies are used to create Process Heat, Solar Air Conditioning or Electrical Power. Sopogy was founded in 2002 at the Energy Laboratories, and are now based out of Honolulu, Hawaii.

Sopogy

SPG Solar

SPG Solar, Inc. develops and installs solar PV systems. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in Novato, California. Over 500 of the companys systems have been for homes in northern California. The others have been commercial systems ranging from a 4.0kW project at San Franciscos AT&T Park, to a 1.18MW installation for Butte County. SPG has received the largest renewable energy rebate in state history twice. SunEdison LLC is a large solar energy services provider for North America. The company was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Beltsville, Maryland, with three locations in California. It serves commercial, government, and utility customers. In May 2008, Duke Energy Carolinas LLC announced that it will purchase the entire electricity output of the nations largest PV sola r farm to be built in Davidson County, North Carolina. SunRun is a home solar service company located in San Francisco, California. The company offers two premium solar solutions, SunRun Total Solar and SunRun Power Plan. Silicon Valley Solar is a manufacturer of flat plate internal concentrator solar modules. It supplies silicon wafers and feedstock to the semiconductor and solar industries. The company is working to commercialize its proprietary Sol-X brand technology. The first Sol-X module is expected to deliver twice the concentration, effectively reducing silicon requirements by more than 50%. The development is relevant to fixed-mount commercial arrays, BIPV projects, and utility scale projects. The company was founded in 2006 and is located in Santa Clara, California. Teksun was incorporated in April 2007 as a result of the expansion of Cat Solar. Teksun will manufacture and sell solar power panels as well as selling solar power to large utilities and industrial users of peak power. TekSun is based in Austin, Texas.

SunEdison

SunRun

SV Solar

Teksun

294

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Private Companies in America Tigo Energy Tigo Energy builds hardware and software intelligence into solar energy installations, making them more efficient, more manageable, and safer. By maximizing the energy output of each individual module, Tigos advanced balance of system products deliver lower cost of ownership and faster return on investment for existing and new solar installations. Tigo Energy increases output power, up-time, and reliability on existing and new solar installations, resulting in a faster return on investment and lower cost of ownership. Tioga EnergySM accelerates access to clean energy through long-term power purchase agreements (PPA) for renewable energy. The companys SurePathSM Solar PPA provides solar electricity to commercial, government, and non-profit organizations. From assessment to on-going operations, Tioga Energys expert guidance puts its customers on the right path to renewable energy and improved financial performance. Tioga Energy is based in San Mateo, California.

Tioga Energy

May 01, 2009

295

Solar Energy Handbook

Private Companies in Asia (China) Aide Solar Jiangsu Aide Solar Energy Technology was founded in 2003. The companys business covers solar cells, solar modules, and other applied PV products manufacture, sale, and service. The companys products are used in PV grid-in, independent electricity generation system, lighting, communication, transportation and military field. In 2008, the company built a high-efficiency 40MW mono solar cells production line and enlarged its solar modules capacity to 150MW. ENN Solar Energy, part of The Xinao Group Co. Ltd., produces and sells PV. In collaboration with Applied Materials, ENN Solar introduced the SunFab thin-film production line to produce its 5.7m2 module. This 60MW line will be the first phase of an expected 500MW capacity plant. The company aims to ramp-up production on its Applied Materials line to 500MW by 2010. Golden Sun (Fujian) Solar Technic Co., Ltd. was established in 2002 as a joint venture PV company specializing in the R&D and manufacturing of thin-film solar cells. It has a research center in Beijing and two branches located in the United States and Germany. Golden Sun currently has an annual production capacity of 30MW. It aims to produce 430kW of amorphous silicon tandem cells this year, and 1GW in 2010, using technology developed with a Chinese university. Jiawei Solarchina manufactures high-efficiency PV solar cells, modules, portable systems, and large integrated systems. The company built a silicon feedstock factory in Beijing in 2007, and the companys capacity reached 120MW in 2007. It has established a number of long-term partnerships with other PV companies such as SunPower and Astropower (currently GE Energy). The company was founded in 1993 and is based in Shenzhen, China. Nantong Qiangsheng PV Technology Co. Ltd. (QS Solar) began making thin-film solar cells in 2008, using a new amorphous silicon solar cell production line in Jiangsu, with the largest production capacity in China (25MW), at 6% conversion efficiency It plans to have six production lines by 2009, creating 340MW in capacity. By 2010, it plans to add another six lines to reach 550MW.

ENN Solar

GS Solar

Jiawei Solarchina

QS Solar

296

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Private Companies in Europe Concentrix Solar Founded in 2005, Concentrix Solar GmbH specializes in concentrator solar power plants. It set a new record in Germany, in May 2008, after achieving A/C system efficiencies of 23% and higher. The company recently successfully installed the first 100 kW system that is ready to be grid-connected.
GERMANY

CSG Solar

CSG Solar AG manufactures thin-film solar modules, with products that are of CSG technology. In 2006, the company won the World Technology Award for Innovations in Energy. The company was founded in 2004 and in based in Thalheim, Germany.
GERMANY

IBC

IBC Solar AG manufacturers and supplies PV modules and systems, as well as system components (charge regulators, inverters, batteries). The companys customers include electrical wholesalers and specialist trade firms. IBC Solar was founded in 1982 and is based in Bad Staffelstein, Germany. In March 2008, it announced a strategic partnership with Solar Semiconductor valued at over $575 million over the next three years.
GERMANY

Solarwatt

Solarwatt AG engages in the development and manufacturing of solar modules made of crystalline silicon cells in lamination technology. It the one of the biggest PV manufacturers in Germany, with an output of 62MW in 2007. The company provides roof and ground systems and components (inverters, batteries, charge controllers), as well as value-chain equipment (stringers, framing, testing). It was founded and is based in Dresden, Germany.
GERMANY

Solel

Solel specializes in solar thermal technology for solar systems and central power plans. The company is based in Beit Shemesh, Israel. In April 2008, Solel announced plans for a major expansion into the Spanish market with a new $120 million facility, to be completed by 2011, that will produce the key components for constructing solar fields, including its Solel 6 parabolic trough solar collectors. In May 2008, the company closed a deal agreeing to supply Ibereolica Solar with over 190,000 UVAC 2008 receiver systems that will power eight 50MW solar power plants in southern Spain.
ISRAEL

Solland

Solland Solar Energy B.V. is a German-Dutch developer and manufacturer of crystalline solar cells, selling to solar module producers and original equipment manufacturers. The company was founded in 2004 and is based in Heerlen, the Netherlands. In 2008, Solland Solar and Amtech Systems entered into a R&D agreement for in-line solar diffusion furnace system. The company is currently cooperating with AT&S to develop a new solar module concept with increased efficiency and reduced costs.
NETHERLANDS

May 01, 2009

297

Solar Energy Handbook

Private Companies in Europe Isofoton Isofoton S.A. provides PV electricity and solar thermal hot water production solutions. It is one of the biggest solar PV manufacturers in Europe, and recently broke into the North American market. The company was founded in 1981 and is based in Madrid, Spain. It has locations in Europe, Africa, America, Asia, and Oceania, as well as factories in Malaga and China. Historically, much of its products have been used for rural electrification in several countries in the developing world.
SPAIN

Solarcentury Holdings

Solarcentury Holdings is the United Kingdoms leading solar company, specializing in a range of proprietary and third-party PV and solar thermal products to commercial, residential and public sector customers in the United Kingdom and other European countries, focusing on building integrated product solutions. The company maintains a strong network of distributors and installers, working with large building contractors and property developers. It was founded in 1998 and is based in London.
UK

298

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Chapter 15: Company Descriptions

May 01, 2009

299

Solar Energy Handbook

U.S. Companies SunPower (2-Equal weight, 1-Positive, V. Shah) designs, manufactures, and delivers high-efficiency solar electric technology worldwide. The companys customers include residential, commercial and utility-scale power plant customers. SunPower products and services include high-efficiency cells, solar panels for residential requirements, integrated systems and multi-megawatt solar power systems. The company has developed single-axis tracking systems for large-scale solar electric projects and power plants. The SunPower T20 tracker, which tilts up to 25 degrees for increased energy capture, is the latest in solar tracking technology. The company also provides performance monitoring in real-time and energy efficiency services. First Solar (2-Equal weight, 1-Positive, V. Shah) manufactures PV modules with an advanced thin-film semiconductor process that greatly reduces raw material and manufacturing costs compared with traditional crystalline silicon PV modules. The companys proprietary thin-film semiconductor technology allows it to achieve an average manufacturing cost per watt that is significantly less than the per watt manufacturing cost of producing crystalline silicon solar modules. It manufactures solar modules on highthroughput production lines that complete all manufacturing steps, from semiconductor deposition to final assembly and testing, in an automated, continuous process to greatly reduce production costs. The company uses a systematic replication process to build new production lines with operating metrics that are comparable to the performance of its base plant. Employing Continuous Improvement methodologies and Copy Smart replication, the company has been able to rapidly expand its production capacity to meet demand. MEMC (1-Overweight, 1-Positive, V. Shah) is a global leader in the manufacture and sale of wafers and related intermediate products to the semiconductor and solar industries. Wafers are the fundamental building blocks that virtually all solar cells are built upon. The company has been a pioneer in the design and development of wafer technologies for more than four decades and maintains R&D and manufacturing facilities in Europe, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and the United States. MEMC continues to remain at the forefront of technology innovation with advanced manufacturing capabilities and a suite of process technologies including alternate materials. The company produces wafers in sizes ranging from 100 millimeters to 300 millimeters and in the prime polished, epitaxial and test/monitor categories. MEMC also sells intermediate products such as polysilicon, silane gas, partial ingots, and scrap wafers to semiconductor device and equipment makers, solar customers, flat panel, and other industries. Evergreen Solar (2-Equal weight, 1-Positive, V. Shah) develops, manufactures and sells solar power products, primarily solar panels that provide reliable and environmentally clean electric power worldwide. The company serves the wireless power, rural electrification, and grid-connected applications markets. It expects to exploit its proprietary and patented technology to produce distinctive products, to reduce manufacturing costs through lower materials use and streamlined processes, and to manufacture internationally for global market penetration. The companys products are enabled by the companys proprietary String RibbonTM technology. The company sells its products through distributors, systems
300 May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

integrators, and other value-added resellers, who often add value through system design by incorporating the modules with electronics, structures, and wiring systems. The company has entered into a strategic partnership with Q-Cells and REC to form Ever-Q, whose purpose is to develop and operate facilities to manufacture, market, and sell solar products based on the String RibbonTM technology using fabrication processes that combines the manufacturing technologies of the three. Energy Conversion Devices (3-Underweight, 1-Positive, V. Shah) has maintained a strong core competence in materials research and advanced product development throughout its history. United Solar Ovonic, a subsidiary of the company, has become the world leader in thin-film amorphous photovoltaics technology and commercial applications. Using its proprietary thin-film, vapor-deposited a-Si alloy materials, the company has developed proprietary technology to reduce the materials cost in a solar cell. The companys high-volume production equipment, built by its Production Technology and Machine Building division, is the worlds largest and most advanced machine for the manufacture of thin-film amorphous silicon alloy solar cells that are flexible, rugged and lightweight, enabling various lines of commercial and residential building-integrated solar products. The companys unique solar cell technology characteristics make it ideal for residential and industrial building-integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) roofing systems. The company sells its products to various markets including the Off-Grid systems, Residential, Commercial and Industrial systems. GT Solar (2-EW, 1-Positive, V.Shah) supplies PV fabrication lines and manufacturing equipment across the value chain used to produce multi-crystalline solar wafers, cells, and modules. It provides tabbers/stringers, ribbon flux stations, optical scanning systems, etching wet benches, cell testing machines, DSS furnaces, SoG silicon feedstock production, and polysilicon reactors. GT Solar, Inc. was found in 1994 and is based in Merrimack, New Hampshire. Key developments in 2008 include major contracts with Nexolon Co., The Silicon Mine, and DC Chemical. Akeena Solar (not rated) is a solar power system designer and integrator. It is also one of the largest national installers of residential and small commercial solar power systems in the United States and services customers in California, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. The company is concentrating its strategic efforts on three factors: developing proprietary solar power installation technology optimized for these market segments; leveraging and enhancing its brand name and reputation, and utilizing a process-driven approach to sell and installing solar power systems efficiently in multiple locations. Akeena recently gave Suntech the license to distribute its solar panel technology, Andalay, in Europe, Japan, and Australia. The companies had previously entered into an agreement to manufacture the Andalay solar panels. Andalay is an advanced, highperformance, integrated solar power system designed for use in on-grid residential, commercial, and government applications. Hoku Scientific (not rated) is a materials science company focused on clean energy technologies. Historically focused on developing new products for hydrogen fuel cells, it is
May 01, 2009 301

