Trina Solar Cancels $1 Billion Polysilicon Plant

China-based Trina Solar (NYSE: TSL) announced that it has canceled plans to build a $1 billion polysilicon plant that was revealed in December of 2007, with a target completion date by the end of 2012. Favorable changes in the polysilicon market has led Trina to believe that it can now obtain sufficient polysilicon on the open market to meet its production requirements. 21 new firms started manufacturing polysilicon during 2007.

Trina also announced on 4/2/08 that it has entered an eight-year polysilicon supply agreement with GCL Silicon Technology Holdings Ltd.for enough polysilicon to produce about 2.6 gigawatts worth of solar modules. Trina has now secured about 95 percent of its estimated polysilicon requirements for 2008.

Trina previously had said that it was targeting solar module production capacity of 350 megawatts of annual capacity by the end of this year. Trina announced in late October 2007, that it had launched production on its new multicrystalline module line, complimenting its monosilicon module line.

In a somewhat related announcement Fluor Corporation said that it has been awarded the contract for engineering, procurement and construction management (EPCM) services by LDK Solar for its $1 billion, 15,000MT polysilicon plant in Xinyu City, Jiangxi, China.

High purity silicon ("Polysilicon") is the key feedstock for almost all solar cells and modules produced today. The solar PV industry and semiconductor manufacturers are the two main consumers of polysilicon. In 2000 the solar industry consumed only 10% of the world's silicon supply. In 2006 the PV industry consumed more than half of the world's available supply of polysilicon for the first time ever.

So Trina sees that it can obtain enough silicon from the open market, such that its own production facility is not needed.  Its recent agreement with GCL will supply nearly all of its silicon needs for the next eight years.  Meanwhile silicon suppliers such as LDK Solar continue to expand production. Does this mean that the silicon supply shortage is over?  My opinion is that, at this moment, there is not enough silicon production to allow the much needed expansion of the PV solar cell industry, but that facilities under construction will probably allow for some expansion.  The trend to use more thin film silicon PV and non-silicon PV will reduce requirements for silicon. How much is enough? This will depend on whether solar PV modules can reach the price target of under $1.00 per Wp that have been promised by some. In the meantime there is a market demand for more modules than can currently be produced at relatively high prices (Solarbuzz currently lists $3.74/Wp (€2.36/Wp) as the lowest price for thin film solar modules).

Comments

[DaveMart]

Hi Jim,
I've been missing your blog - I hope you are not unwell.
I wonder if you would consider allowing some of your fans here to post articles if you are pushed for time?
People such as Cyril R and Engineer-Poet could certainly keep the pot boiling whilst you were too busy.
Anyway, warm regards and glad to see you back.

[Al Fin]

China is becoming heavily polluted by its polysilicon industry--which is in danger of oversaturating the market.

Guest bloggers too often get on political hobby horses and distort the purpose of the blog.

[Carl Hage]

It's always interesting to try to read between the lines in reports like this. I wonder about the possibility of non-silicon thin film technology disrupting the need for silicon, and is this a reason to be cautious on investing in large polysilicon plants.

I've also heard about new silicon PV technology that uses a small fraction of the usual silicon. However, if a technology that used 1/10th the silicon came into being, I would assume demand would go up by 100, so the market for silicon would still expand.

[Cyril R.]

China is becoming heavily polluted by its polysilicon industry

Obviously, you have never visited a major Chinese city before. This comment would have been funny if it wasn't so sad.

[Bob Wallace]

I suspect Carl is on the right track.

When one looks at the recent developments in thin film solar it appears that the old style rigid PV panel is going to be shoved to the back by of market forces.

[TheSunHarvest.com]

Our future global energy system promises to be a very different one from the one we know today where we rely greatly on relatively few energy sources and technologies. A world-wide effort, albeit somewhat fragmented, is underway to understand where our future energy will come from, and to develop the technologies and infrastructures to get there. What’s more, the realization is with us that new energy sources and technologies must meet meaningful sustainability criteria for the sake of future generations.

Hydrogen and fuel cells are destined to play an important part in this future energy system. Not only do fuel cells offer a compelling energy solution on their own, but they also represent an enabling technology that can extract the full potential from other renewable energy technologies, such as wind and solar. In addition, hydrogen fuel can be produced from many sources – in fact, almost all regions of the world have some means of making this fuel of the future.

There are many who believe that hydrogen and fuel cell technologies are is still far from being ready for commercial markets – the reasons most commonly cited are high cost, unproven durabilities, and lack of hydrogen infrastructure. This belief exists in large part because a great deal of attention has always been focused on the huge automobile market. People tend to overlook the earlier opportunities that are presenting themselves in other smaller markets that have potential to be viable early adopters of hydrogen and fuel cells. By effectively engaging and penetrating these early adopting markets with increasing volumes of product, the path to tomorrow’s larger commercial markets is becoming clearer. True, the timeline is not really known, but the inevitability is.

[Bob Wallace]

We're likely to see a wind/hydrogen storage facility start up this year in Canada. Excess wind will be used to generate hydrogen which in turn will be burned for electricity when there is not ample wind.

