Friday, January 6, 2012

WAPO Meet CATO

WAPO strikes again. This Cato Institute fellow says solar is a dream. His fact-light diatribe makes me wonder... Do think tanks think? As a kid I held these organizations in high regard - oh wow... a bunch of smart guys smoking pipes, programming computers manually and conducting weird experiments on college students inside an old cold abandoned water tank. That's some seriously interesting Manchurian Candidate shit... As an adult, I imagine a think tank as a collection of blue bloods sitting around in their underwear eating poorly and manufacturing low blood sugar rants.

Neat is not the word anymore... hysterical is.

Conclusion: Screw CATO and screw WAPO too...

Silver Bulletin

Silver - grams per Watt

*Silverbook, Fortis Bank - June 2010 lists usage at .12 grams/Watt
*Heraeus' London is quoting 2011 usage at just under .1 grams/Watt. They are additionally estimating usage of .05 grams/Watt in 2014

Thursday, January 5, 2012

The 500 MW Cloud

Started reading this study by Navigant Consulting. One part I found curious was that they didn't look at using Hoover to provide regulation. They said the reason for this was that Hoover operators would rather use the plant to peak shave. That makes sense but you've got to ask yourself, is the peak we see today going to be there in 5 years? At the very least you'd want to model whether photoelectricity is going to be depressing the market Hoover is planning to play in. If so, Hoover won't have that market anymore so they'd be open for regulation. The costs of regulating with hydro should be lower than combustion turbines. This is how I read the basic situation. Maybe I missed the blurb in the report that says they looked at these angles and determined that Hoover wouldn't have an incentive to change strategies. Will have to follow up.

The other obvious thing this analysis is missing is that neither NG or Hydro will be used for regulation as much as we tend to think they will. If I own a business or home with a photoelectric system I'm going to operate my plant to maximize profitability. If my photoelectricity is cheaper than the grid I am going to try to use that power when it is being generated and avoid using power when my system is not generating. I'm going to self-regulate. Self-regulation is way cheaper than NG or Hydro.

Funny Story... In Las Vegas the grid operators have what they call 500 megawatt clouds. What is a 500 MW cloud? Well... When a cloud rolls over Las Vegas all the air conditioners start turning down and/or shutting off because there's a lower heat load on the system. Add up all the homes, businesses, schools and such and you get about 500 MW. This makes me wonder - if we can deal with large load steps due to clouds shouldn't we also be able to deal with power output changes due to clouds? And in the case of Nevada, won't these effects tend to cancel each other out to some degree? When you reason it out the answer is yes - in a hot climate with lots of AC and lots of photoelectrics there will naturally be a cancelling effect. This natural balancing won't be perfect but it's better than a stick in the eye - at least it's not working against you. Kinda funny.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Woman vs. Machine... Whoa, Man vs. Machine... Woaoaoaoah Man!

Ifrequently read that labor represents a small portion of photoelectric panel production costs. In Japan/US/Germany (JUGs) the statement holds water but it mischaracterizes the situation in low wage countries. Counter-intuitively, the labor costs (as a percentage of production costs) in low wage countries can actually be higher than what they are in JUGs. How could this be?

FACTS, STATS and CATS

Large Scale PV Module Manufacturing in India and China was written by Lily Zhao, Matthais Ruh and Ronald F.M. Lange back in 2010 for the trade magazine Solar Power. In this article they pit man against machine:

"One operator in a 9 hour shift with 1 hour break time processes 8*600 is 4800 cells per shift. Hence, a 500MWp production line, assuming an output of 4Wp per cell and 10 days holiday per year, needs 500.106 *1/4 * 1/(4800*255) = 102 operators."

In contrast, the numbers of machines, having an output of 2400 cells per hour, would be 500.106 *1/4 * 1/(2400 * 12 * 365) = 12. Assuming 1 to maximum 1.5 operators per machine leads to the need of 12-18 operators for the complete 500 MWp stringing process..."

PUNCHLINE: You need 102 manual stringing/tabbing technicians to equal 12 machines operated by 12-18 operators.

OBVIOUS QUESTION #1: How much does industrial labor in China cost.

A Boston Consulting Group document published back in December 2010 lists $2.10/hour.

OBVIOUS QUESTION #2: How much does an automated stringer/tabber cost?

Here's a current quote from a Chinese equipment manufacturer for a 600 cell/hour machine priced at 170,000 to 180,000 USD.