Solar Energy Handbook

now diversifying its business to include integrated photovoltaic modules and polysilicon. Hoku Solar is a provider of turnkey PV systems, offering installation services through direct sales, leases, and power purchase contracts for commercial and select residential markets. The company is focused on installing these systems in Hawaii using modules and other equipment purchased from third-party suppliers. Hoku Materials is developing a polycrystalline silicon manufacturing plant with planned capacity of up to 2,500 metric tons per year. Construction commenced in May 2007 and Hoku plans to have it operational by year-end 2008. The company has already entered into long-term sale agreements with Sanyo, Suntech, and Solar-Fabrik. The polysilicon business is designed to support the solar installation business by providing opportunities for partnerships in the solar industry. China-Based Companies Listed in the United States Suntech Power (3-Underweight, 1-Positive, V. Shah) is the largest solar module manufacturer worldwide and has production sites at Wuxi, Luoyang, Qinghai and Shanghai. Suntech Power produces a wide range of PV cells and modules. The company also provides PV system integration services in China. Its products are used in a variety of residential, commercial, industrial and public utility applications. The company offers highperformance polycrystalline and mono-crystalline modules with an array of features including stability, capacity, and power-generating endurance over multiple applications. The companys extensive R&D and product innovation continues to drive conversion efficiencies. Suntechs China-based production lines also help keep costs down. Suntech Power believes that its strength lies in its ability to manufacture capacity, streamline and optimize its manufacturing processes and enhancing process technologies. Suntechs subsidiary, MSK, is one of the top-ranked companies in the building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) space. Through the MSK brand, Suntech is able to provide a complete range of solar solutions. JA Solar (1-Overweight, 1-Positive, V. Shah) is emerging as a fast-growing manufacturer of high-performance solar cells. Based in China, it continues to bridge the gap between financial feasibility and environmental awareness. Advancing PV as a financially viable sustainable solution, JA Solar continues to supply energy demand and utilize its global marketing ability. Its products are utilized worldwide including China, Germany, Sweden, Spain, South Korea, and the United States. The companys objective is to be a leader in the developing and manufacturing of low-cost, high-performance solar cell products. The company sells its solar cells to module manufacturers which assemble and integrate them into modules. Yingli Green Energy (1-Overweight, 1-Positive, V. Shah) is one of the leading verticallyintegrated PV product manufacturers in China. Yingli Green Energy designs, manufactures and sells PV modules and designs, assembles, sells and installs PV systems that are connected to an electricity transmission grid or those that operate on a standalone basis. Yingli Green Energy is currently one of the largest manufacturers of PV products in China. In addition, Yingli Green Energy is one of the few large-scale PV companies in China to have adopted vertical integration as its business model. Its products and services substantially cover the entire PV industry value chain from the manufacture of multi-crystalline polysilicon
302 May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

ingots and wafers, PV cells, PV modules and PV systems to PV system installation. The company expects to gradually expand annual production capacity of polysilicon ingots and wafers, PV cells and PV modules. The company produces a wide variety of module types that reflect the requirements of on-grid systems, off-grid systems, and other configurations. Yingli Green Energy sells PV modules under its own brand name, Yingli Solar, to PV system integrators and distributors located in various markets worldwide, including Germany, Spain, China, and the United States. LDK Solar (2-Equal weight 1-Positive, V. Shah) is a pure-play manufacturer dedicated solely to the design, development, manufacturing, and distribution of multi-crystalline solar wafers. The companys manufacturing process is based on proprietary production processes utilizing both virgin and recyclable polysilicon for ingot production. Through this proprietary process, LDK is able to offer its global solar cell and module manufacturer customers considerable cost advantages while maintaining quality and performance. LDK also provide wafering services to both multi-crystalline and mono-crystalline solar cell and module manufacturers which provide their own ingots to be sliced. LDK currently produces and sells multi-crystalline wafers in two principal sizes of 125 x 125 mm and 156 x 156 mm. The company has strategic relationships with world-class PV equipment manufacturers GT Solar (USA) and HCT (Switzerland), which support LDK on equipment, process and technology. The company has also begun construction on its polysilicon production plant, which is expected to be completed in 2009. Canadian Solar (3-Underweight, 1-Positive, V. Shah) is a standard solar module and specialty solar module and product company, serving customers located in various markets worldwide. The company is incorporated in Canada and conducts all of its manufacturing operations in China. Canadian Solar has become a major global provider of solar power products for a wide range of applications. The companys major product lines are its PV modules from 5W300W and its custom-engineered solar specialty products. Canadian Solar also operates one of the largest silicon reclaiming business centers worldwide. The company specializes in purchasing, processing and supplying ingots, broken wafers, reclaimed wafers and broken cells. Trina Solar (2-Equal weight, 1-Positive, V. Shah) is a manufacturer of high-quality monocrystalline modules and has a long history as a solar PV pioneer. The company was founded as a system installation company in China. Trina Solar is currently one of the few PV manufacturers which has developed a vertically-integrated business model from the production of mono-crystalline ingots, wafers, and cells to the assembly of high-quality modules. The company has achieved a high degree of vertical integration in the solar value chain through the production of mono-crystalline silicon ingots and wafers and through the assembly of solar modules. This integrated value chain helps to ensure highquality products to its end customers. The company produces modules with power ranging from 160W185W. Trina Solar's modules are used for residential, commercial, industrial, and public utility applications worldwide. The company's mission is to expand the global solar PV industry and make solar PV energy cost-effective for every consumer by aggressively pursuing grid parity.
May 01, 2009 303

Solar Energy Handbook

ReneSola (2-Equal weight, 1-Positive, V. Shah) is a leading manufacturer of wafers for the PV industry and one of the fastest-growing companies in the industry. The raw materials used in ReneSolas production process are sourced principally through recycling silicon, in the form of different types of part processed and broken wafers, pot scrap, ingot tops and tails and other off-cuts, from the semiconductor industry and increasingly, the PV industry. ReneSola sells solar wafers both to Chinese and international PV cell manufacturers. ReneSola believes that continuing effort in R&D is an important corporate strategy to maintain its competitive edge over the competition. The company plans to improve existing technology in two synergic core businesses of the Group, recycling and wafer production operations. Solarfun (3-Underweight, 1-Positive, V. Shah) manufactures both PV cells and PV modules, provides PV cell-processing services to convert silicon wafers into PV cells, and supplies solar system integration services in China. The company produces both monocrystalline and multi-crystalline silicon cells and modules, and manufactures 100% of its modules with in-house produced PV cells. The company is also able to sell its additional PV cells to end users due to its large manufacturing capacity. Solarfun sells its products both through third-party distributors and directly to system integrators. Solarfun Modules have been used worldwide for various residential, commercial, industrial, and solar field projects. The modules sold by the company range in power between 160W200W. Solarfun also provides PV cell-processing services for silicon suppliers. The company has also recently started commercial activities to provide solar system integration services to end-users in China through a subsidiary. China Sunergy (2-Equal weight, 1-Positive, V. Shah) is a leading manufacturer of solar cell products in China as measured by production capacity and a pure-play cell manufacturer focusing on the highest value segment of the solar value chain. The company produces high-efficiency mono-crystalline and multi-crystalline silicon solar cells. It sells these solar cell products to Chinese and overseas module manufacturers and system integrators, which assemble the solar cells into solar modules and solar power systems for use in various markets, particularly to European markets. The majority of the companys sales are to customers located in China. Cells are also sold to customers in Italy, South Africa, and other countries. European Companies Q-Cells (2-Equal weight, 2-Neutral, R. Madlani) is the second-largest manufacturer of PV cells worldwide. The company develops, produces, and sells high-performance solar cells made of mono-crystalline and multi-crystalline silicon. The company supplies these cells to the manufacturers of solar modules. It offers a range of mono-crystalline (Q6M, Q6LM) and multi-crystalline (Q5, Q6, Q6LTT, Q6LPS, Q8TT3). Q-Cells has deliberately established itself as a specialist in a key position of the PV supply chain. The company has consistently focused on extending its product capacities and constantly advancing its production methods, thus setting industry standards. Q--Cells has built a worldwide presence with customers in countries such as Germany, Austria, Canada, Cyprus, Japan, Korea, India, Netherlands, Spain, and Turkey. The company has entered into a strategic partnership with
304 May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Evergreen Solar and REC to form Ever-Q, whose purpose is to develop and operate facilities to manufacture, market, and sell solar products based on the String RibbonTM technology using fabrication processes that combines the manufacturing technologies of the three. Solarworld (2-Equal weight, 2-Neutra, R. Madlani) started off as a solar trading house and is now one of the largest solar concerns worldwide. Solarworld AG has positioned itself as a sustainable vertically integrated organization in the international solar market place. The objective of the integration strategy is to be able to define and optimize the development of technology at all stages of manufacture and thus to gain in terms of costs from the synergy effects and to derive a qualitatively high-quality product from the experience gained at all levels of the value chain. The company is focused on the manufacture and marketing of PV products worldwide by integrating all components of the solar value chain, from feedstock to module production, from trade with solar panels to the construction of solar power plants. The group controls the development of solar power technologies at all levels in-house. The products offered include custom-made construction kits, integrated roof systems, PV modules and mounting systems. The company has international production and sales units in Germany, Sweden, Spain, Asia, Africa, and the United States. REC (1-Overweight, 2-Neutral, R. Madlani) is organized in three divisions: REC Silicon, REC Wafer, and REC Solar. REC Silicon is the worlds largest dedicated producer of silicon materials for the PV industry, and produces silane and polysilicon for the photovoltaic and electronics industries. REC Wafer is the worlds largest producer of multicrystalline wafers and produces multi-crystalline wafers for the solar cell industry at two production facilities in Norway, as well as specialized mono-crystalline wafers. REC Solar produces solar cells at its plant in Norway and solar modules at its facilities in Sweden. It also operates a small systems installation company, Solar Vision, in South Africa. The presence in all parts of the value chain of the PV industry is one of REC's key strengths as it provides in-depth industry insight, which makes REC well-positioned to analyze and execute on strategic opportunities. It also enables REC to perform joint technology development. Its own production of polysilicon secures the growth potential of all REC businesses, enhancing other strengths, notably efficient and scalable operations with lean manufacturing and mass production concepts implemented throughout the group. The company has entered into a strategic partnership with Evergreen Solar and Q-Cells to form Ever-Q, whose purpose is to develop and operate facilities to manufacture, market, and sell solar products based on the String RibbonTM technology using fabrication processes that combines the manufacturing technologies of the three. Ersol (not rated) is a German PV company with production plants in Arnstadt, Erfurt, and Camarillo in California. The company produces multi and mono-crystalline silicon solar cells and has also started thin-film module production. Ersol is divided into the four major business segments of silicon, wafers, solar cells, and crystalline PV modules. Ersol Silicon specializes in the recycling of silicon, and the scope of the Ersol Group subsidiary currently covers silicon for solar and semiconductor applications, metallurgical grade silicon, and
May 01, 2009 305

Solar Energy Handbook

support products. Ersol Wafers is a specialist manufacturer of mono-crystalline ingots and wafers, currently producing mono-crystalline silicon ingots, mono-crystalline silicon wafers, crystals and wafers with a special twin structure, and crystals and wafers with special dopant impurities. Ersol Solar Cells currently manufactures multi-crystalline and monocrystalline silicon solar cells in 156 mm x 156 mm format. Ersol claims that its cells provide high, stable outputs, which remain within close tolerances over long periods. Ersol Modules supplies photovoltaic modules based on high-efficiency mono-crystalline and multi-crystalline silicon solar cells in the sizes 125 mm x 125 mm, 150 mm x 150 mm, and 156 mm x 156 mm. The company plans to significantly increase its capacities for manufacturing wafers and solar cells. Ersol is currently focusing on markets in North America, Southern Europe, and China. Conergy (2-Equal weight, 2-Neutral, R. Madlani) manufactures solar-thermic, photovoltaic and wind components and supplies exclusively via commercial partners. Conergy has offers products in both PV and solar thermals. Within PV, it offers products that cater to private homes and businesses as well as large solar plants. These include PV modules, mounting systems, string inventers, central inverters, off-grid inverters, grid connected inverters, solar charge controllers, and system monitoring equipment. The solutions offered are for grid-connected installations as well as off-grid installations and architecturally unique constructions. In solar thermal products, Conergy develops solar collectors and systems, which include flat-plate collectors, control units, pump assemblies, storage tanks, and complete systems. Conergy uses its know-how to offer tailor-made components and complete systems for optimal exploitation of solar energy and in order to continually develop them further. Conergy now operates subsidiaries in 25 countries on five continents. Besides recently expanding into the most promising solar markets worldwide, Conergy is planning a customer-oriented diversification of its product range. Solon (3-Underweight, 2-Neutral, R. Madlani) is a major European solar module manufacturing company focused on the European market, although it has production centers worldwide. The company specializes in the integration of PV technology into buildings. The core business of the Solon group consists of solar modules and system technology. The solar modules segment comprises standard modules with outputs of 120 130 watts. Most of these modules are manufactured at Solon's German facilities and marketed under the company's own brands. A small number of OEM products are manufactured. Apart from module production, this segment also includes a wholesale business based on products from other manufacturers. The most important target customers of this business segment are wholesalers specializing in solar technology and installation companies. The system technology segment comprises the manufacture and distribution of the Solon mover power plant system and the solar module project business. Also included is the production of sine wave inverters for off-grid applications. The company acquired a stake in Global Solar Energy in 2006 to gain access to the U.S. market and is also working to capture market share in Spain, Italy, and France.

