David F. Taggart presents data and examples of how through design optimization, thin film fixed tilt PV plants can beat the financials of tracking crystalline plants, even in TOU markets

1. Implications of Thin‐Film Technologies on Project Financials
Greentech Media’s 2011 Solar Summit
David F. Taggart, President/COO
Confidential: Not for External Distribution

2. Belectric USA’s Mission: to provide turn‐key utility‐grade PV
power plants that enable safe, reliable, and efficient generation of
power from the Sun, at costs competitive with combustive power…
A Better Electric!
►Our strengths: Pocono Raceway PV Plant
 Singular focus: utility PV
 Factory‐in‐the‐field efficiency
 Project optimization
 Vertical integration
 Flexibility
 Corporate culture
and track record…
Confidential: Not for External Distribution

3. • Belectric/Beck Energy is now the largest
PV systems integrator in the world
• Belectric USA focuses on the North
American market
• 330MW of PV generation in 2010
• $700M combined annual revenue
• 1500 combined employees
• Largest user of thin film technology
worldwide
Confidential: Not for External Distribution

4. ►Optimizing for the site
►Optimizing for the system
►Optimizing for the highest return
Confidential: Not for External Distribution

5. Interdependence of site and system parameters
1200000
► Module technology 1000000
Energy Output (Whr)
800000
 Temperature 600000
 Irradiance 400000
200000
 Efficiency 0
3 6 9 12 15 18
 Cost Hours (in one day)
► Structural solution
 Fixed tilt vs. tracking
There are a lot of knobs that we
 Installation rate and cost
can turn to directly impact
► System design
project financials!
 Row to row spacing
 Azimuth
 DC/AC ratio
 Tilt
 System losses
 O&M costs
Confidential: Not for External Distribution

6. Two key North American markets
► Las Vegas vs. Baltimore Southwest
► Module technologies
 XSi, 285W, 14.8%
 CIGS/CIS, 130W, 12.1%
 CdTe, 80W, 11.2%
 DJ‐ASi, 125W, 8.8%
► Structural solutions
 Fixed tilt (20o for TF, 25o for XSi) at zero azimuth
 Single axis tracker, NS axis, zero azimuth, +45/‐45, backtrack
Northeast
Confidential: Not for External Distribution

7. Designing for temperature
► Nameplate efficiencies are based on 25C module temperature
 Module temperatures vary widely by site
 Modules typically operate at higher temperatures
 Losses at higher temperatures vary by module technology and mounting
Annual Daylight Temperature Distributions
for Las Vegas ‐ fixed & tracked
60%
% annual daylight hours
50%
T‐ambient
40%
30% T‐module Fixed
20%
T‐module
10% Tracked
0%
Temperature bin (C)
Confidential: Not for External Distribution

8. Designing for temperature
► Higher losses associated with XSi and tracking systems
 We need good performance at the higher temperatures too!
System Losses due to temperature
Fixed Tilt Tracked
CdTe XSi CdTe XSi
Las Vegas 5.5% 9.5% 5.9% 10.5%
Baltimore 2.2% 3.7% 2.5% 4.3%
Confidential: Not for External Distribution

9. Designing for irradiance
► Module efficiencies quoted at 1000 W/m2
 Actual time a plant spends at 1000 W/m2 is small
 Orientation of module helps, but still not much time at 1000 W/m2
 We need good performance at the lower irradiance levels too!
Annual Irradiance for Las Vegas,
horizontal vs. in‐plane tracked and fixed tilt
% of daylight hours
12%
Horizontal
9% Irradiance
6% Fixed In‐plane
Irradiance
3% Tracked In‐plane
0% Irradiance
Irradiance Bin (W/m2)
Confidential: Not for External Distribution

10. Designing for efficiency
► Efficiency vs. irradiance varies with module technology
 Which is best for the site?
Efficiency vs. Irradiance at T=55C
13%
Module Efficiency at 55C
12%
11% CdTe
10% XSi
CIGS/CIS
9%
DJ‐ASi
8%
ASi
7%
6%
200 400 600 800 1000
Irradiance (W/m2)
Confidential: Not for External Distribution

11. Designing for combined effects
► Effect of efficiency, irradiance, and temperature combined
 Difference in efficiency gets smaller as irradiance drops and/or module
temperature increases
XSi Module Efficiency Advantage
4.0%
∆ Efficiency (XSi ‐ CdTe)
3.5%
3.0%
Module @ 25C
2.5%
Module @ 55C
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
100 300 500 700 900 1100
Irradiance (W/m2)
Confidential: Not for External Distribution

12. Optimizing the project financials
► Model the financials of projects at each location, selecting the best
parameters for each site using fixed and tracking design solutions
► Consider for each system/location:
 Optimizing for system yield
 Unlevered financial returns analysis
► Assumptions
 PPA agreement: 1 MWAC, $0.13/kWh
 Land Use: closest match to 5 acres
 DC/AC ratio: fixed to 1.25
 PVsyst parameters per standard practice
Confidential: Not for External Distribution

13. System yields
► No surprise, tracked systems have higher yields
 Deltas are higher in Las Vegas than in Baltimore
 Are they high enough to offset install and O&M costs?
Annual Yield: Various Systems WRT Fixed CdTe
12%
Yield WRT to Fixed CdTe
Tracked XSi
9%
Fixed XSi
6%
Fixed DJ‐ASi
3%
Fixed CIGS/CIS
0%
‐3%
‐6%
Las Vegas Baltimore
Site Location
Confidential: Not for External Distribution

14. Financial analysis
► Unlevered Financial Returns
 48% Tax Equity Investor, Return = 15%
 52% Sponsor Equity
► Benchmark for comparison is:
Base Case Install Costs O&M Costs
Fixed CdTe System $2.75/Wp $0.02/Wp
► Then compare to the other module/mounting approach via:
 Install Price
 O&M cost
Confidential: Not for External Distribution

15. Financial analysis
► Las Vegas IRR matching: Picking module technology and mounting
approach, any combination of installed cost and O&M below the line
represents a higher IRR compared to the fixed CdTe benchmark
Equivalent Rate of Return Lines
to Fixed CdTe Benchmark
$0.04
O&M Price ($/Wp)
Tracked XSi
Fixed DJ‐ASi Tracking O&M
$0.03
Fixed XSi Fixed O&M
$0.02
Fixed CIGS/CIS
$0.01
Turnkey Install Price ($/Wp)
Confidential: Not for External Distribution

16. Conclusions
► Module nameplate efficiency and module price is simply
misleading when it comes to project financials
► Numerous parameters available for optimizing a “fixed” system
including azimuth, DC/AC ratio, tilt, row spacing, module
technology…
► Fixed thin film systems can beat the economics of trackers even in
the most challenging Southwest markets in the USA
► This becomes more true as commodity prices continue to rise, and
TF efficiency continues to improve
► Fixed systems are the path to the “commodity floor”
► Similar results for TOU or non‐TOU markets
Fixed thin film plants can beat contemporary
project financials via system‐level optimization
Confidential: Not for External Distribution

17. A Better Electric!
www.belectric‐usa.com
David F. Taggart
david.taggart@belectric‐usa.com
Confidential: Not for External Distribution