Sugico Mok Plan 3

Page 1 of 30
Business Plan

OWNERS

Sugico Mök Sugico Mök
3909 Easton Way Jl Iman Bonjol no. 68‐70
Columbus, OH 43219 Jakarta
USA Indonesia
(614) 403‐8912
william.mook@mokindustries.com kokos@sugico.com

Confidential Material Sugico Mök

Page 1 of 159
Page 2 of 30
I. Table of Contents
I. Table of Contents ................................................................................................... 2
II. Executive Summary............................................................................................... 3
III. General Company Description ............................................................................ 6
IV. Products and Services.......................................................................................... 10
V. Marketing Plan ..................................................................................................... 11

Page 2 of 159
Page 3 of 30
II. Executive Summary
Sugico Mök (or the “Company” or the “Venture”) is a solar energy company in the oil and gas
business. That’s because Sugico Mök uses solar power plants that produce clean electricity at a
cost lower than any other generator technology in history to convert its abundant coal assets
into oil and gas at very low cost.

The company’s solar power plants are based on a series of proprietary technology and process
innovations by Mök Industries and will be applied to a portion of Sugico Graha’s coal holdings
to double the reserve of petroleum products available to Indonesia while increasing the value of
the underlying coal more than 85 times their present value. If in time Sugico Mök elects to
convert all of Sugico Graha’s coal into petroleum products, the company would produce an
amount of petroleum products nine times greater than Indonesia’s current proved reserves of
petroleum. This is enough petroleum to supply the nation of Indonesia until 2033, even with
6% compounded annual rates of growth. Under this assumption per capita income and energy
use will be more than 4.8 times what it is today.

Sugico Mök’s solar electric energy costs are so low that for the first time in history it makes
economic sense to use electricity to create synthetic fossil fuels directly. It is by selling those
fossil fuels into existing oil and gas markets that will make money for the company.

Using electricity to produce synthetic fuels has always been technically feasible, but until Mök’s
innovations, making synthetic fuels from electricity has always been too costly. Now with
Mök’s innovations, this simple approach of using electricity to make high‐quality synthetic
fuels makes economic sense. Mök achieves low energy pricing by extreme concentration of
sunlight onto low‐cost photovoltaic generators designed to operate at very high light intensities.

Large scale synthetic fuel production also requires an electrolysis facility capable of producing
massive quantities of hydrogen gas. The production of hydrogen in the quantities envisioned
by the Venture will position the Company to take advantage of any future developments that
occur which displace oil with hydrogen. At that point, the Company will simply sell hydrogen
to those developing the “hydrogen economy.” Hydrogen will be produced on its concession
lands after mining is completed and Sugico Mök actually improves its margins.

To power synthetic fuel production on the scale Sugico Mök envisions requires solar collection
arrays of unprecedented size. Since current world capacity to produce old style solar collectors
is limited by the availability of surplus silicon from the consumer electronics industry, Mök’s
planned capacity puts the Company in the forefront of the solar electric markets in its bid to
provide even a small fraction of the world’s petroleum needs. Sugico Mök’s cost of solar
electricity will be so low that the Company could make significant money on just the sale of

Page 3 of 159
Page 4 of 30
solar electricity. Therefore, Sugico Mök will create a range of alternative markets for its
products in addition to producing high‐grade synthetic petroleum products.

Markets for Sugico Mök Products
• Coal to Liquids
• Carbon‐dioxide to Methane and Methanol
• Solar Panel and Electricity

Coal to Liquids

Sugico Mök produces high‐quality petroleum products for $15 per barrel using simple coal
hydrogenation reactors, the same type that make margarine from vegetable oil. Sugico Mök
achieves $15 per barrel pricing because it will produce hydrogen at $250 per ton from water and
sunlight. That’s because the Venture generates electricity at an unprecedented cost of $5 per
megawatt‐hour by concentrating sunlight with low‐cost optics, which reduces the area of the
costly photocells without increasing other costs. Sugico Mök’s ability to make over six barrels
of oil from a single ton of coal using nothing more than sunlight, water and hydrogenation
reactors give Sugico Mök the ability to create significant value. Coal to Liquids is the ‘sweet
spot’ of the Venture’s technology and coal to liquids is where Sugico Mök will create the
greatest value, so this is where the Company will start its development.

The Company will initially convert 3,285 tons of low‐grade coal to 20,000 barrels per day of
petroleum liquids by 2011. This will require an investment of $693 million and the installation
of 8.1 million Mök solar panels covering 3,250 ha of Sugico Mök lands. Of this total $326 million
is allocated toward the production of solar power systems while $367 million is allocated
toward the production of coal hydrogenation and processing systems. Once 20,000 barrels per
day is being produced, the company will expand production to 770,000 barrels per day by 2015
and will continue at this rate from its reserves until 2033. After that time Sugico Mök will sell
hydrogen fuels and electricity produced from its solar panel array, or seek other coal reserves to
convert to petroleum products.

Although Sugico Mök consumes large amounts coal in making its high‐grade synthetic oil, the
company is dedicated to the environment. That is why the petroleum products Sugico Mök
produces from coal have a dramatically lower environmental impact than traditional petroleum
based fuels. This comes about because Sugico Mök uses the coal as a feedstock and does not
burn it to produce petroleum. This means there are no emissions from the Mök process. Mök
even uses the ash and tar left over after processing to create a new source of asphalt for
roadways. In Sugico Mök’s process, nothing is wasted.


Page 4 of 159
Page 5 of 30
Carbon Dioxide to Methane and Methanol
Sugico Mök also makes methane with hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Methane is the principal
component of natural gas. Here, Sugico Mök takes carbon dioxide from the Natuna fields and
produces methane and methanol. Coal fired generation plants, steel mills, and others who
have significant carbon dioxide emissions are natural customers for our methane and methanol
production process. Sugico Mök’s new source of natural gas breaks pipeline and supply
bottlenecks while reducing damaging greenhouse gas emissions, effectively adapting the
Company’s technology to create a clean coal technology for those customers who use or burn
coal.

Solar Panels and Electricity

Sugico Mök has structured its approach to this rich opportunity in a way that maximizes return
on investment. Mök has already identified a number of early adopters who use industrial
quantities of direct current electricity. Direct current electricity is the very kind of electricity
produced by Mök solar power plants. The Company then determines if electricity is a major
component of those customers’ total cost of production. These industries benefit the most from
Mök’s innovations:

• Aluminum producers – electrolytic production of metal
• Rare earth mines – electrolytic concentration of metal
• Electro‐plating operations – electrolytic plating of metal
• Brine Electrolysis—bleach, deodorants, disinfectants

In addition to the sale of direct current electricity, which will bring new industrial operations
and jobs to Indonesia, Sugico Mök will invert the direct current electricity to alternating current
and still produce that electricity at a cost which is more competitive than conventional
generation. Breaking into the merchant power market serves two direct purposes: it delivers
significant return on investment and it reduces demand for steam coal to provide conventional
power even while demand for electrical power increases. The Company also will make its
proprietary solar modules available for sale throughout Indonesia and license the technology on
an industrial, commercial, or residential basis, easing the nation’s electrical supply difficulties.

Page 5 of 159
Page 6 of 30
III. General Company Description
Sugico Mök is in the Coal to Liquids (CTL) business using land and coal resources in Indonesia
and technology developed in the United States. Sugico Mök innovatively combines the energy
of coal with the energy of sunlight in a brand‐new way to create high‐quality petroleum
products at very low cost while producing zero emissions. Over time, as coal deposits decline
and mine areas increase, the company will simply use its solar panel technolology to produce
hydrogen gas as a fuel. So, over time, Sugico Mök will develop new markets for solar electricity
and solar derived hydrogen fuels and feedstocks putting Indonesia at the forefront of
alternative energy for the 21st century while meeting immediate national energy needs.
Sugico Mök creates long‐term energy solutions for a growing world economy by cost‐effectively
making use of sunlight to meet real‐world energy needs at competitive prices while creating
profits for our shareholders.
PRIMARY PROCESS
1 ton coal yields
Sunlight Water Coal 6.2 barrels
petrolelum
Solar Electrolysis Bergius

Petroleum
Collector Reactor
DC Hydrogen
Electricity Oxygen
Sugico Mök takes low cost solar energy and 900 million tons of low‐grade coal and creates 5,580
million barrels of high‐quality petroleum products over the next 25 years. These petroleum
products multiply the value of the underlying coal reserve over 85 times. In creating this value
Sugico Mök takes solar energy to the next level. Sugico Mök makes solar energy directly
competitive with extracted petroleum products. To achieve this Sugico Mök deploys thousands
of hectares with solar panels in less then five years at costs that are 1/100th the cost of
conventional panels. Sugico Mok panels produce hydrogen from water at costs less than that
achieved by conventional shift reactions while producing only oxygen by product, and zero
carbon dioxide emissions. Sugico Mök achieves costs 1/100th that of conventional panels by an
innovative new design that allows volume of panel production to increase to 100x that of the

Page 6 of 159
Page 7 of 30
world’s current production capacity. This combination of unique features allows Sugico Mök to
make use of solar energy to compete with conventional fuels cost‐effectively without
government subsidy. Sugico Mök will release Indonesia from supply constraints of
diminishing supplies of extracted fuels by replacing those fuels with fuels derived from solar
produced hydrogen .
SECONDARY PROCESSES ADD VALUE
Sunlight Water Coal
Solar Electrolysis Bergius

Gasoline
Collector Reactor
DC Sabatier
Methane
Batteries &
Electricity O2 H2 Methanol
Inverters
Fresh
Carbon
AC Water
Dioxide
Electricity
Low cost hydrogen and electricity has other uses as well. Hydrogen may be added to carbon
dioxide to produce methane and methanol. This reduces greenhouse gases while producing
valuable commodities, avoiding the need for sequestration altogether. Direct Current
Electricity can be stored in batteries and inverted to produce alternating current electricity in
demand from inconstant sunlight.
All prosperous nations have growing energy demands. All fuels extracted from fixed reserves
eventually enter a period of decline. This is the reason that in the 1970s the United States
demand for oil exceeded its ability to supply that oil. Europe and Japan also import more oil
than they make. Since the 1970s the price of oil has steadily risen as world industry grew. This
steadily rising price has slowed the world’s economy but not reversed growth. In the 21st
century all prosperous nations will follow this same path followed by other industrial nations of
the 20th century. All nations will need more oil than can be supplied by existing reserves in the
future.
Sugico Mök seeks to end this short fall in Indonesia using new approaches to petroleum
products. By tapping the unlimited power of the sun at a price that is competitive with oil

Page 7 of 159
Page 8 of 30
Sugico Mök will establish an era of decreasing fuel prices in Indonesia and throughout the
world, while creating huge value for our shareholders. Lower fuel prices make all economies
stronger and create a world that is more prosperous and safer for us now and for our children
in the future.
Sugico Mök markets its petroleum products wherever petroleum products are now sold. These
synthetic petroleum products are chemically and energetically identical to existing petroleum
products. So, Sugico Mök is immediately competitive with existing petroleum products
worldwide.
Petroleum products are a $1,800,000 million per year commodity. Availability of product is the
determining factor in market success. Quality and price are strongly correlated across a wide
range of products. Due to limited supplies in the face of rising demand prices have risen
dramatically in recent years. Demand for petroleum products in larger industrial nations like
the United States, Europe and Japan, grows at a steady 4% per year. Demand for petroleum
products in nations with a growing industry like Indonesia, India, and China, growth can
approach 9% per year. This rising demand in the face of slowing output is creating upward
pressure on today’s petroleum product pricing.
Before the beginning of the industrial age the world possessed 2,000,000 million barrels of easily
recoverable petroleum reserves. It is the nature of the recovery process for these naturally
occurring reserves to have increasing output until half the entire reserve is produced. After that
time, there is a slowing and then a decrease in rate of production. This is true for a single well,
for many wells, and for the entire world. The world now possesses 1,200,000 million barrels of
easily recoverable petroleum reserves, with no new reserves known. At current rates of use by
the year 2012 the world will enter a period of decreasing petroleum production, at that time
costs are expected to be three times their current price. Clearly finding easy to use alternatives
to extracted petroleum products is a good business to be in.
Sugico Mök uses solar derived hydrogen and direct coal liquefaction to create superior
petroleum products from coal. Since Sugico Mök does not burn coal or any hydrocarbon to
obtain the hydrogen it needs to convert coal to liquids, there are no carbon dioxide emissions.
Also, since all the carbon in the coal is available for conversion to petroleum products, yields
are higher than competing processes. And, because cost of production scale with the volume of
coal handled, costs are lower for Sugico Mök as well. Finally, since the solar energy component
costs less than the coal component, that solar component can continue to create value as long as
the sun shines, even when the coal reserve is long gone.
Sugico Mök is a joint‐venture agreement between Mök Industries, a US company having
uniquely efficient solar energy technology, and uniquely profitable approach to using solar
energy, and Pt. Sugico Graha, a group of Indonesian coal mines in South Sumatera Province.

Page 8 of 159
Page 9 of 30
Mök Industries, a US company, has perfected its unique approach to low‐cost solar energy
production by continuous dedicated research efforts since 1996. Mök has six patents pending
and a strong international intellectual property program for dozens more patents over the next
three years and a continuing R&D effort.
Since 2002 Mök has partnered with Boeing’s Spectralab Division to perfect its unique
PhotoVoltaic Design, and also with CH2M HILL LTD, Industrial Design Construction
Corporation Division, an $8 billion engineering and architectural firm, to perfect large‐scale
production of its uniquely cost‐effective solar panel design. Mök has also partnered with
Accenture a $15 billion management consulting firm to develop the highest‐best methods of
creating the greatest value for its innovative products while achieving Mök’s long‐term vision
of replacing extracted petroleum products with solar energy on the scale needed and the price
needed to sustain growth of the world’s industrial economy throughout this period.
Pt. Sugico Graha is a group of mines operating in South Sumatera Province. Sugico consists of
Sriwijaya Bintangtiga Energy in Muara Lakitan District, Brayan Dintangtiga Energy in Rawar
Llir District, Brayan Dintangtiga Energy in Muara Lakitan District, Sugico Pendragon Energy in
Rawas Llir District, Lion Power Energy in Gunung Megang District, Tansri Madjid Energy in
Muara Enim District, and Sugico Graha in Rambang Dangku District. Total reserves of coal are
estimated to be 5,360 million tons and lands having an aera of 90,192 hectares.
Of this Mök Industries has agreed to convert and Sugico Graha has agreed to contribute for
solar conversion, 900 million tons of coal which the companies expect to yield in excess of 5,000
million barrels of high‐quality petroleum products giving this venture reserves equal to that of
a major mega‐cap oil company.
Sugico Mök is an Indonesian

company created by a Joint‐
Venture Agreement between
Sugico Graha and Mök
Industries.

Page 9 of 159
Page 10 of 30
IV. Products and Services
Sugico Mök makes synthetic petroleum products using a variant of the Bergius Process. This
process first developed by Germany in the 1920s has never been cost competitive with extracted
oil due to the high cost of elemental hydrogen needed to sustain the process. That is until now.
Mök’s very low cost solar electricity allows the production of low cost hydrogen This hydrogen,
when combined directly with coal at high pressure, produces very high quality synthetic
petroleum products. That’s because there are very few cross‐reactions. And since the coal is
not burned in the process, no carbon‐dioxide is produced. This makes the Sugico Mök process
very clean, efficient, and productive compared to other processes. Also, the availability of low‐
cost electricity and low‐cost hydrogen, provide secondary sources of revenue that grow over
time as the world moves toward a future hydrogen economy.
Sugico Mök produces higher quality petroleum products than competing processes and does so
at lower costs. This has an important impact on the underlying value of coal in the ground.
Mök’s solar‐assisted Bergius process produces high‐grade synthetic petroleum products at $15
per barrel, while Fischer‐Tropsch produces a lower‐grade synthetic petroleum products at $35
per barrel. Since petroleum products now sell in excess of $70 per barrel, both products are
profitable. But looking at the impact these processes have on the underlying value of coal, the
story is quite different.
By dividing the market capitalization of a company by the total reserves controlled by that
company the value of reserves in the ground is computed. For a coal company this value is
approximately $1.50 per ton. For an oil company this value is approximately $29 per barrel.
Mök’s solar‐assisted Bergius process produces 6.2 barrel per ton of coal, while Fischer‐Tropsch
produces 2.5 barrels per ton of coal. Thus the change in value of coal in the ground is the value
of the oil that may be produced minus the cost of producing it, so;
Mök’s Solar‐Assisted Bergius 6.2 * ($29 ‐ $15) = $86.80
Fischer‐Tropsch 2.5 * ($29 ‐ $35) = ($15.00)
Mök’s process creates tremendous value while Fischer‐Tropsch reduces value. This explains
why Fischer‐Tropsch requires large subsidies to be profitably implemented in today’s markets.
As Fischer‐Tropsch becomes more efficient and as the value of oil in the ground rises Fischer
Tropsch at some point is expected to add value as well.

Page 10 of 159
Page 11 of 30
V. Marketing Plan
Sugico Mök will arrange off‐take contracts for its petroleum products at market rates with the
relevant purchasers of petroleum products operating in Indonesia. Sugico Mök’s petroleum
products will meet all relevant standards for these products. Currently Mök has shown that
solar‐assisted derived Bergius products meet US ASTM and US Mil‐Spec standards for
petroleum products such as jet‐fuel, diesel‐fuel, gasoline and fuel oil.
Availability of these products at the prices indicated is the relevant factor of our success.
Economics
Table 1 Cost of 20,000 bpd Coal to Liquids Production
4.5 Sunlight hours per day
365.25 Days per year
1643.625 Sunlight hours per year
1000000 Watts/MW
1643.625 MWh/MW‐year
$ 69,500.00 Cost per MW
$7,937.8 Cost per MW‐year
$4.83 Cost per MWh
50 MWh/ton Hydrogen
$241.47 Cost per ton Hydrogen
4698 MW installed Sugico Mök
$ 326,511,000.00 Total Cost Solar Installation

0.1 Hydrogen per ton Coal
$24.15 Hydrogen Cost per ton Coal
6.2 Yield Barrels Liquid per ton
$3.89 Hydrogen Cost per Barrel
$ 49.32 Capital Cost per Barrel
$4.80 Annual Cost of Capital/bbl
$35 Coal Cost per ton
$5.65 Cost of Coal per Barrel
$14.34 Total Cost per Barrel
$ 366,904,109.59 Total Cost Petroleum Processing

$ 693,415,109.59 Total Cost Installation


Page 11 of 159
Page 12 of 30
Facts about the petroleum products industry in Indonesia:
• In 2002 Indonesia produced 372 million barrels per year of petroleum products from 4.7
billion barrels of proved reserves, while demand for petroleum products in Indonesia in
2002 slightly exceeded this figure. Additional petroleum products were created from
gas condensates.
• Indonesian demand grew at 4.7% per year while production is fell at 3.8% per year.
• Sugico Mök will produce 7.5 million barrels of liquid fuels starting in 2011 reversing this
shortfall and grow its output to produce 250 million barrels of petroleum products by
2015 providing nearly half of Indonesia’s need for petroleum products.
• Sugico Mök will produce nearly 1% of global demand today when it reaches design
capacity of this concession, but that total is expected to be less than ¾% global demand
in 2015.
• Sugico Mök initial production account for 2% of Indonesian demand in 2011 and grow
to nearly ½ of total Indonesian demand in 2015.
• Sugico Mök will bring to market more liquid fuels than currently exist in all of
Indonesia’s reserves of petroleum products and produce them at a rate to allow
Indonesia to grow without shortages throughout 2033 and beyond.
• Additional solar panels installed throughout the country over time will produce low‐
cost electricity for Indonesia easing electricity shortages and reversing rising electricity
prices while reducing the demand for coal and oil to generate electricity and reducing
atmospheric pollution.
• In 2002 Indonesia had 21.4 Gigawatts of installed generating capacity that
produced 75 million MWh of electrical energy. 101 million Mök solar panels
producing 58.7 Gigawatts when the sun shines will provide all this demand and
occupy 37,600 ha of land ay 100.
• Direct sales of electricity to utilities allows Sugico Mök to use more coal to produce
petroleum. Additional coal reserves exist that may be converted to petroleum products
using solar hydrogen. So in this way Sugico Mök expands the production of petroleum
products for export while reversing rising energy prices and ends energy shortages of
petroleum products in Indonesia.
• Sugico’s reserves in excess of 5,000 million tons of coal can produce more than 34 billion
barrels of synthetic petroleum products using Mök’s advanced solar assisted process.

Page 12 of 159
Page 13 of 30
This is a total amount of liquid fuels 9x greater than Indonesia’s proved reserves of
petroleum products today.
• With a compounded 6% economic growth rate 34 billion barrels is sufficient to supply
all of Indonesia’s energy needs through 2033 using Sugico Graha’s proved coal reserves
and Mök’s solar‐assisted Bergius process.
• Fully developing the concessions available to the Company give Sugico Mök the ability
to become one of the largest most successful energy companies in the world.

Page 13 of 159
Page 14 of 30
Product

Sugico Mök uses a new way to produce higher quality petroleum products from coal reserves at
a cost that increases the value of the underlying coal reserves in the ground. While the process
used by Sugico Mök is more costly than drilling and extracting proved oil reserves there are no
exploration costs or discovery risks associated with Sugico Mök’s production method.
Features and Benefits
Coal to Liquids
• Quality equivalent to conventional oils due to low

number of cross‐reactions produced with higher
yields per ton of coal used.
• Creates a higher value petroleum product at lower

cost.
Obtaining high value and greater yields at lower cost mean
the value of the underlying coal reserve is dramatically
increased in value. This increase in value can be leveraged to
expand production quickly.

Page 14 of 159
Page 15 of 30

APPENDICES

Page 15 of 159
Page 16 of 30
William Mook, CEO
Mök Industries
Advances 1996 through 2006

Page 16 of 159
Page 17 of 30
Low‐cost Photovoltaic Panel Design & Construction

This is a new sort of concentrating

photovoltaic system that consists of arrays
of lenses similar to that shown here. There
is a fish‐eye type wide angle refractive
imaging lens up top, a non‐imaging
conical reflector in the middle, and a non‐
imaging compound parabolic concentrator
down below. In the exit plane, is a small
photovoltaic cell soldered onto conductive
copper foil, embedded in a plastic lattice.
The lens system consists of thin film clear

plastic, such as PET, (the same material as
soda bottles) filled with ultra‐pure clear
water. Since the water’s refractive index
matches the refractive index of the plastic
used, any irregularity in the PET surface is
invisible. This is why water bottles filled
with water appear to be far clearer than
water bottles that are empty.
The plastic film holds the water in a lens‐

like shape, and the water itself is the lens
medium. This way the film can be molded
into lens shapes at far lower cost than with
an all plastic lens. Also, only a very small
amount of plastic is used for a given lens
volume. Large volume lenses can be
made less precisely than small volume
lenses of the same capacity which reduces
manufacturing costs.

Page 17 of 159
Page 18 of 30
The film is hot‐press molded in four layers. The bottom‐most layer has copper foil imbedded in
it. Photo voltaic cells are then soldered onto the foil. Another layer is thermally joined to the
bottom layer to create a sparse array of photo‐voltaic cells. The top two layers are formed and
joined to the completed bottom layer immersed in a water bath. A lens array of artibtrary size
may be formed.
The concentrating photovoltaic system

described here consists of panels each 8
feet by 4 feet in area comprised of 4,196
lenses. Each lens has one square inch
area. Each lens illuminates a photovoltaic
cell one square millimeter in area. So, in
each 8 foot by 4 foot panel there are 4,196
photovoltaic cells each one square
millimeter in area. This means that a
typical 300 mm diameter wafer, costing
$140 for first run commercial crystalline
silicon, with typical yields, can make 14 panels each 8 feet by 4 feet in area. So, the cost of
photovoltaic materials is only $10 per panel. These same wafers if used to make a conventional
panel would cost $11,820 from the same wafers. The power produced under illumination is the
same in either case.
The plastic film which contains

the water costs $4.48 per 8 foot
by 4 foot panel. The water costs
$0.30 per ton, and the water cost
is nil per panel. The copper foil,
copper wire, and structural
stainless steel cable adds the
most cost, nearly $23.00 per
panel. Overall, the cost per
panel is less than $38.00 each.
Each panel produces 580 watts
under full illumination. This is
6.54 cents per peak watt.

Page 18 of 159
Page 19 of 30
Panels may be produced individually, and

individually placed and wired. But the
lowest cost method of installation involves
pre‐wiring as many panels at the factory as
can be conveniently handled. Think of
Christmas tree light strings. Our panels are
built the same way.
One thousand one hundred 8 foot by 4 foot
panels can be wired together into 110
separate circuits, presenting 55 separate
circuits at either end of the string. The 1,100
panels are z‐folded onto a 53 foot flat‐bed
trailer, to form a shipping volume of 12 feet
by 8 feet by 53 feet, and conveniently
shipped anywhere. Thus, a single tractor‐
trailer combination can ship 0.638 MW of
solar panels.
Installing the panels involves pulling the

string with a special tractor from East to West after staking one end of the string to the ground.
Panels then unzip from their z‐fold arrangement, and the special tractor equipped with disks,
‘plant’ the panels in an 8 foot wide strip that is nearly 1 mile long.
Electrical connections are made at either
end, to variable load electrolyzers, or
variable load sodium‐sulfur batteries. It
is estimated a crew of eight working one
shift with four tractors can install 520
strings covering nearly one square mile
of surface area every week.

Page 19 of 159
Page 20 of 30
Industrial Design Construction Company’s

Pittsburgh office, a division of CH2M HILL LTD
worked closely with me detailing every
manufacturing step involved in creating a plant
that would be most economical. The design
shown above is for a specific site in New Castle
PA, at a place called Millenium Park. This $1.6
billion facility has the ability to produce 1 square
mile of solar panels at a cost of less than $0.07 per
peak watt installed every 2.8 days. The plant can
produce 71 GW of panels each year. It employs
690 people full‐time. An associated silicon
foundry is also planned for the site and will
employ an additional 820 people. This silicon
foundry is typical of this type of facility.
The land needed to operate hundreds of
square miles of panels is obtained from
large surface mine operators who
operate surface mines in sunny regions.
Anglo Ashanti Gold and Newmont
Mining both operate lands leased from
Union Pacific Railroad in Northern
Nevada. These lands have a total area in
excess of 4,400 square miles in this
region. This is an area greater than all the rooftops of all the buildings in the continental United
States. Due to recent ‘brightfield’ legislation enacted in the past year, bonding companies have
expressed an interest in guaranteeing the reclamation of land that we cover with our low‐cost
solar panels for a premium that is a fraction of the current reclamation cost for these companies,
saving these companies billions of dollars. Once I have a credible scale of production to cover
this acreage it is very well possible that I could receive amounts in excess of the cost of the
proposed factory described above to sign leases that take over this land and use them for solar
collector sites.