306

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Taiwanese Companies E-Ton (not rated) is a pure-play solar PV cell manufacturer focused on the production of mono-crystalline solar PV cells. The company has recently started a series of vertical integration activities to capture more value from the solar chain. E-Ton designs, develops, manufactures and markets a variety of PV cells. Its product offerings including 5 monocrystalline solar PV cell, 5 multi-crystalline solar PV cell, 6 mono-crystalline solar PV cell, and 6 multi-crystalline solar PV cell. The company is committed to developing highefficiency solar cells with innovative technologies such as AR coating and in-line PECVD. ETons top-tier customer base includes companies such as Solar-Fabrik, Solaria, and Solara. E-Ton established a subsidiary, Gloria Solar, to enter the PV module business in 2006, which formed a joint venture with Spire to address the PV system installation market in the United States. E-Ton also recently acquired ADEMA Technologies, a wafer manufacturer in the United States. The Taiwan-based company has customers across the globe, with a strong focus on Europe, and is developing new customer relationships in the United States and China. Motech (not rated) is one of the largest solar PV cell manufacturers worldwide. The company designs, develops, manufactures, and sells a variety of high-q uality monocrystalline and multi-crystalline PV cells and PV systems. In addition to solar PV cells and systems, Motech also produces high-precision test and measurement equipments. The company has started to vertically integrate since 2006. The company is currently expanding its in-house ingot and wafer capacity in China. Motechs current end customers are concentrated in Europe, especially Germany, Spain, and Italy. But the company has also started diversifying its geographical exposure and expanding to more end markets including the United States and South Korea. Solar Equipment Companies Applied Materials (2-Equal weight, 2-Neutral, C. J. Muse) offers customers solutions for fabricating three types of solar modules based on crystalline silicon wafers, which deliver the highest sunlight-to-electricity conversion efficiencies. They are also used for areaconstrained applications such as homes, for large-area thin-film solar modules on glass that are well-adapted for large-scale power plants and building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV), and for flexible PV solar modules that use non-traditional substrates to provide light-weight solar power for mobile applications and facilitate innovative low-cost methods for installing solar on buildings. Applied SunFab thin-film Line enables customers to manufacture worldclass, 5.7m2 thin-film silicon PV modules. The Applied SunFab Line delivers state-of-the-art manufacturing capability needed to produce the lowest cost per watt modules. Leybold Optics (not rated) is one of the world's leading providers of vacuum technology. The company focuses on 3D-Coating/Web, Display/Glass, Optics, Solar and Special Systems. Headquartered in Alzenau, Germany, it is managed by Mr. Helmut Frankenberger. Since 2001, has been part of the private equity fund EQT, founded by the Swedish industrialist family of Wallenberg. The company also uses PHOEBUS, its PECVD solution for the silicon thin-film solar cell industry. PHOEBUS is based on a vertical, carrier-

May 01, 2009

307

Solar Energy Handbook

free linear cluster approach to avoid both particle contamination issues common for horizontal systems and the elevated costs associated with vertical systems. The most crucial component of any silicon thin-film solar cell is the light-absorbing layer. Compared to the overall thickness of the solar cell, the absorber represents the biggest part, which is particularly true for so-called tandem and triple cells. PECVD (plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition) is generally used to deposit the absorber layer consisting of a PIN junction from a silane hydrogen gas mixture using boron and phosphor containing dopant gases for the P and N layers, respectively. Oerlikon Solar (not rated) offers field-proven production solutions for thin-film silicon solar modules based on its extensive experience in thin-film mass production technology. The fully automated high-yield, high-uptime, and low maintenance solutions focus on reducing device cost and maximizing productivity. Oerlikon mass production solutions are modular and upgradeable in throughput, as well as process technology. ULVAC Technologies (not rated), founded in Japan in 1952, is an international corporation that designs, manufacturers, and markets equipment and materials for industrial applications of vacuum technology. Today, ULVAC is a leading global supplier of production systems, instrumentation, pumps and vacuum components used in the semiconductor, flat-panel display, disk/magnetic media, and industrial manufacturing markets. The corporation is composed of some 36 individual companies engaged in all sectors of the vacuum industry. The ULVAC name is derived from the company's conceptual foundation, "The ULtimate in VACuum Technology." VON ARDENNEs (not rated) core skill in the field of PV, the conversion of solar energy into electrical current, lies in thin-film technologies, which are used to manufacture different kinds of solar cells. VON ARDENNE supplies the necessary production equipment and essential technologies used in the manufacture of both wafer-based and thin-film solar cells. Centrotherm (2-Equal weight, 2-Neutral, R. Madlani) has been a part of the PV industry since 1979 and is a technology and service provider for the manufacturing of solar cells and solar-grade silicon. It offers key equipment and turnkey production lines for crystalline cells and thin-film modules. The company has supplemented its crystalline cell product offer with reactors and converters for manufacturing solar silicon. The company also has thin-film module turnkey lines. Centrotherm has expanded its global footprint in Asia, southern Europe and the United States and established sales and service subsidiaries in these regions, while maintaining its production and technology centers in Germany. Manz Automation, (2-Equal weight, 2-Neutral, R. Madlani) with more than 20 years of experience in robotics, image processing, and control engineering, is a world leader in its field. The company works in close cooperation with its customers to develop sector-specific automation solutions, which are sold worldwide. Roth & Rau (3-Underweight, 2-Neutral, R. Madlani) is among the leading suppliers of PECVD equipment for deposition of amorphous hydrogenated silicon nitride as passivation

308

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

and anti-reflective coatings for crystalline silicon solar cells. Further products are plasmaetching systems for edge isolation, and other dry etching applications in photovoltaics and plasma process equipment for research and development. Schmid (not rated): Gebr. Schmid was founded in 1864 in Freudenstadt, Germany, as an iron foundry and mechanical workshop. Since 2001 the third Schmid business field, photovoltaics, is a success story worldwide. Schmid delivers production equipment for wafers, cells, and modules. Spire (not rated) is a diversified technology company providing innovative solar energy manufacturing equipment and solar systems, biomedical devices, and optoelectronic components. Applying its expertise in materials technologies across all product lines, Spire has a rich heritage of applying science and research to develop products that generate renewable energy, improve health care, enhance security, and deliver advanced solutions to businesses worldwide. Meyer Burger (2-Equal weight, 2-Neutral, R. Madlani) is a leading supplier of highprecision machines with wire saws, band saws and ID/OD slicing systems for cutting hard and brittle materials such as silicon, sapphire or other crystals into wafers, prisms, and other shapes. The companys offering includes various models of high-precision machines, spare parts, wear-and-tear parts, consumables, regrooving service, process know-how, support, training and other services. Meyer Burgers machines, skills and technologies are mainly used in the solar industry (PV), the semiconductor industry, and in the optical industry. These three markets all require the thinnest possible wafers of silicon or sapphire for the manufacture of solar modules, integrated circuits, or high-performance LEDs. BTU International (not rated) has participated globally in the PV industry since the 1990s. BTU was a pioneer in the diffusion, APCVD coating, and metallization processes. Solar cell manufacturing requires several thermal steps similar to semiconductor manufacturing, an industry where BTU is also a market leader. These processes include diffusion, drying, coating, and firing of the solar cell. BTU provides thermal solutions for all of these process steps.

May 01, 2009

309

Solar Energy Handbook

310

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Chapter 16: Solar Energy 101

May 01, 2009

311

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 312: World Solar PV Market (2008)


Japan Italy Rest of Europe 3% 3% 5% Others 9%

Spain 38%

US 7%

Germ any 35%


Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital research

World solar PV market installations reached a record high of 5,900MW in 2008, representing growth of 90% over the previous year. Germany's PV market reached 1,793MW in 2008 and now accounts for 35% of the world market. Installations in Spain grew by 350% to 1,926MW, while the United States increased by 55% to 341MW. The U.S. is the world's fourth-largest market behind Japan. World solar cell shipments reached a consolidated figure of 6,115 MW in 2007, up from 3,363 MW per year earlier. Polysilicon production for both solar and semiconductor use rose 37% in 2008.

Figure 313: Job Creation Potential of Solar PV Industry


Worldw ide Em pl oym ent i n PV-Related Jobs 2030 (3.7M Jobs)

P roduc tion 1 4%

Installation 75%

Wholes aler 4% Res earc h 2% Supply 5%

The solar industry offers significant social benefits in the form of job creation. A large number of jobs created are in the installation part of the value chain. This essentially gives a boost to the local economy. Extensive research on the solar industry has shown that approximately 10 jobs are created per MW during production and nearly 33 jobs per MW are created during the installation. The job creation extends across the value chain and also influences supplementary industries and businesses. Wholesaling of the systems and indirect supply for the production process each create three to four jobs per MW with research having one to two jobs per MW.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

312

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 314: Value of PV Market


Value of PV Market 2007 ($13. 2B )
Nor th Am er ica 8% Cen tra l and So uth Am erica 1%

Value of PV Market 2030 ($170B)


Eur ope 10% Nor th Am erica 13%

Euro pe 7 4%

O ther 2 5%

East Asia 1% Chin a 1% Cen tra l and So uth Am erica 11% Ea st Asia 8%

Sout h Asia 15 % China 18%

O the r 14%

Sou th Asia 1%

The value generated across the PV chain has been increasing considerably over the past few years. Currently, Europe has garnered the most part of the PV value with over 74% in 2007. This is primarily due to the large solar markets of Germany, Spain, and Italy. As other markets continue to evolve around the world, the share of Europe is expected to decrease steadily over the next few years. Developing markets like North America, China, and South Asia are expected to garner a large part of the share. Other developing markets include OECD Pacific, Middle East, Africa, and Economies in Transition which are expected to create over 25% share in the PV value chain.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 315: PV Cell Exports


1,5 00 1 ,07 7 1,0 00 59 7 5 00 0 (5 3) -5 00 - 1,0 00 - 1,5 00 ( 1,6 21 ) - 2,0 00 Jap an China / R st of th e Wor ld e U SA Eur op e

Ne t Cell Exp or ts 20 07 (MW)

The major demand centers for the PV industry remain the markets of Europe. In the past few years, China and Taiwan have emerged as the new and growing supply centers. While Japan and Europe continue to be important cell manufacturing hubs, their proportion in the total has steadily decreased. Europe has continued its trend as a major net importer due to the increased demand from Germany and other southern European markets such as Spain, Italy, and Greece. The U.S. has steadily moved from an exporter in 2004 and 2005 to a net importer from 2006 onwards. Japan has meanwhile maintained its position as a major exporter as its own solar consumption has stagnated.

Source: Solarbuzz, Bar clays Capital research

Figure 316: Cumulative PV Installa tions (2020)


Middl e East , 1% South Asia, 7% China, 8% East Afri ca, 3% Centralized South Ameri ca, 4% OECD Europe, 40% Africa, 4% Economies i n Transition, 1%

OECD Paci fic, 17%

OECD North America, 15%

OECD Europe, which includes Germany, Spain, Italy, and Greece, is expected to remain the largest market through 2020 both in terms of annual installations and cumulative installations. North America, and especially the United States, is expected to emerge as a large market with consistent growth in the next few years. China and South Asia is expected to emerge as a large market by 2020, mainly due to growth in annual installations, with China accounting for more than 10% of annual installations in 2020 and South Asia accounting for 9% of the 2020 installations. China and South Asia are expected to continue their growth, possibly becoming the largest markets by 2030.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

313

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 317: Polysilicon Market Share, 2008E


Hemlock Semiconductor 21%

Tier II Suppliers 30%

Tokuyama 10% MEM C 7% Wacker 14% REC 11% Mitsubishi M at erials 3% Sumitomo Titanium 2% M itsubishi Polysilicon 2%

Currently, only about eight polysilicon manufacturers are able to produce high-quality polysilicon on a large commercial scale. About 71% of polysilicon is supplied by eight companies. The major poly producers are Hemlock, Wacker, REC, MEMC, Tokuyama, Mitsubishi Materials, Mitsubishi Polysilicon, and Sumitomo. We estimate 52,000 metric tons of production in 2008, up 35% from 37,000 metric tons in 2007.

Source: Barclays Capital estimates

Figure 318: Polysilicon Supply The polysilicon industry supplies the semiconductor and solar industries. The semiconductor industry has been able to garner a larger share of the poly silicon market due to early -mover advantage in ensuring supply from the major polysilicon producers. Despite this, the share of solar in polysilicon procurement has been rapidly increasing over the past few years. We estimate that only 28,000MT of high-purity silicon was available to meet the demands of the entire solar industry in 2008. We estimate that 22,500MT of scrap and reclaimable silicon was used by the major solar companies in 2008. In 2008, a number of companies also began using upgraded metallurgical silicon to meet their silicon requirements.

Solar, 28,036MT

Semiconductor 26,214MT

Source: Barclays Capital estimates

314

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 319: PV Cell Production (MW) in 2008


Solar Cell Market Share 2008E

Taiwan 7% Japan 15%

USA 17%

In 2008, China was the worlds largest solar cell producer. Led by Suntech, JA Solar and Yingli Green Energy, China produced more than 1,600MW worth of Solar Cells in 2008. Europe was the second largest producer of solar cells in 2008, with a 27% market share. Europe produced more than 1,300MW of solar cells in 2008. The United States and Japan were the third and fourth largest producers of solar cells in 2008, with a 17% and 15% market share, respectively. In total, the world produced more than 5MW of solar cells in 2008.