Here's an older 2009 quote from a German equipment manufacture for a 1200 cell/hour machine (page 27) priced at 590,000 Euro (456,000 USD)

For mathematical simplicity let's split the difference and assume a 1200 cell/hour machine costs 400,000 USD. So in the left corner we have a 500 MW factory with 24 of these machines and 15 technicians to operate the machines. I'm going to arbitrarily assume the machines last 4 years. Your rough annual costs are:

24*400,000/4+ 15*2000*2.10 = $2,463,000

In the right corner we have:

102 workers * 2000 hours/year @ $2.10 per hour = $425,000

This crude math indicates that manually stringing/tabbing is about 2 million dollars per year more cost effective than automation. Does a half-cent per watt really matter? Let's just say it's a start. What other considerations are there? Well, you have to pay for the automated stinger/tabber up front whereas you pay for labor as you go. This limits the flexibility of the automated factory considerably. If push comes to shove you can't furlough your automatic stringer/tabber and there's limited resale value. That said, the bigger consideration at work here is that I'm comparing China to China. What happens if we compare China to JUGs where industrial labor rates are more like $25/hour.

The right corner equation looks like 24*400,000/4+ 15*2000*25 = $3,150,000

So now we're up to a difference of 2,600,000 per year. OK... so what, it's still only a fraction of a cent/watt. Well, now consider the cost to build the factory? What if there's another half cent/watt in labor savings there? What if it's two cents? Consider the other labor intensive stages of production like module conversion. What if there's another penny or two there? What if there are savings associated with manually testing cells rather than automated testing?

This is meant to be an analysis but not an in depth analysis. I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. You have to ask yourself why China is using all that labor in their factories. When I looked into it the surprising answer I came up with is that labor can be cheaper than machinery. This means that when western fabs say labor is insignificant they aren't making an apples to apples comparison. They are talking about themselves. What may well be true for their manufacturing process is not necessarily true for the manufacturing process in China. I've only looked at stringing/tabbing. There's also ingots, wafer sorting, wafer testing, module conversion and so on. My gut feeling is that Chinese labor beats machinery in some of these areas as well - at least it does for now. So anyways, the next time someone says labor represents a small part of photoelectric production costs ask for proof.


Note that the stringing and tabbing process shown by Suntech is automated. In fact there's a hell of a lot of automation shown in the video. It's impressive really. At the same time you can still see plenty of labor manually picking and placing wafers. When I see this I wonder if they are saving money over fabs that use automation to do the same job. Maybe it's a penny here or there but pennies matter.

Here's our kitty cat Leelu.




Sunday, January 1, 2012

Price Breakdown - 2012

Here is a post I made back in early 2010.

Price Breakdown of a 12.3 kWp Photoelectric System in Germany (March 2010)

German Panels - 2.02 Euro/Watt
Inverters - .33 Euro/Watt
Racking - .156 Euro/Watt
Cabling - .038 Euro/Watt
Mechanical installation labor - .195 Euro/Watt
Electrical installation labor - .068 Euro/Watt
Surge Protector - .012 Euro/Watt
Total - 2.819 Euro/Watt

In 2011 system prices came down more than originally expected - from 2724 Euro/kW in Q4 of 2010 to about 2000 Euro/kW in Q4 2011. This represents a 26% drop when we were expecting a 13% drop. Even so the system prices didn't come down as far as the component prices did.

A price breakdown for 2012 could potentially factor in .75 Euro/Watt Chinese panels and .25 Euro/Watt inverters. This gives a new total of 1.469 Euro/Watt. Given favorable financing this price level will allow German PV owners to generate electricity for slightly under 10 cents/kWh. This is lower than the household electricity prices of all the countries in Europe save Bulgaria.

Will we see this price level this year? Who knows... maybe. Current prices are getting quoted out at 1600 to 1800 Euro/kW so we're already in the zone.

Update: Here's a price breakdown for a 5050 Watt system on the Sunelec site.

Canadian Solar 230 W Panels - $1.14/Watt
Cables - .02 $/Watt
Delta Lighting Arrestor - .01 $/Watt
SMA Inverter - .49 $/Watt
Lighting Arrestor - .01 $/Watt
Disconted - .01 $/Watt
Square D DC Disconnect - .03 $/Watt
Total - $1.71/Watt

Not too shabby.

Monday, June 20, 2011

FiT FiT FiT FiT Changes

The Germans decided to phase out their nukes in reaction to Fukushima. Can't say I blame them. The nuclear phase out coupled with the lethargic PV installation numbers so far this year have resulted in a decision to hold the FiT rates where they are rather than cutting them on the first of July. This means my previous projections won't apply.

Using my standard logic in regards to the connection between the FiT and system prices would lead me to believe that system prices are going to stay relatively flat at their current price give or take.

I see two big-picture things which could cause prices to go lower. The first one is interest rates creeping up. Higher interest rates mean system prices need to fall to maintain overall profitability. I think we've already seen interest rates climb up a smidge but I haven't rigorously verified this. The second thing that could happen would be a discontinuity in module prices. It seems everyday I read about all this inventory that's been building up in warehouses. This isn't 2009 though... We don't have all the expensive poly cushion built into module prices that we did back then. Margins are already tight so it's not as though manufacturers can come down in price that much.

Q2 average prices are 2422 Euro/kW according to the BSW. I had originally expected average prices to get all the way down to 2000 tp 2100 Euro/kW in the second half but I can't see this happening. I see prices staying mostly flat for the next six month and will be plesantly surpriced if they end the year under 2300 Euro/kW.