Page 20 of 159
Page 21 of 30
BREAKTHROUGH TECHNOLOGY
At the Earth’s surface direct sunlight posseses 850 Watts per square meter. That’s 850 micro‐
watts per square millimeter. Converted at 15% efficiency to electricity by silicon PV cells this
represents a power of 127.5 microwatts electrical per square millimeter. At a cost of $1.00 per
square inch for silicon a square millimeter costs 100/645.16 = 0.15 cents per sqare mm. In terms
of power this is a penny for every 850 microwatts. This is $11.76 per watt. Which is 10x greater
than the cost of conventional generators.
However, by concentrating sunlight 100x to 500x using mirrors or lenses,the energy density
may be raised by the same factor as the concentration, reducing costs by the same factor. So,we
can see that its possible by using low‐cost concentrators costs per watt can be reduced to a range
of $0.12 and as low as $0.02 per watt!
The trouble with increasing the power levels is the existence of parasitic losses in the PV
device. The parasitic losses arise from i‐squared R heating as the current increases. This loss
mechanism grows as the square of intensity while the output grows linearly. Therefore,we have
a situation where diminishing returns occur, and peak output is achieved with any further
increase in intensity resulting in lowered output.
The form of the equation is;
Pout = Vout * Rload – I^2 * Rinternal
Where I is the current.
Since I is proportional to intensity (i) we can rewrite the equation;
Pout = A * ( Vout * Rload – i^2 Rinternal)
Typical photocells achieve peak intensity of 2 to 4 x ambient solar output.
There are two ways to reduce parasitic losses.

(1) Reduce Rinternal and
(2) Increase Vout (thus reducing I)

Page 21 of 159
Page 22 of 30

The reducing Rinternal was first done by

Swanson through using back‐junction
photocells. Increasing Vout was first
achieved by Sater through his vertical
multi‐junction cell technology.
By increasing the number of junctions

40x the voltage of the PV device increases
by 40x. This reduces the impact of I^2 by a
factor of 40x40 = 1,600x
Swanson has achieved reductions of

Rinternal by a factor of 100 – thus
increasing peak intensity by a factor of
100.
The object of the following design is to

combine both improvements into a
completely new innovation and
essentially eliminating parasitic losses.
1.5 mm x 1.5 mm = 2.25 sq mm. 5”

wafers = 12,667 sq mm, implies 5,630
dies. With a 50% yield,this is 2,500
dies per wafer. 5 to 10 wafers yield
12,500 to 25,000 dies.
Each die operating at 150x solar

intensity produces 43 milliwatts. Each
wafer produces therefore 107.5 watts.
At 450x this triples to over 322.5 watts
per wafer. At $20 to $30 per wafer
this translates to $0.10 and $0.20 per
watt. Doubling yield would improve
pricing to $0.05 to $0.10 per watt. Our
ultimate target for PV costs is $0.03
per watt at 500x intensity.

Page 22 of 159
Page 23 of 30

EVOLUTION OF PROTOTYPE TECHNOLOGY
An important aspect in creating low‐cost solar energy is the ability to collect sunlight at a
reasonable price and concentrate it to high intensity. Mök has achieved this in a number of
ways. At first we used spun aluminum parabolas coated with mylar to focus sunlight. This
proved our core technology. Next, we used aluminized PET formed into fresnel mirrors as
shown. Finally, we hit upon making low cost lens arrays from PET to create stationary lenses
that need not track the sun. This final innovation has allowed Mök to build solar collectors for
less than three cents per peak watt. This allows Mök to create energy for 1/5th cent per kilo‐watt
hour.
PENNSYLVANIA PRODUCTION PLANT AND CENTRAL COLLECTOR LAYOUT
This 1.2 million square foot facility will employ 690 people directly. It will produce a square
mile of solar collectors every 2.8 days. These 4’ x 8’ x 2” collector panels will be strung together
in strings of 1,100 forming a string 1 mile wide. The string will be ‘z’ folded onto a 52’ truck for
shipment anywhere in the US. The strings will be unfolded and planted by a special planting
tractor. Five tractors and crew will install the output of the plant. The strings will charge utility
scale batteries. These batteries will drive HVDC power lines to distribute DC power to
wherever its needed.

Page 23 of 159
Page 24 of 30
BERGIUS PROCESS
During World War Two Germany made great use of synthetic fuel – this was based on its
extensive deposits of bituminous and brown coal. High quality syntheteic fuel was
manufactured mainly by two processes: Bergius Hydrogenation (developed in 1926) and
Fischer‐Tropsch (developed in 1923).
The Bergius process involved splitting the complex molecules of coal and then forcing
hydrogen into them under high pressure to produce liquid oil molecules. In the Fischer‐Tropsch
process, molecules of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, obtained by breaking up coal with
steam, were used to form oil molecules.
The Bergius hydrogenation was superior to Fischer‐Tropsch. By 1944 Germany was producing
about 47% of all it’s oil products including nearly 100% of its aviation fuel using Bergius
hydrogenation for this reason. The high cost of hydrogen today is the only reason Bergius
hydrogenation is not in wide use. Mök’s low cost solar hydrogen changes this condition.
The Mök Process uses renewable hydrogen derived from sunlight and water to power a
modified Bergius Process resulting in six barrels of oil from each ton of coal while producing no
emissions.

Page 24 of 159
Page 25 of 30
Presentation
to
The Office of Science and Technology Policy
The Office of the President
of
The United States
By
William Mook
Mök Industries
Technology Overview & Implications
December 10, 2004
SUMMARY
Mök Industries seeks to sell to the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve 250 million barrels
of synthetic oil produced from sunlight and coal at a selling price of $25 per barrel. Mök needs
no money now, only a firm order for $6.25 billion giving Mök the ability to deliver synthetic oil
anytime it becomes available within the next eight years. This synthetic oil will be light Texas
crude oil equivalent and made from solar derived hydrogen and US coal using the BERGIUS
PROCESS.
Along with an initial order, Mök also seeks the right to use up to 20,000 square miles of
available government land along with lands surrounding Union Pacific rail lines to collect,
convert, and transmit solar power on a scale unprecedented in history. This much land
converted to solar panels will make the United States dominant in energy production, not just
self‐sufficient.
To maximize growth of its solar infrastructure, Mök seeks to avoid fees and taxes for use of this
land as well as taxes on the improvements it makes to these lands. Money saved will be
reinvested in the growth of the company. Mök expects to pay normal sales and income taxes on

Page 25 of 159
Page 26 of 30
its sales and profits. Mök also expects to pay fees and taxes on improvements and land once it
grows beyond its initial 20,000 square mile plan.
Mök Industries LLC has developed a BREAKTHROUGH TECHNOLOGY that produces solar
electricity for as little as 1/5th cent ($0.002) per kWh. Energy experts have described this advance
as a “revolutionary breakthrough” in energy technology.
Mök’s energy technology is dramatically less expensive than any other conventional energy
source.
ENERGY COST COMPARISON
Mök Energy $0.002/kWh
CONVENTIONAL ENERGY
Coal $0.020/kWh 10x
Electricity $0.060/kWh 30x
PV Panel $0.040/kWh 200x
OPPORTUNITIES
Mök’s ability to generate electricity from sunlight at less cost than fuel costs alone permits Mök
to compete in ALL ENERGY MARKETS. This includes;
1. Electricity – generated at a central solar station at a cost of $0.002 per kWh.
2. Renewable Hydrogen – generated from electricity and water
a. Synthetic Methane – generated from renewable hydrogen and carbon dioxide
via the SABATIER PROCESS at a cost of $1.30 per mcf.
b. Synthetic Oil – generated from renewable hydrogen and COAL via the
BERGIUS PROCESS at a cost of $8.57 per barrel.

STRATEGIC BENEFITS
The United States currently depends on overseas sources for most of its energy. Using Mök
solar collectors the United States will become the lowest‐cost energy producer in the world by
generating conventional fuels from sunlight and domestic coal. By making its own oil at low
cost the United States will become the dominant energy supplier world wide, changing the
nature of international relations and re‐establishing the geo‐political climate of the 1920s and
1950s.

Page 26 of 159
Page 27 of 30
Support of Mök’s vision provides immediate strategic benefit. OPEC recently announced its
intention to raise the floor price of OPEC crude from $22 per barrel to $40 per barrel. The United
States presently has no recourse but to comply with this announcement. However, by
supporting US developed synthetic oil production capacity at $25 per barrel or less from
domestic coal and sunlight, the US undermines OPEC’s ability to maintain this new price.
Should the United States wish to take this action Mök would be willing to commit selling 250
million barrels of its synthetic crude to the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve for $25 per barrel.
A commitment of this magnitude would allow Mök to raise the capital it needs in the private
market and move aggressively forward to make the US independent of all foreign sources of
energy by 2015.
SYNTHETIC OIL
The United States consumed 6.76 billion
barrels of oil in 2003. To create this
much oil each year using Mök’s new
technology requires the conversion of
1.12 billion tons of coal to oil each year
along with the creation of 112 million
tons of hydrogen from water. To
support this level of production
requires 7,958 square miles of Mök
collectors. This area of collectors is
sufficient to supply all US oil needs
from domestic US coal supplies. Ten
manufacturing plants of the type Mök plans to build in Pennsylvania are sufficient to build up
this area of collectors in eight years or less.
The US possesses 245 billion tons of easily recoverable coal. Converted to oil using hydrogen
produced from solar energy this coal makes 1,470 billion barrels of synthetic oil. An amount of
oil 64 times larger than America’s current proven reserves of 22.7 billion barrels. The US
therefore may provide for all its oil needs for the next 200 years using Mök’s process.
Since Mök’s oil relies on large quantities of inexpensive hydrogen for its production, Mök’s
process naturally produces conditions favorable to the evolution of a hydrogen energy
economy. The development of a hydrogen economy will occur as a natural outcome as Mök
uses low‐cost hydrogen to make conventional hydrocarbon fuels.


Page 27 of 159
Page 28 of 30
ELECTRICITY
In 2003, the United States generated 3,848 billion kilowatt‐hours (Kwh) of electricity. Coal‐fired
plants accounted for 53% of generation, nuclear 21%, natural gas 15%, hydroelectricity 7%, oil
3%, geothermal and ʺotherʺ 1%.
5,438 square miles of Mök solar collectors
are required to meet this demand from
sunlight alone. Six additional Mök solar
plants of the size being built in
Pennsylvania will be capable of
producing 5,438 square miles of collectors
in eight years.
Using solar sources of electricity reduces

and eventually eliminates coal as an
electrical energy fuel. The demand for
coal to generate electricity matches the demand for coal used to make synthetic fuel under this
plan. So, there need be no change in the overall demand for coal as Mök grows, provided the
right mix of electricity and oil is generated from solar energy.
Mök solar collectors generate Direct Current (DC) electricity. High Voltage Direct Current
(HVDC) transmission is possible over long distances. Mök intends to create a network of
HVDC transmission across the US. Mök will then sell electricity to utilities at a cost equal to
today’s fuel costs alone. This will cover Mök’s cost of generation and transmission and produce
profits for Mök. Utilities will buy inverters and controls instead of generators at less cost per
watt than they pay for generators. These controls will allow utilities to tap into the HVDC grid
and produce electricity more cheaply and with fewer emissions than they can today.
NATURAL GAS
Hydrogen produced by Mök solar collectors when combined with carbon dioxide produce
methane, the principal component of natural gas. Significant quantities of methane are
produced and significant quantities of carbon dioxide are absorbed using the Sabatier process
powered by Mök solar panels. The US is self‐sufficient in Natural Gas so there is no significant
strategic energy benefit in using solar energy to generate natural gas.
Using the Sabatier process to produce methane does allow Mök to make a profit. Mök will
absorb carbon dioxide emissions and sequester carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.
From this we will produce a saleable fuel.

Page 28 of 159
Page 29 of 30
THE MÖK PLAN
Mök collects solar energy on reclaimed surface mines in Nevada to produce DC electricity.
Mök then transmits HVDC electricity to Salt Lake, Utah. There, we convert water to hydrogen
and oxygen using that electricity. We capture the hydrogen and send it by pipeline to Powder
River Basin, Wyoming. Mök combines the hydrogen with coal in BERGIUS REACTORS to
create a high‐quality synthetic crude oil. We then send the oil by pipeline to Cushing
Oklahoma where it is distributed to buyers such as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in
Louisiana.
Expansion of the initial 200 square mile array to over 6,000 square miles will eventually displace
all US oil imports within 10 years.
Additional solar capacity in Nevada will be added to provide electricity for Northern
California. Additional solar capacity in Arizona will be added to provide electricity for
Southern California and US South West.

Page 29 of 159
Page 30 of 30
VENDOR REPORTS

Page 30 of 159
Accenture LLP
200 Public Square, Suite 1900 • Cleveland, OH 44114
Tel: (216) 535-5000
www.accenture.com
October 28, 2003
Mr. William H. Mook

Mök Industries, LLC
4449 Easton Way
Columbus, Ohio 43219
Dear Mr. Mook:
Accenture LLP (“Accenture”) is pleased to provide this addendum (“Addendum”) to Mök

Industries, LLC (“Mök Industries”) which amends the Arrangement Letter by and between the
parites signed on July 31, 2003 (“Arrangement Letter”) to extend Accenture’s services. The
services described in this Addendum (“Services”) shall be provided subject to the Assumptions
and Standard Business Practices set forth in the Arrangement Letter. All terms and conditions of
the Arrangement Letter not expressly modified herein shall remain in full force and effect. This
Addendum shall supercede the Arrangement Letter when in conflict.
Background
Accenture has supported Mök Industries over the last several months in planning and executing
technical and economic validation, in conducting day-to-day operations, as well as in preparing
Mök Industries business plan, financial models and logistics network strategy. In addition,
Accenture has leveraged its network of executive contacts, subject matter experience, and its brand
image in order to help facilitate external technical and economic validation, and to contribute to
the credibility of Mök Industries. Mok Industries acknowledges that Accenture’s work has been
satisfactorily performed. Mök Industries is now at the point where it desires to pursue capital
funding, alliances and potential customers for its start-up operations. Mök Industries has asked
Accenture to continue in its support role. Accenture agrees to continue supporting Mök Industries
as described below for a period from October 28, 2003 through July 31, 2004 (“Project”).
Mök Industries’ Project Objectives
Mök Industries’ key objective in this Project are:

• to initiate efforts to raise capital for start-up operations, from various sources including
investor financing, government grants, strategic alliances, market making activities, etc.
• to identify and establish agreements with a select number of potential alliance partners and/or
customers which may facilitate start-up efforts
Page 31 of 159
Mr. William H. Mook
Mok Industries, LLC
October 28, 2003
Page 2
Project Approach, Organization, and Staffing
Accenture will support Mök Industries by providing continued day-to-day operations support,
program management and planning, and subject matter experience in various industries (e.g., oil
and gas, semiconductor, market making, government, coal, utilities, etc.) as determined to be
required by Accenture and Mök Industries. Further, we will endeavour to facilitate interactions
with potential investors, government agencies, potential customers and alliance organizations.
It is expected that the work related to the Project will be performed at Mök Industries’ offices in
Columbus, OH, as well as in various Accenture offices as appropriate and as determined by
Accenture. It is expected that the Project will start October 28, 2003 and end by July 31, 2004. At
that time, Accenture and Mök Industries will determine whether and how to proceed together. If
additional services are agreed upon at that time, those services will be addressed under a separate
addendum or arrangement letter.
The Project organization will follow a similar structure as the previous project between Mök
Industries and Accenture. The Project organization will consist of an Advisory Panel and the
Project Team, as that term is defined below. The Advisory Panel will consist of up to six
Accenture appointees and up to three appointees of Mök Industries. The Advisory Panel will
serve as a resource of knowledge and subject matter experience to the Project Team. The Advisory
Panel will convene a minimum of two times during the Project term, or as required by the Project
Team.
The work will be performed by a blended team comprised of personnel from Accenture and Mök
Industries (the "Project Team"). The composition of the Project Team is described below:
• Bill Mook Mök Industries Project Manager

• Dave Abood Accenture Lead
• Mike Craig Accenture Project Manager
• Matt Haley, Tom Kelly, others Accenture Subject Matter Experience
• TBD Other Accenture Consultants
Mr. Mook will work with the Accenture team mainly through Dave Abood and the Accenture
Project Manager, Mike Craig.
Assumptions
Accenture recognizes that the nature of this type of business start-up Project is such that tasks,
deliverables, timing and priorities may change throughout the Project. Accenture will work with
Mök Industries in a collaborative manner to help manage this volatility and facilitate the effort to
Page 32 of 159
Mr. William H. Mook
Mok Industries, LLC
October 28, 2003
Page 3
achieve the Project objectives. If substantial changes occur to Project scope or effort required,
Accenture and Mök Industries will work together to determine the appropriate course of action,
which may result in amending this Arrangement Letter.
Project Compensation
Accenture’s fees (“Project Fees”) for the Services hereunder will be made up a $25,000 consulting
retainer payment due upon signing this Arrangement Letter, as well as several value-sharing
components as described below plus out-of-pocket expenses and applicable taxes:
1. Relationship Leverage Fee

For each introduction to a potential Mök Industries customer which Accenture
facilitates by leveraging its relationships, and which results in an initial meeting with
Mök Industries, Mök Industries will pay Accenture a $5,000 fee regardless of the
outcome of the initial meeting. If an initial contact ultimately results in a signed
agreement between Mök Industires and the customer, Mök Industries will pay
Accenture $100,000 upon signing such agreement, but not to exceed the projected value
of the 9% (for Accenture-facilitated revenues) value sharing component described in
3(b) below, nor to exceed the projected value of the 3% (for total revenues) value
sharing component described in 3(a) below. This component of compensation will
extend beyond the end date of this Arrangement Letter, as long as Accenture is
engaged by Mök Industries.
2. Capital Value-Sharing
For Services provided, Mök Industries agrees to pay Accenture an amount of 6% of all
capital raised during the period Accenture is engaged by Mök Industries, to be paid
monthly. This component of compensation will extend beyond the end date of this
Arrangement Letter, as long as Accenture is engaged by Mök Industries. All sources of
capital will be subject to this component of Accenture’s Project Fees, including capital
from individual or institutional investors, market making activities, government grants,
or other sources.
3. Revenue Value-Sharing
a. Superceding the solar cell revenue sharing agreed by Mök Industries in the
Arrangement Letter dated July 8, 2003, Mök Industries will pay Accenture 3% of all
revenues associated with sales and licensing of solar units, photovoltaic cells,
electricity, hydrogen, methane or any other products or services from which Mök
Industries derives revenue other than liquid fuel products, for a period of 15 years
from the date of first revenue recognition as defined by FASB guidelines, to be paid
monthly.
b. In cases where Mök Industries revenue is derived from a customer relationship
facilitated by Accenture, the value-sharing payment in (a) above will be 9%, versus
3%.
Page 33 of 159
Mr. William H. Mook
Mok Industries, LLC
October 28, 2003
Page 4
c. If at some point during the above outlined time period (15 years from the date of
first revenue recognition as defined by FASB guidelines), Mök Industries or any
part of Mök Industries is acquired by another company, Mök Industries will pay
Accenture (i) 10% of the acquisition price if Accenture is involved in facilitating the
acquisition, or (ii) the present value of all projected value-sharing royalties
associated with the entity being sold, not exceed 15% of the acquisition price.
d. At any time, Mök Industries may propose to pay Accenture a mutually agreeable
amount in order to compensate Accenture for the future value of the above
payments due. It will be at Accenture’s discretion as to whether to accept such
payment in exchange for the future value of the above payments due, and all such
agreements shall be documented in writing as an addendum to this Arrangement
Letter.
4. Consulting Services Provided By Bill Mook

Mök Industries reconfirms the agreement in the Arrangement Letter dated July 8, 2003
related to the commitment to provide the consulting services of Bill Mook.
5. Right of First Refusal and Commitment of Subsequent Services

Mök Industries reconfirms the agreement in the Arrangement Letter dated July 8, 2003
related to providing Accenture with a Right of First Refusal as described therein.
6. Payment for Out-of-Pocket Expenses

Mök Industries will reimburse Accenture for all out-of-pocket expenses incurred by
Accenture. Based on the Project scope, resources and schedule described herunder,
Accenture will make every reasonable effort to limit out-of-pocket expenses to less than
$50,000. This does not include apartment expenses which are to be paid by Mök
Industries directly. If changes to scope, resources or schedule are deemed to have an
impact on the expense estimate, Accenture will notify Mök Industries of such impacts
before incurring any further expenses. Any travel and related expenses incurred by
Accenture will be invoiced and paid by Mök Industries on a monthly basis as incurred
and within 15 days of receipt of invoice. Applicable taxes will be invoiced to Mök
Industries as well.
Accenture appreciates the opportunity to be of service to Mök Industries and looks forward to
working with you on this engagement. I have provided you with two signed originals of this
Addendum. If it is consistent with your understanding and acceptable to Mök Industries, please
sign each of the two originals and return one to me while retaining one for your files. If you
should have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Dave Abood at (216) 535-
5005.
Page 34 of 159
Mr. William H. Mook
Mok Industries, LLC
October 28, 2003
Page 5
***
Very truly yours,
ACCENTURE LLP
Partner, Accenture Inc.
Acknowledged and Accepted:
By:
Title:
Date:
Page 35 of 159
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 9:23 AM
Subject: RE: Valuations
Bill,
First, I like the way you are thinking big picture. A scenario can be developed based on earnings
projections for BP Solar selling Mök panels into a project or if they are the owner of the project
(which I have not seen any examples of BP Solar owning a project, only supplying the panels for a
project). We can also module this on a partnership approach as you suggest below.
As you correctly point out, any analyst worth their salt does a valuation for a company looking at
each division, then adding up the total. This means our valuation should only be on BP Solar, not
BP as a whole using the $185 billion market capitalization number. The multiples on page 20 of
the business plan are multiples of EBITDA, which multiples the EBITDA in 2008 as a proxy for
what the future terminal value of the company could be. This is an alternative to taking the 2008
EBITDA and dividing by the discount rate to get a future value of the terminal value. Both are
correct and can be used to compute a present value of a company… it just depends if future
EBITDA is expected to increase (then you’d want to use the multiple) or if it is somewhat steady
(then using the discount rate is alright)
A Price-to-Earnings multiple (18.8 for BP as a whole) would be incorrect to use, as it is not a

multiple of EBITDA, it’s a multiple of what the BP’s stock price is relative to their earnings. Also,
it is for the whole company, not just BP Solar. We would use the P/E for BP Solar to estimate what
our stock price could be based on our earnings, using BP Solar’s P/E as a proxy of what is
possible. Alternatively, we can estimate what BP Solar could earn as a component of their
EBITDA, which can then be used to calculate the effect on BP Solar’s contribution to BP’s overall
stock price using a P/E from another solar company – one that just deals with solar as a proxy for
what BP Solar’s P/E would be if they were a stand alone company. Then we would add this
increase for the BP Solar division to the overall BP stock price.
I think we should stick to only the effect of BP Solar. BP’s revenue for 200 was $236 billion with
operating income of $14.1 billion. I suspect BP Solar’s revenue was less than $300 million (I was
not able to find specific revenue or earnings information for BP Solar), which means even if we
increased BP Solar’s earnings by 50%, the effect on BP’s earnings and subsequent share price is
negligible as a percentage, when only dealing with electricity and panel sales.
This can also be done for someone like Shell who has the Shell Hydrogen and Shell Solar
divisions. It probably doesn’t make sense to do it for all the majors, as I haven’t seen the Exxon
Mobil or Chevron Texaco have solar divisions, or even someone like Marathon or ConocoPhillips.
Mike
Michael P. Craig
Accenture
Global Natural Resources
Page 36 of 159
Page 37 of 159
Page 38 of 159
Page 39 of 159
Page 40 of 159
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 Executive Summary................................................................ 1-1
2 Project Goals and Scope of Work ........................................... 2-1
3 Product Description................................................................. 3-1
4 Assumptions and Design Considerations ................................ 4-1

Capacity Requirements .................................................. 4-1
Materials ......................................................................... 4-1
Process Alternatives Considered.................................... 4-1
Location of Manufacturing Facility............................... 4-2
Potential Locations for Panel Arrays ............................. 4-2
Cost Basis....................................................................... 4-2
5 Concept Design Review.......................................................... 5-1

General........................................................................... 5-1
Equipment Requirements ............................................... 5-1
Typical Cell.................................................................... 5-2
Area Requirements......................................................... 5-3
Facility Block Layout ..................................................... 5-4
Material Flow................................................................. 5-6
Raw Materials Handling................................................. 5-6
Finished Good Handling................................................. 5-6
Receiving........................................................................ 5-7
Shipping.......................................................................... 5-8
Storage............................................................................ 5-8
Utilities........................................................................... 5-9
Building Shell................................................................ 5-17
Office Area, Support Space, and Amenities ................. 5-17
6 Production Ramp Up, Organization, and Manpower.............. 6-1

Proof of Concept ............................................................ 6-1
Product Design............................................................... 6-1
Process Design ............................................................... 6-1
Production Rate.............................................................. 6-1
Production Ramp Up ...................................................... 6-2
Organization Recommendations .................................... 6-3
Staffing Ramp Up.......................................................... 6-11
Training Recommendations .......................................... 6-13
7 Milestone Schedule ................................................................. 7-1
40111 i July 2, 2004

Page 41 of 159
8 ROM Cost Estimate ................................................................ 8-1
Facility............................................................................ 8-1
Process Equipment ......................................................... 8-1
Operating Costs.............................................................. 8-1
Summary........................................................................ 8-2
9 Analysis and Preliminary Recommendations ......................... 9-1
General........................................................................... 9-1
Areas/Issues of Concern................................................. 9-1
APPENDIX
Appendix 1.0
PV Circuit/Assembly Concept
Bus Bar Screen Printing
PV Application
Appendix 2.0
Production Capacity
Equipment
Utilities
Open Issues
Plastics Cost
Labor Cost Estimate-Manufacturing Operations
“Simple” Cost Summary
Appendix 3.0
“Sheet” Module
Typical Cell
Block Layout – Baseline
Block Layout – Option
Appendix 4.0
Master Plan – Building
Appendix 5.0
Estimating Accuracy Curve
Appendix 6.0
Materials Comparison
Appendix 7.0
Planning for Success in Transitioning New Technologies into Economical Full-Scale
Production
40111 ii July 2, 2004

Page 42 of 159
Section 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mök Industries, Inc. is proposing to construct solar power plants that produce clean
electricity at a cost lower than any other power generation method, using a series of
proprietary technology and process innovations. The key element of Mök’s low energy
costs is extreme concentration of sunlight onto photovoltaic generators designed to operate
at extraordinary light intensities. The generator panel is comprised of an array of
concentrating solar optics, each housing an advanced PV cell. To put its technology into
large scale production, Mök desires to complete the design of the manufacturing process and
establish the production tool set needed to produce the generator panel.
Mök has commissioned IDC to assist in refining the conceptual product characteristics,
determine manufacturing resources, and develop a facility concept to commercially produce
the generator panels. To accomplish these objectives, IDC has teamed with its sister
company, Lockwood Greene.
This report identifies preliminary conceptual designs for the following:
n Product and manufacturing process.
n Manufacturing facility.
n Site plan, based on the Millennium Technology Park in Lawrence County,