Europe 27% China 34%

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 320: PV Market Scenario


12 ,0 00

10 ,0 00

8 ,0 00

6 ,0 00

4 ,0 00

2 ,0 00

0 200 1 20 02 20 03 20 04 2 005 2 00 6 2 00 7 20 08 E 2 00 9E 2 010 E 2 01 1E 201 2E

The PV market is expected to continue its rapid growth. The pessimistic scenario is shown in the chart and is based on the premise that the market is unable to receive any major enforcement of support mechanisms. The policy-driven scenario shown expects the follow-up and introduction of support mechanisms, such as feed-in tariffs, in a large number of countries, and other measures taken by governments worldwide to aid the solar PV industry.
Pe ssimi sti c S ce nari o Poli cy Sc ena rio

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 321: Solar Cell Equipment Market, 2008


Waf ering, 1 5%

Module , 15%

c-Si C , 60% ell TF Cell, 10 %

We estimate that the solar equipment market was $1.4 billion in 2006, with the wafering market roughly $200 million (or 15%), the cell market around $1 billion, and the module market roughly $200 million. Approximately $160 million of the cell equipment market was thin-film and the rest was crystallinesilicon.

Source: Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

315

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 322: Solar Cell Production, 2008


JA Solar 5%

Yingli 6%

Sanyo 2% Suntech Power 10%

Rest of World 36%

Sharp 9% Solar Wor ld 3% Q- Cells 11% Motech 5% F irst Solar 9%

Q-Cells remained the biggest solar cell producer worldwide in 2008. The solar cell market is becoming less fragmented, with the top 10 producers accounting for 70% of the global market, vs. 50% one year ago. A number of companies such as First Solar (FSLR) and Yingli Green Energy (YGE) raised production considerably in 2008. We expect First Solar to become the largest solar company in 2009 with more than a 20% market share. Sharp is planning to increase solar capacity in order to regain the top spot in 2009. Companies such as SunPower, Trina Solar, JA Solar, Sanyo, Yingli Green Energy, and Motech are also among the largest module manufacturers worldwide.

Kyocera 4%

Source: Photon International, Barcla ys Capital research

Figure 323: Solar Cell Technologies, 2008


cadTel 9% a-Si 3% CIGS 1% Mono-cr ysta lline 43 %

Othe r 1%

Multicrys talline 4 3%

Crystalline silicon is the mainstay of most PV products as it is widely available in nature. Efficiencies of over 20% have been obtained with silicon cells in mass production. Wafer thickness is also an important factor. Average thickness is expected to reduce to 150 microns by 2010. Thin-film modules have also become commercially accepted due to the current shortage of silicon. They are manufactured from amorphous silicon, Copper indium diselenide (CIGS), and cadmium telluride (CdTe). Multicrystalline thin-film on glass (CSG) is also a promising thin-film technology now entering industrial production.

Source: Photon International, Barcla ys Capital research

316

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 324: Silicon Demand for Semiconductors


Silicon Use in the Mic roelectro nics Indu str y
9 ,00 0 8 ,00 0 7 ,00 0 6 ,00 0 5 ,00 0 4 ,00 0 3 ,00 0 2 ,00 0 1 ,00 0 0 20 07 2 00 8E 2 009 E 20 10 E 201 1E 2 01 2E

The semiconductor industry has been the major consumer of silicon traditionally. It was only in the recent past that the demand from the PV industry began to compete with semiconductors for the silicon feedstock. In 2007, silicon feedstock supply to the PV industry first overtook the semiconductor industry supply. This has been despite the fact that the supply to the semiconductor industry has grown steadily whereas the solar industry growth has been considerably higher. The broad range of consumer electronic products based on semiconductors has been the main driver for the semiconductor demand.

Source: SEMI Silicon Manufacturers Group, Barclays Capita l research

Figure 325: Wafer Manufacturing Plants


C-Si Wafe r Manu facturin g C apacitie s b y Plant Size (2007) >=50MW< 100MW, 11%

>=100MW, 75%

>=10MW< 50MW, 14% <10MW, 1%

Solar cells are created from wafers. The major wafer manufacturers include companies like REC Wafer, SolarWorld, LDK, and Renesola. The larger wafer manufacturers have been moving toward greater levels of vertical integration. This has led to a number of solar cell companies also announcing backward integration into wafer manufacturing. Wafer manufacturing capacity is expected to expand considerably in the next few years as companies expand to meet increased demand. Most of the wafer manufacturing plants are large in size, being more than 100MW in capacity. The remaining plants are nearly equally divided between those greater than or equal to 50MW10MW and those greater than or equal to 10MW 1MW.

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

317

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 326: Cell Manufacturing Plants Solar cells are a basic building block for solar modules and panels. They are generally created from wafers. Major solar cell companies include Q-Cells, Sharp, Suntech, and First Solar. A number of these companies such as Suntech and First Solar have vertically integrated and use their own cells to produce their modules. A number of companies are also backward integrating into creating their own wafers, with Q-Cells announcing such plans. The largest portion (45%) of solar cell manufacturing companies are extremely small in size and produce less than 10MW of solar cells annually. The largest proportion of cell production (61%) nonetheless comes from the larger manufacturers (greater than or equal to 100MW).

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital research

Figure 327: Australian PV Market (MW) The Australian PV market has grown gradually over the past few years. This is expected to change in the near future due to a number of incentives announced by a number of state governments. The federal government currently provides a grant of AUD8,000 per household for installations and 50% for schools. The most attractive tariff has been announced by the state of Victoria, which will provide AUD0.60 for every unused kWh fed back into the system. This will start from 2009 and run for 15 years. It will be available for household installations up to 2kW and have a cap of 100MW.

90

60

30

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Source: IEA and Barclays Capital research

Figure 328: California PV Market (MW)


300

200

100

0 2006 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

California is the largest solar market in the United States and continues to grow at a rapid pace. The installed capacity in California grew by 38% in 2007 to 81MW from 59MW in 2006. In 2007, California launched the Go Solar California campaign, which plans to install 3,000MW of solar capacity by 2017. The initiative is expected to require investments of $3.3 billion. Individual cities have also initiated steps to promote solar. San Francisco plans to install a total of 360MW of renewable energy by 2017. This would power more than half the electricity needs of the city.

Source: California Energy Commission, Barclays Capital research

318

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 329: Canadian PV Market (MW)


400

200

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

The Canadian PV market has grown at a CAGR of nearly 25% since 1993. In Canada, solar energy technologies are primarily used for air and water heating. The lack of any major financial incentive has meant that the industry has not been able to grow to its full potential. Canada, though, is home to some of the major solar companies involved in nearly every aspect of the value chain, from polysilicon manufacturing to BIPV products. The Canadian Solar Energy Industries Association believes that Canada has a potential PV market of 3GW in the coming years.

Source: EPIA and Barclays Capital research

Figure 330: Chinese PV Market (MW) The Chinese government has said that it will increase the development of renewable energy to curb its reliance on oil and gas. China plans to increase its share of non-hydro renewables to 1% of total power generation by 2010, and to 3% by 2020. The country also plans to increase its renewable energy capacity to 60GW by 2010, including 450MW of solar generation capacity. Solar capacity is to be increased to 1.8GW by 2020. China has been more focused on solar hot water as an energy source as it has a larger benefit for the rural population. It has targeted 150 million sq. meters by 2010 and 300 million sq. meters by 2020. The government has not provided any financial incentive for solar, which is being seen as a barrier to exponential growth.

200

100

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, EPIA

May 01, 2009

319

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 331: French PV Market (MW)


1600 1200 800 400 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

France has set itself a target of 20% share of renewables in energy consumption by 2020. In addition, the French government is planning to have an installed capacity of 5.4GW by 2020. Five million solar thermal units are also to be installed in buildings by 2020. The government has also initiated a strong feed-in tariff scheme especially attractive for BIPV installations. The government is also giving a 50% income tax credit for private individuals. France also benefits from favorable irradiation conditions, especially in the south and in the overseas territories. Grid parity in France is expected to be achieved by 2012, despite its high electricity prices, by which time cumulative installations in France are expected to rise above the 1GW mark.

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, EPIA

Figure 332: German PV Ma rket (MW)


4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

The introduction of the Renewable Energy Law in 2000 accelerated the German PV market by providing a buyback rate of EUR0.50/kWh. In 2004, a revised feed-in tariff program accelerated the PV deployment even further. By the end of 2006, 300,000 PV systems were installed in Germany.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

320

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 333: U.K. PV Market (MW)


Gre at Bri tai n PV M arket (M W)
14

1 0. 9

8 .2

5. 9 4.1 2 .7 1 .9 0.3 19 93 0. 3 1 99 4 0 .4 199 5 0 .4 19 96 0.6 0 .7 1.1

1 99 7

1 99 8

19 99

2 00 0

20 01

2 002

2 00 3

20 04

20 05

2 00 6

The solar PV market in Great Britain has lagged behind other markets of mainland Europe. Although growing at a CAGR of about 35% from 1993 to 2006, other countries such as Germany (55%) have grown at a much faster rate despite a larger base. The government has set a target of renewable energy generating 15% of the nations needs by 2020, which is a near fivefold increase over the current scenario. The government also plans to ensure that all new homes are zero carbon by 2016. The British government had offered to subsidize solar installations by giving up to 7,500 to install PV panels. The success of this measure had an adverse effect as the government capped the payouts to 500,000 per month and reduced by two-thirds the maximum amount paid for PV panels. These measures have been a severe damper for the market.

Source: IEA and Barclays Capital research

Figure 334: Greek PV Market (MW) Greece has become one of the potentially most attractive markets for solar PV development after the introduction of the RES law in June 2006. The government has set a target of 840MW of solar PV installations by 2020. Out of these, 640MW are to be on the mainland and 200MW on the islands. Under the new feed-in tariff program, new tariffs are adjusted annually on the basis of retail price increases and inflation. The tariff is guaranteed for 20 years. In addition, the 0.8GW cap that was initially part of the tariff has been removed. There have been about 2.5GW of applications already submitted to the government. The Greek market is expected to grow the fastest among the large solar markets, but lack of infrastructure may be a concern for installations.

250

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, EPIA

May 01, 2009

321

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 335: Indian PV Market (MW)


500 400 300 200 100 0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

The Indian government plans to increase its renewable capacity to 35GW in 2012 from the current 11GW. The main incentive for the solar industry has been in the form of financial assistance announced in January 2008. The assistance has been set at Rs 12 ($0.30) per kWh for solar PV and Rs 10 ($0.25) per kWh for solar thermal power fed into the grid. A number of states, such as West Bengal and Punjab, have also introduced subsidies for solar. West Bengal plans to generate 50MW from solar by 2015 while Punjab is offering 100MW of solar PV projects. The Indian government hopes that the private sector will invest about Rs 10 billion (US$253.7 million) during 2008 12 to develop solar plants.

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, EPIA

Figure 336: Israel PV Market (MW)


80

40

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

The government in Israel has committed to propagating solar by announcing a feed-in tariff scheme to encourage household solar electricity generation. The tariff scheme started from July. The Public Utilities Authority will purchase the electricity at NIS2.01 ($0.46) per kWh. Individuals currently pay NIS0.50 ($0.11) per kWh Private producers will be able to install a photovoltaic system with a capacity of up to 15kW. It is expected that a return on capita investments will take seven to 10 years. Businesses can also instal up to 50kW of capacity although no tariff scheme has been disclosed for them yet. Typical installations in Israel center on remote homes, agriculture, security and alarm systems, communications, and exterior lighting.

Source: IEA and Barclays Capital research

322

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 337: Italian PV Market (MW) The Italian government plans to reach an installed capacity of 3GW by the end of 2016. The government has also set up an attractive feed-in tariff structure. The structure, inspired by the model used in Germany, entails fixed remuneration for the first 20 years for PV projects. There is an annual reduction of 2% every year for new applications. The structure has been put in place until a cap of 1.2GW is achieved. The government has also simplified the process of getting access to the grid by the introduction of the new program in February 2007. Large IPP and medium to large commercial systems offer good potential in the near term.

1200

600

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, EPIA

Figure 338: Japanese PV Market (MW) Japan is one of the largest markets worldwide for solar products The governments target is to increase the solar installed capacity to 70% of all new homes by 2020. Japanese companies such as Sharp and Kyocera are among the larges solar cell producers in the world. These firms have lost a considerable amount of market share since the Japanese government scrapped solar subsidies in March 2006. Japan has reintroduced subsidies on solar power equipment in 2009 in order to boost the PV industry in the country. The governmen is paying 70,000 Yen/KW ($775/kw) in subsidies during 1Q09. They expect 35,000 applications during 1Q09. The prices of solar panels are then expected to halve in three to five years in Japan.

