Thin Film PV

Equipment manufacturers targeting the thin film photovoltaic (TFPV) space are coming up against a serious barrier to entry: firms making cells and solar panels seem to prefer to design and build their own fabrication equipment.

Equipment manufacturers targeting the thin film photovoltaic (TFPV) space are coming up against a serious barrier to entry: firms making cells and solar panels seem to prefer to design and build their own fabrication equipment.By Toby Price According to NanoMarkets the TFPV industry will have a capacity of around 29 GWp and will be spending over €3bn on manufacturing equipment by 2015. It is therefore understandable why equipment firms that have traditionally supplied printing machinery or manufacturing equipment to the semiconductor and display industry see the burgeoning TFPV industry as a potentially lucrative market especially as their hardware can often be easily adapted to manufacture TFPV cells and panels. Unfortunately these equipment manufacturers are not finding it that easy to enter the TFPV space because module manufacturers are choosing to design and build proprietary equipment rather than buy it in. Turnkey equipment sets and even entire factories for the manufacture of TFPV modules do exist which Paul Markowitz Senior Analyst at NanoMarkets explains "were enabled by the maturity of the a-Si technology and designed to make it easier for new entrants to manufacture and make profits". In fact many of today's leaders in silicon PV manufacturing started with turnkey off-the-shelf equipment or complete lines which enabled fast-track production ramp-up of this sub-segment. Several turnkey suppliers like EnergoSolar for example offer entire TFPV production lines which it claims guarantee production costs of less than €1 per watt. So why are many manufacturers in other TFPV sub-segments still reluctant to buy off the shelf? Manufacturers know best? "There is no generic barrier that applies across the board " says Finlay Colville Director of Marketing – Solar at equipment manufacturer Coherent Inc. but basically most TFPV manufacturers think they can do it "best" and consider their unique equipment a competitive advantage because it enables them to achieve higher efficiencies longer lifetimes and lower costs. TFPV manufacturers still claim that the only way to produce the best modules is by building their own manufacturing equipment which incorporates tailor-made process and thermal control materials handling and deposition/patterning techniques. Another reason why manufacturers choose not to procure third-party equipment is because no technology has yet proven to achieve truly high volumes; while the recession has slowed development putting certain TFPV technologies – OPV and CIGS – on slower paths to high volume. Whereas CdTe has achieved high volumes this sector is thoroughly dominated by First Solar and new entrants are finding it difficult to complete. Consequently "they need to set themselves apart – meaning that the same [off-the-shelf] equipment would probably not do " explains Markowitz. CIGS offers potential Turkey equipment suppliers should however not lose heart. Experience in the silicon sub-segment proves that turnkey solutions can be successfully commercialised and could be supplied to the emerging CIGS market which has the highest potential for low cost manufacturing due to the demonstrated high conversion efficiency. "As a result there is considerable interest in production-proven CIGS manufacturing equipment " says John Patrin Senior Director of Marketing at CIGS equipment manufacturer Veeco Solar Equipment. "The potential is great on account of the number companies in the CIGS sub-segment " Colville concurs. As some of these rise to the top in terms of volume and profitability Markowitz believes "some are likely to license their equipment designs to make equipment more widely available" although he adds that this is still probably several years away. However would a TFPV module maker be conceding too much if it bought off-the-shelf equipment and thus gave up on the virtues of a proprietary approach to cell/panel manufacture? Patrin believes not. His company like a number of others offer solutions which "provide a degree of customisation for the customer" enabling them to still produce unique solar modules. However others are not so sure. Robert Castellano President of the consultancy firm The Information Network reports that when he tried to set up a solar company using turnkey equipment investors asked where the uniqueness of his product was. "Every customer of Oerlikon for example is a competitor as they all sell the same cookie-cutter cells " he points out. The drive to own manufacturing in-house can often be linked to the profile of the module manufacturer. New entrants with limited process know-how and expertise are likely to go for turnkey solutions while larger players like First Solar with customised and differentiated process flows may continue to use in-house equipment. "There is still considerable opportunity for manufacturers to reduce the manufacturing costs through continued process optimisation " emphasises Patrin and as the TFPV market grows over the next few years and more volume manufacturers at the 100MW+ level appear they may continue to place their trust in proprietary manufacturing equipment. Equipment tooling and an established supply-chain in the CIGS sub-segment will remain less clear than it is in the c-Si sub-segment says Colville adding that: "Determining tooling requirements by close engagement with manufacturers appears to be a more appropriate strategy for CIGS". For now though it seems most turnkey equipment manufacturers will continue to target a-Si and c-Si players where roll-to-roll manufacturing is playing an important role since so many companies are already using it. "That's all well and good when companies are selling all they can make but the world is different now". Supply is likely to exceed demand through 2010 (and likely through 2011-2012) governments have no money for stimulus tariffs and venture capital money has dried up in the TFPV space. Consequently Castellano believes companies will tend to continue to either build their own equipment or modify commercially available equipment to meet their needs. Product differentiation key "There needs to be some differentiation in manufacturing " stresses Colville and CIGS manufacturers could therefore still choose to go their own way. First Solar's approach in the CdTe sub-segment is a clear benchmark in this regard. The drive to own manufacturing in-house can often be linked to the profile of the module manufacturer. New entrants with limited process know-how and expertise are likely to go for turnkey solutions while larger players like First Solar with customised and differentiated process flows may continue to use in-house equipment. "There is still considerable opportunity for manufacturers to reduce the manufacturing costs through continued process optimisation " emphasises Patrin and as the TFPV market grows over the next few years and more volume manufacturers at the 100MW+ level appear they may continue to place their trust in proprietary manufacturing equipment. Equipment tooling and an established supply-chain in the CIGS sub-segment will remain less clear than it is in the c-Si sub-segment says Colville adding that: "Determining tooling requirements by close engagement with manufacturers appears to be a more appropriate strategy for CIGS". For now though it seems most turnkey equipment manufacturers will continue to target a-Si and c-Si players where roll-to-roll manufacturing is playing an important role since so many companies are already using it.