These system prices along with the expectation of a small bump in German retail electricity prices should lead to a strong finish to the year. The installers have been sitting on their asses and they've got to be ready to get back to work. I could see them averaging over a GW per month for the rest of the year. We've seen GW+ months before but we've never seen a long string of them. My wish-guess is that we see a string of GW+ months and end the year with 8 to 10 GW installed. This is a preposterously high guess given the state of things. What can I say? I'm high-pothesising.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

German installation cost updates and other ideas

In Germany there's a connection between FiT rates and the price of PV systems. Market forces have conspired in such a way that the IRR for residential installs stays relatively steady at around 8%. Given a reasonable set of assumptions we can guess what system prices will do as the FiT falls. In my experience you get surprisingly accurate projections for how average system costs will change. Last year around this time I sketched out how I saw Germany's installation costs trending during the next year. I figured prices would trend to around 2500 Euro/kW for 2011. According to the BSW, Q2 average prices are 2422 Euro/kW so my guess work was pretty good.

Current average price: ~2422 Euro/kW
Estimated LCOE: ~19 cents/kWh
Current best FiT: 28.74 cents/kWh

Last year's sketch was done before Germany set in motion plans to accelerate the FiT reduction in the second half of 2011. Here's the projection for the second half.

Steepest case scenario: If the FiT drops to 24.43 cents/kWh in the second half you'd expect system prices to get down to 2000 to 2100 Euro/kW. Jumping forward to 2012 the worst case schedules imply system costs will come down to a range of 1800 to 1900 Euro/kW. I don't actually expect a steepest case scenario. These numbers are for benchmarking only at this point.

One thing to look out for is how retail electricity prices should start buoying system prices next year in an appreciable way. Consumers are increasingly running into this sort of choice.

1. Selling the kWh for a profit of 7 cents
2. Using the kWh for a savings of 10 cents

This spread creates an extra profit potential for those willing to manage their energy use. How big is this incentive? Some behavioral changes should come naturally. For example, in contrast to what we've normally heard about running appliances in off-hours, the German FiT structure will increasingly incentivize PV owners to run appliances during the day where possible. For the sake of argument, let's say there's 100 Euros of annual savings that can be captured by consumers who purchase smarter appliances and make minor adjustments to when they do the laundry or run the dishwasher. This isn't a whole lot of money but my thinking is, well hell, recycling is more of a pain in the ass and saves me less. This seems like it has potential so I've been trying to dig into the question.

How do you more accurately quantify the possibility here? To understand the problem it helps to step back a few years. Before the self-consumption kicker was incorporated into Germany's FiT schedule it was more straight-forward to model the profitability of a PV system. The expected annual production, interest rate, FiT rate, discount rate, maintenance and insurance costs were the primary variables that determined profitability. The self-consumption kicker creates a more difficult modeling procedure. You can't simply look at annual production - you have to look at your hourly production and determine what percentage of that production will be self-consumed. To try to solve this problem you can:

1. Compare historic weather patterns against historic load patterns
2. Run a synthetic weather generator against a synthetic load generator
3. Use a thumb rule guess and assume that 30% of production will be self-consumed

My estimation procedure has always used option three but I think option two validated against option one is the optimum procedure. Although one might well exist, I don't know of a software package that models self-consumption directly. That said, there are definitely individual packages that synthetically model weather and/or load individually - i.e. Tools already exist to model this problem.

What would you want to find with your modelling? As a first order of business you want to find out what your natural self-consumption is. Natural self-consumption is the amount of consumption that "naturally" lines up with production. No fancy appliances required, no behaviors are changed. Once you have this baseline established you can start modeling managed self-consumption.

How could you manage consumption? One possibility is heat pump water heaters. This appliance has two attributes which allow it to help manage self-consumption. 1. HPWHs use electricity 2. HPWHs inherently store a product (hot water) which means you don't have to buy an extra storage device. If, as described above, you can model when you think your PV system will be producing against when you think you'll need the hot water you can estimate your technical potential for shifting. How much of this technical potential can be captured will be determine by running an IRR of the cost of shifting vs. the savings of shifting. Honestly, I don't know the answer to this question - not yet at least.

All this Goldbergian musing is established on the idea that we'll see a sizeable spread between the price one gets for taking the FiT as opposed to the savings captured by using the electricity instead. This spread will exist even after the self-consumption kicker is discontinued and, more importantly, it should increase as the FiT and retail electricity rates continue to diverge away from each other in 2012 and beyond. Will it be big enough to drive hot water arbitrage? I think there's a good chance.

One other random thought... PV electricity allows one to escape grid fees but it doesn't make the grid fees go away. As Germany adds more and more PV the grid fees will have to be divided over fewer kWhs sold. How much will this make electricity rates go up? Divide grid fees by total kWhs sold today compared to total kWhs expected to be sold at higher PV penetrations and you've got a good estimate.