600

300

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

Source: Industr y data, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

323

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 339: Mexican PV Market (MW)


25

Cum ul ated i nstall ed PV Power (MW )

20 16.2 15 12 .0 10 7.1 9.2 10 .0 11.0 12.9 1 5.0 13 .9 1 7.1

19.7 18.2 18 .7

8.8

0 199 3 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2 000 2001 2 002 2003 20 04 2005 20 06

Mexico is believed to have one of the best potentials for solar electricity generation worldwide. The gross solar potential is estimated at above 5kWh/m2 daily. This corresponds to about 50 times the national electric generation requirement of the country. Despite this, the PV industry has grown at a slow pace with a CAGR of about 8% from 1993 to 2006. By 2013, Mexico is estimated to have an installed capacity of 25MW, which would generate about 14GWh of electricity per year. Mexico also has a large solar thermal capacity in addition to this. A major cause of the lack of any rapid growth in the industry has been the lack of any major financial incentive for the industry from the central government. Mexico currently generates about 24% of its electricity from renewables, predominantly from hydro and geothermal sources of energy.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 340: South Korean PV Market (MW)


800

400

0 2007 2008 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E

The South Korean government has set a target of 5% energy generation from renewables by 2011. It also plans to install 1.3GW of PV capacity by 2011. The country has provided an incentive through feed-In tariffs of US $0.64/kWh for systems 30kW200kW and US$0.61/kWh for systems between 200kW and 1MW. Systems between 1MW and 3MW will receive incentives of $0.58/kWH while systems in excess of 3MW will receive incentives of $0.49/kWh. These tariffs will decrease by 4% per year from 2009 onwards. We estimate that South Korea will provide over $15.4 billion in subsidy for PV installations in a bid to meet its targets. Grid parity is expected to be reached by 2012 in the country, although a large increase in the fossil fuel prices could take it closer.

Source: Barclays Capital estimates, EPIA

324

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 341: U.S. PV Market (MW)


14 0 12 0 10 0 80 60 40
27 39 18 22 15 13 4 4 3 3 3 4 2 3 1 2 1 1 97 11 6 20 07 2008

20 0

The main incentive driving PV demand in the United States is the 30% federal tax credit. Recently the ITC was extended by eight years. In addition, the $2,000 cap was removed and utilities are not allowed to take advantage of the subsidy. Various state governments and municipal governments have taken active steps to propagate PV installations including feed-in tariff structures in some states. Seventeen states have committed to fund installations of more than 10GWp of solar power in the next 15 years. California and New Jersey led in solar installations in 2007.

or k

Ha wa ii Co nn ec tic ut

on a a ch us et ts M a ss

al ifo rn ia

Co

Source: Barclays Capital research, Photon International

Figure 342: Solar Energy in Illinois


Projected Chicago Energy Dist ribut ion 2010 (6 BkWh)
Distri bu ted Gene ration, 22% Energy Manageme nt, 28%

ew

Ne

O re g on

ev ad a

Je rs e

ra do

Ar iz

o l

Renew ables, 2 5%

Co gene ration , 25%

The state of Illinois has seen a steady increase in business and home solar power installations. This has been aided and encouraged by state and federal incentives. The recent extension of the ITC for solar installations is also expected to provide a tailwind to the industry. The Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic opportunity provides a Solar Energy Rebate Program that reimburses 30% of the solar projects costs up to $10,000 for PV and solar thermal systems. The department has allocated about $1 million over the past two years. The city of Chicago has been the epicenter for installations in the state. Homeowners and businesses are increasingly turning to solar power in the city. The city is expected to generate 25% of its electricity from renewables by 2010.

Source: City of Chicago, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

325

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 343: PV Power per Person in the European Union


PV Power per Person in the EU (2006) Country W / Person Luxembourg 51.4 Germany 36.2 Austria 3.5 Netherlands 3.1 Spain 2.7 Cyprus 1.3 Italy 1.0 Finland 0.8 Greece 0.6 Sweden 0.5 Denmark 0.5 France 0.5 Belgium 0.4 Portugal 0.3 United Kingdom 0.2

Europe is home to some of the biggest markets for PV power such as Germany, currently the largest market, and Spain, which has grown considerably in PV installations in 2007. Other important markets include Italy, Greece, and France. Luxembourg has the maximum PV power per inhabitant in the entire European Union, largely due to its small population. Germany, given its size and population, continues to be the most important market for solar in the world. The results of the various measures taken by Germany are visible through the high amount of PV power per inhabitant in the country. Countries such as Spain, Italy, and Greece are expected to increase this considerably in the coming few years, due to the strong sustained growth being shown in these markets.

Source: Eurobserver, Barclays Capital research

Figure 344: U.S. Solar Market The U.S. solar market is expected to be boosted by the recent extension in the ITC. This is expected to provide significant headwind to the solar markets in California and the rest of the country. A number of recent contract announcements and solar farms were dependent on the extension of these subsidies. Other initiatives such as the Renewable Portfolio Standards have also contributed to the rapid growth in the industry. The share of ongrid installations has also increased considerably since 2003 with a large portion of the new installations being on-grid while the off-grid market has stagnated. California has been the largest market in the U.S. and had a 57% share in the 2007 on-grid installations.

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital research

326

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 345: Japanese Solar Market Japan has been one of the largest markets for solar energy in the world. Initially aided by government support, the country was the largest producer and consumer of solar panels. Japan was replaced by Germany as the largest market thanks to the aggressive push from the German government. The lapsing of solar subsidies in Japan dealt a severe blow to the Japanese market which was recently overtaken by Spain and is currently one of the largest solar markets outside Europe. From 1994 to 2004, the Japanese residential market grew at a CAGR of 85% while it only grew at a CAGR of 13% from 200107. The government has recently said that it is considering measures to boost the sector.

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital research

Figure 346: Japanese Solar Market The Japanese market had started to stall post the expiry of the residential market subsidies in 2005. The solar market in Japan decreased from 300MW in 2006 to about 230MW in 2007. Japan though remains one of the largest producers of solar panels and is a net exporter. Most of the exports are to Europe which has seen significant growth in the last few years. The largest segment in the Japanese market is the residential market which accounted for over 85% of the total market. The fastest growing market is the public sector market.

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

327

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 347: U.S. Solar Market


10

Cumulative Installed Capacity per P erson

The U.S. solar market has been growing over the last few years. This growth is expected to continue now after the passage of the ITC. The government structure in the U.S. has allowed a number of cities and states to come out with their own local policies and subsidies despite a lack of such initiatives from the federal government. The solar programs in California and other states have been very successful in propagating the technology. The major demand centers for solar include California, Nevada, New Jersey, Arizona, Colorado, and New York.
CT NY US Avg

0 CA NV NJ AZ CO HI DE VT

Source: Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Barclays Capita l research

328

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Solar Incentives Figure 348: Building Integrated Photovoltaic Incentives


BIP V I ncentives i n M ajo r M arke ts ($/kWh)
Ge rm any $0 .76 $0 .68 $0.5 8 $0. 61 $0. 48 $0 .48 It aly Fra nc e $ 0.8 8

$0 .75

G rou nd

Roo ft op

G ro und

B il ing ud Ap plied

Building Integ ra ted

Gr oun d

Building Applied

Bu ld n g i i Inte gr ate d

The Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) industry is expected to grow rapidly in the next few years. The size of the commercial rooftops market is expected to rise from nearly 2GW in 2008 to close to 5GW in 2012. This is being driven by commercial installations such as retailers, shopping malls, airports, schools and universities, warehouses and factories apart from utilities and residential installations. A number of major markets have also put in place specific incentives for the BIPV market. The tariff is currently highest in France, which provides a fixed tariff of EUR0.55/kWh ($0.88) for BIPV installations and EUR0.30/kWh ($0.48) for Building Applied and ground-mounted PV installations. Germany provides a EUR0.05/kWh ($0.08) premium for BIPV installations. Tariffs in Italy vary inversely with the size of the systems.

Source: Energy Conversion Devices, Barclays Capital research

Figure 349:California Solar Initiative PBI


System Size <30kW 30<50kW Total # of Systems <50kW % of Systems <50kW in PBI % of Systems <50kW in EPBB 2008 CSI Projects Below 50 kW t hat Opt in to PBI CCSE PG&E SCE 35 3 38 1,080 3.50% 96.50% 41 9 50 6,898 0.70% 99.30% 83 5 88 2,877 3.10% 96.90% Total 159 17 176 10,855 1.60% 98.40%

The California Solar Initiative pays solar companies their incentive in two ways. The payments can be a lump sum for smaller systems or can be taken over the course of five years. The initiatives two payment types are Expected Performance Based Buy-Down (EPBB) and Performance Based Incentive (PBI). The EPBB payments are made on a $ per watt basis. The PBI payments are provided on a per kWh basis. Although any size system can take PBI, all systems over 50kW must take it from 2008 and all systems over 30kW must do so from 2009. The payments are made for a total of five years and are based on actual kWh production.

Source: CUPC, Barclays Capita l research

May 01, 2009

329

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 350: State Tax Incentives


State Florida North Carolina Arizona Maryland New York Tax Exemption Property Tax Exemption for Solar Power Systems Property Tax Exemption equal to 80% of appraised value of PV Systems Reduced Property Tax Assessment for Renewables owned by Utilities Exemption from Sales and use taxes for solar property Property Tax abatement against the installed cost of a PV System Exemption from sales and use taxes on property that is meant to manufacture renewable energy systems

Kentucky

In addition to tax rebates and RPS programs, some states are enacting other programs to motivate both residents and non residents to build solar and renewable projects. For example, Florida revived a property tax exemption for homes and businesses that installed solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources, while North Carolina created a law that exempted a portion of the value of the PV system from property tax. While some states gave rebates on property taxes, Kentucky gave an exemption on sales and use taxes on property which was purchased for creating renewable energy systems.

Source: Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Barclays Capita l research

Figure 351: Solar Specific RPS in the U.S.


State Arizona C olorado D elaware Mary land N ev ada N ew Hamps hi re N ew Jers ey N ew Mex ico N ew York N orth Carolina Penns ylvania W ashington D.C . First Compli ance Year 2001 2007 2008 2008 2003 2010 2004 2011 2006 2010 2006 2007 Photovol taics Resource Eligi bility Sol ar Thermal Sol ar H eating E lectric and/or Cooling Non-P V Di st. Generati on

Traditional RPS programs carry a concern that they will benefit mostly least-cost projects as all eligible renewable technologies can compete. A number of states have thus taken the initiative of designing their policies to give support to higher cost renewable technology applications. Set-asides for solar technologies exist in nearly half of the U.S. State RPS programs. In 2007, new solar or distributed-generation (DG) set-asides were created in Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and North Carolina. Colorado also effectively expanded its previously initiated solar set-aside through an increase of its states overall RPS target.

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Barclays Capital research

330

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 352: California Solar Initiative


Solar Applications R eceived (MW)
43. 6

Reside nti al Non Reside nti al

33 30.3 26.9 22.8 15. 6 12. 9 8.6 1.9 10.3 9.6 10.3 9.1 3.1 21.2 15.8 13. 6 14.6 27. 5

Q406

Q107

Q207

Q307

Q407

Q108

Q208

Q308

Q408

Q109 (QTD)

The incentives provided under the California Solar Initiative (CSI) are monitored by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). For the under 10kW sector, which primarily consists of residential applications, the demand through CPUC has increased considerably over the earlier demand seen for the Emerging Renewable Program (ERP). However, the ERP had funded both residential and small commercial installations under 30kW. The program had not categorized the applications by residential versus non-residential systems. The combined demand had been the highest in 1Q07 at 11.0MW, but has since decreased slightly to 7.1MW. The projects considered below under ERP are largely residential, although some small commercial applications have also been included as they were less than 10kW in capacity.

Source: CPUC and Barclays Capital research

Figure 353: California Solar Initiative Demand The California Solar Initiative (CSI) started in 2007 with the Go Solar California campaign that aims to install 3,000MW of new grid-connected solar by 2016 through a $3.3 billion effort. The participation of the Investor Owned Utilities is primary to achieving the aims of the CSI. The demand for the CSI program is nearly exceeding the demand seen by earlier initiatives such as the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP), which installed 33MW in 2007, and the Emerging Renewables Program (ERP) which installed 26MW in 2007. Both these programs are now closed to solar and have been replaced by CSI.

25000

ERP

S GI P

CSI

Number of Applica tions Rec eived

20000

15000

10000

5000

0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20008 2009

Source: CPUC and Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

331

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 354: California Solar Initiative Installations


Inst alled
SCE Non- R si ential e d

In Application

Remaining

SCE R si ential e d

PG&E Non- R si ential e d

PG&E R si ential e d

CCSE Non- R si ential e d

CCSE R si ential e d

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

The goal of the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) portion of the California Solar Initiative is to increase the solar installations in the state to 1,750MW by 2017. Since the start of 2007, the program has received over 359.8MW worth of applications. Although the CPUC has divided the goals by program administrator and customer segment, there are no annual targets, as demand is expected to vary due to changes in incentives and market maturity. Out of the three administrators, Southern California Edison (SCE) has the largest target of 806MW, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) has a target of 764MW, and the California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE) has a target of 180MW.