Pennsylvania.
n Organizational and manpower requirements.
n Milestone project implementation schedule.
n Rough order of magnitude (ROM) opinion of probable construction and

manufacturing equipment costs.
The concept developed for the panel is a 4- by 8-foot module composed of three plastic
sheets that when formed, are bonded together to form the optical concentrator containing the
PV cell. The finished module will be self-supporting and stackable. Throughout the
development of the module, multiple design considerations were evaluated and assumptions
made. Decisions made are based on experience and engineering judgement with cost always
a primary influence.
In order to establish the manufacturability of the conceptual product design, a work cell was
developed to meet the production output targets. The work cell, consisting of a typical
equipment set, can then be duplicated to achieve full-scale high volume production of
97GW/year. The space and utility requirements for the manufacturing equipment were used
to determine the overall area and utilities required for the facility. The arrangement of the
facility accounts for support areas as typically necessary for general manufacturing. A site
40111 1-1 July 2, 2004

Page 43 of 159
plan and architectural rendering is included, as well as preliminary facility support system
schematics.
The report addresses organizational staff, manpower, workforce training, transportation,

permitting, and ramp-up issues. A conceptual schedule and rough order of magnitude
opinion of cost is also included for the purpose of establishing a realistic timeline and budget
for the project. From an economic development viewpoint, in addition to the new jobs
created by Mök, this project will have a significant multiplier effect on job creation,
including the possibility that the PV cell manufacturer would build a fab adjacent to the Mök
plant.
Key findings are summarized as follows:
n Product and manufacturing process: The conceptual process described in this

report is feasible, yet challenges remain to prove the manufacturing process
and achieve the ramp-up to meet the large production volumes targeted.
n Manufacturing facility: The building is relatively simple in comparison to the

process challenges. A crucial and somewhat ironic discovery is very high
power consumption resulting from the quantity and characteristics of the
manufacturing equipment.
n Organizational and manpower requirements: Staffing levels at full

productions are projected to be 659. This includes a corporate staff of 105
and manufacturing staff of 555 spread over three shifts. While the staff ramp
should be achievable, establishing an effectual organizational structure,
attracting a competent management team, and developing effective training
programs for manufacturing staff are critical to the success of the enterprise.
n Milestone project implementation schedule: The conceptual schedule shows

the first work cell, as a pilot line, going into full scale production
approximately 2 years after project initiation. This could be accelerated by
phasing the building construction to allow an earlier start for installation of
the pilot line.
n (ROM) opinion of probable construction and manufacturing equipment costs:

Total project capital costs are projected at $1.24 billion. For construction of a
facility capable of supporting the full-scale production volumes, cost is
projected at $416 million, with manufacturing equipment comprising the
balance of $830 million.
40111 1-2 July 2, 2004

Page 44 of 159
Section 2
PROJECT GOALS AND SCOPE OF WORK
Mök Industries LLC has developed solar energy conversion technology to cost effectively
produce electricity. Mök Industries has successfully tested this product concept and now
needs to quickly refine product characteristics, determine manufacturing resources and
develop a facility concept to commercially produce these products.
As a first step in this process, IDC has undertaken the effort of developing a preliminary
concept design to refine the following issues:
n Product and Manufacturing Process
n Manufacturing Facility
n Site Plan
n Organizational and Manpower Requirements
n Milestone Project Implementation Schedule
n Rough-Order-of-Magnitude (ROM) Cost Estimate
In order to accomplish this, IDC has completed the following services:
n Analyzed product design for manufacturability.
n Developed a concept for the manufacturing process concept based on

Lockwood Greene’s recommended product concept and forecasted capacity
requirements.
n Determined site requirements – size, containment, road access, rail access

options, traffic management, and parking.
n Determined what support functions will be required, approximate labor

requirements, and developed a recommended organizational structure for the
startup operations.
n Developed a milestone implementation schedule, including production and

manpower ramp up.
n Developed a ROM cost estimate and capital spending schedule.
n Estimated up-front equipment costs, ongoing labor cost, and transportation

costs for manufacturing operations.
40111 2-1 July 2, 2004

Page 45 of 159
Section 3
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
Mök Industries LLC has developed an environmentally friendly product that will provide
low cost electricity through the conversion of solar energy. This process is achieved by
focusing sunlight through an optical concentrator using a water-filled vessel and a clear lens
arrangement that provides optimum internal reflection. This Compound Parabolic
Concentrator (CPC) configuration captures incident solar radiation over a wide angle and
concentrates the light onto a photovoltaic cell (PV). The PV cells, designed to absorb
virtually the entire spectral distribution of solar energy, converts the solar energy into
electrical energy. The water-filled vessels will be incorporated into a series of panels that
are arrayed over a tract of land and wired to strategically placed batteries that will store the
electrical energy. This innovative approach for the conversion of solar energy will enable
the Mök product to produce electricity with significantly higher efficiency than has
previously been made commercially available.
The basic product concept is reflected in the following schematic (a larger illustration is
included in Appendix):
“Sheet” Module Concept

3 Piece Approach
TOP MIDDLE BOTTOM Legend

PV
Wiring
Sealer/weld
Anchor Tab
COMPLETE
General Process Steps General Equipment Set

submersion fill (1) Hot Press Molders
(1) Hot Press Mold the top (better precision for lenses).
(2) Hot Press Mold middle (punch hole) and bottom (add dimple). (2) Stringers (screen print? wiring?)
(3) PV install/wiring on bottom (screen print, filament wiring). (3) Ultrasonic Welders
(4) Ultrasonic weld top to middle. (4) Fillers
(5) Fill CPC assembly (upside-down, submersion). (5) Chemcial Sealers
(6) Insert and chemically seal CPC assembly to bottom. (6) Flash Testers
(7) Flash test. (7) Stackers
(8) Stack to bundles and load to trailer. (8) Conveyor and buffers
(9) Fork Lifts (loading)
Each solar module assembly is 4 feet wide by 8 feet long by approximately 2 inches thick
and is comprised of 4,697 water vessels that are 1 inch in diameter and 1.5 inches tall. Each
water vessel contains a lens that is able to capture sunlight from angles exceeding 60 degrees
from the vertical. This design eliminates the need to incorporate a mechanical tracking
40111 3-1 July 2, 2004

Page 46 of 159
device to follow the path of the sun for maximum energy production. The remaining
contour of the vessel is designed to direct and concentrate the light that enters the lens to the
photovoltaic cell positioned at the bottom of the vessel. The resulting concentration of solar
radiation substantially reduces the required area of each PV cell. In this case, a PV cell of
0.014-inch diameter produces 0.2 Wp . A typical terrestrial solar panel requires an area of 3
to 4 in2 to provide this level of power. Each module assembly will hold a total of 3.99
gallons or 33.3 pounds of water.
The module will be assembled from three plastic panels that are first produced in sheet form
and then contoured through a thermal forming process to form the vessels and support
system. The top and middle panels will be produced from clear PET (Polyethylene
Terephthalate) and, when thermally bonded together, will form the lenses and water vessels.
This assembly will then be passed through a submersion tank where the vessels will be filled
with water.
The bottom panel will be produced from an opaque plastic such as ABS or PVC. The wire
circuitry and photovoltaic cells will be applied to the bottom panel through a printing
process. Once assembled, the bottom panel will be chemically bonded to the top/middle
panel assembly and provide the watertight seal for the vessels.
The contour of the finished assembly will enable each module to be self-supporting and will
allow the modules to be stacked for shipping. The module will also incorporate lugs for
securing the assembly to the ground. These lugs will double as shipping aids to facilitate
panel nesting.
40111 3-2 July 2, 2004

Page 47 of 159
Section 4
ASSUMPTIONS AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS
A planning model was developed to capture product assumptions, including expected output
per module and production requirements to meet specific production targets. The appendix
contains the planning model in its entirety.
To minimize the amount of water needed for each module assembly, a concentrator size of
1-inch diameter and 1.5-inches tall was selected. This results in a water volume for each
module of 3.99 gallons or 33.3 pounds. With the photovoltaic cell area per concentrator
fixed at 0.00016 inch2 and 4,697 concentrators per module, this results in a power output of
952 watts per module peak. Obtaining the target production of 97 GW per year requires a
production rate of 11,893 modules per hour as shown below.
The following recaps the production rates required to meet the 3 output targets:
Output Target >>> 5 GW/yr 30 GW/yr 97 GW/yr

Production Rate 613 3,678 11,893
(modules per hour)
MATERIALS
Clear, UV stabilized, PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) was chosen for the top and middle
panel due to its clarity, formability, availability and relative low cost. The bottom panel will
be produced from PVC or ABS to add rigidity to the final module to support the weight of
the water and enable stacking of the modules for shipping. Boeing will supply the
photovoltaic cells that are installed onto the lower panel of the module. At the final solar
collection site, the array of modules will be wired to batteries that will collect and store the
electrical energy. It is anticipated that these batteries will be shipped from the battery
supplier directly to the solar collection site.
PROCESS ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Initial geometries for the light concentrator were in a range of 4 inches to 8 inches in height,
resulting in a water weight of 70 pounds to 140 pounds per 4-foot by 8-foot module. This
weight was deemed too great to allow economical shipment. The geometry of the
concentrator was reduced to a 1.5-inch height (and corresponding 1-inch diameter lens) to
provide a more reasonable water weight of 33 pounds per 4-foot by 8-foot module. Based
on the revised geometries, the following processes were considered:
40111 4-1 July 2, 2004

Page 48 of 159
Blow Molding:
The original product concept was based on blow molding PET bottles, utilizing a cap for the
PV attachment and wiring, and another structure to support and contain the bottles. Bottle
blow molding rates were calculated to meet the production target of 400,000 acres of
coverage in 5 years. To meet this production rate, approximately 1.2 billion bottles
(1.5-inch height, 1-inch diameter) are required per day. Based on initial feedback from
people knowledgeable in mass production blow molding, this quantity of bottles is not
realistically achievable.
Sheet Concept:
Several sheet concepts were developed to meet the geometric requirements of the product
and achieve a high throughput. The 3-piece approach outlined previously was selected as
the baseline approach for this study based on its adaptability to molding, ease of filling, and
surface on which to mount and wire the PV cells. Initially "traditional wiring" of the PVs
was considered (such as used in the microelectronics industry for wire bonding die prior to
packaging). An assessment of the sheer number of cells to be wired deemed this approach
unpractical (4700 PV cells per module, or 56 million PV cells per hour to meet the 97
GW/yr target output). A screen-printing and poly-soldering approach was assumed for the
baseline concept based on its potential to meet the required throughput. It is acknowledged
that many technological hurdles need to be addressed in order to make the screen-printing
approach viable.
LOCATION OF MANUFACTURING FACILITY
The proposed location for the Mök Industries solar panel fabrication plant is on a site in
Neshannock Township, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania. The site is called Millennium
Technology Park and consists of about 530 acres that lies between US Route 60 and the
Shenango River. The development of this site is currently in the site design and permitting
process. The Master Plan for this site showing the Mök Industries facility is included in the
Appendix.
POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR PANEL ARRAYS
The product from this facility, solar panels, will be shipped initially to a few select locations.
The first being some testing sites in Pennsylvania, and possible nearby areas. The purpose
of this is to take advantage of the available water and coal to demonstrate the process of
using solar power to fractionalize water to obtain hydrogen. The hydrogen would then be
combined with coke (coal product) to produce synthetic oil. The other site these panels will
be shipped to is in northern Nevada and this will be the initial main site at which many
square miles will be covered with these panels.
COST BASIS
The estimated costs presented in Section 8 have been broken down into two areas. The first,
called “Facility”, is the building and site amenities (parking areas, etc.). The building
40111 4-2 July 2, 2004

Page 49 of 159
estimate includes the steel framed, high bay building as well as the associated mechanical,
electrical, etc. equipment for the building. The second, called “Process”, is the
manufacturing and material handling equipment associated with producing the solar panels.
40111 4-3 July 2, 2004

Page 50 of 159
Section 5
CONCEPT DESIGN REVIEW
GENERAL
The concept design for the manufacturing facility is presented in the order in which it was
developed, and is summarized as follows:
n Equipment set developed to support the product/process concept and

production rates.
n Work cell developed based on equipment and flows.
n Facility block layout developed based on work cell arrangement and flows.
n Organizational structure, support functions, and site considerations to support

the overall operation.
The following sections summarize the concepts developed regarding each of the areas of
consideration.
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
The planning model in the Appendix contains the calculations used to determine the
quantities of equipment required to meet the output targets. A summary of the equipment
required for 1 work cell (roughly 10GW output) is as follows:
Equipment Name Quantity/Work Cell

Extrusion, Calendar and Cutter 3
Hot Press Molder - TOP & MIDDLE 1
Hot Press Molder - BOTTOM 1
Screen Print, PV Application, and Curing 30
Thermal Welder - TOP/MIDDLE 1
Chemical Sealer - BOTTOM 1
Flash Tester (sample only) 1
Material Handling
- Water Fill 1
- Vertical Buffer 6
- Stacker 1
- Stretch Wrap 1
- Conveyor 1 lot
40111 5-1 July 2, 2004

Page 51 of 159
TYPICAL CELL
Below is a typical Panel Fabrication & Test Cell (a larger illustration is included in the
Appendix).
215 Feet
BottomPanel Vertical Buffer

Raw Accumulator,Preheat,
Die,GearPump, Roll Form, 3-Roll Stand with
Material Feeder & Extruder Hot Press Mold, Cut,
Screen Changer individualdrives Discharge
Input
Vertical Buffer
Feeders & Feeders &
Extruder Extruder
Top Panel MiddlePanel

Screen Print, PV Assembly, Cure Screen Print, PV Assembly, Cure
Die,Gear Die,Gear Screen Print, PV Assembly, Cure Screen Print, PV Assembly, Cure
Pump, Pump,
Screen Screen
Changer Changer Screen Print, PV Assembly, Cure Screen Print, PV Assembly, Cure
Roll Form, 3- Roll Form, 3-

RollStand RollStand Screen Print, PV Assembly, Cure Screen Print, PV Assembly, Cure
with with
individual individual
drives drives
220 Feet
Accumulator, Screen Print, PV Assembly, Cure Screen Print, PV Assembly, Cure

Preheat, Hot
PressMold,Cut,
Discharge,
Thermal Bond Screen Print, PV Assembly, Cure Screen Print, PV Assembly, Cure
Top & Middle
Sheet
Submerged Water Fill Screen Print, PV Assembly, Cure Screen Print, PV Assembly, Cure
Station

Vertical Buffer Vertical Buffer
Vertical Buffer
Test
Vertical Buffer
ChemicalWeldBottomPanel
Flash Test
Shipping
40111 5-2 July 2, 2004

Page 52 of 159
Raw plastic material enters the fabrication & test cell in bulk pellet form and is loaded into
the feeders for each sheet line. The bottom panel sheet enters an accumulator where it is
heated, press formed, cut and discharged into a vertical buffer. The panels are then screen
printed with a wiring matrix, oven cured and the photovoltaic cells applied.
The top and middle panel sheet lines are located side by side. The formed sheets enter an
accumulator where they are then preheated, press formed, cut and thermal bonded to form
the concentrator vessels. The top and middle panel assembly is then submerged in a water
tank to fill the vessels and the bottom panel assembly is then chemically bonded to the
assembly to complete the module. The module is then flash tested and moved to shipping.
The size of each cell is 220 feet by 215 feet and is equipped to produce approximately 1200
modules per hour.
AREA REQUIREMENTS
Area requirements are detailed in the planning model contained in the Appendix. A recap of
the summary requirements is as follows:
000 SF # of Work Cells >> 1 4 10

Production Space 51.6 206.4 516
Receiving, Shipping 5.2 20.6 51.6
Stretch Wrap, Staging 5.2 20.6 51.6
Support (prep, labs, R&D) 15 30 60
Canteen/Break 2.3 4.5 10
Office 6 6 12
Central Utilities 17 57.6 140
SUBTOTAL 102 346 841
Contingency (15%) 15 52 126
TOTAL 117 398 967
40111 5-3 July 2, 2004

Page 53 of 159
FACILITY BLOCK LAYOUT
Site Specific - A block layout was developed for the current building outline programmed
on the Lawrence County site. The building outline was developed for the northern portion
of the Millennium Technology Park site, allowing the center portion of the site to remain
available for a semiconductor manufacturing facility – or wafer fab. The shape of the
building is based on physical restriction of this part of the site such as wetlands, topography,
and site vehicular circulation requirements.
Block Layout - Baseline
This layout arrangement provides for receiving at one end of the building and shipping at the
other. Based on the output target, work cells would be installed starting at one end of the
building (say the northeast corner) and built-out away from the first work cell (a larger
illustration is included in Appendix).
40111 5-4 July 2, 2004

Page 54 of 159
Optimized Block Layout - An alternative layout arrangement was develop to show a more
optimum process centric arrangement, without regard to permissible building footprint
constraints dictated by the present site considerations.
Block Layout - Option
This arrangement allows the receiving functions to be located closer to the work cells. It
also allows the output from each work cell to be directed down a central aisle and routed to
the stacking/stretch wrap area (a larger illustration is included in Appendix). Consequently,
if there is an opportunity to utilize an alternate site, there are several points to consider for
the Optional layout:
n Improved site and facility logistics by placement of receiving locations closer

to process lines.
- Pneumatic conveying systems are shorter allowing more economic

first cost and reduced operating cost due to smaller motor/blowers
requirements.
- Reduced truck traffic density for receiving once abandoning a central

receiving operation.
n Reduced internal material handling distances minimize material handling

equipment and reduces non-value added material handling.
- Fewer lift trucks.
40111 5-5 July 2, 2004

Page 55 of 159
- Shorter lengths of pallet conveyor.
n Increased utility runs will require more expensive first cost for distribution.
MATERIAL FLOW
Due to the extremely high production rate requirement of this project, the facility concept
has been designed with a high degree of priority placed on the flow of material. Each Panel
Fabrication & Test Cell is designed for the entry of bulk plastic pellets at a single point and
individual sheets and panel assemblies moving in simple, continuous flow paths through the
cell with no cross-over or switch-back paths. Final product exits the cell at the opposite end
from the raw material entry point.
The cells are arranged in the facility so that raw material entry points are easily accessed
along the exterior walls and final product can flow out of the cells, down central aisles to
shipping.
RAW MATERIALS HANDLING
Other than PET and PVC pellets, lift trucks are planned for the delivery of most material
from Receiving to the work cells. Five lift trucks, separate from those dedicated to Shipping
and Receiving, will be needed once full production is achieved. They will deliver the items
listed in the palletized materials paragraph of the Storage section. These materials include
rolls of stretch wrap. A lift truck roll handling attachment is provided for in the cost
estimate.
FINISHED GOODS HANDLING
A conveyor system was selected for finished panel transport from the individual work cells
to Shipping. Three modes of transport were considered: conveyors, transfer cars, and
automatic guided vehicles (AGV). Two of these, conveyors and AGV Systems, can
achieve the needed throughput. The conveyor needed to transport these unit loads with a 4-
by 8-foot footprint is not particularly economical; however, the conveyor system will still be
more economical than an AGV System to accomplish the same transport volume. Transport
cars were initially considered because of their relatively low cost; however, for this
application they are too slow to achieve the needed throughput.
The Conveyor system for the Baseline Layout is expected to have approximately 2,575 feet
of conveyor. At an estimated $400 per foot installed, including all diverts, merges, and the
control system; the conveyor system will require a $1 million investment. In contrast, an
AGV system will require approximately 24 single deck or 14 double deck vehicles to
achieve the needed throughput. Based upon budgetary information obtained from Jervis B.
Webb, an AGV System would require approximately a $1.8 million investment.
40111 5-6 July 2, 2004

Page 56 of 159
RECEIVING
Receiving will be required primarily for PET pellets; however, a comparatively small
amount of discrete raw materials will be received in palletized form. The receiving area will
be composed of docks, unloading stations for trucks of PET and PVC pellets, silos for
backup PET pellet storage, and a small amount of rack storage.
PET Pellets The large quantity of PET and PVC consumed dictates bulk quantity delivery.
Bulk delivery will be via truck. There is no rail service available on the preferred site.
However, if an alternate site were considered in the future, rail service would be provide for
more economical PET delivery and should be considered.
Truck delivery for PET and PVC pellets will require unloading stations. A pneumatic
system will be utilized to directly feed each extruder from the bulk truck. These stations are
best located as close to the extruder serviced as practical to minimize blower sizes and
system expense. Motors and blowers for the PET pellet pneumatic delivery system will be
located adjacent to the unloading stations. A 6- by 6-foot pad should be adequate for a
blower and motor; there will be three motor/ blowers per work cell. Motors and blowers for
the pellet pneumatic delivery systems will be located adjacent to the unloading stations. An
externally located 6- by 6-foot pad, located adjacent to the unloading station, should be
adequate for a blower and motor; there will be three motor/ blowers per work cell.
At peak production the weight of PET and PVC consumption will be somewhat in excess of
four truckloads in an hour. However, since two types of resins (clear PET for the top two
layers and an opaque PVC resin for the base layer) additional unloading stations are needed.
For planning purposes, two stations are priced for clear PET and four stations for the opaque
material. This will allow one truck to be staging for both clear PET and the opaque resin
while the other stations are in operation. Two suppliers, Eastman Chemical and M&G
indicated that the unloading stations would probably be provided without cost due to the
high projected consumption rate of PET and PVC.
Palletized Materials Lift trucks will be used to unload palletized loads from trailers. For
the most part, these materials will be delivered directly to the work cells. However, these
materials will be stored as necessary to maintain a small safety stock. Storage will be in
racks located adjacent to Receiving and is more thoroughly discussed in the Storage section.
For the Baseline Layout it is felt that approximately 20 docks in a centralized Receiving will
be adequate for palletized materials.
The large number of docks is required to assure the smooth operation of a JIT delivery
philosophy. This will allow for a trailer of each high volume raw material to remain parked
at the dock for the lift trucks to work out of, while simultaneously providing docks for the
yard tractor to stage the next trailer of materials and to have the needed buffer to allow an
empty trailer to sit at the docks for some time.
40111 5-7 July 2, 2004

Page 57 of 159
SHIPPING
Finished goods will be palletized in the work cells and subsequently stretch wrapped to
facilitate handling and security. Palletized panels will be delivered to Shipping where they
will be stretch wrapped. These unit loads will be automatically delivered to the stretch
wrappers. Unit loads will be fed into the stretch wrapper on an automatic conveyor. No
corner posts are required; the panel design will have strengthened corners that nest so as to
provide a robust package once stretch wrapped. The wrapped load will be discharged onto a
conveyor to await pickup by a lift truck. Lift trucks will load trailers at the docks.
Approximately 30 docks are provided.
STORAGE
As with the dock areas, a “just-in-time” philosophy affects the storage area design. Storage
quantities are based upon JIT deliveries. As such, only the smallest of safety stock is
considered.
Raw Materials The primary raw material will be PET and PVC pellets. While delivery is
straight from the trucks to the extruders, with the trucks parked in the unloading station for
the duration, silo storage is also recommended by resin suppliers as a backup to guard
against delivery disruptions. The suppliers interviewed indicate that the cost of the silos will
be borne by them as a service due to the anticipated large volume of PET and PVC
consumption. To preclude mixing PET types, separate silos will be maintained for clear
PET and opaque PVC. A 2-hour backup supply of PET and PVC is recommended. At
peak production, this will be approximately 104,000 pounds of clear PET pellets and
312,000 pounds of opaque resin. This can be accomplished with a relatively small silo
located adjacent to each of the bulk unloading stations. For the clear PET, 2 silos of
approximately 8-foot diameter and for the opaque resin four silos of 10-foot diameter should
be adequate.
Palletized Materials As with PET and PVC pellet storage, the philosophy of design is that
JIT deliveries will keep stored palletized materials at a minimum. For the most part, storage
is a 2-hour buffer. It has been calculated that 62 pallet rack positions and 12 drive-in rack
positions will hold the necessary materials. This amount of rack is small and will be
installed adjacent to Receiving. The rack will provide three high pallet storage and will
have a footprint of 915 square feet (425 square feet for pallet rack and 490 square feet for
drive-in rack). The materials to be stored are:
n PVs – photovoltaic cells will be received in tubes for insertion, these will be
in cartons and on pallets. Due to the extremely small size of the PVs, a lot of
storage space will not be required. With just in time delivery, material flow
will be primarily from the dock to the production floor. Storage space for 12
pallet loads of photovoltaic cells will be provided.
n Empty pallets – the finished panels will be placed on pallets for secure
handling; therefore, an ample supply of pallets will be required. Empty
pallets will require more storage space than any other material placed in
40111 5-8 July 2, 2004

Page 58 of 159
racks. These pallets will be a specialized 4- by 8-foot size. Where storage is
necessary pallets will be stored in drive-in racks. The equivalent of two
hours of pallets will be stored; otherwise, pallets will go directly from trailers
at Receiving to the work cell stackers where pallet loads are formed. Space
for storing 400 empty pallets will be provided; this will require
approximately 12 drive-in storage slots.
n Stretch wrap – a considerable quantity of stretch wrap will be used to

package the completed panels for shipping. The wrap will be received in
rolls, the rolls are palletized, and the rolls weight no more than 1000 pounds.
A roll handling attachment will be provided on one of the lift trucks that
operate in Receiving. Twenty pallet loads of stretch wrap will be stored for
backup.
n Cement – the final assembly operation for the panels requires chemical
bonding of layers. The glue utilized will be in liquid form, received in 55
gallon barrels, filled barrels will weigh approximately 450 pounds, the barrels
will be palletized, and potentially with have hazardous storage requirements.
Space for the storage of 10 barrels of cement will be provided.
n Miscellaneous – numerous other unidentified materials in small quantities

will be received that require storage. Twenty storage positions will be
provided for miscellaneous items.
WIP The only work-in-process envisioned at this time will be due to exception conditions.
Primarily this is thought to be units that need repair. Otherwise, there is no intermediate
handling or accumulation planned for panels or panel components beyond that supplied
internally by the process equipment and its interconnection conveyor system.
Finished Goods (surge only) Completed product is shipped as soon as possible.