This is seen as economically viable for isolated communities that now rely on diesel for generation.

If it proves out then it may offer grid smoothing/storage possibilities for other areas as solar prices continue to drop.

http://www.thewesternstar.com/index.cfm?sid=125802&sc=506

[Cyril R.]

Besides the obvious benefit of lower materials use, thinfilms have a key advantage in that their production facilities have lower capital costs than traditional silicon flat plates. This suggests that thinfilms could have better scalability than flat plates, and that they could indeed push flat plates almost completely out of the market relatively quickly.

[Cyril R.]

There are many who believe that hydrogen and fuel cell technologies are is still far from being ready for commercial markets – the reasons most commonly cited are high cost, unproven durabilities, and lack of hydrogen infrastructure.

Moreover, the existence and positive trajectories of already superiour alternatives. Various battery and capacitor technologies as well as no-fuel CAES to name a few.

[Benny Peak Demand Cole]

What I wonder is will the day come when ordinary homeowners can buy cheap China-made solar panels, and install themselves?
When you have a plumbing problem, 90 percent of the cost is labor. The pipes are cheap, at Home Depot.
If you can fix your own pipes...if you can do your own panel installation (or use low-cost installers), and buy panels at China prices...then the game is changed....

[Bob Wallace]

I suspect the really turning point for homeowners will be when we have inexpensive thin film bonded to standing ridge metal roofing.

Lots of people have a portion of their roofs pointed in the right direction. (Slope is frequently poor for winter capture but if one is attempting to offset summer air conditioning costs....)

Install metal roofing on a simple gable roof (no skylights, valleys, dormers) is pretty basic handiperson stuff.

Get it up there. Screw it down.

[John F.]

Cyril,

Could you elaborate on "no-fuel CAES". Are you talking about storing the heat produced during compression and using that heat instead of natural gas during the expansion/generation phase?

Without a feature like that, CAES is inefficient (about half of the energy output is supplied by the heat source). That's still more efficient than hydrogen's 20% (IIRC) as an energy storage medium.

Batteries are efficient but too expensive. A breakthrough there would be most welcome.

Pumped hydro looks to me like the most efficient energy storage system that's currently economical. Problems with pumped hydro are mostly about siting (NIMBY, local environmental impact, proximity to load).

[Kit P]

“I wonder if you would consider allowing some of your fans here to post articles if you are pushed for time?”

DaveMart you might enjoy posting here:
http://www.debunkers.org/ubbcgi/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=New+Energy+Thoughts&number=23&DaysPrune=30&LastLogin=

[Al Fin]

Polysilicon factories in China are notorious for ignoring basic safe disposal of toxic waste byproducts from polysilicon production. Pollution is so bad, a lot of athletes are worried about clean water, air, and food at the olympics in Beijing.

China has announced that Olympic host city Beijing is to close factories, suspend construction work and force heavy polluters to cut emissions in an eleventh-hour push for cleaner air during the Games.
The measures, which have been talked about for years but were only formally announced on Monday, will run from July 20 for two months.

They are an attempt to fulfil the city's commitment to provide clean air for the Games, said Du Shaozhong, the deputy director of Beijing's environmental protection bureau.

"In case of extremely negative meteorological conditions or severe air quality, we will take even more stringent measures," he said. Source

[Bob Wallace]

"Polysilicon factories in China are notorious for ignoring basic safe disposal of toxic waste byproducts from polysilicon production. Pollution is so bad, a lot of athletes are worried about clean water, air, and food at the olympics in Beijing."

You seem to infer that the Olympics are threatened by pollution from polysilicon factories.

Is that a position that you wish to support?

[Cyril R.]

Could you elaborate on "no-fuel CAES". Are you talking about storing the heat produced during compression and using that heat instead of natural gas during the expansion/generation phase?

That is one approach, often called AACAES, advanced adiabatic CAES. Although "almost adiabatic" would be more accurate in practice.

Another approach is to add so many compression/expansion stages
with recuperators and intercoolers that the system becomes very efficient, but that's rather expensive because of diminishing returns on adding more stages.

Pumped hydro looks to me like the most efficient energy storage system that's currently economical.

Well actually CAES with natgas is reasonably well proven. AACEAS isn't, but some thermal energy storage technologies are well developed (such as mineral oil and molten salts) so combining the two shouldn't be that difficult.

Here's a link to a company working on advanced compressed air systems. As you can see, the efficiency of AACAES is about the same as pumped hydro.

I think pumped hydro is great, but there's not enough resource. With CAES, there's plenty of acquifers, salt domes and abandoned mines around the world to store insane amounts of energy.

[Cyril R.]

Pollution is so bad, a lot of athletes are worried about clean water, air, and food at the olympics in Beijing

The reason the athletes are worried is because of FOSSIL FUEL related pollution, specifically coal burning.

[Bob Wallace]

"and abandoned mines around the world"

Are not a goodly portion of those abandoned mines flooded? Seems like we have an existing resource of water and drop(head).