Source: CPUC and Barclays Capital research

Figure 355: California Solar Initiative Program


Appl icati ons Receieved (MW)
30 0 25 0 20 0 15 0 10 0 50 0 2 003 2 004 2 00 5 2 00 6 2 00 7 2 00 08 200 9
ERP SG IP CSI

The demand generated by the California Solar Initiative (CSI) is quickly surpassing that of the previous programs launched in California. The previous programs, i.e., the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) started in 2001 and the Emerging Renewables Program (ERP), started in 1998, had also managed to generate considerable demand for solar. These two programs are now closed to solar. There were 97.9MW of solar in 2006 through the ERP and SGIP programs. In 2007, the confirmed applications grew to 178.8MW of solar capacity through the ERP and CSI programs. Although 208MW of applications were received in 2007 through the CSI program, only 160.3MW of confirmed reservations were processed. In 2008, the CSI program received 18,826 applications totaling 222.5MW.

Source: CPUC and Barclays Capital research

332

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 356: California Solar Initiative Program


California Public California Publicly Utilities Energy Owned Utilities Pr ogram Authority Commission Commission (POU) Budget Solar Goals (MW) $2,167 Million 1,940 MW $400 Million 360MW $784 Million 700MW

Scope Audience Begins

All systems in O UI areas except New homes in All systems in new homes IOU territories POU areas Builders, Various Various home buyers Jan-07 Jan-07 Jan-08

The goal of the Go Solar campaign is to install 3,000MW of solar electricity generation capacity over the next 10 years. The statewide budget for the initiative is $3.3 billion. The campaign is split into three distinct programs, each of which has its own set of budgets and goals. The California Solar Initiative is overseen by the CPUC. It provides incentives to customers in investor-owned utility (IOU) areas of PG&E, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric. These utilities control more than 75%80% of the states electricity usage. The New Solar Homes Partnership is managed by the California Energy Commission (CEC). It propagates solar in new home constructions within the territories of the three investor-owned utilities. The Publicly Owned Utilities (POU) program requires every municipal utility to provide a solar incentive program.

Source: CPUC, Barclays Capita l research

Figure 357: Net Metering


100 50
25/2 ,000

*
25

100 *

VT: 15/150 100 40


500

25 /10 0

* 20 * *

30

1, 000 1,000

25*

2,000* 100 * 50 *

100

40 10 *

* * 15

no limit 25

*
20/ 100

** NY: * PA: * NJ:

varies 80,000

25 /300 10/ 100 25 /100

DE: MD: DC: VA:

10/ 25/ 125/ 400 50/3,000/5,000* 2, 000* 25/500/2,000 2,000 100 10/500*

50

v aries

State-wide net metering for all utility ty pes State-wide S tate-wide net metering f or ce rta in utili ty typ es (e. g. , inve sto r-o wned uti lities only) for certain types investor- ned ow
Net metering of fe re d b y one o r m re individual utilities offer by ed or ore ind ivid ual utilitie s o

Net-metering is an electricity policy for consumers who own, generally small, renewable energy facilities. It allows for the flow of electricity both to and from the customer. When the customer's generation exceeds use, electricity from the customer to the utility offsets electricity consumed at another time by the customer. In effect, the customer is using the excess generation to offset electricity that would have been purchased at the retail rate. Under most state rules, residential, commercial, and industrial customers are eligible for net-metering, but some states restrict eligibility to particular customer classes.

Source: DSIRE, Barclays Capital research

Figure 358: Public Benefit Funds


$ 10 $ 95

$11 1 $2 2
$ 1, 12 2 $8 5

$80 $12 7
$ 2 ,04 8

$20

VT: $36 M A: $383 RI: $10 CT: $338 NJ: $279 DE: $11 DC: $10.5

15 State Funds + DC $4 B by 2017


Funded by Vol untary Contributions

Public Benefit Funds are state-level programs developed as a measure to ensure continued support for renewable energy resources, initiatives for energy efficiency, and low-income support groups. This is typically done through the electric utility restructuring process. All customers are typically charged a certain amount on electricity consumption as a means of supporting the charge. Rebates on renewable energy systems, funding for renewable energy R&D, and the development of renewable energy educations programs are ways in which the fund can be used .

Source: DSIRE, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

333

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 359: Renewable Energy Ac t, Germany


in TWh

Renewable energy surcharges expected to increase

The German government has been a major proponent of renewable sources of energy. Germany enacted the Renewable Energy Legislation, which has been effective since 2000. The legislation aims to support the introduction of renewables-based electricity generation plants and meet the emissions reduction targets set. The legislation calls for different levels of subsidy according to the source of electricity generated. About EUR 7.7 billion of feed-in tariffs were given in 2006. It is projected that EUR7.9 billion of feed-in tariffs will be paid in 2008, rising to EUR10.1 billion in 2010. Grid operators have the right to pass on all surcharge payments to the suppliers and the amount can be reduced to EUR0.05/kWh if a company consumes more than 10GWh.

Source: RWE Factbook, German Interconnected Power Grid Association, Barclays Capital research

Figure 360: U.S. Renewable Portfolio Standards In addition to the support at federal level, the states and municipal governments provide rebates for PV system purchases. Furthermore, about half of the states have currently committed to fund the installation of more than 10GW of peak solar power in the next 15 years, with California, New Jersey, Arizona, Maryland, and Pennsylvania leading the charge.

Source: DSIRE, Barclays Capital research

334

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 361: U.S. State Solar Goals


Su mmary o f State Solar Go als (MWp ) State Comm itment by 2020 Arizona 2,000 California 3,000 Connecticut 15 Colorado 200 Delaware 175 District of Columbia 30 Hawaii 15 Maryland 1,400 Nevada 500 New Hampshire 34 New Jersey 1,500 New York 25 North Carolina 240 Pennsylvania 860 Texas (Austin) 100

The lack of a clear nationwide solar goal for the United States has resulted in a number of states taking the lead and committing to solar by setting individual targets for installations by 2020. Primary among these is California, which is not only the largest market in the United States but is also among the largest in the world. The Mojave desert in California has among the highest solar insolation rates across the globe and is a hub for solar PV and solar thermal projects. New Jersey is currently the second largest state in terms of solar installations and is also the fastest-growing market in the United States. Most of these states have also set up Renewable Portfolio Standards to meet their goals of reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

Source: DSIRE, Barclays Capital research

Figure 362: Kyoto Target for Reduction of Greenhouse Gases The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 in Kyoto by the 3rd Conference of the Parties. It came into effect in 2005. The objective of the protocol is to reduce greenhouse gases in order to prevent climate change. The protocol cover 181 countries across the globe but only 60% of global greenhouse gas emitting countries. The U.S. is the only developed country not to have ratifies the Kyoto Protocol although it has signed it. The Kyoto Protocol calls for industrialized countries to reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared with the year 1990. The goal is to lower emissions of six greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons averaged over the period 200812.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

335

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 363: Minnesota State Utility Solar Incentives


Residen tial and Commercial Utility Austin Pub lic Utilities Type of Syst em All Incentives Up to $1.00/kWh $2/Watt $2/Watt Cap 40kW $4,000, combined w/State PV Rebate $4,000, combined w/State PV Rebate

Great River Energy All Minneso ta Power All

In addition to the Federal Investment Tax Credits, residents from Minnesota can also receive rebates from their utility companies for installing solar panels on their roof. According to the Solar Electric Power Association, there are three utilities offering incentives for installing PV in Minnesota. The rebates that these utilities provide vary, and are based on the size of the system installed (in watts) or the amount of energy the system products (in kWh). The chart details the different utilities in Minnesota and their specific incentive plans.

Source: Solar Electric Power Association, Barcla ys Capital Research

Figure 364: Washington State Utility Solar Incentives


Utility Sys tem Res idential a nd Comme rcial Ince ntive s C ap up to $1.50 /kWh (20 08 price w as $0.25/kWh) 2 5kW $50 0/kW N /A $50 0.00 $40 0/kW Maximu m Ince ntive $1/kWH N one $ 1,200 R ebates up to 2 5kW $ 4,500, 100 kW system

Chelan County PUD All PUD PV Sola r Wa ter He ater Klickitat PUD All Okanoga n County PUD Orca s Power & Light All All

Sola r Wa ter Port Angeles Public He ater Wor ks & Utilities PV Richland Energy Ser vic es Re side ntial

$1.50 /W $50 0 fo r 3 1 sq. ft. coll ector; $ 1,000 for a 60 sq. ft co lle cto r N /A $50 0/kW N /A $50 0/kW

$ 2,500

In addition to the Federal Investment Tax Credits, residents from the state of Washington can also receive rebates from their utility companies for installing solar panels on their roof. According to the Solar Electric Power Association, there are seven utilities offering incentives for installing PV in Washington. The rebates that these utilities provide vary, but they vary based on whether the installation is for Residential or Commercial use, as well as if the system is a solar water heater or PV installation. The chart details the different utilities in the state of Washington and their specific incentive plans.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

336

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 365: Florida State Utility Solar Incentives


Utility Utilities O rlando Utilities Commision System Resident ial Commercial So lar Thermal PV Resident ial and Commercial Incent ives Cap $1.50/W $7,500 $1.50/W $37,500 $0.03/KwH None $0.05/KwH None

In addition to the Federal Investment Tax Credits, residents from Florida can also receive rebates from their utility companies for installing solar panels on their roof. According to the Solar Electric Power Association, there are two utilities offering incentives for installing PV in the state of Florida. The rebates that these utilities provide vary, but they vary based on whether the installation is for Residential or Commercial use, as well as if the system is a Solar Thermal or PV System. The chart details the different utilities in Florida and their specific incentive plans.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 366: Colorado State Utility Solar Incentives


Uti li ty Black Hil ls En erg y T ype of System Resid ential (<10 kw) Commercial (10 kw 100kw) Resid ential (<10kw ) Commercial (10kw 25kw) Holy Cro ss En ergy Xcel Energy Al l Resid ential (<10kw ) Commercial (10kw 100kw) Sol ar Farms (100kw 2M W) La Plata Electric Associ ati on Resid ential Resid ential and Co mmercial In cen ti ves REC's Cap $2.00/ W $2.50/W $2.00/ W $3.75/ W $3.75/ W $2/W $2/W $2/W Determined through RFP Process $2/W N/A $3,000 $115/ MwH N/A N/A N/A $1.50/W $0.115/KwH $20, 000, up 50% of install ed cost s $35,000 $200,000

Color ad o Spri ngs Uti li ti es

In addition to the Federal Investment Tax Credits, residents from Colorado can also receive rebates from their utility companies for installing solar panels on their roof. According to the Solar Electric Power Association, there are five utilities offering incentives for installing PV in Colorado. The rebates that these utilities provide vary, but they vary based on whether the installation is for Residential or Commercial use. In addition to the solar incentives provided by the utility companies, the utilities also provide Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to homes and businesses that install solar panels. The chart details the different utilities in Colorado and their specific incentive plans.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

337

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 367: Texas State Utility Solar Incentives


Utility Aus tin Energ y Reside ntia l and Co mmercial O n Grid In cen tive Man ufactu red in TX Cap Residen tial : $13,500 or 80% $4 .50/W $5.60 /W of costs. Commerci al: $100,000 or 80% of costs Lesser o f $12,000 o r 80% of $4 .00/W N/A costs per year Residen tial : $10,000 or 50% of Costs Commerci al: $50,000 or 5 0% of costs Commerc ial Utility Arizona Pub lic Services Compa ny Salt River Pro jec t O n Grid In cen tive Off G rid Ince ntive $2 .50/W $2 .50/W $1.50 /W $2.50 /W $4.00 /W Cap 50% or $7 5,000 Excess of $500,000 requires pre approval 50% of Project Costs

Bryan Texas Utilities

CPS Ener gy

$3 .00/W

N/A

Sulph ur Spring s Valle y Ele ctr ic Coo per ative $4 .00/W

In addition to the Federal Investment Tax Credits, residents from Texas can also receive rebates from their utility companies for installing solar panels on their roof. According to the Solar Electric Power Association, there are three utilities offering incentives for installing PV in the state of Texas. The Three utilities participating in the program are Bryan Texas Utilities, CPS Energy and Austin Energy. The incentives range between $4.00/W and $5.60/W, and in the case of Austin Energy, provides additional rebates for PV systems that were manufactured in the state of Texas. The chart summarizes the incentives that the Texas utilities provide.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 368: Employment Generated by Solar


Worldwide Employment in PV- related Jobs (' 000s) Year Installation Production Wholesaler Research Supply Total 2006 48 14 4 2 5 74 2010 179 51 15 7 19 271 2015 531 140 42 18 52 783 2025 2,462 533 160 69 200 3,424 2030 4,716 893 268 116 334 6,327

Photovoltaic and other renewable applications have generated significant benefits in terms of job creation. A large part of the job creation is at the end installation point, leading to job opportunities at the local level. Industry information suggests that 10 jobs are created per MW during production and 33 jobs are created per MW during the installation. Although these numbers are expected to decrease over the coming years, the increase in volumes will continue to propel job creation. Nearly 6.3 million people across the world are expected to work in solar-related activities by 2030, according to a scenario generated by the EPIA. Nearly 35,000 people were employed in Germany alone in 2006.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 369: Roof Area Needed for Various Sizes of PV Systems


PV module efficiency (perc ent) 4 8 12 16 PV capa city rating (watts ) 1 00 30 15 10 8 250 75 38 25 20 5 00 10 00 200 0 40 00 Roof are a ne eded in squa re fee t 1 50 75 50 40 300 150 100 80 6 00 3 00 2 00 1 60 12 00 600 400 320 10 000 300 0 150 0 100 0 8 00 100 000 3 000 0 1 500 0 1 000 0 80 00

Rule of Thumb: One square foot of mono-crystalline or polycrystalline PV module area produces 10 watts of power in bright sunlight. A 1kW system requires about 100200 square feet of roof area, depending on the type of PV module. In general, the amount of roof area needed depends upon the PV modules efficiency in converting sunlight to electricity and the generating capacity or rating of the PV system. A PV array using 5001,000 square feet of roof space is required for meeting all of a homeowners needs.