Therefore, Shipping will only have a staging area for product. This will primarily be in the
form of a conveyor queue of several unit loads at the output of each stretch wrapper.
Research and Development The facility will have a Research and Design Laboratory
equipped with essential prototyping equipment such as a drill press, mill, lathe, hydraulic
and electrical test benches, microscopes and various hand tools. Basic shop lighting and
utilities will be provided to this area.
UTILITIES
The following paragraphs describe the key utilities that will be required for the
manufacturing facility and describe projected facilities equipment requirements.
Electrical Each 51,000 square-foot manufacturing cell is projected to have an electrical

demand of 13.4 MVA, which includes manufacturing equipment and associated facilities
support equipment. See the attached Tool Utility Matrix – Estimates for Typical Work Cell
for demand and connected load numbers. This demand load represents a high density
40111 5-9 July 2, 2004

Page 59 of 159
electrical load of 260 watts per square foot of manufacturing space. At ten manufacturing
cells, the corresponding projected electrical load is 134 MVA, a significant number which
requires multiple dedicated high voltage substations and transmission planning at the
electrical utility level.
A large portion of the electrical load is made up of electrical furnaces and heating equipment
which are part of the manufacturing process. IDC has contacted equipment manufacturers
to discuss the possibility of changing these furnaces to natural gas. The manufacturers
responded indicating that some of the equipment components are not available in natural gas
at this time and that some processes are better served with electrical heating components.
First Energy has received connected and demand load forecasts along with a projected load
timeline. First Energy’s previous study an alternate use for this site, which was
commissioned in 2003, indicated that the 138 kV line can support 80 MW of additional load.
60 MW of this capacity was to be allocated for the Millennium Park industrial site and 20
MW was to be allocated to supporting regional businesses and residential uses. Because
demand figures for a ten module factory presently indicate a demand of 130 MVA, First
Energy has indicated that utilizing the existing 345 kV transmission line, located four miles
from the proposed site, may be preferable. First Energy has an existing easement for the
138 kV line extension to Millennium Park, but does not have a similar easement for the 345
kV line. Utilizing the 345 kV transmission would require land to be purchased – very
preliminary estimates indicate purchasing the land and constructing the four-mile 345 kV
extension would cost $3-$5 million. First Energy has indicated that it would need to be
commissioned to execute a three to four month duration electrical study to confirm the use
of the 345 kV transmission line. One possible solution is to utilize the 138 kV transmission
to provide power for the first five modules of the factory and, if necessary, utilize the 345
kV transmission line for the remaining five factory modules.
Load projections are based upon demand figures gathered by IDC and Lockwood Greene
across several different industrial plant types. Demand factors for industrial facilities of
different types vary widely. As this facility is the first of kind, the actual loads seen after the
first module is operational will be valuable in assessing the actual demand for the following
modules. The actual demand factor for the first production module will be critical
determining the size and cost of electrical substations and distribution equipment necessary
for the following nine modules.
See the Electrical Concept Drawing included in this report for a single line diagram
indicating possible utility substation quantity/configuration and plant 15kV, 5kV, and 480V
distribution. Electrical system design and cost is based upon N+1 redundancy.
40111 5 - 10 July 2, 2004

Page 60 of 159
DI Water IDC believes that DI water would be required for filling the PV lenses. This
requirement is based upon no bacteria or algae growth within the lenses for a period of
seven years where the lenses are installed in an outside ambient condition. Calculations
indicate that the flow for one production module is 95 gpm, with a corresponding flow rate
for the ten module factory at 950 gpm.
This flow would require a DI water production facility within the manufacturing facility
with prefiltration, RO, continuous DI (CDI), filtration, UV sterilization, and degas. Water
source will be municipal potable water - assume groundwater at 10 grams of hardness,
100 ppm calcium. Water quality will be low TOC (>50 ppb), 17 Megohm resistivity, gas
content (all N2 and o2) less than 50 ppb. Membrane degas preferred in pilot system.
Production level could use vacuum tower degas. Both w/o N2 purge.
HVAC, Mechanical, & Exhaust HVAC, mechanical, and exhaust systems are required for
removal of heat from production cells and space conditioning for operator comfort. Each
51,000 square foot cell has a heat load of 4,198 kW. That is a demand load of 80 watts per
square foot of manufacturing space. The mechanical systems are designed to keep
temperature at the plant floor between 75 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit. This requires a great
amount of airflow to be induced and removed from the space. Mechanical system design
and cost is based upon N+1 redundancy. See attached “Mechanical Equipment Summary”
document for a list of projected mechanical components and their corresponding ratings.
See attached “Mechanical Equipment Sizing” document for calculations performed to
determine equipment quantities and ratings.
Mechanical Equipment Summary
FOR 1 CELL ONLY
# of Units Capacity HP- kW / each
AHU 14 50000 cfm 60 hp
Chillers 3 1280 tons 535.4 kW
Boilers 2 15876 MBTU 500 hp
Cooling Tower 2 143500 cfm 40 hp
CHW Pumps 2 1590 gpm 60 hp
HW Pumps 2 815 gpm 30 hp
CW Pumps 2 1990 gpm 40 hp
Solvent EF 3 36000 cfm 40 hp
40111 5 - 11 July 2, 2004

Page 61 of 159
# of Units Capacity HP- kW / each
General EF 3 72000 cfm 50 hp
Assumptions
n AHUs
- AHUs will maintain the work space between 75 F and 80 F.
- Sensible cooling only at the cooling coils.
- AHUs configured to operate in full economizer.
- 13 units are required, one extra for shutdown purposes.
n Chillers
- There is 1300 tons of cooling for each cell. One chiller will operate.
- One redundant chiller for shutdown purposes.
- The chillers will operate at 55 F leaving water temperature.
n Boilers
- During the winter months the space will go to minimum OSA and recirculate
airflow back through the unit.
- The boilers will only operate during the winter months.
- One redundant boiler for shutdown purposes.
n Solvent Exhaust
- Two Exhaust fans will operate at 18,000 cfm.

- One redundant fan for shutdown purpose.
- Assume high static for VOC abatement.
n General Exhaust
- The two fans are operating at 36,000 cfm.

- One redundant fan for shutdown purposes.
- Assuming the general exhaust is not connected to any tools or static removal
40111 5 - 12 July 2, 2004

Page 62 of 159
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SIZING
Cooling Load calculations for Airflow & Chillers
Givens:
Room Temperature 75 F - 80 F
OSA Summer Temp 85 F DB / 70 F WB
OSA Winter Temp 11 DB
1 Cell Heat Load 14,336, 170 BTU
Air Handler Calculations
CFM = 14,336,170 / 4.5 (34-29) = 637,163 CFM
Q = 50,000 * 1.08 (85 - 64) =1,134,000 BTU/H
GPM = 1,134,000 / 500 (75-55) = 114 GPM
14 Air Handling Unit @ 50,000 CFM
Total GPM = 1590 GPM
Chiller Calculations
1 Cell Requires 1304 Tons ( cell calculations attached)
For Sensible cooling the operating Temperatures:
Entering Water Temp 75F
Leaving Water Temp 55 F
1 - 1280 Tons Chiller @ 535.4 kW / 1 Chiller for redundant
2 - Primary Pumps 1590 gpm @ 110 ft w/ 60 HP
2 - Condensing Pumps 1990 gpm @ 60 ft w/ 40 HP
2 - Cooling Towers
Heating load calculations for Airflow & Boilers
OSA = 20% @ 11 F
40111 5 - 13 July 2, 2004

Page 63 of 159
RA = 80% @ 75 F
MA = 100% @ 62 F
Q = 1.08*50,000 ( 83 - 62) = 1,134,000 BTU
GPM = 1,134,000 / 500 (160-120) = 57 GPM
Total GPM = 800 GPM
Total BTU/hr = 15,876,000 BTU
Operating Temperatures:
Entreating Water Temp = 120 F
Leaving Water Temp = 160 F
1- 500 HP Boilers Required Plus One redundant Boiler
2 Primary Pumps 800 gpm @ 80 ft w/ 25 HP
Solvent Exhaust Fan Sizing
4.5 inches of static consider for scrubber
2.5 inches of static consider for operation
2 fans operate at 18,000 cfm @ 7 inches of static plus 1 for redundancy
General Exhaust Fan Sizing
Assuming no tool connection.
2 fans operate at 36,000 cfm @ 3.5 inches of static plus 1 for redundancy
Cooling Load Calcs for 1- Cell

1 - Cell kW BTU Tons
Load 4193 14306516 1192
Support Bldg
Area People BTU Assumption
People 15000 20 5000 250 Btu / Person
Space 15000 20 450000 30 Btu / Sq Ft
40111 5 - 14 July 2, 2004

Page 64 of 159
Lighting 15000 20 4396.248535 1 Watt / Sq Ft
Office Bldg
Office Space 6000 40 10000 250 Btu / Person
Break Rm 2250 25 6250 250 Btu / Person
Office Bldg 8250 65 247500 30 Btu / Sq Ft
CUB
Space 20440 2 613200 30 Btu / Sq Ft
Total Tons 1304
Cooling Load Calcs for 4- Cells

4 - Cells kW BTU Tons
Load 16793 57297716 4775
Support Bldg
Space 30000 40 900000 30 Btu / Sq Ft
Office Bldg
40111 5 - 15 July 2, 2004

Page 65 of 159
CUB
Space 69165 2 2074950 30 Btu / Sq Ft
Total Tons 5055
Cooling Load Calcs for 10- Cells

10 - Cells kW BTU Tons
Load 41984 143249408 11937
Support Bldg
Space 60000 60 1800000 30 Btu / Sq Ft
Office Bldg
CUB

Space 168295 2 5048850 30 Btu / Sq Ft
Site Specific - 12576
Total Tons
40111 5 - 16 July 2, 2004

Page 66 of 159
Clean Dry Air (CDA) CDA, sometimes referred to as “oil-free air”, is required by
manufacturing equipment. Each cell has a significant usage of 3505 scfm at 60 psig.
Corresponding air flow requirements for the ten cell facility is 35,052 scfm. The flow for
one cell will be provided by three centrifugal air compressors and associated air dryers per
cell. A fourth, redundant air compressor will be provided for N+1 redundancy.
Natural Gas Natural gas is required to service the furnaces associated with the
Extrusion/Calendar/Cutter manufacturing equipment. Natural gas is utilized for these
furnaces for several reasons: gas furnaces are suitable for the process requirement, gas
furnaces are commercially available, and electrical requirements are reduced.
It is estimated that each production cell will require 10,000 cubic feet per hour (CFH) of
natural gas. At full production, this equates to 100,000 CFH plus an additional 5,000 CFH
for other building uses. Dominion/People’s Gas has been contacted and this information has
been passed on to them. Dominion/People’s Gas was aware of a 105,000 CFH demand for
one semiconductor facility and other smaller site buildings (office and flex space), and made
a commitment to supply these needs. Dominion/People’s Gas has verbally stated they could
meet the required additional 100,000 CFH.
BUILDING SHELL
The facility is planned to maximize the efficiency of the fabrication and assembly process,
which results in a large (800- by 1000-foot) footprint. The large roof takes a saw tooth
configuration which allows solar panels to be arrayed facing south at the optimum angle to
maximize solar exposure. The north face of each saw tooth is used for air intake to the
elevated air handlers and to bring high quality daylight onto the floor of the plant, improving
energy efficiency and work place quality.
OFFICE AREA, SUPPORT SPACE, AND AMENITIES
The proposed facility has 80,000 square feet of area dedicated for office space, conference
rooms, research and development, training areas, a lunchroom/cafeteria, locker rooms,
restrooms, and areas for support activities such as security, building maintenance, and
safety. The breakdown is as follows:
Office 19,300 sq. ft.

Conference Rooms 7,200 sq. ft.
Research & Development 7,500 sq. ft.
Training Space 2,000 sq. ft.
Cafeteria/Lunchroom 8,000 sq. ft.
Locker Rooms 5,300 sq. ft.
Restrooms 5,000 sq. ft.
Security 1,500 sq. ft.
40111 5 - 17 July 2, 2004

Page 67 of 159
Maintenance 2,200 sq. ft.
Safety/Medical Supplies 1,300 sq. ft.
Office Mechanical 3,200 sq. ft.
Circulation/Egress 17,500 sq. ft.
TOTAL 80,000 sq. ft.
40111 5 - 18 July 2, 2004

Page 68 of 159
Section 6
PRODUCTION RAMP UP, ORGANIZATION AND MANPOWER
PROOF OF CONCEPT
Proving that the design of the product and the manufacturing process used to produce the
panel is the first critical step to gain confidence that the panel functions as desired and can
be manufactured as designed. This is the time to tweak design elements and manufacturing
steps so that pilot production can be focused on fine tuning the units of operation in
preparation of full scale production ramp-up. Appendix 7.0 contains a technical paper, co-
authored by David Causey, who participated in the production of this report. This paper
outlines the challenges in transitioning from R&D (Proof of Concept) to pilot production,
then to full-scale production.
PRODUCT DESIGN
To prove the design concept, it is recommended to complete detail design drawings of the
CPC module components and assemblies and to produce prototypes on temporary tooling.
All three panels of the module assembly could be produced on vacuum-forming equipment.
This will enable the resolution of design issues such as the interface of the bottom panel
with the top/middle panel assembly to completing the vessel seal without incurring the cost
of hot press forming equipment and dies. Screen-printing and PV placement sensitivity
should also be verified.
PROCESS DESIGN
Once the product design concept has been tested and proven, the processing equipment and
tooling can be designed and the first prototype cell installed. It is recommended that this
first cell contain the minimum equipment necessary to prove the manufacturing process.
The prototype cell should contain one line of sheet forming equipment and the necessary
dies to produce all three panels of the completed module. Again, vacuum-forming
equipment would be suitable and, in fact, could be outsourced to save the cost of the
equipment at this stage in product development. The screen print, PV, and cure process
equipment should also be limited to one line in the prototype cell. The prototype cell will
also need to include all equipment necessary for water submersion, thermal, and chemical
bonding, as well as material handling of the panels and finished modules. The estimated
price of this prototype cell could be up to $15,000,000 if all the process equipment is
purchased. This value includes approximately $10,400,000 for “one of” each primary unit
process equipment, plus an allowance for material handling equipment, storage racks, leased
space, and other miscellaneous costs. For prototyping, a leased space of 10,000 to 15,000
square feet should be adequate.
PRODUCTION RATE
Once the process design has been verified, it is recommended to install one complete
manufacturing cell to verify the production rate of the facility.
40111 6-1 July 2, 2004

Page 69 of 159
PRODUCTION RAMP UP
Building ready will be achieved in Project Month 21. Equipment procurement, production
start up. Ramp up to Production Capacity Target #1 (5 GW per year) will take
approximately six months from the start of pilot line installation and will be achieved in
Project Month Number 27, and will proceed in the following Phases:
n Product Line Install

n Pilot Line Startup & Test
n Manpower Training & Ramp Up
n Production Ramp to Target #1 – 5 GW per year rate (5,252,649, 4- by 8-foot
panels per year)
After successful Pilot Line testing and commissioning, it is feasible to install approximately
1 additional cell per month. This will allow capacity increases to meet Target #2 and Target
#3, as follows:
n Production Ramp to Target # 2 – 30 GW per year rate (31,515,892, 4- by

8-foot panels per year) – projected to be achieved Month 31.
n Production Ramp to Target #3 – 97 GW per year rate (101,901,384, 4- by

8-foot panels per year) – projected to be achieved Month 47.
Ramp up from Production Capacity Target #1 to Production Capacity Target #2 will take an
additional four months and will be achieved in project week number 31. Interim Production
Target #2 will be achieved in approximately 22 months. This is the optimal ramp up period
that can be reasonably anticipated due to equipment procurement lead times, installation and
testing, manpower hiring, and training requirements.
Production Ramp Up
60.0
50.0
40.0
Units per Year
30.0
(Millions)
20.0
10.0
0.0
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
Product Life Cycle Month
40111 6-2 July 2, 2004

Page 70 of 159
Production Ramp Up
120.0
100.0
80.0
Panels per
60.0
Year (Millions)
40.0
20.0
0.0
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
Project Life Cycle Month
These production capacity projections assume the following:
n 3 shift per day operations, 52 week per year.

n Installation of 1 cell per month.
n Availability of trained labor.
n Availability of production equipment.
ORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The challenge for the Mök organization will be to meet changing needs as the business
rapidly evolves from the present stage of the business, the Initiation Stage, through the
Developmental, Organizational and Expansion stages of the business. This will create a need
for an organization that can quickly make decisions in response to a changing company
environment as illustrated in the chart below.
40111 6-3 July 2, 2004

Page 71 of 159
Early Stages of a Business
Stage Activity Characteristics Culture
Initiation New Venture
Great ideas Forming Entrepreneur (visionary)
Selling it Dependent Performer (task oriented)
Gaining commitment Gathering Administrator (TOS, OAS)
Hands on leadership Person-to-person contact
Product development &
market development
Developmental Making it work
Testing it Expansion
Pressure to produce results Growing pains
Moving from task to task Storming Must develop infrastructure
Produce & distribute Counter- Turmoil creates counter-

dependent dependence among within
Short term orientation the organization
Repeating
Every opportunity a priority Start & stop of objectives
Highly centralized Operational systems
Informal
Leadership involved in
everything
40111 6-4 July 2, 2004

Page 72 of 159
Early Stages of a Business
Stage Activity Characteristics Culture
Organizational Organization takes on Professionalization
identity
More formal planning
Time previously spent
doing & selling now spent Develop a strategic
planning & coordinating planning & management
Norming system
Administration rises in
importance Independence Defined roles &
responsibilities
Functional structure Sharing
develops Sensitivity and orientation
to people
Policies and procedures are
established Management systems
Salary systems
Accounting systems
Tension between
entrepreneurs and
administrators
Management essential
Expansion Moving into prime Consolidation
More focus on “out there” Maintain growth &

development
Growing reputation
Organizational culture
Need to determine level of Performing
aspiration Acknowledge
Interdependent organization’s Mission
Restructuring implementation strategies
(decentralizing) Transforming
Culture system
Mgt. Information Systems
for expanded &
decentralized structure
Manager/strategist
(innovator)
40111 6-5 July 2, 2004

Page 73 of 159
Our proposed organization creates an important group of Corporate level managers within
operations, consisting of a Corporate Supply Chain Manager, Corporate Manufacturing
Manager and Corporate Engineering Manager to assist the Director of Operations in the
development and implementation of an integrated Strategic Plan and make timely decisions
to support the growth of the business.
Major functions in the recommended organization are as follows:
n Operations
n Administration and Finance
n Sales
n Marketing
n Human Resources
n Information Systems
Overall, the purpose of IDC’s recommendations is to help Mök Industries to initiate a lean,
simple, efficient organization in alignment with the Lean Enterprise philosophy. Most
companies tend to concentrate their efforts to become lean on the process at the plant floor
level. Lean is a human system driven by and focused on the customer. Therefore, the
organization and the culture must focus upon serving internal and external customers with a
minimum of waste. When this is done successfully, it creates a pull system throughout the
organization. For these reasons, implementing as flat an organization as possible with the
minimum number of sub-layers is recommended.
We also recommend organizing along functional lines. Combined with standardized

processes and organizations, a functionally aligned organization also promotes the
concentration of appropriate resources on the execution of strategic and tactical initiatives.
The Mök organization should have the following general responsibilities at the Corporate
and Plant levels:
40111 6-6 July 2, 2004

Page 74 of 159
Corporate Plant
Manufacturing Strategy Regulation
Asset Utilization Production Engineering
Supply Management 1st Line Maintenance
Planning/Estimating Liaison & Quality Assurance
Management Accounts Cell Scheduling
Fleet Management Warehousing
Scheduling Reconciliation Distribution
Capacity Planning/Forward Planning
Facilities & Specialized Maintenance
Quality Assurance
Inventory Control
Cost Control
In order to cope with the complexities of establishing and rapidly growing the business, the
corporate organization plan proposed is based on the following five specific objectives:
n Focus the entire organization towards an internal and external client service
approach.
n Clearly define the roles and interaction procedures between corporate

management and operations.
n Standardize systems, methods, procedures, objectives, and strategies for the

whole group.
n Minimize the levels of hierarchy within the organization.
n Minimize the number of personnel.
IDC’s recommendations are intended to divide responsibilities among management

functions to maximize coordination and control of the operational network, human
resources, and capital assets as described below:
n Corporate Administration and Finance Director

n Corporate Marketing Director
n Corporate Sales
n Corporate Human Resource Director
n Corporate Systems Management Director
n Corporate Operations Director
The resources required to undertake a supply chain optimization for Mök Industries include
strategic planning analysis, engineering analysis, material flow analysis, cost justification,
40111 6-7 July 2, 2004

Page 75 of 159
project management, and system implementation. In the recommended organization, these
resources are controlled by Operations. Further, day-to-day operations of a distribution
center are also the responsibility of operations. The Operations Director assumes direct line
responsibility for Operations and the largest portion of the supply chain. Specifically, this
applies to the entire supply chain, except the portion of the supply chain from the plant and
distribution center (DC) out to the panel array site(s). The purpose for centralizing all
activities related to Operations is to standardize systems and procedures across the
organization and optimize the entire supply chain network.
For the Director of Operations to assume the added responsibilities described above,
resources with specialized skill sets will have to be included in the corporate organization.
Care has been taken in development of the proposed Operations organization to assure that
the number of direct reports to any individual is in line with responsibilities and the vertical
functionality required of the new organization. Direct reports to the Director of Operations
in the proposed organization include:
n Corporate Supply Chain Manager

n Plant Manager
n Corporate Engineering Manager
A brief description of the responsibilities each of the corporate operations managers follows.
Each of these managers will have a vertical functional responsibility down through the plant.
n Corporate Supply Chain Manager will be responsible for fleet management and
corporate purchasing support functions. At the corporate level, the Corporate Supply
Chain Manager will have under him, a Corporate Purchasing Manager and a
Corporate Fleet Manager. Fleet Management (transportation management) will be
especially important given the projected number of truck shipments.
n Plant Manager will be responsible for day-to-day manufacturing and distribution

center operations. System standardization, utilization of assets, and meeting
production requirements will be the critical drivers for this manager. These
responsibilities will be overseen through a functional vertical organization. This
includes day-to-day panel manufacturing operations.
n Corporate Engineering Manager. We recommended that a corporate sheet forming

technical services group be reorganized under the Corporate Engineering Manager.
This group will still be responsible for technical services support plant. The
Corporate Engineering Manager will have two ways of supplying technical services
support to the plant. First is a corporate engineering bench comprised of engineers
with specialized skill sets. The second method is through outsource engineering
resources brought in on an as-needed basis.
40111 6-8 July 2, 2004

Page 76 of 159
Chairman
William Mook
Vice Chairman
Info. Systems Human

Admin & Finance Marketing
Sales Director Operations Director Management Resources
Director Director
Director Director
Corp.
Corp. Supply Corp. Engr.
Training
Chain Mgr. Manager
Manager
Corp. Purchasing Corp. Fleet Outsource

Engineering Bench
Manager Manager Engineering
Plant Level
To support the Director of Operations in both annual operations plans and strategic plans,
IDC recommends that a strategic planning team will be formed at the corporate level. From
the operations side, the team will be comprised of Corporate Supply Chain Manager,
Corporate Manufacturing and DC Manager, and Corporate Engineering Manager. This
would be a most effective group for planning purposes since from an operational perspective
they are the ones ultimately responsible for system wide operations.
The organization at the plant level must be aligned to properly execute its tactical functions
and take advantage of the corporate and regional support structures. This alignment requires
a degree of standardization throughout the Mök manufacturing plant(s).
The IDC team has developed a “4-Dimensional” approach to cellular manufacturing that
addresses the integration of four major elements:
n Logistics & Control
n Organization & People
n Production Flow
n Performance Metrics
IDC’s recommended Plant Level organization is aligned to take advantage of the matrix of
support to value-adding operations.
The Manufacturing Support Manager will be responsible for making sure processes are set
up to enable workers within the plant to do their jobs, motivating plant personnel,
coordinating production support, and coaching.
40111 6-9 July 2, 2004

Page 77 of 159
The organizational practices of lean operations, which include the transition to cellular
teams at the plant level, are an essential element of IDC’s recommendations. To be
successful, however, team-based processing will also need to include all four dimensions of
cellular processing.
PLANT LEVEL
ORGANIZATION CHART
Directorof
Operations
Cell Support Team

PlantManager
Process
Engineering
Manager
Manufacturing Human
Procurement Logistics/ Administration
FleetSupervisor Support QualityControl Resources
Supervisor Warehouse Manager
Manager Manager
Maintenance
Scheduler
Typical Cell
Fab & Test Cell Fab & Test Cell
(10 required) CellLeader CellLeader
Facilitator Facilitator
Shift Leader Shift Leader
Operators Operators
IDC’s proposed organizations for cells are based on start-up requirements. These
requirements will be reduced as improvements are made to the cell. For example, the Cell
Leader is a temporary position and will be phased out as the cell teams gain experience.
The use of cell teams for demand-pull processing will have a substantial effect upon the
working culture and the management organization. Traditional hierarchical chains of
command are replaced by task oriented teams working in a matrix style organization.
Leadership within each cell must replace the current emphasis placed on extra-cell control.
Tasks and skills including such functions as production engineering, production control and
management services will, be the responsibility of cell team members.
Cell support personnel will consist of a Process Engineer, Scheduler, Logistics Planner,
Quality Engineer, and Maintenance Technician. Representatives from each of these will be
40111 6 - 10 July 2, 2004

Page 78 of 159
allocated responsibility for specific cells and individual resources will be shared among
multiple cells. These functions will play a more consultative or advisory role in the future
than at startup, eventually becoming “centers of excellence” where cell teams can go to
obtain skills and information that they will apply on their own initiative.
THE CELL CONCEPT

Specialist Support People
The Cell Leader
• Prod. Engineering • Trained as a
• Quality leader
• Maintenance • Has most skills
• Information Services • Understands
Centers of cell logistics
Excellence • Cell contained
within well defined
inputs : boundary
• All processes
Fit for purpose
• materials owned by the cell Outputs:
• Cell team • products on time
• tools
Multi - Skilled accountable for its • rapid response
• information
Production Team own performance • performance
data
STAFFING RAMP UP
Corporate Staffing at full production, 3-shift operations will equal approximately 104
people. It is advisable to begin assembling the corporate staff as soon as possible after
initiation of facility design in order to ensure the ability to acquire manufacturing
equipment, hire personnel, develop and administer training programs, handle financial
matters, install and test equipment, and complete other key activities required for
manufacturing startup as soon as the facility is ready.
40111 6 - 11 July 2, 2004

Page 79 of 159
Recommended Corporate Staffing
Headcount 3-Shift Operation
Pre-Start Start Full Prod
Chairman 1 1 1
Vice-Chairman 1 1 1
Administration & Finance Director 1 1 1
Accounting Department Staff 3 5 10
Administration Staff 16 18 20
Sales Director 1 1 1
Staff 1 1 1
Marketing Director 1 1 1
Staff 1 2 2
Operations Director 3 3 3
Information Systems Director 1 1 1
Staff 2 5 8
Human Resources Director 1 1 1
HR Asst. 2 3 5
R&D Director 1 1 1
R&D Staff 3 3 3
Corporate Supply Chain Manager 1 1 1
Purchasing Manager 1 1 1
Staff 2 2 4
Fleet Manager 1 1 1
Staff 2 3 6
Corporate Engineering Manager 1 1 1
Outsource Engineering Manager 1 2 2
Engineering Bench Staff 7 14 21
Corporate Training Manager 1 1 1
Staff 2 3 6
Total Corporate Staff 58 77 104
The hiring and training of manufacturing personnel should begin approximately 3 months
prior to initial pilot production and equipment commissioning. The following
manufacturing manpower ramp up chart assumes that corporate staff is already on board.
Manufacturing staffing at full production, 3-shift operations will equal approximately 555
people.
40111 6 - 12 July 2, 2004