Seems that it wouldn't take a lot to establish some reservoirs close to mines. We don't need to store months and months of water as we do in hydro generation.

[disdaniel]

Jim writes "This will depend on whether solar PV modules can reach the price target of under $1.00 per Wp that have been promised by some."

Did you mean to say price or cost? Cost will go under $1 soon, some expect it in the next couple years for thin films.

I think panel "prices" will drop by 50% to $1.5-$1.75W sometime in the next decade.

At that point, assuming BOS prices drop roughly in step, solar will have reached grid parity in numerous markets and energy consumers will switch enmasse to solar driving demand vertical (err much more vertical that 40% CAGR).

Why? It should be evident that fossil fuel prices will continue to rise into the foreseeable future (even if a at more moderate pace than we've seen lately) so at the point where solar panels cost the same per watt (on day one) as fossil fuel power, they will in fact be cheaper based on a total cost of ownership.

Another way to think of this...if installed price of solar is $3-$3.5/W, then with ~4 hrs/day of full sun (i.e. most of the US), a retail electricity price of 10-12 c/kwh (and who really expects 10-12 c/kwh delivered price for electricity in a carbon constrained world?) your solar panel investment yields over 5% risk free.

[Cyril R.]

Are not a goodly portion of those abandoned mines flooded? Seems like we have an existing resource of water and drop(head).

Maybe, but compressed air has much higher energy stored per volume.

The water might actually be useful for CAES, as it can be pushed in and out of a seperate water compensation column to allow a more constant pressure in the storage volume.

[ike solem]

Does the U.S. press try and promote fossil fuels while panning renewable energy? Yes, it does. Take these Washington Post articles by staff writer Ariana Eunjung Cha:

1) N. Korea Cashes In on Mineral Riches

2) Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China

One is an article praising North Korea's decision to sell coal; the other is an article targeting solar manufacturing in China. If that's not spin, what is?

That's followed up with a big effort to portray solar panels and wind turbines as "environmental disasters in the making" - which is nothing but blather put out by fossil fuel public relations experts.

What they don't discuss is that building solar PV is a one-time cost, and can be done cleanly with a little care and a higher cost. Once in use, PV is perfectly clean, unlike coal, oil and natural gas. The worst thing that can happen is a reflected glare in your eyes -and with the new anti-reflection coatings, that's no longer a problem.

Most thin film PV has some serious issues, though - the materials used are far more toxic than boron/phosphate doped silicon, and include cadmium, selenium, and the like. There's no need to use such materials, and there is also a life time issue. (See nanostructured PV, for a good thin film strategy) Silicon is still the most durable material - just look at the ocean buoys and space satellites that are silicon PV-powered.

The real effort should not be focused on making cheap thin film materials with low efficiencies like 6%, but rather on bringing down the cost and availability of the highest efficiency solar cells, which are now above 30%. That's a 3-fold increase in power denisty for solar cells - that's where R&D efforts should be focused.

If, at the same time, we included the full cost of using fossil fuels - global warming, political tension and open warfare, and pollution with mercury, arsenic, sulfur and nitrogen dioxides, carcniogenic benzene derivatives, etc. - we'd find that solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuels.

[Al Fin]

All forms of pollution in China, whether coal burning or industrial/chemical pollution, comes from the same cause: the corrupt political infrastructure. The pollution of soil and water from polysilicon byproduct dumping is just another way the Chinese are polluting the planet. It hasn't been this bad since the old USSR polluted all of Eastern Europe and much of Central Asia.

[Ganie Adonay]

Polysilicon Industry will go us high us 100% in the very near future. But the problem are the giant monsters Oil Company
who still dominates the market trends. Renewable energy has to be implemented to go
out as the best alternative solution to the global warming issue in the world.
But are you not Aware that those giant Oil Company are againts that idea. They are as hungry as mad dogs and aligator.

[poetryman69]

Want to protect the earth and save energy? Then stop all wars, conflicts and terrorism. How do you do that? Make the United States free of foreign oil. When the US is energy independent there will be no more oil wars and the terrorists will no longer be able or interested in reaching us. This will save lives AND energy. Let's study what Denmark, France, Brazil, and Australia have done on diversifying their energy supplies and do likewise. Let's drill wherever we have oil and put a new nuclear power plant in every state. Let's use all our coal and natural gas. We don't need foreign energy. And we will be safer, greener, and richer with out it. All of the earth’s natural resources will be eventually used by someone at some time. Would your rather these resources be recovered in an ecological friendly and sustainable way by the US or that some dictator who could not care less about the environment exploit the earth. All alternative sources of energy will take decades to bring online because their conversion efficiencies are not yet high enough. Eventually, the US will lead the world into a sustainable green economy, but energy independence comes first. It is the low hanging fruit and gives immediate benefits now.

[Al Fin]

Poefryman you say the US will be free of war if it's energy independent? Great! I guess all those wars before the 1970s were not really wars then. We just imagined the whole thing?

Or perhaps all that was before you were born, so it didn't really happen? Yes, that's probably it.