Source: Barclays Capital research

338

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 370: PV Installations by Applications


1 00% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 200 7 20 10 On-grid Off-g rid rura l el ectrifica tion 2020 Off- grid indu str ial 2030 Consumer App lications 91% 95% 80% 7 2% 1% 5% 4% Annual PV Ins tallations by A pplic ations 1% 1% 2% 6% 2% 14% 0% 9% 1 9%

Over the past few years the % share of On-grid applications has increased considerably. In 2007, over 90% of the new PV installations were on-grid. This has been aided by the various government subsidies and programs such as feed-in tariffs. All applications for PV installations such as on-grid, off-grid rural electrification, off-grid industrial and consumer applications are expected to increase in absolute terms. In the future it is expected that the share of on-grid installations will fall. The primary reason for this is expected to be the rise in off-grid rural electrification, which due to its immense potential should witness considerable growth.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 371: Cell Manufacturing Japan and Europe have been the traditional manufacturing centers for the solar industry. These have also been the major demand centers with Europe being the largest market. The solar industries in Germany and the southern European markets of Spain, Italy, Greece and France have benefited from attractive government subsidies. Since 2004, there has been a distinct shift in manufacturing towards China. Although China is not a major demand center, it has become the largest producer of solar cells. China and Japan are major exporters of cells while Europe and the U.S. have now become net importers. This trend is expected to continue in the near future.
Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

339

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 372: Solar Cell Growth Traditionally, solar cells have been primarily made from crystalline silicon. The recent shortage of silicon has also led to an exponential growth in solar cells made from thin films. The growth in the thin film segment has been higher than the growth in the crystalline silicon solar cells. In 2007, the thin film segment grew by over 120% while the crystalline silicon segment grew by only ~50%. The predominance of crystalline silicon though meant that the total solar cell growth in 2007 was 56%. This was a considerable increase from the 33% in 2006. Among crystalline silicon, the growth in both multicrystalline silicon and monocrystalline silicon was equivalent.
Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital research

Figure 373: Competitiveness of Off Grid Applications


Berlin P ari s Washington Hong Kong S ydn ey/Buenos Aires/ Bom bay/ M ad rid Bangkok Los Angel es/ Dubai S ource: EP IA, B arclays Capit al Solar Daily Sunshi ne Hours 900 1000 1200 1300 1400 1600 1800 2007 0. 44 0. 39 0. 33 0.3 0. 28 0. 25 0. 22 E uros/Watt 2010 2020 0.35 0.2 0.31 0. 18 0.26 0. 15 0.24 0. 14 0.22 0. 13 0. 2 0. 11 0.17 0.1 2030 0.13 0.12 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07

Off-grid applications are mostly already cost competitive compared to the alternative options. PV is generally competing with diesel generators or the potential extension of the public electricity grid. The fuel costs for diesel generators are high, whilst solar energys fuel is both free and inexhaustible. The high investment costs of installing renewable energy systems are often inappropriately compared to those of conventional energy technologies. In fact, particularly in remote locations, a combination of low operation and maintenance costs, absence of fuel expenses, increased reliability and longer operating lifetimes are all factors which offset initial investment costs. This kind of lifecycle accounting is not regularly used as a basis for comparison. The other main alternative for rural electrification, the extension of the electricity grid, requires a considerable investment. Off-grid applications are therefore often the most suitable option to supply electricity in dispersed communities or those at great distances from the grid. However, although lifetime operating costs are much lower for off-grid PV than for other energy sources, initial investment costs can still be a barrier for people with little disposable income.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

340

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 374: Evolution of Solar Applications


PV Insta l la tions (MW)

26 0

207 198 195 1262 891 1537 260 0

134 146 281 2002 464 2003

2004 G d Connected ri

2005 Isol t ed a

2006

2007

In recent years, PV connected to the network has seen impressive growth, driven by the successful promotion policies of some countries, rising fossil fuel prices, the lower costs of technology, and climate change and the need for a sustainable energy model. Isolated PV installations, on the other hand, have lagged, growing at a CAGR of 12% from 200207 compared with grid-connected growing at 56% and total PV installations growing at 46% over the same period. The share of gridconnected PV has increased substantially from 66% of the total installations to 91%. This is expected to further increase over the next few years as the growth in isolated PV stagnates.

Source: Marketbuzz, Solarbuzz, and Barclays Capital research

Figure 375: PV Installations by Applications


1 00% 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40% 30% 20 % 10 % 0%

Consumer applications Off-grid industrial Off-grid rural electrification On-grid

2006

2010

2020

2030

The major PV applications include on-grid, off-grid rural electrification, off-grid industrial, and consumer applications. All of these are expected to increase in absolute numbers from 2006 to 2030. Currently, grid-connections dominate with 85% of the market share. This share is expected to fall in the future to off-grid applications. Off-grid systems often have batteries to store the electricity produced and have no access to the electricity grid, whereas grid-connected applications can feed electricity directly into a netw ork. Rural electrification is expected to experience considerable growth due to its immense potential.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 376: PV Sector Investments


16 0 14 0

PV Sector Investments (US$ Billion)

2.1 33.5

12 0 10 0 80 60

1.5 24.5 0.9 0.6 14.3 84 49.2 31.3


2 00 8 200 9 Debt Capit al Ma rke ts 2 01 0 Ven tu re Cap t al i 2 01 1

114.9

40 20 0

9.1

It is estimated that US$300 billionUS$500 billion will be used to finance company investments in the PV sector. Most of the money required is expected to be raised through debts taken by the companies. A large portion is also expected to be generated through the capital markets by issuing equity. Venture capital funds have played an important part in setting up a number of companies over the past few years and are expected to continue investing in small private companies before taking them public. As venture funds gain more exposure to the sector, their total amount of investment is expected to increase.

Source: GEI, Barclays Capital estimates

May 01, 2009

341

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 377: Renewable Power Capacities, 2006


240 Solar PV (grid) Ge othermal Biomass Wind Small Hydro

180

120

60

Worl d

D eveloping World

EU-25

Chi na

G Un ited e States r

Spa in

India

Ja pan

Renewable electricity capacity worldwide reached an estimated 207GW in 2006, which was about 5% of the 4,300GW tota worldwide capacity. This did not consider large hydropower in renewable capacity. The 2006 capacity was a 14% increase over the 2005 capacity. The largest component in this was small hydro and wind power, which together comprised nearly 75% of the tota l capacity . The largest countries in terms of capacity were China (52GW), Germany (27GW), the United States (26GW), and Spain (14GW). Global capacity was estimated to reach 240GW in 2007.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 378: Production Capacities (2010) Silicon supply has long been the bottleneck of the PV industry With the vast expansion of production capacities of known players and the introduction of new capacities, silicon capacities should reach 810 GWp by 2010, according to EPIA. Being a major raw material, silicon capacity predefines the upper production limit for the solar industry. Thin-film capacity is also expected to increase and represent about 20% of the overall module production capacity.

Silicon W afer Cells c -Si Modules T hin Film

8 - 10 GWp 10 - 12 GW p 11 - 14 GW p 14 - 16 GW p 4 GW p

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 379: Solar Module Production, 2008E


Other s 14% Schott Solar 3% Sanyo Sola r 3% Solar world 4% Solar fun 4% Ca nadia n Solar 4% Kyocera 4% Ersol 5% Trina Solar 5% Sharp Solar 11% Suntech 12% First Sola r 13%

Yingli Gr een Energy 7% Motech 5% SunPower 6%

First Solar (FSLR) is expected to be the worlds largest module producer, closely followed by Sharp and Suntech (STP). The solar module market is very diverse in terms of geography, with companies from countries such as Japan, Germany, China, and the United States. The fastest-growing companies in the solar module space include Suntech, which grew by 38%, and FSLR, which grew by more than 150%. These companies have already started to rapidly gain market share while major companies such as BP Solar, Mitsubishi Electric, and Sanyo have consistently lost market share to them over the past few years. While crystalline solar continues to be the dominan technology, they have continued to lose their dominant marke share position to thin film players such as FSLR.

Source: Photon International, Barcla ys Capital research

342

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 380: Taiwanese Solar Companies


M ain Taiw an- base d M aker s o f a- Si T hin -f ilm PV Mo du les/Pane ls Com pan y NexPower T echn ology Gre en Ener gy Tech nology Auria Solar Chi Me i Ene rgy AU Optro nics (via sub sidiary) Sun Well Solar Kenmo s Ph otovoltaic Si onar So a r n l Fo rmo sun Solar Sunner Solar F ou nde d No vembe r 200 5 Ju ne 20 07 October 200 7 Januar y 2008 Establishm ent an nounce d in Octo ber 2 008 July 20 07 Septem ber 2007 Septem ber 2005 Januar y 2005 July 20 07 Cur re nt Oper atio na l St and ar d Ha s starte d pr oduction and sh p ment s i T o star t volume pro duction in Decemb er 20 08 Inst alln g pro duction e quipm ent i Installing pr oduct o n equ p ment , to star t pr oduction in Q109 i i N/A Ha s starte d pr oduction and sh p ment s i H s start ed pr oduction a Ha s starte d pr oduction and sh p ment s i Ha s starte d pr oduction and sh p ment s i H s start ed pr oduction a

As the competition in the solar industry grows, companies are moving toward lower cost centers for their manufacturing needs China and Taiwan have been seen as the major manufacturing hub for the world. This holds true for the solar industry as well, with an increasing number of Chinese and Taiwanese companies entering the market in the last few years. A large part of this is concentrated in polysilicon production plants, silicon cells and modules and thin film cells and modules. A large number of these companies are still to reach volume production but already have contracts lined up for their expected future production.

Source: Digitimes, Barclays Capital research

Figure 381:Cell Manufacturing Japan and Europe have been the traditional manufacturing centers for the solar industry. These have also been the major demand centers with Europe being the largest market. The solar industries in Germany and the southern European markets of Spain, Italy, Greece, and France have benefited from attractive government subsidies. Since 2004, there has been a distinc shift in manufacturing toward China. Although China is not a major demand center, it has become the largest producer of solar cells. China and Japan are major exporters of cells while Europe and the U.S. have now become net importers. This trend is expected to continue in the near future.

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

343

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 382: Solar Cell Growth Traditionally, solar cells have been primarily made from crystalline silicon. The recent shortage of silicon has also led to an exponential growth in solar cells made from thin films. The growth in the thin film segment has been higher than the growth in the crystalline silicon solar cells. In 2007, the thin film segment grew by over 120% while the crystalline silicon segment grew by only about 50%. The predominance of crystalline silicon though meant that the total solar cell growth in 2007 was 56%. This was a considerable increase from the 33% in 2006. Among crystalline silicon, the growth in both multi-crystalline silicon and mono-crystalline silicon was equivalent.

Source: Solarbuzz, Barclays Capital research

Figure 383: Competitiveness of Off-Grid Applications


Sunshine Hours 900 1000 1200 1300 1400 1400 1400 1400 1600 1800 1800 2 007 0.44 0.39 0.33 0.3 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.22 Euros/Watt 2010 2020 2030 0.35 0.2 0.13 0.31 0.18 0.12 0.26 0.15 0.1 0.24 0.14 0.09 0.22 0.13 0.08 0.22 0.13 0.08 0.22 0.13 0.08 0.22 0.13 0.08 0.2 0.11 0.07 0.17 0.1 0.07 0.17 0.1 0.07

Berlin Paris Washington Hong Kong Sydney Buenos Aires Bombay Madrid Bangkok Los Angeles Dubai

Off-grid applications are mostly already cost competitive compared with the alternative options. PV is generally competing with diesel generators or the potential extension of the public electricity grid. The fuel costs for diesel generators are high, while solar energys fuel is both free and inexhaustible. The high investment costs of installing renewable energy systems are often inappropriately compared with those of conventional energy technologies. In fact, particularly in remote locations, a combination of low operation and maintenance costs, absence of fuel expenses, increased reliability and longer operating lifetimes are all factors which offset initial investment costs. This kind of lifecycle accounting is not regularly used as a basis for comparison. The other main alternative for rural electrification, the extension of the electricity grid, requires a considerable investment. Off-grid applications are therefore often the most suitable option to supply electricity in dispersed communities or those at great distances from the grid. However, although lifetime operating costs are much lower for off-grid PV than for other energy sources, initial investment costs can still be a barrier for people with little disposable income.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

344

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 384: Annual Installed Capacity for Solar Hot Water Systems The DOE and other organizations are currently researching new technologies for heat transfer fluids and thermal storage systems. In order to lower the cost and increase efficiency of CSP technologies, researchers are trying to identify and characterize novel fluids that possess physical and chemical properties needed to improve thermal storage. These researchers are also attempting to find new ways to use thermal technologies to store the energy that will be cheaper and more efficient than the current thermal storage systems. This research is applied to all CSP technologies. The goal of this research is for more utility companies to consider CSP as an addition to their power plants, by lowering the price of solar thermal and increasing the storage period and efficiency of the energy source.