Page 80 of 159
Manufacturing Manpower Ramp Up
600
500
Headcount
400
300
200
100
0
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
Project Life Cycle Month
TRAINING RECOMMENDATIONS
At a minimum, training programs must be established for start up operations as follows:

n Indoctrination, company policy – internal training
n Safety Training – internal training
n Machine operator training for cell team members – vendor supplied
n Lean Manufacturing training for all employees – outside supplier short term,
internal training long term
n Work team dynamics training for all cell team and cell support team
personnel - internal
n Routine maintenance training for cell team members – vendor supplied short
term, internal long term
n Equipment Maintenance training for maintenance personnel – vendor

supplied
n Information systems training for administrative and support personnel –

systems supplier short term, internal long term
These training programs must be developed prior to the hiring of plant staff and
implemented/expanded in alignment with manpower and operations ramp up. We
recommend that the development and implementation of internal training programs should
be the responsibility of the Human Resources manager and developed with the assistance of
outside resources as needed.
40111 6 - 13 July 2, 2004

Page 81 of 159
Section 7
MILESTONE SCHEDULE
The following schedule is conceptual in nature and incorporates progress already made
regarding the development of the Millennium Park site.
40111 7-1 July 2, 2004

Page 82 of 159
Section 8
ROM COST ESTIMATE
FACILITY
The estimate for the facility and site infrastructure is budgetary in nature based on the
conceptual information developed for this report. The ROM cost estimate accuracy can be
expected to be plus 50 percent or minus 30 percent of the actual cost. A high level breakout
of the estimate is included in the Appendix as well as an Estimating Accuracy Curve as
defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineers (AACE).
Any resulting conclusions on project financial, economic feasibility, or funding

requirements should be made with this in mind. The final costs of the project and resulting
feasibility will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions,
actual site conditions, final project scope, implementation schedule, continuity of personnel
and engineering and other variable factors. The recent increases in material pricing may
also have a significant impact that is not predictable. Careful review or consideration must
be used in evaluation of material prices.
Total cost of Work includes general conditions, overhead, and profit. Not included are
escalation and contingency. The following table presents the cost for the facility.
PROCESS EQUIPMENT
The estimate detail for manufacturing equipment is also included in the Appendix. Values
assigned are based on conversations with vendors. For example, CDL Technology provided
input for the panel sheet and forming equipment. All values include installation. The
process equipment cost is presented in Appendix 2.0.
OPERATING COSTS
While not specifically part of the scope of this report, it is important to consider operating
costs to help determine overall project economic feasibility. Therefore, IDC identified
major variable operating costs, including raw material, labor, utility, and transportation.
Appendix 2.0 includes a simple summary of these costs as well as fixed costs of the facility
and process equipment. The pie chart below graphically shows the proportional costs on a
per module basis assuming the plant operates for 7 years at peak production. For a shorter
period, the fixed cost proportion increases.
40111 8-1 July 2, 2004

Page 83 of 159
Cost Breakdown per Module
Facility Cost
Equipment Cost
PV Cost
Resin Cost
Circuitry Cost
Labor Cost
Utilities
Transportation Cost
It is worthy to note, based on the peak production rate and the process that this report has
defined, the electrical demand is huge, and the natural gas demand is very high as well. The
energy demand is being driven primarily by the heat needed to form the plastic layers of the
panel using hot press molders. At full production, this plant would be one of the highest
power consumers in the country. And while the utility costs account for only 3% of the cost
per module in the pie chart above, it may be worthwhile to research other plastic material
composites with properties suitable for forming the panels at lower temperatures and thereby
requiring less energy. Appendix 6.0 gives a material comparison of the three materials
under consideration for the bottom panel: ABS, PET UV, and CPVC. The pie chart below
shows the proportional utility costs for electricity, natural gas, and water. Telecom and
sewage costs should be relatively minor in comparison.
40111 8-2 July 2, 2004

Page 84 of 159
Projected Utility Cost Breakdown
Electricity
Natural Gas
Water
SUMMARY
The final project costs will vary from the opinions of cost presented herein. Because of
these factors, project feasibility, benefit/cost ratios, risks, and funding needs must be
carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions or establishing project
budgets to help ensure proper project evaluation and adequate funding.
The projected facility cost is $416.7 million. The projected cost for manufacturing
equipment is $827.3 million. The total project cost for a 97 GW plant is $1.244 billion.
40111 8-3 July 2, 2004

Page 85 of 159
Section 9
ANALYSIS AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
During the course of the project, an Open Issues list was compiled to capture those items
that pose risk or uncertainty to the successful implementation of the concepts developed.
The complete list is included in the Appendix. Several of the issues from that list are
addressed in the following section to ensure the nature of the issue is fully identified.
AREAS/ISSUES OF CONCERN
Cost per Watt- Typical costs of commercially available, terrestrial (stationary non-
concentrating) PV systems are $3.00-$3.50/W, not including Balance of Systems. This cost
has dropped steadily, but linearly, over the past 10 years for non-concentrator systems.
Historically, decreases in the price per watt have been evolutionary, resulting from
incremental improvements in manufacturing techniques, and in some cases, lowered raw
material costs. The CPC product proposed here targets a cost/watt that is 1/100th of
conventional systems. This target may, in fact, be achievable. It would be unprecedented in
power generation history, for either conventional or alternative energies.
Strength and Temperature Characteristics of Substrate- Selection of the material(s) of

construction for the substrate (bottom panel in the 3-piece concept) focuses on the following
criteria:
n Low Cost
n Availability of Raw Material
n Dimensional Stability
n Service Temperature/Strength
n Chemical and Physical properties (including aging)
n Surface Characteristics (including welding and wetting by conductive

material)
PET has been tentatively chosen for this material due to its reasonable conformity to all of
these criteria, although others will be evaluated during the course of product design. The
material will need to perform consistently at several temperature cycles during processing,
as well as thousands of temperature cycles during field service. Historically, performance
degradation due to material aging has proven to be a significant issue for PV technologies.
It is unclear what fraction of the solar radiation will be dissipated as heat energy rather than
electrical energy in actual application. In any case, the module components must prove to
be exceptionally stable over a wide range of temperatures for several years.
40111 9-1 July 2, 2004

Page 86 of 159
Screen Print Size/Indexing
n The product design presents several challenges for printing the conductive grid for
the module. The low service temperature of the PET substrate obviates the use of
conventional silver-based frits or conductive pastes. The costs of low temperature
solders are prohibitively high, as the Lead-Tin mixture requires significant additions
of Antimony or Bismuth for use at low temperatures. Additionally, it is critical that
the electrical connectors be made of the lowest resistivity material possible. At an
output of nearly 1 kW/module, the current density is unusually high for most thick
film systems and the possibility of arcing at 300V must be addressed. Also, for
concentrated PV systems, series resistance losses become more important at high
current densities.
n Commercially available screen printers (and offset printers) are typically repeatable
over a number of cycles at 25-100 µm (0.001-0.004 in). The ability to achieve 5 µm
is available, but requires extensive calibration and maintenance. This error in
repeatability will be compounded by normal variations in the leading edge (or
corner) of the substrate. Due to the small area required in each PV cell, the normal
deviation of the print operation is 10 percent of the cell diameter.
Vertical Alignment Tolerance of CPC- The vertical alignment sensitivity of the CPC has
not been characterized. It is known that a degree of precision is required, but the process
must be designed to accommodate a specific variability. Ideally, power output of each cell
is a function of the verticality of the CPC. Normal variation of operations such as hot
pressing, punching, and ultrasonic welding will result in some degree of deviation. Laser
alignment is a possible solution, as is precision mechanical orientation. Both of these in-line
procedures are time-consuming and tedious, but may be required, particularly in the early
stages of process development.
Horizontal Alignment of PV cells- The 3-piece module concept provides the capability for
excellent repeatability in manufacturing steps. The assembly of the three sheets, however,
introduces the possibility of compounding product variability. Reducing this variability to
an acceptable level is a manageable problem, as the Flat Panel, Printed Wire Board (PWB)
and Photovoltaic industries have utilized “sandwich”-type assembly extensively, and have
addressed most of the manufacturing issues. Horizontal alignment of the three sheets is the
most immediate issue. Prior to welding and chemical sealing, each sheet has been processed
separately. The finished product will require precise and repetitive horizontal alignment
between all three sheets. The relationship between CPC position, PV cell position, and
interconnect wiring is critical. The slightest degree of horizontal misalignment between the
top and middle sheets will result in vertical alignment of the CPC, which is addressed above.
Additionally, the PV cell itself must be fixed relative to the CPC to ensure optimal
concentration. Once the product variability has been characterized, the horizontal alignment
issue can likely be addressed by a type of registration, such as a laser mark or mechanical
scribe. Registration will probably be required in several locations on all three sheets, all of
which must be properly indexed for product quality. Optical alignment before screen-
printing is a common technique, and should be readily adaptable to the proposed process.
40111 9-2 July 2, 2004

Page 87 of 159
DI Water Usage/Substrate Cleaning- In addition to its use in filling the CPC, DI/RO water
will be required for several rinsing operations. Welding, forming, chemical sealing, and
screen print are processes that will contaminate the sheets with particulate and organic
impurities. As discussed in Sec 3, particulate or other impurities will degrade the optical
properties of the CPC, lowering the efficiency of the module. IDC’s intent is to minimize
water consumption, and achieve optimum sheet cleaning. This may be addressed by a
cascading counterflow wet bench. This equipment is commonly used in semiconductor and
PV manufacturing, and may provide a workable solution.
Transportation Costs- A cursory analysis was performed to assess the cost impact from
transportation. The basis of the analysis is contained in the Production Capacity planning
model located in the Appendix. Based on this analysis, the transportation cost per module is
approximately $3.40. Based on a target finished product cost of $25 per module, this
transportation cost represents almost 14 percent. Many factors will need to be considered in
site selecting, including raw materials supplier locations, labor availability and cost, water
and other utilities availability and cost, as well as others.
An alternative to minimize the impact of transportation cost would be to locate the pilot line
and initial production at the Pennsylvania site, and subsequently locate the mass-production
line adjacent to the installation site.
Equipment Lead Times- In general, the equipment lead time issue will be driven by (1)
extrusion and press equipment, and (2) screen print/PV assembly equipment. Discussions
with vendors indicate the following:
Design Initial Follow-on

(assuming proven Lead Time Lead Times
concepts)
Extrusion and Press 6 ~ 8 weeks 8 ~ 10 months 1 year for

Equipment balance
Screen Print and PV 10 ~12 weeks 8 ~ 12 months 4 ~ 6 months
Assembly Equipment per work cell
Much of the equipment set will be standard and require minimal, if any, modification by the
manufacturer. In other cases, most notably screen print and some items of test and
measurement, the tools will likely be custom fabricated to some extent. The most cost-
effective methodology here is a close coordination between Mök and the respective vendors
to adapt standard equipment in an attempt to minimize the cost of modifications required to
meet the Mök specifications. The equipment set will come from a variety of industries such
as Flat Panel Display, Silicon PV, Printed Circuits, and Optical Electronics. Fortunately,
equipment manufacturers in these areas are generally flexible and are accustomed to a range
of needs. This approach generally results in significant cost savings to the user, but will
extend the procurement phase of the schedule.
40111 9-3 July 2, 2004

Page 88 of 159
Typically, a pre-qualified equipment vendor will be given a Performance Specification by
the user, Mök Industries, and asked to provide submittals, with exceptions noted, within a
reasonable date. Mök reviews the submittals, and exceptions are taken into consideration.
In most cases, a test run can be made at the vendor site, with any needed modifications
agreed upon at that time. Mök Industries and the vendor(s) will agree upon the general
requirements and Mök will follow-up with an Equipment Specification and a Data Sheet
sent to the vendor. The equipment can be competitively bid or awarded on the basis of best
qualified. In any case, final acceptance of the equipment should be conducted at the vendor
site, when possible, with acceptance criteria having been stipulated in the specification.
The follow-on lead times assume firm orders issued to fabricators for equipment that is
identical. In the case of the Screen Print/PV Assembly equipment, a group of fabricators
may need to be contracted in order to meet the projected delivery schedule.
Critical Path Items- Startup, process verification - In order for the process startup to
proceed as smoothly as possible, several prerequisites are in order. First of all, a product
specification must be developed with some level of detail. This specification will naturally
address module power output and lifetime performance, but will also require some level of
precision required for the physical characteristics of the module itself, e.g., dimensional
stability, dimensional tolerances, Voc and Isc, and temperature limits. The product
information can then be deconstructed to develop the requirements for the parameters at
each individual process step. For instance, the optimum power output is achieved when the
PV cells are within +/- 5 µm placement. These parameters may be specified initially based
on theoretical data, but empirical results are necessary to validate the initial assumptions.
This step is normally a part of a “pilot” phase, but may be accomplished in a research
environment if the tool set is appropriately similar to that used in the final process.
Achievement of this phase is measured by statistical analysis to some level of certainty.
Historically, validation of the process steps to comply with product specification is time
consuming and requires many iterations, usually with slight adjustments of the process
parameters. Interaction between the individual process steps, if present, is also detected at
this time. Controlled experiments are often required to quantify and address the interactive
effects. Consequently, the time required in the overall schedule is often underestimated.
Open Issues in Appendix 2.0 addresses the challenges normally seen in this stage, and how
they may best be surmounted. In the ideal case, process verification is accomplished with a
one-off tool set that closely replicates the planned tool set.
Permitting Issues- All of the permits associated with site development will have been
obtained prior to site construction activities. Applicable permits associated with the building
such as air quality, discharges, material storage, etc. will have to be obtained. These,
however, would require more detailed process information than that currently available.
This information would be available after preliminary design.
40111 9-4 July 2, 2004

Page 89 of 159
1.0 - Process Concept Sketches
- PV Circuit/Assembly Concept
- Bus Bar Screen Printing
- PV Application
Page 90 of 159
Rolled PV Feeder and Pigtail Applicator

ScreenPrint Applicator Dry and Fire Furnace and Solder
X Y
ELEVATION
Pigtail
BusBar ScreenPrint PV Application Dry and Fire Furnace Connect
16 ‘ 60’ 4’
PLAN VIEW
Page 91 of 159
Bus Bar Screen Printing
BusBar Screen Print
Length-wise Cross
Bus Bar Bus Bar
Page 92 of 159
PV Application
PV Application
PV PV
Feed Feed
PV PV
Feed Feed
Off-set Row Initial Row

PV Applicator PV Applicator
Page 93 of 159
2.0 - Planning Data
- Production Capacity
- Equipment
- Utilities
- Open Issues
- Plastics Cost
- Labor Cost Estimate – Manufacturing Operations
- “Simple” Cost Summary
Page 94 of 159
Mok Industires insert values in these cells
Production Planning - 4' X 8' MODULE
Item Value Notes

Concentrator H/D Ratio 1.5
Module Area Add Factor 1.27 Square and support (lense area times factor for module area)
Distance Add Factor 1.01 Assumption of 1/100
Panel Size width 48 Inches
length 96 Inches
Sun Power 0.1 W/cm2 (full sun)
Sun Power 0.6452 W/in2 (full sun)
Water Estimate 0.17 1/6th times cylinder volume Baseline Scenario
Circle "Nesting" Factor 0.93 Factor times 2 diameters for length of 2 rows of cirlces nested
Production Rate #1 5 GW per year 0.0078125 <<< sq. mi.
Production Rate #2 30 GW per year
Production Rate #3 97 GW per year
Work Weeks per Year 51 Weeks
Weight of Water 8.34 lbs./gal
Cost Goal 30.00 $ per 4' x 8' module (per original 1100 W per module)
Cost Goal 0.03 $ per peak W output $25.96 <<< Allowable cost per module - 4' X 8' MODULE
*** Based on Wattage per Module
SCENARIO
Item Unit Meas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Height - Concentrator inches 0.1377949 1 1.5 2 3 4.1 8.9 11.8 35.6 71.2
Diameter - Concentrator inches 0.09 0.67 1.00 1.33 2.00 2.73 5.93 7.87 23.73 47.47
Area of Lense in2 0.01 0.35 0.79 1.4 3.1 5.9 27.6 48.6 442.4 1769.6
"Long" Number Cells/Width # 517 71 47 35 23 17 8 6 2 1
"Short" Number of Cell/Width # 516 70 46 34 22 16 7 5 1 0
Number Cells/Length # 1108 152 101 76 50 37 17 12 4 2
Number Cells/Module # 572,282 10,716 4,697 2,622 1,125 610.5 127.5 72 8 2
PV Diameter inches 0.0013 0.010 0.014 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.34 0.68
PV Area in2 0.0000014 0.00007 0.00016 0.00028 0.00064 0.0012 0.006 0.010 0.090 0.361
Power/PV (peak) W 0.0017 0.09 0.20 0.36 0.81 1.5 7.1 12.5 114.2 456.7
Power/Module (peak) W 979 965 952 945 912 924 910 903 913 913
Volume of Water / Concentrator in3 0.000152 0.058 0.196 0.465 1.6 4.0 41.0 95.6 2624.9 20998.9
Volume of Water / Concentrator gallons 0.0000007 0.0003 0.0008 0.0020 0.0068 0.0 0.2 0.4 11.4 90.9
Volume of Water / Module gallons 0.38 2.70 3.99 5.28 7.65 10.60 22.64 29.79 90.90 181.81
Weight of Water / Module lbs. 3.1 22.5 33.3 44.1 63.8 88.4 188.8 248.5 758.1 1516.3
<<<<<<<<< Not Nested >>>>>>>>>
Cross Check Power/PV >>> W 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.5 7.1 12.5 114.2 456.7
BASELINE WHAT IF
Scenario #3 Scenario #1
Item Unit Meas 5 30 97 5 30 97

Modules
5,252,649 31,515,892 101,901,384 5,108,093 30,648,560 99,097,010
Production Rate per Year
Modules
102,993 617,959 1,998,066 100,159 600,952 1,943,079
per Week
Modules
14,713 88,280 285,438 14,308 85,850 277,583
per Day
Modules
613 3,678 11,893 596 3,577 11,566
per Hour
Modules
10 61 198 10 60 193
per Minute
Modules
0.2 1.0 3.3 0.2 1.0 3.2
per Second
Gallons
Water Consumption 58,736 352,414 1,139,473 5,396 32,374 104,676
per Day
Water Weight
Lbs / day 489,856 2,939,136 9,503,206 45,000 269,999 872,996
to be Transported
Modules
Panels per Trailer per Trailer 1,442 1,442 1,442 15,262 15,262 15,262
(per weight)
Modules
per Trailer 768 768 768 8,360 8,360 8,360
(per volume)
# per Day
Trailers 19 115 372 2 10 33
(per volume)
# per Hour
0.8 4.8 15.5 0.1 0.4 1.4
(per volume)
Transport $
3.4 3.4 3.4 0.3 0.3 0.3
What-If Cost per Module
Transport $
18,055,980 108,335,878 350,286,006 1,613,034 9,678,202 31,292,852
per Year
Page 95 of 159
Mok Industries Production Target #1 >>> 613 Modules / Hour
Production Target #2 >>> 3,678 Modules / Hour
"Sheet Approach" Equipment Planning Production Target #3 >>> 11,893 Modules / Hour
PRODUCTION TARGET #1 PRODUCTION TARGET #2 PRODUCTION TARGET #3
Raw Effective
Capacity Capacity Qty Cost Cost # of Extend # of Extend # of Extend
Equipment (units/hour) Utilization (units/hour) per Cell per Unit per Cell Cells Qty Extended Cost Cells Qty Extended Cost Cells Qty Extended Cost Notes
Extrusion, Calendar and Cutter 1350 89% 1201.5 3 $4,000,000 $12,000,000 1 3 $12,000,000 4 12 $48,000,000 10 30 $120,000,000 Qty per cell set to match Hot Press Molding
Hot Press Molder - TOP & MIDDLE 1350 89% 1201.5 1 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 1 1 $4,000,000 4 4 $16,000,000 10 10 $40,000,000
Hot Press Molder - BOTTOM 1350 89% 1201.5 1 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 1 1 $4,000,000 4 4 $16,000,000 10 10 $40,000,000 Qty per cell set to match Screen Print / Wiring
Screen Print, PV Application, and Curing 50 81% 40.5 30 $2,000,000 $60,000,000 1 30 $60,000,000 4 120 $240,000,000 10 300 $600,000,000
Thermal Welder - TOP/MIDDLE 1350 89% 1201.5 1 $150,000 $150,000 1 1 $150,000 4 4 $600,000 10 10 $1,500,000
Chemical Sealer - BOTTOM 1350 89% 1201.5 1 $250,000 $250,000 1 1 $250,000 4 4 $1,000,000 10 10 $2,500,000
Assume ~5% sampling, second tester added to first work
Flash Tester 60 89% 53.4 1 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 1 2 $1,500,000 4 5 $7,500,000 10 11 $16,500,000 cell for early debug
Material Handling
- Work Cell Conveyor (incl interface to equipment) 150 $500 $75,000 1 150 $75,000 4 600 $300,000 10 1500 $750,000 Estimated LF per work cell
- Water Fill 1 $75,000 $75,000 1 1 $75,000 4 4 $300,000 10 10 $750,000
- Vertical Buffer (to 18' height) 6 $15,000 $90,000 1 6 $90,000 4 24 $360,000 10 60 $900,000
- Stacker (located at the output of the cell) 1350 90% 1215 1 $80,000 $80,000 1 1 $80,000 4 4 $320,000 10 10 $800,000
- Stretch wrapper (located in shipping area) 1800 90% 1620 1 $90,000 $90,000 1 1 $90,000 4 4 $360,000 10 10 $900,000
- Finished Goods Conveyor 13500 90% 12150 0.1 $950,000 $95,000 1 0.1 $95,000 4 0.4 $380,000 10 1 $950,000
- Conveoyor queue in Shipping Area 13500 90% 12150 0.1 $80,000 $8,000 1 0.1 $8,000 4 0.4 $32,000 10 1 $80,000
- Lift Trucks Shipping(charger & extra battery) 2700 90% 2430 0.5 $35,000 $17,500 1 1 $35,000 4 2 $70,000 10 5 $175,000
- Lift Trucks Receiving (charger & extra battery) 13500 90% 12150 0.1 $30,000 $3,000 1 1 $30,000 4 1 $30,000 10 1 $30,000
- Lift Truck roll attachment 13500 90% 12150 0.1 $7,000 $700 1 1 $7,000 4 1 $7,000 10 1 $7,000
- Lift Trucks for supplying work cells 13500 90% 12150 0.5 $30,000 $15,000 1 1 $30,000 4 2 $60,000 10 5 $150,000
- Drive-in racks 13500 85% 11475 0.1 $5,400 $540 1 0.1 $540 4 0.4 $2,160 10 1 $5,400
- Pallet racks in receiving/storage area 13500 85% 11475 0.1 $4,000 $400 1 0.1 $400 4 0.4 $1,600 10 1 $4,000
- Yard Tractor for Receiving 13500 90% 12150 0.1 $60,000 $6,000 1 0.1 $6,000 4 0.4 $24,000 10 1 $60,000
- Yard Tractor for Shipping 13500 90% 12150 0.1 $60,000 $6,000 1 0.1 $6,000 4 0.4 $24,000 10 1 $60,000
- Unloading / Silo storage for PET pellets 13500 90% 12150 0.6 $0 $0 1 2 $0 4 2.4 $0 10 6 $0 Provided by resin supplier
- Pneumatic conveying for PET pellets 13500 90% 12150 3 $40,000 $120,000 1 3 $120,000 4 12 $480,000 10 30 $1,200,000
TOTAL $82,582,140 $82,647,940 $331,850,760 $827,321,400
SPACE
Area
per Cell # of Total Area # of Total Area # of Total Area
(SF) cells (SF) cells (SF) cells (SF)
Production Space 51,600 1 51,600 4 206,400 10 516,000

- assumed 5% of production space
Receiving Space 2,580 2,580 10,320 25,800 - raw material straight from trailers to line
- assumed 5% of production space
Shipping Space 2,580 2,580 10,320 25,800 - load direct to trailers
Stack/Stretch Wrap 5,160 5,160 20,640 51,600 - assumed 10% of production space
Support Space (prep, labs, R & D, etc.) 15,000 30,000 60,000 - estimates
- estimate based on 200 person capacity

Canteen/Break Area 20 people per line per shift 2,250 4,500 10,125 - also doubles at meeting space
- Space estimated as 10'x10' per 4 people times 1.5
- assumed 40 mngt/support at #1 and #2
Office 170 SF per person 6,000 6,000 11,900 - assumed 70 mngt/support at #3
Central Utilities Assume 20% of above 17,034 57,636 140,245
SUBTOTAL 61,920 102,204 345,816 841,470
GROSS UP (circulation, misc.) 15% 15% 15%
TOTAL 117,535 397,688 967,691
DOCK ASSESSMENT
Truck Loads per Hour 0.8 4.8 15.5

Modules per Trailer 768 768 768
"Stacks" per Trailer 24 24 24
"Stacks" per Hour 19 115 372
Minutes per Stack 3.1 0.5 0.2
Shipping Dock Locations 27 27 27

Maximum Trailer Turn Time (Hours) 33.8 5.6 1.7
"SIMPLE" COST
Equipment Cost $82,647,940 $331,850,760 $827,321,400

Modules Produced in 7 years 37,077,520 222,465,119 719,303,885
Equipment Cost Per Module $2.23 $1.49 $1.15
Equipment Cost per "Peak Watt Capacity" $0.0023 $0.0016 $0.0012
Page 96 of 159
Mok Industries
Tool Utility Matrix

ESTIMATES FOR TYPICAL WORK CELL ELECTRICAL HEAT LOAD EXHAUST CLEAN DRY AIR DIW PCW Natural Gas
)
FM
M)
CF
(C
)
M)
FM
d(
d
CF
de
de
(C
A)
ten
ten
ad
ND
V
ad
)
VA
ty
(K
om
Lo
Ex
Ex
Lo
M)
MA
rsi
AK
(K
ad
m)
m)
)
FH
CF
Ro
)
s
s
H
H
ve
XH
XH
kW
DE
kW
)
PE
A)
Lo
tic
tic
tic
tic
tic
ad
(gp
(gp
VA
EX
EX
M)
tor
(C
(S
Di
(kV
in
m)
m)
TE
TE
)
A)
ris
ris
ris
ris
ris
d(
Lo
FH
CF
at
t
t (k
ted
in
ac
a
AL
AL
g
at
(gp
(gp
d
(kV
cte
cte
cte
cte
cte
oa
ty
ty
EN
EN
tin
tity
tity
(C
nd
nd
nd
(S
rF
de
de
de
de
ec
ec
He
rsi
rsi
L
era
ara
ara
ara
ara
ara
NE
NE
LV
LV
ten
ten
ten
ten
ma
ma
ma
we
nn
nn
an
an
ad
ad
ad
ad
ak
at
to
ve
ve
SO
SO
GE
GE
Comments
Op
Qu
Qu
Ch
Co
Co
Ch
Ch
Ch
Ch
Po
De
De
De
He
Equipment Qty
Pe
Ex
Ex
Ex
Ex
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
Di
Di
%
Extrusion, Calendar and Cutter 3 480VAC, 3ph 1,000 3,000 58% 580 1,740 1 2 2,160 0.85 1,479 50% 740 3,333 9,999 Electrical load includes dedicated chilled water system (100 Ton per cell)
Hot Press Molder - TOP & MIDDLE 1 480VAC, 3ph 2,500 2,500 58% 1,450 1,450 1 2,500 0.85 1,233 50% 616 Electrical load includes dedicated chilled water system (100 Ton per cell)
Hot Press Molder - BOTTOM 1 480VAC, 3ph 2,500 2,500 58% 1,450 1,450 1 2,500 0.85 1,233 50% 616 Electrical load includes dedicated chilled water system (100 Ton per cell)
Screen Print, PV Application, and Curing 30 480VAC, 3ph 240 7,200 60% 144 4,320 10 20 5,280 0.85 3,672 5% 184 1,000 30,000 2,000 60,000 60 psig 130 70% 2,730
Thermal Welder - TOP/MIDDLE 1 Electrical load included in press figures
Chemical Sealer - BOTTOM 1 480VAC, 3ph 80 80 35% 28 28 10 20 1,360 0.85 24 70% 17 60 psig 15 60% 9
Flash Tester 1 480VAC, 3ph 100 100 25% 25 25 1 100 0.85 21 70% 15
Material Handling
- Work Cell Conveyor (incl interface to equipm150 480VAC, 3ph 0.1 15 60% 0 9 335 34 0.85 8 40% 3 60 psig 1 70% 105
- Conveyor (out of cell transport) 30 480VAC, 3ph 0.1 3 60% 0 2 335 34 0.85 2 40% 1
- Water Fill 1 79 100% 79
- Vertical Buffer (to 18' height) 6 480VAC, 3ph 1.0 6 60% 1 4 6 6 0.85 3 40% 1 60 psig 10 70% 42
- Stacker (located at the output of the cell) 1 480VAC, 3ph 15.0 15 60% 9 9 1 15 0.85 8 40% 3 90 psig 50 70% 35
- Pneumatic conveying blower motor 3 480VAC, 3ph 15.0 45 60% 9 27 1 15 0.85 23 0% 0
- Battery Chargers 2 480VAC, 3ph 7.0 14 60% 4 8 1 7 0.85 7 40% 3
HVAC / CDA / UPW / Ltg & Misc Equip. 1 480VAC, 3ph 3,500 4,500 60% 2,100 2,100 1 2,100
SUBTOTAL 19,978 11,172 16,110 7,711 2,198 30,000 60,000 2,921 79 0 9,999
CONTINGENCY (20%) 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
TOTAL 23,974 13,406 19,332 9,253 2,638 36,000 72,000 3,505 95 0 11,999
GENERAL NOTES: HEAT LOAD

[1] Connected load reflects expected peak, demand load reflects expected operating load. Heat Load kW / Connected kVA
DESIGN Ratio = 0.11
ELECTRICAL HEAT LOAD EXHAUST CLEAN DRY AIR DIW PCW Natural Gas
"Realistic" Demand Heat
Conncected Demand Solvent General Demand Demand Demand Demand
Peak kW kW
Loads same as 10GW (per work cell) except half of PV tools (15 in lieu of
Production Target #1 >>>>>>>>> 19,654 10,814 16,164 7,050 2,527 18,000 36,000 1,867 95 0 11,999
30).
"Realistic" Peak at Prod. Targets #2 and #3 calculated by Demand + 5000 KVA

(assumes each work cell started individually)
Page 97 of 159
Mok Industries
OPEN ISSUES
Description Impact Mitigation Approach Comment
Water use per day (>1 million gallons) - Not unusual for industrial plants. Should not be issue.
- Equipment install is phased … utility provider to

Power use at site (> 100MVA) - Available at site?
plan for peak requirements 3 ~5 years out.
- Estimate of 400+ blow molders. - Multiple plants?

