SolarPVInvestor Forums

Okey, I guess we can summarize that your answer to the question if p-type mono is seriously threatened by the increased multi conversion efficiencies is no and the rationale for that is that LCOE is not the only thing that matters in choice of technology in terms of the crystalline stucture of silicon wafers.

Quoted from "odyd12"

If I assume that SOL represents HP revolution, I can tell that their increase of selling Virtus II modules will be the way to benchmark the adoption.

I'm not really talking about SOL here, since I see this mono-multi gap close everywhere, for example JKS have the same multi and mono module power ratings. But if we want to look at SOL as an indicator of market adoption to new products we can look at the Virtus I module that they started to sell in 2012Q1, since Virtus II hasn't been available for any reported quarter. Note that Virtus I is quasi-mono (new concept unaestetic look), while Virtus II is normal aestetic multi, so Virtus I should have a tougher adoption challenge than Virtus II. Here's the share of total module sales being Virtus I (rest was mono and multi):

Q1 2%
Q2 48%
Q3 70%

For Q4 they guided module sales to grow with 80% Q-o-Q and total shipments to grow from the record Q3 of 533mw to 655mw (31% above quarterly production capacity). I can't say if this is Virtus II related, but so far I have not seen any sign of the market rejecting what SOL brings.

On SOL's commitment to their new technology we've seen two things. They discontinued half their mono capacity in Q3 and they no longer have any "standard" multi module product sheets.

In 2013 we'll see more clear trends on this subject.

May I ask what role in the value-chain the industry insiders you spoke to have? From what I've read in your articles the message they send seems somewhat biased towards what I would expect to hear from someone who buy wafers and has to think about defending a negotiation position.

Quoted from "odyd12"

Wafer manufacturer, selling globally, with large presence in Mainland China.

Thanks. What type of wafer do they focus on? I mean GCL basically does the exact same thing as SOL and all solar 11s outsourcing wafering have signed with them and LDK is basically HP multi too. Must be a competing wafer company with different technology focus or someone with self doubt?

Based in China or Taiwan?

Ok I understand. Just to be clear you were referring to sources for this one: https://solarpvinvestor.com/spvi-news/388…stalline-wafers ?

I think you have some older one where sources said there's little interest to pay price premium for quasi-mono.

I don't find the exact article now, but the message there was similar to your view, that adoption of high power multi or mono-like will not happen to the extent that they can get the same conversion efficiency premium as mono. I can understand the aversion aginst the increased cell processing hassle and unaestetic properties mentioned for quasi-mono, but the newer HP multi should be easier to adopt. I've looked at your article on quasi market decline and the Nexelon interview. Nexolon, by the way, having very similar product focus as SOL now. Quasi, FSQM and HP multi.

For me this will be very interesting to track, but I'm not sure how to do it, since we don't have any clear division on mono, multi, p-type, n-type, FSQM, HP, quasi sellers and ASPs reported are yet only separated by mono, multi. Maybe the diff between lowest mono price and highest multi price trend in 2013 can give and indication.

Quoted from "explo"

For me this will be very interesting to track, but I'm not sure how to do it, since we don't have any clear division on mono, multi, p-type, n-type, FSQM, HP, quasi sellers and ASPs reported are yet only separated by mono, multi. Maybe the diff between lowest mono price and highest multi price trend in 2013 can give and indication.

I drew some conclusions here ALL spot prices UP AGAIN... Including module for first time!!! from today's update of contract prices at http://pv.energytrend.com/pricequotes.html

In the wafer price moves on the contracts market (where the big volume transaction are made) the past months I can see support for my view that standard mono is not able to achieve a price difference to high quality multi that fully reflects the big production cost difference. In fact it might have a hard time commanding a higher price at all. To me it seems this standard p-type CZ mono pullers capacity has become less rational. Maybe this capacity can be upgraded to high quality mono (e.g. HiCz that GTAT promotes) like the DSS furnaces for multi have been. I'll be following what the industry signals in 2013 will be here. SOL decomissioned half their pullers. JKS have (had?) a fairly large share mono equipment. In my view it would make sense for them to change that ratio, but I'm not sure they would communicate it.

Do you know if these are spot market prices?

Anyway, Solarzoom confirms the same trend as pvinsights and TrendForce.

The following relates to my economic sensibility concerns about standard mono and standard multi:

"Efficiency of poly-c-Si cells is on the rise; most poly-c-Si modules are between 240W and 245W, and they have higher performance-to-price ratio than mono-c-Si ones, which removed lower-rated mono-c-Si modules from the market. High-efficiency mono-c-Si 156mm modules and poly-c-Si 156mm modules are becoming the mainstream."

Quoted from "odyd12"

This offers another logistical dilemma. Say YGE is consolidating capacity to get to 3.3GW. This would mean upgrades to hit HP performance. If we talking full upgrade (all components) even at 0.10 per watt this is $110M, just to upgrade lines for 1.1GW of capacity. I think it would be still $260M if everything was bought cheap (including actual production lines). In fact I think I am looking at really low numbers. This is of course if the efficiency drive is going to motivate those buys.

One issue I have with YGE is that they spend a bit too much on PPE capex. Similar to LDK and STP, but at least they get something good and fully utilized out of it.

Quoted

It seems
upgrading ingots, by furnaces and central sorting methods automated or
manual would be requiring least effort to transition legacy
polycrystalline lines into a HP product. So, I think supremacy of SOL
under this scenario would be quickly challenged if this is the path
chosen. Have you seen my comments on LDK? M3 is not being planned for
sale in China. They are also avoiding using common components to avoid
plagiarism. Very interesting, as it supports that LDK also sees ingot
technology as the superiority aspect. I may have to shift my vision of
cell technology taking over any time soon.

Yes I think multi capacity has a way out, by upgrading to produce HP. I'm less sure about those doing standard p-type mono. Would you say it is easy for them to shift to high-efficiency mono?

I'm not sure which LDK comments you mean. Can you provide a link?

On ingot growth focus I think we have to recognize YGE as one of the "Big4". When asked they've said that they have no problem outsourcing cells, but would never outsource wafers. In order of capacity:

1. GCL
2. LDK
3. YGE
4. SOL

YGE is transitioning to HP multi a bit late compared to the other 4 though. Others that might have ingot growth focus are JKS, but I think they are still keeping all doors open. TSL has a wafer legacy, but seems to move away from it and leave more of it to GCL. CSIQ and CSUN shy away from wafers. HSOL, JASO and STP added capacity when wafer margins were very high in 2010, but I doubt any of them is above standard, except JASO's mono plant (the multi plant they've already take two significant impairment charges on). My impression is that DQ might want to be successful in ingot growth, but is not.