Source: IREC, EIA, Barcla ys Capital research

Figure 385: Solar Water Heating by State Like PV installations, solar water heating and space heating installations are concentrated in a few states and territories. However, the states with the most installed capacity are different for solar hot water than for PV. Hawaii represents almost half of the solar hot water market. High energy prices and good government policies have built the solar hot water market in Hawaii. In addition, installation costs are lower in Hawaii than in most other locations in the United States because freezing is not a concern. New policies under development will likely continue Hawaiis status as a market leader for solar hot water.

Source: IREC, EIA, Barcla ys Capital research

May 01, 2009

345

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 386: Australian Electricity Market Australia has witnessed a rapid increase in the adoption of solar and other renewable sources of energy. The countrys share in the total electricity market has increased from 0.9% in 2002 to 1.4% in 2006. In 2007, Australia produced 6.8M RECs, equivalent to 6.8 mWh. The Australian government has set itself a target of generating 45 billion mWh of additional electricity from renewable sources by 2020. The new government in Australia is also expected to actively pursue the increased adoption of renewable sources of energy including solar. Australia is also a leading market for solar hot water capacity and provides capital grants and rebates for installations.

Other 15%

Biomass 1%

Hydro 30%

Wind 25%

Solar 21%

Landfill Gas 8%

Source: Australian Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator, Barclays Capital research

Figure 387: Austrian Electricity Market The Austrian electricity mix has witnessed a rapid increase in the adoption of solar and other forms of renewable energy such as geothermal and wind energy. The share of renewable energy in the total mix has increased from 22% in 2000 to about 33% in 2007 (including hydro) Austria consumed 63.8 billion kWh in 2007. The Austrian government has also been active in promoting the use of solar energy, making Austria a large exporter of solar components to the rest of Europe. The European Union has further accelerated the adoption of renewables by setting Austria a target of 34% renewables share by 2020.

Thermal, 33%

Solar, wind, etc, 67%

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

346

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 388: Denmark Electricity Market The Danish electricity mix has witnessed a high percentage of solar and other forms of renewable energy such as geothermal and wind energy. The share of renewable energy in the total mix has increased from 10.9% in 2000 to 19% in 2007. The Danish government has been active in promoting the use of renewable energy and has set a target of maintaining renewable energy at around 20%, along with a 2% reduction in total energy consumption by 2011. The European Union has further accelerated the adoption of renewables by setting Denmark a target of 30% renewables share by 2020. Denmark utilized 37.4 billion kWh in 2007.

Thermal 81% Renewable Sources 19%

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital research

Figure 389: French Electricity Market


Solar, wind, etc, 12%

C onventional Thermal, 11%

N uclear, 77%

France has the second-largest electricity market in the European Union, behind Germany. In 2007, France utilized 544 billion kWh. The French electricity mix has seen a modest increase in the adoption of solar and other forms of renewable energy such as geothermal and wind energy. The share of renewable energy (including hydroelectric) has increased from about 7% in 2000 to 12% in 2007. France has been set a target of 23% renewables share by the European Union for the year 2020. This should help accelerate the adoption of renewables in the electricity mix.

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital research

Figure 390: Greek Electricity Market


Solar, wind, etc 8%

Although a small part of the Greek electricity mix, solar and other forms of renewable energy have witnessed a rapid increase in their adoption. The share of renewable energy in the total mix has increased from 5% in 2000 to about 8% including hydro in 2007. The European Union has further accelerated the process by setting Greece a target of 18% renewables share by 2020. Greece utilized 58.1 billion kWh in 2007.

Thermal 92%

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

347

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 391: Italian Electricity Market The Italian electricity mix has witnessed a gradual increase in the adoption of solar and other forms of renewable energy such as geothermal and wind energy. The share of renewable energy in the total mix has increased from about 5 % in 2000 to more than 16% including Hydro in 2007. The European Union has further accelerated the process by setting Italy a target of 17% renewables share by 2020.

Solar, wind, etc 16%

Conventional Thermal 84%

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital research

Figure 392: Portuguese Electric Market The Portuguese electricity mix has witnessed a rapid increase in the adoption of solar and other forms of renewable energy such as geothermal and wind energy. The share of renewable energy in the total mix has more than doubled from 15% in 2000 to over 32% in 2007 including Hydro. Portugals total electricity usage in 2007 was 46.1 billion kWh. The solar irradiance in Portugal is also among the highest in the European Union. The EU has further accelerated the adoption of renewables by setting Portugal a target of 31% renewables share by 2020.

Solar, wind, etc, 32%

Conventional Thermal, 68%

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital research

Figure 393: Spanish Electricity Market The Spanish electricity mix has witnessed a rapid increase in the adoption of solar and other forms of renewable energy such as geothermal and wind energy. The share of renewable energy in the total mix has increased significantly from 5.7% in 2000 to 19% including hydro in 2007. This increase has been aided by the policies of the Spanish government, aimed at increasing the renewable share. The European Union has further accelerated the process by setting Spain a target of 20% renewables share by 2020. Spains total electricity consumed in 2007 was 296.9 billion kWh.

Nuclear, 18%

Solar, wind, etc, 19%

Conventional Thermal, 63%

Source: Eurostat, Barclays Capital research

348

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 394: South Korean Electricity Market


South Koe ran Electricity Ma rke t (2006) = 382.8 billion kW h

Hydroel ectri c 1%

Nucl ear 37%

Renewable Sources 0% Thermal 62%

The South Korean market is dominated by thermal and nuclear electricity. Although the share of renewables such as solar and geothermal has been increasing steadily, it generated only 0.13% of electricity in 2006. Solar is a large part of this, due to the attractive feed-in tariff incentive of the government. The NPV of subsidies provided by South Korea is believed to be around US$11.90/W. The country has set a target of 5% energy consumption to be sourced from renewables and also plans to install 1.3GW of PV capacity by 2011. The government further provides assistance and support to the industry through joint R&D projects by the Korean Development Organization.

Source: EIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 395: Elec tricity Prices in Europe


Elect ri city Pric es i n Eu ro pe (Eur ce nt /KWh) H1 2 007
Lat via Croat ia E ston ia Bu lgar ia Nor way P olan d F inlan d Lit huan ia Swede n Malt a Nethe rland s Hu ngar y Roman ia Czec h Repub lic S loven ia Belgium Un ited Kin gdom Slova kia Germ any I taly Cypru s 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Electricity prices in Europe are among the highest in the world A major reason for this is the dependence on imports by many countries for generating electricity. Italy, which has the highes cost of electricity in Europe, imports a large part of its generation raw materials. The current increase in commodities and, more particularly, fossil fuels is expected to further increase electricity prices in Europe. Germany, which has been attempting to propagate the use of fossil fuels, has managed to keep its electricity prices stable over the last few years. The lowest prices in Europe are currently in France due to its over dependence on nuclear power for generating electricity. This consistent increase in electricity prices is expected to bring grid parity for solar closer.

Source: RWE and Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

349

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 396: German Reserve Capacity


Reserve Capaci ty in GW
21 22

18

18

14 11 11 11 9 9

5% = Minimum Rese rve Capaci ty

Jan . 20 08

Jul 2 00 8

Jan . 20 10 July 2 010

Jan. 20 13

Jul 2 013

Jan . 20 15 July 201 5 Jan. 202 0 July 2 020

The domestic generation capacity in Germany is abou 127GW. Reserve capacity is the difference between the dependable capacity and the capacity required at peak demand. The minimum reserve capacity is generally 5% of the total capacity. Currently, Germany has an adequate reserve capacity, but this is expected to tighten, according to the Union for the Coordination of Transmission of Electricity (UCTE). This tightening of the reserve capacity is also true for most of Europe A major result of this has been the increase in spot electricity prices and the spikes often seen in the electricity trading markets. By July 2020, Germany is expected to have a reserve margin capacity slightly greater than 5%, which may not be adequate for the country.

Source: UCTE, Barclays Capital research

Figure 397: Germany Electricity Prices


Ind ustri al El ectr ici ty Pri ces (1998 = 100)
1 23 1 20

1 00

104 95 85 69 73 95

64

19 98

19 99

200 0

2 00 1

2 00 2

2 003

20 04

20 05

200 6

2 00 7

Germany is one of the largest producers and consumers of electricity in Europe. After falling considerably in 2000, electricity prices in Germany have steadily increased from 2000 to 2007. Electricity prices also include taxes, levies, and fees imposed by the government. This has been a major componen of the electricity price rise. From 1998, while the net electricity price for industrials has decreased by 3%, taxes have increased by 1,250% causing a combined increase in electricity prices of 20%. The average electricity bill of a three-person household in Germany has increased from EUR49.95/month to EUR60.20/month. Taxes contribute 40.7% of this electricity bill However, the effect of subsidies for renewables makes up a small part of the monthly electricity outlay.

Source: RWE, Barclays Capital research

350

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 398: Solar Energy and Peak Power Electricity Market We believe solar has the potential to address peak power electricity generation and achieve grid parity with peak electricity prices in a number of markets. The marginal cost of electricity is highest during the middle of the day as electricity usage is highest. Solar energy production is also the highes during the same time (as sun intensity is the highest). Peak power generation represents approximately 30% of global electricity generation.

Electrical Energy (arb. units)

Solar Energy F eed-in Ener gy Electricity consumption of building

Electricity supplied by Utilit

Electricity supplied by Utilit

Low Tariff

High Tariff

Low Tariff

Source: Q-cells AG, Barclays Capital research

Figure 399: United States Reserve Capacity


25 % 2 1% 20 % 18 % 15 % 15 % 11% 10 % 8% 1 4% 11% 1 0% 8% 14% 14 % 13 % 13 %1 3% 15 %

Ca pacity Ma rgin(%)
2 1%

21 %

1 5%

5%

0%

E RCO T

FRCC

MRO

NP CC

Reliabili y irst t F

SE RC

SPP

WE CC

W hole US

2 00 7

2 00 8

U.S. generation capacity is about 920GW. Reserve capacity is the difference between the dependable capacity and the capacity required at peak demand. The minimum reserve capacity is generally 5% of the total. The United States is divided into regions for electricity purposes. Currently, each of these regions has an adequate reserve capacity, with the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) having the maximum margin of 18.3%, which is expected to increase to 27.1% by 2011. The capacity margin in most of the other regions is expected to fall during this time. Major concerns are the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and the Midwest Reliability Organization (MRO), whose margins are expected to be 5.0% and 7.5%, respectively, in 2011 according to the EIA.

Source: EIA and Barclays Capital research

May 01, 2009

351

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 400: Building-Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV)


Glass EVA/PVB foil Solar Cells EVA/PVB foil Glass

BIPV is a term for the design and integration of PV technology into the building envelope, typically replacing conventiona building materials. Faade-integrated PV systems could consist of different transparent module types, such as crystalline and microperforated amorphous transparent modules. In such case, a part of natural light is transferred into the building through the modules. A high level of expertise is required for successful BIPV systems planning, not only in regard to architecture, but also to civil and PV engineering.

Source: Barclays Capital research

Figure 401: Cell Efficiencies for Crystalline Cells


Ave ra ge Ce ll Efficie ncies for Crysta lline Cells
20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 14.5% 15 .0% 15.5% 17.0% 17.5%

16.0% 16.5%

Cell efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of a solar cell in converting the incident solar energy on it into electricity Average cell efficiencies have increased over time due to the R&D efforts of various solar companies. An increase in cel efficiencies along with a decrease in wafer thickness has led to a rapid decrease in the costs of solar cells and a reduced Energy Payback Time for grid-connected PV. Cell efficiency is expected to continue rising, with Crystalline Cz efficiency expected to reach 20% by 2010 and 22% by 2020 Crystalline Mz efficiency is expected to reach 18% by 2010 and 20% by 2020, and Ribbon-sheet efficiency is expected to reach 17% by 2010 and 19% by 2020.

Source: EPIA, Barclays Capital research

Figure 402: CIGS Solar Technology CIGS is the light-absorbing layer in the case of this thin-film technology. The main advantages of this technology are lower manufacturing costs, more efficient in light-weight/low-angle applications. The main disadvantages are that the worlds supply of indium is limited, and in general, the production process of such multilayer structure is highly complex. This technology can achieve lab efficiencies of 19.5%.

Source: Image provided courtesy of BP Solar

352

May 01, 2009

Solar Energy Handbook

Figure 403: Roadmap for Cadmium Telluride Technology


DO E Goals for CdTe P V Parame ter Co mmer cial mod ule effic ienc y Ch ampion de vice efficie ncy Modu le c ost $ /W in stalle d sys tem co st L COE Ov era ll pr oce ss yie ld Id ent ify r eleva nt deg ra datio n mec han isms an d d evelo p a ppr opr iate ALTs fo r d evice an d mini- mo dule s Pre sent S at us (2 007 ) t > 9% 1 6.5 0% 1.2 1 $ /W 45 $/ W 18