- Delivery schedule of blow molder quantity. - Higher thru-put design?
Volume of bottles / day (~1.2 billion)
- Capacity of blow molder suppliers. - Use of "pre-forms"?
- Resin supply (limited # of suppliers). - Alternate approach?
- PET may not perform well to sunlight and heat.

- Resistance to impact (hail, dust). - Alternate materials (polycarbonate, other).
Material effectiveness of PET
- Swelling in water. - Further research required.
- Surface getting dirty over time (loss in efficiency).
- Reduce connection requirements (larger

Number of connections to be made - Reliability.
bottles)?
(function of concentrators) - Efficiency loss of connectors.
- Further research required.
"Wiring" of PV's, insulation? - Conductivity of water … short connection wires?
- Locate plant next to site ("batch plant"

Shipping (Penn -> NV) - Cost of transport to site.
approach).
~350 trucks per day at $340 million/year - # of trucks/trailers (deadheading).
- Install pilot line in Penn., other lines near site.
Per Bill Mook, SpectraLabs can ramp

PV Cell supply - Limit output. - See comment. capacity (possibly on site) to meet
demand.
Z-fold / hinge - Complexity to include hinge spriral. - If needed, use thin plastic connection.
- Repeatability in process.
CD measurements - Further research required.
- Efficiency reduction.
Dry and Fire temperatures for screen printed

- Effect of 120 deg C to plastic back. - Further research required.
circuit?
Page 98 of 159
Mok Industries
OPEN ISSUES
Description Impact Mitigation Approach Comment
- Retail business could be a large part of the sales

Only bulk shipping of finished panels generated; however, an additional packaging operation - Building addition to house additional packaging
addressed and space dedicated to packaging is needed if individual operation or utilize a 3rd party to package.
panels are to be packaged for resale.
- Use more economical opaque resin, possibly

not PET, for the base layer of the panel &
Pricing of PET and other resins - Very volatile recently due to oil price increases.
minimize the use of all resins consistent with
required panel strength.
- Regardless of type selected, volume may exceed what - May need to work with supplier(s) to increase
Plastic resin availability
is readily available in the market. capacity.
- Work with vendors to understanding limiting

- The volume of equipment is significant
constraints.
Equipment lead times - Delay in output schedule and/or output capacity. in order to achieve the output targets (in
- Engage multiple vendors to minimize risk from 1
particular #3, 97GW).
vendor not performing.
- Based on process emissions, utilize equipment Exhaust emissions from the circuit
Permit approval and timing - Delay schedule to production.
to the treat the exhaust emissions. process could be significant.
- Use of additive to lower freezing point (glycerol,

- Deformation of CPC
Freezing/expansion of water in CPC silica gel or silicic acid, and others).
- Damage to CPC
- Requires further research.
Heat in building from plastics and curing - Separate these areas from others in the building
- High residual heat in the building.
operations. to allow "localized" resolution (exhaust).
Page 99 of 159
Plastics Cost for a 4'X8' Panel
100% PET, Variable Layer Thickness, Fixed Price
Layer Thickness (Inches) Volume Density Kilos of Pounds of Cost of Total Panel
PET $/Lbs Lens Layer Mid Layer Base Length (ft) Width (ft) in3 ml gm/ml Plastic Plastic Plastic PET Cost
$0.60 0.06 0.06 0.06 8 4 829 13,592 1.3 17.67 38.96 $23.37 $23.37
$0.60 0.01 0.01 0.06 8 4 369 6,041 1.3 7.85 17.31 $10.39 $10.39
$0.60 0.005 0.005 0.06 8 4 323 5,286 1.3 6.87 15.15 $9.09 $9.09
$0.50 0.06 0.06 0.06 8 4 829 13,592 1.3 17.67 38.96 $19.48 $19.48
$0.50 0.01 0.01 0.06 8 4 369 6,041 1.3 7.85 17.31 $8.66 $8.66
$0.50 0.005 0.005 0.06 8 4 323 5,286 1.3 6.87 15.15 $7.57 $7.57
PET & PVC, Variable Layer Thickness
Layer Thickness (Inches) Volume Density Kilos of Pounds of Cost of Total Panel
PET $/Lbs PET Lens PET Mid PVC Base Length (ft) Width (ft) in3 ml gm/ml Plastic Plastic Plastic PET Cost
$0.60 0.06 0.06 8 4 553 9,061 1.3 11.78 25.97 $15.58
$0.75 0.06 8 4 276 4,531 1.5 6.8 14.98 $11.24 $26.82
$0.60 0.01 0.01 8 4 92 1,510 1.3 1.96 4.33 $2.60
$0.75 0.06 8 4 276 4,531 1.5 6.8 14.98 $11.24 $13.83
$0.60 0.01 0.01 8 4 92 1,510 1.3 1.96 4.33 $2.60
$0.75 0.05 8 4 230 3,776 1.5 5.66 12.49 $9.36 $11.96
Page 100 of 159

Mok Industries
LABOR COST ESTIMATE - MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS
Production Target #1 Production Target #2 Production Target #3
Rate # per shift Extended Extended Extended

Employee Category (burdened, per year) per work cell # Cost # Cost # Cost
Plant Manager $100,000 - 1 $100,000 1 $100,000 1 $100,000
Op's Manager $70,000 1 1 $70,000 4 $280,000 10 $700,000
Maintenance Manager $70,000 1 1 $70,000 4 $280,000 10 $700,000
Lead Operator/Technician $60,000 1 4 $240,000 16 $960,000 40 $2,400,000
Operator/Technican $40,000 12 34 $1,344,000 192 $7,680,000 480 $19,200,000
Support $30,000 4 11 $336,000 64 $1,920,000 160 $4,800,000
Purchasing $50,000 2 2 $100,000 8 $400,000 20 $1,000,000
QC $40,000 1 1 $40,000 4 $160,000 10 $400,000
TOTAL 55 $2,300,000 293 $11,780,000 731 $29,300,000

# of Modules Produced per Year >>> 5,252,649 31,515,892 101,901,384
Labor Cost per Module >>> $0.44 $0.37 $0.29
Notes
(1) Shift work via compressed work week (4 on, 3 off, 12 hr days), 4 shift schedules.
(2) Operator/Tech and Support headcount for Production Target #1 at 70% of 1 work cell.
Page 101 of 159

Mok Industries
"SIMPLE" COST SUMMARY Assumptions

(1) 7 year duration at peak production (97GW/yr)
(2) Does not include inflation, escalation, or "time value of money"
Cost Category $ / module % Comments
FIXED COST
Facility Cost $0.58 1% Facility Cost divided by (7 years x 102 million modules per year)
Equipment Cost $1.16 3% Equipment Cost divided by (7 years x 102 million modules per year)
FIXED SUBTOTAL $1.74 4%
VARIABLE COST
PV Cost $18.00 42% Estimate
Resin Cost $11.96 28% PET top and middle, PVC bottom
Circuitry Cost $6.00 14% Estimate for materials (bus bars, PV "connection", pigtail) … range of $4 ~ $8
Corporate staff - 104 @$70,000/year
Labor Cost $0.32 1%
Operations staff - 555 people @ $45,000/year
Utilities Cost
- Electricity $0.71 2% Demand of 134,000 kVA x 0.9 PF divided by 11,893 modules/hour x $0.07/kWh
- Natural Gas $0.30 1% Demand of 120,000 CFH divided by 11,893 modules/hour x $0.03/CFH
- Water $0.08 0% 4 gallons per module x $0.02/gallon
Transportation Cost $3.44 8%
VARIABLE SUBTOTAL $40.81 96%
TOTAL >>> $42.55 per module
Cost per Watt (Peak) >>> $0.045 assumes 952W (peak output) per module
Confidential Page 102 of 159

3.0 – Larger Illustrations
- “Sheet” Module
- Typical Cell
- Block Layout - Baseline
- Block Layout - Option
Page 103 of 159

“Sheet” Module Concept
3 Piece Approach
TOP MIDDLE BOTTOM Legend

PV
Wiring
Sealer/weld
Anchor Tab
COMPLETE
General Process Steps General Equipment Set

submersion fill (1) Hot Press Molders
(1) Hot Press Mold the top (better precision for lenses).
(2) Hot Press Mold middle (punch hole) and bottom (add dimple). (2) Stringers (screen print? wiring?)
(3) PV install/wiring on bottom (screen print, filament wiring). (3) Ultrasonic Welders
(4) Ultrasonic weld top to middle. (4) Fillers
(5) Fill CPC assembly (upside-down, submersion). (5) Chemcial Sealers
(6) Insert and chemically seal CPC assembly to bottom. (6) Flash Testers
(7) Flash test. (7) Stackers
(8) Stack to bundles and load to trailer. (8) Conveyor and buffers
(9) Fork Lifts (loading)
Page 104 of 159

215Fe e t
B ottom Panel V e rt ic a l B u f f e r
R aw A c c u m u la t o r , P re h e a t ,
D ie , G e a r P u m p , R o ll F o rm , 3 - R o ll S t a n d w it h
M a t e ria l F e e d e r & E x t ru d e r H o t P r e s s M o ld , C u t ,
S c re e n C h a n g e r in d iv id u a l d riv e s
Input D is c h a r g e
V e rt ic a l B u f f e r
F e e d e rs & F e e d e rs &
E x t ru d e r E x t ru d e r
To p P a n e l M id d le P a n e l
S c r e e n P rin t , P V A s s e m b ly , C u r e S c r e e n P rin t , P V A s s e m b ly , C u r e
D ie , G e a r D ie , G e a r S c r e e n P rin t , P V A s s e m b ly , C u r e S c r e e n P rin t , P V A s s e m b ly , C u r e
Pum p, Pum p,
S c re e n S c re e n
C hanger C hanger S c r e e n P rin t , P V A s s e m b ly , C u r e S c r e e n P rin t , P V A s s e m b ly , C u r e
R o ll F o r m , 3 - R o ll F o rm , 3 -
R o ll S t a n d R o ll S t a n d S c r e e n P rin t , P V A s s e m b ly , C u r e S c r e e n P rin t , P V A s s e m b ly , C u r e
w it h w it h
in d iv id u a l in d iv id u a l
d r iv e s d riv e s
220Feet
A c c u m u la t o r, S c r e e n P rin t , P V A s s e m b ly , C u r e S c r e e n P rin t , P V A s s e m b ly , C u r e
P re h e a t , H o t
P r e s s M o ld , C u t ,
D is c h a rg e ,
Th e rm a l B o n d S c r e e n P rin t , P V A s s e m b ly , C u r e S c r e e n P rin t , P V A s s e m b ly , C u r e
To p & M id d le
Sheet
S u b m e rg e d W a t e r F ill S c r e e n P rin t , P V A s s e m b ly , C u r e S c r e e n P rin t , P V A s s e m b ly , C u r e

S t a t io n
V e rt ic a l B u f f e r V e r t ic a l B u f f e r
V e rt ic a l B u f f e r
Te s t
V e r t ic a l B u f f e r
C h e m ic a l W e ld B o t t o m P a n e l
F la s h Te s t
S h ip p in g
Page 105 of 159

Block Layout - Baseline
Page 106 of 159

Block Layout - Option
Page 107 of 159

4.0 – Master Plan - Building
- Millennium Park Master Plan Showing Mök Industries
- Perspective and Section for Mök Industries, Lawrence County, PA, Solar Panel
Fabrications Plant
Page 108 of 159

Page 109 of 159
..
MOK Industries
Solar Panel Fabrication Plant - Lawrence County, PA
Perspective view
7/2/2004
Page 1
IDC confidential
Page 110 of 159

Section Elevation
5.0 – Estimating Accuracy Curve
Page 111 of 159

Estimating Accuracy Curve (Source: Derived from AACE Data; 18R-97)
50
45
40
E
s 35
t
i 30
m
25
a
t 20
e
15
A
10
c
c 5
u Engineering Completion (%)
r 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
a
-5
c
y -10
-15
-20
Programming Schematic Design Control or Bid Tender Construction Documents

Design Design Development
Class 5 Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 1
Page 112 of 159

6.0 – Material Comparison
- ABS
- PET UV
- CPVC
Page 113 of 159

Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene – ABS
High Impact UV Stabilized
Polymer Type
Thermoplastic
Advantages
Can be used in outdoor applications involving exposure to UV radiation (sunlight).
Disadvantages
Should not be processed above 220°C ( 430°F ) to prevent material degradation. Incorporation of UV
stabilizer reduces notched izod impact strength ( ~ 0.3 KJ/m -5.6 ft lb/in ) compared with unmodified high
impact grades.
Typical Properties
Property Value
Density (g/cm3) 1.06
Surface Hardness RR103
Tensile Strength (MPa) 35
Flexural Modulus (GPa) 2.3
Notched Izod (kJ/m) 0.3
Linear Expansion (/°C x 10-5) 9
Elongation at Break (%) 6
Strain at Yield (%) 2
Max. Operating Temp. (°C) 70
Water Absorption (%) 0.3
Oxygen Index (%) 19
Flammability UL94 HB
Volume Resistivity (log ohm.cm) 14
Dielectric Strength (MV/m) 20
Dissipation Factor 1kHz 0.007
Dielectric Constant 1kHz 3
HDT @ 0.45 MPa (°C) 98
HDT @ 1.80 MPa (°C) 89
Material. Drying hrs @ (°C) 2 @ 90
Melting Temp. Range (°C) 230 - 270
Mould Shrinkage (%) 0.6
Mould Temp. Range (°C) 40 - 60
Applications
Recreational vehicle bodies and parts, agricultural parts, ski boots.
Page 114 of 159

Polyethylene Terephthalate – PET UV
Stabilized
Polymer Type
Thermoplastic
Advantages
Good resistance to sunlight / UV radiation with little yellowing compared with unmodified grades.
Disadvantages
The processing problems associated with unmodified PET, i.e. very dry granules needed and high moulding
temperature required for optimum properties.
Typical Properties
Property Value
Oxygen Index (%) 20
Flammability UL94 HB
Dielectric Constant 1kHz 3.7
HDT @ 0.45 MPa (°C) 150
HDT @ 1.80 MPa (°C) 70
Material. Drying hrs @ (°C) 2 @130
Mould Shrinkage (%) 2
Applications
Outdoor applications such as lawn mower housings, power tool casings, shades for outdoor lamps, pump
casings, seat shells.
Page 115 of 159

Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride – CPVC
Chlorinated PVC
Polymer Type
Thermoplastic
Advantages
Service temperature of 90°C (190°F), accompanied by self-extinguishing properties. Reasonable weathering
performance.
Disadvantages
More difficult to process than UPVC or Plasticised PVC.
Typical Properties
Property Value
Oxygen Index (%) 50
Flammability UL94 V0
Dielectric Constant 1kHz 3.1
HDT @ 0.45 MPa (°C) 110
HDT @ 1.80 MPa (°C) 105
Material. Drying hrs @ (°C) 2 @ 75
Mould Shrinkage (%) 0.5
Applications
Hot water piping.
Page 116 of 159

7.0 – Planning for Success in Transitioning New Technologies into
Economical Full-Scale Production
Page 117 of 159

PLANNING FOR SUCCESS IN TRANSITIONING
NEW TECHNOLOGIES INTO ECONOMICAL FULL-SCALE
PRODUCTION
David Causey, IDC and William Westmoreland
A number of technology-driven industries, including semiconductor manufacturing in its

early development as well as other related industries more recently, have been characterized
by the failure of many R&D initiatives to reach the goal of affordable products that can be
manufactured on a large scale. There is hardly a shortage of brilliant concepts which have
been readily proven on a laboratory scale. Likewise, there is not a lack of market research
into the potential commercial application of many of these concepts, and at what price range
a given product can make a successful entry into an available market. What is absent is a
life-cycle template to serve as a methodology for smooth transition from R&D to volume
manufacturing. In many of these cases, the failure is due in large measure to the inability of
corporate management, using a specific set of attributes, to technically assess the economics
of transition from the laboratory to large-scale production.
For the purpose of this discussion, the focus will be a rather broad range of process-based
technologies with most, if not all, of the following characteristics:
Multi-step processing in which various layers or films are applied onto a substrate
A requirement for cleanroom manufacturing conditions for all steps or certain critical
steps
One or more patterning steps by photolithography and/or laser ablation
Fabrication of an optical or optoelectronic device or component
The requirement to ramp from development to production on substrates which are
much larger (4X or more) than the “proof” size and or require a volume increase of
greater than 100X from product prototyping to full production.
Virtually all technology-driven process, product, and factory maturation will progress
through a natural life cycle from R&D to pilot operations to full-scale manufacturing, as
indicated by Figure 1.
R&D Pilot Production
Phase Phase Phase
Staff Staff Staff
Equipment/ Equipment/ Equipment/

Facilities Facilities Facilities
Process, Process, Process,

Product, Product, Product,
Procedures Procedures Procedures
Materials Materials Materials
Figure 1 - Typical phases of industrial R&D process
Page 118 of 159

These different phases may be thought of as a series of “gates,” each of which has it own
distinct set of characteristics. These phases can be characterized with respect to the
following:
Staff
Equipment and Facilities
Process, Product, and Procedures
Materials
It must be emphasized that although life cycle phase duration, transition management, and
characteristic specifics must be modified and optimally managed on a technology to
technology basis to allow for competitive success, failing to follow the basic natural
sequence will almost always insure failure characterized by extended production schedules,
inflated operation costs, and a sub-optimal final product feature set.
Life Cycle Template

Research and Development
Figure 2 represents the typical support components and tasks associated with the R&D
Phase of an industrial research and development process. These characteristics are by no
means comprehensive, and will naturally vary depending upon the structure, philosophy,
and collective experience of each organization. It is intended as a template, or guideline, by
which technology managers can assess progress and plan accordingly. Although there are
often different objectives for both research and development, they are combined here to
reflect the actual organization usually found in most technology-driven companies. This
environment ideally focuses on individual achievement by a technical staff driven by
discrete events. Demonstration of concepts is far more important that repetition of results
during this phase.
Phase Phase Phase
•Define and demonstrate theoretical concepts in a lab-scale industrial environment.
Staff •Technical staff hard science- and research-oriented (80% technologists, 20% engineers).
•High degree of individual contribution.
•Primary compensation based 90% individual, 10% team.
•Focused on discrete events and intradiscipline interactions.
Equipment/ •Provide a lab-scale industrial environment for development and prototyping activities.
•Uncharacterized tools utilized with non-optimized equipment recipes.
Facilities •Tool set flexible, portable, and multifunctional.
•Work areas decentralized with layout optimized for intradiscipline research and development.
Process, •Define individual process steps and confirm initial sequence of operations.
•Process variables understood through modeling/simulation and individual step sensitivity studies.
Product, •Chemical reactions and scaling parameters understood.
•Produce a fully featured and functional prototype.
Procedures •Initial prototype produced and characterized with respect to key performance variables.
•Provide a flexible framework for the coordination of diverse development activities.
•Provide a basic set of materials specifications including initial sensitivity analysis with respect to
Materials intramaterial variation.
•Initial experiments done with lab purity materials to obtain highest theoretical properties.
•Material alternatives and substitutions freely examined with “decision to use” based on first-order
impacts.
Figure 2 - Composition of the R&D Phase
Page 119 of 159

In the R&D Phase, scientists typically have work and laboratory spaces that foster creativity,
and they are unencumbered by the demands of daily production. In many cases, the R&D
Phase is unfortunately marked by a lack of documentation, possibly attributable to the fact
that the necessary support systems and infrastructure are not in place. There is also a natural
tendency to disregard “failures,” although the experiential knowledge gained from these
failures is vital to future developments. Thus, our experience has shown that meticulous
documentation is most important during this phase, preventing expensive and time-
consuming redundant engineering, although documentation's importance cannot be
overstated at any point in the life-cycle.
Pilot
Figure 3 shows the organizational elements needed for a typical transition into a product's
Pilot Phase. (The term pilot is often misleading, and has no universal standard. In this
usage, "pilot" is equivalent to "prototype," and refers to an environment providing full-scale
manufacturing, although a “one-of” tool set is common.) One aspect of this phase that is
often overlooked is the makeup of the technical staff. The key during piloting operations is
the staff transition from hard scientists to inter-functional teams, composed primarily of
manufacturing engineering disciplines. The technical staff during piloting is ideally
balanced evenly between hard science and engineering disciplines, with the scientists
naturally predominating early in this phase. Early in the initial transition from R&D, it is
important to supplement the predominantly research-oriented staff with engineers who will
become the core engineering staff for the future full-scale operations.

Phase Phase Phase
•Integration of developed concepts in a prototype manufacturing environment.
Staff •Technical staff balanced (50% hard science- and research-oriented and 50% engineering).
•High degree of intrafunctional teams.
•Focused on system-level events with balance between intra- and interdiscipline interaction.
Equipment/ •Provide a manufacturing-scale environment for initial production equipment burn-in and pilot production.
•One-of-each fully sized tools with optimized equipment recipes.
Facilities •Tool set user-friendly, repeatable, and functionally optimized.
•Layout optimized for efficient manufacturing flow and support area centralization.
•Involve vendors in partnership relationships.
Process, •Integrate process steps and define manufacturing flow.

•Process integration variables understood through sensitivity analysis.
Product, •Manufacturing process model defined and characterized.
•Produce a fully featured and functional production-worthy product in limited volumes.
Procedures •Final production product defined framework supporting manufacturing requirements.
•Provide a flexible but defined framework supporting manufacturing requirements.
•Production support infrastructure defined and implemented.
Materials •Freeze production bill-of-materials and provide initial intermodule/intermaterial sensitivity analysis.
•Define final material purity and compositional requirements.
•Determine proper cost vs. performance material trade-offs with ‘decision to use’ based on first-order.
•Develop qualification requirements for vendors and materials.
•Involve vendors in partnership relationships.
Figure 3 - Composition of the Pilot Phase
Page 120 of 159

Process transfer is a useful metric that occurs near the conclusion of the Pilot Phase. Process
transfer, usually implemented incrementally by process steps, is generally accompanied by a
definition of the process parameters by which a product of a certain quality (not always
optimal) may be produced. It marks the end of formal development and provides a baseline
against which other processes may be measured.
Production
The defining characteristics of the Production Phase are generally well understood and
almost universally accepted across a wide range of industries. As shown in Figure 4,
staffing requirements, equipment and facilities, process, product and procedures markedly
differ from the R&D Phase and the Pilot Phase. Typically in technology-driven companies,
the overwhelming focus during this phase is on procedure, often at the expense of other
equally important life-cycle elements. Throughout the production phase, the operation
should be driven by statistical process control, and procedural issues such as rigorous
documentation and process change control should be weighted heavily. At this point,
process decisions are made on the basis of data, not the intuition of researchers.

Phase Phase Phase
•Sustain and continually improve the ongoing production operations.
Staff •Technical staff 90% engineering and 10% hard science- and research-oriented.
•High degree of interfunctional teams.
•Primary compensation based 40% individual, 60% team.
•Focused on system-level events and interdiscipline interaction.
Equipment/ •Provide a fully operational manufacturing environment for high-volume production.

•Multiplexed, fully characterized production tool set running stable, frozen equipment recipes.
Facilities •Tool set fully instrumented, in-situ monitored, and optimally automated.
•Layout optimized for maximum output, minimal cycle time, and lowest manufacturing cost.
Process, •Running a frozen manufacturing process flow.

•Process driven by statistical controls.
Product, •Manufacturing process model only changed through continued characterization in incremental steps and
Procedures market-driven demand changes.

•Fully characterized products running in high volumes.
•Final production product specifications frozen.
•Provide a stable, defined framework preventing variation.
•Production support infrastructure optimized.
Materials •Bill-of-materials components optimized for cost reduction and supply consistency.
•Low cost materials substitutes investigated and qualified.
•Cost vs. performance trade-offs controlled tightly.
•Vendors become full partners and part of the manufacturing flow.
Figure 4 - Composition of the Production Phase
If the process and product are to be frozen at this point in the life-cycle, it follows that the
technical staff, including support functions such as information technology and
procurement, must be adjusted accordingly as well. This does not mean, of course, that the
process engineers who have supplanted the research-oriented staff of earlier phases should
lack creativity. On the contrary, their creativity should now be focused on troubleshooting
and fixing the existing process, not changing the process. In a similar manner, the flexibility
demanded of a purchasing manager during R&D is no longer an asset, and that person's
ability to implement an active program to include raw material vendors as full partners now
becomes critical.
Page 121 of 159

Key Success Drivers
A careful analysis of those technologies, facilities, and products whose transition from R&D
to manufacturing has been successful reveals a number of remarkable similarities. It is
useful to review these similarities with respect to the underlying supporting factors which
drive maturation and phase transition utilizing them to develop a “roadmap” for future
successes. It is critical that corporate managers be given the tools and the insight to make
accurate assessments as progress is made through the natural life-cycle so that optimal
orchestration of the four areas listed above can then be shaped accordingly. This discussion
offers a detailed review of the key drivers, which enable promising new concepts destined
for high-technology manufacturing, to economically evolve into large-scale production.
As a technology, facility, or product progresses through its maturation life-cycle, it is

important to understand how the critical success factors constantly change. For example,
during the R&D Phase, optimizing cycle-time on specific process experiments needed to
verify the baseline process is the primary WIP (Work in Progress) movement goal. During
the Pilot Phase, however, this focus needs to shift toward manufacturing priorities enabling
process integration, process flow qualification, and equipment certification. Finally, during
the manufacturing ramp into the Production Phase, sheer product output, factory overall
product cycle-time, and operating costs become the primary drivers. There is risk in
misreading the priority success factors that dominate at any given time in the life-cycle.
Manufacturing Drivers
A successful factory understands and balances critical “Manufacturing Success Drivers.”

These include Product Output, Product Performance, Constraint Equipment Uptime
(Reliability), Constraint Equipment Cycle-Time (Run-Rate), Constraint Equipment
Utilization (Effectiveness), and Production Yield. These drivers are in turn influenced by
several factors, all of which evolve throughout the life-cycle.
Equipment Capabilities
Equipment capability requirements vary throughout a factory’s life-cycle. During the R&D
phase, flexibility and multi-functionality are at a premium, whereas during the Prototype
(Ramp) Phase, user-friendliness and reliability become the critical considerations. During
the Production Phase, controls instrumentation, optimal automation, and in-situ process
monitoring become the key attributes.
Equipment Maintenance
Leveraging tool performance and enhancing operability and serviceable life are critical.
This is necessary due to the complexity and cost for large scale, high-volume production
equipment such as 300mm production tools, which must be specified, constructed, and
maintained for successful operation. Today's manufacturers must be prepared to plan and
fund for the staffing, training, and management of high-performance equipment
maintenance teams.
Page 122 of 159

Equipment Characterization/Monitoring Methodologies
The most fail-safe method to insure equipment suitability for manufacturing is to establish a
thorough equipment specification for the tool vendor. In addition, setting a clear set of
acceptance criteria, which include both performance and equipment metrics, is vital. Once
equipment characterization/initial process parameters are established, a repeatable method
for equipment and process monitoring must be determined. The instrumentation for these
process controls (equipment and process metrology) must be designed into the tools and
systems from the outset, and not added belatedly as an afterthought.
Constraining Tool Utilization Improvements
Identification and elimination of key production capacity bottlenecks is mandatory in

managing an aggressive manufacturing ramp. Throughout a manufacturing ramp, the
constraining tools will shift and process/production simulation can be utilized to preview the
constraint sequencing. A balance between equipment characterization, equipment
upgrade/modification, engineering process development/optimization, and production
material needed for baseline establishment must be actively directed.
Run-Rate Prototyping Strategies
We have found it most valuable to implement specific programs designed to “shake-out”

portions of a manufacturing line prior to their required full-capacity utilization. Many
problems which occur during a production ramp are not detected until the equipment and
process are exercised at capacity level rates. Areas specifically vulnerable to this
phenomenon are mechanical repeatability during maximum cycling, process control, and
optimized preventative maintenance requirements.
Factory Ramp Up/Capacity Planning
A factory moving from the R&D Phase and initial start-up into the Prototype/Ramp Phase is
at its most critical juncture. Many yet unseen hurdles pertaining to staffing, materials,
equipment, and process emerge during this stage. Setbacks at this stage can most
immediately manifest themselves as failures to attain the technical milestones required for
continued project viability.
Simulation/Factory Layout
Full factory floor layout and production simulations are imperative to prevent unforeseen
factory floor design flaws. It is difficult to overstate the importance of these tools in the
planning phase. Without these tools there is a significant risk of improperly matched
operating capabilities, poorly designed manufacturing flows, and restricted options for
future expansions and process changes.
Page 123 of 159

Production/Operating Plan Generation and Risk Analysis
It is vital to understand the pertinent variables required to build a self-consistent, multi-year

operating plan including the materials, labor, and equipment input components as well as the
product output and associated costs. All of these factors must be incorporated into the
development of an operating template. In addition, realistically understanding the associated
risks and developing early contingency plans is critical to reducing the overall time-to-
independence viability for the business.
Manufacturing Benchmarking
It is advantageous that a project management team has functional, practical experience with
manufacturing companies from a low-volume, custom product emphasis as well as a mass
production, lowest-cost focus. That enables a team to reliably compare performance actuals
with realistic milestone goals, and to effectively judge a reasonable rate of progress leading
to successful full capacity manufacturing.
Business/Enterprise Success Drivers

There are three fundamental parameters that dictate the cost effectiveness model for many
emerging high-technology production operations:
Product performance
Manufacturing yield.
Product durability, i.e. reliability.
Any comprehensive program must focus on these parameters, and map out a plan to achieve
economic viability milestones in each parameter. Underlying these parameters also exists a
set of factors which must be closely managed throughout the life-cycle.
Technology Maturity
A technology survey early in a product development program is exceptionally important to

expeditiously scale up processes whose technologies and performance are already proven.
As a result, the manufacturer gains insight into which processes have a high probability of
success through direct scale-up, and which processes must be piloted so that more process
knowledge can be gathered.
Processing Step Interaction
High-technology manufacturing involves multi-step processing in which each unit operation

may be quite dependent on the preceding step. Accordingly, process experiments must be
designed to take into account both dependent and independent variables, and how those
variables will interact during production scale-up. Failure to do this properly would threaten
the ultimate optimization of the process parameters.
Page 124 of 159

Process Characterization
In order to communicate effectively with potential equipment and materials vendors, a

process specification for each process step must be developed. The only way to establish an
effective definition for both materials suitability and equipment performance is to
characterize the process sensitivity ranges for individual process steps as well as for the
integrated process flow. By focusing early on process characterization, significant time and
costs can be saved during the subsequent production ramp, where both customer
dissatisfaction and a growing expense base are significant negatives.
Process Monitoring
It is important to attend to instrumentation and monitoring considerations during the early

Prototype Phase, since that is when many critical variables are identified. Many of the
successful products appear to be overly instrumented and controlled at the Pilot Phase, but
this is often necessary to adequately define the critical variables at each step as well as
interdependent variables between the process steps. This is also an appropriate time to
develop a strategy to properly monitor and eventually control the various process steps in
the Production Phase. The focus needs to be on reducing variability first, and then
optimizing the parameter targets.
Task Force/Technical Program Management
In many cases, a “Tiger Team” approach to program management must be taken. One case
history of this approach enabled a cross-functional team of engineers, scientists, process
technicians, and maintenance technicians to successfully increase equipment uptime by 50%
and increase the effective run-rate by 150%.
Related Technology Understanding
There is much technology and manufacturing methodology that is common to the

production of such varied products as semiconductors, flat panel displays, fine chemicals,
photovoltaics and architectural glass coating technologies. It is valuable to draw upon the
knowledge and experience that “cross pollinates” among those industries. This broad
awareness helps identify the "best of the best” technologies and strategies from these
different industries related to manufacturing practices and methods, overall factory
productivity optimization, instrumentation and controls, and familiarity with equipment
manufacturers.
Expense, Capital, and Cost Management
The ability to construct a logical, realistic operating budget, with a clear understanding of
the risk management which must be utilized to successfully guide the applications of
resources, is critical not only during the implementation portion of a manufacturing start-up
business but also during operating plan development. Without real knowledge of the
potential resource hurdles a production start-up will encounter, a realistic, executable
business strategy is extremely difficult to construct and implement.
Page 125 of 159

Materials Procurement/Vendor Sourcing/Partnering Strategies
In some cases, vendor sourcing may take the form of a partnership between a manufacturer
and its suppliers. This is particularly important in developmental processes to which the
equipment manufacturer brings a depth of process experience. Vendors, like the clients they
serve, want to be associated with success. The qualification procedure works in both
directions, and equipment manufacturers and material suppliers generally want to be an
interactive part of the team. Also, much of the equipment required for high-technology
manufacturing is long lead and requires significant time for start-up and debugging. The
procurement process must be integrated into the overall plan early in the process.
Organizational Alignment-Design/Institutional Skill Identification
The identification and management of the specific technical/operational talent required is

critical for factory success. Part of this process includes the ability to map the current
institutional skill-set with the strategic organizational goals and objectives identifying core
competency gaps. This process requires an understanding of in-depth organizational
dynamics as well as practical, high-level operational management experience.
Change Management
The phase transitions experienced in a manufacturing ramp are dramatic and varied.
Consequently, the methodology by which one manages, leads, and directs an organization
through these phases becomes imperative to success. The economics of capital costs and
time required to re-tool an organization throughout this maturation process would be
prohibitive. For that reason, it is important to apply an optimal deployment of resources at
the outset. Achieving this requires transition of process control from research scientists to
an emerging plant engineering organization; and the transfer of equipment sustaining and
maintenance responsibilities from the engineering organization to a focused equipment
maintenance group.
Life Cycle Schedule
The attached Technology Product Industrial Life Cycle (Figure 6) provides a hypothetical
time-line for the three discrete phases in the life cycle of a technology-driven product.
While the durations shown are of course dependent upon the complexity of the technology
involved, the actual linkages among the individual phases provides a historically accurate
model. In some cases, there have been specific products which have been accelerated
quickly through one or more of the phases. Even though it may appear that the phase has
been “skipped,” the transition in staff, materials, procedures, etc. is still necessary to
establish the groundwork for future success. These transition phases may be apparently
short in duration, but they are a necessary “stepping-stone” for future generations of
product(s) that will ensure successful continuity.
Page 126 of 159

Annual Investment
20+ Years 1-2 Years 20+ Years

R&D Phase Pilot Phase Production Phase
Figure 6 - Technology Product Industrial Life Cycle
The Authors - Mr. Causey is a member of the Advanced Technology Group for IDC, a
leading provider of design and construction services for industrial clients worldwide. His
areas of expertise include microelectronics manufacturing, flat panel display technology,
fiber optic manufacturing, specialty fibers and composites, photovoltaic processing, vacuum
coating operations, and continuous and batch high temperature processing. Mr. Causey has
been a central figure in the development of conceptual processes and equipment engineering
strategies for new high-technology manufacturing enterprises. His involvement in such
efforts encompasses development of specifications, data sheets, functional requirements for
a range of process and process support equipment, cleanroom layouts, process utility
matrices, and overall process flow concepts.
Mr. Westmoreland is an expert in advanced technology manufacturing processes including

microelectronics, charge coupled devices and photovoltaics. He served as a technologist for
IDC for three years and is currently an independent consultant in advanced technology
production strategies. Mr. Westmoreland specializes in the development of technology and
management approaches that enable the cost-effective transition of innovative technologies
into high-volume production modes.
Page 127 of 159

Spectrolab, Inc.
P.O. Box 9209, Sylmar, CA 91392-9209 USA
12500 Gladstone Avenue, Sylmar, CA 91342-5373 USA
Telephone: 818-365-4611; Fax: 818-361-5102
In reply refer to
04L00079b-99131-R2
May 19, 2004
Mr. William Mook

4449 Easton Way
Columbus, OH 43219
Subject: Spectrolab Acknowledgement of Funds and Conditional Acceptance

of Your Order for Spectrolab Concentrator Systems
Reference: (a) Initial Spectrolab Quotation Letter No. ACD-4-131-L dated 02/13/04
(b) Revised Spectrolab Quotation Letter No. ACD-4-131-L-R1 dated 04/19/04
(c) Spectrolab e-mail (R. Sherif) dated 05/14/04
(d) Mayk Kalachian e-mail dated 05/17/04
Dear Mr. Mook:
Spectrolab acknowledges receipt of your wire transfer of $30,000.00 as a partial

payment for Spectrolab Concentrator Systems, in support of the effort to develop high
concentration photovoltaic (HCPV) products using Spectrolab’s multi-junction cells and
Mök Industries’ Terrestrial-Tuned Filters. We conditionally accept the funds and your
order based upon your acceptance of our enclosed updated Terms and Conditions of
Sale as they relate to Intellectual Property and Proprietary Information, as well as a
revised delivery date; all else remains as stated in our previous quotation.
With respect to the revised Terms and Conditions, we have replaced our previous
quotation’s Terms and Conditions of Sale (08/01 with IP mod 04/04) with the attached version
OA Terms and Conditions of Sale (08/01 with IP & Proprietary Info mods 05/04). In this latest
version, we have modified Paragraph 14 which pertains to Spectrolab Proprietary Information,
replaced previous Paragraph 19 with new Paragraph 19 which pertains to Customer Proprietary
Information, and added new Paragraph 20 which addresses Intellectual Property.
With respect to the delivery date, our new estimated delivery date is on or before 08/31/04,
rather than eight (8) weeks, as previously stipulated.
We look forward to your acceptance of these updates to our quotation and working with you on
this project. For ease of acknowledgement and to expedite processing your order, it is
suggested that you sign and date the signature block below and fax this letter back to the
attention of Linda M. Schwartz (facsimile 818-361-5102) as soon as possible.
Page 128 of 159

Page 2 – Letter 04L00079b-99132-R2 to Mok Industries, LLC/W. Mook dated 05/19/04
If you have any programmatic and technical questions, please contact Dr. Raed Sherif at 818-
838-7479 or via E-mail at rsherif@spectrolab.com. For contractual matters, please contact the
undersigned at 818-898-2818 or via E-mail at lschwartz@spectrolab.com or via FAX 818-361-
5102 with reference to Quotation ACD-4-131-L-R2.
Sincerely, Acceptance by:

SPECTROLAB, INC.
____________________ ___________
Linda Schwartz Signature Date
Contract Manager
____________________
(printed name)
Enclosure:
1. Spectrolab OA Terms and Conditions of Sale (08/01 with IP & Proprietary Info mods 05/04).
cc: R. Sherif, M. Kalachian, N. Karam T. Grochow and File: ACD-4-131-L
Page 129 of 159

Page 130 of 159
Page 131 of 159
Page 132 of 159
Page 133 of 159
Page 134 of 159
Sugico Mök Page 134

Sugico Graha Management Teaam
2006

Sugico Major Equipment
CONFIDENTIAL Sugico Mök

Page 135 of 159
PT. SUGICO GRAHA
Group of Mine in South Sumatera Province
NO
1 Head Office Address Jalan Imam Bonjol No. 68-70 Menteng Jakarta 10310,
Indonesia
2 Mine Address PT. Sriwijaya Bintangtiga Energy
District Muara Lakitan
PT. Brayan Bintangtiga Energy
District Rawa Ilir
PT. Brayan Bintangtiga Energy
District Muara Lakitan
PT. Sugico Pendragon Energy
District Rawas Ilir
PT. Lion Power Energy
District Gunung Megang
PT. Tansri Madjid Energy
District Muara Enim
PT. Sugico Graha
District Rambang Dangku
3 Estimate Reserves 5,36 Million ton ( = about 5 billion ton) which consist of :
(TOTAL)
PT. Sriwijaya Bintangtiga Energy = 122 Million ton
PT. Brayan Bintangtiga Energy = 113 Million ton
PT. Brayan Bintangtiga Energy = 119 Million ton
PT. Sugico Pendragon Energy = 4,43 Million ton
PT. Lion Power Energy = 210 Million ton
PT. Tansri Madjid Energy = 366 Million ton
PT. Sugico Graha = not yet estimate
4 Amount of reserves Sugico is on exploration step right now so if we can start up
available for conversion to with MoU they will provide the amount quantity needed.
liquid fuels using our During last meeting, they can provide 60,000 MT / month. But
process if Sugico also share (own) the new liquefaction company they
will supply quantity moreover we need (they confirmed for
first agreement 100,000 MT / month is available).
5 Area already mined, Area Sugico’s concession is on exploration step and will be
to be mined and under exploited and production once received contract from buyer.
development Mean, only small exploitation right now. They are currently
negotiating with PLN (government electrical company) and
private electrical companies. Now, they are very interesting
with our liquefaction technology and starting to discuss with
us.
6 Total Concession 90,192 Ha. (=222,868.4 acre).
We can built outside or inside their concession if you require
about 350 Ha (=864.87 acre) for sun collector.
7 Power needs, water Mines are using generator for their need and using deep well
needs, power and water or river for water need. We can use river for the production.
availability There are many big river in Sumatera Island.
8 Rate of production USD 13 / MT excluding tax
9 Estimation of coal price USD 50 / MT (my personal estimation base on local price but
I think can be reduce /discount on the agreement in huge
quantity).
10 Cost of labor The lowest is IDR 1 million / month excl. tax. Technician is
vary from 3 to 4 million / moth excl. tax. Salaray paid 14 times
Page 136 of 159

a year since the balance 2 month are for muslim/christmas
holiday allowance.
Sugico can provide the labor with needed qualification.
11 Language Indonesian for labor and English for enggineer/technician.
12 Available property for solar No detail information but Sugico can arrange on the
collector (total labor) agreement base.
13 Issue No crucial issue. Local government is very cooperative and
accommodate for new investment/investor.
14 Level of training required Usually, experience labor will primary choosen but Sugico
usually tranied their labor like technical, OHSAS etc.
15 Method of access Road, air and water (river).
Flight from abroad will be arrived in Jakarta airport and from
Jakarta airport to Palembang airport (about 1.5 hour).
Palembang to Muara Enim is 5 hours by road.
16 Transportation to Terminal Need for export or inter island activities.
The concession located about 5 to 100 km from Musi River.
Usually use railway or truck to Musi River (1 hour only) and
from Musi River to Lampung port will take 9 hours (300 to
450 km).
But for our condition which plan near the mine, there will only
need truck or rail to our stockpile.
17 Cost of Transportation Depend of the distance (about IDR 100,000 / MT). The
capacity of truck is 10 ton – 20 ton.
Page 137 of 159

Page 138 of 159
Page 139 of 159
Page 140 of 159
Page 141 of 159
Page 142 of 159
Page 143 of 159
Page 144 of 159
Page 145 of 159
Page 146 of 159
Page 147 of 159
Indonesia Country Analysis Brief Page 1 of 10
Home > Country Analysis Briefs > Indonesia Country Analysis Brief PDF version | PDB version
July 2004
Background | Oil | Natural Gas | Coal | Electricity Generation | Environment | Profile | Links
Indonesia
Indonesia is important to world energy markets because of its OPEC membership and substantial,
but declining, oil production. Indonesia also is the world's largest liquefied natural gas (LNG)
exporter.
The information contained in this report is the best available as of July 2004 and can change.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
Indonesia's economic growth
surpassed expectations in 2003,
largely fueled by consumer
spending. Indonesia's real gross
domestic product (GDP) grew at a
rate of 4.1% in 2003, up from 3.7%
in 2002. Real GDP growth is
forecast to be 4.7% for 2004,
although imbalances in the
macroeconomic picture, such as
increasing budget deficits caused by
oil price subsidies on the local market, could lead to future problems.
Last year was the final year of the IMF assistance program designed to pull Indonesia's economy
out of the emergency situation that had developed during the 1997/98 Asian financial crisis. In
March 2003, the IMF disbursed the scheduled $469 million tranche of its bailout package after
reporting that Indonesia had made good progress instituting reforms. The IMF review cited
Indonesia's continued economic growth, decreasing inflation rates, and strengthened banking sector
as examples of progress made, while mentioning that more reforms were still necessary. Conditions
of the $43 billion bailout agreement included improving the transparency of government financing
and especially the operation of government-owned enterprises such as the state-run PT Pertamina
oil monopoly. The government of Megawati Sukarnoputri expressed a commitment to reforms
when it took office in 2001, but progress has been limited since then, with the April 2004 ouster of
reform-minded Pertamina head Baihaki Hakim renewing concerns – especially among urgently
needed foreign investors – that Indonesia's efforts to improve transparency have faltered.
President Megawati has been in power since July 2001, assuming the presidency after her
predecessor, President Abdurrahman Wahid, was removed from office by the national legislature.
The regional challenges facing the Indonesian government remain the same: a separatist movement
in Aceh, an oil and gas rich province in north Sumatra which abuts the strategically important Strait
of Malacca; and a separatist movement in Irian Jaya, a gas-rich province at the eastern end of the
country. The government is also managing threats posed by an Al Qa'ida-linked terrorist group,
called Jemaah Islamiyah. Jemaah Islamiyah was responsible for the 2001 nightclub bombing in
Page 148 of 159
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indonesia.html 7/13/2004
Bali, a 2003 hotel bombing in Jakarta, and is now targeting Western business and political figures in
Indonesia, according to recent reports. Jemaah Islamiyah is seeking to undermine foreign economic
interests in the country, according to Western security officials.
Tension exists between the central government in Jakarta and leadership at the regional level. The
distribution of oil and gas revenues between the central government in Jakarta and regional
governments in areas which produce oil and gas has been regularly disputed. Since Indonesia's
transition to democracy in 1999, the country's regional governments have been pressing for a
greater share of oil and gas revenues. In particular, the separatist movement in Aceh continues to
cause security problems for oil and gas companies in that region, despite the government's energetic
offensive against the separatists this year.
OIL
Indonesia currently holds proven oil reserves of 4.7 billion barrels, down 13% since 1994. Much of
Indonesia's proven oil reserve base is located onshore. Central Sumatra is the country's largest oil
producing province and the location of the large Duri and Minas oil fields. Other significant oil field
development and production is located in accessible areas such as offshore northwestern Java, East
Kalimantan, and the Natuna Sea. Indonesian crude oil varies widely in quality, with most streams
having gravities in the 22o to 37 o API range. Indonesia's two main export crudes are Sumatra Light,
or Minas, with a 35 o API gravity, and the heavier, 22o API Duri crude. A study released in August
2002 by Indonesia's Directorate General of Oil and Gas shows that oil reserves in the Cepu block
alone, located in Central/East Java, are close to 600 million barrels, about half of which is
considered recoverable.
In 2003, Indonesian crude oil production averaged

1.02 million barrels per day (bbl/d), down from
the 2002 average of 1.10 million bbl/d and
continuing the decline of the past several years.
The decline is due mainly to the natural fall off of
aging oil fields, a lack of new investment in
exploration and regulatory hurdles unlikely to be
addressed until after the 2004 elections. Besides
crude oil, Indonesia also produces approximately
133,800 bbl/d of natural gas liquids and lease
condensate, which are not part of its OPEC quota.
Indonesia is the only Southeast Asian member of
OPEC, and its current OPEC crude oil production
quota is 1.22 million bbl/d.
The majority of Indonesia's producing oil fields are located in the central and western sections of
the country. Therefore, the focus of new exploration has been on frontier regions, particularly in
eastern Indonesia. Sizable, but as of yet unproven, reserves may lie in the numerous, geologically
complex, pre-tertiary basins located in eastern Indonesia. These regions are much more remote and
the terrain more difficult to explore than areas of western and central Indonesia.
China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) became the largest offshore oil producer in
Indonesia in January 2002, after purchasing nearly all of Repsol-YPF's assets in the country for
$585 million. Pertamina is a CNOOC partner in each Production Sharing Contract (PSC). However,
in 2003 CNOOC's production dropped 20,500 bbl/d, or 17.5%, from its 2002 level.
Page 149 of 159
Companies producing from existing fields are attempting to increase recovery rates and to prolong
the life of the fields. Caltex, which has the largest operation of any multinational oil company in
Indonesia, undertook a steam injection project at the Duri field on Sumatra, but nonetheless
experienced a drop of about 71,000 bbl/d in production in 2003 over 2002. Half of the drop is
attributed to natural depletion.
The country's declining oil production could be turned around once the new Cepu field in Java
comes online. The field, estimated to hold reserves of at least 600 million barrels of oil, is being
developed by ExxonMobil in partnership with Pertamina. However, the two oil giants have been
unable to reach an agreement over profit sharing, with Pertamina demanding half the field's output
and ExxonMobil demanding that Pertamina cover half the field's production costs. Additionally,
ExxonMobil wants Jakarta to extend its technical assistance contract, due to expire in 2010, for 20
years. ExxonMobil officials have indicated that the field could be operational in 2006 and could
produce up to 180,000 bbl/d, according to recent reports.
Smaller fields could help boost production numbers if they become fully operational in 2004 and
2005. Unocal's West Seno field, under development offshore from East Kalimatan, is producing
40,000 bbl/d and is expected to produce up to 60,000 bbl/d when the second phase of development
is completed in early 2005. ExxonMobil's Banyu Urip field, in Java, is expected to come onstream
in 2006, according to the company, and reach its peak production capacity of 100,000 bbl/d soon
after. Even with these new fields, though, Indonesia's oil production is not likely to rise markedly,
due to the continuing decline of mature fields.
Oil Sector Reforms

The liberalization of Indonesia's downstream oil and gas sector has been under discussion for
several years. In October 2001, the Indonesian legislature passed the much-vaunted Oil and Gas
Law 22/2001 which limited Pertamina's monopoly on upstream oil development (which requires it
to be included in all PSCs) by the end of 2003. Also, Pertamina's regulatory and administrative
functions were transfered to other entities, while its regulatory role was spun off to a new body, BP
Migas. Reports from foreign firms are that BP Migas is proving to be even less efficient than the
original Pertamina entity. Almost three years after the law was passed, several regulations have still
not been finalized and are unlikely to be before a new government is elected in July.
Pertamina maintained its retail and distribution monopoly for petroleum products, until July 2004
when the first licenses for a foreign firm to retail petroleum products are due to be awarded to BP
and Petronas of Malaysia. The government is still promising to open the sector to full competition
by 2005, although progress has been very slow to date. Political interests with ties to Pertamina are
likely reluctant to see the state-run firm lose its assured revenue streams. Pertamina itself was
changed to a limited liability company by presidential decree in 2003, and is slated to be fully
privatized by 2006.
Indonesia's Ministry of Mines and Energy has taken over the function, formerly carried out by
Pertamina, of awarding and supervising PSCs with foreign oil companies. Foreign firms also are to
be freed from some of the regulatory approval requirements which they argue hinder their
efficiency. One concern foreign oil companies have with the new law is the granting of a limited
authority to regional governments to tax oil companies' profits.
Refining
Indonesia has seven refineries, with a combined capacity of 992,745 bbl/d. The largest refineries are
the 348,000-bbl/d Cilacap in Central Java, the 240,920-bbl/d Balikpapan in Kalimantan, and the
125,000-bbl/d Balongan, in Java.
Page 150 of 159
PT Kilang Minyak Intan Nusantara, a joint venture of Al-Banader International Group of Saudi
Arabia (40%), China National Electrical Equipment Corporation (40%) and PT Intanjaya
Agromegah Abadi (20%), are investing a total of $6 billion to build two Indonesian oil refineries --
one in Pare-Pare, South Sulawesi and the other in Batam Island, Riau. Both projects are expected to
be operational in 2005, with crude refining capacities of 300,000 bbl/d. The refineries will be
export-oriented, taking Saudi crude and refining it for sale primarily to the Chinese market.
In January 2004, the state-owned National Iranian Oil Co. and Pertamina announced that they will
consider cooperating in a $1 billion venture to build and operate an oil refinery in East Java. The
facility is expected to process up to150,000 bbl/d of crude oil mainly from the Cepu block,
according to local press reports. As of June 2004, however, the feasibility study was still not
finalized.
Pertamina has decided to resume construction of the partly built petrochemical facility in Tuban,
East Java. The project has stalled since 1998. By the terms of the agreement, Pertamina will
guarantee $400 million in loans from foreign banks and supply inputs to the plant. Domestic
investors in the project include several men with close ties to former Indonesian leader Suharto.
Pertamina's partnership with Saudi Arabia's Hi-Tech International Group collapsed in 2002 when
the Saudi firm failed to raise enough money to finance its portion of the plant. Another attempt to
restart the project failed when the World Bank and IMF informed the Indonesian government in
2003 that Pertamina's attempt to finance the project alone, using collateralized revenue from the
Cilcap refinery, was forbidden under the terms of their respective lending programs. When
complete, the plant is expected to produce 1 million tons of aeromatic, 1 million tons light naptha,
and 1.6 million tons of kerosene and diesel annually.
NATURAL GAS
Indonesia has proven natural gas reserves of 92.5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). Most of the country's
natural gas reserves are located near the Arun field in Aceh, around the Badak field in East
Kalimantan, in smaller fields offshore Java, the Kangean Block offshore East Java, a number of
blocks in Irian Jaya, and the Natuna D-Alpha field, the largest in Southeast Asia. Despite its
significant natural gas reserves and its position as the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural
gas (LNG), Indonesia still relies on oil to supply about half of its own energy needs. About 70% of
Indonesia's LNG exports go to Japan, 20% to South Korea, and the remainder to Taiwan. As
Indonesia's oil production has leveled off in recent years, the country has tried to shift towards using
its natural gas resources for power generation. However, the domestic natural gas distribution
infrastructure is inadequate.The main domestic customers for natural gas are fertilizer plants and
petrochemical plants, followed by power generators.
Indonesia is facing a declining share of global LNG

markets, despite its past status as the world's leading
LNG and dry gas exporter. The decline can be
attributed to questions over the reliability of Indonesian
supply and lower investment in the Indonesian energy
sector. Uncertainties over political support for the
sanctity of contracts, regulatory transparency, and
unfavorable PSC terms have undermined investment
support. As a result, Indonesian LNG exports have
been partially replaced by exports from Oman, Qatar,
Russia, and Australia on world markets. The sector has
also faced restructuring under the terms of Indonesia's
World Bank and IMF lending agreements, with BP Migas taking over the supervisory and
Page 151 of 159
management roles formerly filled by Pertamina.
Despite Pertamina's reduced authority, the company's key role in the gas sector was reinforced in
early June when BP Migas announced that PT Pertamina has been appointed as the sole sales agent
for LNG sales to South Korea and Taiwan. Pertamina will negotiate sales for Total, Unocal, Vico
and BP Indonesia. Current contracts with South Korea and Taiwan are due to expire in 2007 and
2009, respectively.
One project that holds tremendous promise for Indonesia's future in worldwide LNG markets is
BP's Tangguh project in Papua province (also known as Irian Jaya), based on over 14 Tcf of natural
gas reserves found onshore and offshore the Wiriagar and Berau blocks. The project will involve
two trains with a combined capacity of 7 million tons per annum (tpa), expandable to 14 million tpa.
BP's current plans call for the project to be completed by 2007. Initial planning was stalled when BP
lost the bids to supply Guandong Province and Taiwan in early 2003. However, in late 2003 and
early 2004, BP secured supply agreements with Fujian, China for 2.6 million tpa, with leading
Korean steel producer POSCO for 1.5 million tpa, and with Sempra Energy for 3.7 million tpa over
15 years to begin in 2007. These supply agreements made possible the $2.2 billion investment to
develop the fields. Talks are underway for BP's Tangguh to supply 5 million tpa to Jiangsu, China
beginning in 2007.
The 400-mile Natuna pipeline is one of the longest undersea gas pipelines in the world, bringing gas
from blocks operated by Premier Oil, ConocoPhillips, and Star Energy to customers in Singapore.
Singapore is a major consumer of Indonesian natural gas, which it uses for its growing electricity
generation needs. New pipeline proposals that would link East Natuna with the Phillipines are under
consideration, but the high financing costs and security concerns in regions to be traversed by the
lines make the projects unlikely.
In another possible use for Indonesia's gas resources, Shell is examining the possibility of building a
gas-to-liquids (GTL) plant in Indonesia. The plant, if the project goes forward, would produce
70,000 bbl/d of diesel and other middle distillates using the Fischer-Tropsch GTL process.
COAL
Indonesia has 5.9 billion short tons of recoverable coal reserves, of which 58.6% is lignite, 26.6% is
sub-bituminous, 14.4% is bituminous, and 0.4% anthracite. Sumatra contains roughly two-thirds of
Indonesia's total coal reserves, with the balance located in Kalimantan, West Java, and Sulawesi.
According to U.S. Embassy reports, Indonesia produced 114 million metric tons of coal in 2003, up
11% from 2002. The entire increased production was exported, primarily to Japan and Taiwan, but
also South Korea, the Philippines and Hong Kong.
Indonesia plans to double coal production over the next five years, mostly for export to other
countries in East Asia and India. The new capacity will come primarily from private mines. The
Clough Group of Australia was awarded a $215 million contract for improvements at the
Indonesian firm GBP's Kutai mine in East Kalimatan. Another foreign firm with major interests in
Indonesian coal mining is Australia's Broken Hill Proprietary (BHP).
July, 2003 saw the divestment of Australian mining company Rio Tinto and BP from their joint
venture in Kaltim Pima Coal (KPC).The shares were sold to Indonesian firm, PT Bumi Resources
for $500 million. According to several reports, the divestment was prolonged and acrimonious as
the government objected to Rio Tinto's divestment plan, and threatened to mobilize public action to
block the mine's operations. Ultimately, Rio Tinto and partner BP sold their combined 100% stake
Page 152 of 159
for about half of its assessed value.
ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Indonesia has installed electrical generating capacity estimated at 21.4 gigawatts, with 87.0%
coming from thermal (oil, gas, and coal) sources, 10.5% from hydropower, and 2.5% from
geothermal. Prior to the Asian financial crisis, Indonesia had plans for a rapid expansion of power
generation, based mainly on opening up Indonesia's power market to Independent Power Producers
(IPPs). The crisis led to severe financial strains on state-utility Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN),
which made it difficult to pay for all of the power for which it had signed contracts with IPPs. PLN
has over $5 billion in debt, which has grown markedly in terms of local currency due to the decline
in the value of the rupiah. The Indonesian government has been unwilling to take over the
commercial debts of PLN.
Indonesia is facing an electricity supply crisis, with some observers predicting that PLN may be
unable to take on any new customers by 2005. Intermittent blackouts are already an issue across
Java. Demand for electrical power is expected to grow by approximately 10% per year for the next
ten years. The majority of Indonesia's electricity generation is currently fueled by oil, but efforts are
underway to shift generation to lower-cost coal and gas-powered facilities. Geothermal energy and
hydropower are also being investigated.
In January 2003, the World Bank announced that it was planning to build three micro-hydropower
plants in the Indonesian province of Papua (Irian Jaya). A feasibility study on all of the area's water
sources has already been conducted by the Bank, and the results are being studied. By building
these facilities, the World Bank hopes to improve services to the local population as well as to
encourage development activities in the province.
In October 2003, the World Bank approved a $141 million loan to Indonesia for the purpose of
improving the power sector on Java-Bali, which uses approximately 80% of Indonesia's power
generation capacity. The project includes support for a corporate and financial restructuring plan for
PLN and technical assistance for a restructuring program for state gas company, Perusahaan Gas
Negara (PGN), that will provide for increased natural gas supplies for electricity generation. The
restructuring plan requires that PLN must restructure two of its subsidiaries, PT Indonesia Power
and PT Pembangkit Jawa Bali (PJB). The two together supply about 80% of the power supply for
Java and Bali, according to reports.
Also in 2003, the government renegotiated 26 power plant projects with the IPPs. Of those, five
projects will be assumed by the government, in cooperation with PLN and Pertamina. The
government foresees inviting private investors to participate in some electricity generation
development projects, according to the U.S. Embassy.
Competition for power generation will be open on the islands of Batam, Java, and Bali by 2007. In
2008, retail competition in the electricity market will begin under the terms of the nation's new
electricity law, approved in September 2002. The law requires an end to PLN's monopoly on
electricity distribution within five years, after which time private companies (both foreign and
domestic) will be permitted to sell electricity directly to consumers. However, all companies will
need to use PLN's existing transmission network.
ENVIRONMENT
Indonesia's major environmental challenges involve supporting its large population. Air and water
pollution have reached critical levels, especially on the most populated island of Java. Indonesia's
Page 153 of 159
carbon emissions remain low, but there is concern that an increase in the use of indigenous coal will
increase Indonesia's carbon emissions in the coming years. Indonesia is well endowed with
renewable energy potential, especially geothermal energy. Indonesia's renewable resouces are not
yet fully exploited.
In March 2003, the Asian Development Bank approved a $600,000 grant to help combat Jakarta's
air pollution problem. The technical assistance grant will be used primarily to promote a clean
vehicle fuel program, known as the "Blue Skies" project. Indonesia is also phasing out the use of
leaded gasoline, with a complete ban set to come into force in 2005.
Sources for this report include: AFX Asia; Asia Times; APS Review Oil Market Trends; CIA World
Factbook 2003; Dow Jones News Wire service; Economist Intelligence Unit ViewsWire; Energy
Intelligence Group; Financial Times; Global Insight World Overview; The Jakarta Post; Mining
Magazine; Oil & Gas Journal; Petroleum Economist; Petroleum Intelligence Weekly; Platt's
International Coal Report; Platt's Oilgram News; Reuters News Wire; U.S. Energy Information
Administration; U.S. Department of State; Wall Street Journal; World Bank Group; World Gas
Intelligence; World Markets Analysis.
COUNTRY OVERVIEW
President: Megawati Sukarnoputri (since July 2001)
Independence: Proclaimed independence on August 17, 1945. On December 27, 1949, Indonesia
became independent from the Netherlands.
Population (2004E): 238.5 million
Location/Size: Southeastern Asia/735,310 sq. mi., slightly less than three times the size of Texas
Major Cities: Jakarta (capital), Surabaya, Bandung, Medan, Semarang, Palembang, Ujung Pandang
Languages: Bahasa Indonesia (official), English, Dutch, local dialects including Javanese
Ethnic Groups: Javanese (45%), Sundanese (14%), Madurese (7.5%), coastal Malays (7.5%), other
(26%)
Religions: Muslim (88%), Protestant (5%), Roman Catholic (3%), Hindu (2%), Buddhist 1%), other
(1%)
ECONOMIC OVERVIEW
Minister for Economic Affairs: Kuntjoro-Jakti Dorodjatun
Currency: Rupiah
Exchange Rate (06/30/04): US$1 = 9,399 rupiah
Gross Domestic Product (2003E): $208.3 billion (2004F): $225.0 billion
Real GDP Growth Rate (2003E): 4.1% (2004F): 4.7%
Inflation Rate (Consumer Price Index) (2003E): 6.8% (2004F): 5.8%
Merchandise Exports (2003E): $63.2 billion
Merchandise Imports (2003E): $38.0 billion
Merchandise Trade Balance (2003E): $25.2 billion
Major Export Products: Manufactured goods, petroleum, natural gas and related products,
foodstuffs, raw materials
Major Import Products: Capital equipment, raw and intermediate materials, consumer goods,
petroleum products
Major Trading Partners: Japan, United States, Singapore, Hong Kong, Britain, Australia
ENERGY OVERVIEW
Energy Minister: Purnomo Yusgiantoro
Proven Oil Reserves (1/1/04E): 4.7 billion barrels
Oil Production (2003E): 1.26 million barrels per day (bbl/d), of which 1.02 million bbl/d was
Page 154 of 159
crude oil
OPEC Production Quota (since 4/01/04): 1.218 million bbl/d (as of 7/01/04): 1.32 million bbl/d
Oil Consumption (2003E): 1.13 million bbl/d
Net Oil Exports (2003E): 130,000 bbl/d (2004F): 16,000 bbl/d
Major Oil Customers: Japan, United States, South Korea, China, Australia, Taiwan, Singapore,
Thailand
Crude Oil Refining Capacity (1/1/04E): 992,745 bbl/d
Natural Gas Reserves (1/1/04E): 90.3 trillion cubic feet (Tcf)
Natural Gas Production (2002E): 2.48 Tcf
Natural Gas Consumption (2002E): 1.20 Tcf
Net Gas Exports (2002E): 1.28 Tcf
Major LNG Customers (2003): Japan, South Korea, Taiwan
Coal Reserves (2002E): 5.92 billion short tons of recoverable reserves of which 85% is lignite and
15% is anthracite
Coal Production (2002E): 144 million short tons (Mmst)
Coal Consumption (2002E): 31.1 Mmst
Net Coal Exports (2002E): 112.8 Mmst
Major Coal Customers (2002): Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines
Electric Generation Capacity (2002E): 25.6 gigawatts
Electricity Production (2002E): 99.3 billion kilowatt hours
Electricity Consumption (2002E): 92.4 billion kilowatt hours
ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
Total Energy Consumption (2002E): 4.45 quadrillion Btu* (1.0% of world total energy
consumption)
Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions (2002E): 299.8 million metric tons (1.2% of world
total carbon dioxide emissions)
Per Capita Energy Consumption (2002E): 20.5 million Btu (vs U.S. value of 339.1 million Btu)
Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions (2002E): 0.38 metric tons (vs U.S. value of 5.45 metric
tons)
Energy Intensity (2002E): 5,870 Btu/ $ nominal-PPP (vs. U.S. value of 9,344 Btu/$ nominal-PPP)
Carbon Dioxide Intensity (2002E): 0.40 metric tons/ $ nominal-PPP (vs. U.S. value of 0.17 metric
tons/thousand $ nominal)
Fuel Share of Energy Consumption (2002E): Oil (48.5%), Natural Gas (29.2%), Coal (16.1%)
Fuel Share of Carbon Dioxide Emissions (2002E): Oil (52.8%), Natural Gas (25.8%), Coal
(22.0%)
Status in Climate Change Negotiations: Non-Annex I country under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (ratified August 23rd, 1994). Signatory to the Kyoto
Protocol (signed July 13th, 1998 - not yet ratified).
Major Environmental Issues: Deforestation; water pollution from industrial wastes, sewage; air
pollution in urban areas.
Major International Environmental Agreements: A party to Conventions on Biodiversity,
Climate Change, Endangered Species, Hazardous Wastes, Law of the Sea, Nuclear Test Ban, Ozone
Layer Protection, Ship Pollution, Tropical Timber 83, Tropical Timber 94 and Wetlands. Has
signed, but not ratified, Desertification and Marine Life Conservation.
* The total energy consumption statistic includes petroleum, dry natural gas, coal, net hydro,
nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind, wood and waste electric power. The renewable energy
consumption statistic is based on International Energy Agency (IEA) data and includes hydropower,
solar, wind, tide, geothermal, solid biomass and animal products, biomass gas and liquids, industrial
and municipal wastes. Sectoral shares of energy consumption and carbon emissions are also based
Page 155 of 159
on IEA data.
**GDP based on CIA World Factbook estimates based on purchasing power parity (PPP)
exchange rates.
OIL AND GAS INDUSTRIES

Organizations: Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak dan Gas Bumi Negara (Pertamina) - oil
exploration, production, transportation, and marketing; Perum Gas Negara (PGN) -gas distributor
and transmission company
Major Producing Oil Fields: Duri, Minas, Belida, Ardjuna, Arun, KG/KRA, Widuri, Nilam,
Attaka
Oil Refineries (1/1/04): Cilacap, Central Java (348,000 bbl/d); Pertamina-Balikpapan, Kalimantan
(240,920 bbl/d); Musi, South Sumatra (109,155 bbl/d); EXOR-1, Balongan, Java (125,000 bbl/d);
Dumai, Central Sumatra (114,000 bbl/d); Sungai Pakning, Central Sumatra (47,500 bbl/d);
Pangakalan Brandan, North Sumatra (4,750 bbl/d); Cepu, Central Java (3,420 bbl/d)
Product Pipelines: Trans-Java (serving the Surabaya market)
Oil Tanker Terminals: Java: Cilegon, Cilacap, Surabaya, Ardjuna B (offshore) Sumatra:
Pangkalan Brandan, Belawan, Dumai, Musi, Perlak, Palembang, Tanjung Uban (offshore)
Kalimantan: Balikpapan Sulawesi: Ujung Pandang Irian Jaya: Sorong, Jaya Seram: Bula Natuna
Sea: Ikan Pari
Major Gas Fields: Sumatra: Arun, Alur Siwah, Kuala Langsa, Musi, South Lho Sukon, Wampu
East Kalimantan: Attaka, Badak, Bekapai, Handil, Mutiara, Nilam, Semberah, Tunu Natuna Sea:
Natuna Java: Pagerungan, Terang/Sirasun Irian Jaya: Tangguh
Major Gas Pipelines: Sumatra: Pangkalan Brandan-Dumai
LNG Plants: Bontang, Arun
LINKS
For more information from EIA on Indonesia, please see:

EIA - Country Information on Indonesia
Links to other U.S. government sites:

CIA World Factbook - Indonesia
U.S. Department of Energy - Office of Fossil Energy - Indonesia
U.S. State Department Consular Information Sheet
Library of Congress Country Study on Indonesia
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta
U.S. Commercial Service in Indonesia
Country Commercial Guides and Market Research on Indonesia
The following links are provided solely as a service to our customers, and therefore should not be
construed as advocating or reflecting any position of the Energy Information Administration (EIA)
or the United States Government. In addition, EIA does not guarantee the content or accuracy of
any information presented in linked sites.
Indonesian Embassy in the United States

Indonesian Consulate General of the United States in Houston
Pertamina
Indonesian Links PT
Perusahaan Gas Negara (PGN)
Page 156 of 159
If you liked this Country Analysis Brief or any of our many other Country Analysis Briefs, you can
be automatically notified via e-mail of updates. You can also join any of our several mailing lists by
selecting the listserv to which you would like to be subscribed. The main URL for listserv signup is
http://www.eia.doe.gov/listserv_signup.html. Please follow the directions given. You will then be
notified within an hour of any updates to Country Analysis Briefs in your area of interest.
Return to Country Analysis Briefs home page
File last modified: July 12, 2004
Contact:
Lowell Feld
lfeld@eia.doe.gov
Phone: (202)586-9502
Fax: (202)586-9753
EIA Home
Contact Us
URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indonesia.html
Page 157 of 159
Preliminary Estimates of Value
Hectares required for liquid fuels production

Solar Solar Solar Solar Efficiency Electrical Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen
Hours/da Hours/yr Watts/m2 kWh/m2/yr Solar/Elec. kWh/m2/yr HV MJ/kg Prod. Eff. kWh/kg kg/m2/yr
4.5 1643.6 850 1397.1 28.00% 391.2 142 70.00% 56.349 6.942
H2/Coal Coal Coal MT/mos
Ratio kg/m2/mos 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 100,000
5.00% 11.570 518.57 561.79 605.00 648.22 691.43 734.65 777.86 821.08 864.29
6.25% 9.256 648.22 702.24 756.25 810.27 864.29 918.31 972.33 1,026.34 1,080.36
7.50% 7.713 777.86 842.68 907.50 972.33 1,037.15 1,101.97 1,166.79 1,231.61 1,296.43
8.75% 6.612 907.50 983.13 1,058.75 1,134.38 1,210.01 1,285.63 1,361.26 1,436.88 1,512.51
10.00% 5.785 1,037.15 1,123.58 1,210.01 1,296.43 1,382.86 1,469.29 1,555.72 1,642.15 1,728.58
11.25% 5.142 1,166.79 1,264.02 1,361.26 1,458.49 1,555.72 1,652.95 1,750.19 1,847.42 1,944.65
12.50% 4.628 1,296.43 1,404.47 1,512.51 1,620.54 1,728.58 1,836.62 1,944.65 2,052.69 2,160.72
The hydrogen/coal ratio depends upon coal quality and the desired liquid fuel product and yield.
Indonesian Insolation
This map shows worst case average solar hours per day for this region. This is a preliminary
planning document. Detailed engineering analysis of terrain at the proposed installation
determines the actual output and area required. Terrain orientation and cloud conditions for
example, can impact areas required.
Liquid Fuels Production (Barrels per Day)

Oil/Coal Coal MT/mos
bbls/tonne 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 100,000
5.8 11,433.26 12,386.04 13,338.81 14,291.58 15,244.35 16,197.13 17,149.90 18,102.67 19,055.44
5.9 11,630.39 12,599.59 13,568.79 14,537.99 15,507.19 16,476.39 17,445.59 18,414.78 19,383.98
6.0 11,827.52 12,813.14 13,798.77 14,784.39 15,770.02 16,755.65 17,741.27 18,726.90 19,712.53
6.1 12,024.64 13,026.69 14,028.75 15,030.80 16,032.85 17,034.91 18,036.96 19,039.01 20,041.07
6.2 12,221.77 13,240.25 14,258.73 15,277.21 16,295.69 17,314.17 18,332.65 19,351.13 20,369.61
6.3 12,418.89 13,453.80 14,488.71 15,523.61 16,558.52 17,593.43 18,628.34 19,663.24 20,698.15
6.4 12,616.02 13,667.35 14,718.69 15,770.02 16,821.36 17,872.69 18,924.02 19,975.36 21,026.69
The volume of liquid fuels produced by a tonne of coal varies according to coal quality and the
nature of the liquid fuel produced.
Page 158 of 159

Facility Value
Item LOW HIGH Units
Liquid Fuel 11,430 21,025 bbls/day
Coal 1,874 3,447 MT/day
Facility Cost $ 251.46 $ 462.55 millions
Labor 631 1,162 people
Sales/yr $ 292.24 $ 537.56 millions

Labor/yr $ 3.77 $ 6.94 millions
Coal/yr $ 30.80 $ 56.65 millions
Maintenance $ 12.57 $ 23.13 millions
Capital Cost $ 26.57 $ 48.88 millions
Margin $ 218.52 $ 401.96 millions
Value $1,229.79 $2,262.15 millions
This facility will produce between 11,000 and 21,000 barrels of liquid fuels per day. The cost of
this facility will be approximately $250 million to $463 million depending upon the amount of coal
handled, coal yield, and solar insolation. It will produce between $218 million to $402 million per
year in pre-tax profits. This translates to an enterprise value of between $1.2 billion and $2.2
billion.
The value of liquid fuels produced is valued at $70 per barrel. Labor estimates range from 630 to
1,200 people depending on facility size. Labor cost per person is assumed to be $5,970 per year
(4,000,000 IDR/month x 14 pays /9,379 IDR/$). Coal is valued at $45 per MT at these volumes.
Maintenance costs are typical for coal processing facilities. Capital cost assumes an 8.5%
discount rate over 20 years. Present value assumes a 20 year period of operation and a 17.0%
per year discount rate.
Investment Program
Item LOW HIGH Units
Value $ 1,229.79 $ 2,262.16 millions
Value of 33% $ 405.83 $ 746.51 millions
Cost of 33% $ 62.87 $ 115.64 millions
Time 5 5 years
Annual Return 45.2% 45.2%
Raising 25% of the facility cost by selling 33% of the enterprise provides a 45.2% annual rate of
return, assuming that the facility takes 5 years to complete. The funds raised will be used to
organize the needed land, supply contracts, government approvals, labor, pay non-recurring
engineering costs, provide needed equity for project loans and provide for other early stage costs.
Once the facility is operational, enterprise shares can be listed on a public exchange and sold for
many times the value computed here, providing even higher returns for early investors.
Page 159 of 159

Sugico Mok Plan 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sugico Mok Plan 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1 of 30

III. General Company Description ............................................................................ 6

Solar Electrolysis Bergius

Sunlight Water Coal

Solar Electrolysis Bergius

Sugico Mök is an Indonesian

• Quality equivalent to conventional oils due to low

• Creates a higher value petroleum product at lower

This is a new sort of concentrating

The lens system consists of thin film clear

The plastic film holds the water in a lens‐

The concentrating photovoltaic system

The plastic film which contains

Panels may be produced individually, and

Installing the panels involves pulling the

Industrial Design Construction Company’s

The reducing Rinternal was first done by

By increasing the number of junctions

Swanson has achieved reductions of

The object of the following design is to

1.5 mm x 1.5 mm = 2.25 sq mm. 5”

Each die operating at 150x solar

Using solar sources of electricity reduces

October 28, 2003

Mr. William H. Mook

Dear Mr. Mook:

Accenture LLP (“Accenture”) is pleased to provide this addendum (“Addendum”) to Mök

Mök Industries’ Project Objectives

Mök Industries’ key objective in this Project are:

Project Approach, Organization, and Staffing

• Bill Mook Mök Industries Project Manager

1. Relationship Leverage Fee

4. Consulting Services Provided By Bill Mook

5. Right of First Refusal and Commitment of Subsequent Services

6. Payment for Out-of-Pocket Expenses

Very truly yours,

Partner, Accenture Inc.

Acknowledged and Accepted:

Mök Industries, LLC

A Price-to-Earnings multiple (18.8 for BP as a whole) would be incorrect to use, as it is not a

1 Executive Summary................................................................ 1-1

2 Project Goals and Scope of Work ........................................... 2-1

3 Product Description................................................................. 3-1

4 Assumptions and Design Considerations ................................ 4-1

5 Concept Design Review.......................................................... 5-1

6 Production Ramp Up, Organization, and Manpower.............. 6-1

7 Milestone Schedule ................................................................. 7-1

40111 i July 2, 2004

40111 ii July 2, 2004

This report identifies preliminary conceptual designs for the following:

n Product and manufacturing process.

n Site plan, based on the Millennium Technology Park in Lawrence County,

n Organizational and manpower requirements.

n Milestone project implementation schedule.

n Rough order of magnitude (ROM) opinion of probable construction and

40111 1-1 July 2, 2004

The report addresses organizational staff, manpower, workforce training, transportation,

Key findings are summarized as follows:

n Product and manufacturing process: The conceptual process described in this

n Manufacturing facility: The building is relatively simple in comparison to the

n Organizational and manpower requirements: Staffing levels at full

n Milestone project implementation schedule: The conceptual schedule shows

n (ROM) opinion of probable construction and manufacturing equipment costs:

40111 1-2 July 2, 2004